Monogamy vs Polygamy: advantages and disadvantages - r/polyamory not permitted

What works better in your opinion?

  • Monogamy

    Votes: 73 93.6%
  • Polygamy

    Votes: 5 6.4%

  • Total voters
    78
Most of these people end up miserable.
That's my line of thought as well.
I mean, how can a person share certain type of feelings for/with two or more people?
That kind of love, friendship and complicity can be established and kept between two persons alone; and one day be outweighted only by the love one can have for his/her children.

A romantic relationship is complicated enough when you only have one
Totally agree.
 
And then they always try to be like, well, but don't you have multiple friends? Well, sure, but friendship is different. And that's okay! Most people know people they only hang out with in groups, or only hang out with occasionally, and that's fine--but that's not what you want with romance.
The comparison they put between multiple friendships and relationships can be turned against them, actually.
I'll explain: you can have multiple friends, but generally no problem comes out of it because they aren't on the same plan, and they (generally) don't pretend you to have an exclusive friendship with them, because every friendship is different, they aren't the same and don't have the same premise.
Everyone keeps his/her own place.
Polyamory or polygamous that maybe, they pretend to put romantic partners on the same plan, when it's nearly impossible to do. I mean, it's difficult already to do with the offspring, and that should come natural.
When people enter a relationship, they subconsciously want a thing: to be THE person the partner has feelings for, share worries with, kiss, fucks; not a person among many.

Compared to polyamory/polygamous stuff; mistresses and lovers relationships are more workable because just that: everyone keeps a different place: there's the husband, his wife and his mistress; or the wife, her husband and her lover.
 
https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2017/12/19/the-link-between-polygamy-and-war
The link between polygamy and war

IT IS a truth universally acknowledged, or at least widely accepted in South Sudan, that a man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of many wives. Paul Malong, South Sudan’s former army chief of staff, has more than 100—no one knows the exact number. A news website put it at 112 in February, after one of the youngest of them ran off to marry a teacher. The couple were said to be in hiding. To adapt Jane Austen again, we are all fools in love, but especially so if we cuckold a warlord in one of the world’s most violent countries.

Men in South Sudan typically marry as often as their wealth—often measured in cattle—will allow. Perhaps 40% of marriages are polygamous. “In [our] culture, the more family you have, the more people respect you,” says William, a young IT specialist in search of his second wife (his name, like some others in this article, has been changed). Having studied in America and come back to his home village, he finds that he is wealthy by local standards. So why be content with just one bride?

Few South Sudanese see the connection between these matrimonial customs and the country’s horrific civil war. If you ask them the reason for the violence, locals will blame tribalism, greedy politicians, weak institutions and perhaps the oil wealth which gives warlords something to fight over. All true, but not the whole story.

Wherever it is widely practised, polygamy (specifically polygyny, the taking of multiple wives) destabilises society, largely because it is a form of inequality which creates an urgent distress in the hearts, and loins, of young men. If a rich man has a Lamborghini, that does not mean that a poor man has to walk, for the supply of cars is not fixed. By contrast, every time a rich man takes an extra wife, another poor man must remain single. If the richest and most powerful 10% of men have, say, four wives each, the bottom 30% of men cannot marry. Young men will take desperate measures to avoid this state.

This is one of the reasons why the Arab Spring erupted, why the jihadists of Boko Haram and Islamic State were able to conquer swathes of Nigeria, Iraq and Syria, and why the polygamous parts of Indonesia and Haiti are so turbulent. Polygamous societies are bloodier, more likely to invade their neighbours and more prone to collapse than others are. The taking of multiple wives is a feature of life in all of the 20 most unstable countries on the Fragile States Index compiled by the Fund for Peace, an NGO (see chart).

20171223_xmc949.png
Because polygamy is illegal in most rich countries, many Westerners underestimate how common it is. More than a third of women in West Africa are married to a man who has more than one wife. Plural marriages are plentiful in the Arab world, and fairly common in South-East Asia and a few parts of the Caribbean. The cultures involved are usually patrilineal: ie, the family is defined by the male bloodline. And they are patrilocal: wives join the husband’s family and leave their own behind. Marriages are often sealed by the payment of a brideprice from the groom’s family to the bride’s. This is supposed to compensate the bride’s family for the cost of raising her.

