Monogamy

[JASMAK]

I think you're imagining people ganging up on you. But let's move on, shall we?

Please, anytime...I must be imagining the last few posts I guess...lets move onto your opinions then, which apparently are fine. Yes, I am upset now. I cant say my opinion, I cant use certain emoticons, unless approved by opposing opinion, I cant be offended by rude comment, and I am to leave debate if upset. Nope, youre right....imagining. Carry on...Ill leave you all to debate your opinions.

 

[Tasha]

I think you're imagining people ganging up on you. But let's move on, shall we?

Please, anytime...I must be imagining the last few posts I guess...lets move onto your opinions then, which apparently are fine. Yes, I am upset now. I cant say my opinion, I cant use certain emoticons, unless approved by opposing opinion, I cant be offended by rude comment, and I am to leave debate if upset. Nope, youre right....imagining. Carry on...Ill leave you all to debate your opinions.

I am sorry you are hurt.

I think there are certain emoticons that probably arent a good idea to use in a debate or in posts that are aimed at people these two at least

I think it is just a misunderstanding, as text is so hard to gage what the other poster means.

 

[Jaylynne]

Getting rather ridiculous now. ozzieshunni, you've used the same emoticons in other arguements yourself. So unless you plan on not using them yourself, why call out another?

I do think it can easily be selfish and could be used to treat women as commodities from what I've seen and experienced myself. Note I never said all polygamy is selfish. I don't know all polygamy.

And I think it's silly to say you'd rather have a husband with multiple wives than a husband always working on the car or having sex with prostitutes. As if that's the only alternatives to polygamy. I didnt think that's doing any credit to promoting polygamy. My husband spends time as a family. He's not picking up prostitutes or having an affair. We are enough for each other.

Maybe if I do it with numbers it'll make more sense. In polygamy it's one man to 2 or more wives. So the reverse is 2+ women equal 1 man in a sense. That's not right to me.

 

[Ozzieshunni]

Ummm, not in this debate? And why are you dragging other threads into this?

 

[Sarahkka]

Getting rather ridiculous now. ozzieshunni, you've used the same emoticons in other arguements yourself. So unless you plan on not using them yourself, why call out another?

I do think it can easily be selfish and could be used to treat women as commodities from what I've seen and experienced myself. Note I never said all polygamy is selfish. I don't know all polygamy.

And I think it's silly to say you'd rather have a husband with multiple wives than a husband always working on the car or having sex with prostitutes. As if that's the only alternatives to polygamy. I didnt think that's doing any credit to promoting polygamy. My husband spends time as a family. He's not picking up prostitutes or having an affair. We are enough for each other.

Maybe if I do it with numbers it'll make more sense. In polygamy it's one man to 2 or more wives. So the reverse is 2+ women equal 1 man in a sense. That's not right to me.

I have seen examples of polygamy that certainly are rife with abuse and disrespect towards women (in fact, our western media places a decided focus on those), but in our society there are no shortages of examples of monogamy (or the nuclear family unit) in which the same thing is occurring. In fact, with divorce rates the way they are, we could make a strong argument that monogamy is NOT working all that well for many of us. So perhaps legitimizing other family units would let those who are not monogamy-inclined have a better chance at a stable household? It's an interesting thought, I think.
Not sure I agree with you on your equation idea, though. I think reducing those relationships to a mathematical expression could be oversimplifying things. Polyandry may not be as common, but it does exist. I don't think any polyamorous relationship is saying that 1 man is the equal of 4 women or anything like that, if I am reading your point correctly.

 

[Tiff]

Ummm, not in this debate? And why are you dragging other threads into this?

Speaking as a member right now:

Because you do it often, hun. Its not bringing up other threads ( no specifics were given), its stating a fact. So it really is confusing (at least to me, I can't speak for others) to see you call out someone else on it. Not very fair.

As for the actual topic, I agree with you... very interesting! I can say for myself that I don't feel the need to be with other people because I am so over the moon about my hubby.

However, I do know lots of people (IRL) who are married yet go their separate ways with other people. They say it spices things up for them and they are comfortable with it and it works for them.

To each their own, I guess?


Although I am going to say right now, I know next to NOTHING about polygamous relationships/marriages. What are the benefits to them? I'm not trying to be snarky or rude, I hope it doesn't come across like that. I'm genuinely curious.

 

[indy and lara]

Surely there are spouses who are disrespectful/ unfaithful/ abusive one each side of this debate? I really doubt that one side are all good and the other are all bad. There have been a few stereotypes on both sides. In my experience, monogomy does not equate to a husband who cheats/ uses prostitutes/spends all day and night on an X-box. Perhaps if we are calling for respectful language to be used in relation to polygamy then it should be used on both sides?

