Open thread

... I was reminded of a conversation I had with an American military intelligence officer who was having a supper of Jack Daniel's and Coca Cola at a Kigali bar.

"I heard you're interested in genocide," the American said. "Do you know what genocide is?"

I asked him to tell me.

"A cheese sandwich," he said. "Write it down. Genocide is a cheese sandwich."

I asked him how he figured that.

"What does anyone care about a cheese sandwich?" he said. "Genocide, genocide, genocide. Cheese sandwich, cheese sandwich, cheese sandwich. Who gives a shit? Crimes against humanity. Where's humanity? Who's humanity? You? Me? Did you see a crime committed against you? Hey, just a million Rwandans. Did you ever hear about the Genocide Convention?"

I said I had.

"That convention," the American at the bar said, "makes a nice wrapping for a cheese sandwich."

From We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families, by Philip Gourevitch.

Comments

[Tonio]

Do they even know this happened -- cultural genocide right in their own backyards?

I know that in the US, that particular type of amnesia is caused mostly by national chauvinism, the "city on a hill" myth of American specialness and national entitlement. Did the colonists in Canada share the belief of their southern neighbors that God had granted the continent to them?

For decades, history classes in US schools had the primary objective of inculcating patriotism. Many conservatives here still insist that this should be the objective. They don't realize that this actually promoted a liberal type of skepticism. It's a version of the phenomenon that Molly Ivins described - she explained the origin of Southern liberals as once you find out that they're lying to you about race, you start to question everything.

[indifferent children]

> Perhaps because it acts as a de facto method of population limitation

I think the frequency of polygyny vs polyandry being practiced goes to the nature of marriage and (even earlier) exclusive relationships. From what I've read (no citations, speaking from vague memory) exclusive relationships among humans didn't much arise until there was property to inherit. If it is important to you that your heirs are your biological descendants, then you need to have exclusive reproductive access to one or more women.

Since maternity is almost never in doubt, but the only way to guarantee paternity was by controlling access to wives, marriage (monogamous or polgynous) catered to male insecurity. Women never had to doubt who their descendants were, so an affair was as useful as a polyandrous marriage.

[Froborr]

@charl: Sure, it's more complicated than same-sex marriage. So? That is, as I said, a lame excuse for permitting an injustice to stand.

I truly don't understand why the rest of you (other than Jesu, who's long ago demonstrated she must be held to lower expectations) aren't outraged by the marginalization and oppression of the poly community. I don't know a single poly (is that even useable as a noun?), but to me it's *exactly* the same principle as the gay rights movement: no one gets to decide what someone else's marriage is allowed to look like.

[Jesurgislac]

I'd add, magistra, that before civil partnership, many same-sex couples in fact worked quite hard to ensure that - as far as the law allowed - they could secure the rights and benefits and responsibilities of a mutual relationship to each other.

Whereas quite clearly, for a significant number of polygamous relationships, the point is not to have a mutual equal poly relationship.

[Jesurgislac]

I truly don't understand why the rest of you (other than Jesu, who's long ago demonstrated she must be held to lower expectations) aren't outraged by the marginalization and oppression of the poly community.

Indeed: while I truly don't understand why you aren't outraged by the poly community's marginalization and oppression of its own members: the sons expelled because the fathers want no competition, and the daughters "married off" at the youngest possible age to men old enough to be their fathers.

[Amaryllis]

If it is important to you that your heirs are your biological descendants, then you need to have exclusive reproductive access to one or more women.
Since maternity is almost never in doubt, but the only way to guarantee paternity was by controlling access to wives, marriage (monogamous or polgynous) catered to male insecurity.

Certainly true in a lot of cultures. If, however, what's important is not so much personal property but family or clan resources, the other option is matrilineal descent, where a man's heirs are his sister's children - exactly because Women never had to doubt who their descendants were.
This is far more common than any type of polyandry; Celtic clans and many Native American tribes come to mind.

[MikhailBorg]

why you aren't outraged by the poly community's marginalization and oppression of its own members: the sons expelled [...] and the daughters "married off"

You see, the poly community...

{snorts, breaks down in giggles}

Sorry. That's like referring to the "pagan community"; in which, as we all know, every member agrees on everything.

Jesu, perhaps you were being ironic, and I didn't understand that; but of the people I know who tag themselves "polyamorous", such behavior is unacceptable. The "polygamist" group to which these posts originally referred may well condone such activites.

[Spalanzani]

Jesurgislac: "You're still wrong. Obviously."

If we ever get signatures here*, then this should definitly be yours.

*Not that I'd really want that, because unless the comments here become set up more like message-board posts it would be confusing and annoying. So Typepad will probably implement it.

