Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:20, 1 December 2004

Edited the Robert Heinlein mention.

As to Heinlein's religious beliefs, see this FAQ.

His writings (with the arguable exception of "For Us The Living") did not claim that unconventional marriages are inherently superior to monogamous marriages. He described several dysfunctional or exploitative polygamous arrangements ("To Sail Beyond the Sunset" and "Friday" come to mind).

The paragraph as previously written might be thought to imply that Heinlein was a member of the Libertarian Party. As far as I know, he was not.

Removed until corroborated or made npov at the very least:

In mammals, proportion of sizes between males and females correlates with number of females that one male copulates with.

This criterion, as applied to humans, suggests that 2-4 wives per man (small polygyny) are natural state, and polyandry is completely unnatural.

Muslim limit of 4 wives per man is an argument that might confirm this result.

---

Naturalistic fallacy

We've achieved NPOV in the main page, I think, but at the cost of what amounts to a brief dictionary definition.

Regarding the correlation of male-female sizes and the number of partners that are involved in mating, I believe that Jared Diamond discusses this subject at some length in one of his books (maybe "The Third Chimpanzee", but I don't remember for sure). Examples among primates include gorillas, where the size difference is so great between the sexes that the males basically maintain harems. I am not so sure about the 2-4 wives part, though. Diamond argues that humans have a natural inclination towards mild polygamy, correlated with the slightly greater size of human males to human females. What I don't know is whether this theory is widely accepted or not, but it Diamond offers an evolutionary explanation for it. So perhaps one could cite Diamond in this article and mention that this is what he has argued regarding the subject.

So waddaya think? Have I managed to retain NPOV while expanding the dictionary definition? --the Epopt

Polygynous societies are about four times more numerous than monogamous ones. In 1994, Theodore C. Bergstrom noted in his paper "On the Economics of Polygyny" (U. Mich. Center for Research on Economic and Social Theory, Working Paper Series 94-11) that "Although overt polygamy is rare in our own society, it is a very common mode of family organization around the world. Of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny (some men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850."

I find the above puzzling, and I would like some confirmation that the conclusion, "Polygynous societies are about four times more numerous than monogamous ones," is one to which most anthropologists would subscribe. Here are some relevant questions:

• What percentage of people in the world at present have more than one spouse? (This is surely at least as important a statistic as the percentage of polygamous "societies.")
• How is "society" definied in Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas?
• Are modern industrial societies included in Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas, and according to the atlas, how many of them are there? How many of such societies are polygamous? (Surely that's of interest to people who consider their peers to be members of industrial societies as opposed to pre-industrial societies.)
• What time period does the study consider?
• What percentage of men in a society must have more than one wife in order for the society to be considered polygynous? Is Utah a "society" and would it be counted polygynous today just because it has a handful of polygamists?

Without answers to questions like this, the above quote really looks like pseudoscience. If you're going to make dramatic claims, in order for them to square with the neutral point of view policy, you've got to supply the relevant context.

--Larry Sanger

inaccurate and offensive?

I deleted the following text because I found it both inaccurate and offensive:

The sometimes spectacular numbers of wives of many of the patriarchs indicates that the prohibition does not originate within those religions, however. Rather, they conformed to the Greco-Roman culture of monogamous marriage and concubinage while it was dominant, and never revered to their original practices.

I also changed the sentence prior to the above text to say that all branches of Christianity and Judaism forbid polygamy at this time. If there are exceptions, they would certainly be worth noting. I know that there were some Jews in the vicinity of Yemen or somewhere on the Arabian Peninsula who were polygamous for a time, in keeping with the surrounding culture, but I don't believe they are still. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that point.

Until the Yemenite Jewish community emigrated to Israel in the 1950s in Operation Magic Carpter (yes, that was its real name!) they still practiced polygamy. They no longer do so, as Israeli law forbids polygamy.

As for Christians, they have never accepted polygamy, with the possible exception of the Church of Latter-day Saints, depending on whether you number them among the Christians. In any case, even the LDS no longer accept the practice.