For me, if you are not willing to commit to one person then I am not sure why you married? That is my experience and opinion but accept that is not the case for everyone.

I have brought up the issue of the use of emoticons on numerous times and have been told that they are just smilies and to get over it. Hmmm. Using and in a debate in relation to someone else and their opinion is just uncalled for. You may not agree but it changes a debate about a subject into something far more personal.

 

[Tasha]

I have brought up the issue of the use of emoticons on numerous times and have been told that they are just smilies and to get over it. Hmmm. Using and in a debate in relation to someone else and their opinion is just uncalled for. You may not agree but it changes a debate about a subject into something far more personal.

This is what I was trying to say in my post, but as ever you say it far better. It does feel personal when these are used in relation to something I post or aimed at me. I know they are just smilies but yeah it does, for me.

 

[Ozzieshunni]

Can we kinda move on now? This topic is very interesting to me and I'd like to continue the discussion.

 

[Tasha]

Surely there are spouses who are disrespectful/ unfaithful/ abusive one each side of this debate? I really doubt that one side are all good and the other are all bad. There have been a few stereotypes on both sides. In my experience, monogomy does not equate to a husband who cheats/ uses prostitutes/spends all day and night on an X-box. Perhaps if we are calling for respectful language to be used in relation to polygamy then it should be used on both sides?

For me, if you are not willing to commit to one person then I am not sure why you married? That is my experience and opinion but accept that is not the case for everyone.

As for the rest of the post. Firstly fully agree about making sure people use respectful language.

Maybe because their definition of a marriage doesnt fit yours. Yours is about solely commiting yourself to the one person (I would assume) but they are married to more than one person because it fits their definition of marriage which is, perhaps, commiting yourself to the people you love.

 

[Tasha]

Can we kinda move on now? This topic is very interesting to me and I'd like to continue the discussion.

Sorry was replying to the two parts of Indy's post seperately.

 

[Sarahkka]

Surely there are spouses who are disrespectful/ unfaithful/ abusive one each side of this debate? I really doubt that one side are all good and the other are all bad. There have been a few stereotypes on both sides. In my experience, monogomy does not equate to a husband who cheats/ uses prostitutes/spends all day and night on an X-box. Perhaps if we are calling for respectful language to be used in relation to polygamy then it should be used on both sides?

For me, if you are not willing to commit to one person then I am not sure why you married? That is my experience and opinion but accept that is not the case for everyone.

I have brought up the issue of the use of emoticons on numerous times and have been told that they are just smilies and to get over it. Hmmm. Using and in a debate in relation to someone else and their opinion is just uncalled for. You may not agree but it changes a debate about a subject into something far more personal.

I agree with the emoticons. There are a couple (those named, in particular) that can quickly skew the meaning of a text towards disrespect.

Personally, monogamy and the nuclear family unit works for me, but I think assuming that "marriage" means monogamy for everyone is an example of the western perspective being imposed on the rest of the world as the right way to do things. I know that is not at all what you are saying, and you clarified that further in your paragraph, but isn't a big part of this debate also about those ingrained cultural perspectives? The loaded language has come almost exclusively from those vigorously defending monogamy, as if monogamy is the accepted norm and everything else is "other". Obviously, us westerners are going to have that perspective, but I think it's good for all of us to try to crack that open a bit and empathize with another viewpoint. Westerners generally regard breaking monogamy as the dissolution of the family unit and frequently, women who experience the breakdown of a monogamous relationship also experience some pretty disrespectful and emotional situations (cheating spouses, for example) - maybe even disproportionately so. So, I understand why we defend monogamy in terms that include "selfish" or "lack of self-control". These are emotional terms describing emotional situations that many of us have firsthand experience in.
However, it is a form of cultural imperialism to assume that polygamy is "less evolved" or that it is inferior and must be less respectful to women. We are viewing it only through our own lens, and that can mean that we miss or disregard some important things.
Can I offer an example from my early days in Women's Studies in university? Like many other western women, I regarded the hijab as a symbol of male domination - forcing women to cover up and reducing their freedom of choice. I was shocked to find many Muslim feminists were very supportive of the hijab, stating that the covering freed them from the sexual objectification that western women were prone to and allowing them to remove the obstacle of attractiveness and to instead have their ideas and voices be taken more seriously. That blew my 18-year old mind, and I have tried to pay attention to that lesson ever since.
For the record, I am not pro- or anti-polygamy. I think it is just another example of a family unit that works. I think it is fascinating that we outlaw it here and I question (along with Tasha) that those laws have any thing to do with morals. I think those laws merely support Western conventions. It will be interesting to see if those laws do become more inclusive. With gay marriage being recognized and legitimized, I think we are being forced to redefine what marriage is and that's a good thing, in my opinion.
That was rather lengthy, but I was trying to clarify my earlier post about loaded language!

