I just have a question about polygamy. Do people's opinions on polygamy generally coincide with their views on gay marriage? Do modern church beliefs (LDS) skew that factor at all?
Personally, I believe that church and state should be kept seperate. Marriage is two things: a religious ceremony and a civil contract. The terms of the religious ceremony should be up to the particular church, but the civil contract's terms should be able to be applied across the board. One example, perhaps, would be if two unmarried men don't like their families --- they could sign the civil contract, live together, and jointly own property, etc, without their families being able to intercede upon death or interfere with a DNR or whatever. A platonic marriage, if you will.
In the end, polygamy should be the same way. If three people want to make a legal commitment, co-own property, and share custody rights --- they should be able to. Let their church call it what it will.
I'd almost think that the LDS point of view would favor gay marriage on almost these same terms. I understand the church's current stand on polygamy, but I'd almost think that the unique history would give members a better viewpoint regarding marriage discrimination.
But again, my real question is whether people's opinions on gay marriage and polygamy tend to coincide?
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
I think not.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I'm actually not sure about this one. It's not a topic that typically gets serious consideration, so I don't think I've really openly discussed it, but here are my thoughts for and against.
For: The government should not be involved in determining how we decide to structure our families. This is a personal and often religious choice. And yes, this is basically how I feel about gay marriage.
Against: Polygamy has often involved deception or else minor children. For the first, you have the traveling salesman with women in five cities, none of whom know about the others. This is wrong.
As far as the minor children go, this was something that was covered in great deal in a book I read a few years back called "Under the Banner of Heaven," which went into some radical fringe groups associated with the LDS church who seem to think that the church should not have denounced polygamy. The situations described included very young (like 13 years old) girls marrying, supposedly with their own consent and the consent of their parents.
Now, you could argue that polygamy could be legal and these situations remain illegal. I don't know...like I said, it's hard to get people to discuss this in all seriousness. It's usually a knee-jerk.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Mine do. I think both should be forms of areligious domestic contract.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I don't see the problem with polygamy/polyandry quite honestly. If everyone is a consenting adult and there is no coercion, they should be able to do what they please. Note - I’m not talking about religious leaders forcing fifteen-year-olds to be the fourth wife of elderly perverts here. As Christine points out, there are some potential issues of oppression and deception associated with the concept of multiple marriage which would have to be dealt with.
Personally, I couldn't imagine wanting to marry more than one person, but then I don't want to marry a woman but can understand why two women in love would want to marry. I wouldn't see any problem with three people all making a commitment to marry each other - as long as it doesn't scare the horses, what difference does it make to me? I also think that such a situation would be relatively rare.
I see your point with your platonic marriage idea - but I think it would be better if, instead of marriage, it was more of a 'family' commitment, as I do see marriage as having something to do with a kind of love which a brotherly relationship, as you describe would not fulfil - these two guys might even marry other people but still want to consider each other as 'brothers'. Perhaps you should be able to legally name those you love and trust as much, if not more, than biological family, without always bringing marriage into the equation.
I do believe that society should allow people who love one another the power to care for and help each other, and I believe that choice should be a big part of that. Whether the state should have anything to do with it at all, is a whole other issue.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: But again, my real question is whether people's opinions on gay marriage and polygamy tend to coincide?
I have been away from the church long enough that I am no longer confident I have accurate insight, but I think they don't coincide because they are not looking at marriage regarding secular rights but rather as an ordinance with powerful moral influence.
Polygamy, at the time, was good for society because it was God's will.
Gay marriage violates God's law and is a direct threat to society in general. It deprives the children of God from having both a father and mother and it legitimizes heinous immorality. Sexual sin is viewed as the worst sin below murder because it interferes with God's plan for procreation.
How the government and society reacts to these two types of marriage would have very little to do with how a Mormon would judge which marriage should be protected.
Since the commandment and acceptance of polygamy in this life has been withdrawn, I bet a typical Mormon would not think that it should be legalized.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I remember a scene in Children of the Mind, where several characters spoke of the whole connection between the Queen bugger and the rest of the buggers, and how the psychic control might, perhaps, not be right or just. The response was something along the lines of "that's an argument for another generation; we've got too much going on right now to worry about it."
If, and this is a big if, polygamy's validity is an issue we should deal with, if not allowing it is unjust, it's not my generation's fight, and not something we're interested in. We have our own matters of civil liberties to deal with, and besides, there's no strong drive at the moment anyway.
I don't really care for it, personally, but I won't speak for future generations. But either way, I get the feeling that if this fight happens, it's not gonna happen anytime soon.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Recognizing polygamy would definitely require a lot of legal changes. I would say if done, prenuptual agreements, wills, and advanced medical directives should be mandatory. Of course I think they should be anyway.
Frankly I don't think there are enough people in our society to even consider it at present time.
Personally, the idea that gay marriage is more a threat to society than polygamy is probably the most offensive statement I have ever seen on hatrack.
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
Most people I know, when it comes to polygamy and gay marriage, fall into three camps. (I'm going to generalize)
1) Both are badbadbad cuz marriage is between one man and one woman. So in this camp, the two are the same.
2) Gay marriage is bad cuz homosexuality is bad, but polygamy is OK if God tells me. Different.
3) Gay marriage is good cuz everyone has equal rights, but polygamy is bad cuz women get abused and stuff. Again, different.
It seems to me that there are just as many people in all three of those camps, so it seems to me that most people do not hold the same opinion of gay marriage and polygamy. But I'm a mormon, so I know a lot of mormons, who fall more or less in camp 2, so my perspective is skewed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm in camp 4.
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
Me too. Let's all have foil dinner.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
I suspect I'm in camp 5, depending on what camp 4 is.
(Camp 5 being "straight marriage, gay marriage, polygamy, polyandry, whatever... people and churches should be free to recognize whatever they like, but the government shouldn't be involved in any of this stuff.")
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's camp 4.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Camp 5 is where you make s'mores and wish people in the other camps would quit all that shouting.
Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
Yeah, and we sing the campfire song song with our s'mores. Hehe I'm just imagining all of these groups scheduling camping trips for the same weekend! and having to set up separate camps of course. nudge nudge
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm in camp five, cause I love s'mores.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think marriage is a formal, legal buddy system. You are designating someone else as responsible for you when you can't be. Adding more then one person adds confusion to this arrangement. Person A is in a coma, person B and person C are both married and believe opposite treatments are best. So, who gets to win that fight. Legally, both have the exact same relationship with the man. So, in that I think polygamy makes less sense legally then gay marriage. Gay marriage really doesn't change anything, just degenders it. Whereas polygamy would requires reworking the rules. I also think that we should take the marriage part out of the government and just list the actual legal commitments.
Of course, I also think that if a group wants to practice polygamy/polyandry, well, that is their choice. Just so long as everyone is consenting.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Even in the polyamorous community, strong advocates for legally recognized plural marriage are not common, in my experience. Making gay marriage legal is relatively simple from a legal perspective--it's just a matter of changing the genders involved. Making plural marriage legal is enormously complicated. How do people in the marriage determine and designated who has final say when it comes to things like power of attorney and the right to make medical decisions for the incapacitated? Are companies that offer spousal benefits required to extend them to all spouses, or just one spouse? How is child custody (and child support) handled in the event of a three (or four, or five, or six, etc.) way split? How many spousal visas/permanent residencies can one citizen provide? Do all members of the group marriage have spousal priviledges towards each other when it comes to things like giving legal testimony? How do you handle it if person A wants to divorce person B while still remaining married to person C, and persons C and B wish to remain married to each other as well? And so on, and so forth.
I'm not saying it's not possible to do, but it's substantially more complex than legalizing gay marriage.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am in Camp 4 as well - in theory.
