Polygamy ?

Rick Knight (rknight@platinum.com)
Fri, 01 Aug 97 10:51:20 CST

Prof.(?) Gomes wrote:

But, If we broad our minds, I really do not see any
reason why, for example, a man cannot have more than one wife (if he
earns enough ... and they too - it is important...), loving
themselves and all being happy and... a real family.

Rick Knight responds:

With all due respect, I'm assuming your first language isn't English.
English is my only language so if you working with two, you're ahead
of the game. But try rinsing out your posts with a spell checker.
The enormous number of misspellings is rather disorienting to those of
us who value the crafting of words.

Now, onto the subject of polygamy: How broad is a mind that refers to
the two sexes as "man" and "wife"? You've objectified the sex
assigned to "wife" (presumably female). How broad is the mind that
notes that "he" has to earn enough to justify more than one wife? And
the notion of family is a cultural invention.

Your notions give me the impression of something more like opportunism
to be able to have sex at any given chance than to achieve a sense of
communal happiness by transcending traditional mores.

I'm also interpolating in your whimsical thoughts on heaven having a
homosexual spin to it. Most Judeo-Christian teachings instruct that
humans transcend sexual desire when they get to "heaven". That's
A-sexual not gay-sexual. <G>

It is my opinion that the seed justifications for most religions
putting restrictions on sexual behavior is because of our rather
primitive tendency towards possession, objectifying humans rather than
regarding them as other conscious entities. "Possessing" humans in a
marriage or family may have a better spin to it than more blatant
forms of slavery. The difference is that each entity gets a role in
the decision making. Women and children have been usurped in the
patriarchal motif that pervades western culture.

A true polygamous situation would not only enable the "man" to have
wives, but the wives to have wives, the man to have men. Then there's
the matter of how children are factored in to the sexual
interrelations. Some may draw the line at children (as would I out of
cultural deference and personal preference) but fact of the matter is,
we place up boundaries regarding the impropriety of sexual relations
with children because of the manipulative and objectifying ways in
which we practice such behavior.

For male-female combinations, it is not genetically in our best
interest to inbreed. From such bad biological mixing could spring the
social taboo. The same could even be said for men and boys in a world
where the population needed regular fortification. It doesn't keep
the species up if men are not putting that semen to good use! <G>
Modern Western culture has no such issue and instinctual drives
towards a heterosexual orientation would not sufficiently impair a boy
exposed to same sex relations to necessarily retain that "preference"
unless you factor in mental and emotional issues (again, back to
objectification and disregard for the self-aware creature that could
create a dysfunction in the perception of self).

Polygamy is a male-dominant and opportunistic mindset. The true
freedom lies in putting away the notions of human possession. As
benevolent a relationship as we might have, the stirrings of jealousy
and covetousness have very limbic and survivalist roots. This may be
why early religions sought to lock it down and put hefty penalties on
not being restrained. As we move towards an evolved sense of self,
having a sexual relationship, however brief, should carry no more
stigma than having a fast food lunch with a co-worker or having an
elegant dinner with friends.

Ah, food and sex. Next to breathing and imagining, they are pretty
high up on the "don't forget to..." list.