*Just Married*

That is the new and highly intelligent book by Stephen Macedo, and the subtitle is Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy & the Future of Marriage.  I balk at only one of his conclusions: he is pro-gay marriage, where I agree, but he does not believe in legal polygamy.  For instance he argues there is no polygamous orientation comparable to a same-sex orientation, rather polygamy is a preference.  He views polygamy as unstable, and also as leading to distributive injustice, with high status males reaping excess gains.  Furthermore the historical record of polygamy is often negative.  Here are relevant comments from Will Wilkinson, who (like me) is convinced by Macedo on gay marriage but not polygamy.  Is polygamy going to be such a significant practical problem that we ultimately have to in some way wield the coercive apparatus of the state if people insist on trying to practice it?  Would polygamous-equivalent contracts be not just left unenforced but also banned?  I don’t quite see how a liberal doctrine gets you there.  Furthermore, might polygamy make more sense in some eras than in others?  (“Not your grandfather’s polygamy!”)  I still wish to defend the presumption for some notion of freedom of contract.

Comments

Polygamy will have to wait until after all the transgender stuff is over with. And then they'll have to get the spotlight off of weird Mormons and anti-Jewish Muslims. The solution will be to focus on African immigrants.

How can racist white men deny African immigrants their culture? Think of the children!

@Steve Sailer - you do realize that in some African tribes the chief was allowed to have multiple wives--as long as he was potent. Once he was impotent, he was given a lavish last supper and then ceremoniously killed. U 4 dat?

He's not for polygamy or gay marriage likely. But we all know if it's the wrong.type of people practicing polygamy (mormons) then it is morally wrong. But if it is the right type of people (African muslims) then it is racist and bigoted to stand in the way of their historical cultural practices.

XVO gets the joke.

Steve - aren't you confusing polygamy with serial monogamy?

I'm African and my experience tells me that we use the "culture card" to defend polygamy more to preserve our own libidinous interests than for our commitment with our heritage.

IMHO polygamy is reminiscent of oppressive patriarchal societies that is still a reality as a legal arrangement only in societies that men managed to preserve their power to suppress women rights, either partially or more extensively.

No, it's going to be through polyamory. See also: every red pill comment ever about the direction of modern relationships.

"He views polygamy as unstable" - weird, since I've heard same-sex marriages are also unstable, compared to the base of heterosexual marriages (don't recall where I heard that but it sounds right).

Correct.
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2014/10/open-marriages-bugger-that.html

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918360903445962#.Vcb8v_lVhBc

and lots more evidence

"Evidence".

n=15? That's a valid sample size?

no but n=16 and all of a sudden you have sexist air conditioning.

Ending a marriage is expensive. Despite what you think you heard from cultural conservatives about cheap 'no-fault' divorce, the fact is it is economically very foolish to get married if you aren't serious about it.

So why get married? For the same reason you buy groceries. In the long run, it is cheaper to cook your own meals than it is to go to McDonalds every night, even though a single shopping trip is more expensive than a McDonald's run.

So people would get married if the opportunities of long run gain equal or exceed the chance of a costly short run failure. So what would happen if two groups had different rates of success in long term stable relationships? I would say they would get married more while other groups would get married less but over time the actual divorce rates of both groups would converge.

So I think you've heard nothing of interest on the stability of same-sex marriages. Still too new IMO but over the long run it isn't going to matter. Assuming marriage has a net benefit when successful, people will marry at increased rates until they confront the possibility of divorce.

You've "heard"? C'mon. That's as cheap and transparent as Fox news' "Some people say..."

Fox news really says ’ “Some people say…”?

I think you misspelled ABC: "A search of ABC News alone turned up 202 results for “some people say” and an additional 1,756 results for the shorter “some say”."

Well, when you look at the divorce rates heterosexual marriages are unstable too.

Immediately after the recent Supreme Court decision, the discussion in Utah (and elsewhere) was whether there should be any state-sanctioned marriage. Maybe the state should just get out of the marriage business. If you want some sort of contract, just draw up a formal contract like any other contract, and use ordinary contract law to enforce it.

That renders the polygamy question moot. If a bunch of people want to get together and agree to some sort of contract, that's their business.

This is one avenue that proves that you can't be truly socially liberal without being libertarian. As long as we insist on having a byzantinely complex tax codes, labor regulations and state intervention into healthcare, then the government will always have broad discretionary power in promoting or discouraging various marriage arrangements.

