argumentative essay about polygamy

The Pros and Cons of Polygamy

Would legalizing polygamy increase people's freedom, or limit it.

Posted July 24, 2015

• Making Marriage Work
• Take our Relationship Satisfaction Test
• Find a marriage therapist near me

With gay marriage now legal nationwide, many (like William Baude in the New York Times ) are now wondering if legalized polygamy may be next, and some (like Fredrik Deboer in Politico ) are suggesting that it should be.

As Baude points out in his op-ed , polygamy should remain illegal because it would increase gender inequality and social instability:

"Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected a right to plural marriage because it would lead to gender imbalances if ‘the five wealthiest men have a total of 50 wives.’ Similarly, the same-sex marriage advocate Jonathan Rauch has argued that polygamy allows ‘high-status men to hoard wives’ and destabilizes society."

Note that Posner and Rauch are assuming that the most common type of legal polygamous marriage would be one husband with multiple wives (polygyny), as opposed to one wife with multiple husbands ( polyandry ). They’re also not considering more complex types of plural marriage (e.g. multi-male multi-female), or homosexual plural marriage. (Nor will I consider these two latter types here; they're relevant but beyond the scope of this post.)

Is it safe to assume that most polygamous heterosexual marriage would indeed involve one husband with multiple wives? Probably, as this chimes with the evidence about how people tend to mate cross-culturally . Historically, polygamy was permitted in the vast majority of cultures; in these cultures, polygyny was far more common than polyandry. Still, even within cultures that permit polygyny, it is much less common than monogamous marriage, in part because it can be difficult to attract more than one spouse, even if you'd want to . (Note also that polyandry rates may be underestimated in the anthropological record .)

Why is polygyny more common than other forms of plural marriage? Because of how humans are psychologically adapted for mating . The evolutionary reproductive benefits of having more than one spouse were higher for men than women. In 1972 [1], biologist Robert Trivers outlined the foundational reason for this: For men more than women, reproductive success is limited by number of mates. A man with many wives can produce many children per nine months, whereas a woman can usually produce only one, whether she has one husband or 100. Females certainly may obtain other kinds of reproductive benefits (like resources for their own children) from mating with multiple males, but these benefits are less straightforward than actual additional offspring. Relatedly, the reproductive costs of having more than one spouse are lower for women than for men. If a man's wife becomes pregnant by his co-husband, he'll have to wait a long time—nine months plus an inter-birth interval that in hunter-gatherer societies averages 3.25 years [2]—for his turn to reproduce. If a woman's husband impregnates her co-wife, he can immediately impregnate her, too. She may suffer other reproductive costs from having to share a husband (like receiving a smaller proportion of his resources for her own children), but these costs are less severe than not being able to reproduce at all for four years.

Because our minds were designed by these evolutionary environments, men—cross-culturally and on average—are more motivated to acquire multiple mates [3], and seem more averse to sharing a spouse, compared to women. That said, forms of polyandry are certainly observed anthropologically, and are quite common in some societies, so it would be misguided to suggest that it is "contrary to human nature." It would be more accurate to say that the evolved psychological mechanisms in men and women that lead to polygyny are activated under a wider range of environments than are the mechanisms that lead to polyandry.

So it seems reasonable to assume that if polygamy were legal, most polygamous marriage would indeed take the form of polygyny. We can also assume that given roughly equal sex ratios, polygyny could lead to the kinds of gender imbalances described above, with some men who were more attractive (in terms of overall mate value) having multiple wives, and some less-attractive males going wife-less or having to share a mate with other men.

Would such outcomes be a problem? Possibly. Many people would regard them as being unfair or exploitive of women in polygynous marriages, or to men unable to attract a wife of their own. Another convincing argument is that societies with too many unmated men tend to suffer from social instability due to intensified male-male mating competition . Given these potential problems, why would it be a good idea to legalize polygamy?

Maybe the simplest and most compelling argument in favor of legalization is that it would enhance people's freedom to choose their own mates. No one on either side of the debate suggests that it should be legal to coerce anyone into a polygamous marriage. Jonathan Rauch's comment (above) that polygyny allows "high-status men to hoard wives" suggests wives being collected like possessions, but this overlooks the fact that in many cultures, women in polygynous marriages actively choose to enter them—and the same goes for men in most polyandrous marriages. If the government prohibits people from choosing to marry polygamously, this is the equivalent of telling them that instead of marrying their preferred partner, they must instead marry someone they would otherwise not choose, or else not marry at all.

So it does seem that by prohibiting polygamy between consenting adults, we restrict people's ability to choose their own mate(s). However this doesn't mean making it legal is a good idea. Personal freedom is not the only value we should strive to maximize, of course, and there may be a greater social good served by keeping polygamy illegal. Would the potential costs of legalizing polygamy—such as reduced gender equality, increased numbers of low-status unmarried men, decreased social stability, or some other unmentioned problem—exceed the potential benefits?

Feel free to share your thoughts with a comment below.

Copyright Michael E. Price 2015. All rights reserved.

• Trivers, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell, ed. Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man , 1871-1971, Aldine-Atherton, Chicago, pp. 136-179.
• Marlowe, F. W., & Berbesque, J. C. (2012). The human operational sex ratio: effects of marriage, concealed ovulation, and menopause on mate competition. Journal of Human Evolution , 63, 834-842.
• Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 28, 247-275.

