*I don't see many articles arguing for women to be able to take on many husbands.*

Pelican, perhaps there arn't too many women who would want 2-3
husbands. After all, it seems that those married women have
enough headaches, when trying to cope with just one male :)

In the third world, polygamy is very much a status symbol,
restricted to those men who can bankroll a number of wives.
Here they simply have a wife and a mistress.

If Australian law was changed, the implication would be that the
Govt would pick up the costs, whilst hubby shags his life
away with many wives. Hardly fair to the poor old taxpayer.

When a bloke on another sight announced he was going to marry his long term girlfriend, there was a rash of posts, wanting to know why he had decided to give up sex.

From that chat it would appear that the more wives you had, the less sex you would get, so in your scenairo Yabby, he'd probably have to go out & get a girlfriend to get any at all.

"There is always resentment and rejection, and the perception that the husband has a new plaything. “

I'm sure that’s often right. However they are reasons against people entering into these relationships. They are not reasons for criminalising them.

“… imply a kind of reluctant or 'no other option' consent.”

The fact that we don’t like or don’t prefer our other options, doesn’t mean we have no other option. For example, most people don’t like to be unemployed. But that doesn’t mean that their employment should be criminalised as slavery. This is no different.

“I just believe that we do, mainly women, a disservice to make white anglo saxon judgements about the 'freedoms' of some women to actually give informed and empowered consent in light of other socio-cultural considerations.”

That is begging the question, which is whether, assuming they do consent, it should be criminalised anyway. But if it were true, then the logic of non "anglo saxon" brains would work differently from ango saxon brains, and so on, and no law would be justified.

“Polygamy is always raised as an issue in reference to men taking on more wives. I don't see many articles arguing for women to be able to take on many husbands.”

No but that is not a reason to criminalise it if they do. But perhaps they don't want to as much. So what? Is that your business?

Suzieonline
“Some men, probably with the necessary help of Viagra, would find the legal, easily available prospect of different sexual partners very appealing no doubt.”

You seem to think it is an argument against it that men would like it. Your approach is degrading: should it be illegal too?

“Why not the other way around?”

Why not indeed? What reason can you give?

The fallacy in all the ‘degrading to women’ arguments is that they assume that what women want from marriage is the same as men.

If it’s not okay to treat women as sex objects, why is it okay to treat men as money objects?

Peter Hume <"If it’s not okay to treat women as sex objects, why is it okay to treat men as money objects?"

Sorry Peter, but where were we discussing treating men as money objects on this thread? I guess we could slip it in by saying most men may not be able to support multiple wives and many children, but then again, all the wives could work as well or they could apply for a truckload of welfare payments!

For the record, I don't like the idea of women treating men as sex objects, or men treating women as money objects either!

"The fact that we don’t like or don’t prefer our other options, doesn’t mean we have no other option. For example, most people don’t like to be unemployed. But that doesn’t mean that their employment should be criminalised as slavery. This is no different. "

Peter that argument is irrelevant. It is a bit like saying to someone you can die by hanging, fire or drowning but in actual fact they would rather not die. Criminialising employment is going off on a bizarre tangent that would serve no benefit to anyone.

Polygamy is a male fantasy (not for most I suspect) and would not contribute at all positively to the status of women in everyday life and that should be very much our business.

Peter I know what you are getting at completely in wishing to separate governments and judiciary from the private lives of citizens. However, I don't think this is one of those cases where you can say it does no harm, and for me that is the litmus test.

If we were to go down the path you suggest, how would you protect women in various cultural groups who are not as empowered either through religion, education or cultural norms, to enable her to leave the marriage. In some countries she would be killed. To argue that these 'options' are part of valid choices is avoiding the issue.

Yabby
Don't worry, I am not seeking to marry anymore husbands. :)

Much of this discussion has been focused on currently religious influenced emotional mores, particularly Keysar Trad's.
I would suggest that many of these response are naturally coloured by Christian influenced culture. Even those of us that are non religious.
I wouldn't be interested practicing any of the other options listed either.

However, I'm less convinced that people from different cultures who haven't been likewise inculcated with the same adverse attitudes would see the problem.

I have experienced a culture whereby while polygamy was practiced the women had a different concept of gender empowerment. They would find many of expressed western women's concerns, amusing.

Therefore I find absolutes in laws and cultures a contradiction in terms, particularly those primarily influenced/dominated by dogma based religiosity.

I think Legal eagle is looking for a more objectively based policy discussion.

I do note the western bias in respondents. No-one has considered multiple party gay marriages