Polygamy is basically polyamory

[Plays With Life]

Any thoughts / opinions on this viewpoint?

polygamy is basically polyamory (ideally) but with a marriage in between.

From a comment on this blog post:

Polyamory and Polygamy suggestivetongue

[nietsdoen]

I disagree. In polygamy, usually (pretty much always but there must be some exceptions) the multiple husbands/wives do not have a choice to go out and seek other wives/husbands. It's not equal this way, whereas polyamory provides total freedom for everyone involved. Polygamy to me seems more like ownership, even if it is based on love.

[Velorien]

I feel like I should have a strong opinion on this, but I don't. The claim made by that commenter assumes that polyamory and polygamy can be defined clearly enough for comparison. They can't. There are countless styles of polyamorous relationships, too many for one "polyamory".

Likewise, how to define polygamy? In most countries, there is no legal form of polygamy, so in those countries polygamists would seem to amount merely to a subset of polyamorous people whose commitments to each other are stricter and more explicit than the average. Conversely, where polygamy is legal, it tends to be in an unequal, non-negotiable format that runs counter to the spirit of polyamory (normally, polygyny where women denied the same relationship rights as men).

[Benton]

Originally Posted by nietsdoen

I disagree. In polygamy, usually (pretty much always but there must be some exceptions) the multiple husbands/wives do not have a choice to go out and seek other wives/husbands. It's not equal this way, whereas polyamory provides total freedom for everyone involved. Polygamy to me seems more like ownership, even if it is based on love.

This was my thought. That's why I have such a problem with that TLC show, Sister Wives. (Beyond it passively promoting a fundamentalist christian agenda.) He's free to go collect another wife, but if they sleep around on him it's a big problem.

Also, can you imagine TLC actually showing polyamory??

[hiddenmaverick]

Originally Posted by nietsdoen

I disagree. In polygamy, usually (pretty much always but there must be some exceptions) the multiple husbands/wives do not have a choice to go out and seek other wives/husbands. It's not equal this way, whereas polyamory provides total freedom for everyone involved. Polygamy to me seems more like ownership, even if it is based on love.

I was thinking the same thing too. Not only is there a limited option for wives to seek out additional husbands the way that the husband can seek out additional wives, but in truth a polygamous marriage is actually a very closed arrangement. Each partner is expected to remain sexually exclusive to all wives or the one husband until another wife is formally added to the union through an additional marriage ceremony.

[elucidate]

Isn't polygamy where the person has multiple wives, or husbands, and doesn't tell any of them about the existence of the others...or is that Bigamy?

Polyamory is, as I understand it, where everyone knows that the people have multiple partners., and they are all in agreeance as to it being a good thing.

[Benton]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Isn't polygamy where the person has multiple wives, or husbands, and doesn't tell any of them about the existence of the others...or is that Bigamy?

Polyamory is, as I understand it, where everyone knows that the people have multiple partners., and they are all in agreeance as to it being a good thing.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the US polygamy is generally specifically one man with multiple wives and connected to the Mormon cult. That's why I said what I said about christian fundamentalists.

The difference between that and polyarmory is that 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' ie, everyone can sleep around, women can have multiple partners and so can men.

(Think Joseph Smith versus Johnny Soprano.)

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Benton

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the US polygamy is generally specifically one man with multiple wives and connected to the Mormon cult. That's why I said what I said about christian fundamentalists.

The difference between that and polyarmory is that 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' ie, everyone can sleep around, women can have multiple partners and so can men.

(Think Joseph Smith versus Johnny Soprano.)

Yeah, there's a show here in Australia (from the states...maybe the one you mentioned?) about that scenario...with one man and several women. I don't watch it regularly, but sometimes, I will turn it on and watch it in parts...not really following it though.

It does seem like there are double standards there, but I'm sure it would be the same if it was a Queen bee with several drones too.

[Velorien]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Isn't polygamy where the person has multiple wives, or husbands, and doesn't tell any of them about the existence of the others...or is that Bigamy?

Polyamory is, as I understand it, where everyone knows that the people have multiple partners., and they are all in agreeance as to it being a good thing.

The technical term for one man with multiple wives is polygyny, while one woman with multiple husbands is polyandry. Polygamy includes both, and would also cover marriages involving more than one of each gender.

Bigamy simply means having two husbands, or two wives, at the same time.

None of the terms above inherently connote the knowledge or ignorance of any of the partners about each other.

As you say, a polyamorous relationship is one containing more than two partners, with the knowledge and consent of all participants. This is the only feature that all polyamorous relationships have in common.

[Benton]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Yeah, there's a show here in Australia (from the states...maybe the one you mentioned?) about that scenario...with one man and several women. I don't watch it regularly, but sometimes, I will turn it on and watch it in parts...not really following it though.