A few men attract multiple wives by being exceptionally charismatic, or by persuading others that they are holy. “There may be examples of [male] cult leaders who did not make use of their position to further their personal polygyny, but I cannot think of any,” notes David Barash of the University of Washington in “Out of Eden: The Surprising Consequences of Polygamy”. However, the most important enabler of the practice is not the unequal distribution of charm but the unequal distribution of wealth. Brideprice societies where wealth is unevenly distributed lend themselves to polygamy—which in turn inflates the price of brides, often to ruinous heights. In wretchedly poor Afghanistan, the cost of a wedding for a young man averages $12,000-$20,000.

By increasing the bride price, polygamy tends to raise the age at which young men get married; it takes a long time to save enough money. At the same time, it lowers the age at which women get married. All but the wealthiest families need to “sell” their daughters before they can afford to “buy” wives for their sons; they also want the wives they shell out for to be young and fertile. In South Sudan “a girl is called an old lady at age 20 because she cannot bear many children after that,” a local man told Marc Sommers of Boston University and Stephanie Schwartz of Columbia University. A tribal elder spelled out the maths of the situation. “When you have 10 daughters, each one will give you 30 cows, and they are all for [the father]. So then you have 300 cows.” If a patriarch sells his daughters at 15 and does not let his sons marry until they are 30, he has 15 years to enjoy the returns on the assets he gained from brideprice. That’s a lot of milk.

Valerie Hudson of Texas A&M University and Hilary Matfess of Yale have found that an inflated brideprice is a “critical” factor “predisposing young men to become involved in organised group violence for political purposes”. Terrorist groups know this, too. Muhammad Kasab, a Pakistani terrorist hanged for his role in the Mumbai attacks of 2008, said he joined Lashkar-e-Taiba, the jihadist aggressor, because it promised to pay for his siblings to get married. In Nigeria, Boko Haram arranges marriages for its recruits. The so-called Islamic State used to offer foreign recruits $1,500 towards a starter home and a free honeymoon in Raqqa. Radical Islamist groups in Egypt have also organised cheap marriages for members. It is not just in the next life that jihadists are promised virgins.

In South Sudan, brideprices may be anything from 30 to 300 cows. “For young men, the acquisition of so many cattle through legitimate means is nearly impossible,” write Ms Hudson and Ms Matfess. The alternative is to steal a herd from the tribe next door. In a country awash with arms, such cattle raids are as bloody as they are frequent. “7 killed, 10 others wounded in cattle raid in Eastern Lakes,” reads a typical headline in This Day, a South Sudanese paper. The article describes how “armed youths from neighbouring communities” stole 58 cows, leaving seven people—and 38 cows—shot dead “in tragic crossfire”.

Thousands of South Sudanese are killed in cattle raids every year. “When you have cows, the first thing you must do is get a gun. If you don’t have a gun, people will take your cows,” says Jok, a 30-year-old cattle herder in Wau, a South Sudanese city. He is only carrying a machete, but he says his brothers have guns.

Jok loves cows. “They give you milk, and you can marry with them,” he smiles. He says he will get married this year, though he does not yet have enough cows and, judging by his ragged clothes, he does not have the money to buy them, either. He is vague as to how he will acquire the necessary ruminants. But one can’t help noticing that he is grazing his herd on land that has recently been ethnically cleansed. Dinkas like Jok walk around freely in Wau. Members of other tribes who used to live in the area huddle in camps for displaced people, guarded by UN peacekeepers.

The people in the camps all tell similar stories. The Dinkas came, dressed in blue, and attacked their homes, killing the men and stealing whatever they could carry away, including livestock and young women. “Many of my family were killed or raped,” says Saida, a village trader. “The attackers cut people’s heads off. All the young men have gone from our village now. Some have joined the rebels. Some fled to Sudan.” Saida’s husband escaped and is now with his other wife in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital. Saida is left tending five children. Asked why all this is happening, she bursts into tears.

“If you have a gun, you can get anything you want,” says Abdullah, a farmer who was driven off his land so that Dinka marauders could graze their cattle on it. “If a man with a gun says ‘I want to marry you’, you can’t say no,” says Akech, an aid worker. This is why adolescent boys hover on the edge of battles in South Sudan. When a fighter is killed, they rush over and steal his weapon so that they can become fighters, too.

Overall, polygamy is in retreat. However, its supporters are fighting to preserve or even extend it. Two-fifths of Kazakhstanis want to re-legalise the practice (it was banned by the Bolsheviks). In 2008 they were thwarted, at least temporarily, when a female MP amended a pro-polygamy bill to say that polyandry—the taking of multiple hubands—would be allowed as well; Muslim greybeards balked at that.

