Plural marriage and its challenges

[TygrBright]

"Plural marriage" is a generic term for when more than two people decide they wish to form a family, create a lasting household together for mutual support and love, and obtain social recognition of their commitment to one another.

If you stop there, it's just possible to see the horizon where this is another Great Civil Rights fight, queuing up to change American consciousness and society.

And if you stop there, its easy to see why those who regard plural marriage as such get offended when various forms of plural marriage are equated to nonconsensual exploitation, cruelty, and/or criminal behavior. As in, the assumption that advocating the legalization of polygamy-- a form of plural marriage-- is being used to discredit same-sex marriage.

This is the same school of thought that wants to turn "You throw like a GIRL" from an insult into a badge of pride. (see: "Davis, Mo'ne&quot Fuck you people, you think assigning onus to a reference can MAKE it onerous? We'll show you.

I get this.

Partly because I think that sometime down the road, we'll achieve a redefinition of marriage big enough to include the triads, foursomes, even fivesomes-- who knows? More? Individuals who perceive the bond of love as the basis of creating a home and family, a unit of support and comfort, a growth medium for children and adults alike, independent of past assumptions about the "roles" inherent in one-to-one marriage.

I think we'll get there.

Maybe not soon, though.

Because for now, there are problems, inherent not in the present or the future, but in the ugly past of a particular variety of plural marriage.

Let's be clear: Polyandry has never been a problem. Partnerships that involve more than one member of more than one gender are such a vanishingly small percentage that they haven't even cracked the phenomenonological perception barrier.

Polygamy, however, has a very long, and very repulsive history as a tool of the patriarchy for the control of women. And in the case of some of our more fetid doctrinal interpretations of Guy God-dom, it remains exactly that tool.

How do we legitimate plural marriage, without enabling that vile practice?

I'm open to suggestion.

I think that discussion might be a more productive approach to the challenge than simply name-calling and/or demanding that we accept each others' points of view without acknowledging the problems inherent in both sides.

But... I recognize that here and now probably isn't the most likely place for such a discussion to emerge.

wistfully,
Bright

[Warpy]

1. Thank you

Warren Jeffs is still alive and the closed communities he left behind are still abusive to women and children. It's just too raw, too recent to have an honest discussion about plural marriage, whether Mormon, Muslim, or just because.

[oberliner]

27. There are other repulsive people like warren jeffs

engaging in a variety of abusive behaviors within the monogamous construct as well. Spousal and child abuse continue to be major problems in large numbers of families that are not polygamous.

[KittyWampus]

49. But the topic is polygamy. And over time it limits available women to only the wealthy.

[HassleCat]

2. Here's what I suggest

Stop trying. The number of people who feel the need for polygamy is very small. When you toss out the kooks, cultists, religious nutballs, etc. the number shrinks to a very small digit. I realize legitimate polygamy advocates are hoping the same sex marriage decision will pave the way for them, because it broke through objections related to the traditional view of marriage. But the court decided same sex marriage as a civil rights issue, a matter of denying some citizens access to an institution that was accessible to others. But that's not the case with polygamy. Polygamists are free to marry one person and have that marriage recognized by the state. They can marry additional persons, but the state will regard those marriages as immaterial. I think most states have stopped prosecuting for bigamy unless there is some kind of fraud or abuse happening.

And here is the reason I oppose legal recognition for polygamy. It's now used as a tool for religious goofballs to subjugate women, marry them when they're too young to know what's going on, etc. As it is now, the states can use their bigamy laws to go after these guys and break up their enclaves. If polygamy becomes legal, the states no longer have that ability, and these guys are untouchable because their "wives" can refuse to testify against them. That is "unfair" to other polygamists, who just want to be free to marry multiple persons, but that's how we draw lines when it comes to writing laws that affect social circumstances. We weigh the good against the bad, and civil rights are considered, sometimes counting for much, and sometimes not a big consideration.

[Daemonaquila]

19. You could say that about just one man and one woman, as well.

I don't see why people have this reaction to polygamy. Yes of course there are major kooks who will want to reinstate polygamy (not that they need the state's sanction, as we see from FLDS) and oppress their wives to the fullest extent. However, that's exactly the same thing that happens in current marriages between one man and one woman. The country is full of women being abused and oppressed by religious zealots without there being multiple wives in the marriage.

