Why is polygamy wrong?

[AgnosticBoy]

My study of it came from 1) a father who can’t get his daughter out of a polygamist compound because she’s been blackmailed with being told to leave would mean she’d never see her kids again, and 2) from a girl who was traded off to a guy with only 1 other wife because he donated enough to the church compound to earn the next available girl. She eventually got away, but young girls can sometimes become a currency in these things. Young ones are really the ones who get hurt the most in these.

Y
ou’re speaking of a scenario that involves a) no consent and b) no legal protection agreed upon for pre and post marital scenarios. I don’t claim that there is a perfect remedy for legal complexities but saying that something is difficult to make laws for is not the same as claiming that it causes harm. There’s a whole host of things that present legal complexities and challenges and we still proceed with them and make changes accordingly. Legislators get paid for doing this. Keep in mind, some states have already began adopting laws where a baby can have 3 parents so I believe this can fit right in with polygamy. Read npr.org/2014/03/30/296851662/three-parents-can-be-a-crowd-but-for-some-its-a-family

I don’t care. What do meaningless laws mean to manipulative guys with so much temptation on the table? They don’t protect people being blackmailed in vulnerable positions now. So why would I think they’d be the thing to lean on? With no moral standard there’s no community to help draw the line. And there’s nothing to keep the laws from sliding over and over again. There’s nothing to keep a guy from using ideals to keep pushing that bar.

Actually, I’m not sure why in the example that you brought up can there not be joint custody. Perhaps the mother that you referred to fear consequences of partaking in a practice that is criminalized. Either way, you are again mixing the moral argument with a legal argument when the two are not the same. Polygamy causes no harm, emotionally, morally, nor physically. A person can have 3 girlfriends and impregnant all of them and this is PERFECTLY allowed, but oh no, God forbid that a man marries all 3 women, and then God forbids further that legislators get off their butts and make laws to protect ALL spouses involved. Does this sound logical and intelligent to you?

lol this is quite something. I mean China basically blackmails people into aborting all extra after the 1st. The culture thinks boys are super special. You end up with extra boys because of it. And a ‘solution’ is to suggest the lower number of girls would just live up the chance to have five guys jumping them every night? Really? Biology is completely against this working.

It’s best if you can address claims that I actually bring up. Polyandry does not involve 5 different guys jumping on one woman in one night or encounter. It can involve each taking turns having a night with her which is how it is usually practiced. Polyandry can also help to reduce the population since these 5 or so men aren’t impregnating 5 different women and they aren’t around making trouble (your logic) if their in some committed relationship.

Monogamy got stronger because it moved towards a partnership of equals. Polygamy moves things back in the opposite direction.

Monogamy began to improve when women began to have a say in the relationship and in society at large. This can also be done in polygamy when it’s all done out of consent, and when there are both communal and dyadic based decisions. There are cases of such relationships.

They’d be handled case by case, sure. And the absolute hell that would be their complexity would make things take even longer than they do now and cost twice as much.

Polygamy is legally complex therefore it is harmful and immoral? LoL. I think rebuilding Iraq and their government might cost a little more and be more complex but we still do it. I can make a better case for why we should do it for consenting adults who want a committed relationship in our country.

But in all this, you have not yet explained what the greater good is going to be yet. I mean what is this going to do for society that what we have isn’t already doing? If you want to be a guy with 15 live-in partners you can do that now. You don’t need to weaken laws to make it even easier to exploit. I don’t get it.

One reason is to provide legal support for those who are already in these relationships and have kids, especially the ones who don’t exploit. Other than that I’m also reviewing studies, and look forward to future ones that show man has a non-monogamous nature, and polygamy is one way that this can be expressed morally and responsibly.

 

[Rau]

…There’s a whole host of things that present legal complexities and challenges and we still proceed with them and make changes accordingly.

When the risk / reward equation stacks up.

Polygamy causes no harm, emotionally, morally, nor physically. A person can have 3 girlfriends and impregnant all of them and this is PERFECTLY allowed, but oh no, God forbid that a man marries all 3 women, and then God forbids further that legislators get off their butts and make laws to protect ALL spouses involved. Does this sound logical and intelligent to you?

Marriage in many jurisdictions excludes multiple spouses, and various reasons for that are identifiable. The goods of marriage certainly don’t require multiple spouses and I wonder why the State would take an interest in supporting such a ‘marriage’ (given that is the intent of marriage law).

