• 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.

Poly Practised Elsewhere

Frank S said:
https://www.financialexpress.com/archive/is-there-a-case-for-legalising-polygamy/182170/
Click to expand...

The most frequently encountered argument against polygyny, which has been far more common than polyandry, is the claim that it exploits women. Women were indeed exploited in many monogamous and polygynist traditional societies, when they were frequently forced to marry men they did not want to. That hardly describes the situation these days in the developed world, and much of the developing world.
If she is willing to become an additional wife, why should laws prevent that What about a first wife She could divorce him, share their property, and receive child support for any children they have in virtually all American states without having to prove any "fault" on his part.
Click to expand...

That paragraph right there really sums up the ridiculousness of is all. They complain polygamy exploits women but in truth the only exploitation going on is of the men.

But no one cares about men, just female feelbads.

And even as he points this out he soft-pedals is. "Share their property" is hardly a fair description of how it often goes down.

For, in fact, polygyny would be rare in modern societies even if fully allowed. Polygyny was popular in the past when men valued having many children. That is no longer the case. So the main motivation for polygyny has vanished with the arrival of the knowledge economy where fathers as well as mothers now want a small number of educated children rather than many ill-educated offspring.
Click to expand...

Very insightful point. Absent to motivation for kids, you mainly have the motivation for sex, and there are better ways of getting sexual variety than adding a wife.

But this is a myth:

My view is that polygamy would impose substantial social costs in a modern Western-type society that probably would not be offset by the benefits to the parties to polygamous marriages. Legalising polygamy would enable wealthy men to have multiple wives, even harems, which would reduce the supply of women to men of lower incomes and thus aggravate inequality. Intense competition for women would lower the age of marriage for women, which would be likely to result in less investment by them in education (because household production is a substitute for market production) and thus reduce women's market output.
Click to expand...

Since most men don't want large families, just kids, the situation described is already in effect, these women just aren't getting married and having children, but they are no less taken off the market. Even worse, they're left on the market but just swapped around until they're unable to successfully pair bond and form healthy marriages.

We're supposed to simultaneously believe both (a) no point to legalize poly, few would do and (b) so many would do it men will go without wives causing huge problems. Such is the kind of logic one can expect from mono defenders.

And then this one sounds like an upside, not downside...

In societies in which polygamy is permitted, wealthy households become clans. These clans can become so powerful as to threaten the state's monopoly of political power; this is one of the historical reasons for the abolition of polygamy,
Click to expand...

Really though, this comes down to matriarchal power...

A woman who wanted a monogamous marriage could presumably negotiate a marital contract. However, she would have to buy this concession from the husband, which would make her worse off than if he were denied the right (in the absence of a contractual waiver of it) to take additional wives. Allowing polygamy would thus alter the distribution of wealth among women as well as among men
Click to expand...

This is the very reason why feminists and sociologists support the current divorce and child support complex; it gives women a nuclear option that gives her the upper hand in negotiations; resulting in an unequal distribution of power and wealth in favor of women.

And that's seen as a good thing. Any advantage accrued to men is seen as a bad thing. No interest in balance, only maximal matriarchy.

Moreover the less common a practice it is, the fewer the benefits to be anticipated from legalising it.
Click to expand...

This is nothing more than a conceit. Why should it matter if it enlarges freedom? No one made that argument against gay marriage, which has lower rates of occurrence than poly in poly societies.
 
rockfox said:
That paragraph right there really sums up the ridiculousness of is all. They complain polygamy exploits women but in truth the only exploitation going on is of the men.

But no one cares about men, just female feelbads.

And even as he points this out he soft-pedals is. "Share their property" is hardly a fair description of how it often goes down.



Very insightful point. Absent to motivation for kids, you mainly have the motivation for sex, and there are better ways of getting sexual variety than adding a wife.

