I may as well start by saying that I have no problem with polygamy, polygyny and polyandry provided only that I am not expected to cope with more than one wife. So far as I am concerned other people can make whatever cohabitation arrangements they like.

However the introduction of polygamy into modern industrial societies does lead to some interesting consequences. In Britain, for example, a polygamous family can get 92.80 pounds per week in income support for wife number one and 33.65 pounds per week for each subsequent wife. See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/1577395/Multiple-wives-will-mean-multiple-benefits.html

Muslim men are limited to four wives. A Muslim family comprising four wives could receive a maximum of 193.75 pounds per week in income support.

In some African cultures, however, there appears to be no upper limit on the number of permitted wives. Could an African family comprising ten wives get income support for the lot?

Some cultures permit polyandry. In terms of income support how much is each additional husband worth?

If, say, a married Catholic man converts to Islam could his Catholic wife stop him taking additional wives?

How many spouses can an immigrant bring into Britain? Could it work like this?

--A man, wife number one, and their children immigrate.

--The man's offspring by his other wives – they are his biological children – are then permitted to immigrate under the family reunion provisions.

--The mothers of these children are then permitted to immigrate to Britain under the same family reunion provisions.

(No. I am not expecting a flood of immigrants under this scenario. I'm simply asking whether it could work that way)

If one wife files for divorce are her property rights decided under British law or sharia law? Here we have a problem because the new marriage contract in British sharia law requires the husband to renounce his right to take additional wives.

See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2518720/New-Sharia-law-marraige-contract-gives-Muslim-women-rights.html

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

While this focuses on Britain there are obvious implications for other European countries and for Australia

A lawyer friend has pointed out some issues that may tax the legal profession.

Why are later wives only worth 33.65 pounds, less than half the value placed on the first wife? Is that not discriminatory? Shouldn't income support be the same for all wives?

Suppose a careless driver kills the husband. How are damages to be distributed among the various wives? Would the number of wives be a factor in determining the quantum of damages?

Steven,
Last November, I saw a similar article in the UK Daily Mail and was interested as not long before there was an article, by Keysar Trad, in OLO regarding polygamy. Trads article attracted quite a deal of interest from posters.

I posted the Daily Mail link and received a lot of posts saying it was not correct, it was old news from 1988 and questioning my motives for raising the matter. It was even said that I was simply picking up a whack-a-mozzie stick and using it. It will be interesting to see what reaction you receive from posting your link to the DT.

I maintained then and still do that, resulting from a Ministerial inquiry, the UK government quietly changed the law in 2007/2008 to allow for recognition of multiple marriages and provided social welfare for the additional wives, as per your DT story.

Since then I came across this in relation to Australia.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23922968-5010800,00.html

Some what surprised at this story and found that the journalist who wrote the story seems to have a reputation, around parliament house, for getting things wrong. I wrote to the Attorney-general about the story. The reply from his office is that the marriage Act 1961 states- 'the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life'. Polygamy offends this definition and any change is not being considered.

I accept this as a definate NO and the journalist is wrong.

In relation to the Sharia marriage laws in the UK, I do not see the need as the existing UK laws should take precidence over over any religious or cultural rule.

I would think that in Aus marriages can only be carried out by those persons given authority, by law, to do so, and our laws are defiately above those rules of any religion or culture. All citizens have equality under our law.

Hi Banjo,

I wonder whether it is as straightforward as you or your correspondent in the AG's office think. The UK position is that they do NOT permit polygamous marriages. In that way their law is the same as ours.

However the UK will recognise a polygamous marriage contracted in a country that does permit polygamy. Would Australia do the same? That is a question I may pose to the AG.

As I understand the UK position a married British Muslim man could go to Yemen with a British Muslim woman, not his wife, and marry her there. The British Government would then recognise both his British and Yemeni marriages as SIMULTANEOUSLY valid. De facto that amounts to a recognition of polygamy as evidenced by welfare payment arrangments.

What would be the position in Australia?

My own feeling is that it is inevitable that some sort of recognition is going to be given to polygamous and polyandrous marriages. I do not see how it can be avoided.

Note, this is not specifically a Muslim issue. There are other cultures that allow polygamy and polyandry. That being said I suspect it is going to be Muslims who lead the charge on this issue

Steven,
I did refer what the journalist said to the AT and can only quote to you the answer I got. Am sure both of us know that polys are good at not directly answering questions so it could still be a possibility that we do recognise multiple marriages that have been carried out overseas. I have not long received the reply and have not pursued it further. If you do make contact with the AT, I would be interested in the reply you get.

