37 replies to this topic

[Ponka]

To me, it is okay when everyone loves each other. I myself wouldn't take part in a polyamorous relationship unless I and everyone else in the relationship had the right to choose who'd they be with. All the women and men should have the right to choose, not only one male (to have more wives). It works for some that only the male has the choice of course and I'm completely okay with that, too.

 

There is no reason why a woman shouldn't have multiple boyfriends/husbands. It is completely okay. There is no more risk of disease in that kind of relationship at all. It is only selfish to think that only you have the right to have multiple partners, there is no difference in gender with this. To me it's not a balanced relationship, if there is only one who has the right to choose (be it a woman or a man, it doesn't matter). Everyone has the right to not choose any more partners, too, of course. I know some are really content in a realtionship where only one chooses, as I stated earlier. To me the freedom of choice is really important, it is up to everyone how to use it, but no relationship should be based on a "dictatorship".

 

About not knowing the father, what does it matter? If a child has (for example) two fathers and two mothers who all love him/her equally, at least to me, that is the most important thing. And yes, now you can have a DNA-test, but even if you couldn't, I wouldn't see any problem in a polyandrous relationship. Love is the most important thing. An adopted child might never know who his or hers biological parents are, but despite that they can still live a fulfilling and happy life if they have loving and caring parents.

Oh and a relationship of three women or men for example is of course completely okay, too. To me every combination is okay, if there is love.

[vagabond]

It's a good concept.

 

Not as good as divorce, but it's not bad, at least it's better than monogamy with cheaters, drive people crazy that kind of deal.

[Epilum]

I'm late to this topic.

 

I honestly think this is something completely up to one another. One or the other is not better. When it is tied to religion however, it's a bad thing because consent is in almost all cases not there.

 

Right now in the modern world it's usually either tied to religion or a group of people who have completely agreed upon it. But these people often love each other, they are in love with multiple people and have all agreed to be one "big relationship" if you can say that. They are normally also a mixture of genders, and are not just strictly one. The other one is more oppressive, which is the religious one. That one usually in almost all cases consist of one man and multiple wives, a lot of these relationships don't work but it does not matter because women don't have a say in the kind of place where this is allowed in the first place. It's usually oppressive cults that do these things, and they should never be mixed with people who are non-religious and all consent completely to it.

 

There are many people who enjoy having multiple partners, for these people this is completely OK. When there is complete consent involved in a practise it's nobody else's business how people live their lives.

Edited by Epilum, 25 May 2015 - 07:44 PM.

[Ponka]

 

 

 When there is complete consent involved in a practise it's nobody else's business how people live their lives.

 

 

 

Well said, this sums it up perfectly.

[Sancrea]

Well as far as i know polygamy is practiced only in islamic countries and in there women don't have much of a choice, i men they are treated worse than men, in comparison in other countries (western/eastern) women are equal to men so men having multiple wives must be really a case of where everyone truly loves  and accept themselves. In polyandry relationship (i'm not sure if i spelled it correctly i get to know this word from this topic) with women/multiple husbands the problem lies in the nature of men. It doesn't take a genius to know that we like to compete with others be it looks,wealth,social status..(who has bigger you-know), so at one point it's given that some of the guy/guys would start to resent each other. In concept polygamy sure is cool especially for guys, but you know communism also is good in theory while in practice not so much.

[Zelkanok]

Pretty sure Abraham had multiple wives... at what point in the bible did polygamy start to be regarded as heresy again?

 

 

 

   From a theological standpoint, the entire old testament does record cases of polygamy. However, most or these instances usually are associated with these individuals or groups having a low point in their faith and relation to God (specifically Abraham and all other 'Godly' men). The Old Testament's impetus, to put it simply, focuses on the downfalls of Israel as the chosen nation by god, universally reflecting the sinful human nature that was wrought by their own hands. God's "wrath" is more rather disappointment and and punishment on behalf of upholding his side of the promise, striving to reconcile with mankind as he sets up the next generations for the coming of Jesus Christ.stern 

 

   In addition, the bible clearly states on several occasions that marriage is between two people--more specifically a man and woman. Monogamy was in actuality highly encouraged, most likely due to the social and economical aspects, tying back to other speculations in the thread.

 

Many people pull out what I call "single line threads", meaning that they isolate an sentence or phrase from an entire section, skewing the meaning for their own desires. 

“Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” ― Paulo Coelho

Of course there are some cases in which the bible does address polygamy directly as a subject, for instance 

 

Deuteronomy 21:15New International Version (NIV) The Right of the Firstborn

15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love,

 

   However, within the same book, this verse comes up:

 

Deuteronomy 17:17 ESV

And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.

 

   Bringing up the question whether many pro-polygamists have actually read the bible in its entirety--identifying the motifs and underlying beliefs--rather than pick out these little cherry-like tidbits for their own studies. For example, Deuteronomy focuses heavily on God attempting to deal with a nation not yet unborn and raised heresy after worshiping the golden calf while Moses was on Mount Sinai. Deut. 17:17 establishes that the King of Isreal may not whatsoever have multiple wives. As the King, he is placed as a role model for all men in the nation. Deut. 21:15 simply acts as a scenario in which favoritism for whichever son may not be shown, as is the case with many polygamous relations within the Bible. In addition, this invocation to treat the wives equally in both stature and love also acts as a deterrent, dealing with the developing social pressure against polygamous relations.

   However, Deuteronomy is basically God dealing with these Isrealites (basically prepubescent teens rebelling against their parent), with Moses as a mediator. In fact, a lot of the words spoken here are Moses' as he's trying to compromise with the Israelites after he had begged God to quell his wrath. In many ways, Moses is taking initiative in dealing with Isreal, and God had placed complete responsibility upon him. In no way is it a perfect and long-standing decree, because Moses is simply trying to bide the sins of the people through the ramifications of law. Like many other things in Deuteronomy, Moses has attempted to place them into written law for the Isrealites to follow, solidifying first a nation under God rather than address the needs of every single one on their own volition. It's similar to starting with a big block of clay, and then whittling down to the finer details.

 

   Biblical spiel aside, I hate it when others don't properly analyze a text before abusing it.

 

   Other than that, I'm against polygamy. As many others here have already said, it creates complications within a societal sense as conflicting relations and animosity between members. For those who say it would work, pull your head out of your ass. If this were an ideal world, sure, but people can do some pretty stupid shit if polygamy were tolerated, let alone accepted. From a conservative standpoint, polygamy often leads to discord amongst relations between people. From a progressive standpoint, Everyone is too fucking selfish for that. Labeled as love, the want to have someone only to themselves is only natural desire in human nature. For the most part, marriage by itself doesn't seem to work for most people anyways because of this...I feel polygamy could only go two ways: either it works out extremely well on a wide scale (of course that would never work), or it goes extremely south (Hell itself is reincarnated).

 

   Of course, if it's out of sight, it's out of mind. Other people can do what they want if it works.

Edited by Zelkanok, 21 August 2015 - 08:15 AM.

[mitojee]

Just as an added note for informational purposes, there is at least one example of a matriarchy utilizing polygamy and that is the situation of the island of Jeju-do, part of South Korea. I've mentioned this fascinating place in other threads as it is a cool place with an interesting history. I apologize if I am repeating myself here.

 

Due to the loss of men due to storms while fishing at sea and various conflicts (the Mongols even occupied it for a while) throughout its history, the male populace had been thinned out, hence it was nick-named "the Island of Women". As a consequence, polygamy became an answer for the lack of men, yet they retained a tradition of a woman being the head of the household, controlling its finances and important decisions. So, it is at least possible for polygamy to exist, due to other factors, outside of an oppressive patriarchy. 

 

Of course, the practice is dying out due to modernization and ease of travel, so it may remain an interesting historical curiosity.

[tohukyo]

My two cents =)

 

Objectively I don't see the problem with it as long as no harm is done and consent is given by all involved parties. However marriage is an complicated institution in of itself so adding more people is really asking for trouble in this day and age when the population is already large and we have nearly a 1:1 ratio of men and women in the world. They did say in this manga that the hare-kon is meant to combat the issue of the declining birth rates in japan (an ongoing issue for years now) so if japan were the only country in the world, polygamy makes sense for the sake of survival. All in all, it's not about good or bad; it's just an outdated practice unless necessary (like this manga has established the acceptability of polygamy due to declining birth rates). Then again, the seed would never have grown if it wasn't planted in the first place so this ultimately brings up the question of how the hell did this guy even end up with a second wife before getting a third? One doesn't go into marriage or a relationship with the plan to have a second wife unless this guy already did (I can see it). Of course all this will only be answered if and when the mangaka decides to get over the fuss with the female lead and starts explaining how it happened. 