[Jesurgislac]

Mikhail: You see, the poly community...

It makes as least as much sense as "the GLBT community": that too is a host of factions. ;-) Shall we all sing "National Brotherhood Week"?

[Jesurgislac]

(Note, by the way, that I was quoting Froborr, whom I don't think was being ironic when he referred to "the poly community"... ;-)

How about "Poisoning Pigeons in the Park"?

[Tonio]

If it is important to you that your heirs are your biological descendants

Is it dumb to ask why this was regarded as more important than individual freedom? I can understand caring about paternity, but I can't imagine why a man wouldn't simply acknowledge that it's mostly out of his control.

[indifferent children]

> I can understand caring about paternity, but I can't imagine why a man wouldn't simply acknowledge that it's mostly out of his control.

That is a nice, enlightened point of view, but I'm thinking of Bronze Age cultures, and before. Dominating the weak (of any stripe) was not frowned upon, as it is today.

[Chuck]

indifferent children: Dominating the weak (of any stripe) was not frowned upon, as it is today.

I respectfully argue that if it's frowned upon today, that's only by mouths with no teeth to back them up. Our society is still the strong dominating the weak, in all things and all areas of life.

[damnedyankee]

The "polygamist" group to which these posts originally referred may well condone such activites.

It does.

[Izzy]

There's a rather bizarre split in polygamous/polyamorous groups, though, which doesn't appear much even in other pack-of-ringleaders subcultures. Sure, you have three skillion approaches--polyfidelity versus swinging versus open relationships blah blah--but you also have a giant divide:

Group 1: Religious polygamy. FLDS, basically. The men have multiple wives. The women have a husband. The women are often very, very young; the groups are often very, very Christian. Sex-negative, reproduction-positive.

Group 2: "Ethical Slut" polyamory. The aforementioned three skillion approaches: men with multiple wives (emotionally, if not legally), women with multiple husbands, triads, people in emotionally monogamous relationships who go to sex clubs every third Friday, and so forth. Generally older for both sexes, sex-positive, reproduction-neutral. There might be some Christians in there somewhere, but most of the poly people I've met have been pagan or atheist.

Neither of these groups would ever want anything to do with the other. I know that Group 2 sees Group 1 as creepy fundie motherfuckers (well, fatherfuckers, more often, but hey); I'd bet that Group 1 sees Group 2 as horrible irresponsible sinners. The two don't really associate, to say the least; they don't even draw from the same demographic, as most pagan/feminist/gamer communities, no matter how much they may hate each other, generally do.

[Tonio]

That is a nice, enlightened point of view, but I'm thinking of Bronze Age cultures, and before. Dominating the weak (of any stripe) was not frowned upon, as it is today.

While I agree, I'm talking about a more basic concept of knowing and recognizing one's limits. Isn't it natural to want to stay out of other people's business as long as that business doesn't harm you personally?

[Lee Ratner]

I've been trying, as an intellectual exercise, to come up with a legal structure for polygamy in Western society. The problem is I can't think of a structure that does not involve what I call the anchor problem. In traditional polygamous societies, I believe, the relationship involves Man A married to Women A, B, and C or on rare occassions the reverse. The point is only one gender was allowed to have multiple spouses. Now this is all well in good when you have no expectation of legal equality. However, in the modern West, we except legal equality. So we would want a system where Man A can be married to Women A,B, C, but at the same time Woman A could also be married to Man B and C. We want both genders to have the right to marry multiple for the sake of fairness. This could lead to very confusing and headache inducing situations from the point of view of the government. So we rule that only monogamy is allowed to keep life a bit simpler from an administrative point of view.

[yagowe]

I'm very much in favour of trying to find some way to make polyamorous marriages work, but, as charlequin pointed out, it is a much more complex issue than some people here seem to be assuming.

Because it isn't simply a matter of each additional person being married to everyone else. If my wife were to marry her boyfriend, I certainly wouldn't want to automatically be considered married to him as well.

For 2 people in a marriage it is reasonably simple: person A is married to person B (1 arrangement).
For 3 people there are 2 possible arrangements: everyone married to each other; or two people, not married to each other, who are both married to a third person.
For 4 people there are 6 possible arrangements.
For 5 people, 21.
For 6 people, 112.
For 7 people, 853.
For 8 people, 11117.
(For higher numbers, see Integer Sequence A001349.)

And these scenarios are for the simplest possible binary view of 'marriage': either you are or you aren't. It gets even more insanely complex when you start taking into account other complexities, like people who aren't in a marriage-like relationship with each other but who co-habit and share parental responsibilities.

