Polygamy Talk

The Sassistas! would like to acknowledge and thank half-a-sista for dishing today's sass to mark National Polygamy Day tomorrow, August 19.

In 2006, “Big Love” -- the fictional episodes of a polygamous man and his three wives -- hit TV.  Then a couple of months ago, Flann and Matiss reported on the documentary, “Sister Wife,” where the filmmaker interviewed a woman in a polygamous relationship with a sister and their husband.

Recently, legal issues also have brought polygamy into the mainstream media. Charges of sexual abuse of underage boys and girls, physical abuse, abandonment, and other potential crimes have surfaced in Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Texas, Idaho and at least one province in Canada. Most of those crimes allegedly occurred in cult-like settings. The world is aflame with talk of polygamy.

We tend to link polygamy and Mormons, but Mormons come in difference kinds and belief systems, much like Christians. Not all fundamentalist Mormons believe in polygamy. The Prophet -- head of the Mormon Church -- banned polygamy in 1890, a basic tenet of the early church, in order to obtain statehood for Utah in 1897. Privately, some sects, known as fundamentalist Mormons, continue to live in polygamous relationships.

Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon church, married several women who also kept their first husbands. Thus, the early church practiced male and female polygamy (polygyny means having multiple wives and polyandry involves having multiple husbands). The practice of polyandry among women may have died out over the years. The last polygamous Prophet died in 1976.

Living in a closed community of people who practice polygamy can cause genetic  disorders. Fumerase deficiency causes birth defects, including mental retardation, and results from inner-marriage among closely-related people who carry the defective gene. Until 1990, only 15 cases in the world had been documented. Since that time, medical doctors have documented 20 cases in a small area that includes several polygamous communities in Arizona and Utah. These cases account for over half of all the cases in the world. Doctors have recommended genetic testing and the careful selection of partners based on test results. The communities have not followed the doctors’ suggestions. (NOTE:  Similar genetic problems exist in other closed communities like the Amish and Azkenazi Jews.)

Another serious problem is the dumping of young men outside of the closed communities. Because young men compete with the elder men for the young women, they are often removed from the community. Estimates vary as to the number of “lost boys,” but the number mentioned most often is 400. Some say as many as 1500 live on the streets where they are victimized. Imagine living in a closed, protected community one day and the next being dumped onto some big city street with no mothers, fathers, siblings, way of life, roots . . . nothing. Several organizations have opened half-way houses for these young men but not enough places exist to deal with the problem.

Non-Mormon religious groups have taken up their own campaigns to practice polygamy. Christian groups base their arguments on scriptural references. An Islamic group talks about polygamy among Muslims and about the Quaranic support for the practice. Some Orthodox Jews rely on the Torah and the Talmud to validate polygamy. What was once considered a oddity of Mormonism has become the topic of discussion in other religious faiths and may, in fact, be practiced by Christians, Jews, and Muslims in America.

So what's so bad about polygamy? Doesn't sexual and physical abuse of children occur in other religions? How many of street children that roam the major cities come from strict religious or abusive homes?  According to Covenant House, an organization for runaways, 1.3 million children run away from home. That number does not include the kids who are called “throwaways”; kids ordered out of their homes whose parents never report them missing.

If the people practicing polygamy are of legal age to consent to multiple marriages, why can't they freely do so? Can we separate the illegal activities from the issue of polygamy, understanding that the way polygamy is currently practiced may cause the problems and not the institution itself? Has anyone stopped to consider how polygamy might work if laws did not exist that prevented adults from making choices about what kind of marital relationships they want to enter into with other adults? 

Hmmm, that sounds vaguely familiar.

Comments

[Flannista]

Once again, half-a-sista goes where most of us fear to tread. Thanks for this post. While editing this yesterday, I almost entitled it "Polygamy 101" as I felt it was, in its way, a comprehensive overview of the topic.

I have to confess that this post was difficult to read for a couple of reasons. I have what seems like an instinctual distaste for polygamy -- I feel it in my gut, undoubtedly the way some folks respond to the thought of gay marriage. This concerns me. I think I respond this way because even though there is polyandy, polygyny abounds. I'm weary of male-dominated power. Really sick and tired of it. This is going to sound sexist and stupid on some level, but from my admittedly limited observations, most men seem really hard to please.