Before the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, there was a federal district court ruling that gutted Utah's anti-polygamy law, the strictest in the nation.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58344666-78/utah-bigamy-waddoups-ruling.html.csp

It hasn't run its course yet, so we don't know whether the ruling will stand, but for now it appears to be legal to be a polygamist in Utah.

I agree with your statement on being socially liberal leads to being libertarian. In fact, there's a sizeable (though not majority) section of libertarians (little l) who describe ourselves as "Liberal-tarians". Our basic philosophy is eliminate all government moral codes, encourage free market policies as much as possible, while recognizing that government regulation can be a useful tool to correct market inefficiencies, such as the externalized costs of industrial pollution, etc.

And how do Liberaltarians propose to correct governmental inefficiencies?

Obviously pass laws again such inefficiencies. There, that's done. What else can we regulate?

You just described the Neo-Liberal Consensus

It seems rather obvious that it would be very inefficient to have so many folks drawing up unique contracts...probably without the assistance of attorneys as with business contracts...and then burying the courts in resolving disputes. A uniform body of family law, including a definition of to whom it applies...i.e., those who are married, is efficient.

Are wills like this? In some countries you have very little choice over who you can leave your property to. In other countries (like the US and UK) it is entirely up to you to draft your will in the way you think best. Why can't marriage contracts be the same?

But there is a body of law defining the parties' inheritance rights. To apply the original poster's question to inheritances...Maybe the state should just get out of the inheritance business...the answer would be the same, no, because it would be just plain inefficient to not have a uniform set of standards to apply on the front end rather than dealing with each case as unique when it goes to a dispute.

No, the will defines the parties' inheritance rights.

Sounds good in theory but not so much in practice IMO.

People can draw up any type of agreement they please but 'templates' make sense for types of arrangements many people want to enter. For example, there's a huge body of law and literature on business partnerships. Not so much on communist communes. If a group of people want to start a commune, they have to do a lot of work from scratch.

Economically this makes a lot of sense. By having a body of law on business partnerships, something that is very common, you lower the transaction cost of entering one. Since communes are very uncommon and have few people who want to do them it doesn't make as much sense for society to work out premade templates for them.

Marriage is a legal partnership that has a lot of consequences in terms of private property and contracts. Knowing what the 'template' is not only makes it easier for those who get married, it makes it easier for everyone else who deal with married people. For example, marriage law tells you what the facts are if, say, Donald Trump's wife slams into you car and then tells you she cannot pay for any of the damage because she doesn't have a job or any assets. How is that going to work in a world where everyone has customized, eccentric 'marriage contracts' that you normally would not have access too?

Polygamy is only toxic when it is coerced or made normative in a community. All you will get in America is some kooky fringe cases, like the fundamentalist Mormon sects. Not great for those folks, but hardly a national crisis.

If polygamy is legal, does that mean I could have an unlimited number of Russian and Philipino wives that gain U.S. citizenship through me? Sounds like something exploitable.

One, legalized polygamy should include the permission of all partners in the existing marriage. That requirement will limit the number of polygamous relationships.

Second, laws already exist to prohibit sham marriages. The laws can be applied to polygamous relationships. It is relatively socially acceptable to cohabit outside of marriage. So someone in such a relationship could legally send off to the Philippines for a woman who will enter into sham marriage. I don't think this happens a lot.

Just wait for the first enterprising rapper to marry (with strong prenups) 40 of his video vixens. Maybe not a national crisis, but that could have a strong cultural influence on society, particularly, black society. I recall a chapter in Freakonomics that explored the advantage that black males had in dating black females that had preferences for black males. The black population seems like a "male normative" society that is large and not a "kooky fringe."

They know where this is going and they're halfway there:

http://www.mtv.com/news/1700262/shawty-lo-all-my-babies-mamas-canceled/

JCW August 9, 2015 at 3:21 am

Polygamy is only toxic when it is coerced or made normative in a community.

You have to get the cart and the horse in the right order. Western countries are not nice because God determined they would be. They are nice because they are monogamous. If they were not monogamous, there would be large numbers of idle and dangerous young men outside your door. In which case you would not let your daughter go out on her own. Your daughter would also be worth a lot of money. Thus marriage would become, inevitably, coerced. As it is in all polygamous societies.

