Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Big Deal
The National Review crew have had their sacred underwear in a bunch of late over the new HBO drama Big Love, which stars Bill Paxton as paterfamilias of a polygamous Brady Bunch in Utah. This is, on face, a little odd because as Cathy Seipp herself observes, and as I can confirm after watching the show this weekend, Big Love is scarcely an advertisement for polygamy. Paxton's character is as harried as you might expect a man trying to maintain three families to be—the strain of which has left him with a case of wet-noodle syndrome about the nether regions—and his wives are tightly-wound bundles of sexual and emotionial jealousy in heels. And while they're all more-or-less likeable—even, occasionally, Chloe Sevigny's catty, shopaholic middle-wife, who seems perpetually on the verge of letting loose with a primal "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!"—the series scarcely glosses over the uglier customs associated with some forms of polygamy: Roman Grant, a creepalicious cult leader played by Harry Dean Stanton, is seen rolling up to meet the prodigal Paxton in a caravan of SUVs accompanied by the well-programmed adolescent who's slated to be his 14th wife. Tim Graham's description of the show as "glamorizing" polygamy is—well, "bizarre" is the most charitable word that comes to mind. If this is what he regards as a "glamorous" relationship, Graham has my condolences.
So why are Stan Kurtz and Louis Wittig getting their dudgeon on? The trouble seems to be that even if the program doesn't make polygamy itself terribly appealing, it insidiously presents the polygamists as, you know, people. Homo sapiens. Some with no visible horns. And that, as Wittig puts it, makes it difficult to "start thinking of them in fire-and-brimstone terms." Of course, if that's the problem, then any representation of any polyamorists in any art form is going to be objectionable, except perhaps as snaggletoothed trailer-barons ruling with an iron fist over harems of prepubescents.
Kurtz concedes that "Traditional polygamy, by its nature, will have limited appeal in America," but thinks that less-structured polyamory could be a serious homewrecker. I've got my doubts. If you look at the history of marriage, you typically find (and forgive a bit of vulgar-Marxist analysis here) economic realities wagging the cultural dog when it comes to family institutions. In other words, it's not that polygamy and polyamory are relatively rare because they're seen as deviant; they're deviant (in the descriptive sense) because they stopped being adaptive. I suspect that in our lovely, decadent coastal cities where nobody much raises an eyebrow at homosexual relationships, most folk wouldn't be much more fazed to learn that a friend was in a polyamorous relationship. But relatively few people even in those areas go that route—not because their wild Solomonic fantasies are just barely held in check by the crushing power of social stigma, but because sustaining one intimate relationship at a time is quite enough work for most of us.
Addendum: A poster at Feministing is down on the show as well, though not for quite the same reasons.
|3.15.06 @ 2:42PM|#
Julian Sanchez,
...but because sustaining one intimate relationship at a time
is quite enough work for most of us.
Or you can just compare the lifestyle of the Ottoman Sultan to one
of his average subjects. :)
|3.15.06 @ 2:46PM|#
If "love the sinner, hate the sin" really was the operative
outlook for the Religious Right, showing decent, normal people
troubled by the challenges of their "immoral" lifestyle would be
exactly what they'd want to see.
If.
|3.15.06 @ 2:47PM|#
I wonder to what extent the polygamist males prefer polygamy to
be illegal. As it is, they get the support of their "persecuted"
communities while marrying adolescent girls and engaging in welfare
abuse.
