Rational justification for Polygamy?

[_asbestosman]

I hesitate to participate in what might become a full-blown derailment, but isn't it possible that a society that sanctioned your monogamous relationship as a "marriage" might actually encourage monogamy within that same group?

Maybe, but the statistics for countries that allow gay marriage indicate that the rate is very different for gay men than for heterosexal couples. Yes, lesbians behave differently.

by the way, I don't think most heterosexual marriages attain true love as defined by some here, either.

What is it that most couples lack? I find this curious because it sounds to me like if we ask the women of this board, I think most if not all will say they are in a marriage with true love.

[_beastie]

Do you see anything wrong with this from an intimacy perspective? I mean, there those men are out spreading their seed screwing multiple women. At the very least it appears that true intimacy is generally divorced from sex in this world. If polygamy is wrong because it lacks this true intimacy, then I would think that fornication is wrong for the same reason.

Keep in mind that the context of this thread is in regards to the primary purpose of marriage. Some people don't want either marriage or emotional intimacy with one partner.

Personally, I'm not saying that polygamy is wrong because it prohibits emotional spousal intimacy. I think it creates a more difficult situation for raising children, which makes Wade's statement all the more bizarre.

What is it that most couples lack? I find this curious because it sounds to me like if we ask the women of this board, I think most if not all will say they are in a marriage with true love.

It just seems to me that most marriages are a bit strained, with a lot of fighting and discontentment.

[_asbestosman]

I don't know what was funnier... that you cited smac as an expert on same sex relationships,

I was lazy. Smac actually cited the studies, but I figure y'all are smart enough to find smac's original post and find his references.

or that you have somehow managed to ignore all the heterosexual bedhopping that goes on around the world.

Nope, the studies mentioned this but point out that the numbers are significantly lower (likely because women tend to lower the chances of promiscuity). I note for example that lesbians are not nearly so promiscuous. This indicates to me that the difference probably isn't living conditions or era or whatever.

[_asbestosman]

Personally, I'm not saying that polygamy is wrong because it prohibits emotional spousal intimacy. I think it creates a more difficult situation for raising children, which makes Wade's statement all the more bizarre.

I think you're correct. Having more spouses and children to care for and spend time with makes the job more difficult. While I think that the wives could help each other out, I don't think it scales quite as well. Besides, in monogamy friends often do help watch each other's children so that each can take small breaks.

It just seems to me that most marriages are a bit strained, with a lot of fighting and discontentment.

I certainly believe that marriage requires much effort and at times things can be tough, but I myself haven't experienced a lot of fighting either in my own marriage, that of my parents, or that of my in-laws. I do know of some fighting and problems among my relatives including some divorces, but it appears to be the exception, not the rule in my experience.

I suppose I might wish that some things were different about my wife just as I wish some things were different about me. I try to change myself, but I do not try to change her. I wouldn't call that discontentment though.

[_asbestosman]

If polygamy is wrong because it lacks this true intimacy, then I would think that fornication is wrong for the same reason.

I agree.

Awesome.

What are your thoughts on apostasy / mixed religious marriages? I would think that these are stumbling blocks for intimacy. While I have no problem being friends with those who disagree on those fundamental issues, I would think that deep intimacy would be very difficult (if possible at all) as there would be a deep part of myself that I couldn't quite share in the way that I am currently able to.

[_Yoda]

What are your thoughts on apostasy / mixed religious marriages? I would think that these are stumbling blocks for intimacy. While I have no problem being friends with those who disagree on those fundamental issues, I would think that deep intimacy would be very difficult (if possible at all) as there would be a deep part of myself that I couldn't quite share in the way that I am currently able to.

I have two schools of thought on this one. I think that as you date, and you are contemplating marriage, that your value systems should be compatible. If you have been raised Mormon, for example, I certainly think that it will be easier to relate to someone else on a spousal level, and raise a family with, another Mormon. As has been discussed here, Mormonism is more than simply a religion. It truly is a culture. I would say the same about people who are Jewish as well, for the same reasoning.

However, I DO NOT feel that....for example, in the case of Mormonism, in particular.....if one spouse loses his/her testimony, and decides to leave the Church....that the believing spouse should seek divorce, solely based on that one decision. Obviously, there are many other things at play....the length of the marriage...whether or not there are children involved....if there is abuse or infidelity involved in the marriage, etc. I think that in the case of the marriage commitment already being made...particularly if there are children involved...the couple should do everything within their power to work things out. I take the marriage commitment very seriously. It's not something that should just be thrown away. Even infidelity can be worked through, if both parties are willing to forgive, and the infidelity is not repeated. I think that abuse is probably the only valid reason I can think of for divorce.

Let me clarify that I certainly don't judge people who divorce for irreconcilable differences. When I speak of these things, I'm speaking in terms of how I, personally feel about how marriage should work in my own life, and as an ideal.

[_asbestosman]

However, I DO NOT feel that....for example, in the case of Mormonism, in particular.....if one spouse loses his/her testimony, and decides to leave the Church....that the believing spouse should seek divorce, solely based on that one decision. Obviously, there are many other things at play....the length of the marriage...whether or not there are children involved....if there is abuse or infidelity involved in the marriage, etc. I think that in the case of the marriage commitment already being made...particularly if there are children involved...the couple should do everything within their power to work things out. I take the marriage commitment very seriously. It's not something that should just be thrown away.

