My Thoughts on Plural Marriage
May. 5th, 2004 04:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
qosI had some time at work today, so I continued my musings regarding my study of plural marriage - this time remembering to email them to my home address before leaving work. I think they are mostly coherent. Discussion is welcome. (Please! I'm longing for some other perspectives, whether you agree or not!)
Musings follow behind cut:
To my surprise, polyandry – the marriage of one woman to multiple husbands – is almost unheard-of in world history. A few examples exist, but they are always noted as being an exception.
Polygamy – the marriage of one man to multiple wives – has been known in very many cultures, and is a distinctively patriarchal institution. It is based on a fundamental assumption that women need to be married and have children, although the “why” underlying that need varies.
I have mixed feelings about my findings. Personally, I see nothing wrong with plural marriage, so long as it is truly consensual and carried out with the degree of integrity and love that one would expect from any marriage (and cultural expectations differ). It has been disturbing to me to discover that, historically speaking, plural marriage is so relentlessly patriarchal. I’m also disappointed that polyandry is so rare, and usually involves one woman married to brothers, as a way of keeping the husbands’ family property intact but giving all the brothers a legitimate sexual relationship and heirs.
As far as the philosophical side of things goes, I am aware as I do this research that I am coming from a decidedly heterodox perspective. I keep hearing a voice in my mind repeating “All acts of love and pleasure are my rituals.” (From the “Charge of the Goddess,” for the non-Pagans in the audience.) It’s not something I can cite in my paper except as part of my disclosure of personal position. It certainly does not count as an “authority” for a paper on Christian, ethics. But I still have a lot of reading to do about recent theology and ethics in the area of sexuality and relationships, and hope to find some support for my non-traditional perspective.
The Bible itself is of little help to me in this matter, since in my opinion it has very little to say on the subject of marriage that is not culturally relative, except that marriage vows are to be maintained and respected as sacred. Both polygamy and monogamy are practiced virtually without comment in both Testaments. Some people like to make a case for the statement from Genesis about woman and man becoming “one flesh” being the basis for monogamy – but that doesn’t seem to have been a personal or spiritual ideal upheld by many of the patriarchs, and certainly not the kings of Israel and Judah.
The most helpful Biblical statement I’ve found actually comes from Paul, when he writes, “All things are lawful for me. Not all things are helpful” (1 Corinthians 10:23). While I can see no reason that plural marriage would be inherently unethical, it is certainly true that it is not a good option for everyone. (Nor, I would hasten to point out, is traditional monogamy.) Personally, I have a fantasy alter-ego who enjoys polyandry with two exceptional husbands, but I’m not convinced it would be a good idea for me to attempt in real life.
One of the ideas that I find repeated again and again and which I find particularly disturbing is that polygamy is a good alternative to divorce: the concept being that if a man’s first marriage isn’t working, and especially if there are children involved, it’s better to add another wife to the marriage rather than break up the first family. This is another example of the assumption that being married is of paramount importance to women, even if the marriage is an unhappy one. It seems to me that this is a great set-up for the man: who (or so the examples read) continues to have his children under his roof, and the domestic support of his first wife, while also enjoying a new relationship – and presumably more children – with an additional wife. Where the first wife finds satisfaction for her own sexual and emotional needs is something that these authors don’t seem to consider significant. After all: she still has a man providing for her and being present as a father to her children. What else does she need? Right?
Grrrr.
I envision a rather different model – and perhaps I’m unrealistic and naïve. But I can conceive of relationships in which the bonds of love and commitment between more than two people are deep and intense enough for those involved to want to sacralize them and build a family on them. I don’t see it as being common, or desirable for everyone, but I do see the option as worthy of consideration. Certainly there would be complexities that monogamous marriage would not bring – but I can also imagine advantages monogamy doesn’t have. (Keeping in mind I found monogamous marriage claustrophobic.) As of yet, I haven’t found any reason why plural marriage should be automatically considered un-ethical from an explicitly Christian perspective – even though many Christians are hung up about sex and relationships -- and I'm sure that even some who are not would disagree with me strenuously and at great length.