I wish people would just get off the polygamy thing. It's probably going to happen, and it really doesn't matter if it does. Instead of worrying about polygamy, how about worrying about ending the oppression of women by their husbands in religious marriages, period? And in all sorts of other relationships as well?

[TygrBright]

21. That's actually a pretty good point, and maybe one that deserves its own OP.

"What can we do to make ALL marriage more equitable, especially now that binary gender is no longer the legal mandate?"

Seems to bring up a number of queries about both social and religious assumptions that remain like vermiform appendices in the marriage laws of various jurisdictions.

We still have a long way to go.

thoughtfully,
Bright

[raging moderate]

3. Polygyny = marriage of one man to two or more women

Polygyny = marriage of one man to two or more women
Polyandry = marriage of one woman to two or more men
Polygamy = marriage of more than two people, no matter which sex.

Polygamy comprises polyandry and polygyny.

[TygrBright]

7. Yup. But it's a great strategy to get a GD post to float for a bit.

Make an egregious error and let others post corrections.

slyly,
Bright

[joeybee12]

4. And yet you totally disregard the fact that...

the posters here seem to think group marriages are somehow the majority...where did all these people come from? They are very very small in number...the discussion here is being driven by paid disruptors who want the Repukes to say, see I told you so.

And no, we won't get there...polygamy is a concept most humans have evolved past...nice try, though.

[Chan790]

40. Wait...some posters are getting paid for advocating plural marriage?

Where is my check, dammit?!

I'm one of the more vocal and prolific (and I'd hope effective) advocates of plural marriage on DU for a simple reason...I actually believe in it.

[Bad Thoughts]

5. Stop at historical evidence?

First, let me say that this sort of theoretical argumentation is what conservatives and libertarians use to attempt to dismantle the institutions of justice and social welfare in this country. I would ask you not to use them. Democrats look equally at outcomes, which means looking at not just the theoretical but the concrete as well.

In that front, same-sex marriage proved its worthiness; plural marriage has not. Two decades ago there was little evidence about the viability and benefit of same-sex marriage, and gay and lesbian couples endeavored to prove themselves. There have been millenia of various forms of plural marriage, not just polygamy, that have been shown to be hierarchical, if not unequal or exploitative.

[joeybee12]

12. +1

Plural marriage is a relic of the past...it's not nearly as common as the paid disruptors here at DU would want you to believe...they're just here to basically have the Repukes say, I told you so, that gay marriage would lead to this. Although I've been accused of calling them deviants without any posts to back up those accusations, they can live their lives however they want, but what is objectionable is trying to align it with gay marriage, apples to oranges...their motives are clear.

[yeoman6987]

35. We will have it in 10 years. As with other changes,

There will always be a group who will claim America is over. We are so far gone. Gone from where? I don't know what makes people so negative on everything. Thankfully change happens regardless of the negative small percent. We will never have issues where 100 percent agree and those that don't agree with it will do what they can to stop it from happening. It happens everytime. The script has been written many times and the sequels are the same as the main script.

[TygrBright]

16. ahhh, the old "It's never worked, so it'll never work" argument.

I was kinda hoping someone would bring that up.

Because human beings can't possibly evolve, socially or ethically or spiritually, past whatever state perpetrated inequity in the past.

amusedly,
Bright

[kcr]

32. No, that's not what it is.

You really are doing exactly what the post you're responding to is saying. You're doing the whole, "Well, it could work, so let's ignore reality" argument. The reality you're ignoring is pretty awful, too.

[TygrBright]

33. Sorry, but I'm not following you on that one.

The post I'm responding to states:

"In that front, same-sex marriage proved its worthiness; plural marriage has not. Two decades ago there was little evidence about the viability and benefit of same-sex marriage, and gay and lesbian couples endeavored to prove themselves. There have been millenia of various forms of plural marriage, not just polygamy, that have been shown to be hierarchical, if not unequal or exploitative."

Millenia of exploitive, heirarchical, unequal marriages-- plural and monogamous both-- do not constitute a valid argument that marriage cannot evolve ethically, socially and spiritually.

As evidenced by the painfully slow evolution of monogamous marriage a few micrometers in that direction.

Therefore, why is the awful reality of the history of monogamy any less vulnerable to change than the history of plural marriage?

curiously,
Bright

[kcr]

41. You present no evidence that legalizing polygamy would evolve it in such a manner

at the same time you steadily ignore all the evidence that exists of the current form of polygamy that is far from ethical. I think that's pretty evident.

