http://www.esquire.com/features/man-at-his-best/polygamy1207 (http://www.esquire.com/features/man-at-his-best/polygamy1207)
"Polygamy is to marriage what the free market is to the economy. Which can only mean one thing: If you oppose legalizing polygamy, well, you are a Communist."
Right on bro! +1
If left up to the free market, those who have the most values to offer to prospective mates would be the only ones who would even have a shot at procuring multiple mates. Those who end up doing without, could either work to increase their value as a mate, or continue to suffer the consequences of their laziness.
That may seem like a harsh assessment to some, but just remember who it's coming from ;)
On the lighter side, if you currently have what it takes, you don't have to wait for "society" to catch up and make polygamy legal. You can always protest tyrannical marriage laws through well-publicized acts of civil disobedience ;D
Quote from: srqrebel on December 10, 2007, 12:11 PM NHFT
You can always protest tyrannical marriage laws through well-publicized acts of civil disobedience ;D
I already know several people who do...
Quote from: shyfrog on December 10, 2007, 12:42 PM NHFTQuote from: srqrebel on December 10, 2007, 12:11 PM NHFTYou can always protest tyrannical marriage laws through well-publicized acts of civil disobedience ;D
I already know several people who do...
And plenty more who don't feel the need to obtain publicity...
Joe
while I'm a one woman guy, why does everyone seem to hate the mormons so much for their polygmy. . . I don't really see women being strong armed into this. . . personal choice. . . I've never met a mormon kid who was a punk or an asshole. . . maybe they're raising these kids right, until I see one that isn't. ..
what's it of anyone's business? I don't personally think it's a way I could go, hell most men bitch about ONE wife, imagine having 3 or 4? lol
Quote from: MaineShark on December 10, 2007, 12:46 PM NHFT
Quote from: shyfrog on December 10, 2007, 12:42 PM NHFTQuote from: srqrebel on December 10, 2007, 12:11 PM NHFTYou can always protest tyrannical marriage laws through well-publicized acts of civil disobedience ;D
I already know several people who do...
And plenty more who don't feel the need to obtain publicity...
Joe
meh, they'll have to deal with it eventually.
Quote from: MaineShark on December 10, 2007, 12:46 PM NHFT
Quote from: shyfrog on December 10, 2007, 12:42 PM NHFTQuote from: srqrebel on December 10, 2007, 12:11 PM NHFTYou can always protest tyrannical marriage laws through well-publicized acts of civil disobedience ;D
I already know several people who do...
And plenty more who don't feel the need to obtain publicity...
Joe
Hmm...I took that out of context, sorry.
Yes, plenty more in the "woodwork" who we may never know about.
Quote from: shyfrog on December 10, 2007, 01:22 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on December 10, 2007, 12:46 PM NHFTQuote from: shyfrog on December 10, 2007, 12:42 PM NHFTQuote from: srqrebel on December 10, 2007, 12:11 PM NHFTYou can always protest tyrannical marriage laws through well-publicized acts of civil disobedience ;D
I already know several people who do...
And plenty more who don't feel the need to obtain publicity...
Hmm...I took that out of context, sorry.
Yes, plenty more in the "woodwork" who we may never know about.
Especially in NH. There are plenty of folks I've met who
might be polygamists. Or might actually just be renting out a room to a friend. Who knows?
Of course, the percentage who are still "in the closet" makes it hard to find likeminded folks... at least wear a parrot on your clothing somewhere!
Joe
I've known two different sets of gay polygamists. Both were triples rather than couples. I think it's very different than str8 polygamy. A str8 polygamy of a man and two women is kind of like a "V" while these guys were more like triangles. In both cases, they lasted a few years but have since broken up. I think one broke up completely and the other just kicked one guy out. :-\
More power to you, I say, if you can make it work. Screw the marriage laws. Gay people can't even legally get married to one other person, much less two. Didn't stop them.
In sets of three, polygamy can be three of one sex (male or female), or two women and one man, or two men and one woman. They can be "Vees" with one partner sharing the two others (but no romantic relationship between those two), or "Triads" with all three romantically involved with each other.
Once you go to four and more, the possibilities increase dramatically.
Who cares what the "marriage laws" are. I have no interest in getting licensed to get married. Asking a bureaucrat's permission for me to love my wife (or whomever) is patently offensive to me.
Joe
You workin' on a NH wife, Shy? :D
Here is a banner I made a long time ago...
(http://www.shyfrog.net/images/mil.jpg)
What's the penalty for bigamy? Two wives. Ba-dum-dum!
