Why is open marriage tolerated but polygamy isn't?
>>1355926
The alimony payments will kill you.
>>1355926
From a religious standpoint, I think you'd be hard pressed to find one that is okay with open marriage.
From a legal standpoint, I'm sure there's a tax issue or some bullshit.
Personally I don't think open relationships are a good idea. I've known a few people who've been involved in them and they usually devolve into some form of jealousy.
One of the two will get laid more than the other and it always causes problems.
>>1355926
Open marriages are not coded or sanctioned by law, they're taken as the expression of free will between between the two partners. The open marriage agreement happens privately, and it is considered by society as a private matter.
I think that is because the institution of marriage, as the representation of a particular societal order based on a nuclear or patriarchal family, is on the decline. The economic structure of western society has less use for traditional family structures and this is why it is eroding.
Regardless, the polygamy taboo still exists in our culture and law. I think the law will eventually support polygamy, but it will require a different group to support it. Open marriage people are enacting a very liberal set of values. And, in general, those values don't necessarily center around the importance of marriage as an institution. People that are for polygamy usually believe in a patriarchal system and are devoted to a conservative-religious set of values. Those people are less and less in western society, they will have to make polygamy acceptable through religious freedom legislature, not through "common sense" cultural believe in freedom of choice.
TL/DR: open marriage is private, non-sanctioned, and secular. Polygamy is a public contract (a form of marriage), usually religiously motivated, and patriarchal. All societal forms of decreasing strength and popularity.
>>1355926
>is open marriage tolerated
What?
Where?
Unless you mean men having mistresses on the side, it never really was that tolerated in the West, except for a few. I'm thinking of Georgian England aristocracy.
Polygamy, and now polyamory, are squicky more of on a personal basis than a societal one, since so many different cultures share living space. Mormons still do polygeny, right? They are tolerated as kooky-but-goody Christians still, are they not?
>>1355926
there's only two groups that could potentially push for polygamy: Mormons (well the main church no longer supports it but some splinter groups do) and Muslims. neither are very popular or a high percentage of the population in the West. plus Mormons are declining in membership
>>1355926
polygamy plays against women and favor men.
Women thus tell men to stop being cunts.
Men accept because they love to please women and if women do not notice men, men commit suicide
the best for women is when the main daily provider accept to have other men try to serve the woman sexually and non-sexually
bimp
>>1355926
> polygamy
>>1355938
> open marriage
Those are different things, no?
>>1356342
Ignore this post. I'm drunk.
>>1355926
Laws are based on Christian heritage and have some hold overs from that era. Not even saying it's a bad thing but that is the only reason.
>>1355994
If you mean polygeny.
What hippie types call polyamory is just a combination of both forms of polygamy, it seems. Maybe they are trying to separate themselves from the word "polygamy" because people keep associating it with patriarchy, women as bartering coins, and stuff like that - even though that's not every case of polygamy. Polyandry is also an extant form of polygamy but nobody cares because we only have pictures of sultans or yellow emperors with huge harems in our heads, and only when we aren't thinking of plain old desert people or weird cults.
Do most people think anthropology is boring?
>>1356390
>Do most people think anthropology is boring?
Probably. Who cares about them, though?
>>1355926
Among other things marriage is perceived as possession (even if reciprocal), and possesion is perceived as bad or undesirable.
Open marriage undermines and nuances this feature of marriage, so it's perceived as good.
Polygamy not only doesn't undermine the possessive aspect of marriage but expands it. It's also less reciprocal (since one side owns several parts and the others share the property) and this is also perceived as bad or undesirable.
If you break one of the links of the chain, you get the vast majority of people who doesn't really like or aprove open marriage and doesn't strive for it. For example people who don't see marriage as possessive or you don't see reciprocal possession as something bad, but it could be anything that breaks the chain, really.
When marriage is tolerated and polygamy isn't is because the society highly values freedom and individuals are forced to sympathize or at least respect those striving to be more free even if one believes they're wrong.
>>1355982
>Mormons still do polygeny, right? They are tolerated as kooky-but-goody Christians still, are they not?
no and no, polygamists are actively persecuted within the LDS church
>>1356449
Then what is the origin of the meme that mormons are polygamic?
Neither should be
>>1356390
>Polyandry is also an extant form of polygamy but nobody cares because we only have pictures of sultans or yellow emperors with huge harems in our heads
It could be because the second was way more common historicaly and happened in more important societies and cultures.
>Do most people think anthropology is boring?
No, but then again good luck finding a decent job
>>1355963
>I think the law will eventually support polygamy, but it will require a different group to support it.