[riderinthestorm]

54. Tyger Bright wants a conversation on how to legitimize polygamy

How do we legitimate plural marriage, without enabling that vile practice?

I'm open to suggestion.

She's already made up her mind and is now asking everyone else to find ways to legitimize it in this thread.

If you don't agree that it can be legitimized, she's not really interested in that conversation from what I'm reading in her responses.

[kcr]

55. She and others also don't seem to be particularly interested

in hearing how offensive this is in the context of the recent SCOTUS decision. It's a shame.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. We can't legitimize anything that is not our own to legitimize. People who have such relationships

have to stand up and self advocate. That's not what I'm seeing on DU at all. I've known a few plural relationship homes which lasted a good amount of time and to be honest none of them wanted anything to do with marriage, in fact they were critical of me for wanting one. So I am not aware of any vast movement and the people I have known who were that way inclined were very disinclined to all formality and vows and promises and marriage itself.
DU has been full of people who are talking not about their own lives or even lives close to them. That's what it would take. People talking about their own lives and goals.

[TygrBright]

8. If you look at the trajectory for the recognition of same-sex marriage...

You'll see much of what has already emerged in the comments in this thread:

"It's not really 'marriage.'"

"There aren't hardly any anyway. Gay people don't do that. Why should we extend rights only to so few?"

"It's not really a 'right' for them to have society recognize it. They can do it on their own if they want anyway."

"They're all horrible people anyway. Child molesters, abusers and such. I don't know any good ones, so there aren't any."

"Let them ask for it themselves, no matter how much personal agony it'll expose them to, if they really want it."

It's kind of encouraging, actually.

Seeing the pattern playing out.

Maybe there'll be similar happy endings someday.

Of course, I probably should have devoted a lot more time to heaping abuse on the disgusting religiously-motivated polygynists who give the concept a bad smell, but I didn't really want to derail my own OP before others had a chance to throw asparagus.

amiably,
Bright

[Bluenorthwest]

15. It's not amiable because you ignored every single thing I said and then preached at me.

I'm not going to repeat myself just to be plowed over by your continued sermonizing.

[TygrBright]

17. Then I apologize to you, humbly and sincerely, for making my post a response to your comment.

You're correct, it really should not have been attached to your comment, as it was meant to be a more generic round-up of the comments thus far.

You have my apologies, and I shall try not to repeat the error in this thread.

contritely,
Bright

[Bluenorthwest]

23. And yet you still did not bother to address what I actually said.

Much is stated by this evasion.

[TygrBright]

25. Again, my apologies. I did attempt to include your comment in my general round-up.

But clearly, it wasn't adequately specific or attentive .

I'll try to do better.

Let's start with the first part of your post header: "We can't legitimize anything that is not our own to legitimize."

Well, not really true, insofar as any disenfranchised group, or group whose rights are denied and who do not have the power to grant those rights to themselves, are dependent on the empowered majority to legitimize their demands.

It is possible through armed, violent revolution for those disempowered to empower themselves, but it often comes at a heavy cost, and one reason Constitutional forms of government evolved was to minimize those costs by creating a mechanism for those in power to share and grant powers without such drastic measures.

The next sentence, that bridged from your post header to your post body, is more intriguing: "People who have such relationships
have to stand up and self advocate."

They have, they do, they are. Perhaps you haven't come across them? Such self-advocacy is very quiet, for two reasons: One being that such relationships are still illegal, and not everyone who wishes to self-advocate is yet ready to put their freedom and the well-being of their partners and children on the line in order to do so. It is a difficult choice. I decline to judge those who decide on behalf of doing their self-advocacy in such a way as to minimize the risk to those they love.

Then you continue: "That's not what I'm seeing on DU at all."

Until now, perhaps?

Those you know who have formed group households and repudiate any desire to legitimate it under the term "marriage" are not necessarily a sample of the whole. I would also point out, and explicitly note that I am not implying this observation applies to your friends/experience, that back when homosexuality was criminalized by our legal system, there were any number of LGBT couples who would have said "I don't want marriage, I just want to be allowed to live with the one I love without being afraid of being fired or hauled off to jail." Similarly, at the very early stages of the most recent civil rights drive, there were gay individuals who accused those advocating for marriage of "spoiling it" for those who were willing to settle for less.

