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: 2004-05-08 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.