The Inverse - Does Monogamy Remove Choice From A Woman?

[BiblicalLiteralist]

Is forced societal monogamy actually a shackle in disguise for the woman? If a woman's first choice, best option, or even only option, is a man who is already in a relationship. Does monogamy deny her the option of exercising that choice, by forcing her to chose another or go without? If she finds no other suitable men or simply desires one who is already in a relationship, is it her RIGHT to decide who she wants to be joined to? Does a woman have a RIGHT to seek marriage with any man she pleases while she is still unjoined?

If so does monogamy actually deny her that RIGHT by not allowing her that option through social or legal consequences? Does the already joined woman have the RIGHT to deny the unjoined woman the man she is joined to? And does the unjoined woman violate the joined woman's RIGHT by requiring her to be displaced, in order to join herself to that man? If the RIGHT to chose does exist, does monogamy not violate this RIGHT by pitting them at odds with one another? In these scenarios who's justified, is it first come first serve?

Mind you this is only about the option of a woman to chose who she wants to seek marriage with, the power to grant that marriage lies with the man. But does she have the RIGHT to proposition that man regardless of his relationship status? Is freedom of choice not the whole point of women's liberation? Is promotion and adherence to monogamy not a doublestandard by those who say the woman is free to chose?

 

[MemeFan]

Harder to disagree with your words per se. Practically everything you have written is correct.

However, your frame isn't good. Freedom of choice enables you to make good argument. But is has one flaw. Where is limit to this freedom of choice? Why it shouldn't be expanded to include free man joining to taken woman? Or even worse, why not to consider children as marriageable people?

Your framing is wrong also in another way. You include only feminine perspective. Only way to justify something is because in benefits women. This is totaly crazy. It's mark of how much western society has become feminized that it can't even bother with masculine perspective. What kind of civilization would discard existence of 50% of it's members. Yet, civilization requires that cooperation pay off for most people in most situations. Othewise, why bother?

I prefer making arguments from structure of reality. Such arguments are far harder to defeat and twist in another dimension. Here is my example:

So... What are your arguments FOR polygyny?

Genesis also explains why the Messiah had to be a virgin. Just curious. Is that sentence missing a couple of words, or does it mean what it says?

biblicalfamilies.org

@RemnantResilience, I think you did good job. There are some merits to your approach. It could work people who accept today's western presuppositions.

And it is good to see someone trying non-biblical arguments. As community we are in sorely lacking in good non-biblical arguments. But be aware, dishonest people will try to abuse your arguments for evil purposes. When you creating arguments try to make it more "abuse-proof".

 

[steve]

Is forced societal monogamy actually a shackle in disguise for the woman? If a woman's first choice, best option, or even only option, is a man who is already in a relationship. Does monogamy deny her the option of exercising that choice, by forcing her to chose another or go without? If she finds no other suitable men or simply desires one who is already in a relationship, is it her RIGHT to decide who she wants to be joined to? Does a woman have a RIGHT to seek marriage with any man she pleases while she is still unjoined?

If so does monogamy actually deny her that RIGHT by not allowing her that option through social or legal consequences? Does the already joined woman have the RIGHT to deny the unjoined woman the man she is joined to? And does the unjoined woman violate the joined woman's RIGHT by requiring her to be displaced, in order to join herself to that man? If the RIGHT to chose does exist, does monogamy not violate this RIGHT by pitting them at odds with one another? In these scenarios who's justified, is it first come first serve?

Mind you this is only about the option of a woman to chose who she wants to seek marriage with, the power to grant that marriage lies with the man. But does she have the RIGHT to proposition that man regardless of his relationship status? Is freedom of choice not the whole point of women's liberation? Is promotion and adherence to monogamy not a doublestandard by those who say the woman is free to chose?

I think that you make a reasonable argument for the rights of women.
Do they deserve unlimited rights? No, that’s not reasonable and that is not what you are addressing.

 

[Mark C]

Enforced monogamy doesn't remove 'choice' from women - it removes OPTIONS.