It is always thus, when the expansion of rights recognition being demanded is seen as very radical indeed.

You then continue "So I am not aware of any vast movement and the people I have known who were that way inclined were very disinclined to all formality and vows and promises and marriage itself."

Your experience is your experience, and perfectly valid. It is not my experience. We can agree to differ, I think, without making either point of view odious, illegitimate, or disingenuous.

"DU has been full of people who are talking not about their own lives or even lives close to them." There are certainly many on DU who are quick to express opinions on matters that are not a direct experience of their own lives or even those close to them. I, for example, although not African-American and without any African-American members in my near family by marriage, and without a very large cadre of African-Americans among my close friends, feel free to stand vigorously against racist police brutality that disproportionately affects African-Americans.

Should I desist from this?

And finally: "That's what it would take. People talking about their own lives and goals."

Your assumption that I'm not doing so seems a bit premature. While I myself am not currently in a plural marriage, how do you know that my partner and I have no plans or desires to experience this? Or that my family includes no plural marriages?

This may not be a valid assumption on your part.

I hope this clarifies my prior response and makes you feel that I have adequately addressed what you actually said, without evasion.

carefully,
Bright

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. This needs to go away because it's painfully goddamned stupid.

Plural marriage does not need to be "legitimated". It is not "the next civil rights fight" after legalising same-sex marriage. The right of two people to marry regardless of sex or gender is NOT AT ALL like plural marriage, they have nothing to do with each other. And no, we won't get there. Go on, look at a map. Look at polygamous societies. Fundamentalist Muslim countries in the Middle East, South Asia and Africa. Polygamy in practise almost invariably means polygyny. I would go so far as to say that plural marriage and a society in which gender equality is a social norm are incompatible. (The ideas of democracy, civil rights and women's rights all developed in monogamous societies; this is very likely not an accident.)

For some scholarly consideration of this, see here: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/367/1589/657.full.pdf

[closeupready]

13. It doesn't need to be legitimated; it needs to be LEGALLY legitimated!

[joeybee12]

14. +1

It probably will...the Repukes will give their marching orders soon and we'll hear of another right-wing meme being polished so it looks like it's actually a "progressive" idea and not shit.

[AngryAmish]

18. Oh, look at thise horribke brown and black people do8ng something I disapproved of!

Racism is not an argument. It is a disease.

[Spider Jerusalem]

34. WTF? You're apparently an idiot.

Race has nothing to do with it.

[snooper2]

10. that's what communes are for

[closeupready]

11. Polygamy is not my deal. You want one, go fight for it.

I'm not joining you, though.

[TygrBright]

20. No one says you have to and I like you regardless.

It's not really a "fight," yet.

But you have to start somewhere.

I'm getting many chuckles from the inferences that i'm a RW meme-troll, though, so I may keep this going for a bit.

'scuse me while I call "Butthurt Conservative Central" for more, ah... marching orders.

Because original concepts and questions are SO not my style.

appreciatively,
Bright

[closeupready]

22. No problem, no offense taken - "I am Charlie" applies only

to those who hate Islam, I guess on this wacky board, lol.

[SheilaT]

24. If I saw most situations where more than two people, regardless of genders,

are married, and everyone really is treated equally, then I might become persuaded it would be okay. Even with just two people in a marriage, it's hard, even with a lot of conscious effort, for it to be a marriage of equals.

Recently someone here posted that group marriage (rather like that shown in Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress opined that in such a situation all members would have much more freedom and autonomy. I disagreed, saying that what would more likely happen is that the family would tell one child: You must become an attorney, because The Family needs an attorney, and to another one: You must become a plumber because we need a plumber. And so on.

For one thing, pretty much the only example we have of more than two people being married is of a man with more than one wife. The reverse, a woman with several husbands, is almost unheard of. Let alone at least two men and two women being in a marriage.

[oberliner]

26. Monogamy has a long and repulsive history as a tool of the patriarchy

for the control of women. Women have been treated like property in monogamous societies for centuries. Spousal and child abuse continue to be horrific features of sizable percentages of families of this more traditional sort.

[TygrBright]

28. True enough, and given the rhetorical level this discussion seems to devolve to...

...a little "tu quoque" is only to be expected.

And perhaps not entirely inappropriate.

wryly,
Bright

[MineralMan]

29. Plural Marriage Has Nothing to Do with Civil Rights.

Marriage equality is about everyone having the right to marry someone else, regardless of inborn characteristics.