It does seem like there are double standards there, but I'm sure it would be the same if it was a Queen bee with several drones too.

They seem happy enough (and it works out well for child-care). My biggest issue is that, although they are non-practicing or at least don't talk about it, the Mormon religion is the basis for their polygamy. In that church, men are allowed to take multiple wives, but not vice versa. Also, they spent tons of money in California (they're based in Utah) to keep legislation to allow marriage between homosexual couples from passing.

They want equal treatment for their non-mainstream ideas of marriage while actively campaigning against other non-mainstream ideas. It's hypocrisy and TLC is actively promoting fundy christian viewpoints (Mormon on this show and Quiverfull on Clown Car Vagina Chronicles aka 19 kids and counting).

Those are my issues with it. Otherwise, to each their own.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Velorien

The technical term for one man with multiple wives is polygyny, while one woman with multiple husbands is polyandry. Polygamy includes both, and would also cover marriages involving more than one of each

Thanks. You learn something new every day.

Bigamy simply means having two husbands, or two wives, at the same time.

Bigamy always seems like a legal term to me, whilst the others are beyond, or perhaps, under the radar of the law?

None of the terms above inherently connote the knowledge or ignorance of any of the partners about each other.

Ok. I can see that. It's always the choice of the person choosing multiple partners to inform the others in either scenario.

As you say, polyamory means a relationship containing more than two partners, with the knowledge or consent of all participants. This is the only feature that all polyamorous relationships have in common.

thanks for explaining the distinction.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Benton

They seem happy enough (and it works out well for child-care). My biggest issue is that, although they are non-practicing or at least don't talk about it, the Mormon religion is the basis for their polygamy.

Good to know. The mormons aren't as plentiful here in Oz, to my knowledge (though ellie may know better?)

I see them walking around in pairs in the city, every now and then, and had an ex who loved nothing more than to talk them OUT of their religion when they'd knock at his door...with devastating results. They'd leave seriously questioning their "faith" (or rather, indoctrination)

In that church, men are allowed to take multiple wives, but not vice versa. Also, they spent tons of money in California (they're based in Utah) to keep legislation to allow marriage between homosexual couples from passing.

I didn't know this. Not sure if it's the same in Australia, but I can't imagine it wouldn't be?

They want equal treatment for their non-mainstream ideas of marriage while actively campaigning against other non-mainstream ideas. It's hypocrisy and TLC is actively promoting fundy christian viewpoints (Mormon on this show and Quiverfull on Clown Car Vagina Chronicles aka 19 kids and counting).

Those are my issues with it. Otherwise, to each their own.

Well, I'm sure it's the same no matter what religion you pick...hypocrisy is the order of the day...as long as it benefits certain people.

[Velorien]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Bigamy always seems like a legal term to me, whilst the others are beyond, or perhaps, under the radar of the law?

Actually, according to Wikipedia, some countries' laws distinguish between the two. In the USA, bigamy is apparently a misdemeanour while polygamy is a felony. Check the articles out for a global overview of the laws.

Originally Posted by elucidate

Ok. I can see that. It's always the choice of the person choosing multiple partners to inform the others in either scenario.

Also according to the mighty powers of Wikipedia, many of the countries where polygamy is legal require the written consent of the first wife, or all existing wives, for a man to marry an additional one.

Glad I could help.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Velorien

Actually, according to Wikipedia, some countries' laws distinguish between the two. In the USA, bigamy is apparently a misdemeanour while polygamy is a felony. Check the articles out for a global overview of the laws.

I will, thanks.

Also according to the mighty powers of Wikipedia, many of the countries where polygamy is legal require the written consent of the first wife, or all existing wives, for a man to marry an additional one.

I suppose that's only fair.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by nietsdoen

I disagree. In polygamy, usually (pretty much always but there must be some exceptions) the multiple husbands/wives do not have a choice to go out and seek other wives/husbands. It's not equal this way, whereas polyamory provides total freedom for everyone involved. Polygamy to me seems more like ownership, even if it is based on love.

Polyamory is NOT total freedom for everyone involved. Polyamory can be anything as long as everyone is aware and ok with it.

If a guy is ok with his partner having multiple partners, yet he doesn't want to, and his wife/gf doesn't want him to, and they are both happy like this, it is still polyamory.

And it is perfectly ok like this.

I do not think it is fair to say "What you have, I must have". I think it is better to say "I want this, and you are free to have what you want as well", weather that is monogamy, polyamory or polygamy.

I agree that the way most very strict mormons practice polygamy isn't up to my liking because the peer pressure and indoctrination do not allow for freedom of choice. Also, from what I've read there is a lot going on of 15 or 16 year olds having to marry an "elder" (= horny old men with power) in the church as a 4th or 5th wife, and boys being thrown out of the community so that there will always be more women than men....