Legalizing polygamy would put them into a situation where they may
be held financially responsible for all the kids they create, not
just the first wife's children. Also, laws regarding age wouldn't
necessarily go away because the laws regarding the number of
spouses you can have are changed.
|3.15.06 @ 2:50PM|#
Or you can just compare the lifestyle of the Ottoman Sultan
to one of his average subjects. :)
Hakluyt,
I'm not sure I follow you.
|3.15.06 @ 2:53PM|#
smacky,
The Sultan had a seraglio and a large administrative network to
regulate the lives of his wives. Typically Ottoman male subjects
had one wife.
|3.15.06 @ 2:58PM|#
What ever floats your boat, I suppose. But I, for one, have no interest in having more than one wife. I've "dated" two or more woman at the same time. Variety has its good points. But, for me, the deep emotional closeness that I have with my wife in our monogamous relationship is better than the pleasure I enjoyed in having a variety of sexual partners.
|3.15.06 @ 2:59PM|#
For people whose politics are predicated on demonizing others,
any non-demonic portrayal will be unacceptable. This applies to
every bogeyman that they whip their audiences into a froth over.
Gays, abortionists, people who choose euthansia, illegal aliens,
muslims, you name it, must be shown as unredeemable monsters.
After all, it doesn't help their cause to show them as people.
|3.15.06 @ 3:10PM|#
I am actually peeved about this show, not because it shows
polygamy in a 'good' light but because it uses the 'religious cult'
angle to do it. Religion is not a requirement of polyamory dangit.
I have known people in a couple of polyamorous groups where
religion played absolutely no role in the day to day function of
the group.
Why do people need to think that only Mormons or Branch Davidians
can have fun and multiple spouses?
|3.15.06 @ 3:19PM|#
As far as the emotional closeness goes, I've felt I had it both when in a polyamorous relationship, and when not. Though such relationships can vary along the entire spectrum of several different dimensions; many peoples' mileage will surely differ.
|3.15.06 @ 3:20PM|#
Religion is not a requirement of polyamory dangit.
The conotation of polyamory is that either each participant
essentially lives alone or lives with a primary partner. The
conotation of polygamy is that at least one participant cohabitates
with the other participants. That only seems to happen in the
context of a religious cult or where the cohabitating participant
is hiding his/her polygamy from the other participants.
So, I guess they need a new show for the BDSM, power exchange,
pansexual, polyamorous, extended pagan familyish thing. I guess
they could call it The P Word.
|3.15.06 @ 3:23PM|#
I love it when Libertarians are forced, or perhaps, choose to invoke Marxist analysis. Serious shady-Freud.
Gimme Back My Dog|3.15.06 @ 3:28PM|#
Perhaps Graham didn't watch the entire episode. IIRC, the first scene shows Paxton getting a very enthusiastic greeting from his wife of the night as she complained that it was hard for her to wait the requisite three days between relations. Feel sorry for me if you want, but that is a better greeting than I get from my wife when I climb into bed.
|3.15.06 @ 3:31PM|#
Rimfax,
I used "polyamory" in place of "polygamy" only because these people
were not "married" in any religious context (state context not
being legal and all). However, both groups lived in communal
dwelling. One was a small 3 person group, the other a larger 5
person group.
|3.15.06 @ 3:35PM|#
Polygamy should be outlawed because it is corrosive to society.
You end up with a few men self-righteously taking marriageable
women out of the potential wife pool for other single men in the
community.
So, in addition to that being deeply unequitable, it leaves society
with a surplus of single men whose chances for the civilizing
effect of marriage are limited. Too many single men in a society is
a prescription for more crime, among other things.
Xmas|3.15.06 @ 3:36PM|#
Well, here goes my kicking over a nest of hornets...
Kwix, are you trying to say that the pagan/wiccan, hand-fasting
style of polyamory doesn't have a religious cult overtone to
it?
|3.15.06 @ 3:41PM|#
Albo,
Who said anything about men heading a polygamist family. I the
Fundamentalist Mormon context, yes men are the center of the
household. However, in a more matriarchal setup, with one woman as
the head and multiple husbands your theory wouldn't hold water.
Besides, what "civilizing effect" does marriage have? I haven't
become any more civilized since I got married, just fatter.
Rather than outlaw polygamy perhaps it should be fully legalized
but Fundamentalist Mormanism outlawed.
|3.15.06 @ 3:44PM|#
Wait, women can have more than one husband? What are you talking about! That's not allowed! Is it?
|3.15.06 @ 3:46PM|#
I haven't become any more civilized since I got married,
just fatter.
