TV Show: Sister Wives

[Ariakas]

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20101004.html

[PixieStyx]

I like this so far....It's nice to see a polygamous FLDS MORMON family that's not the prairie dress wearing closed up in their own little compound away from the world family.

[PixieStyx]

Originally Posted by eskimo

I'm confused about what you mean.

They didn't come right out and say it, but with the religious motivation, I wondered if the women were not allowed other partners, and with as many kids as they had, I almost wondered if they did it mainly to have so many kids.

But none of this was ever explicitly stated, and I could be making assumptions. Although even if that's the case, they all seem to be happy about it. And if they're happy, it's not for me to judge.

If they are FLDS then NO the women are not allowed to take other husbands. But so what? If the women involved in that relationship are ok with that then who are we to judge what their family structure is? Those women don't seem submissive to me.

As far as the bigamy charge. Not sure if they could even charge him with anything at all because FLDS only marry their first wife legally and just do religious ceremonies for the rest and I was under the impression that common law didn't apply in the state of Utah. I could be wrong though.

[Tonberry]

It's nice that they all seem to be loving, and that it isn't forced for anyone. I did get a feel of "we're having as many kids as we possibly can because religion wants us to" but the kids seem happy so I can't say I find it horrible or anything like that.
I do agree that the main difference with polyamory is how one-way it is. None of the wives are allowed other men in their lives, I definitely couldn't be a sister wife if I knew I wasn't allowed the same treatment. It might work if all the females are mono, but it seems that it's more that they're not given the option, which is a bit sad.
Of course, I can see how they wouldn't have much time for other relationships, they seem busy enough as it is.

All in all, as far as religious polygamy is concerned, I think it's a very positive show. I do think it's different from polyamory though. I also think the law should leave them alone.

[Ready2Fly]

Originally Posted by PixieStyx

As far as the bigamy charge. Not sure if they could even charge him with anything at all because FLDS only marry their first wife legally and just do religious ceremonies for the rest and I was under the impression that common law didn't apply in the state of Utah. I could be wrong though.

Unfortunately, the charge of bigamy in most states, including Utah, doesn't depend on the registration of the 2nd, 3rd marriages, etc. The Utah statute criminalizes anyone who is married from merely "purporting to marry" or "cohabitating" with anyone else. If he legally married wife #1, then he could potentially be convicted of bigamy for #2 and #3, even if it was just a personal or religious ceremony with no civil papers or registration.

Originally Posted by Tonberry

I do agree that the main difference with polyamory is how one-way it is. None of the wives are allowed other men in their lives... I do think it's different from polyamory though.

How? Because they have different rules? None of the poly families I know have the exact same boundaries as each other. It seems to me that they are dealing with issues of time management, jealousy management, open communication, and ethics that are essentially equivalent to those in more familiar poly relationships. Why pick out this particular boundary difference as making it Not-Poly, if everyone in the relationship is happy and consenting?

[Vinccenzo]

Originally Posted by Ready2Fly

How? Because they have different rules? None of the poly families I know have the exact same boundaries as each other. It seems to me that they are dealing with issues of time management, jealousy management, open communication, and ethics that are essentially equivalent to those in more familiar poly relationships. Why pick out this particular boundary difference as making it Not-Poly, if everyone in the relationship is happy and consenting?

Mmmm, I think its more about a lack of options under which they decide their own boundaries. Its like having a relationship where one partner is an astronaut and and they become poly because the astronaut wants to have zero gravity sex and a relationship with another astronaut and their primary partner "chooses" remains monogamous because they are not an astronaut and therefore cannot have zero gravity sex. These women decide their boundaries based on what their religion affords them - not necessarily what they would desire to choose. And they have to find a comfort level with it because their religion affords their husband this option as his god given right. Its a bit different than someone with a full spectrum of choice, choosing to remain monogamous because it is exactly what they want instead of the only option available to choose from.

