Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-01-2018, 06:35 AM
Ravenscroft Ravenscroft is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NW Minnesota
Posts: 1,724
Default polygamy is not polyfidelity

Last year, someone on Wikipedia edited the Polyamory article to include a statement (under Cultural diversity ) that began
Quote:
... polygamy advocacy groups and activists and egalitarian polyamory advocacy groups and activists can and do work together cooperatively. In addition, the two sub-communities have many common issues (poly parenting, dealing with jealousy, legal and social discrimination, etc.), the discussion and resolution of which are of equal interest to both sub-communities, regardless of any cultural differences that may exist. Moreover, there is considerable cultural diversity within both sub-communities.
The piece went on to claim that since both polygamy & polyamory were "egalitarian" -- well, at least insofar as "all women are equals" -- they were pretty much the same thing.

I got the impression that this was propaganda, put up by one of those (unnamed) "polygamy advocacy groups and activists." When that stuff went away, I certainly didn't miss it.
________________

A couple of years ago, someone showed up here, claiming to be casting for a TV program: "A major Cable Production Company is currently seeking Polygamist couples seeking a new wife/wives."

Someone asked why this was met with a fair bit of virtual eye-rolling, since
Quote:
polygamy is simply a lopsided form of polyamory ... it is in fact polyamory
& we were being a bunch of judgmental prejudiced meanies for not welcoming the equation. This got a few responses, & I'll stand by mine, which follows:
________________

Personally, I'm waaay tired of people defending polygamy with sweeping airheaded statements about peace/love/understanding & moral high grounds & "it's all pretty much the same thing." Well,

For the advancement of such (nothing personal) nimrods, I hear there's this Interwebs thing where you can look at some sorta searching engine or like that, & get all kinds of information, much of it an accurate representation of general consensus reality. But here's a brief summary.

It's not the gender proportions that bug us -- there's plenty of FMF triads & vees about.

It's not the crypto-slavery attitude that bugs us -- quite a few of us have friends who are to some degree happy in their master/slave kinkiness. Maybe there's women of sound mind who simply enjoy that sense of security that most of us would quickly find stifling & outright maddening... but my kinks aren't your kinks & c'est la vie.

What bugs ME is that institutional polygamy is creepy mind-control cultism, like Monogamism gone cancerous. Women are indoctrinated from birth into needing this sort of structure. Deprogramming them would be like taking a 19th-century Paiute tribesman & dropping him in the middle of today's Times Square.

And so we make it entertainment.



And shows are produced that show some of the hassles but generally whitewash the fundamental assumptions -- that would be Big Love.

And people assume that's what polyamory is all about. And they show up here demanding the secrets of how to get THEIR assorted HBB sister-wives.

IMNSHO, anyone who wants to say ANYTHING nice about polygamy ought FIRST to read up a little on the FLDS.

I've yet to meet an apologist who independently realised that, with females a tightly controlled commodity within that community, most boys are surplusage, useful for the work you can get out of them, but needing to be dumped before they can be competition with Dad's church buddies. Imagine being a (for lack of a better term) mother who's so brainwashed that she will readily exile her own son. They even have a word for it --
Quote:
"Lost boys" is a term used for young men who have been excommunicated or pressured to leave polygamous Mormon fundamentalism groups... by adult men to reduce competition for wives within such sects, usually when they are between the ages of 13 and 21.

It has been reported by former members that the FLDS Church has excommunicated more than 400 teenage boys for offenses such as dating or listening to rock music.

Some former members claim that the real reason for these excommunications is that there are not enough women for each male to receive three or more wives. Six men, aged 18 to 22, filed a conspiracy lawsuit against Jeffs and Sam Barlow, a former Mohave County deputy sheriff and close associate of Jeffs, for the "systematic excommunication" of young men to reduce competition for wives.

While some boys leave by their own choice, many are ostensibly banished for conduct such as watching a movie, watching television, playing football, or talking to a girl. Some boys are told not to return unless they can return with a wife. One estimate is that between 400 and 1,000 boys and young men have been pressured to leave for such reasons.

Boys in these sects are commonly raised not to trust the outside world, and may be taught that leaving their communities is a sin worse than murder. These boys are usually left with little education or skills applicable to life outside of their community of birth, and must learn to live in a society about which they know little, while dealing with the consequences of being shunned by their families, and believing they are beyond spiritual redemption. The families of banished boys are told that the boys are now dead to them.