I agree with you as far as that goes. However, I do wonder if marriages which develop such difficulties are doomed to a lack of deep intimacy. If so, why keep the marriage? What is the purpose of such marriages? Is it to protect children? Is it something more? Is marriage about more than deep intimacy? Is deep intimacy necessary for a marriage to be worthwhile?

[_wenglund]

Wade--

How do you see spousal intimacy and narcissism tying into one another? The type of spousal intimacy I was referring to, at least, involves completely caring about the other spouse...emotionally, physically, spiritually.....How is that narcissistic?

I appreciate you asking. Clarifying questions, as opposed to certain people closed-mindedly jumping to false conclusions, tends to be a very effective means for encouraging mutual understanding and enlightenment.

Please keep in mind that when I speak of "spousal intimacy" and "family", I am not speaking necessarily in terms of one to the complete exclusion of the other, but rather in terms of "emphasis"--i.e. the point to which one may emphasize the one more than the other and perhaps somewhat to the exclusion of the other. And, I am speaking in terms of a broad spectrum, and not just polar extremes.

With these clarifications out of the way, let me see if I can explain my reasoning. Consider, if you will, a relationship spectrum that ranges from inclusive to exclusive. Would you, like me, generally place the notions of "family" more towards the inclusive end of the spectrum, and "spousal intimacy" as more towards the exclusive end of the spectrum?

How about on a spectrum ranging from outward to inward focused? Would you, like me, generally place the notions of "family" more towards the outward focused end of the spectrum, and "spousal intimacy" as more towards the inward focused end of the spectrum?

Or, what about the spectrum from others-centered to self-centered? Would you, like me, generally place the notions of "family" more towards the others-centered end of the spectrum, and "spousal intimacy" as more towards the self-centered end of the spectrum?

Do you see where I am going with this? In my mind, there is less of a difference between the narcissistic notion of "its all about me" and "its all about me and my spouse" than there is between "its all about me" and "its all about me and my wife and my kids and my parents and siblings and ancestors, etc.".

To me, the exact point at where one's own personal notions may rest on each of these spectrums is, in large part, dependant upon how one mentally balances the notions of "family" with "spousal intimacy". The greater the imbalance towards "spousal intimacy", the closer one will mentally be towards the exclusive, inwardly focused, and self-centered ends of the spectrum.

Now, given the prevalence of narcissism in modern culture (marked by inward focus and self-centeredness and self-gratification), wouldn't it make sense to conclude that there is a greater likelihood that there is a general imbalance towards "spousal intimacy"?

Isn't it also reasonable to conclude that the greater the imbalance towards "spousal intimacy", the more plural marriage will be viewed as objectionable--and this because plural marriage unavoidably requires a greater level of inclusion, outward-focus, and others-centeredness; whereas, the opposite may be more likely the more one's mind is oriented towards "family"?

I happen to think so. Does this help?

...and this begins to touch on the differences between true love and romantic love--with the later fallin closer to the exclusive, inward-focused, and self-centered end of the relationship spectrum. (at least as I see things).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Yoda]

However, I DO NOT feel that....for example, in the case of Mormonism, in particular.....if one spouse loses his/her testimony, and decides to leave the Church....that the believing spouse should seek divorce, solely based on that one decision. Obviously, there are many other things at play....the length of the marriage...whether or not there are children involved....if there is abuse or infidelity involved in the marriage, etc. I think that in the case of the marriage commitment already being made...particularly if there are children involved...the couple should do everything within their power to work things out. I take the marriage commitment very seriously. It's not something that should just be thrown away.

I agree with you as far as that goes. However, I do wonder if marriages which develop such difficulties are doomed to a lack of deep intimacy. If so, why keep the marriage? What is the purpose of such marriages? Is it to protect children? Is it something more? Is marriage about more than deep intimacy? Is deep intimacy necessary for a marriage to be worthwhile?

Well, I suppose I am the eternal optimist in that regard. I think that if both parties are willing to work at it, the intimacy can be achieved, even in the face of some of these difficulties...."for better or for worse", and all that.

In answer to your question of keeping the marriage to protect the children....I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Again, it depends on the circumstances surrounding the difficulties. If there is no abuse involved, then yes, I think the couple has a responsibility to try to work things out if there are children in the home. As a couple, they created those children. They made those choices. The children don't deserve to suffer based on the immaturity of their parents. They deserve the stability of a two parent home. The couple needs to grow up, and take responsibility for their choices.

[_wenglund]

Interestingly the monogamous population of the US in the 19th century abhorred polygamy as well and for many of the same reasons many do today. I guess they were also a bunch of narcissistic slobs as well. But of course the two are not mutually exclusive so this is a major flaw in your comments. One can have spousal intimacy and have a family. How many kids does one need to produce? Two, three, five, ten? Really it is up to the couple. Polygamy however prevents spousal intimacy and lets the man produce perhaps more than he can with one woman. I guess those who are ok with polygamy prefer to view woman ans breeding stock good for one thing, popping our kids. It seems to me though that reduces both the man and the women he breeds to not much more than a herd of cows that is serviced by one bull.

I find such an approach rather abhorrent. Wanting spousal intimacy is not narcissistic at all. What a silly thing to say. Most caring humans desire a close intimate relationship with another person.

Before judging my hypothesis (not to be confused with an 'approach") as abhorrent and flawwed, reasonable people would first make sure they correctly and more fully understood my hypothesis, and this as a point of common courtesy and effectual communication, if not also to avoid playing the fool. I am not surprised that you and Beastie chose otherwise. Knee-jerk reactors tend to be that way. But, we all would benefit were you to follow Liz's excellent example.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-