= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on Poly marriage? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (127)
My position is that polygamy should be tolerated, but not celebrated (or recognized by law). My reasons:
1) It will probably lead to a shortage of women, as some men hog all the women for themselves. Women are more willing to share a man than vice-versa. (Whether this is cultural or biological is irrelevant. Either way you'll end up with a shortage of women.)
2) Poly marriages are not as stable as two person relationships. The more premises an argument has, the less likely it is to be sound; so too for marriage. Dan Savage says that he's been to number of "poly weddings", but has never been to a poly tenth anniversary party.
Two questions.
1) If women are generally willing to share men, how does it come about that the women are being "hogged" (which I understand to mean that they are partnered with only one man)?
2) Is #2 a special case of a general belief that family arrangements that are less stable than currently-legally-recognized families ought not be celebrated or recognized by law? Or does it just apply to this case?
Women are willing to share a man, and the man is unwilling to share his women.
Ah, I see. (nods) That makes sense.