Sadly, me too. Is there a cure that doesn't involve excersize or
diet? :)
|3.15.06 @ 3:46PM|#
Xmas,
No, I am not. What I am saying is the two groups that I have
personal knowledge of had no such 'handfasting' or any other form
of religious ceremony. It was more of a "Susan, this is Bob, he
will be taking the room at the end of the hall" sort of
ceremony.
|3.15.06 @ 3:47PM|#
Shelby,
I'm glad it worked for you. I just don't think it would work for
me. I've been with my wife for nearly eight years, and we get
closer every year. (I also don't really have time for more than one
partner. I spend too much time reading things like HnR.)
|3.15.06 @ 3:51PM|#
Kwix,
You make it sound like they were just trying to save money on
rent.
Hmmm, come to think of it, that's not a bad idea.
|3.15.06 @ 3:53PM|#
I'm glad it worked for you. I just don't think it would work
for me.
Now see, that is a true libertarian perspective on
everything.
Now to draft a law forcing everyone else to think this way....
|3.15.06 @ 3:54PM|#
Men always get fat when they get married. If I get married I'm gonna make sure my man works out.
|3.15.06 @ 3:54PM|#
not because their wild Solomonic fantasies are just barely
held in check by the crushing power of social stigma, but because
sustaining one intimate relationship at a time is quite enough work
for most of us.
That's not what a little birdie told me.
The little birdie told me you were big pimpin'.
|3.15.06 @ 3:56PM|#
Of course, I spoke with a little birdie a long time ago, so this might be completely irrelevant and out-of-date now.
|3.15.06 @ 3:57PM|#
Matt-
The "vulgar-Marxist" thing was a little tongue in cheek. What Marx
got wrong was the details, not the general concept of studying how
economic circumstances can shape, or even drive, cultural or
ideological phenomena that might, at first glance, seem autonomous.
That's basically what's at the core of both the Law and Economics
school and Public Choice theory.
|3.15.06 @ 3:58PM|#
Hey little birdie I heard that too! Julian is smooth with the
ladies.
Why haven't you hit on me yet Julian?
|3.15.06 @ 3:58PM|#
mk,
When I first met the smaller group I thought, "Hrrm, roommates with
benefits". To thier credit they actually had something between
them. All three of them were very close to each other, almost like
a hippy lovefest.
The larger group was a BDSM couple with 'subs', completely
different relationship dynamics all together.
I don't know if I could handle either one personally. I agree with
The Real Bill, HnR takes way too much of my time.
|3.15.06 @ 3:59PM|#
This reminds me of the morons that came out against the movie "Basketball Diaries" because it glamorized heroin. I'm still not sure how the scene with DiCaprio blowing a guy in a subway bathroom was suposed to be glamorous.
|3.15.06 @ 4:05PM|#
In theory, polyamory might be OK.
But in practice, Mormon fundamentalists screw 14-year-olds girls,
send teenaged boys to die in construction accidents and raid my
wallet for tax dollars for their AFDC and medical care for their
inbred kids.
|3.15.06 @ 4:11PM|#
I wonder if, in a world where there is a shortage of good child
care, more people in a marriage or family unit might not make
sense.
If you had a 4 adult household (skip the gender/sex issues for now)
with 2 people working full time, one stay at home parent and a part
time parent I bet your overall standard of living would be similar
to a family with two incomes. You would have the additional benifit
of at home child care and possibly enhanced food and
cleanliness.
I disapprove of non-adults getting married in any context, I don't
see what diffeance the number of other spouses makes
|3.15.06 @ 4:12PM|#
In the days of my yute, I hung out with a buncha poly people. It
was cutting edge, you see. The wave of the future. The human heart
is big enough to love more than one person. You can love your
mother and your father and your siblings and it doesn't detract
from your love for any of them, why should having more than one
boy/girlfriend be any different?
