How would it work? People who want to marry should and need to be able to make binding settlements of property, which the Family Law Act currently actively undermines. Will people stuff up? Yes. Will there be messes? Yes. But no more than now, and probably much less than the unholy mess that is Australian family law.

The starting point should be freedom, and an ability to opt *in* to legal regulation if specifically wanted, not for the state to impose terms on people’s sexual relationships whether they want them or not, with little or no way to opt out.

Some would no doubt be disadvantaged by their failure to care for their own interests; which equity might remedy. But that problem would be far better, and more just, than for the whole population to be forced into a one-size-fits-all straitjacket designed by mediaeval monks, and be unable to negotiate their way in or out of the sexual relationships they want without attracting the dysfunctional anti-social unjust complexities of the family law, relationships law, and child support systems.

It we were equal, no-one would obtain a benefit from associating with others, and human society would not exist. It is not legitimate to try to use marriage law to bludgeon the sexes into a state of equality.

Antiseptic
I think the reason attached males are often more attractive to women, is because it means some other woman has put in the time and effort required to assess his character for suitability. The information women require is largely about character: safety, honesty, faithfulness, kindness, sympathy etc. But for men, the information they need to decide whether they want to have sex is mostly available visually.

You are right to consider the positive effects of bigamy. What about the additional fun? The health benefits of more and better sex? What about the economies of scale? What about the benefits in terms of child care? The benefits for married childless couples who don't want to divorce?

Peter Hume:"The starting point should be freedom, and an ability to opt *in* to legal regulation if specifically wanted, not for the state to impose terms on people’s sexual relationships whether they want them or not, with little or no way to opt out."

Bingo!

As matters stand the State, as embodied in the bureaucrats who administer and formulate the laws that surround matrimony and even co-habitation, has predetermined that women are incapable of negotiating on their own behalf as adults in sexual/reproductive matters. That, of course, is more to do with ideology than reality.

Whilst I've no desire to be held respopnsible for the upkeep of a harem of noisome women, the research I referenced may give some comfort to those who are.

If Keyars Trad is one of them, I wish him and his the very best of British luck. Perhaps they've a reasonable claim to it...?

Peter Hume and Anticeptic seem to like the idea of polygamy.

The reasons they seem to find it so attractive are probably more to do with the fact that women are generally opposed to the idea than anything else.

One of the reason's given in the United States as to why the practice of polygamy was outlawed was that there were many paedophiles attracted to the lifestyle and a never-ending supply of even younger brides each time, and their children.

It became so bad that the older paedophile 'harem owners' were known to kick out their own sons as they came of age, so they wouldn't be a threat to their Daddy's supply of young women and girls.

Yes, a wonderful world that would be.

Peter Hume,
"It (if?) we were equal, no-one would obtain a benefit from associating with others, and human society would not exist."
What? That doesn't just doesn't make sense. Equal in what sense? Society is more than a venue for power accumulation. I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

The problem with the statement in context is that it just doesn't prove your your assertions.

I also rather think you are putting the wrong emphasis on the functional purposes of permanent pairing. Your preoccupation with the animal instincts sex and breeding is only one facet. You are totally negating other factors including the the frontal cortex.

My experience with other cultures have shown me that permanent pairing occurs often regardless of the afore mentioned instinct, as it does without legal/cultural/religious constraints and encouragement(both Homo/hetro sexually).
You need to rethink your assumptions.

Many people have pretended that the first wife has total power to agree or disagree to polygamy and therefore it all comes down to her choice. I agree with Pelican that women's choices are influenced by a number of factors outside their control, meaning that they might-not feel that they are in a position to make the choices that they truly believe in.

suzeonline:"Anticeptic seem to like the idea of polygamy."

me (Sunday, 11 October 2009 12:47:23 PM): "I've no desire to be held respopnsible for the upkeep of a harem of noisome women"

erm...

Benk, many people find their choices constrained by circumstance.