Whats wrong with having five wives

[Crescentinus]

Hordes of in-laws.

 

[LucyLight]

I believe it is because God does not approve of women being treated as objects to be acquired. If men do not want to be treated this way, why would women?

The comment about women protesting at the end of polygamy in Turkey was the fact that it would leave thousands of women, who were in such relationships, without a husband. They would be damaged goods as they would be divorced and no longer a virgin. They would also have to leave their children behind. It was not that women thought that polygamy was a good thing. Younger wives (often as young as 9) were treated as little more than slaves by the older wife unless the husband was infatuated, in which case the other wives would make the younger wife’s life hell. Situations like this are still taking place in many countries, such as Afghanistan.

In offshoots of the Mormon faith, the wives (who are often married at the age of 13 to men in their 40’s or older) have to share a bed in many homes. They are assigned a week in which to have sexual relations with their husband, sometimes in a seperate bed, but usually in the same room. The women have no say in their husband having another wife, so they have no control over who they not only live with, but have to share a bed with, and be intimate with a man in front of. The psychological impact of that alone would be grounds enough for any God of love to ban polygamy.

In cultures where women have more than one husband, it is two men (usually related) “sharing” a wife (who is again an object, not a person), not a woman having the choice to have more than one husband. So philosophical arguements about that making things “fair” are only valid for a very small number of people in “open relationships” in Western countries.

While this may not be a philosophical argument, I would’ve thought that the feelings and needs of women would a good enough reason for God to forbid the practice.

This:

I’ll add that people who argue that women have been in favor of polygamy or that it somehow benefits women don’t know history and dont have an understanding of what marriage really is. Marriage is a complete giving of oneself to your spouse.
If a man has more than one wife than he can’t totally give of himself to all of them leaving the women with a deficit.

 

[pete_29]

Are you nuts!!! What man can keep one wife happy, let alone five? :bigyikes:

 

[IanGE]

You are all giving me practical reasons not to be in a marriage with more than one woman.

But I am asking why its “wrong”.

Yes God says its wrong, but why does God say its wrong.

Hang on, WHERE does God say its wrong? Old Testament prophets and other men had more than one wife. OT Jews scrupulously followed the Law so polygamy obviously wasn’t banned. Whatever and whenever monogamy was introduced it was to protect the women. Good thing. Tyrone Power (as Joseph Smith) did society a disfavour by “discovering” the Book Of Mormons!

 

[Qoeleth]

Do Catholics have a philosophical argument for why having more than one wife is wrong.

I am not interested in statements of faith.

God is not arbitrary: there is a rational basis behind all moral commandments.

Well, since the number of males and females born is basically equal, it would seem to be in acord with the way of nature for one man to have one woman. If one man has five, there will be (on average) four men with none.

It would seem polygamy goes hand in hand with economic inequality. And since people have equal material needs, this would seem to be contrary to the way things ‘should’ be.

I don’t think there is much of a Scriptural case against it, though.

 

[Crescentinus]

Here’s some food for thought.
Suppose a man had married 5 women. He would gain many in-laws. Suppose all those in-laws fight.

 

[Sair]

I believe it is because God does not approve of women being treated as objects to be acquired. If men do not want to be treated this way, why would women?

The comment about women protesting at the end of polygamy in Turkey was the fact that it would leave thousands of women, who were in such relationships, without a husband. They would be damaged goods as they would be divorced and no longer a virgin. They would also have to leave their children behind. It was not that women thought that polygamy was a good thing. Younger wives (often as young as 9) were treated as little more than slaves by the older wife unless the husband was infatuated, in which case the other wives would make the younger wife’s life hell. Situations like this are still taking place in many countries, such as Afghanistan.

In offshoots of the Mormon faith, the wives (who are often married at the age of 13 to men in their 40’s or older) have to share a bed in many homes. They are assigned a week in which to have sexual relations with their husband, sometimes in a seperate bed, but usually in the same room. The women have no say in their husband having another wife, so they have no control over who they not only live with, but have to share a bed with, and be intimate with a man in front of. The psychological impact of that alone would be grounds enough for any God of love to ban polygamy.

In cultures where women have more than one husband, it is two men (usually related) “sharing” a wife (who is again an object, not a person), not a woman having the choice to have more than one husband. So philosophical arguements about that making things “fair” are only valid for a very small number of people in “open relationships” in Western countries.