Anyway, out of all of the poly primary couples I knew back then,
only two are still on speaking terms with each other. The rest are
monogamously monogamous and loathe to talk about back then.
For my part, I pairbond after so much as holding hands so poly
never seemed like a real option for me.
|3.15.06 @ 4:13PM|#
Is it just me, or does RPG look even hotter this time around? (RPG--Wouldn't it be better if the Iraqi insurgency used the Reason Pillow Girl instead of rocket propelled grenades to defeat American forces? I bet it would work better.)
|3.15.06 @ 4:16PM|#
"Tim Graham's description of the show as "glamorizing" polygamy
is?well, "bizarre" is the most charitable word that comes to mind.
If this is what he regards as a "glamorous" relationship, Graham
has my condolences."
I guess a lot of people didn't get the memo that went out, oh, some
time in the early eighties, when the fundies really started to feel
their oats. Not hysterically attacking a behavior or activity with
biblical righteousness and zeal means the same as glamourizing it.
If, say, Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, and any of the mavens from NRO
are not pleased...well, you get the point.
|3.15.06 @ 4:21PM|#
Other John,
As with illicit drug use and prostitution when you make something
illegal, particularly a consentual crime, you loose the ability to
regulate it. If polygamy were legally recognized by the state then
they could impose age restrictions on relations/marriage. The way
the law works now, you are screwed whether you take a 14 year old
or a 30 year old as your bride.
As for the AFDC and medical care how is it different than a
'normal' couple that has multiple children. Not saying that the
Duggar Family uses the AFDC credit or medicare but you have to
admit that 16 children is a potential tax burden.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9680098/
MP|3.15.06 @ 4:22PM|#
Tim Graham's description of the show as "glamorizing"
polygamy is�well, "bizarre" is the most charitable word that comes
to mind.
He probably thinks that Trainspotting glamorizes heroin use.
|3.15.06 @ 4:24PM|#
Reason Pillow Girl,
Actually I do, but most of the gay guys I know would rather be
blown by Leo in a tastefully decorated browstone.
|3.15.06 @ 4:27PM|#
Forgive me, I don't often read NRO, so perhaps they addressed this point thoroughly at some point, but do these "traditional values" bullshitters have some explanation for the (apparently) God Almighty-sanctioned polygamy in the fucking Bible? (And, yes, there is a LOT of fucking in that Bible.) I mean, didn't some of the Chosen People's head honchos do this shit all the time, without that vengeful Old Testament Invisible-Dude-In-The- Sky pouring out his copious wrath, which he otherwise seemd to do at the drop of a hat? What is their excuse for this--are they holier than God than now, literally?
|3.15.06 @ 4:32PM|#
The trouble seems to be that even if the program doesn't
make polygamy itself terribly appealing, it insidiously presents
the polygamists as, you know, people. Homo sapiens. Some with no
visible horns. And that, as Wittig puts it, makes it difficult to
"start thinking of them in fire-and-brimstone terms."
If "love the sinner, hate the sin" really was the operative
outlook for the Religious Right, showing decent, normal people
troubled by the challenges of their "immoral" lifestyle would be
exactly what they'd want to see.
Brokeback Mountain had exactly the same problem. Given the
basic message of the flick - that being gay will make you miserable
- the sociocons should've, er, "embraced" it. Problem is, the
storyline made what happened to the cowboys tragic, rather than a
case of a coupla deviated preverts(sic) gettin' their just
desserts.
|3.15.06 @ 4:36PM|#
Henry,
I'd be shocked to see that traditional values types admit that
those values have little to do with their God, and a lot to do with
their personal preferences.
|3.15.06 @ 4:46PM|#
I think that's a different Reason Pillow Girl.
