Polygamy

Subject: Polygamy
From: Deckman
Date: 19 May 01 - 02:44 PM

I hear they just convicted a fellow in Utah for polygamy. Now they are going to sentence him. GOOD GRIEF, he had five wives, hasn't he already been punished enough? Any polygamy songs out there? CHEERS Bob (deckman) Nelson

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: wdyat12
Date: 19 May 01 - 02:50 PM

How many women have five husbands?

wdyat12

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: lady penelope
Date: 19 May 01 - 03:04 PM

How dumb do you think women are?

TTFN M'Lady P.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 May 01 - 03:05 PM

Not many, I would assume. Most women are not stupid enough to get themselves into a situation like that.

- LH

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: CarolC
Date: 19 May 01 - 03:07 PM

Liz Taylor did, I believe, but not all at the same time.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 May 01 - 03:10 PM

Exactly. That was seriognomy, not polygamy.

- LH

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 May 01 - 03:13 PM

But to answer the question, does 'Enry the Eighth count? (Technically she's the wider next door, but change it to the wifey?)

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: wdyat12
Date: 19 May 01 - 03:15 PM

Deckman,

"Everyday in the Week" sung by Tom Rush comes to mind, although the narrator in the song never mentions marriage.

Woody

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: wdyat12
Date: 19 May 01 - 03:17 PM

I sometimes play this song, but I never play it for Maggie.

Woody

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 May 01 - 03:20 PM

Seriandry, to be technical. Polygyny=many wives, polyandry=many husbands, polygamy=many parents. Closet anthropoligist.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: wdyat12
Date: 19 May 01 - 03:24 PM

Clever semantics Mrrrzy.

Woody

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Deckman
Date: 19 May 01 - 03:49 PM

... and if five wives wasn't enough punishment, you can add thirteen children! SSSSHHHHEEEEUUUUHHHH! Bob(deckman)Nelson

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: lady penelope
Date: 19 May 01 - 04:15 PM

that's definately poetic justice.

M'Lady P.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: SeanM
Date: 19 May 01 - 05:00 PM

I don't know... I think this one is even sillier than prosecuting sodomy or other 'consensual sexual acts'.

I wonder if someone would consider running this one up to the Supremes as a case of religious persecution? After all, biblically, it's a tradition to have many wives...

Ah, if only I had too much money and free time...

M

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 May 01 - 05:01 PM

Art Thieme does a grand rendition of ZACK, THE MORMON ENGINEER

I have read articles about some of the women in Utah who subscribe to this. Some of them are high-powered executives. One even choses her husband's next wives. They view one another as sisters and claim they help each other with everything and cannot imagine the "lonely" drudgery of being an "only" wife. One wonders if they also enjoy the company of one another in more "forbidden" ways or just enjoy the obvious respites from hubby's attentions...I mean without a steady supply of viagra, how could one man keep it up? (Pun intended.)

No Offence Intended to the one Mudcat member I know of who lives in Utah.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Amergin
Date: 19 May 01 - 05:11 PM

Oh those Mormons have always been a bit soft in the head....

Amerginwhogrewupmormon....

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:00 PM

How else could he keep it up for "Nine times a night"?

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: DougR
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:01 PM

I assume, Amergin, you are referring to the one between the men's shoulders. (Couldn't resist ...stop that!) DougR

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Sorcha
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:20 PM

Although I don't approve of the practice, I do think is should be considered a religious issue. Maybe he will appeal.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Amergin
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:22 PM

Doug, not at the rate they breed...

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:27 PM

Sorcha, yes, as long as all are consenting adults

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: gnu
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:30 PM

Mrrzy said... Polygyny=many wives, polyandry=many husbands, polygamy=many parents.

So, because he wasn't properly charged, he can get off ?

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: AllisonA(Animaterra)
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:32 PM

Then there's polyamory which many espouse as an alternative to "serial monogamy".

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Art Thieme
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:33 PM

That's on my first album for Sandy Paton at Folk Legacy Records, Art Thieme--That's The Ticket. Available now as a cassette from Sandy.

Thanks Kat.

Art

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: paddymac
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:35 PM

Like so many things, it works for some but not for all. I don't go along with 13 year-old wives, any more than I do commitments to a convent or seminary at the same age, but where such things are truly matters of free and informed choice, then I think society should not interfere by imposing majoritarian views. Most Americans probably don't take the time to ponder the question, but our culture is still greatly influenced by the perverse notions of most things sexual brought here by the Puritans and other early religiously motivated immigres.