 

[Tasha]

Great post Sarah

 

[Ozzieshunni]

I love your post, Sarah. It explains what I was thinking in the way of societal belief and expectation.

 

[indy and lara]

Regardless of where I lived in the world I know that polygamy would not work for me. It absolutely does not suit my personality, nor would it suit my husband. I think that personality does have a lot to do with whether you would consider polygamy. I would feel that there was an element of competition involved which would simply not suit me at all.

An interesting post Sarah but I really do doubt that we will move as far as to legitimise polygamous marriage in the UK. I think that for most people this would be a step too far beyond what they are comfortable with. Also, gay partnerships are far more common in terms of numbers(In UK) than polygamous ones are so it is unlikely that there would be the groundswell of opinion to support this change.

My background (a long time ago) is in history and I spent many years looking at the impact of imperialism. Just wanted to point out that my views have nothing to do with a view that the western way is the superior way.

 

[Ozzieshunni]

I'm curious. If you grew up in a society where polygamy was accepted, would your views be different?

 

[indy and lara]

I don't think they would because my own personality would be no different. I would still not want to be one of many but someone's special one and I don't believe that you can ever have that within a polygamous relationship, whether it includes marriage or not.

 

[Lina]

I agree with the emoticons. There are a couple (those named, in particular) that can quickly skew the meaning of a text towards disrespect.

Personally, monogamy and the nuclear family unit works for me, but I think assuming that "marriage" means monogamy for everyone is an example of the western perspective being imposed on the rest of the world as the right way to do things. I know that is not at all what you are saying, and you clarified that further in your paragraph, but isn't a big part of this debate also about those ingrained cultural perspectives? The loaded language has come almost exclusively from those vigorously defending monogamy, as if monogamy is the accepted norm and everything else is "other". Obviously, us westerners are going to have that perspective, but I think it's good for all of us to try to crack that open a bit and empathize with another viewpoint. Westerners generally regard breaking monogamy as the dissolution of the family unit and frequently, women who experience the breakdown of a monogamous relationship also experience some pretty disrespectful and emotional situations (cheating spouses, for example) - maybe even disproportionately so. So, I understand why we defend monogamy in terms that include "selfish" or "lack of self-control". These are emotional terms describing emotional situations that many of us have firsthand experience in.
However, it is a form of cultural imperialism to assume that polygamy is "less evolved" or that it is inferior and must be less respectful to women. We are viewing it only through our own lens, and that can mean that we miss or disregard some important things.
Can I offer an example from my early days in Women's Studies in university? Like many other western women, I regarded the hijab as a symbol of male domination - forcing women to cover up and reducing their freedom of choice. I was shocked to find many Muslim feminists were very supportive of the hijab, stating that the covering freed them from the sexual objectification that western women were prone to and allowing them to remove the obstacle of attractiveness and to instead have their ideas and voices be taken more seriously. That blew my 18-year old mind, and I have tried to pay attention to that lesson ever since.
For the record, I am not pro- or anti-polygamy. I think it is just another example of a family unit that works. I think it is fascinating that we outlaw it here and I question (along with Tasha) that those laws have any thing to do with morals. I think those laws merely support Western conventions. It will be interesting to see if those laws do become more inclusive. With gay marriage being recognized and legitimized, I think we are being forced to redefine what marriage is and that's a good thing, in my opinion.
That was rather lengthy, but I was trying to clarify my earlier post about loaded language!

Brilliant post.

 

[Tiff]

Tbh, I think my views on it would be different had I grew up in a polygamy friendly area. Makes sense, most of my views are based on how I was raised.

 

[vintage67]

Sarah, I've had plenty of Women's Studies in university as well, and the bulk of it came from working 3 semesters at a graduate level under a Nigerian professor. I stand by my use of the word "evolved" in relation to the status of women in a society and the acceptance of polygamy. And I had a young Muslim woman in one of my classes explain that because of her hijab, she wouldn't have to "sleep with the boss", "be raped" or "forced into an abortion" like "all the other American women."

If I had been born in Pakistan or in a northern Nigerian village, then maybe I would have a completely different opinion of myself, my value as a person, and what I would expect from a relationship and out of life in general. But I wasn't. And that doesn't make an evil "imperialist." Think we don't all judge from a cultural perspective? How many American women get raped on the job as my fellow classmate thought?