My contacts in UK tell me that some blokes were having pseudo divorces and then bringing out the next wife and their kids, while still living with the first wife. This is why the UK governmet made the changes.

I am aware that people other than muslims are polygamous.

I personally have no objections to polygomy if that is what some people want, but I can see a lot of complications in our society. Not the least when the husbands estate has to be divided and demarcation disputes about who does what. No thanks, not for me. They would most likely gang up on me anyway. Imagine if they went shopping together!

Isn`t Polygamy, ..... an extramarital activity carried out on the sly by Pygmies with gamy legs?

Banjo:

I do not believe that anyone should be allowed to practice Polygamy in this day and age!

The world is already overpopulated in relationship to it`s ability to provide natural resources to ensure continuity of the devouring human race.

I think sanity now requires worldwide implementation of the two child maximum policy, ( and to hell with the Catholic Church and it`s insane postulating!) and in the not too distant future a further restriction toward the one child only family, if we are to retain reasonable conditions on an already depleted planet.

Let us accept reality,...breeding is an inherant self-satisfying luxury, engendered in nature to ensure the survival of the species, ...today a threat to the future survival of the human race!

There is no need for anyone today to be producing "unplanned or unwanted children"....that situation is either sheer laziness or simple self indulgence, without any consideration of the consequences!

So if I've got the points made so far correct
- It costs taxpayer less for subsequent supported wives than for the first. Given that there is no net gain in the number of women that seems to indicate that polygamy should be a net saving to the taxpayer.
- Discrimination may be an issue in relation to the first point but even if that was successfully challenged it is unlikely to result in more money per supported wife.
- Culturally people who practice polygamy may also have large families (as do some other groupings. Still the same mumber of womb's around so polygamy itself may not have much impact although it seems to me the births per womb ratio might be reduced in polygamous families compared to others with similar cultural values but only one supported wife. It's hard to find a house and or car which can cope with 24 kids (4 wives with 6 kids each). Especially so if you are relying on government persions to support the extra wives.

So what's the downside?

R0bert

Hi R0bert

As I said in my original post, I see no downside. People should be free to make whatever consensual living arrangements they desire.

What we do need however is clarity on the legal position of polygynous families.

Cupcake,

Almost right. Polygamy is actually the parrot Olympics. (Polly Gamey)

No cuphandle that's pygamy.

Cuphandle,
I do not personally see anything wrong with polygamy, but I think it more suited to societies where the male is still lord and master and the females are oppressed.

In our society women have equality and I think a man would have a lot of trouble with control where the women know they have rights. I also think the big loser would be the first wife because when a young couple first marry it is usual they do not have a lot financially. Over time they become more financially secure and in many cases the wife assists greatly in this. It seems that only men that are financially secure take on additional wives. Therefore the additional wife or wives get the benefit of the improved financial position.

After making do and helping her husband get ahead financially the first wife loses out while the husband displays his wealth by taking another wife. We tend to display wealth by a better house, boats or a flash car and things that the wife can enjoy as well.

With polygamy a wife, no matter how much she contributed to their wealth, would have to share the estate with the other wife or wives.

This is just a couple of drawbacks that come to mind, but having a affair or keeping a mistress does not seem anywhere near as honest as taking a second wife. I don't understand why a man would burden himself with an additional wife, but apparently some do.

Given the gender imbalance in China, it would not surprise me if polyandy came into being in China. They seem rather pragmatic people.

I can see a lot worse cultural practices than polygamy.

Oh well, all those legal contradictions just indicate the shaky grounds of the relation between state and family.

One's family and its structure is a personal affair. Governments should better stay clear out of that.

If you believe woman are lesser creatures then you will support polygamy. I agree Banjo.

We have to consider why cultures have Polygamy.

Cultures that have a long tradition of warfare tend to lose lots of men of working/marriagable age. Consequently there is an over abundance of females. Mostly the men are older. They have survived the wars & are left to look after the wives of the killed husbands. Their religion says they must look after widows but they cannot have casual sex. So their culture solves the problem by Polygamy. They have to marry them in order to take care of the widows. I believe that this is an honourable solution in those areas.

It would not work in a Western culture. Our women are too jealous & greedy to start with.