Quote from: StaggerLee on December 10, 2007, 01:17 PM NHFT
what's it of anyone's business? I don't personally think it's a way I could go, hell most men bitch about ONE wife, imagine having 3 or 4? lol
Quote from: Seamas on December 10, 2007, 08:00 PM NHFT
What's the penalty for bigamy? Two wives. Ba-dum-dum!
Quote from: StaggerLee on December 10, 2007, 01:17 PM NHFT
what's it of anyone's business? I don't personally think it's a way I could go, hell most men bitch about ONE wife, imagine having 3 or 4? lol
Yes...a polygamist I know who was having marital problems once confided in me, "Anyone who desires polygamy...deserves it."
Quote from: Seamas on December 10, 2007, 08:00 PM NHFTWhat's the penalty for bigamy? Two wives. Ba-dum-dum!
The plural of "spouse" is "spice" ;D
Joe
+1 for Heinlein
In the mid 1800's when so many women died in childbirth, it would have made more sense if one woman had several husbands instead of the other way around.
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on December 10, 2007, 10:41 PM NHFT
In the mid 1800's when so many women died in childbirth, it would have made more sense if one woman had several husbands instead of the other way around.
And a lot more men died in wars or work accidents (the world being a generally more dangerous place then), so there were fewer men available.
I'd be willing to bet that children of polygamists spend more time with parents and less (if any) time at daycare centers than children from traditional marriages. Even if two parents work, there would still be one who is able to stay home. Domestic chores could be spread out more as well.
Quote from: KBCraig on December 11, 2007, 12:43 AM NHFT
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on December 10, 2007, 10:41 PM NHFT
In the mid 1800's when so many women died in childbirth, it would have made more sense if one woman had several husbands instead of the other way around.
And a lot more men died in wars or work accidents (the world being a generally more dangerous place then), so there were fewer men available.
First of all there were few wars between 1812 & 1860 in the US. Regardless war deaths, at least up to the Civil War, could never have kept up with the women dying in childbirth. You probably think you have an equal number of men and women in your family history, but, if you go back far enough, there are more men than women.
Quote from: Defender of Liberty on December 11, 2007, 04:49 AM NHFT
Domestic chores could be spread out more as well.
In the interviews I've seen, the women talk about this aspect in a very positive manner.
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on December 11, 2007, 05:42 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on December 11, 2007, 12:43 AM NHFT
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on December 10, 2007, 10:41 PM NHFT
In the mid 1800's when so many women died in childbirth, it would have made more sense if one woman had several husbands instead of the other way around.
And a lot more men died in wars or work accidents (the world being a generally more dangerous place then), so there were fewer men available.
First of all there were few wars between 1812 & 1860 in the US. Regardless war deaths, at least up to the Civil War, could never have kept up with the women dying in childbirth. You probably think you have an equal number of men and women in your family history, but, if you go back far enough, there are more men than women.
Oops! I remembered that wrong. After a discussion with Bill Walked Two, I realized we likely have more female ancestors than male. It has to do with wives dying, men remarrying, and the man's descendants marrying.
Two of my ancestors who were either 1 st or second cousins married. One was descended from the guys first wife and one from his second. So for their children two of the, say, 8 great grandparent slots were taken up by the same man.
Quote from: dalebert on December 11, 2007, 09:25 AM NHFT
Quote from: Defender of Liberty on December 11, 2007, 04:49 AM NHFT
Domestic chores could be spread out more as well.
In the interviews I've seen, the women talk about this aspect in a very positive manner.
Really your so right every interview I've seen they do talk about it in a positive manner, there seems to be no insecurities or jealousy, it surprises me. I guess that's because I've never experienced it. :-\
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on December 11, 2007, 06:05 PM NHFT
Two of my ancestors who were either 1 st or second cousins married. One was descended from the guys first wife and one from his second. So for their children two of the, say, 8 great grandparent slots were taken up by the same man.
That explains a lot Lloyd... ;D
When we went to a geneticist before William was born she was embarrased to ask us if we were related.
"Go ahead boy and marry your sister... it was good enough for me and your ma." ;D
They have recently discovered concluded that birth defects are not all that common when cousins mate. I've identified close to 1000 direct ancestors and the two I mentioned are the only cousin marriage I can find. I'm guessing it was pretty common when people lived in villages with only a few families.
:)
I'm sure there are a few banjo boys in my background. ;D
The great part of being from New England is people don't assume it of your family. As soon as you start talk'in Kentuckian, many people start thinking its a possibility.