>>1355926
It isn't tolerated because its against our nature.
If negate religion, then we must take into account that such a strong sway is against our nature, you could claim it is natural, but it is not consensus, and if there is only nature, then what is consensus is all that can be said.
sort of unrelated
>if atheism is true, religion becomes the most powerful entity to ever exist
If we are our own masters, then religion is the manifestation of authority, it determines the hearts of men.
Only if religion is true does it lose its power, because we can say, "there is more, there are differing opinions, we need not try and derive oughts from irrational subjectivities of "is"s"
Open marriage is objectively wrong for this reason, any way you slice, you have to go forward or back 100,000 years to change this.
But you couldn't rationally argue for what has happened should be again (is ought) or that what has not happened should be already (again another is ought and an unknowable)
go fuck yourself, hedonist
>>1355963
>People that are for polygamy usually believe in a patriarchal system and are devoted to a conservative-religious set of values.
i take it that polygamy means a man having several wives and not the other way around
>>1355926
It's not, really. I have never met anyone who participated in an open marriage who wasn't despised and made fun of by everyone around them.
Also they're usually disgusting fatties.
The main difference is that open marriage is rooted in the lame individualism of the sexual revolution, while polygamy was/is an element of actual functional social structures.
>>1357174
The only other situation where open marriage occurs that I've seen is where one party is so desirable (for whatever reason, looks, money, etc.) and the other party isn't, so the desirable one basically bullies the less desirable one into accepting it. Or where both parties are so desirable that they mutually agree that they can see other people (like celebrities), in which case, why are you married? Because you think it's something you should do?
>>1356687
>If negate religion
Really now.
>>1355938
>Personally I don't think open relationships are a good idea. I've known a few people who've been involved in them and they usually devolve into some form of jealousy.
Which is funny. I have people into this shit too. It devolves into jealousy, but starts as a pretense of transcending jealousy. Like, Oh, you're not my property, fuck whoever you want. I'm open-minded.
That sort of thing that anyone human can see from a mile away won't last.
>>1356459
Mormons used to be polygamic, and its sanctioned in the Book of Mormon. But political reasons made church leadership veto it in I think the 80s? Not sure the time period but relatively recent. Mitt Romney's dad I've heard had several wives, but Mitt Romney doesn't because politics.
>>1355963
>liberal values
Oxymoron
Polygamy is not sustainable.
>>1355926
Polygamy has a terrible effect on a society. Women,being hypergamous, will prefer to marry richer, older men with status, and not the young men. For many women, being wife number 2 or even 3 to a wealthy man is preferable to being wife number 1 to a poor man, and the result of this is that you have large numbers of young men with little or no prospects for sex, let alone marriage. To see the damage this causes to societies,look at the rampant crime and unrest in muslim countries which permit polygamy, where gangs of young men seek to achieve the status they need to attract a wife by whatever means necessary, including crime and political violence.
>>1360735
>But political reasons made church leadership veto it in I think the 80s
maybe 1880s. it had to do with the fact that the federal government wouldn't let Utah become a state unless they outlawed polygamy. i seriously doubt that Mitt Romney's father had multiple wives
>>1355930
kek
>>1356342
Open marriage is one where you're married to one person, but the two of you see other people; whereas polygamy is marrying multiple people.
>>1360921
This is a silly assertion. Polygamy is allowed in Muslim countries but not common at all. Marriage is hard for the youth but it is because cultural norms expect a young man to be established economically before marriage and have a long engagement. Most women prefer to marry an economically okay single younger man than an older rich guy who is already married. This causes problems with sexual harrasment because there are many young guys with no sexual experience but if married earlier it wouldn't be as bad.
Actually poorer men are the ones than tend to have many wives and might not even work while benefitting from his wives' salaries. And of course the occassional sheikh might but honestly women in general won't put up with it so it doesn't happen that often. Maybe if there were few men and many women it would be different like after high casualties after a war, which is one of the biggest reasons for polygamy being allowed in the first place.
>>1361138
>This is a silly assertion. Polygamy is allowed in Muslim countries but not common at all.
Yeah it only accounts for around 50-60% of all marriages, why even take note of such a trifling concern?
>>1361161
I'm going to need a citation. I lived in Egypt, for example, and I never personally met a polygamist (or if I did he didn't mention it). Other countries even outlaw it and it is similarly uncommon in most countries. I would say everyone at least knows one polygamist but it isn't like every Tom, Dick and Abdullah has more than one wife.
>>1357150
t. neckbeard
Enjoy the rage