In practice, polygamy tends to be about old men getting to bed teenagers who have been pretty much bred for that purpose and have little opportunity (if any) for informed consent.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Legally, both have the exact same relationship with the man. So, in that I think polygamy makes less sense legally then gay marriage.
How about polygamy is legal as long as an even number of people are getting married? Peron one in coma. Two partners want to pull the plug, one doesn't--overruled!
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
I'll join Belle in Camp 5. Ummm, s'mores!
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Just out of curiosity, are there any current (or recent) examples of cultures that legally practice polygamy in a fairly healthy manner (meaning: no old men marrying teenagers, no abuse or oppression, adult consent, etc.)?
I am not aware of any, but that doesn't mean anything. There's lots I don't know.
I suppose a deeper question embedded in the first is, whether polygamy by nature encourages those types of unhealthy relationships, or if it is simply a result of how our culture views such relationships? In other words, could one argue that polygamists in this country have often engaged in abusive relationships because healthy people believe it to be fundamentally wrong (and also want to follow the law) and so completely avoid it, thus restricting any chance of healthy people being polygamists?
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Look up Tibetan fraternal polyandry. Which has its own social problems (leaves lots of unwed women who might otherwise want to be married, for one), but definitely not the "old men marrying teenagers" problems.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Polygamy by nature (if it is essentially set in place as the highest in the echelon of family structures) pretty much always causes problems. It's why the FLDS has a practical requirement to purge itself of scores of young boys. The folks with the most power have to try to free up girls (essentially traded as commodity) for their own offspring. This requires purging surplus on the male side.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Person A is in a coma, person B and person C are both married and believe opposite treatments are best. So, who gets to win that fight. Legally, both have the exact same relationship with the man.
I think when parents have this problem deciding for their children, there's a court hearing and an impartial representative appointed to make the decisions. At least, that's what they did on an episode of House. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Polygamy by nature (if it is essentially set in place as the highest in the echelon of family structures) pretty much always causes problems.
True, but is anyone outside of a group like the FLDS suggesting placing it as the highest?
It reminds me a bit of the argument that "if we were all gay, the species would die out". Which, while technically true, has little to do with the real world. People won't, and shouldn't, be forced into poly or gay relationships. (But I don't think you or anyone here is making that argument, necessarily.)
On a similar note, if we were all women then the species would die out. So I suggest we outlaw women. Who is with me!? Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I'm in camp 4, as well as whichever camp has the s'mores.
I request a tent in camp 4, however, as bears love s'mores as well.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Polygamy by nature (if it is essentially set in place as the highest in the echelon of family structures) pretty much always causes problems. It's why the FLDS has a practical requirement to purge itself of scores of young boys. The folks with the most power have to try to free up girls (essentially traded as commodity) for their own offspring. This requires purging surplus on the male side.
I always wondered what they did with the excess male population in societies when a man could marry many women. By nature, the human race tends to be *about* even. (There are actually more women than men, but not by much.)
But classic polygamy is not the only kind. Theoretically, if it were legal, a woman could marry multiple men or multiple men could marry multiple women or multiple gay men could all get married to one another or...
Heinlein had some interesting ideas on a few different kinds of marriages.
Personally, I don't think I could handle another marriage partner. I also think that additional partners exponentially complicate the social dynamic of the relationship, making them lesss stable. And I suck at socializing anyway.
Say, can someone pass over some s'more? I have some Giradelli chocolate I might be willing to share.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
If we combined ssm and polygmany, two gay men married two gay women. They could make babies and the babies would have a male and female influence.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Before we made Polygamy legal there would be some loopholes to plug...
- Anyone under the age of.. say... 25... should have to get a judges permission to marry someone over the age of... say... 50... I don't like it. It stomps all over the right to marry who you wish... But it prevents the abuses that sometimes happen in FLDS compounds.
- Divorce laws would have to be strengthened. Threats of "Agree to bring such and such into our marriage or I will divorce you" need to give legal teeth to the target of the ultimatum.
And poly marriages would have to be well regulated as well. This fits in with the government's role as final arbiter of disputes.
- It would have to go both ways. That is, it couldn't just be men with a bunch of women. If a woman wanted multiple husbands, that has to be fine too.
- Everyone involved in the marriage is married to everyone else. Everyone's gotta say "I Do" and everyone's gotta sign their name on the line. That means if you've got 2 women and 1 man and the man dies, the women are all still married. They are still a family. Their children are still siblings. No one is automatically jerked away from mommy #2. If they want a divorce, they can do that later, but it isn't automatic. It also prevents the aforementioned man with a wife in every town. And the problem of "Hey honey, I just met this man at the gym! Meet your new co-husband!"
Unfortunately, I don't know what one should do with the unmarriable men this would create. Men, by nature want to spread their seed and the most powerful/richest men would collect wives. Women are less likely to collect husbands (at least in a parallel way...) and a gender imbalance would necessarily occur.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Ehh, we just need to fix the marriage laws in general. Can a fifteen year old marry? And under what conditions? Those conditions should apply equally within traditional or plural marriage.
I was looking through the current age restrictions for marriage: http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm Some of them are messed up. 16 year olds can marry in many parts of the country without parental consent. At least a court order is required for under 16 in most places.
But, there are a number of states where a girl of any age can marry if she's pregnant. Eww...
One of my best friends got pregnant in middle school, got married, and dropped out. She was either 13 or 14. It's not just polygamists --- they just get the most attention.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If, and this is a big if, polygamy's validity is an issue we should deal with, if not allowing it is unjust, it's not my generation's fight, and not something we're interested in. We have our own matters of civil liberties to deal with, and besides, there's no strong drive at the moment anyway.
This is actually a terrible reason not to consider something. The comparison to Children of the Mind doesn't really wash, because in that situation, they were dealing with several urgent matters of life and death; they literally didn't have time to consider the question, and if they did, an answer of 'unjust' would possibly result in multiple xenocides (taking the Hive Queen's resources off the table).
Using this answer - 'not our generation's fight' - for anything other than a life-or-death situation is a major cop-out.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
It looks like, from reading the posts, that the biggest problem with legalizing multiple marriages is that it would seriously destabilize legal and social norms. I even agree, although I hate to do so because I know that is also an argument against homosexual marriages. Maybe it's just that I don't buy it in the case of homosexual unions and I do buy it in the case of multiple marriages. Our society is already set up in most ways to handle one on one couplings. Beds are big enough for two. Houses usually have a single master bedroom and usually 2+ additional bedrooms. Companies provide benefits to one spouse and multiple children. Power of attorney is given to one individual.
Also, I don't see a huge push for the ability ot marry multiple people nor, indeed, what additional rights such a group of people would be seeking. Perhaps if that marriage, insofar as the government is concerned, were better defined, it might help to debate the point. But as I said, there isn't a huge push.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Christine: on the other hand, if not many people want it, then what will it hurt to make it legal? What sort of calamity would be caused by a handful of people marrying by the handful?
The only reason I can see for banning it would be if it DID become so popular (and one-sided) that a population of men would basically become hopeless and alone.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Christine: on the other hand, if not many people want it, then what will it hurt to make it legal? What sort of calamity would be caused by a handful of people marrying by the handful?
The only reason I can see for banning it would be if it DID become so popular (and one-sided) that a population of men would basically become hopeless and alone.
I guess what I was thinking was that I'm not even sure what kind of legal rights and protections a group interested in marrying might want. Currently, there is nothing stopping 20 consenting adults from living together in a large commune and doing whatever they like. What would they want out of formal legal recognition of such an arrangement?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
The form of polygamy that would interest me (if I lived in some alternate reality where it was accepted) would be two bisexual women and one man all married to each-other. To replicate such an arrangement now would mean constant fear of being caught (and even imprisoned) as it is illegal. You'd also have one woman have full legal rights of marriage, while one is inherently the secondary wife, as she has no legal rights at all. All of the normal rights that same-sex marriage advocates (like myself) would want would apply to the second wife.
