In Defense of Polygamy

According to most upholders of sexual morality and the sacred institution of marriage, the case for polygamy is as dead as the dodo. Plural marriage, they say, may be all right for primitives, heathens or the educationally benighted, but for civilized contemporaries? Unthinkable!

But is it so unthinkable?

With shows like Big Love, a scripted HBO series about polygamy, and Sister Wives, a TLC reality series inside the lives of a modern polygamist family, polygamy is shown in multiple lights. We can see its successes and failures, which come along with any human relationship. The old backwoods or frontier polygamy is as far fetched today as the hunting-farming-cattle-raising economy in which it flourished. But does this automatically rule out the possibilities of a streamlined, 21st century model of multi-mating? Why can't the polygamy of yesteryear be revived and promoted as the freedom-inspired, enlightened mateship of tomorrow?

Before we can intelligently tackle the advantages and disadvantages of polygamy, let us get ourselves straight on a few basic definitions. Polygamy, according to Webster, consists of “having a plurality of wives or husbands at the same time.” It should not be confused—as it is–with polygyny or polyandry, which are one-sided versions of plural marriage. In polygyny a male is allowed to have several wives, but a female is not given return privileges. Under polyandry, a woman is permitted to have several husbands—but a man can have only one mate.

Polygamy, on the other hand, is a two-faceted, all-is-fair-and-square-on-both-sides deal. Monogamy allows marriage to only one person at a time. Nonetheless, self-appointed moralists keep telling us that polygamy isn't right. And they have been saying this so loudly and for so long that most people—almost everyone in modern Western culture—seems to believe them. But the arguments these defenders of enforced monogamy use against free polygamy are often unrealistic. Let's examine a few of these supposedly serious objections to polygamy.

Polygamy is unfair to women; it keeps them subservient to men and treats them as chattel. This argument confuses one-sided polygyny with permissive polygamy. In polygynous societies, the male is typically guilty of ruling and mistreating his wives. In two-sided polygamy, however, both males and females would be allowed to have multiple mates. No one would be forced to share a wife or husband unless he or she chose to do so.

Where polygamy is practiced today it is considered highly fair to women as well as in-keeping with the higher ethical values of the community.

Polygamy is impractical because one can love only one member of the other sex at a time. As a clinical psychologist and psychotherapist, I feel there is only one appropriate word for this argument: bullshit. If human beings could not love more than one person at a time, every devoted wife and husband would soon neglect his or her children, mother, father, sisters, brothers, etc. Even in our own society, where a man is specifically trained to care only for his wife, he frequently loves his secretary or neighbor or favorite party girl as well. Our women are even more pluralistic in the number and kind of their loves.

If we really loved only once during a lifetime, we might all, as someone has appropriately remarked, have married our school teachers.

Myths about love are many. One of the most significant fictions is that human beings love singly, or monogamously, in a once-for-a-lifetime manner. But if the truth were really known, even one-at-a-time amours might be the exception rather than the rule. You and I may prefer to love and live with only one partner at a time—but there are others who do not.

Polygamous living would lead to too much jealousy among the wives of one man or the husbands of one wife. It certainly would—if the people who lived under a polygamous setup were sufficiently asinine to encourage jealousy. Monogamous society often raises men and women who are emotionally immature—who childishly believe that it is more important for them to be loved than to love—who are fearful of not being sexually competent or satisfied—and who view their mates as pieces of property instead of independent human beings.

Naturally, under this kind of upbringing we have an enormous amount of marital and sexual jealousy. So would equally idiotic polygamists. But relatively sane pluralists who did not encourage their offspring to be sexually and amorously infantile would not have this problem. Many past and present polygynous and polyandrous peoples are strangers to our forms of sex jealousy.

Even though polygamy may work for some primitive peoples, it could not possibly work for civilized Americans.First rebuttal: Some of the civilized people for whom polygyny, polyandry, or other forms of communal marriage have worked are the ancient Greeks, Libyans, Arabians, Hebrews, Scythians, Persians, and Indians. There are also the modern Egyptians, Indians, and Chinese.