Musings follow behind cut:
To my surprise, polyandry – the marriage of one woman to multiple husbands – is almost unheard-of in world history. A few examples exist, but they are always noted as being an exception.
Polygamy – the marriage of one man to multiple wives – has been known in very many cultures, and is a distinctively patriarchal institution. It is based on a fundamental assumption that women need to be married and have children, although the “why” underlying that need varies.
I have mixed feelings about my findings. Personally, I see nothing wrong with plural marriage, so long as it is truly consensual and carried out with the degree of integrity and love that one would expect from any marriage (and cultural expectations differ). It has been disturbing to me to discover that, historically speaking, plural marriage is so relentlessly patriarchal. I’m also disappointed that polyandry is so rare, and usually involves one woman married to brothers, as a way of keeping the husbands’ family property intact but giving all the brothers a legitimate sexual relationship and heirs.
As far as the philosophical side of things goes, I am aware as I do this research that I am coming from a decidedly heterodox perspective. I keep hearing a voice in my mind repeating “All acts of love and pleasure are my rituals.” (From the “Charge of the Goddess,” for the non-Pagans in the audience.) It’s not something I can cite in my paper except as part of my disclosure of personal position. It certainly does not count as an “authority” for a paper on Christian, ethics. But I still have a lot of reading to do about recent theology and ethics in the area of sexuality and relationships, and hope to find some support for my non-traditional perspective.
The Bible itself is of little help to me in this matter, since in my opinion it has very little to say on the subject of marriage that is not culturally relative, except that marriage vows are to be maintained and respected as sacred. Both polygamy and monogamy are practiced virtually without comment in both Testaments. Some people like to make a case for the statement from Genesis about woman and man becoming “one flesh” being the basis for monogamy – but that doesn’t seem to have been a personal or spiritual ideal upheld by many of the patriarchs, and certainly not the kings of Israel and Judah.
The most helpful Biblical statement I’ve found actually comes from Paul, when he writes, “All things are lawful for me. Not all things are helpful” (1 Corinthians 10:23). While I can see no reason that plural marriage would be inherently unethical, it is certainly true that it is not a good option for everyone. (Nor, I would hasten to point out, is traditional monogamy.) Personally, I have a fantasy alter-ego who enjoys polyandry with two exceptional husbands, but I’m not convinced it would be a good idea for me to attempt in real life.
One of the ideas that I find repeated again and again and which I find particularly disturbing is that polygamy is a good alternative to divorce: the concept being that if a man’s first marriage isn’t working, and especially if there are children involved, it’s better to add another wife to the marriage rather than break up the first family. This is another example of the assumption that being married is of paramount importance to women, even if the marriage is an unhappy one. It seems to me that this is a great set-up for the man: who (or so the examples read) continues to have his children under his roof, and the domestic support of his first wife, while also enjoying a new relationship – and presumably more children – with an additional wife. Where the first wife finds satisfaction for her own sexual and emotional needs is something that these authors don’t seem to consider significant. After all: she still has a man providing for her and being present as a father to her children. What else does she need? Right?
Grrrr.
I envision a rather different model – and perhaps I’m unrealistic and naïve. But I can conceive of relationships in which the bonds of love and commitment between more than two people are deep and intense enough for those involved to want to sacralize them and build a family on them. I don’t see it as being common, or desirable for everyone, but I do see the option as worthy of consideration. Certainly there would be complexities that monogamous marriage would not bring – but I can also imagine advantages monogamy doesn’t have. (Keeping in mind I found monogamous marriage claustrophobic.) As of yet, I haven’t found any reason why plural marriage should be automatically considered un-ethical from an explicitly Christian perspective – even though many Christians are hung up about sex and relationships -- and I'm sure that even some who are not would disagree with me strenuously and at great length.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-05 09:50 pm (UTC)now that you're talking about it, i can't think of any explicit scriptural reason that plural marriage is unchristian. implicitly, it might be considered anti-egalitarian, as historically more powerful and richer men got more women, and some poorer men got none.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-05 10:06 pm (UTC)The conclusion of the article refers to one of the standard assumptions of mainstream culture: that polygamy is inherently demeaning to women. I can see that that is certainly a danger in such an arrangement, particularly in a patriarchal culture, but I'm not convinced it is necessarily the case. I also found it interesting that the author quoted this passage: "if some men may have many wives, the logical conclusion is that other men may have none! This places men in a war with each other," once again putting women in the position of commodity.