(lets remember, most mormons have left this habit behind a long time ago, it is only a relatively small group that still practices this)

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Polyamory is NOT total freedom for everyone involved. Polyamory can be anything as long as everyone is aware and ok with it.

If a guy is ok with his partner having multiple partners, yet he doesn't want to, and his wife/gf doesn't want him to, and they are both happy like this, it is still polyamory.

And it is perfectly ok like this.

I understand this, but I see it as the guy still has perfect freedom, he just chooses not to exercise it, and is content with his position and how many 'wives' he has. I would think it would be hard enough to tend to one, let alone multiple wives?

I do not think it is fair to say "What you have, I must have". I think it is better to say "I want this, and you are free to have what you want as well", weather that is monogamy, polyamory or polygamy.

I agree, and I think that is the essence of 'freedom' in this context...where one can choose as many as he or she likes, while the other prefers only one or two, to their liking.

I agree that the way most very strict mormons practice polygamy isn't up to my liking because the peer pressure and indoctrination do not allow for freedom of choice. Also, from what I've read there is a lot going on of 15 or 16 year olds having to marry an "elder" (= horny old men with power) in the church as a 4th or 5th wife, and boys being thrown out of the community so that there will always be more women than men....

I didn't realize that was the standard dynamic in the states at least (I'm assuming). I shall have to read up on it further I think.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by elucidate

I didn't realize that was the standard dynamic in the states at least (I'm assuming). I shall have to read up on it further I think.

It is NOT the standard dynamic in the States.

There are mormons, large groups of them, who indeed are pretty rich (as a church) and very strict, yet have renounced polygamy a while ago.

Then there is a small splinter group within the Mormon church (most "regular" mormons think it is wrong now as well) who do still practice these old habits of multiple wifes.

There are some very good books (novels) and movies about women who have "escaped" the church and the compounds where they live.

It is literally escape because you cannot one day just decide to go. They will keep you there and although there is nothing proven, violence has happened.

I find it a very interesting situation. Because on the one hand I agree with everyone having the freedom to marry who they want, and who cares if that is 1 person or 100 persons... on the other hand, the execution of this is the exact opposite of freedom for the person involved (even for the males who stay there. If you are not high up the church ladder, you have no say in who you'll marry. It gets decided for you. And if you as a 16 year old seem to have a bit too much feeling for a girl, especially one that is your age and has caught the eye of someone important, you'll get kicked out).

[Velorien]

Originally Posted by elucidate

I understand this, but I see it as the guy still has perfect freedom, he just chooses not to exercise it, and is content with his position and how many 'wives' he has. I would think it would be hard enough to tend to one, let alone multiple wives?

I know you're not meaning it literally, but I think it would also benefit you to consider that polyamory seldom involves "wives" or otherwise conventional relationship roles. Some polyamorous people are entirely happy to function with terms such as "girlfriend", "wife" etc. But polyamory also includes countless more unconventional arrangements - for example, equilateral triangles where three people are all in love with each other, tiered hierarchies where each person can have not only "primary" but "secondary" partners as well, amorphous webs in which some people are more closely bound than others in an unlabelled fashion...

I find it pays not to get attached to conventional labels when trying to understand polyamory. Polyamorous relationships are too different on too many levels to compare them to conventional monoamorous ones in terms of structure, and if you limit your perspective in this way, you will also limit how deeply you can understand them.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding where you're coming from and you are already aware of all this - I just thought it was better to be safe than sorry.

[Criseyde]

I think it's a lot more complicated than that in most situations, due to cultural mores. I don't think you can separate "the occasional wacko cult that forces kids to marry some older guy" from the issue, because polygamy is actually... a fairly normative arrangement? when you consider the entire history of civilization -- i.e., it's not about occasional wacko cults. The idea of being a fully consenting adult is also pretty particular to 20th and 21st century societies that have been strongly influenced by Western feminism. That's not to say that all groups which accept/encourage polygamy are wacko cults who force children to marry old men -- most aren't.

But (like you said) in many polygamous societies, how many wives you can have is a function of your status. It's not about love. I've heard of cultures in which a woman, if she gains enough status/money/prestige, can start to buy wives. Okay, I shouldn't be putting that smiley there because I generally disapprove of people being bought and sold, but I do find that particular tidbit amusing.

This is not that different than monogamous societies, though: historically, marriage has been an economic exchange, not a bond of love. I think I remember learning somewhere that it was the diamond companies in the late 19th/early 20th century that created the "marriage = true love" association -- isn't that wild? I'd have to check on it, though. And the ancient Greeks thought that everyone was naturally bisexual, you married who you married for political or economic reasons, and then you loved who you loved. Many wedding traditions today are actually watered down, flowered up holdovers of the trade in women: the father walking the bride down the aisle is a fairly obvious one. The diamond engagement ring is actually a form of insurance; when a man has spent that kind of money, he's less likely to sleep around, and if he DOES leave the woman, she has the ring that she can sell to support herself, because if they've slept together, she's "spoiled" for another man.