Also, I think marriage is hard enough between two people. Why throw more spouses into the mix?

I was surprised to learn that polygamy existed in other religions. Am I that naive?

[half-a-sista]

Yes, you are that naive.

This topic resulted from that post on "Sister Wife" and the discussion that followed it. Justista noted the dumping of young men in cities like Las Vegas and other major cities in that area by polygamous communities. She suggested I write something on it.

Polygamy as it is practiced in these closed, cultist communities causes all kinds of bad things to happen regardless of the faith of the practitioners. At the same time, these communities are closed because of laws that prevent them from practicing their religious beliefs.

Add to that the issue of child abuse. Can a girl of 13 say, "No" and have that answer respected if the community wants her to marry some old man? We know the answer to that question. Child abuse for any reason isn't okay.

And the boys that find themselves lost and alone on city streets because their elders wanted the young women for themselves, well, that's wrong. Though the elders cite religious reasons to support these abandonments, they know they have gone against the basic tenets of their religions.

Now, Christians, Jews, and Muslims have started to re-examine polygamy in light of the actions of their forefathers like Abraham, David, Isaac.

No, folks, it wasn't Adam and Eve for long. It was Cain and Martha and Sue and Daphne and by the time Abraham came along, he may have needed a little black book to keep track of his wives and concubines. That's what the Bible says and that's what some people want to believe is the right way.

[Flannista]

Guess I forgot a lot of the Old Testament.

Outside of pro-creation, what are the benefits of polygamy that you found in your research, half-a?

[half-a-sista]

You know how I am about words. They mean a lot to me. Polygamy is the practice of having multiple spouses. We and the media use the word "Polygamy" in a very limited way: about men with multiple wives. Polygyny is what is currently practiced by some people who are Mormons, Jews, Christians, and Muslims. This word shorthand does us in every time we fall for it.

I'm not an advocate of polygamy, but more of an advocate of relationships between adults that work for them, their offspring (if they have any), and the society in which they live (although that's a small concern of mine).

Polygyny's biggest strike against is, as practiced these days in all the places I read about, about the subjugation of women and children by men. We've had enough of that already.

Benefits: the presence of a group of people who raise the children, who take care of the household responsibilities, who have committed (or should have committed) to the support of the other members of the family, who serve as caretakers to everyone in the family.

I doubt that procreation is a benefit especially when someone must support all of these children. Then there is the prospect of genetic deficiencies in closed communities.

Perhaps the best benefit for many of these people is that it moves them closer to their god by following what he has dictated as the right way to live. We hear that all the time about other things, why should polygyny be any different?

[frida]

All relationships supported by the state (marriage, parenthood, guardianship, etc.) reflect the state's will and its view of sexuality. We are so lucky in this country to be able to even question and influence the state's stance on relationships. So I suppose we could vote in polygamy for those who want it . . . on the other hand, polygamy seems to me to be everywhere anti-woman and child. Except in small pockets, perhaps, polygamy does not exist in societies where women are free.

I am trying to imagine myself with more than one husband. When is check-in time at the home?

[half-a-sista]

frida, agree with you about how polygyny is practiced today, but in all fairness most of these situations involved religions that are male-dominated and have long viewed women and children as property (Christianism, Judaism, Mormonism, and Islam) whether or not that was the intent of the original founder of the religion.

What I found most interesting was that Joseph Smith married all these women who remained married to their first husbands. Didn't take long for Mormons to stop the "many husbands" aspect.

Think about more than one husband for awhile and get back to us.

[Flannista]

half-a -- could you answer your own question: "Has anyone stopped to consider how polygamy might work if laws did not exist that prevented adults from making choices about what kind of marital relationships they want to enter into with other adults? "

How WOULD it work?

