5 ms·

Is the U.S. moving away from monogamy? I'm not against polygamy or polyandry, but I don't see a trend in the near term. On the other hand, we've long had a tr

Is the U.S. moving away from monogamy? I'm not against polygamy or polyandry, but I don't see a trend in the near term. On the other hand, we've long had a tradition of traditional married couples where the man keeps a mistress on the side, usually in secret (though secrets don't tend to last very long).

randyrand 11y ago
No exactly the same, but it is becoming more common for women in the United States to have children to multiple different men in quick succession. Definitely a form of polygamy. Particularly of note in poverty stricken communities and the African American community which also happen to have many social problems. Its an interesting theory worth looking more into IMO.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > No exactly the same, but it is becoming more common for women in the United States to have children to multiple different men in quick succession. Its perhaps more visible, but is it really becoming more common? Where are the statistics showing this?
  - in3d 11y ago
    I don't know if randyrand has any statistics to support his statement and I don't see it as very similar to polygamy but http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182921/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182921/ says "Although the sample sizes for parents (especially those with two or more children) at younger ages are quite small and the magnitude of the differences is not large, the pattern nevertheless suggests that MPF (multiple-partner fertility) is likely to increase as younger cohorts age." I haven't seen any better estimates of this possible trend. 59% of African American mothers with two or more children have children by different fathers (http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/8338-many-us-women-have-children-by-more-than-one-man http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/8338-many-us-women-have-chi...).
- venomsnake 11y ago
  When the black males spend their time in prison - you have serious competition for the ones that are out. It is not polygamy/andry, it is an act of desperation on the women's side to have any kind of economic support. When the social net is thin or unexistent - even if it means risking to have another kid. Add to the fact that poor people are the most restricted with their access to contraception and abortion. And you have a self perpetuating mess instead of social fabric.
  - flubert 11y ago
    But which is the cause, and which is the effect? Could it be that welfare benefits have reduced the necessity for a woman to hold on to a man for financial support, so these men are now "adrift" and more likely to end up incarcerated? It might be interesting to look at welfare benefits and incarceration rates before and after 1964.
    - venomsnake 11y ago
      The benefits are not the problem - you have a lot more generous benefits in Western Europe and UK and still they have lower incarceration rates than US. If they were the cause - the problem in Europe will be a lot worse. It is the other way around - remove the jobs from a community, men turn to crime - initiate "War on drugs" - and you have a positive loopback mechanism. That is multi generational.
      - flubert 11y ago
        >The benefits are not the problem - you have a lot more generous benefits in Western Europe and UK and still they have lower incarceration rates than US. ...That doesn't seem to me to be a proper control population.
    - randyrand 11y ago
      I'm SUPER interested in how welfare/child support has had a negative impact on African Amercian men, and the community at large. More people need to study this. I love examples of good intentions going bad.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > No exactly the same, but it is becoming more common for women in the United States to have children to multiple different men in quick succession. Definitely a form of polygamy. While sometimes people refer to "serial polygamy", and there are some contexts where its actually reasonable to view that as a kind of polygamy, here, where the focus is on formal, recognized marriage structures and whether men have the opportunity to enter into them, it isn't the kind of polygamy that is at issue, both: (1) because its not a formal, recognized marriage structure, and (2) because even if it were, it would be polyandrous, and the paper is comparing polygyny (not "polygamy" more generally) to monogamy, so this would be driving past monogamy on to the opposite side, if it were relevant at all.
  - randyrand 11y ago
    I still think it's relevant in determining how multiple partners affects social problems. The broader picture.
FD3SA 11y ago
Yes, it is. Marriage rates are at an all time low, divorce rates are at an all time high, never married rate is at an all time high, out of wedlock births are at an all time high, and there is no deterrent for adultery. The west has been in a soft-polygamy system since no-fault divorce was instigated. The only reason the illusion of classical marriage limps on is because the vestiges of the old system, mainly the ideals of classical marriage, remain attractive for those who are uninformed of the reality on the ground. Thus, young average men enter into marriage with women assuming lifelong monogamy, and are surprised to find their wives spending time with above average men. Females of our species have no benefit to be gained by settling for second best genetic material. They want the best, and don't care who provides the provisioning for those offspring. Cuckolding is a powerful strategy for females to have their cake and eat it too, which is why it is so widespread in nature. No advanced civilization has ever survived the onset of polygamy [1]. Will the west be an exception? We live in interesting times. 1. http://www.rexresearch.com/glubb/glubb-empire.pdf http://www.rexresearch.com/glubb/glubb-empire.pdf
- tosseraccount 11y ago
  Divorce rates at all time high? Looks like multiple sources indicate it's down since 1979 in the U.S. ... https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=U.S.+divorce+rates&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=xxx&biw=873&bih=411 https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=U.S.+divorce+rates&hl=...
- jnbiche 11y ago
  > We live in interesting times. Is that a play on the (probably apocryphal) Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times"?
- TorKlingberg 11y ago
  Fewer married people and more divorces do not equal polygamy. Rather people have a series of monogamous relationships. You post then ventures into outright misogyny that doesn't belong here. Also the front page of 'rexresearch.com' is not very confidence inspiring.
  - 11y ago
dragonwriter 11y ago
> I'm not against polygamy or polyandry Pedantic, perhaps, but while its generally acceptable to use "polygamy" to mean "polygyny" when you aren't discussing "polyandry" (because virtually all real-world polygamy is polygyny), if you are explicitly discussing both forms, its should be "polygyny and polyandry", "polygamy" includes both. > On the other hand, we've long had a tradition of traditional married couples where the man keeps a mistress on the side, usually in secret (though secrets don't tend to last very long). Its really weird to call monogamous marriages "traditional" when comparing them to the polygynous marriages, since while the latter have fallen out of favor progressively in the last several centuries, they have quite a long tradition pretty much everywhere. That said, its actually in many places a long tradition for kept mistresses, particularly of powerful men, to be fairly open.
- Digit-Al 11y ago
  Possibly even more pedantic, have you noticed how, even though the authors clearly know the difference between polygyny and polygamy, they seem to somtimes use both terms interchangeably?
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Possibly even more pedantic, have you noticed how, even though the authors clearly know the difference between polygyny and polygamy, they seem to somtimes use both terms interchangeably? Bu they don't: the authors of the "Media Release", who are writing for the general public using language as familiar as possible, use the term "polygamy", but never in quotes from the authors of the study -- which always use "polygyny". The study itself always uses "polygyny" (and, at least at one point, more specifically "non-sororal polygyny"); the only times "polygamy" (or related forms like "polygamous") appear in the paper itself are in discussions of what other others studies found, one mention discussing forms of pair-bonding as "monogamous and polygamous", and in titles of works cited.