Now such an arrangement has bigger problems than legal ones at the moment (mostly cultural), but I could see such arrangements being somewhat common in 50 years or so.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Christine: When their treasurer bails out with all their cash? When one of their members leaves with her biological children that the group has been raising together? When one of their members dies and their biological family sues to have that member buried somewhere other than the communal plot? When the person who has the deeds in his name dies and the entire commune is thrown into probate (and is then stolen by the person's biological family and the commune is kicked out of their home)?
That's off the top of my head. A lot of it can be gotten around with expensive lawyers. Some of it can't.
Honestly, I don't see why someone would want to live in this way. (I mean, I could see a multiple marriage with 3 or 4 individuals but not past that.) But simply because I don't understand it doesn't mean there aren't people out there who would want it.
I think the problem of unwanted men IS a good reason to ban polygamy. I, personally, don't think it's good enough, though, and if this becomes the next civil rights fight I look forward to standing beside the poly people.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
That's the problem, in my opinion. I'm an outsider to both groups, being a married straight man with no intentions toward polygamy / polyamoury. But gay marriage and polygamy both seem to be the same issue:
- would legalizing "validating" a behavior that society finds detrimental to society as a whole? - do people have the right regardless of whether it challenges traditional values?
I think the main problem is that most people fighting for gay marriage are fighting for themselves, a loved one, or following the zeitgeist. Regardless of it being the same issue, most of them would still consider polygamy to be an aberration. They're fighting for something they believe in --- but the rights of the minority (polygamists) are still being overlooked.
I think that a battle for civil protection for ALL unconventional marriage may be the cleaner fight.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Reading the thread, it seemed to me that the big concern wasn't' so much social upheaval as lawerly complications (which I think lawyers could probably work out) and the concern over children and young women being abused.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: The form of polygamy that would interest me (if I lived in some alternate reality where it was accepted) would be two bisexual women and one man all married to each-other.
This *sounds* really good... (and don't think I haven't thought/dreamed about this. And even tried it on a just-dating level.) but the problem is, it's hard enough to find *one* person to love, much less *two* and someone's always going to love someone else more and that whole jealousy thing is going to raise it's ugly head...
Poly is massively hard to make work. I have nothing but respect for the people who can pull it off long term.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: The form of polygamy that would interest me (if I lived in some alternate reality where it was accepted) would be two bisexual women and one man all married to each-other.
This *sounds* really good... (and don't think I haven't thought/dreamed about this. And even tried it on a just-dating level.) but the problem is, it's hard enough to find *one* person to love, much less *two* and someone's always going to love someone else more and that whole jealousy thing is going to raise it's ugly head...
Poly is massively hard to make work. I have nothing but respect for the people who can pull it off long term.
Heck, any kind of marriage is hard "long-term". The only way ANY marriage works is for everyone involved to make a commitment . . . and for them to ALWAYS honor that commitment.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Poly is massively hard to make work.
I think this is probably true, but perhaps somewhat less so in strictly patriarchal and polygynous arrangements where wively obedience is the norm.
Edit: e.g., not that hard for the FLDS.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:This *sounds* really good... (and don't think I haven't thought/dreamed about this. And even tried it on a just-dating level.) but the problem is, it's hard enough to find *one* person to love, much less *two* and someone's always going to love someone else more and that whole jealousy thing is going to raise it's ugly head...
Certainly. I do think that the effort would be great, but that the rewards of such an arrangement would be great as well.
With the current culture, one person finding two others that 1) are willing to commit to such a relationship and 2) are both highly attracted and compatible to the other two members, seems infinitesimally small. Who knows what the future will bring though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Poly is massively hard to make work.
I think this is probably true, but perhaps somewhat less so in strictly patriarchal and polygynous arrangements where wively obedience is the norm.
Edit: e.g., not that hard for the FLDS.
I suppose the question then would be "work for whom?"
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But gay marriage and polygamy both seem to be the same issue:
- would legalizing "validating" a behavior that society finds detrimental to society as a whole? - do people have the right regardless of whether it challenges traditional values?
But there's an enormous, gigantic, colossal, and a few other words that mean really really big difference that you seem to be ignoring.
Relationships - legally, socially, psychologically, physically, etc. - are incredibly different between two people and more than two people.
I support gay marriage because I see no reason to believe that the immense benefits to society, the people involved, and the people around them that come with a good marriage would not exist in a same sex marriage. I don't see this as the case with poly marriages.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Christine: When their treasurer bails out with all their cash? When one of their members leaves with her biological children that the group has been raising together? When one of their members dies and their biological family sues to have that member buried somewhere other than the communal plot? When the person who has the deeds in his name dies and the entire commune is thrown into probate (and is then stolen by the person's biological family and the commune is kicked out of their home)?
Ok...ok...good points, but now we're back to there needing to be enough call for it that lawmakers would be willing to go all this trouble. Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: With the current culture, one person finding two others that 1) are willing to commit to such a relationship and 2) are both highly attracted and compatible to the other two members, seems infinitesimally small. Who knows what the future will bring though.
If you don't actively seek it, it's certainly not likely to happen. If it's something you -want-, as opposed to just something you are speculating about, go forth and Google. Practically every city in America has polyamorous discussion and social groups.
Mind, the specific desire of "I'm a guy and I want bi female partners who are involved only with each other and me" is. . .umm, both not infrequently expressed by male newcomers and not looked upon favorably by much of the community, for a number of reasons.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'll bet . I should add that I am myself a newlywed in a decidedly monogomous arrangement, so this talk is of course hypothetical.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Poly is massively hard to make work.
I think this is probably true, but perhaps somewhat less so in strictly patriarchal and polygynous arrangements where wively obedience is the norm.
Edit: e.g., not that hard for the FLDS.
I suppose the question then would be "work for whom?"
People in closed rigid religious communities who are indoctrinated from early childhood to believe in and uphold the system, of course. OK, that would be hard to accomplish from the ground up, so I retract my speculation that it might not be a hard thing to make work. It can only easy if you ignore all the hard setup work.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I'll bet . I should add that I am myself a newlywed in a decidedly monogomous arrangement, so this talk is of course hypothetical.
Fair enough :-). It's just a little weird for me to read this discussion cast all in hypotheticals when I'm used to seeing it so grounded in practicalities. Roughly half my friends are in polyamorous relationships. I'm well aware that what this mostly means is that the people I know personally are a very skewed subset of the general population, but I still see "We're bring it back!!!" in the thread title and go "Huh? It needs bringing back? I didn't know it went anywhere."
And like I said earlier, the vast majority of poly people I know have no interest in seeing plural marriage legalized. (They would like it -decriminalized-, in that they don't want to fear having their kids taken away by CPS just because they're living as a triad, but that's a somewhat different issue.) So reading a bunch of monogamous people debate whether or not it should be is. . .bemusing, to say the least.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Mind, the specific desire of "I'm a guy and I want bi female partners who are involved only with each other and me" is. . .umm, both not infrequently expressed by male newcomers and not looked upon favorably by much of the community, for a number of reasons.
Why? I know it is a cliche of porn and adolescent male fantasy, but I don't know what kind of community debut is considered more favorable, and for what reasons.
(Just out of curiosity.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My guess is that it is because it is a cliche of adolescent male fantasy.
People looking to undulge their fantasy - and often not even their fantasy - rather than build relaionships.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
OK...so is it more likely to be someone who has unrealistic expectations and won't treat partners with appropriate respect?