But this is a myth:



Since most men don't want large families, just kids, the situation described is already in effect, these women just aren't getting married and having children, but they are no less taken off the market. Even worse, they're left on the market but just swapped around until they're unable to successfully pair bond and form healthy marriages.

We're supposed to simultaneously believe both (a) no point to legalize poly, few would do and (b) so many would do it men will go without wives causing huge problems. Such is the kind of logic one can expect from mono defenders.

And then this one sounds like an upside, not downside...



Really though, this comes down to matriarchal power...



This is the very reason why feminists and sociologists support the current divorce and child support complex; it gives women a nuclear option that gives her the upper hand in negotiations; resulting in an unequal distribution of power and wealth in favor of women.

And that's seen as a good thing. Any advantage accrued to men is seen as a bad thing. No interest in balance, only maximal matriarchy.



This is nothing more than a conceit. Why should it matter if it enlarges freedom? No one made that argument against gay marriage, which has lower rates of occurrence than poly in poly societies.
Click to expand...

@rockfox well analyzed! Thanks
 
Frank S said:
https://www.global-gathering.com/news/18605
Click to expand...

Brazilian_football_legend_Ronaldinho_will_reportedly_%22marry%22_two_women_at_the_same_time_during_a_small_wedding_ceremony_in_August.jpg
 
Frank S said:
https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/marriage-whats-love-got-do-it-historically-very-little
Click to expand...

"Through most of human history, love was not at all the point of marriage," Coontz said. "Marriage was about getting families together, which was why there were so many controls."
Introducing NCR’s Season of Creation Daily, a brief reflection for each of the Season’s 34 days. Sign up for emails here.
The notion that a couple would marry for love was considered almost anti-social, even subversive; parents could disown their kids for doing it.
"The Greeks thought lovesickness was a type of insanity, a view that was adopted by medieval commentators in Europe. In the Middle Ages, the French defined love as a 'derangement of the mind'
...
"Too much love was thought to be a real threat to the institution of marriage," she said in an interview. "Earlier proponents of marriage were as horrified by the idea of a love match as late 20th-century people were by (the) idea of same-sex marriage."
Click to expand...

Thus says the wisdom of our forefathers. And for good reason. They knew that infatuation/eros (what we usually call love) was fleeting, and therefor a bad foundation for marriage, and leads to bad decision making (not the least of which in who to choose for a mate).
 
Frank S said:
https://mike-boucher.com/wordpress/?page_id=136
Click to expand...

Polygamy, or the taking of more than one wife, was tolerated within certain limitations. And, such action was usually triggered by the wife rather than by the husband. Should one of the wife’s sisters reach “old maid” age without being claimed by a husband or should a husband be killed leaving the wife’s sister a widow, she might urge her husband to take the sister as an additional wife. Thus in a family with many sisters, a husband might find himself married to, and living in the same house with, several wives. The additional wives had all of the privileges and duties of the original wife, with a single exception. Only the original wife was allowed to eat from the same bowl or dish as her husband. Should a Choctaw’s wife die, he would generally be married again to one of her sisters. Or, if no sister were available, he could possibly marry a cousin or other relative.
Click to expand...

Polygamy as social safety net. A whole lot more loving than what we do today.

The Choctaws practiced two customs which might seem strange because the reasons for these customs have, become lost to history.

After the marriage, the bride’s mother could no longer look upon the face of her son-in-law. Though they might talk to each other, they must be hidden from each other by some kind of screen. When nothing else was available, they had to cover their eyes with their hand. This must have made life very difficult for the mother-in-law, particularly when the family was traveling or were encamped for hunting or festivals. Many mothers walked about with their heads down, so that they might not accidentally see the face of a son-in-law. Can you imagine the problem of a mother with several married daughters and as many sons-in-law in the same camp? To some extent, this custom continued to exist until the early 1800s.