Before Christianity Ireland and Scandinavian societies were highly aggresive and highly violent. Monogamy changed that. There is no reason why the West should not move towards Tahrir Square type behavior once we adopt Egyptian marriage practices.

All men have a polygamous orientation. All men practice it if they can afford it and social norms allow them.

How does this model account for Japan, which has monogamy, tons of idle single men, and is "nice"?

This wasn't always the case though, was it? I believe the large numbers of single men who don't marry is a recent phenomenon. It's only recently as well that Japanese foreign policy has started to move in a more hawkish direction.

History started the day I was born.

used underwear vending machines; start investing now

Actually I would like to see a cite that a society with a surplus of single men has to be violent. It seems to me that it would go the other way, the less demand for men, the more that men would want to look like good husbands and providers.

No, please think about this some more. Men trend towards violence in most situations. If there is little hope of sex by playing by the rules because all of the women are beyond reach, there will be violence.

I am a man so let me tell you the rule of thumb about us. Getting sex=Less violent and less creative. No sex=More violent and more creative. There is a lot more to it but that is a good start.

Men trend towards violence in most situations.

The television writer Elaine Morgan once wrote an engaging sketch called The Descent of Woman. She offered a commonsensical bit of advice: when you find yourself talking this way, insert in place of the generic a real person and see if it still makes sense, as in "My postman tends towards violence in most situations".

Because postal workers are the height of mental stability, and "going postal" isn't a phrase.

What a load of poppycock. Ask Native Americans if western countries are "Nice". Ask the 250,000+ dead Iraqis if Americans are "nice". Ask the African-American community if Americans are "nice". We're "nice" because we won - not because of marriage. Sheesh.

What a load of poppycock. Ask Native Americans if western countries are “Nice”.

And when they sober up, they can give you a coherent answer.

Ask the 250,000+ dead Iraqis if Americans are “nice”.

The dead do not talk and their survivors aren't stupid enough to attribute to the U.S. Army the depredations of the Iraqi insurgency.

The whites were a hell of a lot nicer than the American Indians (granted there was a lot of difference between tribes). The plains American Indian default was to torture to death anyone outside their tribe they could get their hands on, unless it was a young woman and then they got to be a sex slave, and sometimes young children would be allowed to join the tribe (other times, tortured to death). If the American Indians were more powerful, there would be no white people anywhere.

I don't think you really know anything about the history of pre-christian Ireland vis-a-vis violence. Brehan laws, Viking invasions and the originally married clergy of Ireland would be a good place to start,

Why all the talk about polygamy and no mention of polyandry? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry

My error, I confused polygyny with polygamy.

But, but......polygamy is closer to legal than illegal. As long as you don't try to marry all the women at once, the state only cares about regular child support payments. In practical terms, no one has gone to jail for having a second or third partner. Even having children with those partners while being married to someone else.

The only barriers to polygamy are social status and lack of resources. Polygamy may low or rise your status depending on where you live and who are your peers. Some guys have the resources to pay for 10 children. The barriers do not apply for all guys.

So, this kind of not married but having several partners at the same time type of polygamy looks stable and legal. Would men forced to pay child support today would opt for poly-marriage if it is legal? As long as women are not forced into polygamy, the state is permissive with guys with lots of money.

These same arguments would've applied to gay marriage two months ago, and they were found wanting. The relevant question, according to the SC, is whether we're infringing on the polygamists' constitutional right to dignity.

"Would men forced to pay child support..."

Would a wife that is not the mother be required to pay child support?

Would a wife who has been the primary caregiver for a child, but is not the biological mother, get custody? visitation rights?

What about the children?

Poly- marriages do not solve the close-personal relationship issues marriage supposedly tempers. Who of the spouses has visitation rights in the hospital, who has power of attorney, who gets the estate? None of the defaults that a two-person marriage end up with apply in a poly-marriage.

But it may force something I've been wanting since the whole same-sex marriage issue came up, namely, an objective look at what is the State's interest in marriage. Historically, civil government was not involved in marriage, child legitimacy or even estates. Civil courts handled crime and contract disputes, religious courts handled marriage, divorce, child custody, estates. Of course, the USA never had religious courts. That is why the first civil court divorce was granted in Rhode Island, circa 1642. But even child legitimacy didn't end up outside the Church until Henry I in 1235. Various other secular interferences with marriage can also be found in 1235, England.