I mean, I'd think most people in polyamorous relationships have a preference for the size and gender makeup of the...team, and would prefer fidelity within the relationship to promiscuity.
So "I'd like to be with two girls in an exclusive relationship" doesn't, to me, seem essentially different from "My wife and I would like to have a long term relationship with another male."
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Herblay: Of course marriage is supposed to be long term. Unfortunately, for far too many people these days, it's just a fancy form of dating with legal benefits.
Xavier: Because guys looking for two bi chicks are so very common compared to bi chicks looking for a guy. The gender balance is skewed.
Ambyr: Are you in the bay area? Do I know you?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: Xavier: Because guys looking for two bi chicks are so very common compared to bi chicks looking for a guy. The gender balance is skewed.
Yeah, like I said, not a surprise at all that this is the case. If I was a bisexual myself the MMF might appeal to me as well, but I'm pretty far along towards the straight axis. Not all the way there, but close enough that I wouldn't be interested in a MMF relationship.
The desire for a MFF and no outsiders with me isn't so much adolescent fantasy (though to be honest with myself this element does exists), but more that I think a relationship with three members could work very well in practice, and that's the only configuration in which I'd be attracted to both other members. When I've fantasized about such a relationship, the fantasies aren't sexual ones.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
MMF is far less desirable from an evolutionary standpoint as MFF. You're basically looking at a man who gets to spread his seed around with two women versus a woman who may not even know who the father is unless they do DNA testing.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Chrstine: better for an income point of view. Men tend to make more money. The offspring that ARE produced would have an economic advantage.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: The desire for a MFF and no outsiders with me isn't so much adolescent fantasy (though to be honest with myself this element does exists), but more that I think a relationship with three members could work very well in practice, and that's the only configuration in which I'd be attracted to both other members. When I've fantasized about such a relationship, the fantasies aren't sexual ones.
I was in a relationship like that for a while. It eventually crashed and burned, but before things got bad, we had some really, really nice times, many of which had nothing to do with the sexual stuff.
[ June 15, 2009, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Stray ]
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: OK...so is it more likely to be someone who has unrealistic expectations and won't treat partners with appropriate respect?
That's certainly part of it, yes.
quote:I mean, I'd think most people in polyamorous relationships have a preference for the size and gender makeup of the...team, and would prefer fidelity within the relationship to promiscuity.
That's. . .hmm. I realize I've sort of set myself up as Spokesperson for Polyamory here, which is a huge set of shoes to fill, given the diversity of the community. (This book provides a pretty good overview of the diverse kinds of relationship structures you'll find, if you want more info than my ramblings.)
But, to respond to your comment. . .no. Polyfidelitous relationships (i.e., those in which a set number of people--3, 4, 5, whatever--are involved with each other and only each other [though each member is not necessarily involved with each other member]) certainly exist, but they're not the majority.
And so part of why coming in as a straight guy looking for two bi girls evokes some negative reactions is precisely the opposite of what you've said: many people in the polyamorous community frown on having "a preference for the size and gender makeup of the. . .team." First, that's because for a lot of poly people (though as noted above, not all), you're not forming one "team"--you're forming a web. You're married to one person and dating another, who may be dating two other people, one of whom may be married to someone else. . .and so on, and so forth. To say upfront "well, I want to sleep with two women, and it's okay if they sleep with each other, but I don't want them sleeping with any other men" is going to come across to many poly people as 1) excessively restrictive of your partners' dating lives and 2) bluntly, sexist.
Even for those whose preferences do lean towards polyfidelity, saying upfront that you want to be in a relationship of precisely three (each of whom must be sexually involved with the other two) can be seen as a sign that you have a very clear picture in your head of what -you- want, and are just trying to find people to force into those predetermined roles. It's a bit like a monogamous person who says they're only open to dating six foot tall blondes who love kayaking, hate canoeing, and want to have four kids in six years. It's good to know what you want, but if you definite it too tightly, you're not leaving yourself a lot of leeway to find an actual human being who fills all criteria--particularly in the poly community, where the dating pool starts off small to begin with.
I'm not saying polyfi triads don't exist--they do--but so do polyfi Vs, in which, say, both women are sexually involved with the man, but have no interest in each other (either because they're straight, or because they just. . .aren't interested in each other), or quads in which both men are involved with both women, but the same-gender pairs aren't. Insisting upfront that all members must be sexually involved is, as noted above, often going to be taken as an indication that what really draws you is the porn fantasy--because it's perfectly possible to have a stable relationship among three (or more) people without that.
Another common (and often poorly received) scenario is a couple coming in looking for a second bisexual women to "complete" them. This article sums up the problems with that pretty well.
Does that help? I'm generally sort of leery to discuss this stuff on Hatrack because I don't want to accidentally step over community lines about what constitutes "adult" material.
[eta: fixing my mucked up forum code]
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Ambyr: Are you in the bay area? Do I know you?
No, and almost certainly not, although I suspect we wouldn't need all six degrees of separation to find a link.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Chrstine: better for an income point of view. Men tend to make more money. The offspring that ARE produced would have an economic advantage.
This may be an advantage for the female or even the children in the relationship, but what are the men getting out of it? The income they do produce may not even be going to support their own child. I'm not saying there's no advantage at all, just that the configuration seems unlikely in the first place from an evolutionary standpoint.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
That answers my question very nicely, ambyr. Thanks. (FWIW, though I have no real say, I think you stayed well within Hatrack standards, at least the de facto standards.)
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: This may be an advantage for the female or even the children in the relationship, but what are the men getting out of it? The income they do produce may not even be going to support their own child. I'm not saying there's no advantage at all, just that the configuration seems unlikely in the first place from an evolutionary standpoint.
Depending on their culture, they may have a very different notion of what "their own child" means. See, as I mentioned earlier I think, some of the anthropological research on Tibetan polyandry-- this article has some interesting stuff, including this passage:
quote:There is no attempt to link children biologically to particular brothers, and a brother shows no favoritism toward his child even if he knows he is the real father because, for example, his other brothers were away at the time the wife became pregnant. The children, in turn, consider all of the brothers as their father and treat them equally, even if they know who is their real father.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
ambyr: That's an interesting idea. I'll need to read the article more fully when I have time, but just glancing at it the thing that occurs to me is that biological *brothers* are sharing a wife, so they do have some genetic stake in the offspring. Would that translate if two unrelated men shared a wife?
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: The only reason I can see for banning it would be if it DID become so popular (and one-sided) that a population of men would basically become hopeless and alone.
I agree that this would be a serious problem in countries/cultures where equal numbers of men and women are living to marriageable age. A large surplus of unmarried men with no hope of ever finding wives is not a good thing to have. I seem to recall that for most cultures that have practiced polygyny, the males had a much higher death rate than females--e.g. in the Zulu culture, a man couldn't marry until he'd slain 10 enemies in battle. So in those cases it made plenty of sense for the surviving men to have multiple wives. I don't know if that higher male death rate is true for every culture that practices it though.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stray:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: The desire for a MFF and no outsiders with me isn't so much adolescent fantasy (though to be honest with myself this element does exists), but more that I think a relationship with three members could work very well in practice, and that's the only configuration in which I'd be attracted to both other members. When I've fantasized about such a relationship, the fantasies aren't sexual ones.
I was in a relationship like that for a while. It eventually crashed and burned, but before things got bad, we had some really, really nice times, many of which had nothing to do with the sexual stuff.
In other words, you're talking about people being good friends with one another. That's not polygamy. It is perfectly legal to become friends with whomever one wishes.
In my view, polygamy may occasionally work, but never as well as a monogamous relationship would.