…Polyandry does not involve 5 different guys jumping on one woman in one night or encounter. It can involve each taking turns having a night with her which is how it is usually practiced. Polyandry can also help to reduce the population since these 5 or so men aren’t impregnating 5 different women and they aren’t around making trouble (your logic) if their in some committed relationship.

There will be no population impact since the demand for polyandry is so low.

Polygamy is legally complex therefore it is harmful and immoral? LoL. I think rebuilding Iraq and their government might cost a little more and be more complex but we still do it.

Consider the risk/reward equations (and potentially also questions of responsibility) and why one comes out on top may become clear.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

When the risk / reward equation stacks up.

Marriage in many jurisdictions excludes multiple spouses, and various reasons for that are identifiable. The goods of marriage certainly don’t require multiple spouses and I wonder why the State would take an interest in supporting such a ‘marriage’ (given that is the intent of marriage law).

Are there any moral reasons or reasons involving harm that are inherent to polygamy?

If I decide to have kids with 2 different women, and instead of keeping them separate, I decide to bring both of them to form a family, would it be better to criminalize my behavior and separate me from my kids or to let the relationship function or at least decriminalize the behavior?

Consider the risk/reward equations (and potentially also questions of responsibility) and why one comes out on top may become clear.

Are there any moral reasons or reasons involving harm that are inherent to polygamy?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

There will be no population impact since the demand for polyandry is so low.

From what I can tell so far, your claim is without evidence. In principle, polyandry could reduce the population. It doesn’t take every single male to partake in it for that effect to occur.

 

[Rau]

From what I can tell so far, your claim is without evidence. In principle, polyandry could reduce the population. It doesn’t take every single male to partake in it for that effect to occur.

Would you be happier if I said “no material population impact”? If you disagree with that, you’ll need to produce evidence of material demand for polyandry.

 

[Rau]

…If I decide to have kids with 2 different women, and instead of keeping them separate, I decide to bring both of them to form a family, would it be better to criminalize my behavior and separate me from my kids or to let the relationship function or at least decriminalize the behavior?

It would be better if you obeyed the law in your chosen country, or if migrating with the women, select a country where polygamy is accepted.

Alternatively, and presuming you’ve married no one at this stage, you should consider your options within the limits of the moral code of the affected persons and the law of the land.

Are there any moral reasons or reasons involving harm that are inherent to polygamy?

It’s unlikely that we will have a common view of the source of morality - and thus its precepts - so that discussion is likely fruitless. You will imagine a scenario where everyone is happy, no law or personal moral position (of yours) is breached - and thus declare the situation “moral”.

 

[Trident_H]

You’re speaking of a scenario that involves a) no consent and b) no legal protection agreed upon for pre and post marital scenarios.

Look. I get it. Consenting adults. Rational discussion. Laws and rules. Regulations. = Everything’s fine.

But you keep forgetting that the generations that grow up later under polygamy end up with those exact problems. They’re the ones I’m talking about. Because their new normal is having a dad with 5 wives arguing at the dinner table. So that’s what they look for and seek out. Basic patterning 101.

Actually, I’m not sure why in the example that you brought up can there not be joint custody. Perhaps the mother that you referred to fear consequences of partaking in a practice that is criminalized.

1. The woman involved did not want her daughters left behind to be traded off to the friend of her husband.
2. The woman did not want to live that kind of life anymore, but knew her kids would be indoctrinated against her when she was away.
3. Because the situation was not healthy, but she was outnumbered 4 adults to 1.
4. Because the other children of the other mothers would pick on her kids because she was no longer there to defend them.
5. Because the other mothers would favor their kids over hers if she wasn’t there to fight for them.
6. Because her husband threatened emotional revenge as a way to keep her under his control.

Either way, you are again mixing the moral argument with a legal argument when the two are not the same.

Moral arguments are the ones that keep us safe when legal arguments fail. I have less interest in laws that seem to change with whims and seem to depend of which hat is in fashion. I’d rather not do something if it’s more likely to hurt than help. You can pick your own path.

Polygamy causes no harm, emotionally, morally, nor physically.

When you have actually talked to victims of polygamy you will understand why this sentence is so insanely wrong it actually is offensive to read. Just do a tiny tiny tiny bit of research here. Please. There is a world of pain in this.

A person can have 3 girlfriends and impregnant all of them and this is PERFECTLY allowed,

By the law, yes. Not by God. See why morality matters? Because legality just blows around in the wind.

but oh no, God forbid that a man marries all 3 women, and then God forbids further that legislators get off their butts and make laws to protect ALL spouses involved. Does this sound logical and intelligent to you?

