• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

If we had polygamy a few men would take all the women...

rockfox

rockfox

Seasoned Member
Real Person*
Male
That's a common objection; maybe even the biggest one. We've all heard it. Yet it just wouldn't turn out that way.

Just 4% of women would be in a polygamous marriage if they could. But 17% of men don't want a wife, which more than offsets the number of women who would prefer polygamy.

To put that into context, 25% of women in that survey don't want to get married at all! That seems to be a much bigger issue. Yet I don't hear anyone advocating laws to compel women to marry. So why do we outlaw polygamy?
 
Religions and governments outlaw polygamy (polygyny) because it's a biblical practice. But it's a spiritual battle behind it as with so many other issues we have to deal with. I'm really thankful I'm on the side that's already won the war!
 
I’m personally not convinced that some men not being able to get women is a bad thing. There are a lot of “men” out there who do not have any business leading a family.
 
Pacman said:
I’m personally not convinced that some men not being able to get women is a bad thing. There are a lot of “men” out there who do not have any business leading a family.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I have long believed the idea of a close ratio between males and females is the wrong way to look at things. There are quite a number of males I know that I would never call "men". I think a better ratio to consider is the ratio between people who are good shepherds and people who need a good shepherd.
 
Polygyny puts the capitalism/competition in the marriage market.

Monogamy-only makes it more of a socialist market. One wife to each male, no matter what his abilities happen to be.
 
Pacman said:
I’m personally not convinced that some men not being able to get women is a bad thing. There are a lot of “men” out there who do not have any business leading a family.
Click to expand...

I struggled with this a long time; not considering it loving or scriptural to set up a system that denies men a help meet. But there are two truths that changed that objection for me:
  1. It wouldn't happen for a number of reasons: men who don't want marriage, men who aren't marriable no matter how few men there are, and statistics (big families and a 5 year age gap results in more than enough extra women)
  2. God's creation is one of competition for mates. No other species is guaranteed access to females; they must compete. This is GOOD, because it works to weed out weak genes and ensure the long term genetic viability of the species. Harsh yes, but it's a tough love for the greater good. Nothing is guaranteed in life. Almost everything good requires effort to achieve.
Just don't take it a step too far by saying we should divest some men of their wives. Once they have them, they're stuck with them and its time for them to become the man God expects them to be.

Also, this isn't a man vs. woman thing. Infertility strikes men and women alike. A man at least has a chance to improve his charisma or wealth and achieve a better outcome. The visual nature of male sexuality means a lot of women's outcome is fixed at birth. I also can't help but noticing that 25% is quite close a number to the 20% of women who are diagnosable as Cluster B. We really don't need them propagating the crazy either.
 
rockfox said:
God's creation is one of competition for mates. No other species is guaranteed access to females; they must compete. This is GOOD, because it works to weed out weak genes and ensure the long term genetic viability of the species. Harsh yes, but it's a tough love for the greater good. Nothing is guaranteed in life. Almost everything good requires effort to achieve.
Click to expand...

Have considered competition for mates in nature, but never thought of the implications among humans. Thanks! Nice point!
 
In the capitalist market for spouses I think a lot fewer women would settle for the lower echelons of males if they could be with a tested and proven good husband. This would, hopefully, encourage men to step up their game. We are competitive by nature. It is good for us. Often enough, in areas we don't need to remain competitive, we stagnate. How many men settle in to being married to the point where they don't bother to try much anymore figuring it is already settled?
 
jacobhaivri said:
In the capitalist market for spouses I think a lot fewer women would settle for the lower echelons of males if they could be with a tested and proven good husband. This would, hopefully, encourage men to step up their game. We are competitive by nature. It is good for us. Often enough, in areas we don't need to remain competitive, we stagnate. How many men settle in to being married to the point where they don't bother to try much anymore figuring it is already settled?
Click to expand...
And what would it do for most men to still be "in the game."? And what would it do for many women to not have a captive man? We'd all be much more conscious of ourselves and each other.
 
