argumentative essay polygamy is better than monogamy

Essay on Polygamy Is Better Than Monogamy

Students are often asked to write an essay on Polygamy Is Better Than Monogamy in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Polygamy Is Better Than Monogamy

More support in family life.

Polygamy means being married to more than one person at a time. This can make family life stronger because there are more adults to help with things like money, housework, and taking care of kids. Everyone can share these jobs, so no one gets too tired or stressed.

Diverse Relationships

In polygamy, people enjoy a variety of relationships. Each partner brings different strengths and emotions to the family. This mix can create a rich and fulfilling family life, where each member learns from the others and grows.

Better Child Care

Children in polygamous families often have more than one mother or father figure. This means more love and attention for each child. It can also mean a better upbringing because there are more people to teach them right from wrong.

Economic Benefits

Polygamous families can be better off money-wise. With more adults working, they can make more money. This can mean a better life for the whole family, with more food, a bigger house, and money for school or fun activities.

250 Words Essay on Polygamy Is Better Than Monogamy

Understanding polygamy and monogamy.

Polygamy means being married to more than one person at the same time, while monogamy means being married to only one person. Some people believe polygamy has benefits over monogamy.

Sharing Responsibilities

In polygamy, chores and responsibilities can be shared among the partners. This can make life easier because one person does not have to do everything. For example, in a house with many adults, they can take turns cooking, cleaning, and taking care of children.

Financial Support

With more than one adult working, a polygamous family can have more money. More money means the family can afford better things like a nice house, good food, and education for the children.

Children Have More Care

Children in polygamous families often have more than two adults to look after them. This means they can get more love and help with their problems. If one parent is busy, another can step in to help the child.

Social Bonds

Polygamy can create strong social bonds. Since the family is big, people can help each other in tough times. They can also enjoy celebrations and holidays together, making life more joyful.

Polygamy has its advantages, like shared work, more money, and a big support system. It can make life easier and happier for some people. It is important to remember that the choice between polygamy and monogamy depends on what works best for the individuals involved.

500 Words Essay on Polygamy Is Better Than Monogamy

When people decide to spend their lives together, they often choose between two types of relationships: polygamy and monogamy. Polygamy means being married to more than one person at the same time, while monogamy means being married to only one person. Some believe that polygamy can be better than monogamy. This essay will discuss why they think so, using simple words and ideas.

Support and Help in a Polygamous Family

In a polygamous family, there are more adults to take care of the children and the house. This means the work can be shared. If one person is busy or sick, others can help with cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the kids. This teamwork can make life easier for everyone in the family. It’s like having a big team where each player has a special role, and they all work together to win the game.

Financial Benefits

More adults in a family also mean more people can earn money. In a polygamous setup, if one person loses their job, the family still has other sources of income. This can make the family stronger in tough times, like a boat with many anchors, which is safer in a storm than a boat with just one.

Children Have More Guidance

Children in a polygamous family can get love and learning from more than just two parents. They have a bigger group of adults to teach them right from wrong and help with their schoolwork. It’s like having more coaches in a sports team, which can help the players become better and stronger.

Social and Cultural Reasons

In many cultures, polygamy is a traditional way of life. It is part of their history and helps keep communities strong. People in these cultures can have large families with many relatives. This creates a sense of belonging and support that is very important to them. It’s like being part of a big club where everyone knows each other and looks out for one another.

Personal Choices and Happiness

Finally, some people just feel happier in a polygamous relationship. They like having the company and friendship of more than one partner. Everyone is different, and what makes one person happy might not work for another. It’s important for people to choose the kind of relationship that feels right for them, just like choosing the right clothes to wear.

In conclusion, while some prefer to be with just one partner, others find that being with more than one can bring many benefits. Polygamy can offer support, financial stability, more guidance for children, and can be a part of cultural practices. It can also make some people happier. It’s important to remember that the best type of relationship is the one where all people involved feel loved, respected, and happy, whether it’s polygamy or monogamy.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Politics And Society
• Essay on Political Socialization
• Essay on Political Ideology

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

The Pros and Cons of Polygamy

Is there a link between polygamy and social unrest.

Posted January 4, 2018 | Reviewed by Kaja Perina

• Making Marriage Work
• Find a marriage therapist near me
• Polygyny may benefit the women involved, who may come to enjoy one another’s company and share out the burdens of housekeeping and childrearing.
• Younger wives may add to the status and standing of the first wife, while at the same time subtracting from her responsibilities.
• Polygyny sanctions and perpetuates gender inequality, with co-wives officially and patently subordinated to their husband.

[Article updated on 25 April 2020.]

In the state of nature, people were generally polygamous, as are most animals. With many animals, the male leaves the female soon after mating and long before any offspring are born.

According to genetic studies, it is only relatively recently, about 10,000 years ago, that monogamy began to prevail over polygamy in human populations. Monogamous unions may have developed in tandem with sedentary agriculture, helping to maintain land and property within the same narrow kin group.

Polygamy may enable a male to sire more offspring, but monogamy can, in certain circumstances, represent a more successful overall reproductive strategy. By sticking with the same female, a male is able to ensure that the female’s offspring are also his, and prevent this offspring from being killed by male rivals intent on returning the female to fertility (breastfeeding being a natural contraceptive).

Historically, most cultures that permitted polygamy permitted polygyny (a man taking two or more wives) rather than polyandry (a woman taking two or more husbands).

In the Gallic War , Julius Cæsar claimed that, among ancient Britons, ‘ten and even twelve men have wives in common’, particularly brothers, or fathers and sons—which to me sounds more like group marriage than polyandry proper.

Let’s talk about the rarer polyandry first. Polyandry is typically tied to scarcity of land and resources, as, for example, in certain parts of the Himalayas, and serves to limit population growth. If it involves several brothers married to the one wife (fraternal polyandry), it also protects the family’s land from division.

In Europe, this was generally achieved through the feudal rule of primogeniture (‘first born’), still practised among the British aristocracy, by which the eldest legitimate son inherits the entire estate (or almost) of both his parents. Primogeniture has antecedents in the Bible, with, most notably, Esau selling his ‘birthright’ to his younger brother Jacob.

Today, most countries that permit polygamy—invariably in the form of polygyny—are countries with a Muslim majority or sizeable Muslim minority. In some countries, such as India, polygamy is legal only for Muslims. In others, such as Russia and South Africa, it is illegal but not criminalized.

Under Islamic marital jurisprudence, a man can take up to four wives, so long as he treats them all equally. While it is true that Islam permits polygyny, it does not require or impose it: marriage can only occur by mutual consent, and a bride is able to stipulate that her husband-to-be is not to take a second wife. Monogamy is by far the norm in Muslim societies, as most men cannot afford to maintain more than one family, and many of those who could would rather not. That said, polygyny remains very common across much of West Africa.

Polygamy is illegal and criminalized across Europe and the Americas, as well as in China, Australia, and other countries. Even so, there are many instances of polygamy in the West, especially within immigrant communities and certain religious groups such as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS Church) and other Mormon fundamentalists.

So what are the pros and cons of polygamy (or polygyny)? A man who takes more than one wife satisfies more of his sexual appetites, signals high social status, and generally feels better about himself. His many children supply him with a ready source of labour, and the means, through arranged marriages, to create multiple, reliable, and durable social, economic, and political alliances. Polygyny may be costly, but in the long term it can make a rich man richer still.

Even in monogamous societies, powerful men often establish long-term sexual relationships with women other than their wives (concubinage), although in this case the junior partners and their children born to them do not enjoy the same legal protections as the ‘legitimate’ wife and children.

Louis XIV of France, the Sun King, had a great number of mistresses, both official and unofficial. His chief mistress at any one time carried the title of maîtresse-en-titre , and the most celebrated one, Françoise-Athénaïs, Marquise de Montespan, bore him no fewer than seven children.

In some cases, a man might get divorced to marry a much younger woman (serial monogamy), thereby monopolizing the reproductive lifespan of more than one woman without suffering the social stigma of polygamy.

As I argue in my book, For Better For Worse , if divorce has become so common, it is in part because people are living for much longer, whereas in the past death would have done the job of divorce. ‘Till death do us part’ means a great deal more today than it ever did.

Polygyny might even benefit the women involved, who may come to enjoy one another’s company and share out the burdens of housekeeping and childrearing. Younger wives may add to the status and standing of the first wife, while at the same time subtracting from her responsibilities. In times of war, with high male absenteeism and mortality, polygyny supports population growth and replenishment by ensuring that every female can find a mate.

But of course, polygyny also has drawbacks, especially when viewed through a modern, Western lens.

First and foremost, polygyny sanctions and perpetuates gender inequality, with co-wives officially and patently subordinated to their husband.

Women in polygynous unions tend to marry at a younger age, into a setup that, by its very nature, fosters jealousy , competition , and conflict, with instances of co-wives poisoning one another’s offspring in a bid to further their own.

Although the husband ought in principle to treat his co-wives equally, in practice he will almost inevitably favour one over the others—most likely the youngest, most recent one.

Tensions may be reduced by establishing a clear hierarchy among the co-wives, or if the co-wives are sisters (sororal polygyny), or if they each keep a separate household (hut polygyny).

While polygyny may benefit the men involved, it denies wives to other men, especially young, low-status men, who, like all men, tend to measure their success by their manhood, that is, by the twin parameters of social status and fertility.

With little to lose or look forward to, these frustrated men are much more likely to turn to crime and violence, including sexual violence and warmongering. It is perhaps telling that polygamy is practiced in almost all of the 20 most unstable countries on the Fragile States Index.

All this is only aggravated by the brideprice, a payment from the groom to the bride’s family. Brideprice is a frequent feature of polygynous unions and is intended to compensate the bride’s family for the loss of a pair of hands.

Divorce typically requires that the brideprice be returned, leaving many women with no choice but to remain in miserable or abusive marriages.

If polygynous unions are common, the resulting shortage of brides inflates the brideprice, raising the age at which young men can afford to marry while incentivizing families to hive off their daughters at the soonest opportunity, even at the cost of interrupting their education .

Brideprice is often paid in cows, leading some young men to resort to cattle raids and other forms of crime. Gang leaders and warlords attract new recruits with the promise of a bride or an offer to cover their brideprice.

Polygyny also tends to disadvantage the offspring. On the one hand, children in polygamous families share in the genes of an alpha male and stand to benefit from his protection, resources, influence, outlook, and expertise.

But on the other hand, their mothers are younger and less educated, and they receive a divided share of their father’s attention , which may be directed at his latest wife, or at amassing resources for his next one.

They are also at greater risk of violence from their kin group, particularly the extended family. Overall, the infant mortality in polygynous families is considerably higher than in monogamous families.

So draw your own conclusions.

See my related post, " Polyamory: A New Way of Loving ."

Dupanloup I et al. (2003): A recent shift from polygyny to monogamy in humans is suggested by the analysis of worldwide Y-chromosome diversity. J Mol Evol. 57(1):85–97.

Fragile-States Index 2017. The Fund for Peace; DHS; MICS.

Neel Burton, M.D. , is a psychiatrist, philosopher, and writer who lives and teaches in Oxford, England.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Advertisement

Supported by

Ivory Tower

Love in the Time of Monogamy

• Share full article

By James Ryerson

• April 5, 2016

It’s hard to say how many people in the United States practice polygamy — estimates vary widely, from 20,000 to half a million — but it’s clear most of their fellow Americans disapprove. In a 2013 Gallup poll about morally controversial issues, a mere 14 percent of the public said they accepted polygamy (only adultery and cloning humans had lower approval rates). An earlier poll found two-thirds of the public felt the government had a right to outlaw the practice, which typically takes the form of a married man also living in a marriage-type relationship with other women. So don’t read too much into the popularity of TV shows like “Sister Wives” and “Big Love.” The country is not ready for plural marriage.

Certainly that was a bet Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was willing to make last year. In his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that recognized a right to same-sex marriage, he sought to capitalize on widespread discomfort with polygamy: “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” The majority had outlined a right to marriage that could not be constrained by historical definitions or legislative whim. But if there was nothing special, legally speaking, about the man-­woman aspect of traditional marriage, what was so special about the two-person aspect?

Roberts intended his argument as a reductio ad absurdum, assuming that defenders of same-sex marriage would be alarmed by the implication. While some rose to the bait — the same-sex marriage advocate Jonathan Rauch, for example, was quick to offer arguments for why polygamy was different — other progressive thinkers, like the political philosopher Elizabeth Brake, embraced the opportunity to explore novel possibilities for marriage reform. In the essay collection AFTER MARRIAGE: Rethinking Marital Relationships (Oxford University, paper, $29.95), edited by Brake, she and nine other philosophers consider what further consequences might be implied by the principles of the same-sex-marriage movement — ­including, notably, the “disestablishment of marriage itself.”

As traditionally understood, a liberal state lets individuals decide for themselves, whenever possible, how to live, and so it can’t justify its policies solely by appeal to controversial moral doctrines. Yet only such doctrines, progressives have argued, could justify limiting the benefits of marriage to male-female couples (or, in an earlier era, to single-race couples). Extending this logic, Brake suggests that the same principle forbids the state to limit the benefits of marriage to romantic-love dyads — which represent just another “controversial conception of the good.” Surely, she speculates, there are other legal arrangements, less exclusive and less burdened by their history than the institution of monogamous marriage, which could offer support to adult partners, children and caregivers. Contributors to her volume entertain some possibilities: relegating marriage to private contract; replacing marriage with a parenting agreement; modeling marriage on friendship instead of romantic unions; recognizing temporary marriages (those intended to last for only a set time); and allowing polygamy.

Not all the essays are so strenuously avant-garde. One of the more nuanced pieces, by the philosopher Peter de Marneffe, articulates a liberal position on polygamy that opposes its legalization but also its criminalization. The government, according to this view, may legitimately withhold the benefits of marriage from adults in polygamous relationships (on grounds that such relationships characteristically deprive children of material and emotional resources from their father), but may not prosecute them, as is currently possible in some states, for polygamous cohabitation (because this is private consensual sexual activity). Here, de Marneffe finds himself in agreement with the law professor Deborah L. Rhode. In ADULTERY: Infidelity and the Law (Harvard University, $28.95), Rhode concludes that “perhaps the most plausible solution” to the problem of polygamy is partial legalization: invalidating criminal laws against cohabitation but retaining the prohibition on multiple marriage licenses.

In the United States, polygamy is technically a form of adultery, since it involves sexual relations between a married person and someone who is not his or her legal spouse. Adultery remains illegal in 21 states. Rhode, though no fan of adultery, argues that it should not be prohibited by law, because such laws infringe on our constitutionally protected right to privacy — and have proved woefully ineffective, in any event, at protecting the institution of marriage. Laws criminalizing polygamous cohabitation have comparable flaws, she observes.

Rhode is sympathetic to efforts to get the government out of people’s bedrooms, and she even notes that polygamy sometimes offers benefits, and not just to the men involved: “Some Mormon women consider polygamy a solution to such difficulties as single motherhood, poverty, loneliness and work/family conflicts.” And among some African-American women, she reports, an arrangement known as “man sharing” is considered a route to family stability in communities where high rates of imprisonment and unemployment have created a shortage of potential husbands. But Rhode also cites evidence of practical problems with formally legalizing polygamy. After World War II, France, looking to increase its labor supply, allowed the immigration of polygamous families from Africa — only to encounter difficulties with coerced marriages and excessive demand for government benefits.

Aside from questioning the legal status of polygamy, you might also wonder about its biological status — whether it is a “natural” state of affairs for humans. In OUT OF EDEN: The Surprising Consequences of Polygamy (Oxford University, $29.95), the evolutionary psychologist David P. Barash tackles this issue. Surveying the anthropological, biological and psychological evidence, he argues that humans, like most mammals, are not built for monogamy. Evolutionarily speaking, polygamy was the “default setting for human intimacy,” and polygyny — an arrangement in which a man mates with a harem of wives — remains our biological inclination. Barash is aware that such a claim about human nature will sound retrograde. But the facts, he insists, are the facts.

Barash cites four major pieces of evidence. The first is that in polygynous species, males are generally larger than females, because of the need to compete for access to females. The greater the degree of polygyny, the larger the size difference. (Orangutans are quite polygynous, and the male is 25 to 50 percent larger than the female; gibbons are close to monogamous, and the body sizes of males and females are roughly equal.) The size difference of male and female human beings has suggested to biologists like E.O. Wilson that humans are “moderately polygynous” by nature.