Edited by tohukyo, 18 October 2015 - 06:41 AM.

[dedywicaks]

http://www.questionsaboutislam.com/women-in-islam/why-islam-allows-polygamy.php

[Theoderich]

Polygamy is very problematic, because of many reasons, but aside from the religious aspect, I don't think a man can equal everything out, especially if it comes to wive and children. If you have to work,eat & sleep like 70% of the day, how can you keep a good relationship with more than 1 wife? It's already hard enough to provide enough "love" and "attention" for 1 wive and multiple children, so it's sheer impossible in modern societies to have ploygamy running.

On a longer timeframe, the man and the women will drift apart, even if they don't have children, because jealousy and egoism in most societies are a major factor in "breaking up/divorcing".

The other problem is that there already exists a modern phenomenon I'd call polygamic/polyandric syndrom.

People tend to have intimate relationships with numerous partners without any interest in taking responsibility for them, leaving them for another partner after some time. And while many of them only have 1 partner at a time, they aren't really fixated on them. So because of this practice, many become unable to have a stable marriage because they either are always comparing with partners they had before, or because they can't let go of their "lifestyle" they had before and thus commit adultery in a regular manner.

 

In general the concept of polygamy completely negates the aspect of love that is called the "godly love" or Agape. Unlike Saint Martin, who could split his mantle to share it with a beggar, one cannot split himself and give it away equally. As a fact, the aspect of giving himself to the other one completely (i.e. overcoming ones natural egoism), which is, by any means, the most beatiful aspect of love and often the aspect that love is being identified with, is sheer impossible to do with more than one partner. Because you recieve more while giving less for it, it defies the concept of love where giving should be more important than recieving.

 

If I had 2 wives, I could by no means love them equally because I can't offer myself to both of them. I don't think anyone (even if out of love) should accept this state, unless they want to define love anew. As one of the major things that defines humanity, people should not take love lightly, or our societies will become even more anarchic,egoistic and "natural" (i.e. the people become more like the lower animals like insects).

Love is more than just a feeling, it's also a very vivid part of society and especially of philosophy. If I am because I think, shouldn't I also think about love instead of just "feeling" it? And no matter how much I think about love, I will never come up with anything besides rooting for monogamy.

[kaizer_emperor]

hmmm i dont really know is polygamy good or bad, but i know one thing we human are greed creature.

[truepurple]

Joining in really late to this conversation by chance.  But it doesn't really matter the age of the thread, not like the topic becomes less discuss-able because of it.

 

     If a culture only allows one husband and many wives, or only allows one wife and many husbands, that inevitably leads to increased discrimination and reduced power of the "many". I doubt there exists a culture where one husband and many wives is common place, where females don't have the shit end of everything, no power, no say aside from the kindness of a husband may allow, or at least it would be really rare. It's like Kings, sure someone who inherits ultimate power based solely on their parents COULD be a wise considerate ruler, but then absolute power... Well even more common place for a polygamy society to be bad for women than a king to be corrupted by his power. At least with a king they can be overthrown if they go extremely far, and with the right family, teachings of wise ruling can be past down with the power.

 

    Also, the definition of polygamy, while typically used for one husband, multiple wives, is technically broader than that and does include polyandry and other arrangements.

Polygamy: the practice or condition of having more than one spouse. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/polygamy?s=tSo two husbands and two wives all married to each other is also polygamy.

Edited by truepurple, 01 August 2017 - 07:35 PM.

[GodricKharg]

Item of note, if you look up the world population on wikipedia, and your countries stats page, you'll likely notice that men to women/male to female ratio is pretty damn close to 1:1.  

 

In fact, most times you get more men per women to be honest.  It's only a very minor percentage but still.  1.03! men for every woman.

[truepurple]

So we have caveman meets science logic of knowing what children carry your genes in a marriage, as though that matters. 'If it was polyandries, the husbands would be dueling each other to the death!"  Well that reasoning is absurd. But if we were to use it anyway, I'd point out the more one sided polygamy you have, the less females there are to go around, which means what if we apply caveman logic to this... hmmmm... oh yeah, fighting.

[truepurple]

There are two benefits to to polyandry that have a bit of irony  and don't apply for modern times/medicine.

 

1.      A poor farmer need lots of children to get by.

 

     In old times before modern technology agriculture and farming in general is how most working poor got by. They count on their children as free labor and to take care of them in their old age in a time where everything had to be done by hand or oxen.  Children also mean influence, as they are the people you can be most assured to have on your side.