There are non-LDS Christian polygamists. I think they mainly got the idea from the LDS though. (Yes, many of them live in Utah.) -- SJK

I found this at http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/stu/dcann/polygamy.htm (emphasis added): "The Latter-Day Saint Church originated in the "Burned-over District" of Western New York State where several religious revival movements experimented with different familial structures. Lawrence Foster noted that "Nearly all the new religious groups in the area were involved to some extent with unorthodox marriage ideals and practices. Such movements as the Shakers and the Oneida Perfectionists were only the tip of the iceberg of dissatisfaction with prevailing marriage, family, and sex roles" (1981: 131)." This URL also makes a case for early Christian and Jewish practice (from a Muslim standpoint, no less): http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/w_islam/poly.htm

As for "the patriarchs", some specific evidence would be in order. In Christianity, patriarch is the term used by the Eastern Orthodox to designate their highest ranking bishops. In that church, bishops are generally prohibited from having even one wife, much less several. If the author is referring to a few isolated Old Testament examples, it is very evident that not everything done by every Old Testament figure was exemplary. Their practice was not always in alignment with their beliefs or teaching.

It should be noted that the Israelies, and later rabbinic Jews, who followed the Tanach (Old Testament) came away with the impression that the ideal relationship was one man and one woman, and that marriages with more than one woman were _not_ the best thing. Thus, even before rabbinic Judaism as we know it today came into existence, polygamy was discouraged and not widely used. The Israelite Kings, of course, often had as many wives as they could! In the rabbinic Jewish era, one notes that of the thousands of people written about in the Talmud less than a handful had more than one wife.

--Wesley

I'd agree with all this Wesley except the idea of 'beliefs or teaching' - I don't remember what the law has to say about multiple wives; certainly multiple wives are common in the pre-Sinaitic Old Testament (and it does us no good to deny it) and were common in the royal family until well after Solomon, at least. I'm not sure when the last reference to a plural marriage of a Jew in the O.T. occurs. Certainly they HAD given up the practice in the (loosely named) 'intertestamental' period, but why that happened I have no idea. Jesus's evidence (divorce provided for only because of the hardness of your hearts) is certainly late, and not entirely apposite. --MichaelTinkler

Ashkenazi Jews kept polygamy as an option until around the year 1000 CE, even though it wasn't widely practiced before then. After that time, it was outlawed.

interesting! Where abouts was that? I've never run into any references to Jewish wives at all, let alone multiple ones, in Francia in the early medieval period. I've read lots of the material on the Jews (there are several good articles on the Jews in the Carolingian empire by A(llen? I forget how he spells his name) Cabaniss, but I don't remember ever reading about more than one wife (and I forget the name of her husband - he was a deacon at Charlemagne's court who converted to Judaism - quite a scandal). --MichaelTinkler

Michael: That sort of stuff, about the deacon, really fascinates me. I'd be interested to know what lead a medieveal Catholic to convert to Judaism. Is he just some oddity, or were there many others? I suppose this calls for Famous Christians who converted to Judaism in the Medieveal Period! (I can hear you screaming already... :-) -- SJK

In that case I will *never* tell you his name (which I can't remember at the moment anyway). He was extremely unusual, at least in my reading I've never come across another. He left Francia for Spain, married, etc. I'll look around. (later) Best I can do from home and via the internet is that it is Allen Cabaniss. It *might* be in the book on Agobard of Lyon (subject and title). I'll try to keep it in mind, though I don't think we have any of our books in our little library here, and I'm not going to Cornell for anything for a while. --MichaelTinkler

Canon Law

Article says:

Polygamy is currently prohibited by almost all Jewish and Christian groups, a relatively recent change from the canon law of their early centuries.

Firstly, I've never head of the term "canon law" being applied to Judaism. I might be wrong, but I believe it is a purely Christian term. (There is no exact equivalent to Christian canon law in Judaism, but the closest thing would be halakah.) Secondly, canon law isn't a term that applies to all Christians either -- it is used mainly by the Catholics and the Orthodox and some of the more ecclesial Protestants. A lot of Protestant churches don't use the term at all.