Second, in polygynous species, males are more inclined than females toward violence and physical aggression — and Barash’s analysis finds that the ratio between men and women as perpetrators of violent crime is about 10 to 1 across every state in the United States and every country with available data. The third relevant fact is that in polygynous species, females become sexually and socially mature at a younger age than males do (which is also true of humans). And finally, there is the historical record: DNA retrieved from early human fossils, for example, reveals a disparity between a low diversity of Y chromosomes (which are inherited from fathers only) and a high diversity of mitochondrial DNA (which is inherited from mothers only), suggesting that a relatively few men contributed a relatively large fraction of genetic material.

Let’s assume Barash is right and humans are polygamous by nature. So what? To his credit, Barash does not argue that because polygamy is natural it is desirable. Nor does he imply that monogamy is a stifling social convention imposed on our free animal natures. On the contrary, he notes that monogamy has many advantages as a marital lifestyle (chiefly, it better promotes paternal love and devotion). Monogamy may not be natural, he explains, but “some of the best things we do aren’t those that ‘come naturally.’ ” The trouble is that doing those unnatural things — learning a second language as an adult, avoiding sugary foods — isn’t easy. If we want to live monogamously, we will be more successful, Barash suggests, if we are honest about the biological forces we are up against.

James Ryerson is a senior staff editor for The Times’s Op-Ed page.

Explore More in Books

Want to know about the best books to read and the latest news start here..

A few years ago, Harvard acquired the archive of Candida Royalle, a porn star turned pioneering director. Now, the collection has inspired a new book  challenging the conventional history of the sexual revolution.

Gabriel García Márquez wanted his final novel to be destroyed. Its publication this month  may stir questions about posthumous releases.

Tessa Hulls’s “Feeding Ghosts” chronicles how China’s history shaped her family. But first, she had to tackle some basics: Learn history. Learn Chinese. Learn how to draw comics.

James Baldwin wrote with the kind of clarity that was as comforting as it was chastising. His writing — pointed, critical, angry — is imbued with love. Here’s where to start with his works .

Do you want to be a better reader?   Here’s some helpful advice to show you how to get the most out of your literary endeavor .

Each week, top authors and critics join the Book Review’s podcast to talk about the latest news in the literary world. Listen here .

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Sociology Polygamy

Monogamy And Polygamy: No Wrong Way To Love

Table of contents, introduction:, drivers for social monogamy:, infanticide, encephalization, and lactation:, sexually transmitted infections:, common features of socially monogamous species:, conclusions:, dispersal, density, and feeding:, reduced sexual dimorphism:, paternal care:, neurobiology of socially monogamous characteristics:.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Generation X
• Anthropology

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

• Remember me Not recommended on shared computers

Forgot your password?

Or sign in with one of these services

By Willard Marsh

By Willard Marsh • October 20, 2023

Everything You Need to Know About Monogamy Vs. Polygamy

When it comes to relationships, the words 'monogamy' and 'polygamy' often stir up strong emotions and opinions. The choice between monogamy and polygamy isn't just a matter of personal preference—it can be a complex interplay of cultural, religious, and emotional factors. If you find yourself wondering about the distinctions and implications of "polygamy vs monogamy," you're in the right place. In this article, we delve deep into these relationship styles, weighing the pros and cons, and providing expert insights to help you make an informed decision.

Whether you're single, in a relationship, or exploring new romantic avenues, understanding the fundamental differences between monogamy and polygamy can offer valuable insights into your own relational dynamics. Buckle up as we explore this fascinating topic!

Now, I'm not here to say one is better than the other. That's a subjective decision you'll have to make for yourself, based on a myriad of factors that are unique to you. But what I am here to do is lay out the facts and perspectives that can help guide you in your choice.

The topic of polygamy vs monogamy can be fraught with misunderstandings, and it's often shrouded in societal expectations and judgments. Our aim is to break through that fog and give you the clarity you need.

Before we dive into the specifics, let's set some groundwork by defining what monogamy and polygamy actually are. This is crucial because misunderstandings often arise from unclear or preconceived notions about these terms.

Let's begin, shall we?

Defining Monogamy and Polygamy

The most basic definition of monogamy involves two partners being in a romantic and/or sexual relationship exclusively with each other. Monogamy is often considered the 'norm' in many Western societies, but it's crucial to remember that this has not always been the case throughout human history or across all cultures.

Polygamy, on the other hand, involves one person having multiple spouses or partners simultaneously. There are different forms of polygamy, such as polygyny (one man, multiple wives) and polyandry (one woman, multiple husbands), and there can also be egalitarian forms where all partners are considered equal.

It's important to note that polygamy is often confused with polyamory, though the two are not the same. Polyamory is a broader term that refers to having multiple emotional or sexual relationships, with the consent and knowledge of everyone involved. Polygamy typically refers more specifically to multiple marriages or long-term commitments.

Understanding these definitions is the first step in exploring the larger implications of polygamy vs monogamy. Once we are clear on these terms, we can delve into the rich tapestry of history, society, religion, psychology, and law that further shape these relationship models.

There's often an underlying assumption that monogamy is somehow more 'natural' or 'normal' than polygamy. However, both have existed for millennia, and both have their unique sets of advantages and disadvantages, which we'll delve into in subsequent sections.

In short, neither is inherently 'better' than the other; they are simply different ways of structuring relationships. Your personal happiness and fulfillment in either will largely depend on your own values, beliefs, and needs.

Historical Context of Monogamy and Polygamy

The history of monogamy and polygamy is as diverse as the cultures that practice them. In ancient times, polygamy was relatively common, especially among rulers, nobility, and societies where the male to female ratio was skewed due to warfare. On the other hand, monogamy gained prominence as societies became more focused on individual property rights and inheritance.

In Ancient Greece and Rome, for instance, monogamy was the norm among citizens, although extramarital affairs were often tolerated for men. The rise of Christianity further entrenched monogamy as the ideal, as it was closely aligned with Christian teachings on marriage and fidelity.

However, even as monogamy became more prevalent in the West, polygamy continued to be practiced in various other parts of the world, such as Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. It's also essential to note that Indigenous cultures across the Americas had diverse marital and relational practices that included both monogamy and polygamy.

Today, monogamy is often seen as the default option in many Western societies, thanks in part to both religious influence and laws that prohibit polygamy. However, polygamous relationships are still widespread in many other parts of the world, both legally and socially accepted.

The understanding of "polygamy vs monogamy" throughout history isn't just an academic exercise. It provides context for why we might feel societal pressure to choose one over the other and why certain emotional or logistical issues may arise in either relationship style.

When weighing the pros and cons of polygamy vs monogamy, it's essential to recognize that no single approach to relationships is universally superior to the other. Both have evolved for specific societal and historical reasons, and both have their unique benefits and challenges.

Societal Perceptions: Monogamy Vs. Polygamy

Society has a significant influence on how we perceive relationships, and the societal views on monogamy and polygamy can be markedly different. In Western cultures, monogamy is often hailed as the pinnacle of emotional maturity and commitment. Polygamy, meanwhile, can be stigmatized and seen as 'lesser'—often considered either exotic or morally questionable.

This perception is deeply embedded in our media, laws, and social norms. Monogamous relationships are usually celebrated and idealized in movies, books, and TV shows, while polygamous relationships are often portrayed as problematic or confined to specific, 'exotic' cultures.

There's also a considerable amount of misinformation and stereotypes surrounding polygamy, which contributes to its stigmatization. For example, people often mistakenly conflate polygamy with a lack of commitment, exploitation, or deceit, which is not necessarily the case.

However, attitudes are slowly changing. With the rise of ethical non-monogamy and polyamory in Western society, there's a growing movement to re-examine the complexities and potential benefits of multiple partnerships. Online communities and educational resources on ethical non-monogamy have also contributed to a nuanced understanding of what polygamous relationships can look like.

If you're evaluating polygamy vs monogamy, it's vital to separate societal perceptions from the reality of each relationship style. Understand that choosing either doesn't make you more or less committed, ethical, or loving—it's all about what aligns with your values and lifestyle.

One can argue that the winds are shifting, and as they do, we might see a society that's more accepting of different forms of love and commitment. Nevertheless, it's crucial to make your relationship choices based on your own needs and not solely on societal expectations.

Pros and Cons of Monogamy

Monogamy has its distinct set of advantages and disadvantages, which can vary based on individual circumstances. One of the most cited benefits is the emotional security and intimacy that can develop between two committed partners. With only one partner to focus on, you can, in theory, build a deeper, more meaningful connection.

Additionally, monogamy often aligns with societal norms, making it easier to navigate family expectations , social functions, and even legal matters like inheritance and healthcare decisions. There's a sort of "built-in" societal support system for monogamous couples, which can make life easier in various ways.

However, monogamy is not without its challenges. For some, the exclusivity can feel stifling or limiting, leading to issues like resentment or boredom. Additionally, there's the often-mentioned issue of infidelity . The exclusivity of monogamy can sometimes lead to unrealistic expectations around sexual and emotional needs, which, when unmet, may result in one or both partners seeking fulfillment elsewhere.

It's also worth mentioning that the notion of 'forever' can be both a blessing and a curse in monogamous unions. While the commitment can provide a sense of security and continuity, it can also create pressure to make the relationship work at all costs, sometimes leading to prolonged unhealthy dynamics.

The decision to pursue monogamy should be carefully considered, with an understanding of both its potential rewards and pitfalls. Think of it not as the default option but as a choice that comes with its own set of responsibilities and challenges.

While weighing polygamy vs monogamy, it's essential to ask yourself what you're looking for in a relationship and how you envision your future. The answer to these questions can often provide a clue as to which relationship style may be more suitable for you.

Pros and Cons of Polygamy

Just as with monogamy, polygamy comes with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. One of the key benefits is the diversified emotional support and love one can receive from multiple partners. Different partners can fulfill different needs, making the relationship dynamic less susceptible to stagnation.

Polygamy also offers a broader network of support when it comes to practical matters like childcare, financial stability, and emotional support. In cultures where polygamy is socially accepted, it can also offer a sense of community and social cohesion.

However, polygamy is not without its challenges. It requires a high level of emotional intelligence, open communication, and logistical management. Balancing time, attention, and emotional resources among multiple partners can be exhausting, not to mention the possibility of jealousy and rivalry arising between partners.

Moreover, polygamous relationships often face social scrutiny and stigmatization, particularly in societies where monogamy is the norm. This societal pressure can add an additional layer of complexity, affecting your professional life, social standing, and even your legal status in some jurisdictions.

Also, it's worth mentioning that the dynamics of power and fairness can get complicated. In some forms of polygamy, like polygyny, where one man has multiple wives, there can be an unequal distribution of power, resources, and emotional support, which can lead to exploitation or neglect.

When considering polygamy vs monogamy, take time to evaluate how well you handle complex emotional dynamics and whether the benefits of multiple partnerships outweigh the challenges for you. It's not a decision to be taken lightly but should align with your personal values, lifestyle, and emotional needs.

Religious and Cultural Dimensions

The practice of monogamy or polygamy often aligns with religious or cultural beliefs, adding another layer of complexity to the decision-making process. For instance, certain branches of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have explicit teachings about the 'correct' form of marital or relational arrangement.

In Mormonism, although mainstream Latter-day Saints have abandoned the practice, some fundamentalist groups continue to practice polygamy. Islamic traditions allow a man to have up to four wives, provided he can treat them all equally. In contrast, most Christian denominations advocate for monogamy, citing various biblical passages as the foundation of this belief.

Hinduism and Buddhism generally promote monogamy but are less prescriptive, offering room for interpretation and individual choice. Indigenous religions and African traditional religions can vary widely, with some communities practicing polygamy as a norm.

Your religious or cultural background might play a significant role in how you approach the polygamy vs monogamy debate. It's crucial to determine how much weight you give to these teachings and traditions and whether they align with your personal beliefs and circumstances.

For some, the teachings of their faith or the traditions of their culture are guiding principles that they cannot overlook. For others, personal experience and emotional needs might take precedence. There's no right or wrong approach, but it's a significant aspect to consider.

If you find yourself torn between your cultural or religious beliefs and your personal desires or needs, it may be helpful to consult with a spiritual advisor or a counselor familiar with these dimensions. Sometimes an external perspective can provide invaluable insights into what could work best for you.

Legal Implications

Before diving into either a monogamous or polygamous relationship, it's crucial to be aware of the legal ramifications , which can vary significantly depending on your jurisdiction. In many Western countries, for example, polygamy is illegal and could lead to criminal charges. Monogamous marriages, on the other hand, are not only legally recognized but often come with various benefits like tax breaks, inheritance rights, and shared healthcare plans.

Even in countries where polygamy is legal, there are often restrictions and conditions that must be met. For example, in some Islamic countries, a man must obtain the consent of his existing wife or wives before marrying another woman. Failure to meet these conditions can result in legal consequences.

Aside from formal legalities, there are also "soft" legal issues to consider. For example, in a polygamous setting, how are property and assets divided? What happens in the event of a breakup or, worse, the death of one partner ? These issues can become incredibly complicated without the guidance of legal norms or precedents.

Legal considerations should not be the sole factor in your decision, but they are crucial. Ignoring them could not only lead to legal trouble but also put emotional and financial strain on your relationships. Always consult a legal advisor familiar with family law in your jurisdiction when considering polygamy vs monogamy.

It's also wise to think about the long-term legal implications. Laws change, and social attitudes shift. What is illegal or stigmatized today might not be so in the future, and vice versa. Always stay updated on the legal landscape as it pertains to your relationship choices.

Ultimately, the legal framework surrounding monogamy and polygamy serves as another layer in an already complex decision-making process. It's essential to be aware and make informed choices to protect yourself and your loved ones.

Psychological Aspects: Jealousy, Trust, and Commitment

Both monogamy and polygamy present unique psychological challenges and rewards. One of the most discussed aspects is jealousy. Monogamous relationships aren't immune to jealousy; however, in polygamous arrangements, the emotion can become amplified as you're sharing your partner with other people. Effective communication and emotional intelligence become crucial in managing jealousy constructively.

Trust, on the other hand, plays an integral role in both relationship styles. Monogamy often provides a simplified framework for building trust as you're committing to one person. In polygamy, trust must be established with multiple partners, which can be both rewarding and challenging.

Commitment is another psychological factor that varies between these relationship types. In monogamy, commitment generally implies exclusivity. In polygamous relationships, the definition of commitment is less straightforward and can mean different things to different people. It usually involves a distinct set of boundaries agreed upon by all parties.

These psychological aspects can either be hurdles or opportunities for growth, depending on your perspective. If you're someone who values a higher level of emotional complexity, polygamy offers a playground for developing sophisticated interpersonal skills. On the flip side, if you're seeking emotional security and a more straightforward emotional landscape, monogamy might be more your speed.

It's essential to be aware of your emotional limits and needs when contemplating polygamy vs monogamy. If you have a history of insecurity or possessive tendencies, a polygamous relationship could exacerbate those issues. A mental health professional can offer valuable insights into your emotional readiness for either relationship type.

It's not uncommon for people to experiment with both monogamy and polygamy at different stages of their lives. Your psychological needs can change, and it's entirely acceptable to transition between different forms of relationships as you grow emotionally and psychologically.

Expert Opinions on Polygamy Vs. Monogamy

Experts in the field of psychology and sociology have varied opinions on the subject of polygamy vs monogamy. Dr. Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist, argues that humans are naturally inclined toward serial monogamy, punctuated by cheating. On the other hand, Dr. Elisabeth Sheff, a sociologist who has extensively studied polyamorous families, argues that ethical non-monogamy can offer more sustainable and fulfilling relationships for some individuals.

It's worth noting that professional opinions can be influenced by cultural and individual biases, so take them as part of a larger mosaic of information. They should not replace your personal experiences or emotional needs but can offer valuable frameworks for understanding the complexities of different relationship styles.

Another facet that experts often discuss is the ethical aspect of each relationship style. Ethical monogamy and ethical non-monogamy both require consent, honesty, and mutual respect. It's not the number of partners that makes a relationship ethical or unethical, but how parties treat each other.