 

2.      Child birth is incredibly dangerous, especially before modern technology or in areas where conditions are primitive still. Humans rank among the top for animals who have risky child birth with a high chance of either or both mother and child dying. The dangers of birth, helplessness of being pregnant and general extra aggression of males are all arguably why equality of genders took so long to come around, and not because women are weak.

 

     So we are looking for a group of people tied together in loyalty with one another to work towards improving each others condition. Cooperation and trust among more people means more success for all, especially those in charge. "Family" is the best way to be sure of this.  Now if a woman was in charge, and then she died from child birth, that would cause chaos among the family.  

 

So, 1 woman, multiple men AKA polyandry during times before modern medicine.

     The woman, in charge dies in child birth, the family loses it's leader.  And if your looking to have lots of children, it's unreasonable to ask one woman to birth them all, especially with each child her life is at risk and each pregnancy potentially causing complications for the next one (pregnancies can result in injuries that can make the next more risky or even impossible) 

 

So 1 man, multiple women AKA polygyny during times before modern medicine.

     Since you only need so many parents, it's alright of some of the women die, they are disposable.  Besides, if some die, that reduces the amount of shared power between the women/reduces jealousy and the like.

 

     Multiple men and women married to each other during times before modern medicine. : AKA well, hard to find a single accepted word for this. Closest I can find are polyfidelity, polyamory, and "group marriage", though with the first two, nothing in the definition that specifically excludes polyandry or polygyny, well even "group marriage" doesn't exclude those two definitions specifically.

 

Can work, I suppose concerns over sharing power and religious issues can get in the way.

 

     Ironically, the rich, who can afford children and wives the easiest, have the least reason to have many wives and children. And children of "noble" families where there is a position of power to inherit, having lots of kids is downright dangerous.

 

https://sites.google.com/site/itsawomanschoice1/history-of-polyamory Shows polyandry is not the only type of polygamy practiced in history.

Edited by truepurple, 09 August 2017 - 08:54 PM.

[truepurple]

Female polygamy (polygyny) have better chance in having disease transmitted to them and their males with STD, HIV , AIDS and etc rather that male polygamy (polyandry)

 

male polygamy (polyandry) had been practice for centuries ,

and never before to be heard of that they have manage to get any deadly disease which infect easier to the female polygamy (polygyny)

and if to say its because they used protection better than female polygamy,(polygyny) they dont have condom hundred and thousand ages ago,

 

see genghis khan, they said his descendant are pretty much around the world today, so basically, with all those female he raped , or married, he never get infection despite no protection

 

     While it might be more likely for a male to transmit a STD to a female then visa versa, STDs go both ways, if they didn't, they wouldn't transmit! And that means in polyandry if the husband is infected, the wives are certain to be infected too if unprotected sex.  All this is irrelevant if everyone in the relationship is faithful. It's also irrelevant if everyone in the relationship isn't faithful, since repeated instances of having sex means sooner or latter that STD is going to be transmitted.

 

     Your little story about Genghis Khan is absurd. We have no way of knowing what diseases he may have had, and may have transmitted to his many victims. Many STDs you can survive infection with for awhile anyway, long enough for at least some of them to give birth at least. You seem to be implying that it is impossible for men to get a STD from women (I think? you're being really unclear) If that were true, STDs would have died out. Why would STDs be a issue in a polygny if none of the husbands could pick up any STDs from their wife?

 

     Also, you really think a man with many wives is less likely to be unfaithful than a woman with many husbands?

Edited by truepurple, 17 August 2017 - 06:33 AM.

[Justinus]

Polygamy is not good to practise in the long run since it will increase the chance of having descendants with genetic disorders. One of the examples can be found in USA (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170726-the-polygamous-town-facing-genetic-disaster).

[Cautionary_Tale]

Polygamy is not good to practise in the long run since it will increase the chance of having descendants with genetic disorders. One of the examples can be found in USA (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170726-the-polygamous-town-facing-genetic-disaster).

keep in mind, this is a TOWN and not a nation. a town of people who practice polygamy will naturally begin to have genetic issues if they are incestuous and never add new people to the genepool. overall though, i would have to agree with you anyway. it does seem likely as i have read studies that say most people dont travel very far from their place of birth, which would only add to the stagnation of such a practice.