It is really fucked up that for years in Movies and TV, whenever they want to make a character to appear dumb, they give them a southern or western accent. Except for a couple of near idiots I met in the Army, I didn't have any contact with any southerners, until I was in my twenties. Then I met this intellectual from Georgia. Gomer Pyle, sans Gollie!, talking smart stuff! Changed my way of thinking. Later I learned that for the most part their language patterns were a continuation of what their ancestors came to America with.
Of course most of them still screw their sisters!
John Stossel did a report on cousins marrying. It was quite enlightening. I was particularly surprised at how often it happens and in how many states it's legal.
My G-G-Grandfather married 3 sisters (not his own) and a civil war widow. He migrated to Utah from Maine with one sister and the widow. The oldest sister died and the other didn't like the idea of the wilderness out west.
I descend from the children he had with Betsy Jane, the civil war widow. She already had 5 children when he married her.
The odd thing about his polygamy was that he was practicing it before ever becoming a Mormon.
A lot of the general population can't get past the whole Mormon connection. They have no idea that it was practiced by many other people, of all faiths and cultures, long before Joseph Smith ever got the idea.
So, if a couple in Arkansas gets a divorce are they still considered brother and sister?
Quote from: dalebert on December 11, 2007, 10:31 PM NHFT
John Stossel did a report on cousins marrying. It was quite enlightening. I was particularly surprised at how often it happens and in how many states it's legal.
In a report in the Christian Science Monitor, Iraq is second to Pakistan in terms of I think it said 'first' cousin marriage. I was shocked, because the first impression is that Afganistan would be number one, certainly not Iraq, or even Pakistan. It made a very good point about the need to keep wealth in the family, and the safety and stability created by marriage between people that know each other well. Both Iraq and Pakistan have/had violent and unpredictable gov'ts, and the tribalism fills an important void.
Quote from: StaggerLee on December 10, 2007, 01:17 PM NHFT
while I'm a one woman guy, why does everyone seem to hate the mormons so much for their polygmy. . . I don't really see women being strong armed into this. . . personal choice. . . I've never met a mormon kid who was a punk or an asshole. . . maybe they're raising these kids right, until I see one that isn't. ..
Once again, appearances can be very deceiving.
There are definitely cases where woman, and even children, have been forced into such a lifestyle by those professing to be mormons.
IMO, the mormons take a lot of flak due to their self-imposed culture of secrecy. I spent a day in S.L. City once and toured the L.D.S. church grounds and there are certain buildings that cannot be entered by those who are not mormons. On top of that there is a hierarchy and set of "laws" (based on age/sex/race) of the church that is waaaaaay twisted, that many people, who have not studied religions, even know about. Wont go into that here. ;) I honestly don't wonder why they are so secretive.
Most of the mormons I have met would likely not even know how to be punks/assholes as they weren't given the personal freedom to choose how they wish to express themselves.
Not a judgement, just the way Ive seen it.
Quote from: shyfrog on December 11, 2007, 10:35 PM NHFT
They have no idea that it was practiced by many other people, of all faiths and cultures, long before Joseph Smith ever got the idea.
And in the vast majority of those, it was done out of necessity and/or used as a system of power/control & wealth.
It rarely had anything to do with love from what I have learned.
Quote from: EJinNH on December 12, 2007, 06:59 PM NHFT
And in the vast majority of those, it was done out of necessity and/or used as a system of power/control & wealth.
It rarely had anything to do with love from what I have learned.
Most marriages, monogamous or not, until recently were out of necessity.
Love....romantic love, is a fairly new concept historically speaking.
So it's not really about polygamy, but people.
Quote from: EJinNH on December 12, 2007, 06:59 PM NHFTAnd in the vast majority of those, it was done out of necessity and/or used as a system of power/control & wealth.
It rarely had anything to do with love from what I have learned.
It has to do with biology. Humans are not biologically monogamous. Monogamy is a system of power and control that was imposed by certain religious leaders.
We have so many laws because it guarantees that essentially everyone is a criminal in some way. This allows the government to oppress people by simply enforcing the laws that were broken, rather than relying on secret abduction squads. They can silence dissidents in the broad daylight with the TV cameras going.
Monogamy was created by certain religious leaders because they knew it was an abnormal condition compared to human nature (regardless of understanding genetics - simple observation demonstrated it). It is rarely practiced, particularly in the way that is "correct" according to those leaders - ie, no sex before marriage, no even thinking sexual thoughts about others after marriage, etc. Since so few will "follow the rules," they have all these folks out there that believe they will be spiritually punished if they do not seek redemption from those religious leaders.
Power and control.