Also (and I don't really know why), I think comparing this to gay marriage is a stretch. I get your point, but there's clearly more equanimity in a same-sex relationship. I'm with frida -- I cannot get past the fact that polygamy/polygyny is fundamentally anti-woman. But come to think of it, a lot of Christian marriages are, too.

I'm so confused.

[PEACEsista]

What bothers me about polygamy is that it sets up an imbalance of power in relationship between the one and the many, which seems ripe to foster subjugation and cruelty from the start, with or without the inclusion of religion layered on. It is often the many who become disenchanted and the one who dictates the rules to solve disputes. Whether men or women are the many, it sounds and feels more like a dictatorship to me, than an intimate relationship.

Thanks, half-a, for an interesting post. You got me thinking today.

[Flannista]

PEACE said it better than I could -- it's the dictatorship aspect of polygamy (and actually, a few Christian marriages) that really bugs me.

[half-a-sista]

PEACE & Flann, remember that the example of polygyny that we have in today's world is one way that polygyny is practiced among people who are not equals in the sight of their religion or culture. It might be safe to say that one man-one woman marriages in our culture are not equal partnerships for many couples.

Imagine equal partners who made the commitment to live in community with other equal partners as polygamists. For that matter, imagine a man and a woman who are equal partners living together. Decisions would be shared, not mandated by a person.

Neither polygamy nor monogamy come with power over one or more parties. That stuff comes from our beliefs and how we see other people.

I disagree that the institution of polygamy fosters subjugation and cruelty from the start. What fosters subjugation and cruelty from the start are the religious beliefs of the people who practice polygamy and/or the cultural bias that women and children are somehow "less than" a man.

[Chrysosistah]

Closed societies, for whatever reason, strike me as unhealthy, both physically & mentally. Perhaps something like a closed mind. I liked the way PEACE put it, that there just seems to be an imbalance of power in these relationships, at least in the examples I'm aware of....

[half-a-sista]

I don't think a lot of us have experienced relationships where people work together as partners. Then again, I believe most of the sistas and mistas have had these kinds of relationships and may still have them. Imbalances probably always exist, but one person shouldn't dominate in all areas because that seems to me to throw the relationship off center. Then again, I haven't had a partnership type of relationship for a long time.

Something I forgot in a previous comment...Imagine two people of the same sex who are equal partners in the relationship. Must be fair to my people too.

[Flannista]

Gotta disagree with ya, half-a. It comes down to people and not the beliefs or the institution. There are Christian marriages, for example, where equanimity exists and ones where it doesn't. It depends on the people, not the beliefs or the institution.

[babysis]

Very interesting post and comments. I agree with Flann that people cause the problems, by usually twisting the religion or institution, but yeah, some religious dogma is goofy from the get-go.

I don't know how you figure this stuff out if you don't subscribe to a standard, like monogamy. I think it's what we were made for, and I particularly think it's what women want, but that obviously varies by individual and all the influences you experience in a life. Many would argue my belief, but I feel it in my gut, so I think any poly-whatever is a bad idea.

[Flannista]

Does that include polymers, babysis?

[babysis]

Well, not if polymers are in chocolate. But I'm thinking they shouldn't be in good chocolate.

[Jerseysista]

“Can we separate the illegal activities from the issue of polygamy, understanding that the way polygamy is currently practiced may cause the problems and not the institution itself? Has anyone stopped to consider how polygamy might work if laws did not exist that prevented adults from making choices about what kind of marital relationships they want to enter into with other adults? “

I see these two questions as asking if it is the closed society rather than polygamy that is the problem. The implication is that if polygamy were not illegal, polygamists would not feel compelled to isolate themselves in closed societies and many of the problems cited in this post would evaporate.

If closed polygamous societies disappeared, perhaps dumping young men to fend for themselves might lessen but the other problems cited here do not seem to be unique to polygamists in my view. Child or spousal abuse, male domination or unequal power dynamics unfortunately just come with the territory of human relationships. Moreover, I do not think closed polygamous societies would disappear if polygamy became legal. Public approbation is a much greater force than criminal codes and the judgment of society as a whole would always put polygamists on the fringes driving them to closed societies.