While this may not be a philosophical argument, I would’ve thought that the feelings and needs of women would a good enough reason for God to forbid the practice.

Sorry to have to point this out, but by assuming that all women want just the same things, you are perpetuating the inherent sexism that suffuses Western culture - the belief that, as Joan Smith (UK journalist and human rights activist) put it, all women are different from men but the same as each other.

Different people benefit from different relationship structures. It’s tragically obvious that the supposed ideal of heterosexual monogamy just doesn’t work - and will never work - for all people. Until mainstream society accepts and embraces this fact, the moral constructs applied to intimate relationships will always be inherently discriminatory.

 

[lerapt78]

Just a question regarding polygyny in the OT: Weren’t the references made to polygyny used as a teaching point *against *the practice? Didn’t they illustrate all of the problems that were caused because of it?

Different people benefit from different relationship structures. It’s tragically obvious that the supposed ideal of heterosexual monogamy just doesn’t work - and will never work - for all people. Until mainstream society accepts and embraces this fact, the moral constructs applied to intimate relationships will always be inherently discriminatory.

I’m not sure I understand this post. I understand that extenuating circumstances may sometimes call for actions that take place “outside the norm”, but in a relatively stable population (equal number of ment to women), which would be the reasons heterosexual monogamy would not be the ideal option?

I also don’t find discrimination to be an inherently flawed practice (again, depending upon circumstances). I would say that discrimination toward relationships usually comes about from examining prior experiences and outcomes and deciding to follow which is best; that it is not normally decided upon on a whim.

 

[tabycat]

Five mothers-in-law

Not if the wives were sisters! (Then maylbe only one mother-in-law)

 

[tabycat]

Are you nuts!!! What man can keep one wife happy, let alone five? :bigyikes:

Five to one odds–sounds like good odds- for the wives.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Presumably, since the Catholic marriage is supposed to be symbolic of the relationship between Christ and the Church, there is some sort of notion that there is one Christ, one true Church, and therefore one man, one woman is the ideal of marriage.

Other than that, I can only think of practical considerations. Back in the day (and actually even now, in some parts of the world) when it was the responsibility of the husband to provide for his wife and children, it required (and still does require) a large amount of wealth to support more than one wife and the multiples of offspring that were likely to result from such a domestic arrangement. In fact, that is one of the main social arguments against polygamy - that those who are not wealthy are also denied the opportunity to marry and have children, whilst those men who have sufficient wealth accumulate more and more wives. That leads to large groups of young men who feel deprived and discontented with their lot.

I do appreciate the feminist critique of polygamy - it does, as it’s played out in a practical sense, treat women as little more than chattel. But if we expand this out to say that it’s likewise okay for a woman to have more than one husband, then this problem ceases to be. Although I suspect that if one were to propose to any group, such as some Mormons or Muslims, who actually practise polygamy, that if men have the right to have multiple wives, women should have the right to have multiple husbands, they would be either deeply offended or profoundly confused. So I suspect there is a solid foundation of sexism bound up in the idea of polygamy.

There is also a belief - one extending beyond the doctrines of Christian faith, I should say - that the love between one man and one woman is so sacred and so important and so…well, romantic, that any interference with that is somehow sacreligious. That loving more than one person in the romantic/amorous/sexual sense is diluting the intensity of emotional attachment that is supposed to exist between a husband and wife. This is nonsense, of course, and leads to such absurd permutations as “serial monogamy” and people marrying and divorcing several times during the course of their lives, just because of the expectation that “one man and one woman” is the most desirable ideal.

So, in and of itself, I don’t think there’s necessarily a rational ground for supposing monogamy to be the only desirable, or even the most desirable, foundation for human families. There is an obviously sexist basis to polygamy as it has historically been practised, but if the concept is extended to polyandry, or even varying arrangements of men and women in loving intimate partnerships, that ceases to be an issue.

The idea of sexism as immoral - or at least unethical - is an idea from the social sciences. It carries no weight in biology because morals do not come into play.

I bring that up because humans arguably resemble gorillas to some degree when it comes to sexual selection. From my perspective (which extends from limited knowledge about gorillas or bonobos mind you) female bonobos have sex freely, and willingly, with too many males, with the probability including “losers.”

Female humans are too discriminatory and according to science opposite sex mates are more equally distributed among female humans. Think of wealth distribution. Female humans would be Switzerland and male humans would be Brazil.

