this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
1064 points (95.4% liked)
memes
15481 readers
5796 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is the main objection to polygamy that having multiple sex partners is immoral or that the whole arrangement is subjugation of women (because usually it's multiple wives not husbands), or some other reason?
Muslim men can have multiple wives (maximum 5 I believe) as long as they can provide for them. Muslim women are only allowed to have a single husband.
The joke is that the school thought that the kid’s family was super progressive meanwhile in reality it was super patriarchal
Thanks, I got the humor, what I'm wondering about is what's the predominant reason people in general object to polygamy, regardless of whether it's Islam or Mormons or whatever.
Just off top of my head.
Inheritance - no explanation needed.
personal time - hard to get quality time and Love is can be selfish.
Issues with accidental incest - my dad side loves cheating. I have lots of half siblings and cousins id never meet all over globe. One uncle had 15ish kids that he knew of. So I dont date my dad's race. Nope train.
The dating market - One less wife available for men leads to anger for those without one. This is why I was told gay men are more accepted in certain cultures than lesbians.
Incels already exist and at the same time the most attractive men have a wife, a mistress, and occasional hookups. So it Wildente necessarily change much. Except the side pieces could have actual rights and more societal respect by becoming wives.
If you want more incels, that's how you get more.
data also shows uneven male to female ratio leads to males being more violent. Specifically against women. Just look at countries with low female to male ratios. Disgusting behavior.
If the male pop was reduced then this argument goes out the window. But that would require a major war or some disease that effects only males.
Men are far more susceptible to be victims of violence, addiction, suicide, incarceration, mental illness, loneliness etc. already.
High male population nowadays is usually caused by elective abortions.
Totally agree. Which is why removing more females from the dating pool will make it worse for male populations.
People confuse polygamy with polygyny.
Polygamy is when one person can marry multiple people.
Polygyny is when one person can marry multiple women.
Polyandry is when one person can marry multiple men.
There's no specific word for when one person can marry multiple nonbinary people.
Polyamory sounds close; if you presume that the other people would be allowed multiple marriages as well.
Polyphony?
When your synthesizer can play more then one note at a time
I remember school when the first kid played polyphonic ring signals... Was revolutionary! So much noise
Didn't they make donkey kong?
A bit of both. The Greeks and Romans had a cultural taboo against polygamy which Christianity inherited, which means that Christians have historically been opposed to polygamy (which was not the case in Pre-christian northern Europe) on moral grounds. There is also the issue that historically polygamy has been associated with patriarchal societies in which men are allowed or expected to have multiple wives, but women are not allowed to do the same. Additionally, it is also culturally associated with treating women as property of the husband. Personally I don't have any issue with polygamy if everyone is free to do whatever but the way most cultures practice it, it's unfair to women. Then again, that could also he said of "traditional" marriage in a lot of monogamous scenarios too.
These days there is also a tax reason why you can't marry multiple people. It would have a fair amount of tax negatives as well.
"one to cook and one to clean" is one of the "joke-y" sayings I heard
Having been on some readings I had not picked up in a second recently, two to poison and be each other's alibi is what went thru my head first lol.
Nothing else to do with the thread. Just the first thought that went thru my head- any rat bastard that lives that shit deserves to be poisoned by both.
Find me just one example of a Muslim woman with two husbands.
That wasn't the ask though? They were asking about polygamy in general...
It’s an easy one-sentence way to point out the inherent subjugation of women.
If everyone involved consents, should that be anyone else's business?
Consent under duress or desperation is not consent. That’s why I’m pointing out that if the polygamy only ever goes one way, there is an obvious power imbalance that prevents consent from being possible.
You're making a sweeping general statement. Polygamy is just Polyamory taken to vows. There is a problem with a lot of the people that practice polygamy in an unethical way, but not polygamy itself.
That is what the person you responded to said. There is a problem with the cultural of polygamy here because it's done in an unethical way.
That is also what the person you replied to said. They clarified specifically that if both genders are free to practice polygamy in the same way there's no issue.
And that can be judged from the outside?
The same can apply to polyandry, or what is said to be polyandry but based on one or multiple people involved ultimately being coerced. Come to think of it, all the people i knew who prided themselves in polyandry had relationships that seemed rather toxic to me.
There is no moral superiority of relationship forms. Whether the relationships are consensual, respectful and just always is individual to the people involved.
Probably depends on who you ask. I'm polyamorous and I think in almost all cases where someone says polygamy and not polyamory they're engaging in an immoral power dynamic. My experience being poly though I'd say most people take offense to the multiple partners thing and polygamy is just what they're familiar with as a concept
It's not the multiple partners that are a problem in my opinion (You do you. Polyamory is not for me, but no hate), it's the many-to-one relationships. Even in cases where an immoral power dynamic doesn't exist, you're still setting up for societal shenanigans if it's consistently many women to men, or vice versa, which seems prudent to avoid.
That being said, monogamy in a legal sense has probably only persisted so long because involving more than 2 people would be a massive headache for the courts lol
Probably only works in countries where one "partner" has more rights than others.
This. When I was poly my friends and fam were cool with it, but they're not religious. Every religious person I knew who found out was not too pleased with me.
If someone supports gay marriage they have no basis for opposing polygamist or incestuous marriages outside of how it subjectively makes them feel. Marriage is historically a religio-cultural institution. Without that context there can be no restrictions that don't also violate foundational secular values such as personal freedom. Secularity and modernism gatekeeping marriage is a hilarious mental gymnastics routine. These days marriage is just something to keep lawyers in business anyway. The government should just get out of the marriage business entirely at this point.
You can oppose both polygamist or incestuous marriage if it's in a context of religious and sexist oppression, which tend to be the case in most instances of those two types of marriages.
I wouldn't have complains about polyamory incestuous marriage of free people. But sadly most of practical cases are not like that.
Your view is an intellectually honest one from a modernist perspective. I would go further though and say that marriage should have no secular existence at all.
I generally agree with you, but I've heard reasonable arguments like
These raise their own questions of how to dismantle patriarchy, or if governments should have a say in our genes, etc. But I don't think they're equivalent discussions.