In any MFF relationship, there is an inevitable issue of jealousy. For a well-known MFF relationship that turned out to be a disaster, look at the Jacob-Rachel-Leah marriage. (Please note that I'm not citing the Bible for religious reasons this time; it's just a handy example to use) Even without the cliched sixty-year-old-gets-in-bed-with-a-bunch-of-thirteen-year-olds stereotype about polygamy, marital problems vary exponentially with the number of people who are married to each other. The problem is probably even worse in a supposed MMF relationship.
Which leads to another thing that makes polygamy a bad idea. The differences between the sexes are real when it comes to sex. Men make millions of sperm every day, whereas women only ready one egg every month. Men (in a polygamous relationship) can theoretically have as many children at the same time as he has women to carry the children, whereas women can only have one child at a time, and can't expect to take part in more than one child every nine months. Women are put at an inherent disadvantage in a polygamous relationship.
The real problem is that while everyone is equal, everyone is still different (that's a good thing for society, a bad thing for polygamy). When there are more people in an equation, there is a much greater chance of one person rising to a state of dominance. Whether it's a man who dominates the relationship in a MFF trio, or a woman who is the center of a MMF trio, the two others will eventually look at one another as rivals, and that can open the door for favoritism or even abuse.
The "good" things that are said about polygamy - from having third parties to mediate to financial support - these can be done with good friends who are willing to look out for each other and confide in each other. Nobody ought to have any problem with a spouse having trusted friends. I do have a problem with people having more than one spouse, because just about any combination, even independent of gender, will likely lead to an inequality between who is loved that will leave someone better off in a monogamous marriage.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
C3PO: Maybe you're right in the majority of cases. I could argue that monogamous relationships would never work, that it isn't worth the time because half end up in divorce.
But, even if only one poly "couple" ends up making it, ends up happy, isn't it worth it? It's the struggle that makes us human, isn't it? It's possible to have health, happy poly marriages --- just like it's possible to have traditional ones. It just may be a little harder.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Aaaactually, C3po, in one of the MMF relationships in my little circle of friends, the MM stuck together and slowly pushed the F away.
Being the odd woman out doesn't always give one power. If there's a big imbalance of who loves whom, things will fall apart. Interpersonal relationships are more complicated than stereotypes and certainly difficult to predict.
And I think you do a disservice to Xavier in referring to his dream relationship as "friends." If everyone in the triad is romantically involved, they are more than just friends.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stray:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: The only reason I can see for banning it would be if it DID become so popular (and one-sided) that a population of men would basically become hopeless and alone.
I agree that this would be a serious problem in countries/cultures where equal numbers of men and women are living to marriageable age. A large surplus of unmarried men with no hope of ever finding wives is not a good thing to have. I seem to recall that for most cultures that have practiced polygyny, the males had a much higher death rate than females--e.g. in the Zulu culture, a man couldn't marry until he'd slain 10 enemies in battle. So in those cases it made plenty of sense for the surviving men to have multiple wives. I don't know if that higher male death rate is true for every culture that practices it though.
As a side note of this, I found interesting when a few years back I came across census data for the LDS church at about the time when the church started practicing polygamy publicly. The population was heavily skewed toward female, if I remember correctly about 3 F to every 1 M. Under those circumstances, without polygamy most women will not have an opportunity to have children. About a generation later when the LDS population was more closely gender balanced, the church banned polygamy (though this was never the stated reason).
Among FLDS groups that continue the practice of polygamy gender imbalance is a very serious problem. Since these communities have nearly equal numbers of male and female children, many of them excommunicate and abandon their sons about the time they reach adulthood. Its a very cruel and a very big problem.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think the main question that raises is why the LDS church had such skewed population numbers.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Most organized religions in America skew female.
However, I don't think Rabbit's data is correct. The population wasn't off that much, and it definitely wasn't a 3:1 ratio. I'd like to see some data from a reputable source about it, but I don't have time to look it up right now.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I think the main question that raises is why the LDS church had such skewed population numbers.
Well, the fact that you could kill LDS legally in at least one state might have affected that a bit.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
While the legal extermination order for Mormons was absolutely horrendous, I don't think enough Mormons were killed to affect the population ratio for the next fifty years.
[ June 16, 2009, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
Mine coincide. I think any consenting adults should be able to make any marriage contract they like.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Most organized religions in America skew female.
However, I don't think Rabbit's data is correct. The population wasn't off that much, and it definitely wasn't a 3:1 ratio. I'd like to see some data from a reputable source about it, but I don't have time to look it up right now.
The data I was looking at was census data for Winter Quarters, Council Bluff, Mormon Battalion, and other areas during (1946-1947). I don't remember the exact numbers but I remember being very surprised that women outnumbered men by more than 2 to 1.
I doubt that had much to do with the extermination proclamation. I find the numbers pretty reasonable considering that everywhere I've ever lived female converts to the church have out numbered male converts by about 2 to 1. In 1847, just 17 years after the formation of the church nearly every member was a convert. The number also matches well with numbers I've seen for many of the later pioneer companies. I suspect that over the following 50 years as a larger percent of the church were 2nd generation LDS, that the numbers even out although even today the number of active women in the church is greater than the number of active men (at least in all the wards and branches I've been in).
[ June 17, 2009, 05:14 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The numbers may be true for the locations you mentioned, but those locations were not the beginning of polygamy nor the places it was primarily practiced.
For a good look at historical Utah polygamy, I recommend More Wives than One. It's fabulous, takes a historian's point of view, and relies on primary sources.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Out of curiosity, do you have any theories as to why the number of female converts would outnumber men, either in the US or globally?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Regular spiritual nourishment and the creation and maintenance of social ties - two things organized religion can be magnificent at - are culturaly seen as the purvue of women. Men need and enjoy them just as much, but the responsibility for creating and maintaining them is placed more on women.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The Rabbit, do you suppose men might have been excluded from the census data because they were abroad proselytizing?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
katharina: Hmmm, those two attributes do not seem unique to Mormons though. Are converts to Christianity (or religion) in general also similarly unbalanced to such a degree (e.g. 2:1 in Rabbits example)? And if not, what makes women particularly attracted to Mormonism as opposed to other religions?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Out of curiosity, do you have any theories as to why the number of female converts would outnumber men, either in the US or globally?
I can speak with experience for modern day Korea. I suspect this is the case in Japan as well.
In Korea it is easily 2:1 ratio. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 4:1 ratio. There were two branches I served in with no male members. Not only were we missionaries, but we did all the ordinances that required the priesthood--like blessing and passing the sacrament.
The two biggest obstacles for guys were time and the Word of Wisdom. Guys frankly had to work too much. Working Sundays was very common, and drinking was practically required to keep your job.
It just wasn't socially acceptable if you had a job to not go out with your boss and co workers for a few drinks after work. Since the roles of marriage are more traditional over there then here, you would have families that accepted the gospel but the husband couldn't get baptized.
I think you also had a lot of young women who got baptized because of the young handsome men proselyting. Altho "Flirt to Convert" was specifically frowned upon, every missionary I talked with knew someone who did it and was very familiar with the term.
That might be just a Korean experience tho. However, when I visited branches and wards in Japan the ratio seemed consistent with Korea.
We all saw where that ratio created social problems for female Korean members. They took the counsel of the prophets very seriously and would only marry in the temples, but there were no guys to marry. They were advised to not marry foreigners because they needed to build the stakes strong in Korea.
The consequence of that is large wards of older women who never married who were often upset with missionaries because they saw too many of their friends marry the Americans and leave Korea.
[ June 17, 2009, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: The Rabbit, do you suppose men might have been excluded from the census data because they were abroad proselytizing?
Possible, but I doubt that would have made much of a difference. Like I said, it's been several years since I saw this census data but my memory is that including in the 500 men who were in the Mormon Battalion at the time did not signigicantly narrow the gap so I doubt adding a few hundred men who were abroad as missionaries would have evened it out significantly.