Warren Jeffs has repeatedly alluded to the 19th-century teaching of "blood atonement" in church sermons. Under the doctrine, certain serious sins, such as murder, can only be atoned for by the sinner's death. There was concern that one of the sins requiring blood atonement is apostasy.
Hint: "lost boys" are apostate.
Quote:
Apostasy is the formal disaffiliation from, or abandonment or renunciation of a religion by a person.
They are sinners left to die -- rather literally.

So, no, I will not roll over & "play nice" with defenders of polygamy.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-01-2018, 10:23 AM
HurtandConfused HurtandConfused is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 86
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenscroft View Post
For the advancement of such (nothing personal) nimrods,

So, no, I will not roll over & "play nice" with defenders of polygamy.
You complain about mixed terms and getting things strait, yet use nimrod as an insult.

very ironic

(Nimrod is a biblical charactor that was a great hunter, this was used as an ironic insult by bugs bunny; the audience was not smart enough to get the comparison and thus we have this miss-used insult today).

So, see how easily confusion over 1 word can cause HUGE emotional responses?

I think it's always good to play nice until you are absolutely sure of the intent (which is a very hard thing to be sure of with out great communication, which most people don't have).


we could branch into how this is the education systems fault and that we are not taught the Trivium and Quadrivium... but that's a bit off topic
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-01-2018, 05:58 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is online now
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 16,046
Default

This is where consent falls into a gray area, and the notion of "informed consent" becomes important. I would argue that "brainwashed consent" is not really consent, as it is not really informed.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-01-2018, 07:08 PM
majormerrick's Avatar
majormerrick majormerrick is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 73
Default

I know that my perspective is a definite minority on this issue, but here it is. When people think of “polygamy” they go to Mormonism, cults, Warren Jeffs, Lost Boys, etc… It is popular to think of it that way. But believe it or not, there are women such as myself who were not raised around plural marriage but who have chosen it.

I go with the dictionary definition: “the philosophy or state of being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time.” Thus, polygamy or plural marriage is a subset of polyamory, like it or not. We can debate the health and practice of it all day long, but I think the definition of polyamory includes it. Plural marriage is my flavor, and I like the security of it. Not everybody wants or needs more than one male partner around….having a home with lots of female energy is rather pleasant, I think. If others prefer something different, my style shouldn’t affect them and theirs doesn’t affect me.

Institutionalizing polygamy/plural marriage or really any form of relationship tends to go against free will. In my faith, plural marriage is accepted and in some cases is encouraged as a solution to social problems…but it is not institutionalized. In fact, religious leaders (bishops) are limited to one wife only. Having more than four partners is pretty uncommon…no Brigham Young here, thanks.

Of course, if you have females as a “tightly controlled commodity” you will end up with surplus sons. So what’s the fix? You reduce the control. In my family, only one member (Reina) was originally from the faith. My husband joined because of her, and brought Swift and I along later on. In other families, the sons often get one wife from the community, but find a second or third wife outside and bring her in. Plural marriage is encouraged for making new converts. Since the community of faith is likely to stay small, this draws resources from society at large. We also observe religious freedom….we may be somewhat separated from the rest of society, but we’re not Amish nor are we a dangerous cult. If someone doesn’t want to keep the faith, they aren’t shunned.

If you really want to go down the road with the idea of surplus boys, there’s another solution….preferentially have daughters! Since it is medically possible to select the sex of your child, it is always an option. My faith tends to prefer having children naturally and in abundance, but there are a couple of families I know that have had daughters out of preference, with only one or two sons. Again, female energy in the home is pleasant. Personally, I wish that the human species had less of a 50/50 gender split and more of a 3 to 1 female to male ratio. The world would be a softer and more friendly place, I think.

To sum it up, I think that relationship styles are just like tools – put to good or bad ends by the people who use them. It is about making responsible choices…I wouldn’t want my choice to live in a plural relationship to be taken away for the sake of some strange cult people out west who chose poorly.
__________________
Me – early 30’s (F) lesbi-flexible. Ares' wife #3
“Ares” – early 30’s (M) straight. my husband, head of our household.
“Renarde” - Late 20’s, (fluid/female) lesbi-flexible. my GF#1
“Corsac” - Early 20’s (F) lesbian. my GF#2
“Reina “- Late 20’s (F) bisexual. Ares' Wife #1
“Swift” – 20 (F) bisexual. Ares' Wife #2, my intimate partner
“Artemis” – late 20’s (F) bisexual, my GF#3.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-01-2018, 10:37 PM
Al99's Avatar
Al99 Al99 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,442
Default

Quote:
So, see how easily confusion over 1 word can cause HUGE emotional responses?
Interesting how word usages change over time. Calling one of the good old boys that I grew up with "gay" to describe his lighthearted and carefree ways would most likely result in a bare knuckle brawl - especially on the back forty.

