Asking this as a Qatari with a polygamous father. My father’s second wife is Swedish and I know it was a tough pill to swallow for her family and friends back home.
Because polygamy has historically been heavily associated with oppression and subjugation of women. Can it be done ethically and responsibly? Maybe in theory, but, on a broad scale, as an institution, that’s never really happened.
More importantly they don’t want to just toss out tax incentives to everyone. That would just be crazy
Polygamy is oppression, as the women don’t have a choice or agency in the relationship.
Polyamory, however, when done ethically, means all parties consent and can leave or modify their relationship with their partner.
They mean the same thing, this is the same kind of stupid discourse of bisexual vs pansexual.
Why is polyandry so frowned upon in Quatar?
1 day old account. This is their first post.
I hate reddit closing.
Let them come. We’re already here and this space is very different from Reddit.
For some reason, monogamy was the default in Europe, and that default goes back thousands of years. There were times when men could have second or more partners, but they were never on the same level as wife and any children born from these unions weren’t entitled to inherit anything from the father. It is just a cultural signifier that goes back before Christianity; Romans were monogamous.
To add to this, Western peoples have slowly redefined marriage over the past century to go from a man and his wife to the union of two people. This has given women more power in marriage while also allowing for same gender marriages, since gender is no longer a defining characteristic of marriage in a Western society. I would see same gender marriages being harder in a polygamous society as gender is hard coded into the rules.
As for the Western aversion to polygamy, you’ve seen a lot of people here describe polygamy as “less civilized”. That belief has been around for centuries, so it isn’t tied to marriage equality For instance, the statehood of Utah was delayed until the Mormon church gave up polygamy.
Ignoring the sexist reasoning behind polygamy, there are practical ones too.
I have one dick.
Its risky to have sex with multiple partners. The more partners, the more that risk of STIs increases.
The amount of intimacy (not sex, intimacy) a spouse gets with a partner decreases the more spouses one has. At some point “starvation of intimacy” will occur, leading to a breakdown in the relationship.
Edit: I’m sorry y’all. This conversation is gross and full of bigoted male-centric talking points. Polyamory is one thing, but polygamy is fully about the man. If you refuse to see that part, you’re just an asshole trying to justify an ancient means of having power over women.
The starvation of intimacy thing is the only reason I would consider a poly relationship because I’ve only ever been with one woman who had a sex drive close to mine. I could have easily gave it to 2-3 of any of the other women I’ve been with as often as they wanted without anyone missing out. I also am fair minded/hypocritical about it though and if I was was allowed to sleep with other people so can they and I’m not interested in a relationship with a woman who sleeps with other dudes so it wouldn’t work. Also doubt I could meet the emotional needs of more than one at a time as I’m terrible at that. I guess that’s what polygamy is for though, the man gets all the benefits and the woman is locked into it more. So that’s shitty.
How does the risk of STIs increases when these are exclusive partners to you, not casual hookups? And the second part is solved by just having good time management and open, efficient communication.
The risk just increases with multiple partners, regardless of “exclusivity.”
And no, the second does not get solved by time management and communication - you literally have less time to spend with each wife.
Out of one year, if you have 100 hours to spend, a truly equal amount of time is 50/50. The man gets 100 hours of intimacy, but each wife is starved of those 50 hours. If you increase the amount of time you can spend to 200 hours, then an equal split is now 100/100 and each wife is starved of 100 hours of intimacy. There is no way to prevent this with multiple partners.
That’s not how STI’s work. You don’t get something if no one has it lol
More partners equals higher risk. Betting on people being honest is peak ignorance or wishful thinking.
Betting on married partners being honest is peak ignorance or wishful thinking
What a sad life you must have
It’s just opsec, dude. When other people’s lives are on the line, that’s how you have to think. Don’t be so judgemental.
It’s opsec to think your partners are lying to you? Why do you care so much. This whole thread needs to date
You seem to think that we can guarantee people have nothing based on what, “trust me bro”?
And how, exactly, do you guarantee exclusivity?
But why exactly? The women only sleep with you, you only sleep with them. The only way I can see the risk increasing is if either you or them cheat, which at that point the cheating is the issue not the polygamy. It… quite literally does. Isn’t the whole of intimacy for all parties involved to feel satisfied and not neglected? Not all people have the same needs, or require the same amount of time be spent with them to feel satisfied and happy. Make sure everybody feels satisfied by openly talking about it.
Wow. So, you acknowledge that there is a chance of anyone cheating? Then the more partners you have, the more likelihood that one of them cheats.
They’re just making things up
There is no such thing as an exclusive partner.
OP your nativity is something to be cherished. I hope you never lose your innocence.