I remember the data because I found it so surprising that the church gender distribution at the time was so lopsided. It was just one point in time and I found it interesting in light of polygamy although this was not a point made in the article in which I found this census data.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: katharina: Hmmm, those two attributes do not seem unique to Mormons though. Are converts to Christianity (or religion) in general also similarly unbalanced to such a degree (e.g. 2:1 in Rabbits example)?
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Most organized religions in America skew female.
Which certainly agrees both with statistics I've seen and with my personal experience.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
To be specific, would that be roughly 2:1 for converts to some form of Judaism? Or are you referring to something else?
lem: Thanks. The social restriction angles are interesting.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Remember, Katie disagrees with the 2:1 ratio.
IME, it's probably close, especially looking at specific age groups.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Oh, I thought she was disagreeing with the 3:1 ratio for converts historically rather than the 2:1 number for current converts. (I could easily be wrong)
Anyways, the knowledge that the ratio seems consistent for Jews is definitely helpful. That would seem to back-up parts of lem's theory about social restrictions discouraging conversion unequally, especially with food and drink restrictions.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think Katie's explanations for the skewing are more the issue.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: katharina: Hmmm, those two attributes do not seem unique to Mormons though. Are converts to Christianity (or religion) in general also similarly unbalanced to such a degree (e.g. 2:1 in Rabbits example)? And if not, what makes women particularly attracted to Mormonism as opposed to other religions?
I can't speak about converts to other religions, but I have noticed whenever I attend another church that a disproportionate majority of attendees are women. If anything, the Mormon church (at least today) seems to be more gender balanced than many other churchs. I've known lots of families where the wife attended church services regularly and the husband did not and very few vice a versa. I have no idea why, but at least in America and Europe, women seem more attracted to organized religion and communal worship than men.
It may be a Christian thing. A couple years ago, I spent a week meditating in a Benedictine monastery in Germany. The Christian contemplation class was > 80% women. The same monastery also hosted a Zen meditation course, it maybe a little over 50% men.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I've known lots of families where the wife attended church services regularly and the husband did not and very few vice a versa.
We're one of those weird vice a versa families but I do agree that most of the people I know are the other way around. It makes it particularly difficult for me to find social networks and until recently, I tried religious groups just because I couldn't find anything else. Finally, in the last year or so, I've managed to find some friends who either aren't Christian or who don't care that I'm not.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Christine, how'd you find them? My wife needs to do something similar.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Christine, how'd you find them? My wife needs to do something similar.
Not easily, and it's even worse for me because I can't drive (legally blind). The one I'd consider my best friend at the moment was someone I met through my son's kid's day out program. Her son is almost exactly his same age and when she found out I walked to the kid's day out program rain or shine, she offered to give me a ride on bad weather days. Of course, at first you talk about superficial stuff but gradually we worked our way up to doing play dates together, talking about books, and finally talking about religion. It's been great to talk to someone who is non-judgmental about both my doubts and my beliefs.
The other way I've met a few people is through a book club that a neighbor invited me to join 3 years ago. They're not into science fiction and fantasy, which is a bummer, but it has helped me to expand my literary horizons. That group has changed a bit over the years, which is a good thing. We're now down to a core group that I think is fairly open-minded.
What I really want to do next is find some people to play cards/games with.
So I guess to make a long story short (too late) you find some interests you have that are non-religious and make that a focus in your attempt to meet people....hobby groups, children, that sort of thing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't belive the 2:1 ratio for converts is correct.
In fact, it is fascinating for many, many reasons.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmm, the only part that I can find that addresses specifically the gender ratio of converts is in the pdf for chapter 2,
Specifically:
quote:With respect to other demographic characteristics, the Landscape Survey reveals few major demographic differences in the rates of religious change. For instance, men are only slightly more likely to switch affiliation than women (45% vs. 42%).
It also seems that women are slightly more likely to convert to other similar religions while men are slightly more likely to convert to completely different religions.
Someone brought up jealousy earlier, and that is a large problem that polyamoury type relationships deal with, but it's not an uncontrollable emotion, and only when not dealt with in a conscious manner, do problems arise it seems.
Once I realized that my feelings were out of insecurities that I was harboring about myself, the relationship, the future, it allowed me to start dealing with them in a conscious manner. My boyfriend and I acknowledged that we went from the gay closet to committed relationship, without any in-between to experiment, and learn about ourselves sexually and emotionally.
Despite the rocky road, I can firmly say that opening up our relationship has been and continues to be an amazing growth experience. We're both learning more about ourselves, how we tick, etc, and the kinds of people we want to be and the communities we want to hang out with.
Self improvement guru Steve Pavlina announced at the beginning of this year that he and his wife were exploring polyamory, and he included a variety of good resources into the subject.
My boyfriend and I are currently reading "The Ethical Slut" which really makes some good points. They raise an interesting point about the word "slut" and how it defines a promiscuous woman, but the same type of activity for a man is labeled as being a "stud" and looked on more favorably. There's an incredible amount of conditioning that we have, that really doesn't get questioned, and as we're exploring a more open relationship, we're learning a lot and beginning to question some of those beliefs that we were raised with.
It isn't for everyone to be sure, but I wouldn't say it's worse or better than monogamy. I'd recommend The Ethical Slut or Steve Pavlina's blog if anyone is interested.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
A boyfriend is not a husband.
Everything changes when you have kids.
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: There's an incredible amount of conditioning that we have, that really doesn't get questioned,
This is untrue. There has been lots and lots of questioning of the reasons we involve ourselves in monogamous relationships and the reasons there is a double standard. Among other things, there's never a question who the mom is. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Promiscuous men are not looked upon universally favorably. It is also not true that the double standard doesn't get questioned.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Promiscuous men are not looked upon universally favorably.
This is a good point, although I have definitely detected a double standard. It's more subtle -- even in religious circles it seems more important that women remain virginal to their wedding day. In fact, you get some teasing of virginal adolescent men...they will often lie about this fact. Virginal 20-something men is something that many people consider a sign of weakness whereas a virginal 20-something woman is just innocent or devout.
What I see as being frowned upon is overly promiscuous men, the kind that never gets into a relationship for longer than a few weeks or worse, just likes one nighters, and worst of all -- unfaithful men.
As far as open relationships go: I knew one guy in college who was into that. He joked that he had a harem....wasn't too far off. Technically, the openness would have gone both ways but in reality he just attracted several women with low self-esteem and convinced them that it was a good idea until finally, one of them put her foot down and made him choose.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:even in religious circles it seems more important that women remain virginal to their wedding day. In fact, you get some teasing of virginal adolescent men...they will often lie about this fact. Virginal 20-something men is something that many people consider a sign of weakness whereas a virginal 20-something woman is just innocent or devout.
Not my religious circles. Not at all. That is utterly foreign to my experience.
The double standard is terrible, but wouldn't it be better to encourage ethical and moral sexual behavior in everyone rather than making it expected of no one?
[ June 19, 2009, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:even in religious circles it seems more important that women remain virginal to their wedding day. In fact, you get some teasing of virginal adolescent men...they will often lie about this fact. Virginal 20-something men is something that many people consider a sign of weakness whereas a virginal 20-something woman is just innocent or devout.
Not my religious circles. Not at all. That is utterly foreign to my experience.
I figured you would say that, because you've indicated this in the past and I'm glad you've found such a community. But yours is not the only religious circle in the country. I lived in three states (all in the Bible Belt) as a single woman and joined a number of religious groups seeking acceptance and friendship. There has always been a subtle double standard.
quote: The doulbe standard is terrible, but wouldn't it be better to encourage ethical and moral sexual behavior in everyone rather than making it expected of no one? [/QB]
I don't know....are your standards the same as mine? Whose standards are we going to encourage? Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then you could say "some" or "my" religious circles rather than "even in religious circles", which implies all of them.
quote:I don't know....are your standards the same as mine? Whose standards are we going to encourage?