I've put a lot of time into thinking about how things like property, medical benefits, taxes, and pensions could be arranged to accomodate all the myriad of arrangements that would occur, and I really don't think there's a simple solution.

[yagowe]

Dratted closing tags!

[magistra]

It's all very well saying that polygamy should only be between legally-consenting adults (and let's ignore all issues of coercion), but what about the children potentially involved (and there are often going to be children involved)? Is polygamy intrinsically likely to be good for them? And if not, should the state not consider that?

The wicked stepmother is an archetype for a reason (even though it's often unfair to stepmothers in practice). On the whole, men and women do tend to have more concern and love for their own biological children than those who do not share their genes. (I would except the cases of surrogacy/adoption/sperm donation etc, since those are methods to have a child that the non-biological parent very much wants).

In a polygamous unit with children from multiple mothers, therefore, you are very likely to get favoritism by mothers of their own children, combined with competion between mothers for the father's favour for their children. This is a pattern that is common to most polygamous societies, from the Old Testament onwards, and again, it's a recipe for trouble. It takes the problems of stepmotherhood (or favoritism of a mother between her own childrein in an ordinary marriage) and multiplies it.

[indifferent children]

> Isn't it natural to want to stay out of other people's business as long as that business doesn't harm you personally?

I wish that were so. Unfortunately, Puritanical busybodies trying to tell the rest of us how to live, seem to exist in non-trivial numbers in many (most?) cultures.

[magistra]

Isn't it natural to want to stay out of other people's business as long as that business doesn't harm you personally?

OK, I'm fine with genocide in Rwanda, 'preventive war' in Iraq, oppression of women in the Third World, discrimination against blacks and no-one doing anything to help HIV positive people anywhere. Anyone else got any problems I should be indifferent about?

[MikhailBorg]

How about "Poisoning Pigeons in the Park"?

I'll always join in on a Tom Lehrer sing-along!

"There's... antimony arsenic aluminum selenium -"

[MikhailBorg]

they don't even draw from the same demographic, as most pagan/feminist/gamer communities, no matter how much they may hate each other, generally do.

In my experience, the "Ethical Slut" polyamorists overlap heavily with the pagan/gamer/fandom/alt.sexuality subcultures. That's where I have met most of the ones I know, and there are indeed Christians in that group. Now, some of those Christians have decided that their experience of Christ is far too personal to let a Pope or similar figure tell them what it means, but that's still how they think of themselves.

I don't know anyone who would put themselves in with the "Religious" polygamists.

[Amaryllis]

And Jesurgislac: You triumphed over a cell-phone comapny? Hail, all hail!

[Cowboy Diva]

"Our society is still the strong dominating the weak, in all things and all areas of life."

Chuck, this may be right, but I would like to think we are trying to work on it, even if we are, as Douglas Adams said, "2000 years after a man was nailed to a tree for saying everyone should be nice to each other for a change."

[Jesurgislac]

Amaryllis: And Jesurgislac: You triumphed over a cell-phone comapny? Hail, all hail!

I know! It took me three and a half months and over a dozen letters, and I am still slightly amazed that they finally gave in, because I had begun to think that this was going to go on forever - the Saturday afternoon phonecalls from the debt collection department, the phone bills with angry red text across them for phone calls I had not made... and now I feel that I could even give Scott a big hug and a cookie, if he shows up.

Well, maybe just a cookie. ;-)

[Tonio]

Anyone else got any problems I should be indifferent about?

You're absolutely right. I apologize for the omission. I didn't mention harm to others because I was focusing only on any harm in one-on-one relationships. To clarify, unless someone is causing harm to you or to others, I see no reason to get in the person's business. (If the person is harming himself or herself, the judgment about when to intervene is very subjective.)

[Izzy]

Mikhail: Yep. I don't participate very heavily in the subculture (hell, I don't participate very heavily in *any* subcultures, unless you include *sub*-subcultures of "people who play this kind of boffer LARP" and "my former college gaming group and its ameboid expansions," because wherever forty or fifty are gathered in the name of something, I will want to smack many of them with a half brick) so I'm mostly going on the fact that, for whatever reason, "pagan" and "poly" overlap a lot in the Venn diagram of my acquaintances.

I don't know anyone who would put themselves in with the "Religious" polygamists.

Oh, me neither. In fact, I believe the reaction would be either incredulous laughter or total disgust: for one, the Little House on the Prairie fashion sense would, um, not go over well at the parties I've been to.

[aunursa]

not_scottbot: Well, at least in Virginia, according to the law, as adultery is a crime.

Right, but the law could be changed to allow for polygamous marriages.

