Polygamy

Started by BRIAN, Jun 05, 2006, 02:40 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

BRIAN

My wife and I watch big love on HBO. It's a pretty good show with an intersting storyline. Last night the season finally made me wonder, in a plural marriage situation why is it always the man who is the criminal? I realize that yes there are some wackadoo cults that force underage girls to marry, but there are instances of adult women entering into plural marriage as well. My thoughts ar two-fold here:

1) It seems to me that a woman that goes into a plural marriange arrangement would be just as guilty of polygamy as a man.

2) The other women in a plural marriage would be guilty of at least criminal conspiracy, particulary in the case of the wackadoo cults forceing a young girl to mary an adult.

I have never heard of a case where the women are prosectued for the crime of polygamy though. Nor have I ever heard of a woman in one of the plural marriages being deemed complicit in an act of statutory rape for knowingly letting an underage girl consumate a plural marriage.

Makes you wonder don't it.
You may sleep soundly at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who seek to harm you.

johnnyp

You silly

Men are the universal perpetrators and women the universal victim.

I think we need to send you back the reeducation camp for a tune-up.


[/sarcasm]
 woman needs a man like a fish needs water

damnbiker

I think it's probably because it's usually one man married to several women rather than one woman married to several men.  The women are only married to the man, not the other women, therefore it's only the guy who has married more than one person all in all.  

Personally I think it's nuts, I don't want ONE wife, much less MANY!  If the law really wanted to punish the guy, it should just force him marry more!
It's not illegal to be a man...yet.

BRIAN

Quote from: "damnbiker"
I think it's probably because it's usually one man married to several women rather than one woman married to several men.  The women are only married to the man, not the other women, therefore it's only the guy who has married more than one person all in all.  Personally I think it's nuts, I don't want ONE wife, much less MANY!


Actually when you think about it the women must consent to the arrangement therefore they are participating in it. Then there is the criminal conspiracy angle, one person conspiring with two or more other people to break the law.
You may sleep soundly at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who seek to harm you.

johnnyp

Quote from: "damnbiker"
I think it's probably because it's usually one man married to several women rather than one woman married to several men.  The women are only married to the man, not the other women, therefore it's only the guy who has married more than one person all in all.  

Personally I think it's nuts, I don't want ONE wife, much less MANY!  If the law really wanted to punish the guy, it should just force him marry more!


Hell - the man should get a medal for taking on more than one wife!

I still think the reason men are demonized is because of the default assumption that men are the universal perpetrator and women are the universal victim.  It is not an elegant reason, but foundational bias stains all ideas in one's mind.
 woman needs a man like a fish needs water

Malakas

Why is it anybody else's business apart from the people concerned?  :?
'm an asylum seeker. Don't send me back.

NobleTry

Quote from: "johnnyp"
Quote from: "damnbiker"
I think it's probably because it's usually one man married to several women rather than one woman married to several men.  The women are only married to the man, not the other women, therefore it's only the guy who has married more than one person all in all.  

Personally I think it's nuts, I don't want ONE wife, much less MANY!  If the law really wanted to punish the guy, it should just force him marry more!


Hell - the man should get a medal for taking on more than one wife!

I still think the reason men are demonized is because of the default assumption that men are the universal perpetrator and women are the universal victim.  It is not an elegant reason, but foundational bias stains all ideas in one's mind.


I think the reason is this: men, generally and in the large societal view, are seen as beings having both rights and responsibilities. Women, generally and in the large societal view, are seen as beings having only rights. This makes a huge difference in how the two genders are viewed and held accountable (or not) for their actions. (Yes, women generally do have responsibilities, but "society" relegates them still, sort of, to what encompasses children and the home scene.) As a society, I think, we don't take women seriously out in the "real world" of what we would all agree is "life". We still pat them on the head and say, "Be a good girl, now, and go run along home and let the big people handle this." So when we as a society see women receiving lesser criminal sentences for men who commit the same crime, women who are treated specially in divorce/child custody proceedings, women who are accepted into out military/police/fire fighting forces only because the standards have been lowered considerably, etc etc, well, then, the end result shouldn't surprise too many of us, should it?  :roll:

dr e

I think a part of this is related to our history of "Common Law."  Under the common law system men were considered the head of household and were held repsonsible for the behavior of ALL members of the household.  If the man's wife were to break the law, HE would be punished.  If his child broke the law, the man would be punished.  He was in charge and was the sole responsible party.  Women and children were not held responsible.  The man was responsible to keep them within the law.  

Our current system of "justice" has never caught up with sex equality.  It is still lagging behind in thinking that men are the responsible parties and women and children are not.  Just look at sentencing to get an idea of how bad this is.  It will take decades for this bias to be rooted out and adjustments made. At this point the system isn't even aware that the bias exists.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

NobleTry

Quote from: "Dr Evil"
I think a part of this is related to our history of "Common Law."  Under the common law system men were considered the head of household and were held repsonsible for the behavior of ALL members of the household.  If the man's wife were to break the law, HE would be punished.  If his child broke the law, the man would be punished.  He was in charge and was the sole responsible party.  Women and children were not held responsible.  The man was responsible to keep them within the law.  

Our current system of "justice" has never caught up with sex equality.  It is still lagging behind in thinking that men are the responsible parties and women and children are not.  Just look at sentencing to get an idea of how bad this is.  It will take decades for this bias to be rooted out and adjustments made. At this point the system isn't even aware that the bias exists.


Right, right, and right. Thank you for this clarification of the issue.

Sir Percy

I wonder which sections of society would get enraged if a woman had four or five 'husbands'. It is not beyond wild imagination to see this coming.
vil, like misery, is Protean, and never greater than when committed in the name of 'right'. To commit evil when they are convinced they are doing 'good', is one of the greatest of pleasures known to a feminist.

Setaseba

Quote from: "Sir Percy"
I wonder which sections of society would get enraged if a woman had four or five 'husbands'. It is not beyond wild imagination to see this coming.


http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1994/12/28_1.html

china is wrestling with it. apparently there is a tribe that allows polyandric relationships. supposedly it promotes promiscuity in young women because they can't get a husband due to the men being in multi-husband relationships (husband shortage)

bizarre

Malakas

If there's a shortage of husbands, how does the practice of one woman having several husbands solve the problem? It would seem to make it worse.

Do the maths!
'm an asylum seeker. Don't send me back.

devia

Quote
I wonder which sections of society would get enraged if a woman had four or five 'husbands'. It is not beyond wild imagination to see this coming.


I would like to volenteer for that experiment.

Setaseba

Quote from: "Malakas"
If there's a shortage of husbands, how does the practice of one woman having several husbands solve the problem? It would seem to make it worse.

Do the maths!


:lol: the young single women are having trouble finding husbands (hence a husband shortage for them) because many of the men are involved in polyandric relationships (no husband shortage for the lucky wife)

clearer?

Sir Percy

Quote
Quote:
I wonder which sections of society would get enraged if a woman had four or five 'husbands'. It is not beyond wild imagination to see this coming.


I would like to volenteer for that experiment.


hahaha, good one Devia.
vil, like misery, is Protean, and never greater than when committed in the name of 'right'. To commit evil when they are convinced they are doing 'good', is one of the greatest of pleasures known to a feminist.

Go Up