See above. You missed the turn about 5 miles back.

It’s best if you can address claims that I actually bring up. Polyandry does not involve 5 different guys jumping on one woman in one night or encounter. It can involve each taking turns having a night with her which is how it is usually practiced. Polyandry can also help to reduce the population since these 5 or so men aren’t impregnating 5 different women and they aren’t around making trouble (your logic) if their in some committed relationship.

How old are you exactly? Have you ever had a bunch of 20-year old guys together playing pick-up sticks to see who gets to have sex that night? Or better yet. Have you ever been married? How many nights a week do you think a reasonable girl would take on a guy? I mean with guys having a higher sex drive it’s perfectly obvious the majority in this relationship are going to either abuse the minority or end up totally unhappy. You want that life you go live it. I can’t see most guys putting up with that.

Monogamy began to improve when women began to have a say in the relationship and in society at large. This can also be done in polygamy when it’s all done out of consent, and when there are both communal and dyadic based decisions. There are cases of such relationships.

Pointing out that polygamy is hard-wired to treat women in each successive generation with less and less equality seems a waste of time at this point. You want this pretty bad already.

Polygamy is legally complex therefore it is -]harmful and immoral?/-] not as useful to society.

LoL. I think rebuilding Iraq and their government might cost a little more and be more complex but we still do it. I can make a better case for why we should do it for consenting adults who want a committed relationship in our country.

Go to Iraq. Get your Harem while you can.

One reason is to provide legal support for those who are already in these relationships and have kids, especially the ones who don’t exploit. Other than that I’m also reviewing studies, and look forward to future ones that show man has a non-monogamous nature, and polygamy is one way that this can be expressed morally and responsibly.

Glad you finally get it. Man has a non-monogamous nature. Exactly. That’s why it takes morality to teach men not to act like that. That’s why morality is what pushes us to rise above that. Did you read any studies that also remind you that man has a lazy nature? Selfish nature? Jealous nature? I mean come on. I don’t need a study to tell me that a lot of guys would love to legally screw around. That’s living life by our loins. What a nice step back into the animal kingdom this would be, hey? Imagine.

But never mind how it’ll affect the kids, right? What with dad having 23 other children to play catch with. That should make a guy feel special for sure.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Would you be happier if I said “no material population impact”? If you disagree with that, you’ll need to produce evidence of material demand for polyandry.

I never claimed to know about the demand for polyandry. You claimed to know but apparently you have not or can not back it up.

If the surplus of males were allowed to engage in polyandry then that would be the green light for males to freely act on it. And polyandry would decrease turmoil that is usually caused by having a surplus of single males with no available partners better so then demanding that these men remain single which you do when you allow only monogamous marriages.

 

[Vico]

I know that if Jesus said it is wrong, that is a good enough reason for it to be wrong, but why? Why isn’t it OK to have multiple spouses? This is just out of curiosity, by the way.
Thank you, and God Bless you!

I read through nine pages, but I did not see anyone post the Catechism on this:

2387 The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law." [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive."180 The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.

 

[Rau]

I never claimed to know about the demand for polyandry. You claimed to know but apparently you have not or can not back it up.

Then how foolish to propose that it would cause a reduction in population.

If the surplus of males were allowed to engage in polyandry then that would be the green light for males to freely act on it. And polyandry would decrease turmoil that is usually caused by having a surplus of single males with no available partners better so then demanding that these men remain single which you do when you allow only monogamous marriages.

Risk/Reward for society?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

It would be better if you obeyed the law in your chosen country, or if migrating with the women, select a country where polygamy is accepted.

Alternatively, and presuming you’ve married no one at this stage, you should consider your options within the limits of the moral code of the affected persons and the law of the land.

I thought you were going to take the ‘risk/benefit’ approach to explain to me how separating a man from his two biological children and their mothers would be a benefit to him and society at large, including those who are already involved in polygamy.

Assuming that your position is banning polygamy, nothing that you’ve said shows that polygamy is harmful physically or emotionally. Do we at least agree there or can you offer some support if otherwise?

It’s unlikely that we will have a common view of the source of morality - and thus its precepts - so that discussion is likely fruitless. You will imagine a scenario where everyone is happy, no law or personal moral position (of yours) is breached - and thus declare the situation “moral”.

We both might do the same but when I bring up physical or emotional harm then that can be analyzed using logic and science. So far, none have been presented that applies to adult consensual polygamous relationships. Whatever argument you can throw at me for bad polygamy, I’m willing to bet, I can find a deeper underlying problem that would also effect monogamy.