Despite academic debates, there's a general consensus that no one-size-fits-all answer exists. Both monogamy and polygamy have their merits and downsides, and what works for one person may not work for another. The key takeaway from expert opinions is the encouragement to introspect and choose a path that aligns with your individual circumstances.

Importantly, experts stress the necessity of open communication in any relationship model. A recurring theme in scholarly work is that communication can make or break the success of your relationship, irrespective of its structure. Expert opinions can offer a guide, but the most essential voice to listen to is your own and those of your partner or partners.

Both monogamy and polygamy come with their unique sets of challenges and benefits. Many experts stress that the most critical aspect is to be honest with yourself and your partners, whether you have one or many. Openness, communication, and respect are the pillars of any successful relationship, be it monogamous or polygamous.

Scientific Research and Statistical Data

The scientific community has also weighed in on the polygamy vs monogamy debate, although the research is often culturally and regionally specific. For instance, a study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that children in polygamous families experienced similar outcomes to those in monogamous families when socioeconomic factors were controlled for.

Another study, focusing on sexual health, discovered that monogamous couples reported higher levels of sexual satisfaction compared to polygamous couples, but the latter reported higher levels of emotional satisfaction. It suggests that the psychological fulfillment derived from relationships can be multi-faceted and dependent on individual expectations and needs.

It's also worth noting that evolutionary biology offers differing perspectives. Some argue that humans are naturally inclined towards monogamy because it ensures a stable environment for child-rearing. Others suggest that early human societies were likely polygamous, emphasizing the natural diversity in human mating strategies.

Statistics also play a role in understanding societal trends. According to a 2016 study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, younger generations are increasingly interested in forms of non-monogamy, although the majority still prefer monogamous arrangements.

Scientific research and statistical data provide valuable insights but should not dictate your personal choices. These studies offer general trends and findings, not definitive answers. Your unique circumstances, emotional needs, and life situation should be the ultimate determining factors in your choice between polygamy and monogamy.

It's also important to approach scientific studies critically. Look at who funded the study, the size and diversity of the sample, and whether the research has been peer-reviewed. These factors can influence the validity of the study and, consequently, how much weight you should give to its findings in your personal decision-making process.

Practical Tips for Choosing Between Monogamy and Polygamy

So you've absorbed the historical context, societal perspectives, expert opinions, and scientific research on polygamy vs monogamy. Now, it's time to think practically about what choice is right for you. First and foremost, let's talk about self-awareness. Take stock of your emotional needs, levels of jealousy, and desire for commitment. These are the core elements that will inform your decision.

Next, consider what you're willing to invest in terms of time and emotional labor. Polygamous relationships often require more time and emotional investment across multiple partners. Monogamous relationships are not necessarily simpler; they have their own challenges but are often less logistically complicated.

Let's also touch upon the importance of trial and error. While it might sound a bit unromantic, many people find their preference through experience. It's perfectly okay to try out both monogamy and polygamy to see what suits you better, as long as you're honest and upfront with your partners about your intentions and uncertainties.

Communication is key, no matter which path you choose. In polygamous relationships, you'll need to discuss boundaries, emotional commitments, and time allocations. In monogamous ones, conversations around exclusivity, future plans, and mutual emotional needs are vital. In both cases, openness will mitigate misunderstandings and set the foundation for a healthy relationship.

Consult external resources. Whether it's books, relationship coaches, or mental health professionals, don't hesitate to seek external guidance. The experiences and insights from others can provide you with valuable perspectives that you might not have considered.

Lastly, remember that your choice isn't irreversible. People grow and change, and so can your relationship preferences. What's crucial is to be honest—both with yourself and your partners—every step of the way. You're not locked into any decision forever, and it's okay to reassess as you move along in your life's journey.

The choice between monogamy and polygamy is a deeply personal one and varies from individual to individual. Armed with historical context, societal perceptions, expert opinions, and scientific data, you're now better equipped to make an informed decision.

Both relationship styles come with their own sets of challenges and rewards, and neither is inherently better or worse than the other. What ultimately matters is what aligns with your emotional needs, life circumstances, and personal beliefs.

One of the most significant takeaways from this exploration is the importance of self-awareness and communication. Regardless of how many partners you have or want to have, understanding yourself and talking openly with your partners are the keys to a successful and fulfilling relationship.

The debate between polygamy and monogamy is a nuanced and complex one, enriched by historical practices, religious beliefs, and contemporary societal norms. While you can draw from these various factors, remember that the most important voice in this discussion is yours.

Be aware that your choices will have implications—not just for you but for your current or future partners. Treat them with the respect and openness you would want in return. It's an ongoing process, and it's completely okay to evolve in your preferences and needs.

As you make your decision, always remember: the goal is to choose the path that offers you the most joy, fulfillment, and emotional satisfaction. Whether that path leads you to monogamy or polygamy, the most important thing is that it's yours to take.

Further Reading

1. "The Ethical Slut: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships & Other Adventures" by Dossie Easton and Janet W. Hardy - A seminal book that delves into the practicalities and ethics of non-monogamous relationships.

2. "Mating in Captivity: Unlocking Erotic Intelligence" by Esther Perel - This book offers a nuanced look at the complexities of sustaining desire and intimacy in long-term relationships, including monogamous ones.

3. "Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships" by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá - An anthropological take on human relationships, challenging conventional wisdom about monogamy.

User Feedback

Recommended comments.

There are no comments to display.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Already have an account? Sign in here.

• Notice: Some articles on enotalone.com are a collaboration between our human editors and generative AI. We prioritize accuracy and authenticity in our content.

7 Secrets to Seduce Your Husband

By Olivia Sanders , in Marriage , February 27

What is the Best Age for Getting Married?

By Gustavo Richards , in Marriage , February 17

12 Keys to Being the Perfect Wife (And Loving It!)

By Olivia Sanders , in Marriage , February 13

Why Narcissistic Husbands Don't Want Their Wives To Be Free

By Matthew Frank , in Marriage , February 9

12 Signs Your Marriage Is Really Over

By Willard Marsh , in Marriage , February 8

7 Steps to Navigate Last Name Decisions in Relationships

By Natalie Garcia , in Marriage , February 5

No intimacy in my marriage

By Notin1 , March 10 in Marriage/Long Term Relationships

• Wednesday at 06:50 PM

Sexless marriage due to husband watching gay and transexual porn

By Spellman , February 29 in Marriage/Long Term Relationships

Wife wants to explore her sexuality

By jp74 , August 31, 2023 in Marriage/Long Term Relationships

• February 14

I'm in high school, and I have been with him for over a year

By Shad07 , January 25 in Marriage/Long Term Relationships

What to do about unjust custody situation

By Viper666 , January 20 in Marriage/Long Term Relationships

• itsallgrand

Top Articles

8 flirty jokes to make her laugh (guaranteed), what does friends with benefits mean to a guy, 8 effective strategies to disarm a narcissist, 8 signs your ex still loves you.

Wednesday at 10:39 AM

rainbowsandroses · Started Wednesday at 07:43 PM

Advice4888 · Started Monday at 11:09 AM

rainbowsandroses · Started March 10

Armyguy368 · Started Thursday at 03:32 PM

• Existing user? Sign In
• Online Users
• Leaderboard
• All Activity
• Relationships
• Career & Money
• Mental Health
• Personal Growth
• Create New...

• The Magazine
• Stay Curious
• The Sciences
• Environment
• Planet Earth

Monogamous societies superior to polygamous societies

The title is rather loud and non-objective.  But that seems to me to be the upshot of Henrich et al.'s The puzzle of monogamous marriage  (open access). In the abstract they declare that "normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses." Seems superior to me. As a friend of mine once observed, "If polygamy is awesome, how come polygamous societies suck so much?" Case in point is Saudi Arabia. Everyone assumes that if it didn't sit on a pile of hydrocarbons Saudi Arabia would be dirt poor and suck. As it is, it sucks, but with an oil subsidy. The founder of modern Saudi Arabia was a polygamist, as are many of his male descendants (out of ~2,000). The total number of children he fathered is unknown! (the major sons are accounted for, but if you look at the genealogies of these Arab noble families the number of daughters is always vague and flexible, because no one seems to have cared much)

So how did monogamy come to be so common? If you follow Henrich's work you will not be surprised that he posits "cultural group selection." That is, the advantage of monogamy can not be reduced just to the success of monogamous individuals within a society. On the contrary, males who enter into polygamous relationships likely have a higher fitness than monogamous males within a given culture. To get a sense of what they mean by group selection I recommend you read this review of the concept by David B. A major twist here though is that they are proposing that the selective process operates upon cultural , not genetic , variation (memes, not genes). Why does this matter? Because inter-cultural differences between two groups in competition can be very strong, and arise rather quickly, while inter-group genetic differences are usually weak due to the power of gene flow. To give an example of this, Christian societies in Northern Europe adopted normative monogamy, while pagans over the frontier did not (most marriages may have been monogamous, but elite males still entered into polygamous relationships). The cultural norm was partitioned (in theory) totally across the two groups, but there was almost no genetic difference.  This means that very modest selection pressures can still work on the level of groups for culture, where they would not be effective for biological differences between groups (because those differences are so small) in relation to individual selection (within group variation would remain large).

From what I gather much of the magic of gains of economic productivity and social cohesion, and therefore military prowess, of a given set of societies (e.g., Christian Europe) in this model can be attributed to the fact of the proportion of single males. By reducing the fraction constantly scrambling for status and power so that they could become polygamists in their own right the general level of conflict was reduced in these societies. Sill, the norm of monogamy worked against the interests of elite males in a relative individual sense. Yet still, one immediately recalls that elite males in normatively monogamy societies took mistresses and engaged in serial monogamy. Additionally, there is still a scramble for mates among males in monogamous societies, though for quality  and not quantity . These qualifications weaken the thesis to me, though they do not eliminate its force in totality.

In the end I am not convinced of this argument about group selection, though the survey of the empirical data on the deficiencies of societies which a higher frequency of polygamy was totally unsurprising.  I recall years ago reading of a Muslim male who wondered how women would get married if men did not marry more than once. He outlined how wars mean that there will always be a deficit of males! One is curious about the arrow of causality is here; is polygamy a response to a shortage of males, or do elite polygamist make sure that there is a shortage of males? (as is the case among Mormon polygamists in the SA)

Finally, I do not think one can discount the fact that despite the long term ultimate evolutionary logic, over shorter time periods other dynamics can take advantage of proximate mechanisms. For example, humans purportedly wish to maximize fitness via our preference for sexual intercourse. But in the modern world humans have decoupled sex and reproduction, and our fitness maximizing instincts are now countervailed by our conscious preference for smaller families. Greater economic production is not swallowed up by population growth, but rather greater individual affluence. This may not persist over the long term for evolutionary reasons, but it persists long enough that it is a phenomenon worth examining. Similarly, the tendencies which make males polygamous may exist in modern monogamous males, but be channeled in other directions. One could posit that perhaps males have a preference to accumulate status. In a pre-modern society even the wealthy usually did not have many material objects. Land, livestock, and women, were clear and hard-to-fake signalers to show what a big cock you had. Therefore, polygamy was a common cultural universal evoked out of the conditions at hand. Today there are many more options on the table. My point is that one could make a group selective argument for the demographic transition, but to my knowledge that is not particularly popular. Rather, we appeal to common sense understandings of human psychology and motivation, and how they have changed over the generations.

Addendum: When I say polygamy, I mean polygyny. I would say polygyny, but then readers get confused. Also, do not confuse social preference for polygyny with lack of female power. There are two modern models of polygynous societies, the African, and the Islamic. The Islamic attitude toward women shares much with the Hindu monogamist view, while in African societies women are much more independent economic actors, albeit within a patriarchal context. The authors note that this distinction is important, because it seems monogamy (e.g., Japan) is a better predictor of social capital than gender equality as such, despite the correlation.

Citation: Joseph Henrich, Robert Boyd, and Peter J. Richerson, The puzzle of monogamous marriage, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B March 5, 2012 367 (1589) 657-669; doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0290

Already a subscriber?

Register or Log In

Keep reading for as low as $1.99!

Sign up for our weekly science updates.

Save up to 40% off the cover price when you subscribe to Discover magazine.

Polygamy vs Monogamy: Unraveling the Complexities of Relationship Structures

I’ve always found the topic of monogamy versus polygamy fascinating. It’s one of those subjects that can evoke strong feelings and heated debates. But before we dive into this complex issue, let’s first define what we mean by these terms. Monogamy refers to the practice or state of having a relationship with only one partner at a time, while polygamy , on the other hand, involves being married to more than one person.

In today’s society, monogamy is mostly accepted as the norm. We’re raised with fairy tales and romantic movies that champion the idea of finding ‘the one.’ Yet it’s important to remember that polygamous societies have existed since ancient times and are still prevalent in some parts of the world today.

It’s crucial for me to clarify early on that this discussion isn’t about advocating for one form over another. Instead, I’ll explore both sides objectively so you can gain a better understanding of these two different ways people choose to live their lives.

Understanding Polygamy: A Detailed Overview

Let’s dive right in. Polygamy, to put it simply, is the practice of having more than one spouse at a time. It’s been around for centuries and is still practiced in several cultures globally today.

Historically, polygamy often took the form of polygyny – where a man has multiple wives. This was common in societies where resources were abundant but labor was scarce. Men with many wives could have more children, which meant more hands to work the land or herd livestock.

However, polyandry – when a woman has multiple husbands – also exists but it’s far less common compared to polygyny. It typically occurs in regions with scarce resources where sharing a wife can help limit population growth and share resource burdens.

Polyamory is another modern twist on polygamy that differs from traditional forms because it emphasizes emotional relationships over marital status. In this setup, individuals may have multiple partners but not necessarily be married to all of them.

Now let’s look at some numbers:

It’s important to note that there are legal and social implications tied up with these practices too:

• In most Western societies today, including the US and Europe, monogamous marriages are legally recognized while polygamist unions aren’t.
• There are exceptions though – like among certain religious groups who continue these practices despite legal challenges.

This quick overview should give you an understanding of what exactly we mean by ‘polygamy. We’ll delve deeper into its societal impacts as well as how it compares with monogamy in subsequent sections!

The Practice of Monogamy and Its Origins

Monogamy’s roots are as complex as they are fascinating. I’ve seen it in my research time and again: monogamy isn’t a human invention, but rather, a natural occurrence we share with many other species. For example, certain types of birds like swans or albatrosses are famously monogamous.

Delving into anthropology and history, evidence suggests that early humans weren’t strictly monogamous. Some societies practiced polygyny (one man marrying multiple women), while others were more egalitarian, resembling what we’d call ‘serial monogamy’ today.

But let’s not forget our primate cousins! Looking at their behavior can provide some insight into the origins of human monogamy. While most primate species aren’t strictly monogamous, gibbons stand out with their pair-bonding habit. Could this be an echo of our ancestral practices?

On to sociology now: modern society has been largely shaped by monotheistic religions which promote the idea of one man-one woman unions—monogamy as we know it today. It’s worth noting though that even within these societies there is diversity. Some individuals practice serial monogamy—entering into one committed relationship after another—while others choose lifelong partnerships.

And finally, psychology gives us another perspective on why humans might opt for monogamous relationships. Emotional security, economic stability and mutual support are some reasons often cited.

It’s clear that the practice of monogamy has deep roots entwined in biology, history and culture alike—a testament to its adaptability across different times and contexts.

Polygamy Vs Monogamy: Key Differences

When we’re talking about marriage structures, it’s hard to ignore the stark contrast between polygamy and monogamy. They are indeed two poles apart in how they shape family dynamics, societal norms, and personal relationships.

Polygamy involves a person being married to more than one spouse simultaneously. It’s an age-old practice seen across many cultures globally. For instance, certain African and Middle Eastern societies have long histories of polygamous marriages. The reasoning behind this varies – some see it as a status symbol while others view it as an economic necessity.

On the other hand, monogamy represents a union between two individuals exclusively. I’ve noticed that this form of marriage is predominant in Western societies due to religious beliefs and legal restrictions. People often choose this path seeking emotional intimacy and stability with one partner.