Among both gorillas and humans the males of each species have a some males that disproportionately obtain female mates. It’s more pronounced among gorillas, however, but nonetheless there are plenty of male humans that go throughout life never obtaining a female mate. And I’m not talking about vowed celibates or asexual males.

Male humans also fit the pattern of individuals that battle (sometimes violently) over competition for sex with one or more females. At the risk of over simplification the females sit back and watch or sit back and await courtship and choose.

There is little reason to believe female humans would ever marry several men into one family anywhere near the rate it is common among men. For one, the males will likely fight and murder each other. For another, I suspect most women (not all) prefer, if only given the two options, to be one wife among many wives married to a rich, powerful, and handsome alpha male, than be the one wife to two, three, four, or six male “losers.”

My personal opinion - from life experience and observation - is that most (not all) women would prefer to share a rich, powerful, and handsome man with several women than be the one and only of a low-income or middle-income plumber. I don’t care how “nice” of a guy he is.

Bear in mind between the two sexes females are by far the greatest discriminators. As a rule of thumb males are not very discriminating. Just about any woman - obese to anorexic - can walk up to a guy and offer particular things with her mouth to him, and he’ll readily accept. Most women if a guy approached them that way would be totally put off - some might even slap the guy. Unless she recognizes him as a rock star, billionaire, president of a nation etc.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Do Catholics have a philosophical argument for why having more than one wife is wrong.

I am not interested in statements of faith.

God is not arbitrary: there is a rational basis behind all moral commandments.

I don’t know.

But I think monogamy is arguably “unnatural” to male Homo sapiens. I believe culture and indoctrination pressures males into monogamous relationships. The institution of marriage forces them to be responsible to the women they create children with. I suspect marriage has it’s origins in a pre-welfare state society - and was created by men and women that wanted to force a responsibility on young males that might impregnate their daughters.

Multiple wives is one of the things I - and I think many males might - find attractive about Islam.

If no God exists no one will convince me of morals. If the Christian God is a false god then no one will convince me of monogamy - irrespective of some of it’s romantic aspects I find appealing.

I believe in monogamy because Christianity says it is the right way. And I fear the wrath of God. Why? Because I’m wise. I’ve been in jail - never prison - if if temporary hell is “hell” for breaking the laws of man then I would prefer not to experience eternal hell for breaking the laws of God.

If you want to be a good football player and make it to the Superbowl sometimes you just have to do certain things that require discipline.

 

[snarflemike]

You are all giving me practical reasons not to be in a marriage with more than one woman.

But I am asking why its “wrong”.

Yes God says its wrong, but why does God say its wrong.

Because it’s not in our nature. What man or woman is actually OK with sharing their loved one so totally? We’re just not made that way.

 

[ReapReason]

The idea of sexism as immoral - or at least unethical - is an idea from the social sciences. It carries no weight in biology because morals do not come into play.

I bring that up because humans arguably resemble gorillas to some degree when it comes to sexual selection. From my perspective (which extends from limited knowledge about gorillas or bonobos mind you) female bonobos have sex freely, and willingly, with too many males, with the probability including “losers.”

Female humans are too discriminatory and according to science opposite sex mates are more equally distributed among female humans. Think of wealth distribution. Female humans would be Switzerland and male humans would be Brazil.

Among both gorillas and humans the males of each species have a some males that disproportionately obtain female mates. It’s more pronounced among gorillas, however, but nonetheless there are plenty of male humans that go throughout life never obtaining a female mate. And I’m not talking about vowed celibates or asexual males.

Male humans also fit the pattern of individuals that battle (sometimes violently) over competition for sex with one or more females. At the risk of over simplification the females sit back and watch or sit back and await courtship and choose.

There is little reason to believe female humans would ever marry several men into one family anywhere near the rate it is common among men. For one, the males will likely fight and murder each other. For another, I suspect most women (not all) prefer, if only given the two options, to be one wife among many wives married to a rich, powerful, and handsome alpha male, than be the one wife to two, three, four, or six male “losers.”

My personal opinion - from life experience and observation - is that most (not all) women would prefer to share a rich, powerful, and handsome man with several women than be the one and only of a low-income or middle-income plumber. I don’t care how “nice” of a guy he is.

