In God's Country

[margrace]

Why does it matter, once the definition of marriage is changed its open to additional change.

Oh if you are a woman it matters a lot. Since polygamy seems to work one way.

[scribblet]

Why does it matter, once the definition of marriage is changed its open to additional change.

Oh if you are a woman it matters a lot. Since polygamy seems to work one way.

I don't see the issue. Assuming it is legalized it would be a choice, men would have a choice to take more consenting adult wives who would choose to live that way, and vice versa. Polygamy only seems to work one way because women don't choose (to my knowledge) to take more than one husband...

[Melanie_]

There seems to be an assumption that if a woman has more than one husband it would be by her choice. It may also be that, if there is a shortage of marriagable women, a group of men may "share" a wife. Put that way, it seems less empowering, doesn't it?

There actually are several cultures that have practiced polyandry (as opposed to polygamy), including the Inuit in the Canadian North. The most commonly cited, though, are tribes in Tibet. This article doesn't talk about New Guinea, but I have a vague recollection of studying polyandrous societies in New Guinea for an Anthropology course in University.

Wikipedia - Polyandry

Polyandry is a controversial subject among anthropologists. For instance, Pennsylvania anthropologist Stephen Beckerman points out that at least 20 tribal societies accept that a child could, and ideally should, have more than one father, referring to it as "partible paternity". On the other hand, in Tibet, which is the most well-documented cultural domain within which polyandry is practiced, the testimony of certain polyandrists themselves is that the marriage form is difficult to sustain. However, certain monogamists say the same thing about monogamous marriage.

[geoffrey]

From a reproductive standpoint it makes more sense for a man to have many wives than a woman have many husbands. One child a year won't give you a family of 50+ like some of the polygamist men have.

[Melanie_]

But if you live in a society with a sparse population, where there are few women and men are away for substantial periods of time, having several husbands makes sense from a reproductive viewpoint. While one husband is away, another keeps the homefires burning, so to speak.

[geoffrey]

But if you live in a society with a sparse population, where there are few women and men are away for substantial periods of time, having several husbands makes sense from a reproductive viewpoint. While one husband is away, another keeps the homefires burning, so to speak.

I suppose so... any examples of where this would exist currently or historically? Where more children would be born with multiple husbands?

[frogs]

Several arguments on here saying polygamy is legal in Canada or should be considered so. So why can I not get a straight answer to my question. How many men on here would be part of a family where the wife had several husbands?

Lots of men pay a fortune to get rid of their wives. And would do that repeatedly if necessary. Relationships are different. Sometimes a man would be verrrry glad to share a wife. In some relationships, they wouldn't. The word "wife" really has several different meanings, that's why there's divorce. That's why there's 3 ways, or more. And lots and lots of other "arrangements" that are acceptable to all parties involved. Cool.

Bottom line is ..... No one has the "right" to tell you what to do with your schwanky. If economic controls are in place ... all kinds of weird things happen, and that is the source of the problem if there is one.

[frogs]

A "straighter" answer might be ...

"Depends on the wife!"

[Melanie_]

Geoffrey -

Certainly polygamy can result in more children than polyandry, but the practices seem to have evolved for different purposes. From the little bit of online research I've done, it seems like a system that's rare and getting rarer.

I think I've brought in something completely different than what margrace's original question was asking for. Sorry for the thread drift!

Polyandry is found in some isolated rural regions of India, Sri Lanka, and especially Nepal, and Tibet. Usually, it is fraternal polyandry --that is, two brothers married to the same woman. This reduces the problem of determining what family their children belong to since both potential fathers have the same parents. The younger brother typically marries the shared wife when he is in his early teens but often does not have sexual relations with her for years. Her initial relationship with him is often something between a mother and a wife.

Polyandry has distinct economic advantages for these small-scale agricultural societies. It keeps the family farm in one piece. It allows one of the husbands to be away from the farm working for months to years at a time without disrupting the family. It also provides economic security for the wife when one of her husbands dies. However, it places an increased domestic work load on her. In recent years, the introduction of the notion of romantic love has begun to be disruptive in polyandrous marriages due to growing demands for exclusive bonds with the wife by each husband.

An Anthropology Website

[Figleaf]

Here's a link good example of why the age of consent should be raised. Other than that, I suspect eventually polygamy between consenting adults will have to be legal.

There is no basis for making polygamy legal. If the state chooses to support pair-bonding for social purposes, there's no inherent reason to extend that concept to multiple-bonding.

[frogs]

There is no basis for making polygamy legal. If the state chooses to support pair-bonding for social purposes, there's no inherent reason to extend that concept to multiple-bonding.

For the sake of economics and the free market, it is necessary that multiple bonding be state supported. Although, money, etc, may not necessarily be exchanged, the cost of living is changed, as well, as social and communal changes, and so the free market is necessary.