Everyone encourage what they consider moral, and apply it equally to everyone? I'm not talking about the force of law, so there doesn't need to be just one answer.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Everyone encourage what they consider moral, and apply it equally to everyone?
You run into problems with that in that what people consider moral can differ across different classes of people. Men versus women, married people versus single people, people in my religion versus everyone else, etc.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Fortunately, all of those things can happen and the world will carry on just fine. The world doesn't collapse if someone disapproves of your actions, and the world doesn't collapse if someone does something you don't approve of.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Was that directed at what I said? If so, I don't think you understand what I meant.
I was saying that people's ideas of what they consider moral is different across groups, so that applying it equally to everyone is often going to look like not applying it equally.
For example, considering it okay for men to be promiscuous but not okay for women can be a case of applying what is moral equally.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:even in religious circles it seems more important that women remain virginal to their wedding day. In fact, you get some teasing of virginal adolescent men...they will often lie about this fact. Virginal 20-something men is something that many people consider a sign of weakness whereas a virginal 20-something woman is just innocent or devout.
Not my religious circles. Not at all. That is utterly foreign to my experience.
The double standard is terrible, but wouldn't it be better to encourage ethical and moral sexual behavior in everyone rather than making it expected of no one?
Within the standards of what is acceptable LDS physical romantic interaction, is it more okay for guys to have more partners than women?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:applying it equally to everyone is often going to look like not applying it equally.
So?
quote:Within the standards of what is acceptable LDS physical romantic interaction, is it more okay for guys to have more partners than women?
You mean sexual partners? No. The standard is chastity before marriage and fidelity after, and that's for both sexes.
If you are talking about less dramatic physical interaction, macking on multiple people is looked down on for everyone.
In other words, you can date as many as you want at a time but it's sketchy and skanky to be kissing more than one at a time, and that holds regardless of gender.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:So?
So, you were just complaining about a double standard about how men and women were treated.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What's your point?
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: ... and the world doesn't collapse if someone does something you don't approve of.
I dunno... I don't really approve of the world collapsing...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
If it helps any, I do not recall any models noted on Hatrack that propose the world collapsing in the case of immoral behaviour.
The closest would be the "fiery meteor death" scenario, but even that would be more of an explosion rather than an implosion.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Then you could say "some" or "my" religious circles rather than "even in religious circles", which implies all of them.
quote:I don't know....are your standards the same as mine? Whose standards are we going to encourage?
Everyone encourage what they consider moral, and apply it equally to everyone? I'm not talking about the force of law, so there doesn't need to be just one answer.
Perhaps I should have said "many" but I thought it was implied...I was not suggesting that every person and every social circle across the country felt the same way about this issue, even in non-religious circles.
As for the rest...definitely. I hold men and women to exactly the same standard. For me, that is honesty and fidelity. I believe in truth and vows. I am not particularly concerned about chastity though open promiscuity strikes me as troubling.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I picture the world collapsing as more like a building collapsing than an implosion.
Although now that I think of it, it just falling over like a person collapsing is a really funny image.
edit: And now, in my head, the world is either having a heart attack or getting kicked in the groin.
[ June 19, 2009, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: For example, considering it okay for men to be promiscuous but not okay for women can be a case of applying what is moral equally.
I'm not following this...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Men and women are different classes of people, so it may be morally okay or even correct for a man to be promiscuous while morally wrong and degrading for a woman to be.
It's a case where there are different rules for different classes of people. The rules are applied equally, but the context or group that they are applied to are different.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I just want to point out when I refer to poly I'm referring to Poly-Fidelity, not swinging or having an open relationship. (except an open relationship as Dating to find a stable third.)
I realize this is not the way others see it, including Ambyr. It makes since that her group would not seek marriage rights.
Kath: I don't believe your experience is wide spread in America. As near as I can tell, even amongst the faithful, it's ok for guys to have had many more partners than women.
BTW, speaking of double standards... Back when I was dating, I was looking for a relationship, not just sex. I wanted to make sure the person I was with was someone I could potentially spend the rest of my life with before hopping into the sack. Anyway if you say "Not yet" to a guy, they generally take it ok. If you say "Not yet" to a woman you generally don't get another date. I have no idea how many potential girlfriends I lost simply because I wouldn't put out.
Earendil: Congratulations on coming out and having someone special to do it with! I was the one who mentioned Jealousy. I found it was manageable until one day I was unceremoniously dumped out of a 3.5 yr relationship. (which, at the time, was my longest relationship.) Worse yet, it had nothing to do with poly. (but that is a sob story for another time.) Anyway, after that my jealousy was fed by my insecurities.
I hope that never happens to you, but please understand why some people have a harder time with it than others.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sometimes a rule can be applied equally, but the inequality is incorporated into the rule itself. "Men can have many partners, women can only have one" can be applied consistently.
It reminds me of the "gay people already have equal rights to marriage - they can marry someone of the opposite sex" argument.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I picture the world collapsing as more like a building collapsing than an implosion. ...
I guess if I think it through, that would be correct. Maybe something like the world being sucked into itself like a black hole (e.g. Star Trek)?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Men and women are different classes of people, so it may be morally okay or even correct for a man to be promiscuous while morally wrong and degrading for a woman to be.
It's a case where there are different rules for different classes of people. The rules are applied equally, but the context or group that they are applied to are different.
Are we back at separate but equal?
Look, having rules differ based on race, social class, sex, or anything else is a double standard, by definition. Perhaps you think the double standard is ok, but it's still a double standard.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Christine, Do you think holding moral rules that says that married people should have sex but that unmarried people should not is a double standard?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Christine, Do you think holding moral rules that says that married people should have sex but that unmarried people should not is a double standard?
Possibly, it depends upon whether you think that the term applies to a distinction that is a matter of choice. My husband got down on one knee and proposed. I said yes. I was born a woman -- nobody asked.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:In other words, you can date as many as you want at a time but it's sketchy and skanky to be kissing more than one at a time, and that holds regardless of gender.
That's not actually what I meant to ask about, though I could see how that might come across.
Let's say there's a limit of acceptable romantic physical interaction X, be it sex or fondling or deep kissing, etc. Is it more acceptable for a guy to have, in his past, mostly monogamously, done X with many girls than for a girl to have done X with many guys?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Possibly, it depends upon whether you think that the term applies to a distinction that is a matter of choice.
Do you think that there should not be different moral rules for adults versus children? That's a distinction that is not a matter of choice.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
We have double standards for the handicapped versus the non-handicapped - for instance, expectations regarding giving up your seat on the bus for the elderly. Some handicapped people are born handicapped, so they have no choice in the matter.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: Is it more acceptable for a guy to have, in his past, mostly monogamously, done X with many girls than for a girl to have done X with many guys?
No. Although, there is such a strong cultural taboo in general against doing much more than kissing that neither gender would exactly announce the fact. Perhaps that's your answer - "locker room" stories are not welcome from either gender.
It isn't that the only taboo is actual sex. Most things between deep kissing/snuggling and actual sex are also off limits, so doing them at all will not meet with social approval, much less with a lot of people, guys or girls.
[ June 19, 2009, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Possibly, it depends upon whether you think that the term applies to a distinction that is a matter of choice.
Do you think that there should not be different moral rules for adults versus children? That's a distinction that is not a matter of choice.
I'm not even sure why or how we got here, but you seem to have completely missed my point. I never said all double standards were always a bad thing. Here's what I said:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Look, having rules differ based on race, social class, sex, or anything else is a double standard, by definition. Perhaps you think the double standard is ok, but it's still a double standard.