Plural marriage has nothing to do with inborn anything. It is purely a choice some people want to make.

Plural marriage is not a civil rights issue in any way. It is a social norm issue only. It will not pass muster as a civil right in any court.

Civil rights are about treating all people equally, regardless of their inborn characteristics. It has little to do with social choices people simply would like to make.

That's my opinion.

[TygrBright]

31. And I respect your opinion, and your right to have it.

Without any attempt to make invidious comparisons, I would note that while opinions are not laws, they do influence social perceptions and those do influence laws.

So I hope you remain open to learning and evolving your opinions-- knowing you of old from DU, I feel confident that you will. I don't necessarily expect you to ever "agree" with the current opinions I've expressed here, either.

Once upon a time, I had a similar opinion with respect to same-sex marriage, that "marriage" wasn't a legal right, but a religious rite, and that gay people were entitled to social recognition of their commitment via the "civil union" alternative.

My current shame and regret about that opinion does not necessarily invalidate the legitimacy of my having it in the past.

We go through many stages of understanding during the course of a life lived.

I hope my opinions will continue to evolve with my understanding.

pacifically,
Bright

[BKH70041]

30. Multi-person marriage will eventually become the law.

And those who are vocally opposed to it today will be viewed as close-minded bigots in the future when it does become law.

The problem with the discussion at this site and at this time is that it's too close to the USSC ruling regarding same sex marriage. Too many have defended the need for same sex marriage against those opposed who said that it would lead to marriage being redefined, and now these defenders don't want those who said differently to get in their face and say "I told you so!" But that's a poor excuse for not accepting what will eventually become law.

Where are the voices that said "A harm to one is a harm to all!" Suddenly they've gone silent, because - you see - this right denied will allow them to save face. That's the problem about those who are speaking out: I'm more willing to openly tell you what they believe than they are.

And "vile practice" has nothing to do with it. We could all agree that Billy Bob Drunk has been verbally abusive towards Peggy Sue and, at some point, he's probably going to be physically abusive. But we would let them get married if they so desired. We wouldn't forbid them from it.

What consenting adults are OK with doing in their relationship none of our business. If some person wants to marry another who has them wear a leather dog suit and walk around on all fours on a leash and bark, who am I to tell them they can't live their married life however they want?

This objection is nothing more than a bunch of people thinking that multi-partner marriage will make a mockery of it; it's the same argument those opposed to same sex marriage have been making. All excuses are just that; excuses. They aren't reasons worthy of consideration. There is no reason not to expand the definition of marriage where multiple consenting adults have agreed they want to be in the marriage relationship.

[JoePhilly]

36. The LGBT folks have provided a path for plural marriage advocates.

And so, if folks really want to make plural marriage legal, they'll need to "come out" to their friends and family.

They'll need to organize marches.

They'll need to set up some parades.

And you can help them do it.

When is the first plural marriage parade scheduled?

[B2G]

37. You can't do that anymore than you can

legislate domestic abuse between 2 partners out of existence.

[Wella]

38. Nice beginning of the conversation. Have you seen these helpful links?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door

http://polymomma.com/

http://polytripod.blogspot.com/

https://ourpolylife.wordpress.com/

And a list of the top blogs:

http://www.datingadvice.com/for-men/11-best-polyamory-blogs-of-2014

[pnwmom]

39. Polygamy is a "lifestyle" and the law isn't required to provide support to every lifestyle.

This is entirely different from sexual orientation, which is biologically determined and not a choice. Therefore same-sex marriage must be allowed by the states; but the states have no comparable obligation to allow multiple legal marriages.

With polygamy, there is no logical limit to the number of possible "spouses"; some characters in the Bible were said to have more than 100. And there would be no logical limit to which other adults a person could marry, since we can't see into people's hearts. All the members of a golf club could decide to marry; or all the employees at the local grocery.

And how would the law address the inevitable conflicts that would result from multiple marriage? If there is disagreement, who makes the medical decision for a multi-spouse? Who gets the property in a multi-divorce? Applying laws to polygamous groupings would lead to endless complications and permutations of law.

Maybe it will happen someday anyway. Don't hold your breath.

[Wella]

42. Please listen to yourself. You sound like a RWinger describing gays.

Why do good liberals turn so damned conservative when we talk about polymarriage?