Finally, while polygamy was certaintly allowed in early Judaism, I'd like to see some evidence for it being permitted in early centuries of Christianity. I'm pretty sure that mainstream Christianity has never allowed it. -- SJK

Prove that something didn't exist? A quixotic quest! Yoicks, and away! --The Epopt

Hmmm - the typical discussion of what you seem to be calling polygamy in the early church centers around 'husband of one wife' - which is a matter of serial monogamy rather than polygamy. The question most discussions of marriage in the early church that I've read (Tertullian, Augustine, etc. - it's not something that interests me much until the 10th century and talk about sacraments) concerns if someone who has been married ONCE can be allowed to REMARRY. Certainly they thought that no priest or deacon should, and weren't even sure if laypeople should. On another point, be very cautious about making statements based on positive laws - they neither prove the existence of the crime nor do they prove its stamping out. I have no idea about those popes and proclamations against polygamy - they may have been talking about something very specific, but nowhere in the Roman Mediterranean was polygamy practiced by the 'civilized'. Concubinage and whoring around, sure, but more than one wife at a time was not legal under Roman law. --MichaelTinkler

Ah. De Bono conjugali is written against Jovinian, who was a believer in total virginity. In fact, it's Augustine's defense of marriage (as practiced by the Romans). I've just finished teaching the Confessions, where there's all the material about how his relationship with the unnamed concubine was inadequate based on intention. O.K., I'm looking at it now. He's talking about remarriage. For instance:

17. That marriage can take place of persons first ill joined, an honest decree following after, is manifest. But a marriage once for all entered upon in the City of our God, where, even from the first union of the two,the man and the woman, marriage bears a certain sacramental character, can no way be dissolved but by the death of one of them. For the bond of marriage remains, although a family, for the sake of which it was entered upon, do not follow through manifest barrenness; so that, when now married persons know that they shall not have children, yet it is not lawful for them to separate even for the very sake of children, and to join themselves unto others. And if they shall so do, they commit adultery with those unto whom they join themselves, but themselves remain husbands and wives. Clearly with the good will of the wife to take another woman, that from her may be born sons common to both, by the sexual intercourse and seed of the one, but by the right and power of the other, was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bare children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful. For the difference that separates times causes the due season to have so great force unto the justice and doing or not doing any thing, that now a man does better, if he marry not even one wife, unless he be unable to contain. But then they married even several without any blame, even those who could much more easily contain, were it not that piety at that time had another demand upon them. For, as the wise and just man, who now desires to be dissolved and to be with Christ, and takes more pleasure in this, the best, now not from desire of living here, but from duty of being useful, takes food that he may remain in the flesh, which is necessary for the sake of others; so to have intercourse with females in right of marriage, was to holy men at that time a matter of duty not of lust.

He's talking about the Old Testament patriarchs, not about his contemporaries. He's avoiding casting judgement on them, but it clearly makes him feel queasy. --MichaelTinkler

Michael: I agree with you. The passage in question, as I interpret it, shows that he didn't like it, but couldn't completely condemn it because of the OT patriarchs. I doubt that the permissibility of polygamy was little more than a theoretical question for him, since almost no one in that area at that time practiced it. Certaintly any early Christian who tried to practice polygamy would have been ejected as one of loose character, and they'd simply say the OT case doesn't apply anymore. -- SJK

yep, pretty much. So, now I want references to the so-called 'first' condemnations of polygamy so that I can read those, too. --MichaelTinkler

And where did the Luther thing come from? He is either speaking rhetorically (as is typical for him) or he is, once again, speaking of sequential marriages. This article may need a subhead for 'serial polygamy'. The actual practice of polygamy in Luther's time was identified with the millenarian movements (like that in Muenster) which he explicitly condemned - folks who sound remarkably like David Koresh). I have to admit that I'm prejudiced. I've read too much history to believe any of your examples that many-wives-at-the-same-time (rather than serial polygamy) was EVER condoned by any orthodox or even mildly heterodox Christian. It just won't fly. --MichaelTinkler

Article currently says :"(the United States Congress made the practice illegal on March 22, 1892)" but this is not quite right.