But with women's equality, (husband's authority over the wife, domicile of the wife, control of property of the wife, acquisition of the husband's name), the abolition of slavery (wives followed the condition of the husband) few effects of marriage remain. Just paternity, paternal power over issue, legitimacy (although not really a factor these days, and familial affinity of children to parents and their wider kindred. Even claim on the estate of the father is no longer a question with paternity testing.

Ahh, polygamy is a great issue, a real "preference-reveal-er" to use econospeak.

The pro-gay marriage movement sounds all nice and liberal and open and free until you ask one of these young leftists about polygamy. And then you see that, actually, nothing has really changed. "Polygamy? Yuk!" And then they accuse you of comparing gay people to polygamists. "How dare you compare gays to those dirty rotten wierdo freaks living out in communes in Utah or somewhere?". Yes, how very liberal they are.

The "polygamy is a preference" argument is new to me - and completely unconvincing. The reason gay marriage is morally acceptable is not that homosexuality is not a choice. It is that it causes no harm, it is voluntary, between consenting adults, and that the government has no right interfering in personal relationships. But wait, all these arguments apply equally to polygamous relationships! That's awkward.

If you want legal recognition of gay or polygamous or whatever marriages then you're calling for government interference in personal relationships.

The reason to be in favour to gay marriage is it grants an essential right to a community with essentially no downside.

The reason to oppose polygamous marriage is it grants a very mild right to a community with multiple serious downsides (very likely to marginalize women, very disruptive if widespread due to an excess of single males).

In a hypothetical future society the scales could tilt in favour of polygamy, but we do not live in that society.

I think that you are seriously underestimating the number of "young leftists" who are unbothered by polygamy.

TC's view seems strangely hidebound and reactionary. Why the focus on extending the notion of "marriage"??? Now that Anthony Kennedy has liberated humanity from the constraints of the traditional family structure, it is time to inaugurate new family forms that are consistent with emerging social realities. The most obvious examples are the independent woman + artificially conceived children, high-value man with multiple barren mistresses, solitary geeky men. Time to start teaching children that these forms are just as legitimate as "monogammish" gay couples.

Polygamous relationships lack the exclusivity of a monogamous marriage. They're fundamentally a different thing. What does legalising polygamous "marriage" even mean? A whole body of law would have to be developed, and existing law on things like immigration or spousal testimony rewritten. Same-sex marriage advocates can say that SSM doesn't change any existing marriage, those arguing for legal polygamous marriages can't.

And there's already a host of legal tools for people who want to enter into polygamous relationships, eg power of attorneys, trusts, legal partnerships etc. What are people missing that they want?

Polygamy would be a wonderful tax dodge. Filing jointly with 30 wives would really help avoid those top marginal rates.

As the tax code is currently written, the polygamous household gets a scad of personal exemptions, but the bracket boundaries remain where they are. So a significant tax penalty for a multi income household.

Libertarians, like the legal profession, are not your friends, or even advocates of minimal decency.

Many of the legal consequences of marriage wouldn't fit well with polygamy. For instance, a joint tax return (or community property laws) split a couple's income equally between the spouses before applying progressive rates to them. If you do that with a marriage of ten people, you'd get very different consequences. Similar differences would arise in connection with things like debt collection, inheritances, ownership of property, division of property in cases of divorce, and so on. In all of these ways, a "marriage" of more than two people would create a host of problems.

There are two current problems with the economics of marriage, both much more important than polygamy. One is the severe marriage penalties that the tax and welfare systems impose on low-income two-earner couples. Low income working people seldom marry each other these days, because doing so, especially if they have children, will cost them thousands of dollars a year. This does not encourage family stability. The other is that, in cases where marriage confers economic benefits, people who are not going to have sexual relations with each other (and are unwilling to pretend that they will) sometimes can't get the economic benefits of marriage. There was a case in Britain a few years back involving two elderly sisters who had lived together all their lives. When one of them died, their house had to be sold to pay death duties. A married couple's house wouldn't have been subject to that tax when the first spouse died. How does it make sense to say that the government's treatment of people living together has to turn in part on their having (or perhaps pretending to have) sex with each other? Historically, I suppose it's plain that marriage and sex (together with social and sometimes legal pressures against out-of-wedlock sex) once went together because sex tended to lead to children and stable families ere good for children. Now that marriage and child-bearing are no longer linked in that way, what sense does it make to keep the link between marriage and sex?