Also, my source includes the Bible. I’ve already posted my case several times here in this thread which clearly shows how God approved of polygamy. He even helped some of them function better.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Then how foolish to propose that it would cause a reduction in population.

Risk/Reward for society?

Risk/Reward? If it’s a claim, can you back it up with evidence although I wonder what factors you’d include. This could be just as useless as using science to decide on moral values.

The claim that people make about polygyny is that many men would be left single. These single men without available partners will create havoc on society. My view is this scenario occurs in Asia when you require that these men remain single which is precisely what happens when you only allow monogamous marriages. Would you prefer this or is worrying about paternity more of a problem?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Look. I get it. Consenting adults. Rational discussion. Laws and rules. Regulations. = Everything’s fine.

But you keep forgetting that the generations that grow up later under polygamy end up with those exact problems. They’re the ones I’m talking about. Because their new normal is having a dad with 5 wives arguing at the dinner table. So that’s what they look for and seek out. Basic patterning 101.

Do you have any scientific evidence to back up your claims? From watching families like that of Kody Brown, his kids are open to both monogamy and polygamy. Some of his kids would not want polygamy for themselves. Even kids raised in same-sex households don’t always end up seeking the same relations so I question your reasoning.

When you have actually talked to victims of polygamy you will understand why this sentence is so insanely wrong it actually is offensive to read. Just do a tiny tiny tiny bit of research here. Please. There is a world of pain in this.

I’ve already researched the negative examples of polygamy, but research also requires researching ALL data and not just one type (negative or just positive). Based on looking at both sides, I see that polygamy can be practiced in non-harmful ways.

How old are you exactly? Have you ever had a bunch of 20-year old guys together playing pick-up sticks to see who gets to have sex that night? Or better yet. Have you ever been married? How many nights a week do you think a reasonable girl would take on a guy? I mean with guys having a higher sex drive it’s perfectly obvious the majority in this relationship are going to either abuse the minority or end up totally unhappy. You want that life you go live it. I can’t see most guys putting up with that.

Polyandry is not the ideal and even if allowed, not all men would participate in it. But some would and some do. My main point is that this is better than mandating that all of these men remain single.

Pointing out that polygamy is hard-wired to treat women in each successive generation with less and less equality seems a waste of time at this point. You want this pretty bad already.

Well not only do I view non-monogamy as having the capacity to be sexually attracted to multiple people, and sometimes acting on it, but I also view it as having the capacity to romantically be in love with more than one person at one time. Many have never tried it but have stumbled across it while doing it out of dishonesty but yet many still want to tell you it’s impossible without having an ounce of experience with it. When you can try it in the context of honesty with all partners being in on it, then you can tell me what’s possible or what’s not.

Glad you finally get it. Man has a non-monogamous nature. Exactly. That’s why it takes morality to teach men not to act like that. That’s why morality is what pushes us to rise above that. Did you read any studies that also remind you that man has a lazy nature? Selfish nature? Jealous nature? I mean come on. I don’t need a study to tell me that a lot of guys would love to legally screw around. That’s living life by our loins. What a nice step back into the animal kingdom this would be, hey? Imagine.

Man has a non-monogamous nature but it doesn’t follow that morality teaches to not act on it. You need to support that claim about morality. Lets start with the Bible!

 

[Rau]

I thought you were going to take the ‘risk/benefit’ approach to explain to me how separating a man from his two biological children and their mothers would be a benefit to him and society at large, including those who are already involved in polygamy.

Does the law require separation of consensual arrangements? I understand it simply declines to recognise a marriage to person B when one is already married to person A. This accords with the State’s (current!) understanding of “marriage”, and the States view of the cost/benefit for itself (and I presume by extension, for society).

nothing that you’ve said shows that polygamy is harmful physically or emotionally.

I’ve not claimed to have done so!

…when I bring up physical or emotional harm then that can be analyzed using logic and science.

Keep in mind that in all areas involving human nature and behaviour, our capacity to foresee and/or weigh up consequences is limited. What you call “science”, as it pertains to this subject, differs a great deal from science as applied to, say, the collisions of billiard balls.

Also, my source includes the Bible. I’ve already posted my case several times here in this thread which clearly shows how God approved of polygamy. He even helped some of them function better.

The processes and steps of revelation - what happened at the earliest times as God revealed himself - can’t substitute for the whole of revelation. I think that was explained to you earlier.