In the West polygamy is too rare to be socially destabilising. To some extent this is because it is serialised. Rich and powerful men regularly swap older wives for younger ones, thus monopolising the prime reproductive years of several women. But that allows a few wives, not a few dozen. The polygamous enclaves in America run by breakaway Mormon sects are highly unstable—the old men in charge expel large numbers of young men for trivial offences so they can marry lots of young women themselves. Nevertheless, some American campaigners argue that parallelised polygamy should be made legal. If the constitution demands that gay marriage be allowed (as the Supreme Court ruled in 2015), then surely it is unconstitutional to disallow plural marriage, they argue. “Group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism,” writes Fredrik deBoer, an academic, in Politico, on the basis that long-term polyamorous relationships deserve as much legal protection as any others freely entered into.

Proponents of polygamy offer two main arguments beyond personal preference. One is that it is blessed in the Koran, which is true. The other is that it gives women a better chance of avoiding spinsterhood. Rania Hashem, a pro-polygamy campaigner in Egypt, claims that there is a shortage of men in her country. (There is not, but this is a common misconception among polygamists.) If more rich, educated Egyptian men take multiple wives, she says, this will make it easier for women to exercise their “right to have a husband”. Mona Abu Shanab, another Egyptian polygamy advocate, argues that polygamy is a sensible way to assuage male sexual frustration, a common cause of divorce. “Women after marriage just disregard their men [and] focus on their kids. They…always have an excuse for not engaging in intimate relations; they are always ‘tired’ or ‘sick’. This makes the men uncomfortable and drives them to…have a girlfriend.”

Some men see polygamy as a pragmatic response to female infertility. “My first wife was issueless,” says Gurmeet, a 65-year-old landlord in Lahore, Pakistan. At one point “she said our inability to have a child was because of my medical condition, not hers. I was enraged. I turned to religion and was guided [by God] to take a second wife.” He had been planning to try in-vitro fertilisation but God’s advice looked like a sounder investment. Initially, his first wife was “unwilling to share my affections with another woman”. But as time passed, she accepted the situation, says Gurmeet. He divided the house into two parts, so his wives could live separately. He divided his time equally between them. “It worked,” he says. The second wife had six children. But Gurmeet grumbles that she dressed less elegantly than his childless wife and did not keep her rooms as tidy.

Polygyny is hard work for men but good for women, says Gurmeet, because it is “undesirable” for a woman to be unmarried. Asked about polyandry, Gurmeet says, “I strongly disapprove. It is against nature for a woman to have multiple partners.” He elaborates: “As a young man I kept chickens. The cock has many hens, but he does not allow the females to mate with more than one partner. So it’s against natural law.”

Polygamy “can work fine, provided you do justice to [all wives] equally,” says Amar, a Pakistani judge with two wives. “If you do not prefer any one over the others, no problem arises.” He admits that if two wives live together in the same home, “a natural rivalry” arises. Dividing property can also be complicated and leads to a lot of litigation.

But Amar thinks he gets it right. “My routine is: I spend one night with one wife and one night with the other. That way, nobody feels treated badly. And I give them exactly the same amount of money to spend: they get one credit card each. As a judge, it is [my] foremost duty to deliver justice.” One of his wives enters the room and offers to give her side of the story. Her husband banishes her, with visible irritation, before your correspondent can ask her anything.

Although women in a polygamous society find it relatively easy to get married, the quality of their marriages may not be high. Because such brides are often much younger, not to mention ill-educated, they find it hard to stand up to their husbands. And brideprice is not conducive to a relationship of equals.

In South Sudan, nearly 80% of people think it acceptable for a husband to beat his wife for such things as refusing sex, burning the dinner and so on. Divorce requires that the bride’s family repay the brideprice; they may thus insist that the abused woman stays with her husband no matter how badly he treats her.

Polygamy is also bad for children. A study of 240,000 children in 29 African countries found that, after controlling for other factors, those in polygamous families were more likely to die young. A study among the Dogon of Mali found that a child in a polygynous family was seven to 11 times more likely to die early than a child in a monogamous one. The father spends his time siring more children rather than looking after the ones he already has, Mr Barash explains. Also, according to the Dogon themselves, jealous co-wives sometimes poison each other’s offspring so that their own will inherit more.