Jesurgislac: Because the marriage between two people ceases to be a unit to which no more spouses can be added, and becomes a unit which can be expanded to infinity.

What if it's limited to three people married to each other? Or, what if a person can have up to two different spouses? Then it wouldn't be infinite. Would it be okay to expand the definition of marriage in that limited manner?

[yagowe]

aunursa: Or, what if a person can have up to two different spouses?

That could be infinite: A marries B, B marries C, C marries D, etc.

Also, what if I want three spouses? What kind of justification is there for saying "two is alright, but three is right out"? That seems kind of arbitrary.

[rampancy]

Wow, what a powerful quote that was. There's always something that gets me about reducing some of the most tragic aspects of ourselves to seemingly mundane items. It's almost as if we're laughing at ourselves but we refuse to admit it because we're too afraid to be honest with ourselves.

It reminds me of a documentary on Gen. Romeo Dallaire I watched on TV once, years ago. I was astounded that all of that happened and no one paid any attention to it, let alone cared. Is it naive of me to still be astounded at it now?

[aunursa]

yagowe: That could be infinite: A marries B, B marries C, C marries D, etc.

Suppose the limit is two spouses. A, B, and C are married to each other. D may not join the marriage. That's not infinite.

Also, what if I want three spouses? What kind of justification is there for saying "two is alright, but three is right out"? That seems kind of arbitrary.

Many legal limits seem arbitrary. If three people is too low, the government could set the limit on number of partners, based on legal feasibility, a compelling interest, or both.

[Bugmaster]

We've been down this road before, but, from the logistical point of view, treating the marriage as a big co-op corporation makes more sense. Everyone in the marriage is married to everyone else in the marriage; when someone wants to leave, they get 1/N of the assets. One person can participate in only one marriage at a time.

So far, some of the valid arguments against such a system went as follows (IIRC):

1). This system, though reasonably in theory, would be too complicated to set up in practice. A typical objection is, "so what, so was woman's suffrage".

2). This system would inevitably be used by men to disenfranchise women, because that's what men ultimately want. A typical objection is, "there there, Jesu, it'll be ok"; a less glib objection is that a poly-marriage gives women just as much power to disenfranchise men, should they choose to, so at least there's symmetry. Additionally, the current institution of marriage -- consisting of two people -- already suffers from this problem, and we already have ways of mitigating it.

3). Polyamorists are very rare, even more so than homosexuals; thus polyamory isn't really an important problem. A typical objection is, "hey, I am a polyamorist and so are all my friends, it's important to me".

Some invalid arguments against this idea are:

4). It will be too difficult to figure out who is married to whom, since marriage is transitive. However, most people on these threads agree that marriage should not be transitive, so the argument is moot.

5). When poly-marriage is introduced, it will invalidate existing marriages. However, poly-marriage is simply an extension of the traditional marriage, so there's no legal reason why traditional marriages would become invalid (other than some sort of supernatural psychic feedback, maybe).

6). The only kind of polygamy that exists or could exist is the oppressive polygamy which the cult leaders force on their followers. This is demonstrably false, although the cult-type polygamy does get more media coverage.

So, what did I miss ?

[Jesurgislac]

So, what did I miss ?

"Since I still appreciate you, Let's find love while we may. Because I know I'll hate you, When you are old and gray."

[aunursa]

Bugmaster: This system, though reasonably in theory, would be too complicated to set up in practice.

It seems to me that this is the strongest argument against polygamy; the other objections you cited are invalid or too vague.

The crucial issue is whether the legal system can accomodate marriages involving multiple partners. If it can, then polygamy opponents must explain why polygamous unions should not enjoy the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage.

[aunursa]

I apologize if I'm misuing the term "polygamy".

[Salamanda]

Re: "Poisoning Pigeons in the Park"

I caught myself singing that to my infant daughter last week. I know I'm a sick bastard, but God help me, she smiled when I got to the part about peanuts coated in cyanide.

I'll always join in on a Tom Lehrer sing-along!

Waaaaaaay ahead o' ya...

[Jesurgislac]

Aunursa: The crucial issue is whether the legal system can accomodate marriages involving multiple partners.

No: the crucial issue is whether redefining marriage to mean "any two or more people" will negatively affect people who are currently in marriages of two and only two people, and it appears extremely likely that it will.

This is why people who want to create a legal relationship that will accommodate poly marriage need to sit down with each other and figure out what blearg is going to look like. And then everyone who wants to have a blearg can have one, and people who want to be married rather than in a blearg will still be married.

[Salamanda]

Grr. Forget the link. Down with pagination.