In 50 years when sex with Robots will be the norm, no one will actually care about polygamy or polyandry. People who love physical contact will be at it and law will change to reflect the new situation. God knows if the population really dwindles then you can imagine government incentivising people to form any sort of alliances they want. The only condition being they disclose it to the government so as to enable them to transfer property effectively. Ultimately, marriage is creation of property rights.

Everything in Demolition Man is coming true. Time to learn how to use the shells.

I hear ye man!!! Shells it is...

He enunciates general principles which, as the reader can hardly fail to perceive, are capable of leading to strange consequences; but whenever the strange consequences seem about to appear, Locke blandly refrains from drawing them. To a logician this is irritating; to a practical man, it is a proof of sound judgement. Since the world is what it is, it is clear that valid reasoning from sound principles cannot lead to error; but a principle may be so nearly true as to deserve theoretical respect, and yet may lead to practical consequences which we feel to be absurd. There is therefore a justification for common sense in philosophy, but only as showing that our theoretical principles cannot be quite correct so long as their consequences are condemned by an appeal to common sense which we feel to be irresistible. The theorist may retort that common sense is no more infallible than logic. But this retort, though made by Berkeley and Hume, would have been wholly
foreign to Locke's intellectual temper.

Bertrand Russell on John Locke in The History of Western Philosophy

Polygamy is certain to be the next big liberal cause that everyone will discover they totally supported all along and can use as a shibboleth and attack against people who aren't as quick to switch sides.

(Oh, and many of the most strident advocates will be people who mocked conservatives for worrying about a "slippery slope" after gay marriage which might lead to legalization of polygamy. Because it's not about being right, it's about having the correct opinions.)

Congratulations to Tyler for getting out ahead of the curve! It won't save you when you say something the liberal hive-mind doesn't like, but good job anticipating the next required opinions. Saves having to go back and edit all your old blog posts.

By the way: if we now have same-sex marriage, and soon will have polygamy; and if spouses can not legally be required to testify against each other in court, does this mean every board member or senior executive in a large company will sign a marriage agreement with the others? Why not?

We can expect that further development of the "Patriot Act" will eliminate any right of spousal refusal to testify.

There is no logical reason to allow homosexual deviance and not polygamous deviance.

Once you allow the deviance that is divorce and eating pork, everything is on the table.

Pork eating is not deviance and never has been. Nofault divorce is, as Jesus taught. Any other village atheist crap?

Nope; just keep talking in antiquated, nonsensical terms of deviance. I guess the opposition to gay marriage manifested because most churches have accepted and embraced no-fault divorce.

Marriage is basically just a collection of rights aimed at [1] making default rules to increasing efficiency (e.g., social security benefits) and [2] humanitarian goals (e.g., the marital testimonial privilege, green cards for spouses, etc.). Regarding the former "efficiency" rights, you can mostly do that with freedom of contract already. Regarding the latter "humanitarian" rights, the freedom-of-contract principle is silent -- contract law isn't about humanitarianism. So, to quote Tyler, "I don’t quite see how a liberal doctrine gets you there."

Assume people are widgets...

Sometimes it's difficult to differentiate parody from earnestness.

Not parody ... I'm just pointing out that Tyler's premises don't lead to his conclusion.

I don’t quite see how a liberal doctrine gets you there.

Hypocrisy is a wonderful tool.

For instance he argues there is no polygamous orientation comparable to a same-sex orientation, rather polygamy is a preference.

Marriage itself is a preference. The author of the original piece, and apparently Tyler, are deeply confused.

"In the absence of credible evidence that plural marriage in America today would be any more inegalitarian or socially harmful than the old-fashioned patriarchal monogamous marriages that millions of Americans already have, it's hard to justify, at least on liberal grounds, our legal prohibition against more than two consenting adults freely entering into a marital arrangement. As I've argued before, many of the unseemly and unhealthy aspects of existing American polygamous "marriages" are a side-effect of our having made them illegal, and a target for disgust and contempt, much as homosexuality was within living memory." (Will Wilkinson)

And administrative inconvenience...i.e., the need to change current laws...does not seem to be a sufficiently compelling reason to prohibit "consenting adults freely entering into a marital arrangement.