[Shades]

Are full episodes still available anywhere?

[Tonberry]

Originally Posted by Ready2Fly

How? Because they have different rules?

What I meant is that they're not exactly the same. The husband is polyamorous, mind you, I agree with that. But this is a subcategory that revolves around marriage and is one-way. There is more to polyamory than just this situation.
And there is polygamy that isn't polyamorous, too, when it's just about marrying as many wives as possible and having as many kids as possible, without being in love with them.

So polygamy and polyamory are different, since there can be one without the other. But I agree that they overlap.

[Ready2Fly]

Originally Posted by Vinccenzo

Its like having a relationship where one partner is an astronaut and and they become poly because the astronaut wants to have zero gravity sex and a relationship with another astronaut and their primary partner "chooses" remains monogamous because they are not an astronaut and therefore cannot have zero gravity sex.

But that's still a choice that the earthbound partner makes, to open the relationship in that particular way. That partner still has the option to say, "No, I'd prefer you didn't have zero-gravity sex, because I can never have that. Let's do something we can both enjoy." Personally, I think it would be a bit silly to say that (if my partner had that kind of opportunity, I'd be cheering her on! Wooo! Space sex!! Even if I never got to go to space myself!) but it's still an option.

How about "indecent proposals," where some celebrity or billionaire offers to sleep with the wife of a mono couple, let's say. Would it be less than a full choice for the couple to decide to accept the proposal, since the husband has no opportunity of his own?

I think these things are choices that the partners can discuss together and agree on. I don't think that lack of opportunity for one partner invalidates consent.

These women decide their boundaries based on what their religion affords them - not necessarily what they would desire to choose.

So they're not allowed to base their choices or preferences on religion? Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of sympathy with that position but religion is super important to a lot of people, and plays an enormous role in individuals' choices in all aspects of life, not just in this one.

What would your position be on people who marry monogamously because that is the only option their religion affords them, even if it's not necessarily what they would desire to choose otherwise? I suspect that probably describes a good 20-30% of the western world.

As long as there's consent, and no abuse, I really don't think we can analyze the legitimacy of relationships based on how someone came to the decision to consent. That's entirely up to the individual and no one else.

Originally Posted by Tonberry

So polygamy and polyamory are different, since there can be one without the other. But I agree that they overlap.

Agreed. I thought you were arguing that this particular family, who apparently do love each other, could not be considered polyamory.

[Tonberry]

Originally Posted by Ready2Fly

Agreed. I thought you were arguing that this particular family, who apparently do love each other, could not be considered polyamory.

Oh, no, the husband is definitely very loving and respectful of all of his wives and treats them as individuals. I have much more of a problem when a man has, 20, 30 or 60 wives and it seems to me he wouldn't even have the time to say "good morning" and "good night" to all of them individually, let alone spend quality time with them. And considering they each have only one husband, it makes me sad that the one husband they have has no time for them, and doesn't individually give them the love and respect they deserve.

I think my only problem when it's religious is that I wonder, do the women raised into it even consider the option of it being the other way around? Or is it to them like peeing standing, something that's a "guy thing", and even if they wish they could have someone else, it's just not possible.
When it's not religious, it seems easier for me to think the person made their own choice. When it is, it's hard to know where the personal choice starts, and when the choice that has been made for you ends.

Ultimately, I really only care that they're happy and treated well, but I always wonder if they are aware that there are other options. To some extent, I wonder the same for people in monogamous relationships. Sometimes, they had to choose between two people, and think they made the best choice, and I wonder, do they know they could have made the choice to have both? See what I mean?

Anyways, I think the law has no business in relationships that are between loving and consensual adults, and that's obviously the case here. I understand when the marriages were forced, or happened so early that there is a strong doubt, or even so early that the women were still girls, but I wish the law could be about preventing abuse. There is abuse in non-polygamous unions, too. The problem is the abuse, not the polygamy.