Here are some key differences between these two marital structures:

• Number of Partners : In polygamy, there’s no limit to the number of spouses one can have at once. Conversely, monogamous relationships strictly involve only two partners.
• Societal Acceptance : Monogamous unions are widely accepted around the globe whereas polygamous marriages often face societal scrutiny or legal prohibitions.
• Family Structure : Families in polygamous setups tend to be larger with complex dynamics while those in monogamous arrangements usually consist of smaller nuclear families.

It’s important to remember that neither structure is inherently ‘better’ than the other; each has its own merits and challenges based on individual preferences and cultural contexts. Moreover, both require mutual consent, respect, understanding, communication for them to be healthy and successful relationships .

Regardless of our personal views on these contrasting marital forms – whether we deem one superior over another – their existence provides us with rich insights into human behavior and cultural diversity worldwide.

Cultural Perspectives on Polygamy and Monogamy

It’s fascinating to see how different cultures approach the idea of marriage. In some parts of the world, polygamy is accepted and even encouraged, while in others it’s seen as a violation of human rights. On the flip side, monogamy is widely praised in Western societies but can be viewed as restrictive or unnatural elsewhere. So let’s dive into these perspectives.

In many African cultures, for example, polygamy was traditionally practiced and continues to this day. For them, it’s not so much about romance but more about social economics. They see having multiple wives as a status symbol or means of wealth accumulation.

• Uganda: 28%
• Tanzania: 31%

On the other hand, monogamy is deeply rooted in Western culture stemming from religious beliefs primarily Christianity which promotes fidelity within marriage.

However in some Middle Eastern and Asian countries where Islam is prevalent, polygamy is allowed though rarely practiced due to economic constraints.

Then there are indigenous tribes such as those found in Amazonian regions that practice both depending on their societal rules and norms.

What stands out when comparing these cultural views on monogamy and polygamy isn’t necessarily who’s right or wrong – because morality can often be subjective – but rather understanding why certain practices exist based on historical contexts and societal needs.

It’s intriguing how something as intimate as marriage can vary so vastly across different landscapes yet at its core remains a universal institution binding individuals together under various terms.

Psychological Impacts of Polygamous and Monogamous Relationships

Diving into the world of relationships, it’s impossible to ignore the psychological impacts they have on us. When we talk about polygamy and monogamy, there are distinct differences in how they shape our mental states.

Strutting down the path of polygamy might seem like a route paved with endless possibilities. After all, having multiple partners can mean more support, affection, and perspectives. But there’s a flip side to this coin. I’ve seen data that suggests individuals in polygamous relationships often grapple with feelings of jealousy and inadequacy. There’s also the potential for increased stress due to juggling multiple relationship dynamics simultaneously.

On the other hand, monogamy offers its own unique psychological impacts. The security provided by a single committed partner may lead to greater overall satisfaction and happiness for some people. However, others might feel constrained or unfulfilled in their desire for variety or new experiences.

Beyond these general observations, it’s crucial to point out that every person is unique – your experience with either form of relationship may vary greatly based on your individual personality traits . For instance:

• If you’re someone who highly values stability and predictability – you might find greater comfort in monogamous relationships.
• Conversely, if freedom and variety are important to you – polygamy could be more fulfilling.

All said though, it’s critical not to forget that good communication remains key regardless of whether you’re navigating through waves in a monogamous or polygamous sea. In my opinion, a successful relationship isn’t defined by the number of partners involved but by the quality of connection and understanding between them.

Legalities Around Polygamy and Monogamy Worldwide

When it comes to the legal status of monogamy and polygamy worldwide, there’s quite a varied landscape. Let’s start with monogamy. It’s practically the norm in many parts of the world – North America, Europe, Australia, for instance. Laws in these regions generally support one-man-one-woman unions, reflecting how entrenched monogamy is in their cultures.

Polygamy, on the other hand, presents a more complex picture. In some nations like India and Sri Lanka, polygamous marriages are allowed only for Muslims but not for other religious communities. Meanwhile, certain African countries such as Kenya have laws that permit men to marry multiple wives.

However, there are also countries where polygamy is outright illegal. For example:

• United States: Any form of polygamous relationship is considered against federal law.
• China: Criminal Code prohibits plural marriage.
• France: The French Civil Code does not recognize polygamous unions.

It gets trickier when you consider places like Canada or Russia where polygamy isn’t explicitly criminalized but isn’t exactly legal either – they fall into what we might call grey areas legally.

The following points summarize this situation even further:

• Most Western societies legally endorse monogamous marriages only
• Some Eastern and African countries allow both types of marriages under specific circumstances
• There exist few ‘grey areas’ where neither practice is explicitly criminalized

So it becomes apparent that laws around marital practices vary greatly depending on cultural norms and societal beliefs within each country. As we’ve seen here – from outright illegality to tacit acceptance – the legalities around polygamy and monogamy worldwide are as diverse as the cultures they stem from.

Societal Acceptance: From Polygamy to Monogamy

I’ve been diving into the societal acceptance of polygamy and monogamy, and it’s clear that views have shifted significantly over time. Let’s look at how attitudes have evolved from a preference for one to the other.

In ancient times, polygamy was relatively common. Many societies saw it as beneficial for various reasons. For instance:

• It allowed wealthy men to produce more offspring.
• Provided economic advantages by merging multiple families’ resources.
• Gave widows and orphans a social safety net in the absence of government support systems.

However, as we moved towards the modern era, monogamy started gaining popularity. Some factors contributing to this shift include:

• The rise of individualism leading people to value emotional intimacy with a single partner.
• Increased urbanization making large families impractical due to space constraints.
• Legal restrictions implemented by various governments around the world against polygamous marriages.

Nowadays, I’m sure you’ll notice that most societies predominantly practice monogamy. According to Pew Research Center, only 2% of cultures worldwide openly support polygamy today.

Yet, it’s crucial not to overlook pockets where polygamous practices still occur – often tied up with religious beliefs or cultural traditions. On an ending note though, no matter what society’s stance is on these marital structures – be it polygamous or monogamous – what remains paramount is mutual respect and consent among all parties involved.

Concluding Thoughts on Polygamy Vs Monogamy

Let’s wrap up our discussion on polygamy versus monogamy. Our journey into these contrasting marital systems has been enlightening, to say the least.

Polygamy, with its roots in various cultures and religions worldwide, offers multiple partners. This arrangement can provide a larger support network, diversified companionship, and potentially more financial stability. However, it’s also fraught with complications such as potential favoritism, jealousy among co-spouses, and complex family dynamics.

On the other hand, we have monogamy – the more prevalent form of marriage globally. It’s deeply ingrained in many societies as the ‘norm’ or ‘standard’. Its benefits include a focused relationship between two individuals, fewer complexities compared to polygamous relationships and is generally less controversial from a social perspective. Yet it too has its challenges like dependency on a single partner for emotional and financial support.

Here’s a brief comparison:

So which is better? Well that boils down to personal preference and cultural context. For some people polygamous relationships work perfectly well while others find solace in monogamous unions.

Both systems have their pros & cons so ultimately it’s about what suits you best as an individual or couple considering your circumstances goals values emotions societal norms religious beliefs etc

In truth there isn’t a definitive answer as human experiences vary widely depending upon numerous factors including individual personality sociocultural context personal beliefs and so on.

It’s essential to respect each person’s choice in this matter as long as it involves consent from all parties involved and is not detrimental to anyone’s wellbeing. After all, the goal of any relationship should be mutual happiness, love, respect, and understanding.

This has been a fascinating exploration into polygamy versus monogamy. Remember that no one size fits all in matters of the heart. What works for one may not work for another, so let’s keep an open mind about different forms of relationships while ensuring they’re healthy and respectful!

Related Posts

The Male Mind in Love: Demystifying Men’s Love Journey

Loving You: To the Moon & Back – A Journey of Endless Love

• United Kingdom
• United States

1 Married Woman & 1 Single Man Debate Monogamy

The pros & cons of staying with one person for the rest of your life, more from sex & relationships.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci
• v.22(1); 2013 Mar

The impact of polygamy on women's mental health: a systematic review

L. d. shepard.

Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 2ER, UK

The purpose of this systematic review is to identify and appraise the present state of prevalence research on the mental health of polygynous women, or plural wives, and to summarize its implications for future research and social work practice.

PsycInfo (1967 to November 2011) and Medline (1985 to November 2011) databases, systematic bibliography hand-searches, personal communication with a leading expert, and gray literature searching were applied in a systematic literature search of the prevalence of mental-health issues in polygynous women compared to monogamous women. Twenty-two studies meeting eligibility criteria were identified. Study characteristics, methods and findings were systematically extracted and appraised for quality.

The identified studies are of mixed methodological quality, but generally suggest a more significant prevalence of mental-health issues in polygynous women compared to monogamous women. Individual studies report a higher prevalence of somatization, depression, anxiety, hostility, psychoticism and psychiatric disorder in polygynous wives as well as reduced life and marital satisfaction, problematic family functioning and low self-esteem.

Conclusions.

The current state of the research reveals with moderate confidence, a more significant prevalence of mental-health issues in polygynous women as compared to monogamous women. Implications for practice and research are indicated.

Polygamy is generally defined as a marital relationship involving multiple spouses. The different types of polygamy include polygyny, ‘the voluntary union of one man to multiple wives’, polyandry, the marriage of one woman to multiple men, and polygynandry, the union of multiple husbands to multiple wives (Al-Krenawi, 2001 ; Elbedour et al. 2002 ). The most common form of polygamy worldwide is polygyny or the plurality of wives (Valsiner, 1989 ); as such, it is more commonly referred to as polygamy, including in academic literature and the remainder of this paper. While the worldwide prevalence of polygamy is unknown, its existence has been documented ‘in 80% of societies across the globe, including the United States’ (Hassouneh-Phillips, 2001 ). Polygamy is practiced in over 850 societies, mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Oceania, with anywhere from 20% to 50% of all wives participating in polygamous marriages in some cultures (Bergstrom, 1994 ; Elbedour et al. 2002 ). Indeed, some indeterminate millions of people the world over participate in polygamy though accurate and current statistics of its estimated prevalence are not yet available (Slonim-Nevo & Al-Krenawi, 2006 ).

The reasons for polygamy can be many, varied and multi-faceted across and within cultures. These reasons can extend from some sects of Islamic faith, traditional practices, cultural perceptions of family and agricultural and population needs (Al-Krenawi, 1998 ; Al-Krenawi & Graham, 1999b ; Elbedour et al. 2002 ; Slonim-Nevo & Al-Krenawi, 2006 ). Still, opinions regarding the practice of polygamy within practicing cultures frequently vary within societies and families, across age groups and gender, even among and within those who practice it (Chaleby, 1988 ; Al-Krenawi et al. 2006 ). Furthermore, perspectives of polygamy have been documented as varying even within respondents themselves (Al-Krenawi et al. 2001 ; Shepard et al. 2010 ).

As a consequence of the sheer magnitude of the polygamous population as well as the breadth of the research topic, polygamy has substantially developed as a subject of study over the last three decades. Of course, the criticism uttered by Welch & Glick ( 1981 ) still stands partially true – namely that the study of polygamy is largely ignored by researchers despite the fact that its ongoing practice warrants its further study. Indeed, Al-Krenawi ( 1999 ) has further argued that, ‘researchers and family practitioners have rarely paid attention to the association between polygamy and mental health’ though some published evidence has suggested that polygamous women and children report higher rates of emotional distress, psychological problems, familial conflict, jealousy and stress than their monogamous counterparts (Al-Krenawi, 1998 ; Elbedour et al. 2002 ).

Considering the possible vulnerability of these sub-populations, the growing body of published evidence investigating the impact of polygamy on women's mental health, and the subsequent need for research synthesis and appraisal, an exhaustive literature search and a systematic review appears requisite. Thus, in compliance with the concepts of evidence-based research to make better use of what evidence already exists (Chalmers, 2003 ; Sherman, 2003 ), this paper adds such a systematic review to the existing discourse on mental-health implications for polygamous women.

This paper is directed towards the systematic illumination of the following research question: Among women in polygamous marriages, as compared to women in monogamous marriages in the same population, what is the prevalence of mental-health issues?

Criteria for considering studies for review

The selected studies are concerned with identifying the prevalence of mental-health issues in polygamous v. monogamous wives. As the extent of relative or replicated research on polygamy is yet limited and as the current paper constitutes a systematic review without a meta-analysis, all study types, non-western nations, settings, cultures, mental-health outcomes, measurement tools and statistical analyses published and accessible in English are considered. These sensitive inclusion criteria are designed to identify as many studies relevant to the prevalence of mental-health issues among polygamous v. monogamous women as possible. Research conducted among polygamous women in western nations or among specified female populations (e.g., infertile, postpartum, ill, widowed, immigrant, etc.), however, is excluded due to the hypothesized additional confounding legal or mental-health implications. The broad mental-health outcomes are enjoined as a means to identify all currently measured outcomes and potential risk factors. Finally, the requirement for a monogamous comparison group is elected as national statistics and prevalence rates on polygamy and mental health are often unavailable in developing nations; thus, the internal provision of a comparison group ensures more accurate interpretation of the cross-sectional findings.

Search methods for identification of studies

The Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group's search phrase was employed and PsycInfo (1967 to November 2011) and Medline (1985 to November 2011) were searched 2 November 2011 and 14 November 2011, respectively (see Table 1 ). The references and bibliographies of all topical and selected articles were systematically hand-searched to identify other relevant studies. The leading expert in the field, Alean Al-Krenawi, was contacted for an exhaustive listing of his work and information regarding published and unpublished trials. Other literature outside of the main journal literature was searched where possible, using general search engines.

Search string for the impact of polygamy on women's mental health

Methods of the review

All titles and potentially relevant abstracts were screened as retrieved by the database searches and personal communication. All topical and selected article bibliographies were subsequently and systematically searched following the same procedure. Further, the bibliographies of those resulting article selections were likewise hand-searched, continuing this process until saturation was reached. The inclusion criteria were then applied to determine which studies were eligible for the review.

The study details and findings were extracted on a case-by-case basis using a simplified extraction form. Information on the study population and comparison, sampling method and size, measurement tools, statistical analyses and findings were recorded. Finally, the included studies were methodologically reviewed in terms of internal validity, study power and external validity.

Of the 795 article titles identified by PsycInfo, 17 were identified as potentially relevant. Of the 430 article titles returned by Medline, 10 were selected for further review, with an overlap of 8 relevant titles between the two databases. An approximate 75 potentially relevant titles and abstracts were further identified through bibliographic, personal communication and gray literature searches. Of all noted research articles, 22 met selection criteria. The most common reason for exclusion was the omission of a socio-demographic variable for polygamy. However, 14 studies were excluded from detailed review as their publication language or sample comparison group failed to meet the previously specified inclusion criteria (see Table 2 ). Five additional studies that potentially met selection criteria were identified, but were inaccessible or unattainable and, therefore, omitted from the present review (Ebigbo et al. 1981 ; Mojahed & Birashk, 1995 ; Al-Krenawi & Slonim-Nevo, 2003 ; Al-Krenawi & Graham, 2004 ; Iben-Hammad et al. 2004 ).

Brief rationale for excluded studies

Description of included studies

As previously mentioned, 22 cross-sectional studies were selected for inclusion in this review. These studies address the prevalence of mental-health issues in polygamous v. monogamous women from varying cultures around the world. One study was set in Australia and five other studies were set in Africa, including Uganda, Cameroon, Malawi, Nigeria and Tanzania. The remaining 16 studies were set in the Middle East – in Israel (constituting four of the studies), the United Arab Emirates (three studies), Kuwait (two studies), Jordan (two studies), Iran, Pakistan, Palestine, Syria and Turkey. In total, some 1913 polygamous women and 3326 monogamous women are represented across the study samples, though exact subgroup numbers are not completely known for three of the included studies (Mumford et al. 1996 ; Abou-Saleh et al. 2001 ; Hinks & Davies, 2008 ). A variety of mental-health outcome measurement tools are represented across the studies as presented in Table 3 .