And there's the recently discussed term "cuckold" - archaically referring to a man whose wife had humiliated him by being unfaithful - and now almost always relating to a femdom fetish.

Then there's the word "bad" - which now sometimes means "good" - go figure....

And now the great hunter Nimrod is reduced to a dimwit - courtesy of my personal favorite cartoon character, the esteemed Bugs Bunny (I once heard Bugs described as very "Zen", not altogether accurately, of course) - the point being that regardless of the original etymology, current usage differs (as do many words).

Just a passing thought... Hope everyone has a great weekend! Al
__________________
Dramatis Personae:
Me: Al99, poly, heterosexual male, 50's
Becky: married to Al99, poly, heterosexual female, late 30's
Bouncingbetty: ldr girlfriend to Al99, poly, pansexual female, early 30's
Ben: Becky's medium-ldr bf, heterosexual male, 40's
_________________________________________


My Introductory Post - An Unexpected Introduction to Poly.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-02-2018, 07:04 AM
Ravenscroft Ravenscroft is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NW Minnesota
Posts: 1,724
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurtandConfused View Post
we could branch into how this is the education systems fault and that we are not taught the Trivium and Quadrivium...
Or you could look into the definition of needless nit-picking.



Here; I'll help you out, because this Interwebs thing is clearly a bit beyond your abilities --
Hypercriticism (pathology)
Quote:
Nitpickers engage in minute, trivial, and unjustified faultfinding to excess.
(Please feel free to exempt yourself from anything uncomfortable. )
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-02-2018, 07:08 AM
Ravenscroft Ravenscroft is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NW Minnesota
Posts: 1,724
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by majormerrick View Post
If you really want to go down the road with the idea of surplus boys, there’s another solution….preferentially have daughters! Since it is medically possible to select the sex of your child, it is always an option.
So, in other words, spawn bargaining tokens for the benefit of the real people -- a.k.a. men.

Correct?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-02-2018, 07:21 AM
Ravenscroft Ravenscroft is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NW Minnesota
Posts: 1,724
Default

And furthermore, per "nimrod" --
Quote:
the term is often used sarcastically to mean a dimwitted or a stupid person, a usage first recorded in 1932
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod#Idiom
so (IMNSHO) anyone under the age of 70 (but over 30) is probably feigning ignorance in order to comehow look cool.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-02-2018, 06:58 PM
HurtandConfused HurtandConfused is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 86
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenscroft View Post
Or you could look into the definition of needless nit-picking.



Here; I'll help you out, because this Interwebs thing is clearly a bit beyond your abilities --
Hypercriticism (pathology)

(Please feel free to exempt yourself from anything uncomfortable. )
could that not apply to this entire thread?

I'm sorry you found my response aggressive and felt like you had to stab back; that wasn't my intent. It was more like "thinking out loud" except... via text... haha I visit a few too many forums I suppose.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-03-2018, 09:59 AM
majormerrick's Avatar
majormerrick majormerrick is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 73
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenscroft View Post
So, in other words, spawn bargaining tokens for the benefit of the real people -- a.k.a. men.

Correct?
I would think that in a system where there are more women than men, the men would be the bargaining tokens... But then, men might find the idea of a female-majority system a bit threatening. Your statement also discounts the increasing number of women who are choosing same-sex relationships.

To go even further, a 50/50 male to female ratio in our species is not only biologically unnecessary, but actually undesirable. We could make do quite well with less than a quarter of the men we have on the earth...
__________________
Me – early 30’s (F) lesbi-flexible. Ares' wife #3
“Ares” – early 30’s (M) straight. my husband, head of our household.
“Renarde” - Late 20’s, (fluid/female) lesbi-flexible. my GF#1
“Corsac” - Early 20’s (F) lesbian. my GF#2
“Reina “- Late 20’s (F) bisexual. Ares' Wife #1
“Swift” – 20 (F) bisexual. Ares' Wife #2, my intimate partner
“Artemis” – late 20’s (F) bisexual, my GF#3.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:49 PM.