Further re polygyny --found this in “Psychology Today” Nov 2007:

“Suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, but according to Oxford University sociologist Diego Gambetta, editor of ‘Making Sense of Suicide Missions’, when religion is involved, the attackers are always Muslims. Why?
The surprising answer is that Muslim suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam or the Quran (except for two lines). It has a lot to do with sex, or, in this case, the absence of sex.

What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny. By allowing some men to monopolize all women and altogether exclude many men from reproductive opportunities … polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates…. Across all societies, ploygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region.

However, ploygyny itself is not a sufficient cause of suicide bombing. Societies in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean are much more polygynous that Muslim nations in the Middle East and North Africa…they have very high levels of violence… but not suicide bombings.

The other key ingredient is the promised of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam…appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser.

It is the combination of ploygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivates many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings.”

Lost sexual opportunities -produces- aggressive behaviour (?)
Must admit, I was a little dubious at first – but found conclusive proof here on OLO!

Now imagine if you were one of only two Billy Connollys ---but there was only one Pamela Anderson, and, you were the twin that missed out (cruel, cruel world!) --- it’d be enough to get anyone’s smalls in knot.

Hint: “Wingnut!” “Racist!” … (need I say more!

PS: Before CJ squawks, Pamela Anderson should read Pamela Stephenson!

I dunno Horus.

>>PS: Before CJ squawks, Pamela Anderson should read Pamela Stephenson!<<

It worked for me.

Probably for Billy Connolly too.

We were polygamous (and polyandrous) for most of human history. The question is not why some societies are polygamous. The real question is why so many societies became monogamous. There are all sorts of speculations. The reality is that there are probably multiple reasons.

Throughout most of history women probably had little choice. They were treated more or less as chattels.

Why might some women in Western societies prefer polygamy?

Perhaps it's because some women may prefer to share an alpha male than to have a more modest male to themselves. We see shades of this in sperm banks. Some single women prefer the sperm of what they believe to be an alpha male to living with an actual male of their acquaintance.

Jayb,

My guess is that the culture and religion legitimated an established pragmatic arrangement and not vice versa.

Banjo,

I've also been wondering whether polyandry will become established in China.

Steven,
I came across this today and thought it may interest you. It is not mine,I have copied and pasted.

Benefits of polygamy
Philip Kilbride, an American anthropologist, in his book, Plural Marriage for our Time, proposes polygamy as a solution to some of the ills of the American society at large. He argues that plural marriage may serve as a potential alternative for divorce in many cases in order to obviate the damaging impact of divorce on many children. He maintains that many divorces are caused by the rampant extramarital affairs in the American society. According to Kilbride, ending an extramarital affair in a polygamous marriage, rather than in a divorce, is better for the children, "Children would be better served if family augmentation rather than only separation and dissolution were seen as options." Moreover, he suggests that other groups will also benefit from plural marriage such as: elderly women who face a chronic shortage of men.[4]
[edit] Disadvantages of Polygamy
Anyone who has ever read the life of the patriarch Abraham knows the disadvantages of having more than one woman at a time in your life. This ancient family conflict still continues today between the Arabs and the Jews. Interviews with other polygamous families in modern times, show that family conflict is exacerbated in several areas. Older wives are often jealous of younger ones. Younger wives often feel oppressed by older ones. Constant movement between bedrooms causes tension. There is inevitable conflict between children of the perceived favored wife/wives and the perceived not so favored wife/wives.

Actually, I'm all too frequently told that I resemble Billy Connolly ;)

Also, I have long appreciated the charms of both Pamela Stephenson and Pamela Anderson - but I don't think I'd like to be married to either of them.

Nor, sweet heaven forfend, both of them!

Thanks Horus - the 'Psychology Today' extract was shite, but you gave us a chuckle anyway.

Cuphandle,
Full marks - too many people, so no more than 2 children per woman .

However if our males follow the Internet they won't be so stupid as to go to War.

I can only hope that Aus women discontinue their preference on the womanised man - this is so they can continue to leave their kids with the day care, as they work hard to buy stuff of doubtfull value.

I prefer the Australian Aboriginal perspective on "marriage" where your Blood brother was responsible for your wife if you died and if you had no blood brothers your tribal "brothers"or brother became responsible for your widowed and possibly pregnant wife .

This responsibility was generally accepted, with often a mix of wives of various ages .