1. States regulate marriage laws, the Congress generally doesn't (or shouldn't)
2. Congress does, however, have authority to legislate on such matters in the Territories, which, conveniently, Utah was one of.
3. it was the Morrill Act, in 1862, which outlawed polygamy in the territories
4. the Morrill Act survived a challenge as to its constitutionality (on the basis of freedom of religion) in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1879
5. those who wanted to enforce the Morrill Act, though, had to prove that two marriages had been performed, and often couldn't gather sufficient evidence for conviction
6. in recognition of which, the Edmunds Act was passed in 1882 (the law in question), which made "bigamous cohabitation" (not polygamy) a misdemeanor (in the Territories).
7. It was easier to prove cohabitation than it was to prove a second marriage, so there were more actual convictions.
8. There was more legislation, probably too tedious for y'all to read, but in essence Congress eventually required antibigamy clauses to be included in the state constitutions of Territories as they were admitted as States.

I don't think all this needs to be included, but I'll rewrite the sentence, hopefully not too much less clearly but with a view to what was actually legislated... -- Someone else 07:25 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

You didn't need to do all that work to get me to remove the text - I know my source isn't the best (even though I try to confirm everything via Google). --mav

Well, no, but at first all I had was a vague feeling that Congress shouldn't be able to legislate on polygamy in the states. Now I know they didn't just go ahead and do it anyway <<GG>> -- Someone else 07:36 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

Polygyny

Can anybody provide a list of all the countries in the world in which polygyny is legal?

TIA

1001 Nights cite

The tale in question is that of Qamar al-Zaman and Budur. Most translations I've seen, even Burton's, remove any suggestion of bisexuality (beyond the fact that Budur 'marries' another woman while disguised as Qamar), but it can be found in e.g. the Mardrus/Mathers translation. --Calair 03:52, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DD

Suggestion -- remove BIGAMY from a redirect and allow it to be discussed as a separate topic. Due to the legalistic nature of the term, it really is only partly related to Polygamy.

Polygamy is about marriage, not sex

When making edits on the polygamy article, it is important that the post understand that polygamy is about marriage, not sex. Only those who do not know about polygamy are the ones who think it is about sex. Those who do know what polyyamy is about, know it is not about the sex.

Also, many things which actually apply to polyamory are being posted as if it is about polygamy. Doing so is incorrect. Before posting such things to the polygamy article, posters should make sure that it is only about polygamy.

Lastly, for NPOV, it is irrelevant to make any reference to group sex. To say that polygamy "may or may not" involve that is as irrelevant as it would be to say that monogamy may or may not involve that. It would also be as biased as saying "Christianity may or may not involve devil worship." To even imply that hint is to display a bias toward thinking that polygamy supposedly does mean "group sex," when it does not. Again, only those who do not really know anything about polygamy would assert that polygamy has anything to do with that.

Misplaced Pages posts are supposed to be NPOV. Please make sure such posts stay that way.

That's fine, but what I wrote in "Bisexuality and polyamory" was no more sex-oriented than the version that preceded it, to which you then reverted. My interest was not in adding or removing information from the article, but to remove the mistaken claim that such relationships are novel and to improve on some awkward phrasing.

For instance, "this uncommon form is simply the means to an end for individuals seeking this kind of polyamory relationship" is pretty much meaningless. *Any* relationship could be described as "the means to an end for individuals seeking this kind of relationship".

If sex is irrelevant to this article, then it seems to me that the whole section is superfluous; ignoring sexual arrangements, all it says is "some people have multiple spouses", which adds nothing to what's already been written. Why not remove it entirely? --Calair 02:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You did a good job of simplifying, Calair -- especially given that you were working with what was already there. If the segment is indeed to even be kept, then, for clarity, the paragraph needed to begin with the opening clause and to close with the last sentence. (Like you reasonably ask, I am not sure if it will indeed stay, but we'll see.)

For it to stay, though, readers need to be informed right off the bat that what then follows is not what most polygamists do. The concluding sentence explains the polyamorists' motivation in that situtaion so as to help the reader further understand why it is not typical of actual polygamy. Frankly, I am with you, as I am inclined to think that the topic of this section may be more appropriate only for the polyamory listing instead.