It's the Reason Green Girl, or Shamrocker or something
nmg|3.15.06 @ 4:57PM|#
I know this is the land of the free and all but I just cannot
abide seeing people form family structures that I find
objectionable or unappealing. No way. Throw those bastards in
jail.
nmg
|3.15.06 @ 5:08PM|#
Paxton's character is as harried as you might expect a man
trying to maintain three families to be�the strain of which has
left him with a case of wet-noodle syndrome about the nether
regions�and his wives are tightly-wound bundles of sexual and
emotional jealousy in heels.
Apparently, this guy doesn't know about Shultz's patented coin flip
rule.
|3.15.06 @ 5:09PM|#
In any case, as expected, Big Love has emboldened defenders
of polygamy. The idea that this is just a television drama with no
public policy implications does not hold up.
For pundits, every issue is a public policy issue, and as such
everything must come down on one side or the other. Neutrality is
synonymous with opposition. It never occurs to any of them that
government shouldn't be licensing relationships at all, or that
"values" can be adhered to without the force of law.
|3.15.06 @ 5:15PM|#
I'd marry both the Reason Pillow Girl and her twin sister the
Reason Shamrock Girl.
How'bout it, girls? I promise to hold no other magazine in higher
esteem.
|3.15.06 @ 5:21PM|#
Apparently, this guy doesn't know about Shultz's patented
coin flip rule.
Ken,
What is your coin flip rule? I think I already asked you this
before, but I don't think I ever got an answer. I must know. Pretty
plz?
|3.15.06 @ 5:23PM|#
Kwix - I think they were made Mormon-style polygamists because
it adds dynamics to the setup, including a credible sense of
threat.
Because despite the positive correlation between practicing
non-Mormon polygamy and spouting bullshit about "The Burning
Times", modern polyamorists aren't really under that much threat.
About the worst they can fear is that we won't alter our
institutions to help them out; there's no major fear that we're
going to be mounting a big crusade anytime soon. For all
politicians can talk, if and when some agency of the state finds
out that my sysop lives with his two girlfriends, I'm pretty sure
they're not going to press charges. And as far as I can remember,
the US government has never raised and mobilized an army to stop
them. That's two things Mormon polygamists can't
say.
So that creates an interesting dynamic. Where almost all
sexuality-based drama revolves around keeping secrets, Big Love
inverts that dynamic. Traditionally, other people may have known
about your flings and other outside attachments, but you tried to
keep your family from finding out. Here, the family knows all about
what's going on, but Bill & co. are trying to keep anyone else
from learning. And that lets the writers create and explore
situations that haven't really been done before, which as someone
currently orbiting the periphery of the TV writing world I'm sure
is one of the big draws of working on a show like this.
Every stupid sitcom has done an episode where a man walks in on a
friend in the shower, thinking she was his wife/girlfriend, and
awkwardness ensues. It's been played out. But a man who walks in on
his third wife, thinking she was his first wife? Even in this silly
little scenario, there are questions to be explored - does he
acknowledge his mistake, or pretend that's what he intended to do
all along? And if he goes through with it, how does he redirect his
intentions and emotions w/r/t the first towards the third? - and
they're questions that haven't been beaten to death before, and
they're questions that provide real opportunities to flesh out the
characters and their dynamic. And it's that sort of freshness
that's going to be Big Love's biggest weapon, in my mind.
|3.15.06 @ 5:24PM|#
Dissent at NRO, you must be kidding, the whole site is nothing but a 24/7 Bush cheerleader camp, Buckley is the only one with the guts to call Bush and the cons on their BS and when he does the other Bushbots fall in line to criticize Buckely. The only dissent you will see at NRO is whether it is better to kiss Bush's ass or suck his cock.
|3.15.06 @ 5:31PM|#
Right on Scott. If NRO's Frum, Lowry or Goldberg have a late column it is probably because the talking points from the White House got stuck in the fax machine. While they every now and then have a very thoughtful and/or scholarly guest writer, One cannot read the site with any regularity and not get a feeling most of the regulars are on the take.
|3.15.06 @ 6:13PM|#
Scenescent,
Sounds perfectly logical to me, thanks. If I had HBO I might
actually watch it just for the S&G's of it.