Narrowing the world down to 2 women and 2 men...
I have stated my own interests in another post so many of you know my story to a point. The young woman I am interested in has gone fairly wayward due to an emotional attachment to a very bad young man. This young man lived with me for about a year while I attempted to get him on his feet. It ended up with him being kicked out for causing problems and division.

This post speaks so much to me because, in an ideal world (my version at least), the dead beat young man will never marry, never be a consideration for the young woman because she would see a stable family that loves her and be attracted to that. Instead, I have to watch someone I care greatly for put herself in a situation where she is being lied to, cheated on, and used because she doesn't consider courting a married man an option.
 
jacobhaivri said:
In the capitalist market for spouses
Click to expand...

One of the requirements for a functioning free market is price discovery. Without a literal market (a la Babylon) this is a tricky thing in the best of cases. But we're not in the best of cases. One of the problems in our current marriage market is that women have an overinflated sense of their market worth because in the sexual market they're able to sleep with much more attractive men than they are able to secure for marriage.

Hence the importance the OT law placed on virgin marriage.

We also have unfair market competition; in the form of a government willing to subsidize single and divorced mothers. And because the supply of government money is seemingly infinite, that lowers the perceived value of, and demand for, men.
 
rockfox said:
One of the requirements for a functioning free market is price discovery. Without a literal market (a la Babylon) this is a tricky thing in the best of cases. But we're not in the best of cases. One of the problems in our current marriage market is that women have an overinflated sense of their market worth because in the sexual market they're able to sleep with much more attractive men than they are able to secure for marriage.

Hence the importance the OT law placed on virgin marriage.

We also have unfair market competition; in the form of a government willing to subsidize single and divorced mothers. And because the supply of government money is seemingly infinite, that lowers the perceived value of, and demand for, men.
Click to expand...

Ironically, was talking with my FW's father about this issue just tonight. Out of the blue he started discussing how our system is so backward compared to the Biblical model: that is, nowadays divorce is a matter of gain and a way to achieve 'benefits', especially for women, and more an anullment for marriage (which God never intended for women to do), as opposed to Biblically where divorce (a man divorcing his wife) was a negative, a punishment (she was left without a provider and somewhat cast out of society, hence the 'causing her to commit adultery' verse). Just thought it was interesting that he brought that up of his own volition.
 
Last edited:
William said:
Narrowing the world down to 2 women and 2 men...
I have stated my own interests in another post so many of you know my story to a point. The young woman I am interested in has gone fairly wayward due to an emotional attachment to a very bad young man. This young man lived with me for about a year while I attempted to get him on his feet. It ended up with him being kicked out for causing problems and division.

This post speaks so much to me because, in an ideal world (my version at least), the dead beat young man will never marry, never be a consideration for the young woman because she would see a stable family that loves her and be attracted to that. Instead, I have to watch someone I care greatly for put herself in a situation where she is being lied to, cheated on, and used because she doesn't consider courting a married man an option.
Click to expand...
AMEN!

I can't say how much I feel this, man. My thoughts and prayers are with you. That sucks. I've seen the same thing. Not in the exact same situation, obviously, but there are a few women I know who were wonderfully loving, caring, Godly women who, because I (or one of my male friends) was 'taken' went off with the 'bad boy' and ended up hooked on drugs, with kids out of any sort of stable relationship, etc etc. It makes me sick to my stomach to see them pop up on my Facebook feed, I've avoided it as much as possible. A part of me feels guilt (I should have known better and pursued them anyway!), but the other part of me is just angry. Angry with our bullshit society that sets up situations like that >:(
 
EternalDreamer said:
a few women I know who were wonderfully loving, caring, Godly women who, because I (or one of my male friends) was 'taken' went off with the 'bad boy' and ended up hooked on drugs, with kids out of any sort of stable relationship, etc etc.
Click to expand...