[pnwmom]

43. People advocating for polygamists by comparing them to gays are the ones who sound like RWers.

Sexual orientation was FALSELY labeled a lifestyle, even though it is an inborn trait.

Polygamy is CORRECTLY labeled a lifestyle, and the government has no obligation to support it.

[kcr]

44. Thank you, pnwmom. The ignorance is staggering.

It is actually RWers throwing a fit about the recent SCOTUS ruling comparing it to polygamy and thinking they're being clever by comparing it to polygamy. I'm surprised to see some on DU falling for this stunt.

[Wella]

45. Like these polyamorous activists:

Soooooo right wing.....

http://www.vice.com/read/after-gay-marriage-why-not-polygamy

...“Kurtz was right for the most part,” Anita Wagner Illig, a polyamorous-relationships advocate who runs the Practical Polyamory website, told me in an email. “Legalizing same-sex marriage creates a legal precedent where there can be no valid legal premise for denying marriage to more than two people who wish to marry each other… We just disagree as to whether it’s a bad thing.”

... Many gay marriage advocates dislike that comparison—they don’t want the public to draw comparisons between gay relationships and “weird” potentially abusive multiwife setups. Back in 2006, Andrew Sullivan wrote, “Legalizing [polygamy] is a bad idea for a society in general for all the usual reasons (abuse of women, the dangers of leaving a pool of unmarried straight men in the population at large, etc.),” an odd mirroring of all those conservatives who’ve talked about how “bad for society” gay marriage would be.

“For as long as they could get away with it, [marriage-equality advocates] disingenuously denied that we polyamorists even exist and swore that it was and would forever be a nonissue,” Anita said. “This was all politics as usual, of course, but it was pretty disappointing for us to be thrown under the bus that way, especially since the polyamory community has always supported marriage equality.”

Polyamory has left-wing roots—it’s “intertwined with the rise of feminism,” as Slate wrote last year...

[kcr]

46. Yes. They are supporting right wing ideology.

Gay marriage advocates are right to dislike the comparison. Because it's wrong.

[Wella]

47. What right wing ideology are they supporting? Since when does the right support polyamory?

Cognitive dissonance....

[kcr]

48. The right doesn't support polyamory, of course.

But they're perfectly happy to support polygamists, particularly after the SCOTUS ruling to make a point.

[Wella]

50. The right wing Christian will never support true polygamy, and even the Mormon church has nixed it

The support for polymarriage recognition is coming from the left and not the right--and from some libertarians. Check out the blogs.

http://www.practicalpolyamory.com/

http://polyadvocacy.ca/

http://www.quora.com/Polygamy-1/How-long-will-it-be-before-poly-marriage-is-no-longer-a-crime-in-all-50-states-How-long-before-it-is-legal-to-have-multiple-spouses

[kcr]

51. And from some libertarians. Yes. Right wingers.

I tend to lump groups that are to the right of the center together and use the term right winger. I'm sorry if that confuses things. I never said no liberal ever supports this.

[WestCoastLib]

52. The right wing supports polyamory...

The right wing supports polygamy in the sense that they wish to group both polygamy and homosexuality (and bestiality and pedophilia) in the same category of a "lifestyle choice".

Polygamist marriage supporters (on the basis of the gay marriage ruling) are advocating for the same backwards, homophobic, logic. Whether they know it or not, or whether they mean well or not, this is simply a fact.

[backscatter712]

53. Why is it so fucking hard to draw the line at INFORMED ADULT CONSENT?

If six men and seven women, all informed, consenting adults, want to be in a polyamorous relationship, and want to formalize that relationship by getting married, explain to me why that shouldn't be allowed.

Explain it.

Oh, because you don't like it? That makes you a bigot.

Oh, you heard that wacko religious fanatics do that... How is this not resolvable by making sure that all parties to such a marriage are adults giving informed consent? If you want to be a fundie, I don't agree with it, but it's not illegal. If you want to be a fundie Muslim, or a fundie Mormon, and have a polygamous marriage, my only question is: Do all the people getting married give their adult informed consent? If they do, it's none of my business.

For that matter, if a couple (or polyamorous group) enjoy whips and chains & such in sexual play, if everyone's giving adult, informed consent, explain to me why they shouldn't be allowed to do what they want?

Why is the concept of consent hard?

Figure it out!