randyrand 11y ago

No exactly the same, but it is becoming more common for women in the United States to have children to multiple different men in quick succession. Definitely a form of polygamy. Particularly of note in poverty stricken communities and the African American community which also happen to have many social problems. Its an interesting theory worth looking more into IMO.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> No exactly the same, but it is becoming more common for women in the United States to have children to multiple different men in quick succession. Its perhaps more visible, but is it really becoming more common? Where are the statistics showing this?
- in3d 11y ago
  I don't know if randyrand has any statistics to support his statement and I don't see it as very similar to polygamy but http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182921/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182921/ says "Although the sample sizes for parents (especially those with two or more children) at younger ages are quite small and the magnitude of the differences is not large, the pattern nevertheless suggests that MPF (multiple-partner fertility) is likely to increase as younger cohorts age." I haven't seen any better estimates of this possible trend. 59% of African American mothers with two or more children have children by different fathers (http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/8338-many-us-women-have-children-by-more-than-one-man http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/8338-many-us-women-have-chi...).
venomsnake 11y ago
When the black males spend their time in prison - you have serious competition for the ones that are out. It is not polygamy/andry, it is an act of desperation on the women's side to have any kind of economic support. When the social net is thin or unexistent - even if it means risking to have another kid. Add to the fact that poor people are the most restricted with their access to contraception and abortion. And you have a self perpetuating mess instead of social fabric.
- flubert 11y ago
  But which is the cause, and which is the effect? Could it be that welfare benefits have reduced the necessity for a woman to hold on to a man for financial support, so these men are now "adrift" and more likely to end up incarcerated? It might be interesting to look at welfare benefits and incarceration rates before and after 1964.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    The benefits are not the problem - you have a lot more generous benefits in Western Europe and UK and still they have lower incarceration rates than US. If they were the cause - the problem in Europe will be a lot worse. It is the other way around - remove the jobs from a community, men turn to crime - initiate "War on drugs" - and you have a positive loopback mechanism. That is multi generational.
    - flubert 11y ago
      >The benefits are not the problem - you have a lot more generous benefits in Western Europe and UK and still they have lower incarceration rates than US. ...That doesn't seem to me to be a proper control population.
  - randyrand 11y ago
    I'm SUPER interested in how welfare/child support has had a negative impact on African Amercian men, and the community at large. More people need to study this. I love examples of good intentions going bad.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> No exactly the same, but it is becoming more common for women in the United States to have children to multiple different men in quick succession. Definitely a form of polygamy. While sometimes people refer to "serial polygamy", and there are some contexts where its actually reasonable to view that as a kind of polygamy, here, where the focus is on formal, recognized marriage structures and whether men have the opportunity to enter into them, it isn't the kind of polygamy that is at issue, both: (1) because its not a formal, recognized marriage structure, and (2) because even if it were, it would be polyandrous, and the paper is comparing polygyny (not "polygamy" more generally) to monogamy, so this would be driving past monogamy on to the opposite side, if it were relevant at all.
- randyrand 11y ago
  I still think it's relevant in determining how multiple partners affects social problems. The broader picture.