Because it’s primarily a way for (old) societies to foster a war-ready populace. If most women are taken by just a select few men who can afford to, that leaves tons of young males without a mate and prospect of a family.
Those are absolutely prime candidates for the military. So if you know your ideology has a stranglehold on the culture, this is how you generate “unlimited” soldiers for your cause.
Are you trying to describe monogamous societies or polygamous ones?
OP is asking why Western societies frown on polygamy, but you respond by talking about the strategic value of having more readily available cannon fodder - I assume in polygamous cultures, because that’s the only thing that makes sense. A monogamous society, assuming relatively equal M/F birth rates, would have LESS available available military men, by your own description.
I’m not sure how that answers OPs question unless you’re saying that Western societies frown on polygamy because it was SEEN as just a tactic to raise armies?
Dawg it’s clear they mean the elite have more one than psrtner
Are your dads wives allowed to have more than one husband? There’s your answer.
To add to this: If both men and women are allowed to have multiple spouses (which is the only fair way to do it), how do you deal with situations where a husband has multiple wives who has multiple husbands who also have multiple spouses? This sounds like a nightmare from a legal perspective.
I’m not saying I’m against polyamory, do whatever you want, as long as everybody involved is fine with it. It could work legally, if you could get married as a group of n people but then not marry other people individually. But that’s not how polygamy works in Quatar or worked for Mormons. There the husband marries several wives individually and the wives have no say in it.
To add to this: If both men and women are allowed to have multiple spouses (which is the only fair way to do it), how do you deal with situations where a husband has multiple wives who has multiple husbands who also have multiple spouses? This sounds like a nightmare
That sounds Denobulan, LOL.
Ha that was my first thought too!
Imagine if the richest person in the country dies, and it’s time to figure out the inheritance for the spouses, and it turns out the entire country is in effect married in a loooong chain.
This is not how I envisioned socialism and redistribution to work, but I’m okay with it.
Solved with a 100% inheritance tax and UBI
Just have a good ol’ fashioned fuck-off
My mom had it written in her marriage contract that her consent is required for father to take more wives. She had a decisive say in it.
Okay, my bad. But the fact that she had to have it explicitly written in her marriage contract means that it’s not the legal standard and doesn’t apply to every other woman in Quatar. And it still only works because she doesn’t marry anyone else.
True, Qatar’s legal system is based on Islam and Islam entitles a man to max 4 wives concurrently. It’s why you can’t explicitly write in your marriage contract that the husband is not allowed any more wives - that’s his right. You can circumvent this by stating he needs your consent instead. In Islam silence implies consent, so if you don’t specify anything about this it’s taken as “my husband is free to take more wives without consulting me”.
And with that, it shows men are not considered equal to women.
So, in the many countries where women are considered equal, this right of the man only, is not going to fly.
Can she have 4 husbands? If so, I retract.
The fact that you even have to ask this is a problem.
And how could this not be frowned upon by cultures such as Swedish where women and men are regarded as equals?
Edit: It’s not about polygamy per se but about the women’s role this kind of polygamous marriage. I don’t know your family and it might work for everyone involved but that’s where her connection’s worry comes from.
No.
So why do you feel that it’s ok for your dad to have multiple wives, but not for his wives to have multiple husbands? Curious.
Because men and women have different roles as described in the Quran: “Men are the caretakers of women, as men have been provisioned by Allah over women and tasked with supporting them financially. And righteous women are devoutly obedient and, when alone, protective of what Allah has entrusted them with.” - Surah An-Nisa (4:34). I don’t believe this makes men and women any less equal, just different. For example men don’t have the luxury of being provided for that women have. Qatari women only work if they want to and most of the time recreationally/ out of passion, not out of need. Qatari women are provided with household staff by their husbands to make their lives easier. If we’re going to go down the route of “equal = same” then I guess this is discriminatory towards men.
And there is your answer, the civilized world shouldn’t care about what any religious text has to say about this, otherwise I could point at other religious text that says the opposite or encourages Muslims to be stoned to death and claim that should be allowed because it’s in my sacred book.
We decided as a society that we will separate the church from the state, that way there’s freedom of religion and freedom from religion, and this cus both ways, you get to practice your religion but you don’t get to force others into things because your sacred book says so, and in exchange others don’t force you into their sacred rituals.
If you can give an argument for why this should be allowed only for one gender that’s not based on religious text or bigotry and respects the constitution (which in most civilized places says that everyone is equal towards the law) then I would love to hear it, until then the Quran is just a valid argument as the Flying Spaghetti Monster Bible.
Well, in our case the constitution is explicitly based on the Quran - more specifically Islamic scriptures: Quran + hadith (Part 1, Article 1: Islam is official religion of the state, and sharia a principal source of legislation.) The 2 are intertwined.