Finally, the point of my talk-post here was also for preceding a removal of another sentence elsewhere in the article -- where someone was trying to suggest that polygamy may possibly involve group sex. That one and other similar posts in the article have been suggesting things about polygamy which are only steroetypical misinformation. So, this talk-post was not saying that about your post.

I generally liked the simplification you made (such as in grammar), and I only corrected the portions where necessary. But you did fine. Thanks. -- Researcher99

Ah, right. Misunderstanding was my fault - I looked at your two edits combined, and only saw the explanation for the second. I still feel the final sentence is superfluous, though - the point that this isn't typical of polyamory has already been made, and doesn't need to be made again. The repetition seems unnecessarily defensive.

There are some grammatical issues, but honestly, polyamory already covers much of this, and I think it's easier to shift the rest there. Will replace with a little bit on the distinction between polyamory and polygamy. --Calair 23:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I understand. I had actually solved your last concen by adding, "polyamory relationship." However, the issue is moot now that it is all removed anyway. Good job. -- Researcher99

Why was the section on the Oneida Community removed? It might not have been a typical form of polygamy, but each member of the community certainly had multiple spouses; as such, it fits the definition of 'polygamy' rather better than it fits 'polyamory'.

Also, rather than directing 'group sex' examples to polyamory, please point them instead to group sex. There is some overlap between the two terms, but they're not interchangeable. --Calair 13:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can understand why and how someone might make that simple mistake. "Group marriage" does not meet the definition of polygamy, as it is neither polygyny nor polyandry. Instead, it is a unique concept completely on its own and separate from polygamy. Just as monogamy means one with one, polygamy means one with many. Hence, in polygamy, there is either one husband with many wives (polygyny) or one wife with many husbands (polyandry). On top of that, just as one would not start listing off Jim Jones' group or David Koresh's group as examples for defining Christianity, listing off very rare and fluke isolated examples of off-topic possibilities is similarly not applicable in a definition for polygamy. But it doesn't matter anyway because "group marriage" is not polygamy; the point is moot. Again, though, I do understand how one can make that mistake. Your help is very much appreciated.

On your recommendation about not referring 'group sex' examples to polyamory, but to group sex instead, I agree. Thank you for the very good idea on that. -- Researcher99

As it stands, the article defines polygamy as "a marital practice in which a person has more than one spouse simultaneously". Merriam-Webster similarly defines it as "marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time". Neither of those definitions require or even suggest that only *one* person within the marriage may have multiple spouses.

The rarity of group marriages in comparison to "one-to-several" marriages inevitably means that 'polygamy' is most commonly used for the latter, but Googling shows that it is also used for the former. For instance, the | Columbia Electronic Encyclopaedia describes the OC's complex marriage as 'a form of polygamy'.

Misplaced Pages's role is to reflect usage, not dictate it. If dictionary definitions, usage, and even the article's own definition encompass "several-to-several" forms of marriage, then it seems that the article should acknowledge group marriages as a form of polygamy.

I think I see a possible compromise, though - will have a stab at this on the main page and see whether it's mutually acceptable. --Calair 23:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The more apt reason that that link might say a "form of polygamy" is because polyamory is not in most dictionaries. Anthropologists, when speaking of polygamy, usually only refer to either polygyny or polyandry. When the circumstance is any other configuration, they usually identify it individually.

Maybe I can explain myself better with a biological parallel. Biologists, when speaking of mammals, usually only refer to either placental mammals or marsupials. When speaking about any other form (i.e. monotremes) they usually identify it individually.

But this doesn't mean monotremes aren't mammals. It's because they are rare (so 99% of mammal-related discussion is about placentals and/or marsupials) and they're unusual (so when monotremes *are* under consideration, biologists prefer to use the narrower and much more informative term). The label 'mammal' is quite correct when applied to monotremes; it's just that there's rarely an occasion when it's the most useful word.