But what does it mean for three people to enter into a "marital" agreement with each other? The concept of marriage being an exclusive connection between two people is rather built in to Western society by now.

With three people there are at least two possible combinations: a 'v' where one person is connected to the other two but those two have no connection or a triangle where everyone is equally connected to everyone else. Why should the rules that apply to a monogamous marriage automatically apply equally well to both those configurations, or either one?

There are already various legal tools such as power-of-attorney and trusts and the like people can use to make legal relationships between them. Leaving those to evolve to see if there are some common solutions that evolve that could be turned into one or more standard packages strikes me as a lot more sensible than re-writing everyone's existing marriage in an attempt to apply equality to a fundamentally different situation.

Legal polygamy existing in a country that has no-fault divorces will look very different than polygamy throughout history. I don't really see a huge reason to oppose it; the main sociological scenario where you end up with lots of low-status men without wives seems unlikely in the US (or, rather, any more unlikely than it currently is).

Legal polygamy existing in a country that has no-fault divorces will look very different than polygamy throughout history.

It's been rumored that you have had something akin to no-fault divorce in the Arab world.

By "something akin" you mean that the man can divorce at any time, but the woman has to provide significant evidence of wrongdoing that a judge will then ignore.

You assert this very confidently, particularly since you don't mention a single reason why you think either of these things.

Append "it seems to me" if you so like.

If you have no reason to believe something, why does it even seem to you? Sounds to me like you're substituting wistful thinking for seeing.

Does this book address the fact that gays are highly promiscuous STD factories that don't actually practice monogamous relationships in anywhere approaching mainstream numbers?

Lesbians aren't any more promiscuous than heterosexuals, are they?

At least you've put the stupid moving van jokes aside.

So you agree the promiscuity angle is bs, because of lesbians? Or are you just opposed to male homosexual marriage?

The promiscuity angle is a perfectly valid complaint. It merely applies more intensely to men than to women.

Only to men, obviously. So what's wrong with lesbians marrying?

And it's hardly a reason to deny people a chance to actually have a monogamous structure in their lives.

Not that it matters, that horse is miles away from the barn.

Valid complaint about what? Gay men are more promiscuous than straight men (because they can be; straight women are the general constraint). So what?

I'd suspect you'd get the same result with straight men if they weren't expected to marry (or actually prohibited from doing so). Exhibit A: every frat party I've ever attended.

At this point the legal risks of marriage are so much greater than any possible material gain. I am surprised beyond any words that anyone would *fight* for a right to be sued out of his house, kids and big chunk of paycheck. Curious how this would work for polygamy. Would the senior wife get it all?

Well, it's already legal for one man to live with 40 women and have sex with them all day (or two men and three women, or whatever). But I don't think polygamous co-habitation is common, certainly orders of magnitude less common than co-habitation by gay/lesbian couples 10 years ago. The overwhelming majority of women really don't like the idea of "their man" having sex with other women- which is why this Ashley Madison hack is considered quasi-blackmail, and why prostitution is still illegal despite the fact you could just Control-C the Lawrence decision and have a clear right to privacy case.

Of course the overwhelming majority of men don't like sharing either.

Desmond Hatchett of Knoxville: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146545/Man-fathered-30-kids-11-different-women-says-needs-break--child-support.html

Orlando Shaw of Nashville: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337177/I-young-ambitious-Deadbeat-dad-22-children-14-women-says-loves-kids-hes-proud-legacy-live-on.html

Terry Tyrone Turnage: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2833356/Deadbeat-dad-owed-support-25-children-wanted-state-payment-three-children.html

Oh, here's another one: Richard M Colbert with 25 children with 18 women: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159476/Tennessees-deadbeat-dads-The-men-81-children-46-different-women--theyre-paying-child-support-them.html

NB: They do as a rule not cohabit with their women.

The argument that polygamy should not be permitted because it could result in high-status men attracting many women, leaving low status men without a mate (the inverse gender situation never seems to occur to those who make this argument), is essentially treating women as a commodity which the government needs to ration and enforce an equitable distribution.

Yes, and? It's in everyone's interest to have a high performing society. Polygamist societies keep their women under lock and key, because they are both very valuable and at risk for bride kidnapping. The world and its history offer many examples. All societies that we know of which are high performing are also legally, religiously and from a status perspective monogamous. Maybe technology might change things and offer a window for a polygamous society to not descend into violence, extremism and big man syndrome. Maybe the men without spouses can have sex with robots and hire surrogates for children. I might also expect an uptick in child abuse, as attitudes towards female children take unpredictable turns (gender hostility, or overprotective behavior bordering on imprisonment etc).