For Akech, the South Sudanese aid worker, growing up in a polygamous family “wasn’t easy”. Her father, a former rebel commander, had eight wives and numerous concubines. She has 41 siblings that she knows of. When she was six, she used to fetch 20 litres of water each day for her mother to use to make siko, a form of moonshine. Sometimes her father would come round drunk, bang on the door and take her mother’s money to spend on another woman. Akech remembers her parents quarrelling a lot. That said, the extended family could pull together in an emergency. When her father was shot in the leg, his wives teamed up to bathe him, get him to hospital and pay his medical bills.

One day, when Akech was at university, her father asked her to come and see him. “We had never had a father-daughter bond, so I was excited,” she remembers. When she arrived, he introduced her to a fellow officer and ordered her to marry him. She was horrified. Her father’s friend was 65. Akech was 19.

She pretended to accept the proposal and said she just wanted to pop back to her college, which was in a neighbouring country, to collect her things. Her father agreed. She went back to college and stayed there.

That was more than a decade ago. Akech went on to complete university and find a good job. She recently bought her now-elderly father a house, partly to show him the value of her education, but also out of a residual sense of guilt at having once defied him. “In my culture, your parents are your earthly gods. I tried not to disappoint him,” she says. He has never said sorry for attempting to sell her.
TL;DR It's not a coincidence that countries with high rates of polygamy also are unstable shitholes. That, and as others have already pointed out, it's terrible for women.
 
While finding more information to make an informed opinion, I did find studies that claim that polygamy quadruples your risk for heart disease, at least for men. My concern lies with how it affects the development of children, because I've seen statements range from "it does affect children's development" to "there's simply not enough data," but based off what I have found, it does show that there are issues in regard to the children's mental health and other issues, though that could be due to multiple variables. That said, in cases of polygamy that I've heard, there does seem to be a theme with abuse, primarily sexual abuse. If polygamy is more prone to that, especially if it involves inbreeding, fuck that.

While I'm generally a live and let live guy, it is my opinion that I do not think polygamy is healthy at all. All you have to do is stroll down to r/polyamory, and see what an absolute clusterfuck it is. If anything, they're just sluts in denial, considering how they handle the situation. And if my interaction with a polyamorous person is to go by, they really take it personally when you criticize their life style.
 
I don't have the energy for more then one relationship. Reading all the drama in the /r/polygamy thread makes me feel exhausted.
 
Monogamy works more than polygamy. The threads on Kiwifarms have proven this to me after seeing so many horror stories. Polygamy causes more loneliness and jealousy. Yes, monogamous partners can feel lonely and jealous as well, but get polygamists involved in all that and it becomes a messier problem with more drama. Mostly because people don't understand how to make it work.

And don't even get me started on the religious polygamists. That's just creepy.
 
There was a good clip of classic Howard Stern where he talked to a teenage fan with parents who were swingers. The boy knew his parents were swingers because they were open about it and he obviously had issues because of it. I wish I could find it because it was an interesting thing that showed the outcome that kids can have from polygamist parents.
This is the closest one I could find.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkn4TLaMLxI
 
Honestly, I think there should be a line drawn between r/polyamory and the swingers/libertines who do that kind of shit, and actual polygamous societies that have existed IRL. The latter seem to be responses to external pressure: polygyny emerges when a society is rapidly expanding (esp. by conquest) to maximize offspring while offsetting the huge attrition of the male population, while polyandry (in the very few cases that have existed) seems to be response to tightly constrained resources and little room for growth- i.e. institutionalized birth control. Say what you will about polygamous family structures, there have been functional societies that had them, while r/polyamory type stuff is a perpetual shit-show.

If I had to guess, I'd say a big complicating factor for the r/polyamory set is the complexity and uncertainty. In a social institution where everyone has clearly defined roles, everyone knows how things are supposed to go, what the boundaries are, and so on- hell, in most polygamous cases, only one person (the shared husband/wife) is actually maintaining multiple intimate relationships, while the co-husbands/wives are basically in-laws to each other. Contrast that to r/polyamory, where everyone is trying to maintain multiple partners all the time, and is never sure of their status because one or more of the other people can decide to change the rules at any time.
 
A relationship is something beautiful, but it is also a lot of stress for somebody. You have to accept your partners good and bad. Easy as that sounds, there are things that are hard to forgive. Imagine that shit, but double or more. It is just impossible to function with so many people on that level without losing your shit.
 