If we’re going to go down the route of “equal = same” then I guess this is discriminatory towards men.
In that they’re not being “provided for?”
They’re provided sex and usually a bloodline.
How are servants treated, as an aside?
In the way that they don’t get to choose if they want to stay at home and live a relatively leisurely lifestyle or work. That depends on the household.
Thank you for your reply. It seems we were saying the same thing. I’m not inherently against polygamy, but ethical polyandry seems more fair. I’ve never been involved in either, but I’ve experienced exes with side dishes, which is a whole other can of worms. Imo, it’s sexual abuse in that it nonconsensualy exposes the main dish to potential STI, some of those deadly, and takes time and financial resources from the main to give to the side, whereas the main gets all the work and ill temper and the side gets all the benefits.
I’ve been voluntarily celibate for almost four years. I’m neither financially better or worse, but I enjoy a lot more leisure, peace, and have developed an close, accepting relationship with myself, God/the universe/divine/higher self (or however anyone else may view it), and am more accepting of the world at large, with the understanding I can work within limited means toward changing what I can that is important to me.
Most Western societies are much less explicitly based on religious scripture, though as others have noted negative attitudes toward polygamy may be rooted in Christianity. Some Western societies, such as the USA explicitly forbid establishing an official religion, but cultural norms are still based on the dominant religion.
Modern ideas about equality in Western societies are not based on a religion, but on how people decided they want things to work. Until about 50 years ago, women did not have legal equality in many Western countries, and a single woman was often unable to open a bank account, rent an apartment, or get certain jobs. A social movement worked very hard to change both attitudes and laws, and now the majority belief is more or less equal = same.
Qatari women are provided with household staff by their husbands to make their lives easier.
How does this work for people who are not extremely wealthy, such as members of your household staff?
Well, household staff in Qatar are almost exclusively from South / Southeast Asia. They’re not in this sociocultural-religious equation as they’re not locals. They’re just here working as chefs, maids, nannies, drivers, etc. Migrant workers. My family has always treated our staff well and never saw them as beneath us, but I’d be lying if I said there are no families which mistreat their staff.
Work force participation for women in Qatar is 63.3% (https://genderdata.worldbank.org/en/economies/qatar#%3A~%3Atext=In+Qatar%2C+the+labor+force%2Clabor+force+participation+has+increased.) and women outnumber men in universities (https://dohanews.co/qatari-women-outnumber-men-at-local-universities/)
They’re not in this sociocultural-religious equation as they’re not locals.
I think you’ll find the equation would not work if they were removed, so they must be a part of it.
They’re not in this sociocultural-religious equation as they’re not locals.
Yes, they are. The system you described above, of women being provided for and not having to work, only works if you are rich and have poorer people you can exploit to do the childcare and housework for you.
Guess that would be a too big pill to swallow eh?
It boils down to misogyny.
I want OP to answer this, even though i know the answer.
They said “No.”
Thanks!
So the answer is, “no”, but isn’t that obvious? That’s not much of an explanation really. While pithy it’s not very useful.
As others have pointed out, some parts of the West do currently practice polygamy, or have in the past, but the reasons why it’s largely frowned upon aren’t explained in this response.
Because polygamy inside an unequal society like capitalism and monarchies is a form of control and power and most people inherently reject allowing others to have such power if they can help it.
Why are women so frowned upon in your country?
Lots of people talking about religion and culture but I think it can also be inheritance issues. From what I heard modern polygamy leads to some bloodbath inheritance especially when monogamy inheritance is already bad.
Interesting point. In the past, “fair” ways to divide a heritage often led to split kingdoms and fast power loss. That is why societies with “unfair” division rules, like the Vikings where EVERYTHING went to the first-born son, so no divisions, absolutely rocked hard in their primes since they weren’t prone to being weakened every time their ruler died.
I’m fine with it if women are allowed to be polygamous as well.
For religious people - because Christianity allows only one spouse.
For non-religious it has a bad reputation due to the way it used to be practiced in the Arab world (and elsewhere) where it’s not symmetrical - a husband is allowed multiple wives but a wife is not allowed multiple husbands.Lately there has been a rise in acceptance of polyamory - understanding that people may have multiple partners at the same time, and this should be accepted.
Would you want to share a wife with other men?
Most instances of middle eastern polygamy have a heavy element of materialism to them. The women mostly agree because it gives them a higher standard of living, not because they like the concept.
People of Sweden have a relatively high living standard as a baseline so when your father’s second wife decided to do this it was like giving up ‘real’ partnership for some fancy hand bags.
Some people do. If they’re not harming anyone, who the fuck cares what their relationships look like.
That’s a big “if” though…