Mental-health outcome measurement tools by study

The results of four studies (set in the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan and Tanzania) suggest no significant difference in the prevalence of psychiatric disorder, depression, somatic symptoms or anxiety in polygamous women as opposed to monogamous women (Mumford et al. 1996 ; Abou-Saleh et al. 2001 ; Hamdan et al. 2008 ; Patil & Hadley, 2008 ). Three studies (set in Cameroon, Malawi and Turkey) report mixed findings, including marginal differences in life and marital satisfaction, subjective well-being, and depressive and conversion disorders, but significantly less marital satisfaction in younger senior wives, low well-being for polygamous women following Malawian traditional beliefs and significantly high somatoform dissociation among senior wives (Gwanfogbe et al. 1997 ; Ozkan et al. 2006 ; Hinks & Davies, 2008 ). Finally, the remaining 15 studies ultimately conclude significantly higher prevalence of mental-health issues in polygamous women, including a higher prevalence of somatization, anxiety, hostility, psychoticism and psychiatric disorder as well as reduced life satisfaction, problematic family functioning, marital dissatisfaction and low self-esteem (SE). The exploration of the methodological quality, overall findings and implications for practice and future research follows. Due to the wide variation across countries, cultures, beliefs, study populations and research tools, the following analysis does not include a meta-analysis.

Methodological quality of included studies

Ten of the 22 studies are of lower priority as their measurement of prevalence involves correlational analyses of multiple different socio-demographic variables (i.e., the analysis between polygamy and mental health was not the primary objective). The remaining 12 studies, however, afford greater attention and critical appraisal. Tables 4 and ​ and5 5 contain a brief summary of the methods and findings of each of the included studies.

A brief summary of included study characteristics

A brief summary of included study findings

Ten included studies comprise correlational studies or socio-demographic analyses, indicating mixed results as to the prevalence of mental-health problems in polygamous women as compared to monogamous women. Of these, Abbo et al. ( 2008 ), Daradkeh et al. ( 2006 ), Ghubash et al. ( 1992 ), Leighton et al. ( 1963 ) and Maziak et al. ( 2002 ) report that polygamy is a significant determinant of psychological distress in married women (psychological distress (SRQ-20 score ≥6): OR(95% CI 1.38–10.98) = 3.62, p  = 0.012; psychiatric symptoms (Present State Examination (PSE)): t (178) = 2.04, p = 0.04; psychological distress (SRQ-20 score ≥ 8): OR(95% CI 1.1–12.0) = 3.3, p  = 0.03). Whereas Abou-Saleh et al. ( 2001 ), Gwanfogbe et al. ( 1997 ), Hamdan et al. ( 2008 ), Hinks & Davies ( 2008 ) and Mumford et al. ( 1996 ) report mixed results, indicating significantly less marital satisfaction in younger senior wives, low well-being for polygamous women following Malawian traditional beliefs and significantly high somatoform dissociation among senior wives, but non-significant associations between monogamous and polygamous women for lifetime prevalence rates of ICD-10 psychiatric disorders, life and marital satisfaction, Beck Depression Inventory scores and Bradford Somatic Inventory scores. However, the methodological quality of these correlational studies is considerably limited by their general and secondary search for significant associations between mental-health outcomes and a variety of socio-demographic factors, not to mention their frequent reliance on quasi- and non-random sampling techniques and small or unreported polygamous subsamples ( N range = 224–2000, with polygamous subsamples reportedly ranging from 11 to 544).

Al-Krenawi ( 2001 ) is a lower-quality cross-sectional, prevalence study of mental-health issues in polygamous women compared to monogamous women in Israel. The sample is decently sized ( N  = 92) and controlled in terms of diagnosis and exposure. However, the significant results must also be interpreted and applied with caution as the study sample and outcome measurements are flawed (self-esteem (open-ended questionnaire): χ 2 (1) = 28.11, p  < 0.001; loneliness (open-ended questionnaire): χ 2 (1) = 26.36, p  < 0.001). The sample is a convenience sample comprised only of out-patients referred by general practitioners, the polygamous women are senior wives of two-wife families only ( N  = 53), and the measurement tools are largely non-validated and subjective. Finally, the incomplete and selective reporting of statistical results and the lack of statistical control are also highlighted as significant limitations.

Al-Krenawi ( 2004 ) is a high-quality cross-sectional study comparing monogamous and polygamous, Bedouin-Arab women's mental health across a number of reliable and well-validated measures (family functioning (Family Assessment Device (FAD)): F (2, 1364) = 59.58, p  < 0.001; marital relationship (ENRICH): F (2, 1364) = 76.68, p  < 0.001; mental health (General Severity Index (GSI)): F (2, 1364) = 57.81, p  < 0.001; life satisfaction (SWLS): F (2, 1364) = 30.62, p  < 0.001). Study characteristics of particular virtue include its relatively strong and representative sample – both in size ( N  = 376) and random and clustered recruitment methods – its employment of well-validated and replicated measurement tools, and its selection of rigorous statistical analyses and controls. A weakness of the study, however, is that the recruitment strategy for participants may only represent those listed on the municipality registers.

Al-Krenawi ( 2010 ) is a mediocre quality cross-sectional study. Although the sample is quite large ( N  = 309), its external validity is flawed by its use of a convenience sample and restriction to polygamous, senior wives. Very little information is provided about the recruitment and selection process and similar limitations in reporting are unfortunately apparent in other sections of the study, including some undefined socio-demographic classifications, an unexplained discrepancy in coding the ENRICH questionnaire, an under-detailed results section, and a discussion that incorrectly references other study findings and draws conclusions beyond the parameters of the present study. Nevertheless, Al-Krenawi ( 2010 ) represents the first and only research of the impact of polygamy on married women's mental health in Palestine. It also reports findings on a new variable of interest – the disagreeability of polygamous marriages according to polygamous women (80.2%) and monogamous women (97.4%). Finally, the study employs well-validated and replicated measurement tools as well as rigorous statistical analyses and controls (family functioning (FAD): t (308) = 4.56, p  < 0.001; marital satisfaction (ENRICH): t (308) = 5.89, p  < 0.001; self-esteem: t (308) = 2.89, p  < 0.01; life satisfaction (SWLS): t (308) = 3.53, p  < 0.01; mental health (GSI), t (308) = 3,79, p  < 0.01).

Al-Krenawi & Graham ( 2006 b ) represent a strong, well-designed cross-sectional study, including a larger, more representative sample ( N  = 352). The significant sample size, the proportionate random sampling of women from seven recognized villages, and the cluster sampling of women from nine unrecognized villages, lends additional power to the research findings. Furthermore, the methods of measurement are of high quality with indications that the interviewers were trained and the tools of measurement validated and back-translated for reliability. The primary weaknesses of the study design and research methods are considerably fewer: the selection criteria for participants potentially represents only those listed on the municipality registers, there is an unexplained discrepancy in coding of the ENRICH questionnaire, and the relationship between marital status and mental distress is not statistically controlled for by other potentially contributing factors (family functioning (FAD): F (2, 350) = 41.14, p  < 0.001; marital relationship (ENRICH): F (2, 350) = 50.36, p  < 0.001; mental health Bradford Somatic Inventory (BSI): F (2, 350) range = 23.2–44.02, p  < 0.001; life satisfaction (SWLS): F (2, 350) = 19.89, p  < 0.001).

Al-Krenawi et al. ( 2011 ) is a relatively strong, cross-sectional study comparing the psychological well-being of monogamous and polygamous women. The sample size is decent ( N  = 199) though similarly limited by convenience recruitment and its selection of senior wives of two-wife families. Strengths of note, however, include its additional consideration of two new variables (consanguinity and agreeability with polygamous unions), its employment of well validated and replicated measurement tools, and its use of rigorous statistical and multivariate analyses. It was found that 66.2% of senior wives and 87.5% of monogamous wives reported disagreeing with polygamous marriages and that first wives experienced significantly more distress (family functioning (FAD): t (198) = 3.95, p  < 0.001; self-esteem: t (198) = 2.53, p  < 0.01; life satisfaction (SWLS): t (198) = 3.29, p  < 0.01; mental health (GSI): t (198) = 3.19, p  < 0.01). However, a few study limitations include its failure to report the number of individuals who refused or withdrew participation and its discrepant coding of the ENRICH questionnaire.

Al-Krenawi & Slonim-Nevo ( 2008 ) is an example for future replication. Again, the large sample ( N  = 315) and its attempt for random selection are assets of its design. The study also minimizes bias by specifying criteria for exposure to polygamy and by using strong, validated, back-translated and specific measurement tools (mental health (BSI): t (313) range = 0.77–2.22, p range = less than 0.001 to non-significant; self-esteem (SE): t (313) = −3.6, p  < 0.001; family functioning (FAD): t (313) = 6.28, p  < 0.001; marital satisfaction (ENRICH): t (313) = 8.55, p  < 0.001). Finally, the study employs strong statistical analyses, namely linear regression, to identify other predictive variables of poor mental-health outcomes (family functioning (FAD) and psychological symptoms (BSI): F (2, 313) range = −0.45–0.49, p  < 0.001; polygamous/monogamous and obsession–compulsion: F (2, 313) = 0.11, p  < 0.05; polygamous/monogamous and psychotism: F (2, 313) = 0.12, p  < 0.05). The associated weaknesses, however, are primarily associated with the sample. Although randomized, the sample may not prove representative provided that those included were available by phone, came from two-wife families, and had a child fulfilling the inclusion criteria of a concurrent study.

Al-Sherbiny ( 2005 ) is a lower-quality cross-sectional, prevalence study. Although the sample size is decent ( N  = 100), the weaknesses of the study are considerable: the research methods are vague and non-descriptive, prohibiting replication; the generalizability of the findings is restricted to first wives only; and most importantly, it is uncertain as to whether the participant groups were wholly comparable as they were recruited differently – snowball sampling for polygamous women as referred by social workers and psychologists and random sampling for monogamous women. Consequently, the two groups varied significantly in age, education, family size, etc., making it unsurprising that the control group reported fewer psychiatric, emotional and physical complaints (symptoms (General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) total score ≥8): χ 2 (1) = 16.32, p  < 0.001). Furthermore, the monogamous participants did not receive a psychiatric interview.

Chaleby ( 1987 ) is a low-quality, cross-sectional retrospective study of the prevalence of psychiatric disorder in monogamous v. polygamous wives as derived from a random sample of out-patient charts. Although the sample is decently sized ( N  = 126), it is unfortunately flawed; the total population of out-patient charts is not reported, the process of random selection is not described, the number of excluded charts is not provided, and the sample is limited to married, never-hospitalized, out-patient women with complete and comprehensive charts. Furthermore, the results are subjective as no criteria were specified for the classification of psychiatric disorders and as sample proportions of psychiatric disorder by type of marriage were compared to outdated 1975 census and 1980–1981 court marriage records for significance. Finally, while a significant interaction was found among the variables for marriage type and psychiatric disorder (χ 2 (3) = 13.79, p  < 0.01), no further analysis or explanation was provided to describe the relationship, though study conclusions identify senior wives as ‘far more susceptible’ and describe a ‘particularly high incidence of somatoform disorders’.

Eastwell ( 1974 ) is a low-quality cross-sectional study of the prevalence of psychiatric disorder in monogamous wives v. polygamous wives among the Murngin in North Australia. The sample is small ( N  = 33) and limited to psychiatric cases, with small monogamous ( N  = 4) and polygamous ( N  = 21) subgroups. Furthermore, the methods are under-detailed, the criteria for determining psychiatric cases are not described, and only raw numbers are reported.

Kianpoor et al. ( 2006 ) is also a lower-quality cross-sectional study. It bears well on the study design that the participants were screened twice and according to validated DSM-IV standards of panic disorder. However, the moderate sample size ( N  = 66), panic disorder qualification criteria and convenience recruitment of the sample are significant limitations to its accuracy and generalizability. Furthermore, the singular reporting of percentages does not reflect well on the rigor of the measurement tools or statistical analyses (31 (47.0%) cases were polygamous and 26 (39.0%) were monogamous).

Ozkan et al. ( 2006 ) provide another example of a strong cross-sectional, prevalence study. The sample is large and appears representative including all polygamous women within the municipality with monogamous women matched for age and selected randomly ( N  = 138). The employed measurement tools were again validated and reliable. Finally, the data were assessed through rigorous statistical analyses including chi-square, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and a post hoc Bonferroni test (Somatoform Dissociation Questionnaire (SDQ): F (3, 135) = 20.10, p  < 0.001). The only limitations to this study include its generalizability to two-wife families and women over 18 years old and its lack of statistical control for other potentially contributing variables to one's mental health.

Finally, Patil & Hadley (2008) is a mediocre quality cross-sectional, prevalence study. The large sample and the sample type (randomly sampling from one village and conducting a census in another) indicate strong representation ( N  = 408). The inclusion of some third and fourth wives also opens up the generalizability of the findings. The weaknesses of the study, however, are of concern. The study was conducted during the post-harvest, dry season or the period of increased food and decreased labour, possibly biasing the study findings (symptoms of anxiety (HSCL-25): χ 2 (2) = 0.7, p  = ns; symptoms of depression (HSCL-25): χ 2 (2) = 0.76, p  = ns; emotional distress (HSCL-25): χ 2 (2) = 0.52, p  = ns). The employment of only one assessment tool, though a validated measure, may limit the reliability of the findings further. Finally, the statistical analyses and controls are inconsistently reported.

Themes and findings

The selected literature uses many different measures of marital status and mental health, inhibiting the conduct of a meta-analysis; a summary of included study findings, however, is presented in Table 5 and a brief narrative summary of common outcomes is provided here. As aforementioned, three included studies indicated mixed findings and 15 reported significant outcomes. Thus, 18 of the 22 included articles, or 11 of the 12 studies to directly examine prevalence, evidence a significant difference in mental health according to marital status, with the soundest and most rigorous methods espousing. These significant differences are reported to exist in the higher prevalence of somatization, depression, anxiety, hostility, paranoid ideation, psychoticism, general symptom severity (GSI), positive symptoms total (PST) and psychiatric disorder as well as in the lower ratings of life and marital satisfaction, family functioning and SE in polygamous wives.

Of the four studies utilizing the SRQ-20 measurement of psychological distress or neurotic disorder, only two studies clearly report an analysis of marriage type and SRQ-20 score (Abou-Saleh et al. 2001 ; Maziak et al. 2002 ; Daradkeh et al. 2006 ; Abbo et al. 2008 ). Both of these studies found a significant difference in scores between monogamous women and polygamous women (Maziak et al. 2002 ; Abbo et al. 2008 ). Abbo et al. ( 2008 ) employed a score cut-off point of 6 (i.e., respondents answered positively to at least six of the questions) and found that polygamous women were over three times as likely to report psychological distress than monogamous women (OR (95% CI 1.38–10.98) = 3.62, p  = 0.012). Maziak et al. ( 2002 ) used a score cut-off point of 8 and also found that polygamous women were more likely to report symptoms of neurotic disorder (OR (95% CI 1.5–13.4) = 4.5, p  = 0.003). Furthermore, Maziak et al. ( 2002 ) conducted logistic regression models for cut-off scores of 8 and 12 and found that polygamy was a significant predictor of psychiatric distress in both models, (OR (95% CI 1.1–12.0) = 3.3, p  = 0.03) and (OR (95% CI 2.5–33.2) = 9.1, p  < 0.001), respectively. Other significant predictors of psychiatric distress in the sample included place of residence, respondent's education, physical abuse, age and age at marriage.

Al-Krenawi ( 2004 ), Al-Krenawi ( 2010 ), Al-Krenawi & Graham ( 2006b) , Al-Krenawi et al. ( 2011 ) and Al-Krenawi & Slonim-Nevo ( 2008 ) used a combination of the following measurement tools: the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (H-SCL-90), the McMaster FAD, the ENRICH questionnaire, the Life Satisfaction scale (SWLS), and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. As shown in Table 5 , somatization, depression, anxiety, hostility, paranoid ideation, general symptom severity (GSI), decreased marital satisfaction and problematic family functioning appear more prevalent among polygamous respondents in all five studies. Psychoticism, PST, low SE and decreased life satisfaction are also reported across multiple studies (Al-Krenawi, 2004 , 2010 ; Al-Krenawi & Graham, 2006 , b ; Al-Krenawi & Slonim-Nevo, 2008 ; Al-Krenawi et al. 2011 ). In a regression analysis, however, Al-Krenawi & Slonim-Nevo ( 2008 ) found that marital status (i.e., polygamy v. monogamy) combined with economic status only accounts for 5.4% of the variance in SE and 21.1% of the variance in family functioning and that, indeed, polygamy does not account for any of the variance in the previously listed categories of the BSI. Alternatively and more promisingly, a regression analysis revealed family functioning as the best predictor of all noted symptoms, explaining anywhere from 15.1% to 26% of the variance.