[Flannista]

"Public approbation" -- say that 10 times real fast, Jersey.

That's the idiotic part of my response. The more thoughtful part is, well, that your comment is very thoughtful and well-reasoned. And it takes us back to people causing the problem and not institutions or belief systems. Oh why are we all so bone-headed? Why can't we all just get along?

babysis -- you're right about what shouldn't be in good chocolate.

[frida]

Half-a--great topic; great discussion . . .

I am not opposed at all to people being in polygamous or polyandrous relationships if they are free to choose . . . I just don't see, now, state-sponsored polygamy being practiced freely where the partners get to choose.

Oh, and just as an aside, I was thinking this morning how deeply counter-intuitive (I didn't want to say stupid) it is to believe God is a He. Or a She.

[half-a-sista]

Jersey, I agree that if polygamy were legal there would still be problems with the polygamous societies we have now in this country. One thing that might change is that more people would become members of polygamous communities and thus refresh the tainted gene pool and maybe young boys would not be dumped if enough outside women joined. That does not remove the other problems as you have noted.

And, you are correct that closed polygamous societies would not disappear, but the pool of potential participants would be widened. In Utah, a word from the Prophet that God had once again okayed polygamy for Mormons would, I think, lead to more Mormons participating in polygamous relationships. (NOTE: The last polygamous Prophet died in 1978 . . . just a little more than 30 years ago.)

It will be interesting to see if polygamy in Christianism, Judaism, and Islam grows in the coming years.

I don't know that public approbation would always put polygamists on the fringe "driving them to closed societies."

babysis, don't quite understand how subscribing to a standard like monogamy makes things easier to figure out. We were probably not made for any kind of -gamy . . . poly or mono. Our Biblical ancestors were polygamists. The number of extramarital affairs in the world would indicate that lots of men and women were not made for monogamy. Monogamy didn't come with the creation of human beings. It is a learned behavior.

[Flannista]

But wouldn't you concur that monogamy is BETTER -- more of the ideal than polygamy, half-a? Most creatures in the animal kingdom seem to prefer it. More seem to practice it.

"How deeply counter-intuitive it is to believe God is a He. Or a She." It helps me to picture God as Rosa Parks, frida. That's counter-intuitive to what, precisely?

[Jerseysista]

I meant "disapprobation." (even worse to say ten times.)

[half-a-sista]

No, Flann, I wouldn't concur that monogamy is better. I need more information about monogamy being more of the ideal. What ideal are we trying to establish? The ideal of a committed relationship? Committed relationships can involve more than two people and work just as well as long as the parties involved communicate. Same thing in a relationship involving two people, communication is the key.

To answer the Christian and Jewish polygamists, how would you explain why we should question their god's support of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David etc. who were all polygamists? To the best of my knowledge, that god never condemned polygamy.

Although I don't know that this is a fact, most creatures in the animal kingdom may prefer monogamy...at least serial monogamy, as I don't think many species mate for life. They mate for mating season and rearing of the young. Lots of animals engage in open relationships and most are polygamous in nature. I don't think the "birds do it--bees do it" argument works here.

The issue for me is the equality in whatever kind of relationship...legal or spiritual.

[Chrysosistah]

Totally agree with Half-a on the "birds do it -- bees do it" thing. Even in groups where a dominant male has a harem and it appears for all the world that no other male has access to the females - nature will have her way. You can check the DNA of the babies and discover a reasonable amount of "cheating" will occur. But yes, if the babies require a good deal of care before they can fend for themselves, or the animal itself prefers to remain in groups, then you will likely see serial monogamy. Whatever works best for the species to survive will out.

And absolutely, communication (and trust) is the key to any good relationship....

[Flannista]

NONE of us caught the misuse of "approbation," Jersey, so not to worry. Guess we don't get any approbation.

half-a: CAN committed relationships involve more than two people (outside of siblings and children, etc.) -- I'm talking intimate relationships here -- and work just as well? I think it's tough with just two.

But you're right, the Christian/Jewish god never condemned polygamy.

But I defer to Dr. Chryso, who seems to know what she's sassing about.