Not that particular folks can't choose monogamy without being part of that, but monogamy as a
system is an un-natural imposition designed for oppression. Which is why the law picked it up.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on December 14, 2007, 12:44 PM NHFT
Quote from: EJinNH on December 12, 2007, 06:59 PM NHFTAnd in the vast majority of those, it was done out of necessity and/or used as a system of power/control & wealth.
It rarely had anything to do with love from what I have learned.
It has to do with biology. Humans are not biologically monogamous. Monogamy is a system of power and control that was imposed by certain religious leaders.
We have so many laws because it guarantees that essentially everyone is a criminal in some way. This allows the government to oppress people by simply enforcing the laws that were broken, rather than relying on secret abduction squads. They can silence dissidents in the broad daylight with the TV cameras going.
Monogamy was created by certain religious leaders because they knew it was an abnormal condition compared to human nature (regardless of understanding genetics - simple observation demonstrated it). It is rarely practiced, particularly in the way that is "correct" according to those leaders - ie, no sex before marriage, no even thinking sexual thoughts about others after marriage, etc. Since so few will "follow the rules," they have all these folks out there that believe they will be spiritually punished if they do not seek redemption from those religious leaders.
Power and control.
Not that particular folks can't choose monogamy without being part of that, but monogamy as a system is an un-natural imposition designed for oppression. Which is why the law picked it up.
Joe
:clap: I love the way you condensed that Joe! Almost anything people do or even think is a sin that comes with a punishment that religions impose. It is a great manipulative control tool.
My personal beliefs are that I do believe there is a creator so yes I choose to call this creator God but as far as religions and their guilt, rules, and crap I don't get involved with that. I like looking around at the beauty and feel like I'm having a "moment" with the creator of this beauty otherwise if I were involved in any religion it would take the beauty out and replace it with fear.
I sometimes get scared that the bible might be for "real" and I'm in trouble for not following it but I believe that's because of childhood conditioning and the bible is so confusing. The Old Testament is one of the most violent books I've ever read, people chose what scrolls were put in whatever bible they want etc. The New Testament, parts of it are cool, like do unto others as you would have done unto you, that's a good one I think but there is still "fear control" throughout that half of the bible too, it's just more subtle.
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on December 15, 2007, 08:56 AM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on December 14, 2007, 12:44 PM NHFTHumans are not biologically monogamous. Monogamy is a system of power and control that was imposed by certain religious leaders....
monogamy as a system is an un-natural imposition designed for oppression
tell that to those who look down on you (us) for being who we are.....
Heh. Part of the biological proof of this is the
size of certain organs, which would not be necessary if males did not need to compete with each other for the ability to father children with individual women. Gorillas, for example, have groups where one male has several females, and no other male competition for breeding. Therefore, gorillas have proportionately smaller reproductive gear than humans, who are evolved to compete. Other monkeys have even less pair-bonding than humans, and have even larger (proportionately to body size) equipment.
Pointing that out (at least to males who are complaining about polyamory) tends to shut them up.
Joe
I saw a biologist speak at a seminar and she was saying how reproduction is actually very demanding in terms of the metabolism devoted to it and such. The fact that the body devotes so much energy toward it shows how important it is in the grand scheme of things. Animals that have larger organs, particularly testes, in proportion to body weight tend to be very promiscuous. Dolphins are an example. They're testes are the size and shape of cucumbers, though you wouldn't know it because they're internal. Man, wouldn't that be a drag in the water otherwise! Dolphins wouldn't be able to swim so fast. :blush: Dolphins are randy as all get out and have an extremely short refractory period (time lapse between acts of sex). Animals that don't need to compete sexually, like the gorillas you described, are essentially getting a competitive advantage in not having to waste so much body mass and metabolism toward that particular function.
Quote from: MaineShark on December 14, 2007, 12:44 PM NHFT
Monogamy was created by certain religious leaders because they knew it was an abnormal condition compared to human nature (regardless of understanding genetics - simple observation demonstrated it). It is rarely practiced, particularly in the way that is "correct" according to those leaders - ie, no sex before marriage, no even thinking sexual thoughts about others after marriage, etc. Since so few will "follow the rules," they have all these folks out there that believe they will be spiritually punished if they do not seek redemption from those religious leaders.
Power and control.
Not that particular folks can't choose monogamy without being part of that, but monogamy as a system is an un-natural imposition designed for oppression. Which is why the law picked it up.
This is all true, but the religious values that promote self-denial (not just sexual taboos, but also dietary restrictions, denial of creature comforts, &c.) serve another purpose: Such denial creates a great deal of psychological frustration, which can be channeled by the religious leaders into useful directions, such as fighting wars, building temples, and so on.