FD3SA 11y ago

Yes, it is. Marriage rates are at an all time low, divorce rates are at an all time high, never married rate is at an all time high, out of wedlock births are at an all time high, and there is no deterrent for adultery. The west has been in a soft-polygamy system since no-fault divorce was instigated. The only reason the illusion of classical marriage limps on is because the vestiges of the old system, mainly the ideals of classical marriage, remain attractive for those who are uninformed of the reality on the ground. Thus, young average men enter into marriage with women assuming lifelong monogamy, and are surprised to find their wives spending time with above average men. Females of our species have no benefit to be gained by settling for second best genetic material. They want the best, and don't care who provides the provisioning for those offspring. Cuckolding is a powerful strategy for females to have their cake and eat it too, which is why it is so widespread in nature. No advanced civilization has ever survived the onset of polygamy [1]. Will the west be an exception? We live in interesting times. 1. http://www.rexresearch.com/glubb/glubb-empire.pdf http://www.rexresearch.com/glubb/glubb-empire.pdf

tosseraccount 11y ago
Divorce rates at all time high? Looks like multiple sources indicate it's down since 1979 in the U.S. ... https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=U.S.+divorce+rates&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=xxx&biw=873&bih=411 https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=U.S.+divorce+rates&hl=...
jnbiche 11y ago
> We live in interesting times. Is that a play on the (probably apocryphal) Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times"?
TorKlingberg 11y ago
Fewer married people and more divorces do not equal polygamy. Rather people have a series of monogamous relationships. You post then ventures into outright misogyny that doesn't belong here. Also the front page of 'rexresearch.com' is not very confidence inspiring.
- 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> I'm not against polygamy or polyandry Pedantic, perhaps, but while its generally acceptable to use "polygamy" to mean "polygyny" when you aren't discussing "polyandry" (because virtually all real-world polygamy is polygyny), if you are explicitly discussing both forms, its should be "polygyny and polyandry", "polygamy" includes both. > On the other hand, we've long had a tradition of traditional married couples where the man keeps a mistress on the side, usually in secret (though secrets don't tend to last very long). Its really weird to call monogamous marriages "traditional" when comparing them to the polygynous marriages, since while the latter have fallen out of favor progressively in the last several centuries, they have quite a long tradition pretty much everywhere. That said, its actually in many places a long tradition for kept mistresses, particularly of powerful men, to be fairly open.

Digit-Al 11y ago
Possibly even more pedantic, have you noticed how, even though the authors clearly know the difference between polygyny and polygamy, they seem to somtimes use both terms interchangeably?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Possibly even more pedantic, have you noticed how, even though the authors clearly know the difference between polygyny and polygamy, they seem to somtimes use both terms interchangeably? Bu they don't: the authors of the "Media Release", who are writing for the general public using language as familiar as possible, use the term "polygamy", but never in quotes from the authors of the study -- which always use "polygyny". The study itself always uses "polygyny" (and, at least at one point, more specifically "non-sororal polygyny"); the only times "polygamy" (or related forms like "polygamous") appear in the paper itself are in discussions of what other others studies found, one mention discussing forms of pair-bonding as "monogamous and polygamous", and in titles of works cited.