Also, when someone says "ideally" like in that comment, my first question is... whose ideal..?

PWL, have you heard of/read Guests of the Sheik by Elizabeth Warnock Fernea? I think you'd really like it.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by ssandra

It is NOT the standard dynamic in the States.

There are mormons, large groups of them, who indeed are pretty rich (as a church) and very strict, yet have renounced polygamy a while ago.

Then there is a small splinter group within the Mormon church (most "regular" mormons think it is wrong now as well) who do still practice these old habits of multiple wifes.

There are some very good books (novels) and movies about women who have "escaped" the church and the compounds where they live.

It is literally escape because you cannot one day just decide to go. They will keep you there and although there is nothing proven, violence has happened.

I find it a very interesting situation. Because on the one hand I agree with everyone having the freedom to marry who they want, and who cares if that is 1 person or 100 persons... on the other hand, the execution of this is the exact opposite of freedom for the person involved (even for the males who stay there. If you are not high up the church ladder, you have no say in who you'll marry. It gets decided for you. And if you as a 16 year old seem to have a bit too much feeling for a girl, especially one that is your age and has caught the eye of someone important, you'll get kicked out).

I didn't realize that.

I can see how it would be an interesting thing for someone who is an acknowledged submissive though. Forced submissiveness without control is very different.

It sounds horrific though.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by elucidate

I didn't realize that.

I can see how it would be an interesting thing for someone who is an acknowledged submissive though. Forced submissiveness without control is very different.

It sounds horrific though.

It does sound horrific. It also doesn't hit the submissive snare in me. It is more interesting (to me) on an intellectual level because of the HUGE amounts of hypocrisy involved....

I always have to wonder how people can not see that happening, and cover it all in "this is how God wants it, even though it makes no logical sense at all".

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by ssandra

It does sound horrific. It also doesn't hit the submissive snare in me. It is more interesting (to me) on an intellectual level because of the HUGE amounts of hypocrisy involved....

I always have to wonder how people can not see that happening, and cover it all in "this is how God wants it, even though it makes no logical sense at all".

I guess I meant that it would be an interesting contrast to chosen submissiveness...but now I just think "Yeesh".

I actually have a good friend at the moment who had an absolutely gorgeous little girl (with a fellow she didn't really know for very long), and it turns out that HE is in a "cult-like" situation...similar to this, though no violence has been threatened...he just has given up all sense of personal responsability and handed it over willingly to a man who acts as his secretary whenever my friend tries to contact him, so he can come and visit their child...and won't allow it. He has TOTAL control over him (which this fellow allows).

They both believe they are on a mission from God (Blues Brothers style).

It's a very ****ed up situation, and she is slowly starting to realize she needs to not have any contact with him at all...which must be so hard, since she is all on her own raising her daughter without help from him.

[nietsdoen]

Originally Posted by Benton

Also, can you imagine TLC actually showing polyamory??

LOL... they did!! I saw a special once showcasing "eccentric" sexual behaviors. It was one woman with two boyfriends living with her, and after awhile I think one of them decided to date around too.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

Any thoughts / opinions on this viewpoint?

From a comment on this blog post:

Polyamory and Polygamy suggestivetongue

I generally have a framework where every type of relationship is seen as "polyamory + restrictions". Polyamory being a freeform anyone-can-connect-with-anyone, with the only restriction being that everyone inside has to be loving with everyone else inside... and then adding more restrictions as suits the members. So polygamy, for me, is just a particular set of restrictions on top of polyamory. It's not a set of restrictions I would terribly like... but eh.

I did suggest a framework for polyamorous marriage here:
Marrying into a Family

And a less practical (at least, politically) framework here:
Love and Marriage - An Aenean Perspective

I'd change some of the stuff I wrote, today, but not so much I mind linking it anyways. I should have something a bit more current with my thoughts written in a few months.

So I mean... a lot of this depends on where you start. I liked your comment about how polyamory starts with emotional intimacy and builds from there. I think that's a good place to start... but I'm biased, hey.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

But (like you said) in many polygamous societies, how many wives you can have is a function of your status. It's not about love. I've heard of cultures in which a woman, if she gains enough status/money/prestige, can start to buy wives. Okay, I shouldn't be putting that smiley there because I generally disapprove of people being bought and sold, but I do find that particular tidbit amusing.

Shame on you. You shouldn't be laughing at such serious matters. *poke*