To be fair to the women involved; men such as this, trouble though they may be, often show more masculinity than all the men in church combined. The American church has done much to emasculate their men; beginning from childhood and carrying all throughout life. People can go on about virtue and how they should want the churchian beta boy. But when the choice is between a man and a eunuch don't be shocked at the outcome.
 
rockfox said:
To be fair to the women involved; men such as this, trouble though they may be, often show more masculinity than all the men in church combined. The American church has done much to emasculate their men; beginning from childhood and carrying all throughout life. People can go on about virtue and how they should want the churchian beta boy. But when the choice is between a man and a eunuch don't be shocked at the outcome.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
EternalDreamer said:
Except that that isn't me or my friend. Or I wouldn't have 2 wives now, would I? So of course your point is valid in many circumstances, generally, but in the specific example I'm stating, that is not the case. In this case it really is a "he's a dick but he's single, vs he's a loving leader but he's married" choice. Now if we were talking about many of the other church-going males I know, I'd agree of course, but... let's not heap all the blame on men either, eh?
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about you or your friend; I can only speak on the general. Don't worry, there is plenty of blame to go around; everyone gets a piece. :) All kidding aside, I'm not assigning blame so much as trying to bridge understanding.

First another aspect: I can see that for a lot of women a single man might be preferred to a married one as they're more likely to be accepted by society. Don't underestimate the importance of social acceptability, the herd, and the status marriage confers (and how that status could be damaged by it being PM). Ya that's a problem; which is why it is important to build community and not just be lone wolves. It's not like there is any social sanction against a woman marrying a non-Christian; if anything it is glorified and encouraged. Every woman's dream is to convert the bad boy; thats the default, it'll take a lot of social pressure to prevent that and it ain't there today.

Second, you speak like 'being a dick' is a negative. It depends on the details but generally speaking this is attractive to women and evidences a masculine, flirty man who won't be manipulated by his woman. So if the juxtaposition is between 'being a dick' and 'loving' then I'm going to read loving as another way of saying 'nice' (and not in the sense of being 'kind' either).

Third, is anyone counseling women to marry the godly married man? It's not like this is a neutral choice that is offered to every women; most aren't aware of the choice and when they are, the social pressure is almost entirely against that option. Sure it's the virtuous option. But you want a submissive Christian women right? Going against social pressure isn't exactly something that comes natural to that sort.
 
rockfox said:
I don't know anything about you or your friend; I can only speak on the general. Don't worry, there is plenty of blame to go around; everyone gets a piece. :) All kidding aside, I'm not assigning blame so much as trying to bridge understanding.

First another aspect: I can see that for a lot of women a single man might be preferred to a married one as they're more likely to be accepted by society. Don't underestimate the importance of social acceptability, the herd, and the status marriage confers (and how that status could be damaged by it being PM). Ya that's a problem; which is why it is important to build community and not just be lone wolves. It's not like there is any social sanction against a woman marrying a non-Christian; if anything it is glorified and encouraged. Every woman's dream is to convert the bad boy; thats the default, it'll take a lot of social pressure to prevent that and it ain't there today.

Second, you speak like 'being a dick' is a negative. It depends on the details but generally speaking this is attractive to women and evidences a masculine, flirty man who won't be manipulated by his woman. So if the juxtaposition is between 'being a dick' and 'loving' then I'm going to read loving as another way of saying 'nice' (and not in the sense of being 'kind' either).

Third, is anyone counseling women to marry the godly married man? It's not like this is a neutral choice that is offered to every women; most aren't aware of the choice and when they are, the social pressure is almost entirely against that option. Sure it's the virtuous option. But you want a submissive Christian women right? Going against social pressure isn't exactly something that comes natural to that sort.
Click to expand...

All true points.

You paint a depressing picture.
I'm curious, then, to hear what your suggestion/solution is, therefore? Re: @William 's post... if you were in a position where some woman desired you as a husband (and/or you desired to be her husband) but she gave up and went after someone who was patently bad for her (abusive, a non-believer, etc...), how would you seek to help her and pursue her (assuming you wanted to pursue her)? Because your points, while I agree they are valid, seem to simply say that "life sucks and then you die".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top