Let me go back to the comment that began this line of discussion:
quote:I was saying that people's ideas of what they consider moral is different across groups, so that applying it equally to everyone is often going to look like not applying it equally.
This is where I take exception. Applying different standards across groups does not just have the appearance of inequality, it is unequal.
Do you think there should be differing standards for men and women in terms of sexual relationships?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Applying different standards across groups does not just have the appearance of inequality, it is unequal.
It's unequal, but my point is where the inequality comes in. It does not have to be that you are applying standards unequally. It can be that the standards are unequal.
The criticism that people are applying their standard unequally isn't going to affect them when, in their perception, they have different standards for different groups.
I tried to show examples in our culture where we accept that people in one group are held to different standards than people in another.
---
I don't have different standards for men and women in terms of sexual relationships.
Do I think that other people should not have them? That's a trickier question.
Legally, yes, of course I think they should be equal standards. However, social/moral standards is a different question. To me, it depends on a lot on how they view the concepts in question, what they are trying to accomplish, and how realistic there are in these things.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: A boyfriend is not a husband.
Everything changes when you have kids.
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: There's an incredible amount of conditioning that we have, that really doesn't get questioned,
This is untrue. There has been lots and lots of questioning of the reasons we involve ourselves in monogamous relationships and the reasons there is a double standard. Among other things, there's never a question who the mom is.
A boyfriend could be a husband, but current GLBT rights aren't up there yet in most states. I'm not sure if you're saying one is better than the other, but it brings up the question of how one rates the relationship, and again, those assumptions. I think there can be bad husbands, and great boyfriends.
Maybe not the biological mom, but who actually nurtures and cares for the kids, and what effect that has is being debated. Some believe that if kids don't get that special something from both sexes, they're deprived somehow. Gender roles are being questioned.
I'm sure there has been questioning about the reasons to stay monogamous, but I suspect those questions, especially in religious circles, contain assumptions regarding what children require, what the "best" kind of relationship is, etc. in order to support the status quo, instead of looking at how polyamory could work, or investing energy into the investigation of such things.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: A boyfriend could be a husband, but current GLBT rights aren't up there yet in most states. I'm not sure if you're saying one is better than the other, but it brings up the question of how one rates the relationship, and again, those assumptions. I think there can be bad husbands, and great boyfriends.
No, one is not better than the other. But they are different; they represent a different level of commitment, not to mention a different lifestyle. A boyfriend, however intimate, is a friend, not family. Marriage is a commitment to have a family together...no, to be a family. This is just one reason I am a whole-hearted supporter of the rights for gays to marry. They have every right to define their relationship as a family if they choose, as well as to bring children into it.
quote: I'm sure there has been questioning about the reasons to stay monogamous, but I suspect those questions, especially in religious circles, contain assumptions regarding what children require, what the "best" kind of relationship is, etc. in order to support the status quo, instead of looking at how polyamory could work, or investing energy into the investigation of such things.
See, now we're not arguing whether or not polygamous relationships should be legal, but whether or not they would work.
Honestly, I have no idea what the answer to that is and I'm not claiming to know. I will say, though, that the people I've known who got themselves involved in "open" relationships had terribly low self-esteem and were afraid that they would lose their partner if they did not agree to such a relationship. I've seen this type of relationship used to hurt people and have never seen it in any kind of loving or healthy light. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen that way sometimes -- but it does mean you're going to have to get specific and persuasive to convince me. Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: A boyfriend could be a husband, but current GLBT rights aren't up there yet in most states. I'm not sure if you're saying one is better than the other, but it brings up the question of how one rates the relationship, and again, those assumptions. I think there can be bad husbands, and great boyfriends.
No, one is not better than the other. But they are different; they represent a different level of commitment, not to mention a different lifestyle. A boyfriend, however intimate, is a friend, not family. Marriage is a commitment to have a family together...no, to be a family. This is just one reason I am a whole-hearted supporter of the rights for gays to marry. They have every right to define their relationship as a family if they choose, as well as to bring children into it.
quote: I'm sure there has been questioning about the reasons to stay monogamous, but I suspect those questions, especially in religious circles, contain assumptions regarding what children require, what the "best" kind of relationship is, etc. in order to support the status quo, instead of looking at how polyamory could work, or investing energy into the investigation of such things.
See, now we're not arguing whether or not polygamous relationships should be legal, but whether or not they would work.
Honestly, I have no idea what the answer to that is and I'm not claiming to know. I will say, though, that the people I've known who got themselves involved in "open" relationships had terribly low self-esteem and were afraid that they would lose their partner if they did not agree to such a relationship. I've seen this type of relationship used to hurt people and have never seen it in any kind of loving or healthy light. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen that way sometimes -- but it does mean you're going to have to get specific and persuasive to convince me.
Hehe, well, it's still a work in progress, and so far I think we're both on the same page and are communicating well.
I'm still not sure about the friend definition as we have several friends in my family, who might as well be part of our family. I think I understand what you're saying though.
As for persuasion, well...all I have is "so far, so good" and "amazing learning experience". Maybe I'll catch up with you in a few years. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
For the record:
quote:Polygamy reference case could open door to legalizing multiple marriage
By Daphne Bramham, Vancouver Sun November 21, 2010
Canada is on the cusp of either legalizing polygamy or strengthening the 120-year prohibition against multiple marriage.
That’s what is at stake in the constitutional reference case that will begin Monday in B.C. Supreme Court and is scheduled to last at least until the end of January.
The case will weigh whether Canada’s anti-polygamy law is constitutional. The reference case was initiated by B.C. attorney general Mike de Jong to finally get a clear legal lens through which to examine the fundamentalist Mormon community of Bountiful in southeastern British Columbia.
If Chief Justice Robert Bauman agrees with those in favour of legalization, Canada would be the first country in the developed world to lift the prohibition on multiple marriage. It would be swimming against a tide of criminalization in developing countries in Africa and Asia.
It would also likely be interpreted as Canada putting out a welcome mat for fundamentalist Mormons, who have been largely rooted out of Utah and Arizona and are under attack in Texas, as well as to Muslims, Wiccans and to secular polyamorists.
...
Like all trials, there are two sides in the reference case. But unlike criminal and civil trials, there are also interested parties, who have registered in order to be able to make opening and closing statements, file evidence, call and cross-examine witnesses.
The attorneys general of British Columbia and Canada will both argue in favour of the existing law. They’ll be first up when the case begins next week.
Their “allies” include: Stop Polygamy in Canada, Christian Legal Fellowship, B.C. Teachers Federation, West Coast LEAF, Real Women Canada, Canadian Coalition for the Rights of the Child and the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights.
To make the opposing case, the chief justice appointed Vancouver lawyer George Macintosh as the amicus curiae — friend of the court — to advance the striking down of the law.
Allied with Macintosh are: the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association, B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association for Free Expression.
I think monogamy was settled on by many different societies for a very good reason.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I think monogamy was settled on by many different societies for a very good reason.
Fewer hyphens in surnames is the best I can come up with.
I give up--what was the one very good reason?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Good to see you Frisco!
Hobbes Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
That's interesting that the teachers are arguing against it. On the one hand, dealing with two parents who don't like each other very much is bad enough, what happens when the kid has eight ex-step moms? On the other, more step-parents means more volunteers for school functions. I'd have thought it would be a wash for the school.
I'll be really curious to hear the school's rationale.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. I should add that I am myself a newlywed in a decidedly monogomous arrangement, so this talk is of course hypothetical. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
OK, that would be hard to accomplish from the ground up, so I retract my speculation that it might not be a hard thing to make work. It can only easy if you ignore all the hard setup work.