Second rebuttal: The American Mormons, a highly civilized group, were quite content with polygyny. Moreover, a thoroughly unfettered form of communal marriage succeeded admirably in the cleric-led colony at Oneida, New York during the second half of the 19th century. Both the Mormons and the Oneida Perfectionists gave up their polygamous forms of living—not because they found these marital modes undesirable or wanting—but because their bigoted, monogamous neighbors strenuously objected and forced them to abandon plural mating.

Third rebuttal: Unofficially and extralegally, America is actually a polygamous country today. About one in three of our couples become divorced or legally separated, and many of these divorced or separated individuals carry on extramarital affairs for years before they officially part from one another. Among those who do not legally break up their marriages, about a quarter of the women and half of the men admit to having extramarital relations at some time during their lives.

Marriage is a sacrament and therefore cannot be conducted on a polygamous basis. Why not? A sacrament is a religious ceremony distinguished by certain rites, as instituted or recognized by some religious leader or body. If matrimony is recognized as a sacrament, there is no reason why double or plural, as well as single matings cannot be conceived and executed as sacramental. Mohammedans are a deeply religious group, and they recognize polygyny. So did the ancient Hebrews. Why, then, could not modern Christians or Jews engage in the sacrament of polygamous marriage?

If polygamy, moreover, were permitted in this country, those who objected to it on religious grounds would not be forced to become polygamists. They could always remain as monogamous—and as sacramental about their marriages—as they liked.

How can one individual keep several members of the other sex happy? Very well, thank you, if he wants to—and knows how. And what better practice to up your sex stamina than to participate often with several different people?

Wouldn't polygamy lead to overpopulation? No—why should it? Under polygamy, exactly as under monogamy, there is always the possibility of birth control. Disastrous overpopulation can occur even in a monogamous society. Actually, most of the overpopulated regions of the world today are inhabited by peoples living by monogamous rules, while many polygamous communities have maintained a stable population for years.

No matter what you say, polygamy just can't work. No matter what you say, I say it can.

In light of the foregoing replies to the usual objections to polygamy, it can be seen that virtually all the major demurrers are illogical, irrelevant, or inane. They hold about as much water as the rusty, 19th century sieve that picked them up. On the other hand, there would seem to be valid advantages of legalized polygamy that staunch monogamists usually ignore. For example:

It allows for a varietist's needs. A great many—though not all—people have real varietist leanings and find it impossible to achieve maximum satisfaction when limited to one mate. Why, if they can amicably arrange for multiple partners, should these individuals be denied their strong desires?

It permits maximum sex satisfaction. Under polygamy, the highly-sexed individual, can seek his own coital level. The lower-sexed person can also seek his own level. No one is scorned for promiscuity or abstinence.

It minimizes jealousy and possessiveness. Love may be freely given and earned rather than restrictively and jealously monopolized. Human beings become choosers of their own sex destiny instead of pieces of sexual property. This, then, is a part of the case for permitting plural matings.

Should citizens rush to the polls to vote out monogamy and take multiple mates to the altar? Not so fast! Polygamy should be permitted but not necessarily engaged in by all.

Some men, for instance, have a hard enough time stomaching the idea of one wife, mother-in-law, and set of squalling kids. To them, two or three households would be as welcome as triple income tax. Some women would sooner have an additional head than a second or third husband. Let's not force polygamy on anyone.

At the same time, let us allow true sexual freedom to those courageous people who want it. The ideal marital state for all people has not yet been invented. This will serve as problematic as long as humans remain truly individual.

But the sanest society is the one which forces no marital arrangement upon its citizens while also permitting all possible designs for mating. Legalized polygamy would elastically allow for true marital democracy without dogmatic impositions. Even if most Americans should decide to remain more or less monogamous because of their personal, religious, or economic prejudices, the important question is: should this majority be allowed to force polygamously- inclined individuals to follow suit? The only sensible, freedom-preserving and sexually realistic answer must be a resounding "no."

Down with the tyranny of enforced single marriage! On to the halls of legislation! Varietists of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your monogamous balls-and-chains!