 

[PeteR]

I agree with @MemeFan as I read I thought, 'good argument, but easily turned to support unbiblical positions such as polyandry and polyamory.'

Thecreal problem is Christianity and Judaism's abandonment of Biblical standards for marriage. Without Torah underpinning that clearly denfines adultery correctly, the rest is subject to twisting.

 

[BiblicalLiteralist]

It actually meant to articulate it from the secular perspective, and the double standards of feminism. I purposefully ignored any other viewpoints for that reason. @Mark C Good catch. I think that is correct, but we know it doesn't actually remove the option because in the secular world woman pursue the man anyways, hoping to strip him from the other woman. Thats why I expressed it as a right that can be violated. Here I am preaching to the choir however monogamy itself is more widely excepted among the church and secular. If you think you can improve the argument please do.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Enforced monogamy doesn't remove 'choice' from women - it removes OPTIONS.

And since you choose between options......

 

[BiblicalLiteralist]

I wanted to touch back on this topic and what argument inspired the question in the first place. I found this today and was reading through it, and just wanted to address this statement I often see pop up when discussing polygamy/polygny which is,

"however, this practice meant that if rich men had more than one wife, then some poor men had to remain single." Or some iteration of this statement. This is a fallacy and is dependent on two assumptions.

First that the woman would have chosen this man at all or is required to, and second that the man is entitled to a wife in the first place, or requires a wife. Neither of which can be supported scripturally. I think it actually dehumanizes the people involved basically making them into "the leftovers". Its essentially a pity party for the man at the womans expense.

 

[steve]

I think it actually dehumanizes the people involved basically making them into "the leftovers". Its essentially a pity party.

Actually a form of Socialism where every person gets a mate equally, whether they are morally deserving or not.

 

[MeganC]

Actually a form of Socialism where every person gets a mate equally, whether they are morally deserving or not.

 

[frederick]

But does she have the RIGHT to proposition that man regardless of his relationship status?

Yup!

 

[The Revolting Man]

We are told that it’s not good for a man to be alone.

 

[steve]

We are told that it’s not good for a man to be alone.

No, it was stated that it was not good for Adam to be alone.
Some men, it would be better for everyone that they be alone.

Not all men are Adam.

 

[The Revolting Man]

No, it was stated that it was not good for Adam to be alone.
Some men, it would be better for everyone that they be alone.

Not all men are Adam.

That’s a pretty tortured reading of that passage but it technically fits.

 

[steve]

That’s a pretty tortured reading of that passage but it technically fits.

You are the one reading into it something that isn’t there.
Only one man existed at the time and it was him that the decision was made for.

C’mon, if a guy is a drunkard, is it better for him to be married?
Although, if a drunkard is living with his mother he is technically not alone……

 

[The Revolting Man]

You are the one reading into it something that isn’t there.
Only one man existed at the time and it was him that the decision was made for.

C’mon, if a guy is a drunkard, is it better for him to be married?
Although, if a drunkard is living with his mother he is technically not alone……

I said your take technically fits the passage. I don’t think it’s the right take. Obviously it stands to reason that God would prefer that every man have a helper.

 

[steve]

Hopefully you mean that every moral man have a helper.
Seriously, why would Yah want immoral men to have helpers? And secondly, what did the women do to deserve that?

 

[frederick]

Although, if a drunkard is living with his mother he is technically not alone……

Oh no..., another sad mother.

 

[BiblicalLiteralist]

Hopefully you mean that every moral man have a helper.
Seriously, why would Yah want immoral men to have helpers? And secondly, what did the women do to deserve that?

We actually see the taking of wives from men and giving to others as punishment for wickedness multiple times in scripture. 2 Sam. 12:11, Isaiah 13:16, Amos 7:17.

 

[JudahYAHites]

Hopefully you mean that every moral man have a helper.
Seriously, why would Yah want immoral men to have helpers? And secondly, what did the women do to deserve that?

...A wicked woman is given to a wicked man as his reward, a godly woman is given to a man that fears YAH...