"All societies that we know of which are high performing are also legally, religiously and from a status perspective monogamous."

Until recently, the same was true about all societies and gay marriage.

And that is exactly why it's coming, via polyamory. Luckily there are adaptive preferences. Asexuals won't mind polyamorous relationships as long as they get the occasional cuddle.

Give Tyler a break. No married man (in America) can say he favors legalized polygamy.

Actually not true, the ones that truly want it can (and probably do) say it all the time: hard core Mormons and Muslims. Their women want it too (when they are in the fold).

I suspect that distributive injustice has already been made worse by the sexual revolution. It's highly likely that the sexual revolution increased the variance in sexual success between males, and that serial monogamy is a form of polygamy.

The system of monogamy that was extant prior to the Sexual Revolution in the U.S was a system that had the effect of equitably divvying the good of female sexuality among males. If everyone is getting married, nearly every man is getting sex and a relationship.

However, the Sexual Revolution normalized serial monogamy, which can be a form of polygamy. If Bob is a high status male in some way relative to other males (personality, intelligence, wealth, etc) the Sexual Revolution gave Bob permission to hoard female erotic capital through serial relationships. Let’s paint this as simply as possible: Say Bob dates one girl (of similar age) from age 16 to 26, but then breaks up with her and marries a younger woman (say, 22.) In his lifetime, Bob would be getting the “best years” (i.e, when women are their most fertile/beautiful) of more than one woman. The cumulative effect of many Bobs behaving this way is that there’s a shortage of available young women in the so called “sexual marketplace.” And of course Bob could keep repeating this behavior a few more times, perhaps cumulatively dominating in his lifetime two women’s child baring years if he, and the women who select him, so chose!

Look at this interactive map of singles.

http://jonathansoma.com/singles/

When women are in their fertile prime (ages 18 to 35) there are way more single men than single women.
So to sum up: It's not so much that society isn't teaching men how to form relationships or about women that leads to demand for PUA from many men but that the current sexual marketplace structurally produces many male losers due to the normalization of a soft form of poylgamy.

Almost typed up the same comment. Only thing I'll add is that there will be more Elliot Rodger types in a world where polygamy isn't shamed.

I've read the lists of societies that (supposedly, not well documented) have had gay marriage and those that have had polygamy(significantly more historically prevalent than gay marriage), but I think I prefer to live in societies that haven't allowed these practices.

Pro-gay and anti-polygamy views are simply intra-white status signaling. We get it, you're the right kind of white.

Who gives a fuck? The % of people who are gay or polygamists aren't worth giving a fuck about.
Our entire civilization goes to hell in a hand basket, but we have to wring our hands over who should have state-sanctioned marriage?

The fertility of you SWPLs is so low you won't be around in 50 years anyway, so suck it. I adore the thought of chinese or singaporeans or whomever barbarians who actually have their shit together enough come to stomp you all out and take your land, your women, and all you hold dear. At least you'll have your gay marriage.

Tyler once chastised liberals for their wine-drinking culture because although they can handle it, it has harmful consequences on the poor. And he chastised conservatives for their gun-owning ways because although middle class conservatives are responsible gun owners, they cause a lot of harm to others.

But apparently he's all in on increasing inequality in marriage. But hey, it isn't like past upheavals in marraige have had harmful consequences for the poor, right?

I've always thought that we should have "civil unions" for 2 people regardless of sex, but cap it at 2, essentially for visa purposes. Otherwise there would be an inevitable black market in huge polygamous rings with pay-ins for immigrants who want to enter the country (of course we already have this to some extent but because it's capped at one spouse per person it's not a big issue). Of course, when Alex brings us open borders this won't be an issue either.

In the future of Polygamy it won't be one man and multiple women. It will be bisexual as well with multiple men and women in one marriage. It will be completely different then anything we have seen and it is a logical consequence of grafting gay marriage to straight relationships. Also expect to see straight men and straight women in same sex marriages for benefits and legal reasons; it would be contrary to human nature and illogical for people not to use a legal advantage.

"I Now Pronounce you Chuck & Larry" was ROBBED of an Oscar.

Comments for this post are closed