 

[Rau]

Risk/Reward? If it’s a claim, can you back it up with evidence although I wonder what factors you’d include.

I’m posing the question. The State, and I think society at large, perceives a poor return on your pro-polygamy proposal.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Does the law require separation of consensual arrangements? I understand it simply declines to recognise a marriage to person B when one is already married to person A. This accords with the State’s (current!) understanding of “marriage”, and the States view of the cost/benefit for itself (and I presume by extension, for society).

In some states, just claiming to be married and living with all of the partners involved is a criminal offense, e.g. Utah. Either way, much of the risks that people tend to associate with polygamy is based on popular belief which oftentimes is unreasonable some of which I’ve responded to on this thread.

If you aren’t willing to incarcerate every single male who’s willing to impregnant multiple women, and all adults involved are willing to share a relationship, then it only makes sense to make laws that ensure consent, that prevents unequal bargaining power between the adults involved, etc. You might say that there’s no demand for polygamy, but I’d say there’s sure a lot of natural demand for non-monogamous DISHONEST behavior. Once people realize that polygamy is moral, doesn’t cause harm, and aren’t under the threat of imprisonment, then perhaps it will be considered a healthy and responsible expression of non-monogamy and then its demand will increase.

I’ve not claimed to have done so!
Keep in mind that in all areas involving human nature and behaviour, our capacity to foresee and/or weigh up consequences is limited. What you call “science”, as it pertains to this subject, differs a great deal from science as applied to, say, the collisions of billiard balls.

Even if so, it’s better than having no evidence to go by. The science that you speak of helped show how homosexuality causes no harm to adults and children. This certainly impacted public opinion better than any religious text could’ve.

The processes and steps of revelation - what happened at the earliest times as God revealed himself - can’t substitute for the whole of revelation. I think that was explained to you earlier.

I responded to your view when I brought up not only the fact of God tolerating polygamist but also judging it to be moral and taking direct action to strengthen some relationships. The moral law of God is not progressive. Do you not agree that if polygamy was something God eventually wanted people to repent from, then calling polygamists righteous and helping their relationship function better, is one of the most worse ways for him to achieve his goal? Perhaps another thread should be made to explain this?

 

[clem456]

…
I responded to your view when I brought up not only the fact of God tolerating polygamist but also judging it to be moral and taking direct action to strengthen some relationships. The moral law of God is not progressive. ?

You’ve mentioned the relative morality a few times without expounding on that. Morality does not mean merely the lack of perceived harm, or mere prohibitions based on an arbitrary standard.

Morality is founded on the revealed good, proclaiming that good, upholding it, supporting it. Morality draws a person to beatitude.

For instance, it is good for human beings to live and grow and prosper. So when a human being is hungry, it is moral to help feed them to support that good…their existence and flourishing. Starving people, or letting them starve through negligence, is immoral not merely because my bible tells me so, it is immoral because it detracts from a good. Anyone can see that good, of should be able to see it. Pictures of starving human beings are disturbing for a reason.

In the area of sexual morality you are addressing, what is the underlying good you are referring to when you talk about morality? That is unclear.

 

[Trident_H]

Do you have any scientific evidence to back up your claims? From watching families like that of Kody Brown, his kids are open to both monogamy and polygamy. Some of his kids would not want polygamy for themselves. Even kids raised in same-sex households don’t always end up seeking the same relations so I question your reasoning.

Common sense says we do what our parents do. Common sense says when a girl breaks out of a compound and warns that everyone’s doing the things I’m complaining about there’s a better than even chance they’re doing just that. Common sense says a deep read of why polygamy was outlawed in our country to start with has some things worth thinking about.

I’ve already researched the negative examples of polygamy, but research also requires researching ALL data and not just one type (negative or just positive). Based on looking at both sides, I see that polygamy can be practiced in non-harmful ways.

Then stop saying there is no harm involved. Stop trying to pretend the negatives don’t exist.

Polyandry is not the ideal and even if allowed, not all men would participate in it. But some would and some do. My main point is that this is better than mandating that all of these men remain single.

My point is what I’ve already said. To think China’s marriage problem would be solved with this craziness instead of made worse is typical idealism gone wild.

Well not only do I view non-monogamy as having the capacity to be sexually attracted to multiple people, and sometimes acting on it, but I also view it as having the capacity to romantically be in love with more than one person at one time. Many have never tried it but have stumbled across it while doing it out of dishonesty but yet many still want to tell you it’s impossible without having an ounce of experience with it. When you can try it in the context of honesty with all partners being in on it, then you can tell me what’s possible or what’s not.