Bear in mind between the two sexes females are by far the greatest discriminators. As a rule of thumb males are not very discriminating. Just about any woman - obese to anorexic - can walk up to a guy and offer particular things with her mouth to him, and he’ll readily accept. Most women if a guy approached them that way would be totally put off - some might even slap the guy. Unless she recognizes him as a rock star, billionaire, president of a nation etc.

I just want to say that i think your analysis of women is spot on. I see this kind of behavior even in Christian communities. The alpha and loser male concepts are clearly present in the minds of human females.

 

[JRKH]

I just want to say that i think your analysis of women is spot on. I see this kind of behavior even in Christian communities. The alpha and loser male concepts are clearly present in the minds of human females.

I like TE’s analysis as well. Looking at this from a purely biological and anthropological standpoint can be very helpful.

As a point to consider…What a woman might see as a "Alpha"or a “Loser” male can and does vary from female to female…and perhaps this is an important point of departure.

In most comparative animal societies, the Alpha is the one who can “beat up” the other males. He is physically the strongest, quickest, most aggressive and - perhaps to an extent - the smartest. After defeating the other males, he then mates with many females.

In human terms this is not so much the case…
To use a modern analogy…I’m sure we’ve all seen (in the U.S. at least) the bumper stickers saying “My child is an Honor Student” - and most likely you’ve seen the bumper sticker that says “My kid beat up your honor student”…
Well the upshot of that is that the one who “beat up” the honor student will - quite likely - find himself working for (subservient to) that (or some other) honor student…

To use a Biblical reference…David attained an “Alpha” level of respect, not by a traditional method of fighting his enemy, but by using his skill with the sling.Perhaps, if we go back far enough we will find some “lesser” male who defeated a stronger male by heaving a rock for a “lucky hit”??

Anyway - I’m getting off track here…
Many women today might see success or physical prowess etc as attractive, but some - many women also see Intelligence, gentleness, caring and thoughtfulness as “alpha” characteristics as well.

Peace
James

 

[Sair]

Because it’s not in our nature. What man or woman is actually OK with sharing their loved one so totally? We’re just not made that way.

That’s actually not true either - the grassroots polyamory movement puts paid to the idea that we’re somehow hardwired for exclusivity in intimate relationships.

 

[Sair]

The idea of sexism as immoral - or at least unethical - is an idea from the social sciences. It carries no weight in biology because morals do not come into play.

I bring that up because humans arguably resemble gorillas to some degree when it comes to sexual selection. From my perspective (which extends from limited knowledge about gorillas or bonobos mind you) female bonobos have sex freely, and willingly, with too many males, with the probability including “losers.”

Female humans are too discriminatory and according to science opposite sex mates are more equally distributed among female humans. Think of wealth distribution. Female humans would be Switzerland and male humans would be Brazil.

Among both gorillas and humans the males of each species have a some males that disproportionately obtain female mates. It’s more pronounced among gorillas, however, but nonetheless there are plenty of male humans that go throughout life never obtaining a female mate. And I’m not talking about vowed celibates or asexual males.

Male humans also fit the pattern of individuals that battle (sometimes violently) over competition for sex with one or more females. At the risk of over simplification the females sit back and watch or sit back and await courtship and choose.

There is little reason to believe female humans would ever marry several men into one family anywhere near the rate it is common among men. For one, the males will likely fight and murder each other. For another, I suspect most women (not all) prefer, if only given the two options, to be one wife among many wives married to a rich, powerful, and handsome alpha male, than be the one wife to two, three, four, or six male “losers.”

My personal opinion - from life experience and observation - is that most (not all) women would prefer to share a rich, powerful, and handsome man with several women than be the one and only of a low-income or middle-income plumber. I don’t care how “nice” of a guy he is.

Bear in mind between the two sexes females are by far the greatest discriminators. As a rule of thumb males are not very discriminating. Just about any woman - obese to anorexic - can walk up to a guy and offer particular things with her mouth to him, and he’ll readily accept. Most women if a guy approached them that way would be totally put off - some might even slap the guy. Unless she recognizes him as a rock star, billionaire, president of a nation etc.

It’s also worth pointing out that there are plenty of females of various species who engage in “illicit” sexual relations, as it were, even though they might be “monogamously” partnered with a particular male. There are numerous species, such as wolves, swans, birds of prey and so forth that were once assumed to pair for life, but have been observed to seek sexual intercourse outside of that pairing. It seems that the qualities of a life partner - one that will be faithful and stick around to help raise the young - are often rather different to those of a sexual partner that will produce the strongest offspring. It’s hardly inconceivable that this discrepancy occurs in humans as well as other animals.