Strengths and limitations

As previously addressed, the included studies sustain a number of strengths and limitations. First of all, for an often neglected topic and potentially difficult to access population, the multiplicity of identified studies is quite remarkable. Additional strengths of the selected studies include some replication, frequent utilization of validated measures, decent sample sizes, efforts toward representative samples and initial attempts at regression analyses. Unfortunately, however, due to scope of this review and wide variation across countries, cultures, beliefs, study populations and research tools, a meta-analysis was not conducted. Furthermore, the included studies merely relay comparative statistics of significance between monogamous and polygamous women, rather than actual prevalence rates, and may be flawed by publication bias.

As for strengths and limitations of this review, it is again noteworthy that this systematic review fills a gap in the literature. As this review aims to provide a transparent, replicable synthesis and quality assessment of all available quantitative and qualitative research of the impact of polygamy on women's mental health, it would seem valuable for the provision of relevant and timely information for direct practice, program development and research. Unfortunately, a few limitations to this review of note include the exclusion of studies not published in English, the inability to access five potentially relevant papers, and the employment of only two research databases. Furthermore, despite best efforts to search the gray literature, some relevant studies may have been missed.

Implications for practice

Although limited by the mixed methodological quality and considerable diversity across populations, cultures, countries, study designs, measurement tools and outcomes, a few overarching implications for practice can be garnered from the selected studies. First, it can be assumed that polygamous women are at-risk of experiencing psychological and emotional distress. Second, primary healthcare centres may be the most viable access point of treatment for polygamous women. And lastly, the best predictors of mental-health outcomes may not be marital status itself, but other moderating and mediating variables.

Based on the presented evidence, there appears to be a significant relationship between marital status and mental health. Consequently, it is important that practitioners, community leaders and policy-makers working with polygamous populations be aware of their substantive risk for a number of psychological and emotional disturbances. Appropriate care and treatment should accordingly be made available and accessible. Furthermore, special attention may need to be paid to senior wives as some studies distinguish them as particularly vulnerable to psychological distress (Al-Krenawi, 2001 , 2010 ; Al-Sherbiny, 2005 ; Ozkan et al. 2006 ; Al-Krenawi & Slonim-Nevo, 2008 ; Al-Krenawi et al. 2011 ).

In terms of accessibility, primary healthcare services may, for the present, be the best platform for identifying and treating psychological disorders and symptoms in polygamous women. Al-Krenawi & Graham ( 2006 b ) found that while only 4% of sampled women were referred to mental-health services, some 84% used their community's primary healthcare centre. In other words, the participants, all of whom sustained mental-health complaints, more readily sought help from their community health clinic than from their local mental-health services. Furthermore, as traditional healing practices have also been found among participants and shown to lessen psychological distress (Al-Krenawi & Graham, 1999a ; Abbo et al. 2008 ), traditional healers may present another viable conduit through which to offer future interventions.

Finally, some of the included studies point to specific moderating and mediating variables besides marital status itself which may prove helpful in the design and implementation of interventions for polygamous women with psychological distress. Maziak et al. ( 2002 ) point to education as a potential protective factor. Furthermore, and possibly more substantively, the findings of the Al-Krenawi & Slonim-Nevo ( 2008 ) study point to family functioning as a potential mediating variable. Assuming this relationship is valid, the address and improvement of family functioning by an intervention could have a substantive impact on a polygamous woman's mental health and symptomatology. However, according to the same regression analysis, economic status may be another mediating variable by which to address psychological distress in polygamous women (Al-Krenawi & Slonim-Nevo, 2008 ).

Directions for future research

Future studies should look to promote larger, more representative and random sampling in various different cultures and societies; a standardization of measuring tools; more rigorous and congruent statistical analyses; and better transparency in reporting. Furthermore, all studies should anticipate and facilitate the conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Finally, in these strides, it is suggested that the Al-Krenawi ( 2004 ), Al-Krenawi & Graham ( 2006 b ) , Al-Krenawi et al. ( 2011 ), Al-Krenawi & Slonim-Nevo ( 2008 ) and Ozkan et al. ( 2006 ) studies are particularly strong models for replication and exploration.

On a more conceptual level, however, future studies also need to move away from a singular focus on the structure of the family and review the intricacies and mediating effects of family dynamics (Elbedour et al. 2002 ; Al-Krenawi & Slonim-Nevo, 2005b ). The findings of the Al-Krenawi & Slonim-Nevo ( 2008 ) study would also seemingly support this objective as family functioning was revealed by regression analysis to be the best predictor of all inventoried symptoms. The value of qualitative work is further suggested to this same end of better understanding the dynamics and intricacies of polygamy from within its own framework.

Finally, continued research of the psychological impact of polygamy on women needs to be directed with the specific intention of informing or designing preventative or intervening approaches. Indeed, according to Slonim-Nevo & Al-Krenawi ( 2006 ), future research needs to focus on ‘developing, implementing and evaluating family intervention programs for polygamous families among different communities in the world’.

In conclusion, the current state of research reveals with moderate confidence a more significant prevalence of mental-health issues in polygamous women as compared to monogamous women. Of mention are the principally significant levels of somatization, depression, anxiety, hostility, paranoid ideation, psychoticism, psychiatric disorder, general symptom severity (GSI), decreased life and marital satisfaction, problematic family functioning and low SE across the included research study results. Thus, it is important that practitioners, community leaders and policy-makers working with polygamous populations be aware of their substantive risk and make appropriate care and treatment available and accessible.

Declaration of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

• Abbo C, Ekblad S, Waako P, Muhwezi W, Musisi S, Okello E (2008). Psychological distress and associated factors among the attendees of traditional healing practices in Jinja and Iganga districts, Eastern Uganda: a cross-sectional study . International Journal of Mental Health Systems 2 , 1–9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abou-Saleh MT, Ghubash R, Daradkeh TK (2001). Al Ain community psychiatric survey. I. Prevalence and socio-demographic correlates . Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 36 , 20–28. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Krenawi A (1998). Family therapy with a multiparental/multispousal family . Family Process 37 , 65–81. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Krenawi A (1999). Women of polygamous marriages in primary health care centers . Contemporary Family Therapy 21 , 417–430. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Krenawi A (2001). Women from polygamous and monogamous marriages in an out-patient psychiatric clinic . Transcultural Psychiatry 38 , 187–199. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Krenawi A (2004). Awareness and Utilization of Social, Health/Mental Health Services among Bedouin-Arab Women, Differentiated by Type of Residence and Type of Marriage . Center for Bedouin Studies and Development, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev: Beer-Sheva. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Krenawi A (2010). A study of psychological symptoms, family function, marital and life satisfactions of polygamous and monogamous women: the Palestinian case . International Journal of Social Psychiatry 58 , 79–86. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Krenawi A, Graham JR (1999 a ). Gender and biomedical/traditional mental health utilization among the Bedouin-Arabs of the Negev . Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 23 , 219–243. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Krenawi A, Graham JR (1999 b ). The story of Bedouin-Arab women in a polygamous marriage . Women's Studies International Forum 22 , 497–509. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Krenawi A, Graham JR (2004). Somatization among Bedouin-Arab women: differentiated by marital status . Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 42 , 131–144. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Krenawi A, Graham JR (2006 a ). A comparative study of family functioning, health, and mental health awareness and utilization among female Bedouin-Arabs from recognized and unrecognized villages in the Negev . Health Care for Women International 27 , 182–196. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Krenawi A, Graham JR (2006 b ). A comparison of family functioning, life and marital satisfaction, and mental health of women in polygamous and monogamous marriages . International Journal of Social Psychiatry 52 , 5–17. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Krenawi A, Slonim-Nevo V (2003). Psychosocial Functioning in Bedouin-Arab Society in the Negev: A Comparison of Polygamous and Monogamous Families . Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Center for Bedouin Studies and Development: Beer-Sheva, Israel. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Krenawi A, Slonim-Nevo V (2005 a ). A comparative study of polygamous and monogamous marriages as they affect Bedouin-Arab women. In Guard Your Soul—Mental Health among Women in Israel , pp. 149–167. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, in cooperation with Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute. Retrieved 18 November 2008 from http://brookdale.jdc.org.il/?catid={B4BCF18B-DF16-4EB8-93EE-99431BB1A212} .
• Al-Krenawi A, Slonim-Nevo V (2005 b ). Psychosocial functioning of children from monogamous and polygamous families: Implications for practice In Handbook for Working with Children and Youth (ed. Ungar M.), pp. 279–293. Sage: London. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Krenawi A, Slonim-Nevo V (2008). The psychosocial profile of Bedouin Arab women living in polygamous and monogamous marriages . Families in Society 89 , 139–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Krenawi A, Graham JR, Izzeldin A (2001). The psychosocial impact of polygamous marriages on Palestinian women . Women and Health 34 , 1–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Krenawi A, Graham JR, Ben-Shimol-Jacobsen S (2006). Attitudes toward and reasons for polygamy differentiated by gender and age among Bedouin-Arabs of the Negev . International Journal of Mental Health 35 , 46–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Krenawi A, Graham JR, Gharaibeh FA (2011). A comparison study of psychological, family function, marital and life satisfactions of polygamous and monogamous women in Jordan . Community Mental Health Journal 47 , 594–602. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Shamsi MSA, Fulcher LC (2005). The impact of polygamy on United Arab Emirates' first wives and their children . International Journal of Child and Family Welfare 1 , 46–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Sherbiny LAM (2005). The case of first wife in polygamy: description of an Arab culture-specific condition . Arabpsynet eJournal 8 , 1–9. Retrieved 18 June 2007 from http://www.arabpsynet.com/archives/op/apnJ8LotfiElsherbinie.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Amoran OE, Lawoyin TO, Oni OO (2005). Risk factors associated with mental illness in Oyo State, Nigeria: a community based study . Annals of General Psychiatry 4 , 19–24. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bergstrom T (1994). On the economics of polygyny. Paper 1994A, University of California, Santa Barbara; Retrieved 18 June 2007 from http://repositories.cdlib.org/ucsbecon/bergstrom/1994A/ . [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaleby K (1985). Women of polygamous marriages in an inpatient psychiatric service . Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 173 , 56–58. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaleby K (1987). Women of polygamous marriages in outpatient psychiatric services in Kuwait . International Journal of Family Psychiatry 8 , 25–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaleby K (1988). Traditional Arabian marriages and mental health in a group of outpatient Saudis . Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 77 , 139–142. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chalmers I (2003). Trying to do more good than harm in policy and practice: The role of rigorous, transparent, up-to-date evaluations . Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 589 , 22–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daradkeh TK, Ghubash R, Abou-Saleh MT (2002). Al Ain community survey of psychiatric morbidity II. Sex differences in the prevalence of depressive disorders . Journal of Affective Disorders 72 , 167–176. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Daradkeh TK, Alawan A, Al Ma'aitah R, Otoom SA (2006). Psychiatric morbidity and its sociodemographic correlates among women in Irbid, Jordan . Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal 12 , S107–S117. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eastwell H (1974). Dilemmas of aboriginal marriage in East Arnhem Land, North Australia . Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 8 , 49–53. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebigbo PO, Onyeama WP, Ihezue UH, Ahanotu AC (1981). Family therapy with polygamous families . Zeitschrift fur Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychoanalyse 27 , 180–191. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elbedour S, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Caridine C, Abu-Saad H (2002). The effect of polygamous marital structure on behavioral, emotional, and academic adjustment in children: a comprehensive review of the literature . Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 5 , 255–271. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghubash R, Hamdi E, Bebbington P (1992). The Dubai community psychiatric survey, I. Prevalence and socio-demographic correlates . Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 27 , 53–61. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gumani MA, Sodl T (2009). The experiences of rural VhaVenda women involved in polygamous marriages . Journal of Psychology in Africa 19 , 199–206. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gwanfogbe PN, Schumm WR, Smith M, Furrow JL (1997). Polygamy and marital life satisfaction: an exploratory study from rural Cameroon . Journal of Comparative Family Studies 28 , 55–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamdan A, Hawamdeh S, Hussein A (2008). The prevalence and correlates of depressive symptoms among Arab women in a primary health care setting . International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine 38 , 453–467. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hassouneh-Phillips D (2001). Polygamy and wife abuse: a qualitative study of Muslim women in America . Health Care for Women International 22 , 735–748. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hinks T, Davies S (2008). Life satisfaction in Malawi and the importance of relative consumption, polygamy and religion . Journal of International Development 20 , 888–904. [ Google Scholar ]
• Iben-Hammad M, Galai N, Shoham-Vardi I, Weitzman D (2004). Health related quality of life of Bedouin Arab women in southern Israel. In The 132nd Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association (APHA), November 6–10, 2004 , Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kianpoor M, Bakhshani NM, Daemi N (2006). Co-occurrence of panic disorder and being a wife in polygamous family . Journal of Medical Science 6 , 870–873. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leighton AH, Lembo TA, Hughes CC, Leighton DC, Murphy JM, Macklin HB (1963). Psychiatric Disorder Among the Yoruba . Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY. [ Google Scholar ]
• Makanjuola RO (1989). Socio-cultural parameters in Yoruba Nigerian patients with affective disorders . British Journal of Psychiatry 155 , 337–340. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maziak W, Taghrid A, Fawaz M, Fouad FM, Nael K (2002). Socio-demographic correlates of psychiatric morbidity among low-income women in Aleppo, Syria . Social Science and Medicine 54 , 1419–1427. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mojahed A, Birashk B (1995). Behavioral problems of children and mental health of parents in polygamous families. MSc thesis, Tehran Institute of Psychiatry. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mojahed A, Birashk B (2004). Behavioral pattern of children and mental health of parents in polygamous families . Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology 9 , 60–67. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mumford DB, Nazir M, Jilani FU, Baig IY (1996). Stress and psychiatric disorder in the Hindu Kush: a community survey of mountain villages in Chitral, Pakistan . British Journal of Psychiatry 168 , 299–307. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Statistical Office of Malawi (2005). Malawi Second Integrated Household Survey (IHS-2) 2004–2005: Basic Information Document. Zomba, Malawi Retrieved 28 November 2011 from http://www.nso.malawi.net/ .
• Ozkan M, Altindag A, Oto R, Sentunali E (2006). Mental health aspects of Turkish women from polygamous versus monogamous families . International Journal of Social Psychiatry 52 , 214–220. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patil C, Hadley C (2008). Symptoms of anxiety and depression and mother's marital status: an exploratory analysis of polygyny and psychosocial stress . American Journal of Human Biology 20 , 475–477. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shepard LD, Panos P, Thompson C (2010). Perpetuating polygamist tradition: an exploratory qualitative study of Senegalese women. Journal of Global Social Work Practice 3. Retrieved 12 January 2011 from http://www.globalsocialwork.org/vol3no1/Shepard.html .
• Sherman LW (2003). Misleading evidence and evidence-led policy: making social science more experimental . Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 589 , 6–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slonim-Nevo V, Al-Krenawi A (2006). Success and failure among polygamous families: the experience of wives, husbands and children . Family Process 45 , 311–330. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tabi MM, Doster C, Cheney T (2010). A qualitative study of women in polygynous marriages . International Nursing Review 57 , 121–127. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valsiner J (1989). Organization of children's social development in polygamic families In Child Development in Cultural Context (ed. Valsiner J.), pp. 67–86. Hogrefe and Huber: Toronto. [ Google Scholar ]
• Welch CE, Glick PC (1981). The incidence of polygamy in contemporary Africa: a research note . Journal of Marriage and the Family 43 , 191–193. [ Google Scholar ]

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter

7 Contemporary debates

• Published: February 2022
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

‘Contemporary debates’ opens with a government raid on the residents of the Arizona town of Short Creek in 1953. They were practicing polygamy as members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, an organization that had separated from the Mormon Church over their continued devotion to polygamy. In many such situations, the revival of so-called traditional polygamy has been connected with religious fundamentalism and limits on women’s public participation, as is also the case among some Muslims in Saudi Arabia. Yet there have also been “campaigns for monogamy” among Muslims in places like Malaysia. At the same time, there has been pressure on monogamy from US left-wing critics, who question married monogamy as the correct or only path for domestic organization. There is a liberal, even libertarian, celebration of “poly,” especially polyamory, in Western liberal democracies.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• Google Scholar Indexing
• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

The Case Against Encouraging Polygamy

Why civil marriage should not encompass group unions

Now that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, writer Freddie de Boer wants its proponents to adopt a new focus. “ Where does the next advance come?” he asks in an essay at Politico. “Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy.”