I guess I'll be the vocal minority here and say that :powerlevel: in my experiences, 3 ways have been functional.
As in, a closed relationship involving three individuals all dating each other. As long as all parties are completely honest and transparent there's no issue. But that's something I think most of the population would struggle with, especially since it's never clear exactly what is important to be honest and transparent about until you find yourself actually being part of something like that. It's absolutely not for everyone and I feel like it would be better for everyone if practicing such a thing stayed in the minority.

That being said, I have absolutely no living clue how 3+ or "polycules" function. You'd have an easier time figuring out rocket science as an outsider looking in than trying to make sense of that.
 
I guess I'll be the vocal minority here and say that :powerlevel: in my experiences, 3 ways have been functional.
As in, a closed relationship involving three individuals all dating each other. As long as all parties are completely honest and transparent there's no issue. But that's something I think most of the population would struggle with, especially since it's never clear exactly what is important to be honest and transparent about until you find yourself actually being part of something like that. It's absolutely not for everyone and I feel like it would be better for everyone if practicing such a thing stayed in the minority.

That being said, I have absolutely no living clue how 3+ or "polycules" function. You'd have an easier time figuring out rocket science as an outsider looking in than trying to make sense of that.
They love Google Calendar. Seriously, they talk about how great it is for polyamory all the time.

https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2017/12/19/the-link-between-polygamy-and-war
TL;DR It's not a coincidence that countries with high rates of polygamy also are unstable shitholes. That, and as others have already pointed out, it's terrible for women.
I realize this is mostly off topic, but I'm confused by the '20 year olds are too old to have lots of kids' remarks...Michelle Duggar started popping em out at 22, and she has 19. The average fertility rate in South Sudan is only 4.86 children per women! My grandma had seven and she was 28 when the first one was born, and just like Michelle Duggar, she had the last one at 43, which is historically pretty normal.
 
I realize this is mostly off topic, but I'm confused by the '20 year olds are too old to have lots of kids' remarks...Michelle Duggar started popping em out at 22, and she has 19. The average fertility rate in South Sudan is only 4.86 children per women! My grandma had seven and she was 28 when the first one was born, and just like Michelle Duggar, she had the last one at 43, which is historically pretty normal.

From what I understand, female fertility is a "use it or lose it" type deal. Women who have several kids in their 20s and 30s can go up to 45 or so, but a woman trying for her first after the age of (say) 40 is gonna have trouble even if she's not technically menopausal yet.

E:
Besides of ending up miserable, I wonder how the starting point is like with these people? It is actually interesting how the people I know doing that tend to be all kind of fucking weirdos who A) have some mental or emotional issues B) do it because it is woke progressive to have 3 dads instead of mom and dad or some shit.

A lot of it may just be a local variant of junkie logic: after all, if threesomes are fun and entertaining, why not just link up with the third person and have them all the time? Of course, the novelty wears off and the emotional investment starts to set in, and suddenly the fun adventure has turned into a dysfunctional soap opera that you can't disentangle yourself from without significant consequences. [:powerlevel:]Despite being a card-carrying degenerate myself, all the people I know who've had threesome and aren't complete wrecks are very strict about never getting involved with the third person. "Sex toy with a pulse" is one description I've heard.[/:powerlevel:]
 
Last edited:
Also, dunno if anyone pointed it out yet, but monogamy increases your life expentancy by an average of 10 years. It's usually explained that the stability of marriage and less stress derived from multiple partners puts less strain in your heart, making you live an average of 10 to 7 years longer than someone single.
 
Humans are naturally somewhat polygamous (I know, I know, wikipedia, but read it and the citations. Last paragraph in intro). Genetically its better for adapting to new environments because higher quality of genes are selected for, more rapidly (since not all the males mate, and males are more variable, this reduces the bottom end of the gene pool quite nicely).
Disadvantages is that men become hyper-competitive and aggressive to try to find a mate, by force if necessary, so it devolves into endless bloodshed. So monogamy is the best we've got for now but it limits potential human evolution in the future.

Tl;dr monogamy good short term, polygamy good long term.
 
I think we've reached the point in Western society where it doesn't really matter anymore. Monogamous relationships are better for family stability but we live in an era where children just spend 18 hours a day glued to video games so I think that ship has sailed. Polygamy is if not widely accepted at least tolerated in all but name, and that's only because multi-person marriages are just a tax scam.

Personally in my love life I prefer long-term single partner relationships. But that's just because I don't relate to people well. It's hard enough finding even one person I connect with enough for romance. Like shit I'm gonna keep track of half a dozen.
 
Back