Captain Holly|3.15.06 @ 6:14PM|#
If you look at the history of marriage, you typically find
(and forgive a bit of vulgar-Marxist analysis here) economic
realities wagging the cultural dog when it comes to family
institutions.
Mormon polygamy, as it was practice in the 1800's, had a strong
economic component to it. It was an unwritten obligation that
polygamists who could afford it would marry older widows and
spinsters and thus provide them with a home and support. Quite an
important thing when you're scraping a precarious living out on the
frontier.
Brigham Young, for example, had 27 wives, only 15 of which were
"connubial". The rest were older widows for whom he provided a
home. Two of my great-great-grandfather's wives were older women
whom he married to help them cross the plains.
|3.15.06 @ 6:41PM|#
Hakluyt,
IIRC, Sulieman (sp?) had around 300 wives, but once he slept with
his second wife, a russian girl, he never bothered with the
others.
Those Russian girls are sumtin' else, I guess.
|3.15.06 @ 6:45PM|#
Hakluyt,
IIRC, Suleyman had around 300 wives, but once he slept with his
second wife Roxolana, a russian girl, he never bothered with the
others.
Those Russian girls are sumtin' else, I guess. What kind of girl
could make a man forget about 299 other girls? I wish I knew.
|3.15.06 @ 6:46PM|#
hee hee, I thought I hadn't hit the button. The spelling is better in the second post :)
Larry A|3.15.06 @ 7:00PM|#
The real joker in the deck is that many folks (even the
fundamentally religious) who utterly oppose plural relationships in
fact participate in them. The difference being that their marriages
are consecutive instead of concurrent. (Which is also a no-no
Biblically.)
For all politicians can talk, if and when some agency of the
state finds out that my sysop lives with his two girlfriends, I'm
pretty sure they're not going to press charges.
Given the percentage of elected representatives with both wives and
girlfriends it would be blatantly hypocritical. Not that hypocrisy
slows politicians down much.
And I still think the Bible has it right. No man can serve two
masters.
|3.15.06 @ 7:06PM|#
"Syriana" was called pro-suicide-bomber for similar reasons...they weren't shown torturing puppies in their spare time, which of course, all suicide bombers do.
|3.15.06 @ 7:31PM|#
STOP LINKING TO NRO
There could be worse times to do it. Our government could be
contemplating invading a mid-East country for no good reason...Oh
shit!
|3.15.06 @ 7:47PM|#
Dearest Reason Pillow Girl,
I currently drive an 89 Chrysler New Yorker, a 91 Ford F150 and
soon will have a Yamaha V-Star motorcycle. Maybe not all that
impressive, unless you understand it's not what you drive but how
hard you drive it.
|3.15.06 @ 7:50PM|#
PS to the Reason Pillow Girl,
I forgot to mention my 30 foot sailboat.
(Modesty prevents me from mentioning the size of my dinghy.)
Doesn't Watch Television|3.15.06 @ 8:55PM|#
What is this "drama" you're speak of? I've never even heard of it. Is that what you little people watch on your "TV"? Honestly! Don't you have anything better to do with your time than sit in front of the Idiot Box? Hello, people! I have so many More Important things to do than sit in front of The Tube like the rest of you. I don't even know what television is! I can't even find the remote.
joshua corning|3.16.06 @ 1:13AM|#
I haven't become any more civilized since I got married,
just fatter.
I think you got your definition of civilized messed up...if getting
fatter isn't the basis of civilization then i don't know what
is
|3.16.06 @ 5:20AM|#
How can someone complain about linking to NRO but not to
Feministing?
(And just to piss some people off, IMO, women are more sexist than
men. And no, I have no proof, only anecdote.)
|3.16.06 @ 8:58AM|#
Re: NRO
They are not entirely unified, nor do they entirely agree with the
President. They mostly do, but the interests of conservatives and
Republicans still mostly overlap, particularly on the issues they
consider most important (war on terror, Supreme Court justices).
