Is the main objection to polygamy that having multiple sex partners is immoral or that the whole arrangement is subjugation of women (because usually it’s multiple wives not husbands), or some other reason?
A bit of both. The Greeks and Romans had a cultural taboo against polygamy which Christianity inherited, which means that Christians have historically been opposed to polygamy (which was not the case in Pre-christian northern Europe) on moral grounds. There is also the issue that historically polygamy has been associated with patriarchal societies in which men are allowed or expected to have multiple wives, but women are not allowed to do the same. Additionally, it is also culturally associated with treating women as property of the husband. Personally I don’t have any issue with polygamy if everyone is free to do whatever but the way most cultures practice it, it’s unfair to women. Then again, that could also he said of “traditional” marriage in a lot of monogamous scenarios too.
Having been on some readings I had not picked up in a second recently, two to poison and be each other’s alibi is what went thru my head first lol.
Nothing else to do with the thread. Just the first thought that went thru my head- any rat bastard that lives that shit deserves to be poisoned by both.
Depends on whose objecting. This arrangement pretty much only works at scale with a combination of religious brainwashing, inequality between and amongst the genders, and a healthy dose of male mortality especially from war.
Inequality among a gender:
For instance if bob and Sam both make 70k 5 women aren’t all marrying one or the other in most instances.
Inequality between the genders:
Given a complex life path beyond follow in husband’s shadow no matter what or become a parish the chance of instability with more people increases with each member added.
So the first obvious person to object to broad enactment of this idea ought to be women raised to buy into this when it’s not their best option.
Next is society for such groups brainwashing kids.
Then there is the downside of the enabling inequality. Anyone not on the top end of the financial spectrum ought to object to that.
Women ought to object to the idea that they ought to share.
Men not in the top 5-20% ought to object to competing for the remaining women not attached to high status males. Note this is what incels say they are mad about now but there is so much to unpack re their broken brains and it’s just not at this juncture real.
Society should be mad at the very large number of unattached men who normally cause trouble.
Some such societies deal with this by trading women like Pokemon cards and driving off excess men. This doesn’t work without wars to kill them off or somewhere to drive them to.
Basically everyone but a smallish minority of men would be worse off which is why this is non existent in modern functioning society.
There little net effect on society with a small incidence of polygomy just like with lead in the water.
I think in western culture it might be a bit of both, and also a bit of xenophobia - it’s different, so it must be bad. I’d be interested in knowing more too. Very good question.
Is the main objection to polygamy that having multiple sex partners is immoral or that the whole arrangement is subjugation of women (because usually it’s multiple wives not husbands), or some other reason?
Find me just one example of a Muslim woman with two husbands.
deleted by creator
That’s not the point.
Excuse me? If you want one find her yourself.
I answered your question of if my objection was about the subjugation of women, and I pointed out how subjugating women is the problem.
A bit of both. The Greeks and Romans had a cultural taboo against polygamy which Christianity inherited, which means that Christians have historically been opposed to polygamy (which was not the case in Pre-christian northern Europe) on moral grounds. There is also the issue that historically polygamy has been associated with patriarchal societies in which men are allowed or expected to have multiple wives, but women are not allowed to do the same. Additionally, it is also culturally associated with treating women as property of the husband. Personally I don’t have any issue with polygamy if everyone is free to do whatever but the way most cultures practice it, it’s unfair to women. Then again, that could also he said of “traditional” marriage in a lot of monogamous scenarios too.
“one to cook and one to clean” is one of the “joke-y” sayings I heard
Having been on some readings I had not picked up in a second recently, two to poison and be each other’s alibi is what went thru my head first lol.
Nothing else to do with the thread. Just the first thought that went thru my head- any rat bastard that lives that shit deserves to be poisoned by both.
Depends on whose objecting. This arrangement pretty much only works at scale with a combination of religious brainwashing, inequality between and amongst the genders, and a healthy dose of male mortality especially from war.
Inequality among a gender: For instance if bob and Sam both make 70k 5 women aren’t all marrying one or the other in most instances.
Inequality between the genders: Given a complex life path beyond follow in husband’s shadow no matter what or become a parish the chance of instability with more people increases with each member added.
So the first obvious person to object to broad enactment of this idea ought to be women raised to buy into this when it’s not their best option.
Next is society for such groups brainwashing kids.
Then there is the downside of the enabling inequality. Anyone not on the top end of the financial spectrum ought to object to that.
Women ought to object to the idea that they ought to share.
Men not in the top 5-20% ought to object to competing for the remaining women not attached to high status males. Note this is what incels say they are mad about now but there is so much to unpack re their broken brains and it’s just not at this juncture real.
Society should be mad at the very large number of unattached men who normally cause trouble.
Some such societies deal with this by trading women like Pokemon cards and driving off excess men. This doesn’t work without wars to kill them off or somewhere to drive them to.
Basically everyone but a smallish minority of men would be worse off which is why this is non existent in modern functioning society.
There little net effect on society with a small incidence of polygomy just like with lead in the water.
I think in western culture it might be a bit of both, and also a bit of xenophobia - it’s different, so it must be bad. I’d be interested in knowing more too. Very good question.