Interesting thing about the current case is who will support whatever remains of the "family" if they lock him up. Press reports claim that the family/clan/tribe/reproductive unit in question is currently drawing down some $100k/yr in various kinds of support. Wonder if that would go up or down if they lock him up, and will the wives/kids be any better of.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Troll
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:53 PM

In certain areas of Tibet, polyandry is common and is the accepted practice.
As far as "nine times a night" goes, the article I read said that the senior wife chooses who will share their husbands bed each evening. They apparently accepted the situation with open eyes and (mostly) as consenting adults. As long as the children are provided for, why is it the governments business anyway?

troll

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Bill D
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:55 PM

speaking of 'polyamory'...some of the songs of The Gaiaconsort deal with it...see

seems to me that they oughta just let people meld as they please, as long as they define their relationship formally and follow the rules

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Sorcha
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:56 PM

Yes, kat, I just forgot to mention that. Troll, apparently, most of this guys wives were only 13 and 14 when he married them. My personal opinion is that Mormonism has a few loose screws as a religion, but I have known some very nice ones. And quite a few "Jack" Mormons as well.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: gnu
Date: 19 May 01 - 07:07 PM

Since my double joke above didn't get any response, perhaps I should ask about polyorchid fellows ? Would they be more acceptable as husbands of multiple partners ?

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Bill D
Date: 19 May 01 - 07:11 PM

whoops...messed up the 2nd link...try http://gaiaconsort.com/family.html

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: CarolC
Date: 19 May 01 - 08:45 PM

You know any guys like that, gnu?

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 May 01 - 08:50 PM

kat, the way thay manage with many wives is the Coolidge effect. Works a treat, no Viagra needed! Of course, women don't suffer from refractory periods (well, not in the same sense!) so the problem doesn't, um, come up.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: toadfrog
Date: 19 May 01 - 09:25 PM

Gee. I guess it would be reasonable to let everyone have as many wives, husbands etc. as they might want, so long as everyone is a consenting adult and marriage has no legal or social consequences. But as here we have a guy marrying 13-and 14-year old girls, and having at least one of them draw welfare to support him, I don't see it that way. Absent the "marriages," he could be doing hard time for molesting minor girls.

And query, when he dies, if he does, who gets the community property? And which of those wives gets to go out on the street and beg?

If I buy a piece of land from him in a community property state, and one of his 5 wives fails to sign off on the deed, can he take it back whenever he wants?

Is his employer, if any, obliged to provide health care for all 5 wives? If not, who is going to tend to them if they are sick? The guy who already has one wife drawing welfare? No. His branch of the Church? Not bloody likely.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: SeanM
Date: 19 May 01 - 09:40 PM

Well, try the guy for statuatory rape then.

If you're concerned about him marrying just for welfare benefits, then you'd better sharpen the axe for the entire system that provides better benefits for being unmarried with children as well...

But still - the law in question doesn't specify 'You can have multiple marriage partners, as long as you support them' or 'You can have multiple marriage partners, as long as you're religion says you can'. Our laws state that you can only have one marriage partner and they must be of the opposite sex.

It's a codified religious view that made it into law. Most 'morality' laws are.

On a tangenitally related story, I once knew a guy in the US Navy who was prosecuted for 'Oral Copulation'. Under the Unified Code of Military Justice, that's considered an offense.

Of course, he was also charged with abandoning his watch post, being absent without leave, being absent with intent to commit offences, adultry, and a host of other minor offenses. Such is the problem with being caught in bed with the married wife of a popular chief from another ship...

M

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,Convenience words and acts ... what
Date: 19 May 01 - 09:57 PM

is wrong with it in the first place?

If you make babies with more than one partner, you are a polygamist. The time when you do it is irrelevant. So there is no legal or moral formulae that can excuse the practice.

In the United States more than two thirds of the breeding population are polygamists. Live with it or leave the United States.

What is wrong with it? History and Antropology show us that such societies tend toward tribalism, see Africa and its current bout of tribal conflicts. The question now becomes what is wrong with Tribalism? The male tends to want satisfaction at all times but the female is only ready once a month, so the male chooses the one that is ready. There may be several males contesting the selection, so in primitve society the guy with the biggest stick or largest body would win. This as civilised folk know is animal behaviour and we are not animals. In order to give it some gloss of respectability there have been several religions adopted to legitimise one guy getting all and the rest nothing. Judaism, Islam and Mormonism for example. Even with the gloss the practice still produces other undesirable social and biological problems. For one sometimes a couple may marry who are really very closely related. There is also the trend toward phyical similary - see Africa and some parts of Europe which continue even to this day, behind closed doors, with the practice.