The time is ripe, he argues, in part because there’s no longer a strategic reason to hold off. “To advocate for polygamy during the marriage equality fight may have seemed to confirm the socially conservative narrative, that gay marriage augured a wholesale collapse in traditional values,” he observes. “But times have changed; while work remains to be done, the immediate danger to marriage equality has passed.”

He proceeds to argue that “the case against polygamy is incredibly flimsy, almost entirely lacking in rational basis and animated by purely irrational fears and prejudice.” And he goes further, insisting that even if there are pragmatic reasons to deny state-sanction to polygamous marriage, we must extend it anyway because it is a human right. “We must insist that rights cannot be dismissed out of short-term interests of logistics and political pragmatism,” he says in the essay, adding in a followup blog post that “logistics are never sufficient reason to deny human rights.”

All three of those arguments strike me as wrongheaded.

I suspect that there are still strategic reasons for gay-marriage advocates to refrain from pushing for plural marriage; there are numerous rational arguments against state endorsement of group marriages; and having a polygamous marriage recognized and incentivized by the state is not a human right.

The law should, I think, allow groups of people to sleep in the same house, engage in group sex, and enter into contracts or religious arrangements of their liking. If a polyamorous family lived next door to me, I’d welcome them to the neighborhood and champion treating them with love and respect. But I think it would be imprudent to include their arrangement in civil marriage, with its incentivizing benefits, because if group marriage were to become normalized and spread beyond a tiny fringe the consequences for society could be significant and negative.

The Politics of Gay Marriage

​Gay marriage remains illegal in Australia, most of Asia, Africa, and Oceania, and parts of Europe and Mexico; the most liberal of those countries strike me as the most natural places for “the next advance” of marriage. I’d urge my fellow gay-marriage proponents to focus their efforts there––and legalizing group marriage in America right now would strengthen the hands of gay-marriage opponents abroad, confirming slippery-slope arguments that were raised and rejected here. If it ever made sense to avoid this fight as a matter of political strategy, it still does; if gay marriage was ever a more important priority​ than plural marriage, it remains so.

The Utilitarian Case Against Group Marriage

The strongest argument against state-sanctioned group marriage is how poorly it has worked out for women and low-status men in most times and places it has been tried.

Jonathan Rauch puts it succinctly :

There's an extensive literature on polygamy. Here’s a 2012 study, for example, that discovered “significantly higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures.” According to the research, “monogamy's main cultural evolutionary advantage over polygyny is the more egalitarian distribution of women, which reduces male competition and social problems.” ...monogamous marriage “results in significant improvements in child welfare, including lower rates of neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict.” And: “by shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, institutionalized monogamy increases long-term planning, economic productivity, savings and child investment.”

De Boer responds that “basic social science tells us that the very illegality and taboo that I’m trying to get rid of distorts the empirical picture. When a practice is illegal and taboo, that practice will necessarily be undertaken by people who tend towards extremist or outsider lifestyles. The fact that in America we associate polygamy with radical religious types is a function of that illegality and that taboo.”

But plural marriage is associated with those negative outcomes even in cultures where it is or was neither taboo nor illegal. Says De Boer, “The truth is that we don’t know what a wealthy Western society like America would look like with polygamous marriage because conservatism has prevented that society from existing.” He is right that we cannot be sure what the United States would look like if polygamy were legalized tomorrow, and perhaps America would be exceptional. It is also possible that the vast majority of plural marriages would occur within fundamentalist religious groups, as happened in the past; and that those plural marriages would be as coercive and destabilizing as has typically been true.

Either way, it is incomplete at best to assert that it is impossible to know what a polygamous society would look like “because conservatism has prevented that society from existing.” There are strong conservative arguments for risk-aversion and against experimenting with legalized group marriage, but there are equally strong technocratic, feminist, and progressive arguments against incentivizing polygamous marriage. If plural marriage is recognized by the state and practiced mostly in Berkeley and Williamsburg, those left-leaning arguments may well go unarticulated. I expect that they’ll be made forcefully, though, if the result of normalized plural marriage is, for example, a spike in the number of middle-aged religious conservatives who coerce their first wives into letting them marry teenagers summoned from fundamentalist Mormon sects or polygamous tribal societies abroad.

Numbers are the next-strongest argument against plural marriage. Here’s Rauch again:

...when a high-status man takes two wives (and one man taking many wives, or polygyny, is almost invariably the real-world pattern), a lower-status man gets no wife. If the high-status man takes three wives, two lower-status men get no wives... This competitive, zero-sum dynamic sets off a competition among high-status men to hoard marriage opportunities, which leaves lower-status men out in the cold. Those men, denied access to life's most stabilizing and civilizing institution, are unfairly disadvantaged and often turn to behaviors like crime and violence. The situation is not good for women, either, because it places them in competition with other wives and can reduce them all to satellites of the man.

Where plural marriage exists in America, this is already happening. As The New York Times reported in 2007, “ Over the last six years, hundreds of teenage boys have been expelled or felt compelled to leave the polygamous settlement that straddles Colorado City, Ariz., and Hildale, Utah. Disobedience is usually the reason given for expulsion, but former sect members and state legal officials say the exodus of males—the expulsion of girls is rarer—also remedies a huge imbalance in the marriage market. Members of the sect believe that to reach eternal salvation, men are supposed to have at least three wives.”

On his blog, De Boer responds to concerns about gender imbalance in the marriage market. My responses follow:

1. We already have lots of sad horny angry dudes.

That is not an argument recommending a policy that might create orders of magnitude more.

2. Government has no business trying to regulate the sexual or romantic “marketplace” so that men feel like they have an adequate number of partners to choose from. Society has no legitimate interest in ensuring that you feel like you have a good chance of getting laid.

Getting laid, which does not require marriage, is beside the point. And the point isn’t to ensure that men “feel like” they have an adequate number of partners to choose from––it is to ensure that both genders do have at least some realistic opportunity to participate in the institution of marriage, the same cause that drove so many impassioned proponents of gay marriage to broaden the institution. I’d further argue that the government does have an interest in regulating the sexual marketplace in this sense: Nature has given humanity a world with roughly equal numbers of men and women, a highly beneficial reality, and if that parity were threatened by large numbers of parents choosing the gender of their children, the government would, I think, have an interest in outlawing that practice to avoid the terrible consequences that could result from a significant imbalance.

3. Traditional marriage has traditionally invested men with superior power, too.

In practice, the power imbalance in polygamous unions has arguably been both greater and more resistant to egalitarian trends. And in any marriage that grows beyond two people, a new problem presents itself: the possibility of a majority ganging up on a minority.

4. That polygamy often functions to have one man who dominates the household and lots of subservient wives is a function of patriarchy. It’s our duty to destroy patriarchy. If we undertake that effort, the benefits will accrue to traditional marriage, to polygamous marriage, and to the unmarried.

By this logic, why not destroy patriarchy and then, only once you’ve succeeded, recognize group marriage?

5. That the idea of one wife with many husbands is just assumed away is itself reflective of ingrained sexism.

Ingrained sexism exists and will shape how polygamy plays out if it spreads! And even apart from ingrained sexism, men may turn out to be more averse to sharing a wife with other men than women are to sharing a husband with other women.

6. The notion that polygamy will necessarily and perpetually default to one husband, many wives because of inequality in social and economic capital between men and women seems to me to be a matter of declaring defeat in the battle against sexism.

Even if longstanding patterns reversed and women began to take multiple men as spouses in much higher numbers than the reverse, there would still be a category of losers––low status women, in this case––who would be denied the opportunity to marry by the inegalitarian structure of polygamous society.

7. While a huge amount of work remains to be done, we’ve seen remarkable progress in closing the gap in social and economic capital between men and women in recent decades. There are a lot of relationships out there, right now, where the woman is the partner with more social capital, more education, a better income, and better prospects. It’s one of the most obvious changes in educated, elite society. Under those conditions, I can easily imagine one wife taking multiple husbands. And while we should never presume progress, I think we have a clear duty to spread that changing condition in the relative social and economic value of men and women throughout society. If we do, you’ll find this problem goes away.

Among highly educated, high-income Americans in polyamorous relationships––not marriages, just relationships––a woman taking on multiple boyfriends is still, as best I can tell, the least common arrangement. There is every reason to think that the pattern would hold if polygamous marriages became common in secular society.

Apart from any of these other objections, polygamist unions seem likely to prove less stable than two-person unions, which aren’t particularly stable themselves these days. If each individual in a polygamous union is no more or less likely to seek a divorce than a person in a monogamous union, the failure rate would still be at least a third higher, assuming a three-person grouping, and higher still for larger plural marriages. That isn’t sufficient reason to punish people for attempting polyamorous unions, but seems like a good reason to avoid encouraging them.

The option of plural marriage might also destabilize some two-person unions, with one spouse regarding the existing arrangement as “till death do us part,” only to be confronted with a spouse who, while averse to divorce, is pushing for a new member of the marriage. “Either she joins us,” a husband might say, “or I’m out.” It’s hard to say if changing norms would make that scenario more likely than it is now.

Then there are the logistical problems that plural marriage presents, which would seem to require altering core features and benefits that presently make up civil marriage. Mary Anne Case, a law professor at the University of Chicago, has pointed out that the legal institution is largely concerned with the "designation, without elaborate contracting, of a single other person third parties can look to in a variety of legal contexts.” Three-, four-, or five-person unions would require abandoning that aspect of marriage.

Americans can presently marry a foreign citizen and bring them here, after jumping through bureaucratic hoops, eventually sponsoring them for U.S. citizenship. Would the advent of plural marriage require that this practice be ended? Or would group marriages include the right to confer unlimited citizenships?

When I got married I was eligible to add my wife to my employer-sponsored health insurance. In a world of plural marriage, would this benefit of the institution end, or could I add as many people as I liked to my employer’s insurance plan?

If the parties to a plural marriage disagree about a medical decision that needs to be made on behalf of an unconscious spouse, who would get to decide the matter? Who would receive the Social Security survivor benefits if the patient died? These logistical matters add real costs to recognizing plural marriages––and they lessen the simplifying benefits that marriage confers on society. They also suggest that expanding the definition of civil marriage to encompass more than two parties is a far more radical, fundamental change than was recognizing unions of same-sex couples.

Plural Marriage Is Not a Human Right

Is the state denying a human right when it declines to recognize polygamous marriages? De Boer answers affirmatively, but does not explain what makes something a human right that must be recognized irrespective of its consequences. I could surmise a rationale if someone put life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness––or food, shelter, and medicine––into a category called human rights.

I cannot surmise the rationale for putting “equal treatment for polygamous unions” in that category. If De Boer objected, as many libertarians do, to the state putting a thumb on the scale and incentivizing marriage with benefits that are denied to the unmarried, to business partners, to spouses, and to non-romantic friends, I’d grant the coherence of his complaint; but as best I can tell, he’s fine with unequal treatment for the married and unmarried so long as the married include polygamists.

The closest he comes to a rationale is arguing that “consenting adults who all knowingly and willfully decide to enter into a joint marriage contract, free of coercion, should be permitted to do so, according to basic principles of personal liberty,” adding “the preeminence of the principle of consent is a just and pragmatic way to approach adult relationships in a world of multivariate and complex human desires.”

I agree that consenting adults who decide to enter contracts while free of coercion should be permitted to do so, but I disagree that the state is obligated to call these contracts “marriages,” to extend to the parties all benefits of civil marriage, and to rewrite those attributes of civil marriage that are inseparable from two-person unions. In declining to do so, the state does not deny anyone equal protection under the law.

Conclusions

There could be benefits to recognizing polygamous relationships. Casey E. Faucon, a fellow at the University of Wisconsin Law School, asserts that there are 150,000 polygamists now living in the U.S., and that many second and third polygamous wives “are left without any legal recognition or protection,” a situation that might be remedied were they brought into some sort of regulatory framework. She claims to have a set of regulatory rules that “ensure consent, prevent unequal bargaining power between the parties, and protect individual rights, all while addressing and respecting the religious beliefs that lead polygamists into these otherwise taboo marital arrangements.” Perhaps some formal recognition short of marriage would be salutary.

But the assertion that “the case against polygamy is incredibly flimsy, almost entirely lacking in rational basis and animated by purely irrational fears and prejudice” could not be more wrong. Adherents of that position are blind to the many rational, good-faith concerns about the normalization of polygamous unions, and deaf to the conservative logic behind special benefits for unions between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. There are empirical, cultural, and pragmatic reasons to incentivize civil marriages of that sort.

And if civil marriage’s benefits are extended to a practice as historically and potentially destabilizing as polygamous marriage, it will undermine the conservative case for conserving civil marriage and strengthen the libertarian case that the state should get out of the business of incentivizing any particular relationship structure.

27 Major Pros & Cons Of Polygamy vs. Monogamy

“Polygamy: An endeavor to get more out of life than there is in it.”

Elbert Hubbard, Writer

Advantages & Disadvantages of Polygamy

Polygamy is the concept that people can be married to more than one partner.

If a man has more than one wife at the same time, it is called polygyny.

If a woman has more than one husband at the same time, it is called polyandry.

Please enable JavaScript

If a family consists of multiple husbands and multiple wives, it is called group marriage.

Polygamy is quite popular in some countries while it is considered as rather dodgy in others.

While there are some advantages to the concept of polygamy, there are also some problems related to it.

In this article, the pros and cons of polygamy are discussed.

Audio Lesson

Advantages of polygamy, polygamy has been present in history for a long time, humans are polygamist by nature, bigger selection of partners, lower risk that people get bored in a marriage, bigger families imply more connections, concept of one soulmate for everyone is flawed anyway, can expand your gene pool, makes sense if there is no balance between males and females in a region, polygamy as sort of status symbol, lower incentive to cheat in a marriage, fear of losing your partner may be lower with polygamy, you don’t have to make compromises.

Polygamy is not a new concept at all.

In fact, we as humans lived in a polygamous state throughout the history of mankind.

Only in recent centuries, the concept of monogamy became more popular.

However, from a historical perspective, polygamy makes quite a lot of sense and what had been good for many thousands of years may also be considered to be good in our current state of the world.

Hence, from a historical perspective, practicing polygamy can make quite a lot of sense and monogamy is a rather recent invention that needs to prove itself yet.

In fact, humans are polygamist by nature.

For many thousands of years, people really struggled to survive and had to search for food and shelter.

Quite often, polygamous families formed since it was just the only way to survive for many people.

Consequently, humans evolved with a polygamist nature and it is deep inside our DNA that we need more than one partner to be happy in the long run.

Therefore, polygamy also makes quite a lot of sense and may be superior over monogamy also from a gene development perspective.

Another advantage of polygamy is that there will be a variety of different partners available to you.

In fact, if you live in a polygamous relationship, you can have multiple partners at the same time without being accused of cheating.

Depending on your preferences, this can mean that you only have two spouses or even numerous different spouses at the same time.

The exact number is up to you and to your individual preferences.

In general, polygamy allows you to have a bigger selection of partners at the same time and in case one partner annoys you quite a lot, you can simply spend your time with your other spouses and neglect the annoying spouse for a while.

Thus, a bigger variety of different partners can make your life easier in the sense that you can choose with whom you want to spend your time with.

Another benefit of polygamy is that there will be lower risk that people get bored in their marriage.

Let’s be honest.

In our current state of the world, most marriages are just maintained since people are too lazy to divorce.

Some people also fear the financial consequences of divorce and therefore stay married to their partners.

However, most people in a marriage get bored over time and urgently want to experience something new.

Yet, they will not be allowed to do so since they are only allowed to have one spouse in a conventional monogamous partnership.

Consequently, in order to give people the option to explore new partners and to make life more interesting in general, polygamy can also make quite a lot of sense in this regard.