I bet your girlfriends love that most about you: the ability to love all the girls on the block at the same time. Find me a self-respecting girl who’s really down with having her guy swing to a new partner each night while she waits her turn and I’ll show you a guy with a gift for flattery, coercion, and/or an abnormally great set of abs.

Man has a non-monogamous nature but it doesn’t follow that morality teaches to not act on it. You need to support that claim about morality. Lets start with the Bible!

Yeah. Lets start there. Where God made Adam and Eve, Jane, Fredrika, Gail, Joyce, Alice, Alisha, Collette…

Go get your harem buddy. I’m not stopping you. You’ve obviously put a lot of thought into this. Bet you practice your pick-up lines in front of the mirror and everything.

So how many are you planning on hooking into your compound? Going to stop at 2 or 3? Or are you going for an even dozen?

You going to let the girls have equal say over who you get to marry too? You going to let them pick some older, out of shape types not to your liking, but voted on fairly because they’re fun to be with? Or are you going to have the final, dominant say?

You going to turn away the young, innocent ones traded upstream to you by your ‘uncle’, on principle? Or you going to take them under your wing to ‘protect’ them from a guy who’d only do worse?

Are you going to allow your women the same rights to bring extra guys into the marriage as you’d have women? Is your place going to eventually have to be big enough to house a village?

You going to let one of your wives take her kids and welfare checks out from under your nose without a fight if she decides she finds she’d rather marry a guy who actually spends more than one afternoon with her a week?

Are you going to just start at the beginning of the alphabet naming your kids? Or are you going to have patterns so you remember who belongs to which mother? You going to have a schedule to plot your exact 15 minutes per week with each of them? You going to stop work so you can take in all their recitals?

Please, tell me all your rationalizations. Tell me exactly how you’ve got it all worked out in your mind.

I’m dying to know.

 

[Sarcelle]

Common sense says we do what our parents do. Common sense says when a girl breaks out of a compound and warns that everyone’s doing the things I’m complaining about there’s a better than even chance they’re doing just that. Common sense says a deep read of why polygamy was outlawed in our country to start with has some things worth thinking about.

Then stop saying there is no harm involved. Stop trying to pretend the negatives don’t exist.

My point is what I’ve already said. To think China’s marriage problem would be solved with this craziness instead of made worse is typical idealism gone wild.

I bet your girlfriends love that most about you: the ability to love all the girls on the block at the same time. Find me a self-respecting girl who’s really down with having her guy swing to a new partner each night while she waits her turn and I’ll show you a guy with a gift for flattery, coercion, and/or an abnormally great set of abs.

Yeah. Lets start there. Where God made Adam and Eve, Jane, Fredrika, Gail, Joyce, Alice, Alisha, Collette…

Go get your harem buddy. I’m not stopping you. You’ve obviously put a lot of thought into this. Bet you practice your pick-up lines in front of the mirror and everything.

So how many are you planning on hooking into your compound? Going to stop at 2 or 3? Or are you going for an even dozen?

You going to let the girls have equal say over who you get to marry too? You going to let them pick some older, out of shape types not to your liking, but voted on fairly because they’re fun to be with? Or are you going to have the final, dominant say?

You going to turn away the young, innocent ones traded upstream to you by your ‘uncle’, on principle? Or you going to take them under your wing to ‘protect’ them from a guy who’d only do worse?

Are you going to allow your women the same rights to bring extra guys into the marriage as you’d have women? Is your place going to eventually have to be big enough to house a village?

You going to let one of your wives take her kids and welfare checks out from under your nose without a fight if she decides she finds she’d rather marry a guy who actually spends more than one afternoon with her a week?

Are you going to just start at the beginning of the alphabet naming your kids? Or are you going to have patterns so you remember who belongs to which mother? You going to have a schedule to plot your exact 15 minutes per week with each of them? You going to stop work so you can take in all their recitals?

Please, tell me all your rationalizations. Tell me exactly how you’ve got it all worked out in your mind.

I’m dying to know.

All the married men I know would rather be married to one wife rather than to several.

It usually is the single hormone driven guys who would like the concept of collecting women.
No different really than collecting toys.

 

[Trident_H]

All the married men I know would rather be married to one wife rather than to several.

It usually is the single hormone driven guys who would like the concept of collecting women.
No different really than collecting toys.

Exactly. Guy wants to be a busy bee. Pollinate all the flowers.