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on December 15, 2007, 08:56 AM NHFT
Quote from: MaineShark on December 14, 2007, 12:44 PM NHFT
Humans are not biologically monogamous. Monogamy is a system of power and control that was imposed by certain religious leaders....
monogamy as a system is an un-natural imposition designed for oppression
tell that to those who look down on you (us) for being who we are.....
People who've wrapped themselves in their own psychological chains tend to react quite violently against those who haven't. Subconscious envy of something they can't have, manifested as enmity against those who do have it. Witness all the frothing anger in the comments in the
UL and YouTube every time someone like Russell or Lauren Canario does something. They practically scream,
"How dare they not submit to the system—when I have!?"
Quote from: dalebert on December 15, 2007, 03:04 PM NHFT
I saw a biologist speak at a seminar and she was saying how reproduction is actually very demanding in terms of the metabolism devoted to it and such. The fact that the body devotes so much energy toward it shows how important it is in the grand scheme of things. Animals that have larger organs, particularly testes, in proportion to body weight tend to be very promiscuous. Dolphins are an example. They're testes are the size and shape of cucumbers, though you wouldn't know it because they're internal. Man, wouldn't that be a drag in the water otherwise! Dolphins wouldn't be able to swim so fast. :blush: Dolphins are randy as all get out and have an extremely short refractory period (time lapse between acts of sex). Animals that don't need to compete sexually, like the gorillas you described, are essentially getting a competitive advantage in not having to waste so much body mass and metabolism toward that particular function.
Someone post a link to the DolphinSex shock site over on the FTL BBS again, Dale? ;D
Quote from: MaineShark on December 14, 2007, 12:44 PM NHFT
Quote from: EJinNH on December 12, 2007, 06:59 PM NHFTAnd in the vast majority of those, it was done out of necessity and/or used as a system of power/control & wealth.
It rarely had anything to do with love from what I have learned.
It has to do with biology. Humans are not biologically monogamous. Monogamy is a system of power and control that was imposed by certain religious leaders.
Monogamy was created by certain religious leaders because they knew it was an abnormal condition compared to human nature (regardless of understanding genetics - simple observation demonstrated it).
IMO, I don't think it is even possible to say exactly when, or why monogamy was first practiced.
I also believe in evolution; that is, humankind has the ability to rise above such base characteristics and tendencies.
If we are speaking biologically, apply this train of thought to "natural" dietary habits.
Is "man":
a) omnivorous?
b) vegetarian?
c) vegan?
d) carnivorous?
e) any/all of the above?
IMO, Each of us is unique; so any answer is the correct one.
To make any sweeping generalization is plain silly and small-minded IMO.
I do what is right for me. As long as another's beliefs do not impose themselves on mine or do harm, I could care less what is right for them.
Thanks for trying to tell me what
MY "true" nature is. That's just as bad as those who preach that monogamy is the "right" way... ::)
IMO, truth, like reality is wholly dependent on the perspective of the viewer. YOMV.
Quote from: EJinNH on December 16, 2007, 12:24 PM NHFTIf we are speaking biologically, apply this train of thought to "natural" dietary habits.
Is "man":
a) omnivorous?
b) vegetarian?
c) vegan?
d) carnivorous?
e) any/all of the above?
IMO, Each of us is unique; so any answer is the correct one.
Not biologically. Biologically, "a" is the correct answer.
Quote from: EJinNH on December 16, 2007, 12:24 PM NHFTTo make any sweeping generalization is plain silly and small-minded IMO.
I do what is right for me. As long as another's beliefs do not impose themselves on mine or do harm, I could care less what is right for them.
Thanks for trying to tell me what MY "true" nature is. That's just as bad as those who preach that monogamy is the "right" way... ::)
Biology is biology. From a purely biological standpoint, monogamy is "wrong," in that it reduces the ability to pass on your genetic material. So is celibacy, or homosexuality. From a purely biological standpoint.
Doesn't mean you aren't free to prefer monogamous relationships, for psychological reasons. Or that you are somehow doing wrong in any moral sense by preferring monogamous relationships.
Joe
Every sperm is sacred.
[youtube=425,350]U0kJHQpvgB8[/youtube]
Thought I'd throw something into my own thread here...
http://4thefamily.us/swedish (http://4thefamily.us/swedish)
Interesting... love and committment make the world a better place. :)
Of course I'd have to take classes or something, I am obviously not skilled enough for more than one wife, I can't handle one. ;D
QuoteRe: Polygamists of the world, throw off your chains.
This thread has a cool title, especially when compared to
"ball & chain " monogamy.