The other custom, now considered peculiar, is that after the marriage ceremony had been completed, the wife never again called her husband by name or spoke his name aloud to family or friends. She called him or referred to him as “My Husband” or “My Man,” or after children had begun arriving She called him or referred to him as “My Husband” or “My Man,” or after children had begun arriving would call him “My Son’s Father” or some such term.
Click to expand...

This makes sense from a Biblical perspective. To use one's given name is to make one equal. Those are submissive phrases. There's a good chance 'my husband' is a bad translation. So too is not looking in someones eyes a sign of submission. That practice helps prevent mother-in-laws from dominating their son-in-laws. The author claims they were matriarchal because the new husband joins the wife's clan; but that doesn't necessarily make them matriarchal (though maybe they were).

Here is a marriage practice worthy of imitation...

Following the feast, the now married couple was escorted to their marriage house. In most cases, relatives of the bride had already built a house for the couple in the bride’s family Iksa area. If a house had not been built, the house of another of her relatives was “borrowed.” Some Moieties (villages) had special “marriage houses,” which were maintained and used only for this purpose. Once installed in their “marriage house,” the couple was left alone for three days with food for them being left outside the door by relatives of the bride. After three days, the newly married couple took up residence in their home, which was generally built for them by members of the wife’s family.
Click to expand...
 
Frank S said:
https://www.nigerianbulletin.com/threads/how-i-manage-my-family-–-man-who-sleeps-with-3-wives-on-same-bed-speaks.237711/
Click to expand...

They live in a shack, 3 wives and 6 kids, and yet are happy. And here we are, in our McMansions full of unimaginable wealth and we're discontent with what we have and think we need a bedroom (or whole house) for each wife.

The family that work's together stays together.

The women cook and eat together, and they all sleep in one big bed in their shack. Also in the shack are their six children.
First wife Nene Ngwenya told Daily Sun that at first their neighbours used to think they were crazy to share one man.
“But because we remain united and happy, they don’t have a problem with it any more.”
Click to expand...
 
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/indiascope/story/19940515-marriage-rows-755630-1994-05-15

Polygyny is protested in this article, but it is obviously marriages often happening while lacking some Biblical standards. People read stuff like this and then conclude they know what polygyny is about. Yes, they may know how badly some women and girls were treated in this situation, but abuse and deplorable things happen in every form of human relations when godliness is absent. But it is polygyny that Churchians & non-Christians decry rather than the absence of godliness and adherence to how God said people should live. If the later were fully implemented, there would be nothing to decry. But also, polygyny practiced in godliness just doesn't make for salacious news articles that will sell newspapers etc. I believe there are many stories of God's people practicing polygyny in righteousness, but such people quietly live out their lives and their excellent circumstances usually do not reach the eyes and ears of Joe and Jane public. I wish for more such excellent things to be commonly heard, but I'm not holding my breath in expectation that I'll see it any time soon.
 
Last edited:
rockfox said:
They live in a shack, 3 wives and 6 kids, and yet are happy. And here we are, in our McMansions full of unimaginable wealth and we're discontent with what we have and think we need a bedroom (or whole house) for each wife.

The family that work's together stays together.
Click to expand...

That's true I agree that we focus too much importence on things and not enough on people Rockfox. Thank you Frank S for sharing alll these stories I haven't read them all but it's really something to see how polygamy isnot a new thing by any means. Wanna say it's unperreported
 
The blind in religious institutions create further blindness and destruction. Evil is called good and good is called evil. The little people are made to be confused and bitter. I yet have hope to one day see the KING of kings reign in righteousness - so come Lord Jesus! But while we wait for that event, many suffer religious abuse. The man and his family this article tells about was damaged by the error of his church re polygyny. The writer was left thinking homosexuality should be more generously accommodated so gays and lesbians don't have to endure uncharitable suffering as this man had to because of his parent's polygyny. The whole thing is skewed and just sad from beginning to end, but such error and confusion continues unabated to this day. What a need there is for the truth that we know to spread and thus dispel the darkness!

http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2004c/091704/091704u.htm
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top