From a biological point of view, ironic though it may seem given human culture, monogamy actually serves the reproductive interests of males more than it does females - the idea of paternity certainty, that a male is investing his time and resources in his own genetic descendants rather than someone else’s, has assumed a great weight in human societies. The only way a male can guarantee that his partner’s offspring are his own is to try to ensure that his partner(s) are not inseminated by any other males. That is why adultery has, historically, been considered a far more heinous crime for a woman than for a man…

 

[maltmom]

Many women today might see success or physical prowess etc as attractive, but some - many women also see Intelligence, gentleness, caring and thoughtfulness as “alpha” characteristics as well.

I am one of these women. I am not impressed with power, money or good looks/physical prowess. I would be attracted to a man of God, with knowledge (not necessarily high IQ), sense of humor, gentleness, caring and thoughtfulness. I am very impressed by knowledge regardless of the topic. My ex-husband was shocked that as a doctor I would date/marry him b/c he only had a high school education and is a cop. I wonder if b/c I couldn’t have children the ingrained notion of finding a good DNA donor didn’t come into play.

adultery has, historically, been considered a far more heinous crime for a woman than for a man…

True, but it should be just as heinous for both. I’ve often wondered why the other woman in cases of male infidelity is often vilified more than the man who broke his vows. The wife blames the other woman more than the husband. When the woman cheats the husband wants to go after both the wife and other man. The other man b/c he was trying to steal his wife and the wife b/c she was looking for something he was lacking.

I’m not awake yet so I hope that made sense.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

I think monogamy is arguably “unnatural” to male Homo sapiens. I believe culture and indoctrination pressures males into monogamous relationships. The institution of marriage forces them to be responsible to the women they create children with. I suspect marriage has it’s origins in a pre-welfare state society - and was created by men and women that wanted to force a responsibility on young males that might impregnate their daughters.

^This

 

[lerapt78]

I’m going to go against the grain here and offer a contradictory opinion on the widely accepted notion of the naturally promiscuous male vs the naturally monogamous female. I believe this is a myth that has been reinforced throughout the ages, aided by the influence of patriarchal power. By saying this, I am not trying to turn this into a rant against patriarchy (I don’t believe it is a bad system), but simply pointing out that a system of authority which comprises only one sex will naturally provide special sexual allowances for that group and attempt to control the sexual proclivities of the other.

There is little reason to believe female humans would ever marry several men into one family anywhere near the rate it is common among men. For one, the males will likely fight and murder each other. For another, I suspect most women (not all) prefer, if only given the two options, to be one wife among many wives married to a rich, powerful, and handsome alpha male, than be the one wife to two, three, four, or six male “losers.”

My personal opinion - from life experience and observation - is that most (not all) women would prefer to share a rich, powerful, and handsome man with several women than be the one and only of a low-income or middle-income plumber. I don’t care how “nice” of a guy he is.

Bear in mind between the two sexes females are by far the greatest discriminators.

I think that only in desperate times would an emotionally healthy woman be willing to share a wealthy many as opposed to having one to herself. “Desperate times” meaning that she would be have to be living under a system in which she had no possible means of providing for herself and her offspring absent the support of a husband. Discrimination in choosing a mate for marriage does not reflect the sexual selection of females in general, it merely shows how she will set herself up for survival in a society that limits her access to resources. Given a society in which she would be guaranteed financial security if she were to leave a philandering husband, I think she would choose to separate from him to seek another mate instead of living in a situation in which his attention is divided amongst several women. I think for this reason very wealthy men in this country often require prenuptual agreements from their trophy wives – so that when they misbehave there is less chance of the irate wife leaving him and taking half of his money.

While it is true that a potential husband’s wealth is taken into consideration by some women , I think given the option between sharing one man who makes a million dollars a year versus being the only wife of 10 men who each make $50K a year (totalling half a million), she might choose the latter, for then even though the annual salary is less, neither she nor her offspring would have to compete with other women and their children to share the husbands’ resources. This would be a far better situation for her because then ALL of the resources, and not just a portion of them, would go directly to her and her children (in addition to sexual variety).