Just like women who put themselves in that position, they are either forced or have no other option.
Yes, some societies are under such matriarchal oppression of men, and it's really one of the major unacknowledged root causes of some of today's grossest human rights violations.
Or wait. No. Because even polyandry, which is extremely rare despite the existence of an entrenched and powerful matriarchy around the globe, in many instances is, like many things in the world today, to the benefit of ... men. Oh patriarhcy, right. Like in cultures where, when brothers are too poor to support a home on their own, a woman is married to all of them and they take turns living in the home with her. You would not believe how privileged and powerful a woman like this is, with her chappal on the back of these men's necks.
Or maybe there are men who don't mind sharing a woman between them. I'm sure some sort of sexist jokes can be dug up and thrown up here about that too. Let me start. Ho ho ho, bro, then you don't have to take 100% of her nagging and dealing with her while she's on the rag. Ho ho ho.
I'm not saying that men are disproportionally more oppressed in today's world!!
I was simply saying that if polyandry was practiced in certain cultures then I would guess the men are forced to do it or have no other option. How did you conclude that you say? easy, because most of the women who are in polygynous marriages are forced and have no other option. Whether it's the girl forced by her parents to marry the already-married dude or even the the woman who *willingly* makes the decision to marry a guy who is already married because he will provide for her better than the poor younger lad. Both of those women are compelled in a way or another. The former was forced by her family, the latter was compelled because of financial reasons.
Likewise, I don't think these men in the example you mentioned would've elected to share a wife were they better off financially. So in a way they are forced to as they have no other option. It doesn't mean the shared wife is ecstatic about all the penises, but it also doesn't mean the husbands are ecstatic. At least that's how I think.
Now you can point out the fallacies in my argument and criticize it all you want but what you did is you misconstrued one line I wrote and reacted, although in a sarcastic way, as if I am calling for a revolution against this worldwide matriarchal oppressive system.
The whole premise of "why would a man want to be in polyandry" is reflective of the mindset. We all know what we call a woman who allows multiple penises to penetrate her. Of *course* a group of women might possibly (probably) want to share one penis -- for the penis is irresistible. And maybe some hot lesbian-for-the-sake-of-a-penis sex might take place as well. But why on earth would a man share that pussy - it's his, right? He owns that punani. Even when you hear about or read about these people who want to 'share my wife' it's about his ownership of what's between her legs, his pleasure seeing another man partake of what's his. (I'm not comparing this with polyamory btw which is also about relationships, and not just bodies in a bed - or on the floor, whatever).
That's not even close to my mindset. I don't think jealousy and possessiveness are exclusive to men. And while I do wonder "why would a man want to be in polyandry", I would also be very intrigued if a woman told me she's OK with sharing a husband with another woman.
Only a minority of both men and women would be fine with sharing a spouse and this thread was started to discuss their situation.
Gosh I'm sorry for my sarcasm. It's just that this site is more and more like a good ol' boy's club everyday. Reminds me of the attitudes I lived with when I was Muslim.
Am I one of those you're referring to?
I'm not voting in this poll. It seems, based on the discussion, that it only recognizes forms of polygamy where one individual is, if you will, the chief spouse, and all other individuals are married to that person and that person only.
Not sure where you got the notion of the "chief spouse". When I created the poll, I was thinking about a free-love Vicky-Cristina-Barcelona kinda scenario.
Like Islam or Mormonism, both socially progressive religions.
You're joking right ?
It doesn't address the legal complications of secular / neo-pagan poly relationships -- which is one reason (tho not the big one) why law makers, to my knowledge (based on my reading) don't want to deal with it. Jill marries Bob. She also marries Jane. Bob and Jane get married. In a year, Jane doesn't want to be married to Jill anymore, but she wants to be married to Bob. And so on and so forth. It can be handled, I'm sure, by people in the privacy of their own counsel (deciding to live in separate houses, for example, or Jill making the tough decision to divorce Bob as well as Jane, and watch them walk into the sunset hand in hand), but I can see why lawmakers aren't going to touch it. The sheer mess of deciding out benefits, retirement, tax breaks, etc...
You make compelling points. So why not decriminalize it without granting recognition under civil law (option 2)?
Poll
2 (10.5%)
Topic: Polygamy