IMHO, group marriage is a similar thing. It's rare enough and atypical enough that it's usually identified individually, but that shouldn't make the broader label invalid. However, I've tried to word that bit to explain how it differs from 'conventional' polygamy without actually declaring whether it is or isn't polygamy. --Calair 06:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When looking for a word to give a reader a closer understanding of such individual configurations, perhaps one might say other configurations are a "form of polygamy," but that's only to try to help the reader try to get a grasp of it using a word they might recognize -- but they do not use the circumstance to to define polygamy itself. And again, many are not familiar with the word, polyamory, and it is not in many dictionaries.

Where you wrote, "'polygamy' is more often used to refer to codified forms of multiple marriage (especially those with a traditional/religious basis)," I think it might be better to make the distinction that polygamy refers to either polygyny or polyandry -- making it much clearer.

For the most part, though, I like most of what you've done on this. Please give me a day or so to figure out what I think further about it. Thanks for a good job though! -- Researcher99

I'm not sure that substituting in 'polyamory' does much to resolve things. It's not much better than 'polygamy' or 'group sex' as a catch-all term; each of them takes in some of that "everything other than standard monogamy", but none of them covers it all. Sex, love, and marriage are closely related phenomena, but any of them can exist without the others. --Calair 06:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think I understand your point and you make an excellent example with the biology anecdote. I find, however, I still am unable to agree that the comparison is the same. It is more likely that polyamory would be more comparable to the "mammals" in your example. It could probably even be said that polygamy is the "subset of polyamory," even though polygamy makes up a larger portion than all other subsets "in polyamory" combined. (This would also explain why the rarity of polyandry is also welcomed in the online polyamory community than in polygamy in general.)

That 'larger portion than all other subsets' may be true, but it seems to me that it'd be very hard to confirm. Counting polyamorous relationships is a very tricky thing; I'm not sure if anybody's even given it a serious try. --Calair 00:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the internet, when I read through the many communications and articles in the polyamory community, I find that they do intend to be the "catchall" to be everything else that polygamy is not. They do hold themselves out that way and they openly seek to accept other non-standard forms.

(I'd like to distinguish between 'accept' in the 'That's OK' sense and the 'recognise as a form of polyamory' sense. I agree that most polyamorists are very accepting of non-standard forms in the former sense; the latter sense, not quite so much, and that's the one we're debating here. --Calair 00:09, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC))

"Polyamory" is not in most dictionaries. Polygamy does not offer -- nor do polygamists welcome it as being -- the "catchall" answer (by polygamy being only polygyny or polyandry). Anthropologists use "polygamy" as either being polygyny or polyandry. Now that there is such a word, "polyamory" (which still needs to enter dictionaries), it gives anthropologists and everyone else a term that they are now able to use when they need to label other "poly" configurations. Those in the online polyamory community very much view and encourage its use (i.e., polamory) this way as the "catchall," as well. Because of these reasons, it makes sense to me to use it that way, too. -- Researcher99

What you describe doesn't match my experience. If you've been following polyamorous discussions, you've probably already encountered the usually-derogatory term 'polyfuckery', which almost always occurs in a "things polyamory isn't" context. Many polyamorists who might see nothing wrong with 'polyfuckery' (and even some who practice it) do not recognise it as polyamory. Many others do accept the catch-all usage, but it's certainly not a consensus.

You've probably also noticed that polyamorists place a very high premium on the principle of free and informed consent. This is unfortunately *not* found in all the practices one would like to fit into a catch-all. For instance, descriptions of the Oneida Community use words like "compelled to accept" in describing the arrangement whereby senior community members initiated virgins. I suspect most modern polyamorists would deplore such an arrangement and be very reluctant to recognise it as true polyamory. Ditto, practices like concubinage.

Naturally, there's a degree of image control in this. Nobody wants to share a pigeonhole with David Koresh ;-) But since 'polyamory' seems to have been coined largely for purposes of self-description, the self-described polyamorists do have a lot of say in what it means. For that reason, a broader meaning encompassing practices that most self-described polyamorists find deeply objectionable is unlikely to achieve general acceptance any time soon. --Calair 00:09, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)