If you live in a polygamous relationship, your family will be bigger than the family of people who live in monogamous relationships on average.

In turn, this also implies that you will have more connections and a stronger social network.

Networks and connections to different people are quite important to succeed in various parts of life.

For instance, if you want to get a demanding corporate job that pays quite a lot of money, your chances will increase significantly if you have connections inside the company.

The same is true for many other parts of life and therefore, polygamy can also increase your overall chances in life in general.

Many people still believe in the soulmate myth.

This means that people believe that there is only one partner for every person on earth with whom they should spend their lives together in a monogamous relationship.

However, if we have a look at statistics and marriage data, we realize that this concept is laughable.

Around half of all marriages will result in a divorce and after the divorce happened, many people will search for a new partner.

Hence, the soulmate myth is actually based on a flawed argumentation and the related need for monogamy can be rejected pretty easily when we have a closer look at how the world really works.

Another upside of polygamy is that it can also help you to expand your gene pool.

In fact, many studies have shown that a variety of different genes is best for humanity since it lowers the vulnerability for diseases.

By sleeping with more than one partner and by having children with your different spouses, you can expand your gene pool quite a lot and you can make sure that your genes will be passed forward from many different children.

Thus, having multiple children with multiple partners can not only make sense on the individual level, it can also make sense from a global human gene perspective.

Polygamous relationships can also make quite a lot of sense in regions where there is a significant imbalance between men and women.

In fact, if there are far more women than men in the respective region, it can make sense that a man has multiple women.

This can not only be beneficial for the man, but also for his wives since those wives will be provided with shelter and food.

Hence, polygamous relationships are especially senseful in poor regions where people struggle to survive without a partner and where there is a significant gender imbalance.

In some cultures, having multiple spouses at the same time is also considered as kind of a status symbol.

This is especially true for men. In fact, the more wives a man has, the higher his social status will be in society.

In turn, other men often want to be like this guy and the men that have multiple wives will often be the most respected men in those societies.

Thus, depending on the respective region, it can also make quite a lot of sense to live a polygamous lifestyle in order to increase social status and the overall level of acceptance in society.

People who have multiple partners will also have a lower incentive to cheat on their partners.

In fact, if you have a big selection of different partners, you will not feel too much urge to go out and to cheat on your partners.

Instead, you can stay at home and choose the wife you want to spend time with according to your preferences.

In fact, many people in a monogamous relationship cheat on their partners since they are just quite fed up with him or her and want to experience new things.

Therefore, polygamy can also make quite a lot of sense since cheating would no longer be necessary and feelings would not be hurt as often as in monogamous relationships.

Another benefit of polygamy is that the fear of losing your partner may be much lower compared to monogamous relationships.

If you have multiple spouses, you will not fear too much to lose one of them since there will be many others left.

In fact, if one spouse wants to leave you, you will still have many other spouses around you and you can even replace him or her with another partner.

In turn, the fear of losing your partner will be quite limited due to this fact, which in turn also implies a higher overall quality of life since you don’t have to worry about losing your partner too much.

When you are in a polygamous relationship, you also don’t have to make any compromises.

In fact, if you provide for all of your spouses, you will also be the one in charge and can lead the relationship.

This also implies that you can basically do whatever you want and don’t have to comply with the preferences of your spouses.

If one spouse is not fine with your decisions, he or she could leave the relationship and you will still have enough spouses left who are fine with your decisions and views on the world.

Disadvantages of Polygamy

Polygamy can be problematic from a legal perspective, religious concerns related to polygamy, polygamy may lead to jealousy, having more than one partner can be expensive, you need a bigger home if you have multiple spouses, polygamy may promote gender inequality, some spouses may be treated quite poorly, tensions in the household will be quite common, spouses may not accept children from other spouses, spouses may be stuck in unhappy marriages, children may get neglected, mental issues related to polygamy, polygamy is considered as dodgy in many regions, spread of diseases inside the polygamous marriage, inheritance issues are rather common.

While there are many advantages of polygamy, this concept also implies some problems.

For instance, one disadvantage of polygamy is that it can be problematic from a legal perspective.

In fact, in many countries all over the world, polygamy is not permitted by law and marrying multiple partners is simply not allowed.

Hence, in case you aspire to such a lifestyle, you may have to keep it secret and discrete instead of bragging about it in front of your friends.

Another problem of polygamy is that it can also be problematic from a religious perspective.

In fact, many religious people think that monogamy is the way to go and that everything else will not be in line with religious beliefs.

Consequently, people who live in regions where religious beliefs are quite important may also have a quite hard time living a polygamous lifestyle since they may get socially excluded by the local population due to that.

Polygamy can also lead to serious levels of jealousy.

In fact, while many partners claim that they are satisfied with polygamous relationships, they are actually not and they know it deep inside.

In turn, spouses may become quite jealous over time and jealousy is problematic for every kind of relationship.

In the long run, jealousy may translate into fear, desperation and also into a state where some spouses feel neglected, which in turn greatly lowers the overall quality of life of those partners.

In case you have multiple partners and you have to provide for all of them, this can also be quite problematic from a financial standpoint.

In fact, many people underestimate the costs related to polygamy and are surprised of how expensive it can be to have multiple partners.

In fact, you will often have to pay for the shopping trips of multiple partners and also have to buy presents for your spouses from time to time.

The more spouses you have, the more expensive your lifestyle tends to be.

Therefore, if you are currently on a budget and try to save money, polygamy will likely not be the way to go for you.

Another problem with polygamy is that you will also need a bigger home in order to accommodate all of your spouses.

This also implies that you have to pay a much higher rent compared to a state where you were in a monogamous relationship.

In turn, this will imply an additional financial burden on you and you should make sure that you can afford having multiple partners in order to protect yourself from any financial difficulties related to your polygamous lifestyle.

Opponents of polygamy also often claim that this concept promotes gender inequality.

In fact, in regions where men have multiple wives, those wives often only have quite confined rights.

In turn, those wives often don’t have the opportunity to educate themselves and to work in the job they want to.

Instead, they often have to stay at home and have to cook and do the household.

Consequently, polygamy can also be considered as problematic from a gender inequality perspective.

In general, spouses in polygamous partnerships are often treated quite poorly.

In fact, the incentive to treat your partners with respect decreases with polygamy since you will have a bigger selection of spouses and will not care too much whether a partner leaves you or not.

Thus, polygamy may also decrease the level of respect for each other in the long run.

Another downside of polygamy is that tensions in such relationships will be quite common.

Although your partners may claim that they are fine with you having multiple spouses, they will often not be fine with it at all.

In fact, your spouses will likely try to manipulate each other in order to get your attention and to turn you into a monogamous creature.

In turn, those manipulation attempts can lead to serious tensions inside your family and to many unpleasant outcomes in the long run.

Children will often also have a hard time in polygamous households.

In fact, women will always prefer their own children over the children from the other wives and this can lead to a state where one wife will not accept the children of another wife.

In turn, this can lead to a state where children are treated quite poorly in the long run.

Polygamous relationships can also lead to a state where spouses get stuck in unhappy marriages.

In fact, in many polygamous relationships, spouses will be treated rather poorly and will also not be allowed to earn their own money.

In turn, the level of dependence on their partner is enormous and those spouses will often not be able to leave the marriage due to financial reasons, even though they might not be happy in their marriage at all.

Polygamous households also tend to have many children.

However, if there are too many children in a household, chances are that some of those children will suffer from serious neglect.

In turn, those children may not get enough food or also not have the opportunity to get proper education.

Many partners in polygamous relationships also suffer from mental problems .

While spouses are often fine with polygamous relationships at the beginning, they often realize after a while that they rather want to spend their lives in a monogamous relationship instead.

However, in many cases, this will no longer be possible.

In turn, those people will often suffer from serious mental issues since they will lose all their hope for a better future.

In general, the overall level of acceptance towards polygamous relationships is often rather limited.

In fact, in many regions all over the world, polygamy is considered to be rather dodgy and not in line with cultural and social norms.

In turn, if you want to practice polygamy in those regions, chances are that you will get socially isolated and may not be considered as a valuable member of society anymore.

Polygamous relationships also imply the problem that the risk for the spread of diseases increases significantly.

In fact, if you are intimate with many different partners, chances are that you will transmit certain diseases from one partner to the other.

In many polygamous relationships, it is also rather unclear who has the right to inherit the assets in the household.

In fact, since there will be many different spouses and children in polygamous households, it will be quite hard to figure out who gets what and disputes are rather common in this regard.

Top 10 Polygamy Pros & Cons – Summary List

Polygamy vs. monogamy – which one is better.

As we can conclude from the discussion above, there are numerous advantages and disadvantages of polygamy.

In the end, everyone should decide for themselves whether a polygamous lifestyle is suitable for them or if they rather want to spend their lives with only one partner instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/polygamy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/monogamy

About the author

My name is Andreas and my mission is to educate people of all ages about our environmental problems and how everyone can make a contribution to mitigate these issues.

As I went to university and got my Master’s degree in Economics, I did plenty of research in the field of Development Economics.

After finishing university, I traveled around the world. From this time on, I wanted to make a contribution to ensure a livable future for the next generations in every part of our beautiful planet.

Wanna make a contribution to save our environment? Share it!

Terms & Privacy Policy

Affiliate Disclosure

As an associate, I may earn commissions from qualifying purchases from Amazon or other programs.

Please note that all the information I provide on this website is to my best knowledge. However, I will not take any responsibility for incorrect information and will not be liable for any negative consequences that might occur due to the reliance on this information.

Pin It on Pinterest

Argument Against Monogamy Essay

For many of my friends, the time is right for them to settle down and start families. This is especially true for my girlfriends, who are anxious about meeting a ‘special’ kind of man who will dedicate all his time and resources towards making them happy. Nevertheless, a sizable number of my friends are terrified of the idea of getting married. Most of my acquaintances who are not excited by the idea of getting married cite the high instances of divorce and increasing rates of infidelity among married couples as their main hindrances towards getting married. I believe the marriage institution in its current form is flawed, and it has moved from a natural to unnatural form. In this paper, I will show how monogamy is the main undoing in today’s marriages and how abandoning it could restore the institution of marriage.

Many of my girlfriends flinch at the idea of a polygamous marriage or even an open relationship. Most of these ladies insist that relationships should follow the ‘one man, one woman’ format. The main argument towards this reasoning is that monogamous relationships are beneficial to society. Monogamous relationships confine one partner to another and therefore serve as sanitizers to the society’s morals. Weddings are highly regarded in society because they are the hallmark of monogamy and some of my friends have already imagined how the day they swear to monogamy should look like. Individuals who show contempt towards monogamy are shunned by both the society and the legal system.

For this reason, some of my close friends consider me a ‘freak’ for opposing monogamy. Currently, the practices of polygamy, infidelity, and bigamy are considered illegal in almost all states across the country. I have been led to believe that the only way I can be respected in society as a woman is by associating myself to one man. According to most people, abandoning monogamy would lead to a chaotic society where women are taken advantage of, and the moral fabric of the society is compromised.

When I asked one of my friends whether monogamy is natural, she replied that monogamy is a natural bond among humans and it is made possible by a deep romantic love between mates. This reasoning is quite common among women, although a large portion of men dispute it. One of my girlfriends assures me that monogamy only fails when the bond between the two lovers is compromised. Some psychologists have supported this opinion by claiming that failure in communication is a major contributor to the breakdown of monogamous relationships.

If all of the above claims and arguments were solid enough, the situation on the ground would be different. Currently, it is common knowledge that over fifty percent of marriages end in divorce. Even though human beings are supposedly monogamous, the monogamous-marriage institution is failing at an alarming rate. The possibility of divorce is so real such that almost everyone I know who gets into a marriage nowadays signs a prenuptial agreement. This agreement is supposed to ease a possible divorce scenario. While this might be understandable, the contents of some of the prenuptial agreements I have seen highlight the cynicism towards monogamous relationships. For instance, some prenuptial agreements suggest steep penalties in case one of the spouses engages in infidelity. This makes me wonder how a supposedly monogamous society could have such an elaborate divorce industry. If our society was truly monogamous, divorce cases are supposed to be rare but not common occurrences.

One expert on the matter suggests that the concept of ‘naturally monogamous human beings’ is misunderstood by most people. Dr. Helen Fisher, an established anthropologist, suggests that humans are meant to be serially monogamous. However, this monogamy is meant to last for the period it takes for children to be weaned from their mother (four to five years). After this period, both the man and the woman move on in the search for their next monogamous relationship. Therefore, the concept of serial monogamy might be misunderstood by most of those people who adhere to it. In my experience, a modern monogamous relationship remains healthy for three to five years. After these initial blissful years, most relationships become harder and harder to maintain. However, by the end of a monogamous relationship cycle, there are joint responsibilities for the couple. In most cases, joint responsibilities such as children, mortgages, and loan payments end up sticking a couple together.

One can know that monogamy is not a working concept just by observing the current social environment. The media is full of stories about the pitfalls of monogamous relationships. It is no longer shocking for me to see my married acquaintances being involved in cheating scandals and other extramarital affairs. This weakness is not limited to members of any socio-economic status, but it happens to all individuals in society. Therefore, it is necessary to look for working alternatives to the current institution of monogamy.

Statistics suggest that over twenty-five percent of men and eleven percent of women in monogamous relationships are involved in infidelity. Ironically, even some of my friends who are staunch supporters of monogamy had engaged in infidelity when they were in monogamous relationships. Some experts suggest that monogamy is nullified by the fact that men are naturally engineered to pass their genes to as many women as possible. Therefore, it is ‘unnatural’ to confine one man to one woman. Acknowledging this truth would help in reviving the institution of marriage. I believe that instances of monogamy that work only do so by sheer luck or through suppression of instincts.

The main alternative to monogamy is polygamy. Polygamy is a common practice in several societies around the world. In our culture, polygamy is an outlawed practice, and there are legal ramifications towards the practice. However, some societies and religions have harnessed the age-old practice and with good results. A good way of evaluating the effectiveness of monogamy and polygamy is by investigating the societies where each of these practices is prevalent. In a monogamous society such as ours, there are higher instances of infidelity, divorce, and single parenthood. However, in societies that practice polygamy such as some African and Arabic societies, there are lower instances of single parenthood, divorce, and immorality. The people who cling on to monogamy cite ‘unhappiness’ as a common occurrence in societies that practice polygamy.

Nevertheless, it is not clear how a society that is constantly engaging in divorce cases, child custody battles, extramarital affairs, and single parenting could be considered ‘happy.’ Also, monogamy has done more harm than good to us women. In a society with few eligible men, women have had to degrade themselves to outdo their fellow women and attract a viable mate. For example, currently, women are forced to dress provocatively and seek hazardous cosmetic procedures to attract men’s attention. These practices are rare in societies that practice polygamy.

It is not likely that my views will have a far-reaching impact on the current practice. However, society as a whole needs to start examining the institution of monogamy. The situation is getting worse with some individuals abandoning the marriage institution due to its fundamental weaknesses. Meanwhile, across the world, polygamous societies continue to be content with their systems.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, May 13). Argument Against Monogamy. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argument-against-monogamy/

"Argument Against Monogamy." IvyPanda , 13 May 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/argument-against-monogamy/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Argument Against Monogamy'. 13 May.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Argument Against Monogamy." May 13, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argument-against-monogamy/.

1. IvyPanda . "Argument Against Monogamy." May 13, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argument-against-monogamy/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Argument Against Monogamy." May 13, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argument-against-monogamy/.

• Prenuptial Agreement and Divorce Proceedings
• Different Societal Responses to Polygamy, Polyandry, or Polyamory
• Social Issues: Monogamy in Our Life
• Gender and Cultural Studies: Intimacy, Love and Friendship
• Contemporary Sexuality Class: Monogamy
• Monogamy as an Acceptable System of Marriage in America
• "The Real Problem With Monogamy: Asymmetric Information"
• Sexual Behavior: Western vs. Asian Perspectives
• “Sex and the City”: The Question of Monogamy and Polygamy
• Sexual Behaviors in Different Cultures
• Weddings, Marriage, and Money in the UAE
• Breaking Social Norms in United Arab Emirates
• Aristotle's Notion of Civic Relationships
• Love in Chinese Society
• Society’s View on Single Motherhood