Can there be a reasonable solution? Yes but not in modern religcosociety. The civilised thing to do is legalise and monitor the health of Ladies of Leisure. That way the males get all they want - and a far greater choices, the females get stable marriages and divorce ceases.

How to end polygamy? As soon as a Parent chooses divorce automatic and permanent castration.

If there are complaints - hey brother/sister the planet is overpoulated think of this way YOUR children will have a better world to live in.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: CarolC
Date: 19 May 01 - 10:21 PM

The female is only ready once a month?

GUEST,Convenience words and acts (etc.), what fantasy world do you live in? Women don't just want sex when they're ovulating. What, are you crazy?

Sheesh...

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Sorcha
Date: 19 May 01 - 10:26 PM

Besides which, females who live together eventually synchronize their cycles to a certain extent.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,Dancing Mom
Date: 19 May 01 - 10:35 PM

Once a MONTH???

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 19 May 01 - 10:37 PM

The plural of "spouse" is "spice". 'Nuff said

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Bill D
Date: 19 May 01 - 11:03 PM

that 'guest' has been living on some other planet *grin*...women have just as many desires and interests as men unless they have some 'reason' not to....and they are more free than ever to express them

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Naemanson
Date: 19 May 01 - 11:18 PM

I read Heinlein. I wouldn't have any problem at all with polygamy except that this guy was marrying girls that were far too young to be marrying and he was bilking the system. Lock him up!

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Naemanson
Date: 19 May 01 - 11:20 PM

Oh, and at least one of the mariages was incestual. Throw away the key!

Oh, and then he tried to say that he wasn't married to more than one of them thereby trying to repudiate the supposedly loving relationships. Put him in the cell with Big Brucie!

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: harpgirl
Date: 19 May 01 - 11:30 PM

...can I quote you on that BillD?

What I find objectionable is the fact that this gentleman has spread his genes so widely into the human race. Any man who fathers more than three children should have to apply for a license to do so. And he should be able to prove his genetic worthiness!

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Bill D
Date: 19 May 01 - 11:30 PM

well, there have been, (and probably still are) happy, sane, reasonable multiple marriages...just looks like this one was not exactly kosher..(well, you know...)

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Bill D
Date: 19 May 01 - 11:55 PM

quote me?...sure..*smile*...notarized affidavits, if you want 'em...

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,Bella
Date: 20 May 01 - 12:12 AM

mmmm...I guess the US law reflects a certain cultural bias. I believe that it could and should change in time (should the govt/state really have a stake in "marriage"?) to reflect the reality of so many different relationships - are gay/lesbian relationships so less valid that they can't enter a formal marriage? The issue for me is the value of any adult couple-relationship, and their right to formalise this; some of this person's relationships could hardly be considered as between two adults. The other issue that I find repugnant is the atittude of privilege/right to have as many children as you wish without due consideration as to whether you are able to personally take responsibility to provide the necessities of life. Interestingly, Tibetans follow a matriachal culture - many in rural areas apparently still follow the way of women having several husbands. The way this works (simplistically of course) is that one husband will often be away (trading, farming etc) whilst the other is at home to share the usual donkey work of caing for a home children etc. The husbands regard each other as brothers, and often are. Bella

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,lloyd62
Date: 20 May 01 - 12:44 AM

Is it true that Mormons have special underware? This is not the lead in to a joke!!!!! I picked this up someplace but never had it confirmed.

lloyd62

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Sorcha
Date: 20 May 01 - 12:47 AM

I have heard that too, "angel wings", I heard them called, but I have never been able to confirm it either.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 May 01 - 01:29 AM

Yes, it is true. I've read a lot of books by people who've left the church, one of which gave detailed instructions on such things. Sorry I cannot remember the name of it just now. I got it from the library. Of course she was excommunicated. For an incredible insight into the power of the LDS over woman Sonia Johnson's book From Housewife to Heretic is still a very timely read, even though it was written in the 1970's immediately after her heinous "trial" by the church for her role in the ERA movement.

I guess enough have posted that I don't have to say more about wimmin having plenty of libido, eh?:-)

kat

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,Women and desire....
Date: 20 May 01 - 03:11 AM

Science has now provided the ideal solution, designer babies! Genetic planning means Polygamy is a bad way to make your own tribe.

Tribes for the masses lol.

All we need now is a disease free world and every one can do who or what ever they please.