Posted on 07/27/2013 12:15:47 PM PDT by nickcarraway
No.
And not because of moral reasons, it's simply a matter of practicality. I've never seen a polygamous relationship in which every participant was happy and content. Because of my research into alternative lifestyles, I actually know a lot of people who are in polygamous relationships (there are support groups for that, you know). I don't think it is immoral, as long as all parties involved are consenting adults.
However in practice, such a relationship requires way too much energy to maintain, and one or two people are always left feeling unhappy, undervalued, not needed, and not loved. Human beings are selfish and possessive, especially when they're in love. Very few people are capable of sharing their loved ones with other people, even under the pretense that you receive love from the other person. This is especially true if the polygamous relationship is 1 male + multiple females or 1 female + multiple males. One will undoubtedly become the favorite, and the other will end up resentful and feeling depressed.
An ideal situation, which most polygamous relationships I knew were trying to achieve, is somewhat a "network" of love, instead of a pyramid. For example, in a relationship with one male and three females, if the love exists only between the male and each female, it's not going to work. It has to be male and female, and female and female, in other words, everyone needs to love everyone.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
You said it. That’s the beginning and end of the discussion for me.
No man can serve two masters.
Nooo....no...too many butcher knives laying around in the house
:-)
“Polygamy only works - as it has throughout human history - for rich and powerful men who choose to take in one or more wives and concubines.”
Indeed! (Although you’re actually discussing polygyny. Polygamy refers to “multiple spouses”.)
Consider that, for every man with two wives, there would be one with none. Until recently, a large fraction of the young, male population was killed in periodic wars. That left a “surplus” of women, such that some men could have multiple wives, without resulting in other (living) men having none. A population, with polygyny, can rebound from a nearly total loss of the male population. The same can’t be said for polyandry (which has never been very common, anywhere).
I have a hard enough time making it work with just one. The beauty of it is, she still puts up with me.
‘Them sister wives are hot’.
Uh, not so much. Time to put on some better specs. And the mental/spiritual baggage, oy.
One is quite hard enough
With Polyandry - Who would want to deal with more than one Prick
With Polygyny - well, I just don't see the attraction
LOL
One wife is plenty.
Define many. And men being men, I doubt that wandering eye troubles go away with polygamy.
Very typical of Slate. They’re like the fallback option for libtards when HuffPost is down.
“Oh, I don’t think its immoral to have several wives’
Yet I bet if we go back, Slate was mocking those who said the status of polygamy as immoral might change after homo-marriage.
Just remember that each of your wives could have several husbands too.
I am so sorry for your loss.
They would end up comparing notes on your shortcomings.......literally.
Monogamy and bigamy are similar in that they are both the result of one wife too many.
No.
The solution to a current woman problem is not to add another woman into the mix. Why people think that a second woman will solve their problems with women is kind of (as Einstein put it) insane.
They = the multiple wives
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.