[aunursa]

Jesurgislac: No: the crucial issue is whether redefining marriage to mean "any two or more people" will negatively affect people who are currently in marriages of two and only two people, and it appears extremely likely that it will.

How would allowing multiple partners the right to legalize their unions via marriage harm monogamous marriages?

[Hawker Hurricane]

I'm surprised nobody has quoted J.S.:

"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." - Joseph Stalin

[Myriad]

@ aunursa

charlequin began answering this question at the bottom of the other 25 comments, here

I doubt that's an exhaustive explanation, and I'm not saying I agree or endorse, but I thought it raised some interesting points to think about.

[yagowe]

Bugmaster: Everyone in the marriage is married to everyone else in the marriage; when someone wants to leave, they get 1/N of the assets.

The most basic problem with this is that, as much as I would support my wife being allowed to marry her boyfriend, I really don't have any interest in being considered married to him myself. And I certainly don't think he should then be entitled to any fraction of my assets if he leaves.

[fermion]

I don't think poly-marriage/bleargh can really be treated as "simply an extension of the traditional marriage." A lot of elements of traditional marriage wouldn't seem to scale that way--for instance, which of your spouses gets priority if they disagree about your medical treatment when you're incapacitated? How many spouses get to share insurance benefits? I'm not saying such issues couldn't be worked out, or that poly-marriage of some sort wouldn't be a good idea, but it would be qualitatively different from the traditional two-person model.

This is why it would probably have an affect on traditionally married couples: it would require legal redefinitions of how married partners are related to each other in order to work.

(on preview, what charlequin said.)

[not someone else]

It is a good point that there are a number of poly relationship flavors. One type of contract can't cover all of them. One type of contract can't, and currently doesn't, cover all monogamous heterosexual relationships.

It isn't much of a good point that it shouldn't be "marriage"; much like with gay folks, it quacks like a duck and we call it that already. Legally, perhaps, it shouldn't be called that, but lawyers like being very very specific people.

I don't know how else a person could possibly mean that this could even affect monogamous people at all, outside of somebody getting touchy.

Can't people just... make a contract that says whatever they damn well feel like as it is? Isn't that half the point of a contract? The only obstacle I know of is those damn "o noes approximating marriage without paying us godawful lots of money for the piece of paper, I mean queers" thing.

[MikhailBorg]

I caught myself singing that to my infant daughter last week.

There's a local filksinger - I used to help with his sound board - who sings a song called "The Lamentable Love of the Dragon and the Lady". (MP3, probably NSFW) The song's about, er, issues of size and compatibility. A local fan used that song as a lullaby for her boy throughout his toddler years. Strangely, he appears to be growing up nicely well-adjusted.

The only objection Charlequin came up with regarding people who are already in single partner relationships was:

if you're already married under the assumption that your relationship is bound to be just you and your spouse, legally, in all cases shy of divorce, the legal option to expand it drastically changes the nature (and power balance) of the relationship you've entered into.

As she did not explain how the nature and power structure changes, given that people are already free to have relationships with others besides their legal spouse, it is difficult to figure out what she is talking about.

I suppose if one partner has an affair, that would not automatically grounds for a divorce if poly relationships were acknowledged, and the other partner would instead have to get a no-fault divorce. This, frankly, seems like not that big a deal.

I would say that if the nature of your marriage changes so significantly just because you now have the option of adding a third, you were probably headed for divorce anyways.

[Lee Ratner]

I don't think poly-marriage/bleargh can really be treated as "simply an extension of the traditional marriage." A lot of elements of traditional marriage wouldn't seem to scale that way--for instance, which of your spouses gets priority if they disagree about your medical treatment when you're incapacitated? How many spouses get to share insurance benefits? I'm not saying such issues couldn't be worked out, or that poly-marriage of some sort wouldn't be a good idea, but it would be qualitatively different from the traditional two-person model.

If polygamy is ever legalized, matrimonial and probate lawyers are going to be very happy because legalizing polygamy would allow them to earn buckets full of money.;). Seriously, legalizing polygamy is not as easy as its advocates would like, espeically if one was trying to create a polygamous system that did not favor one gender over the other. This is not to say its not possible, it will just require some very carefully and clearly written legislation.

[aunursa]

from charlequin: if you're already married under the assumption that your relationship is bound to be just you and your spouse, legally, in all cases shy of divorce, the legal option to expand it drastically changes the nature (and power balance) of the relationship you've entered into.

The objection does not apply to those marriages in which both partners prefer monogamy.

In other instances, if both partners don't agree, then the marriage would not expand. I don't see how this possibility affects a balance of power between the two partners.

Her other logistical questions are invalid in that such concerns are already possible in monogamous marriages.