Having a fair number of social conservatives over there will also
lead to some views that would be considered distasteful here.
They do disagree frequently, with each other and the President,
though most of their criticisms of the President come from the
right (like how Daily Kos criticizes Democrats from the left). NRO
was solidly against the Miers nomination, is still bitter about
McCain-Feingold, and frequently reminds that "big government
conservatism" is not conservatism. The British writers frequently
dissent, like Derbyshire's view of Iraq as a fiasco.
They do tend to circle the wagons when attacks come from the left,
presumably because they prefer Republicans to Democrats in general.
Protecting the lesser evil and all that. They alos believe that
many of the problems are communication issues rather than
substantive disagreement, such that the country would support Iraq,
wire taps, the ports deal, and shooting lawyers in the face if the
White House communications department were better.
I'm just sayin': they have some good writers and interesting
points, and it is unfair to write them all off as shills for Bush.
OTOH, I understand if any given website falls below your acceptable
signal:noise ratio.
|3.16.06 @ 10:14AM|#
Having been married for seven years next month, I find a
monogamous marriage to be enough of a challenge, thank you very
much.
As far as "Big Love" goes, it all comes down to this: who the hell
would want to watch normal people on TV? Normal people are boring.
We love our freak shows.
Maybe Tim Graham wants to watch a TV show about an Average American
family who does a whole bunch of Average American nothing, but I
imagine he's in a small minority. Even the "Brady Bunch" was sort
of a freak show for its time. Personally, I have a hard time not
falling asleep in front of the TV even during a veritable freak
parade.
|3.16.06 @ 12:30PM|#
What kind of girl could make a man forget about 299 other
girls? I wish I knew.
mk,
You've already met me!
|3.16.06 @ 1:03PM|#
I wonder if they have the guts to look at what happens when the
children grow up. I mean, how old are the girls before they are
given in marriage? 14? 13? 12? And how about the boys? What happens
when they are no longer young and cute, but reached puberty and are
in direct competition with the older men?
In the past those extra young men were dealt with by sending them
to war. Either they died, or they brought bridess back. Problem
solved. But if that is not an option, what happens to them?
Not too long ago there was on TV a report that one such polygamous
community routinely expelled young men and left them to shift for
themselves in the wide world (may they were taken in by kindly
Mormom monogamous families, but others drifted into the big Cities,
to survive as best they could.)
The problem with poligamy is the math. Given a 50:50 ratio of men
and women, if some men have routinely more than 1 wife, there will
be quite a number of men who will have none. And these will tend to
be young (quite a damper for those oversexed adolescent with
polygamous fantasies)
|3.16.06 @ 1:53PM|#
Adriana -
The show does indeed address the dynamics of gender balance in a
polygamist society, mostly in the context of the messianic compound
Bill grew up in, before - surprise, surprise - being forced out so
as not to compete with the older men for young women.
|3.16.06 @ 2:09PM|#
An interesting idea about legalizing polygamy: might it actually
*reduce* the incidence of child and spousal abuse, since such
arrangements would be out in the open? I have to think that some of
the worst practices of current polygamists are partially enabled by
the veil of secrecy that surrounds their lives.
Personally, I find most polygamists that I've seen profiled on TV
to be rather disturbing (disturbed) individuals, and I wouldn't
want any part of that. But I also question the interference of the
state in such matters between consenting adults. So yes, in that
sense the argument for gay marriage is equally valid for polygamy.
And not being tied to a religion, I don't find polygamy (absent
child abuse of involuntariness) any more objectionable. And, of
course, I don't believe in supporting their children, either, but
that's another matter.
|3.16.06 @ 3:23PM|#
You've already met me!
Oh yeah, I guess the reason I didn't know was just that you had
already made me forget.
For the record, Smacky not only made me forget 299 girls, she also
made me forget my dreams and the location of my car keys.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245