My sense is that men or women can become commodities, depending on how one approaches a relationship. Women who enter polygamous marriages primarily to have a father for their children could be said to make a commodity of the husband. It is never ethical to make another person a commodity or a means to an end.
The comparison to slavery is another feature which comes up from time to time, and one that I have pondered at length. Slavery is an inherently demeaning and unethical situation. I feel that way even about consensual 24/7 D/s relationships (about which I speak from experience). Is polygamous marriage, even when consensual, also inherently demeaning? I don't see it -- but I'm pretty certain I'm in a minority in that opinion. The question is whether I'm the one acting from a position of non-rational emotionalism or my opponents are.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-05 11:20 pm (UTC)are there any good resources on full-time d/s relationships? i know nothing about them.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-06 08:33 am (UTC)People from Mali, Senegal, Cameroon and Togo come from polygamous cultures. Even the French did not outlaw the practice until 1993. What happens to people of these cultures when they move to places like the US? Does he bring the loyal helpmate of several decades, or the young and attractive second wife? It is up to him.
Just to add to the confusion, where polygamy is mentioned and the courts were using the word polygamy when they probably meant polygyny. Polygamy is "marriage with more than one person at once". As such it includes polyandry and any other arrangement where 3 or more people regard themselves as married. It would probably include a breached relationship, which usually took (takes?) place in the context of polygamy. Polygyny does not only occur in an Islamic context. South Asian and West African Christians and some Jews practice polygyny, and it used to be practiced in China. Most of our clients with a polygyny problem are Islamic.
I dont know, I think it is a good idea, but I was told to obey the laws of the land.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-06 09:25 pm (UTC)One of the interesting things about this project is that it's making clear just how much of marriage is culturally conditioned, in form and in expectation.
As for the law of the land, you're right that it's an important consideration. Fortunately, I don't have to worry about that in my paper. But for a full discussion, the relationship of the community at large is something that would need to be taken into account.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-07 08:05 am (UTC)On thing you should also check is what's polyamory is. Polyamory means, "loving more than one". This love may be sexual, emotional, spiritual, or any combination thereof, according to the desires and agreements of the individuals involved. People who are open to more than one relationship even if they are not currently involved in more than one also use “Polyamorous” as a descriptive term.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-08 09:12 am (UTC)I realize, of course, that polygynous spouses, just like dyadic spouses, can have contracts that involve non-martial sex (or - as you point out - other types of emotional relationships), but I need to limit the scope of my paper.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-06 09:32 am (UTC)I'm not sure I have anything brilliant to say on the matter, except that in writing Nouveau Montmartre I'm a very monogamous person writing about an essentially polyamourous society. Two of my courtesan characters, Fionn and Dermot, have a strong commitment to one another and live together, without any legal marriage and without it interfering with their seeing patrons. A lot of Courtesies have stable marriage-like partnerships with one another, and for patrons, sex with a Courtesy is not seen as adultery in the same way that having an affair with a friend would be (although it would be easy to cross that line).
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-06 09:42 pm (UTC)I think you're right. There is also an issue, I believe, with the importance of the "legitimacy" of offspring and the continuation of a bloodline from a patriarchal perspective. One woman with multiple husbands wouldn't necessarily be able to determine who the father of any particular child was, which would be a huge issue in many cultures.
Your Nouveau Montmarte stories sound like the kind of things I could easily imagine and enjoy.