Michael Price, Ph.D. is Senior Lecturer in Psychology at Brunel University London.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• 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
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

The Pros and Cons of Polygamy Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Polygamy continues to elicit mixed reactions in most societies, with a number of opponents arguing the demerits of such unions, while the proponents argue its merits. Although a number of merited arguments for polygamy have been put forward over the years, there is no denying that the negative impact of such a practice on the concerned women and children outweigh its potential benefits.

Polygamous marriages are common in the Middle East, Asia, Oceania and Africa, although they are also observable in North America, Europe and other Western countries. Polygamy usually occurs in a number of forms, either as polygyny, polyandry or polygynandry, although polygyny is usually the most common form. The practice normally raises a number of ethical and moral questions, especially regarding the degree of accountability and responsibility individuals involved in such marriages have towards their many spouses and children if any. In addition, such marriages, common in certain cultures, challenge the universal and legal notion of marriage: that it is a legal union between one man and one woman.

As such, a majority of opponents to such unions argue that they are not only illegal, but also subject the multiple spouses and children to unnecessary psychological and social strain. However, in societies that value polygamy, proponents equate the multiple spouses and children to wealth, even going to the extent of advocating for its legalization.

Proponents of polygamy argue that in addition to the obvious benefits such as the easy sharing of chores and child rearing, polygamy also offers an alternative to divorce in cases of infertility. Furthermore, certain religions such as Mormon fundamentalists advocate for the practice, similar to a number of cults, cultures and religion, on the basis of subjective beliefs and values. For instance, Mormons believe that marrying 3 wives guarantees a higher status in the spiritual realm, hence making it part of their religious practices. Therefore, proponents of polygamy argue that it should be legalized, as not doing so amounts to undermining their beliefs, practices and values.

In order to protect the sanctity of marriage and safeguard women against any form of exploitation, a majority of opponents to polygamy are advocating against the practice. Most of such advocates argue that it not only undermines the concept of loyalty in marriage and serves to deny the multiple spouses their individual rights, but may also deny potential offspring the opportunity to grow up in a nurturing and supportive environment.

Furthermore, in most cases, due to the huge number of children often born in such families, a majority are not well taken care of, missing out on very basic amenities. In addition, such opponents also point to research findings that indicate that children and wives in polygamous families are likely to experience a number of psychological and social impacts. Particularly, it was found to lead to co-wife jealousy, unequal distribution of emotional and household resources, as well as competition among others. Polygamy is also associated with an increased number of cases of mental illness as well as other emotional, behavioral and physical problems amongst women and children.

Al-Krenawi, A., & Slonim-Nevo, V. (2008). Psychosocial and familial functioning of children from polygynous and monogamous families. The Journal of Social Psychology , 148 (6), 745+. Web.

Duncan, E. J. (2008). The positive effects of legalizing polygamy: “love is a many splendored thing”. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy , 15 (2), 315+. Web.

Tabi, M., Doster, C., & Cheney, T. (2010). A qualitative study of women in polygynous marriages. International Nursing Review , 57 (1), 121-127. Web.

• The Issues That the Migrant Workers Face in Malaysia
• American Girls' Eating Disorders and Change Action
• The Reasons of Polygamy and Its Impact on Gender Relations
• Polygamy in Islam
• Judicial Views about Polygamy
• Social Cosmology and the Concept of Peace
• Scientists and the Public: Two Perspectives on the Same Issue
• The Refugee Crisis and How to Overcome It
• What Problem Do Academic Researchers and Scholars Face in Today’s Political Climate?
• 7 Reasons Why America Should Legalize Prostitution
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, January 30). The Pros and Cons of Polygamy. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-pros-and-cons-of-polygamy/

"The Pros and Cons of Polygamy." IvyPanda , 30 Jan. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/the-pros-and-cons-of-polygamy/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'The Pros and Cons of Polygamy'. 30 January.

IvyPanda . 2022. "The Pros and Cons of Polygamy." January 30, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-pros-and-cons-of-polygamy/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Pros and Cons of Polygamy." January 30, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-pros-and-cons-of-polygamy/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Pros and Cons of Polygamy." January 30, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-pros-and-cons-of-polygamy/.

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.

About the Author

More Stories

Seven Questions That Should Be Easy for Harris to Answer

Why I Hate Instagram Now

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Interpersonal Relationship — Polygamy

Essays on Polygamy

The importance of writing an essay on polygamy.

Writing an essay on polygamy is important for several reasons. Firstly, it allows for a deeper understanding of the practice and its cultural, religious, and historical significance. Polygamy has been a controversial topic for centuries, and by writing an essay on it, one can contribute to the ongoing discourse and shed light on its complexities. Additionally, writing about polygamy provides an opportunity to explore the ethical and legal implications of the practice, and to consider its impact on individuals and societies.

When writing an essay on polygamy, it is important to approach the topic with sensitivity and an open mind. It is crucial to consider diverse perspectives and to avoid making assumptions or passing judgment. Researching the history and cultural context of polygamy is essential, as is consulting a variety of sources to gain a well-rounded understanding of the topic. In addition, it is important to critically analyze the information and to present a balanced argument in the essay.

Furthermore, when writing about polygamy, it is important to consider the implications of the practice on gender equality, individual rights, and family dynamics. Addressing the ethical and legal aspects of polygamy is also important, as is discussing the potential impact on mental and emotional well-being. By thoroughly examining these aspects, one can provide a comprehensive and insightful analysis of the topic.

Writing an essay on polygamy is important for gaining a deeper understanding of the practice, its cultural and historical significance, and its ethical and legal implications. By approaching the topic with sensitivity, conducting thorough research, and considering diverse perspectives, one can contribute to the ongoing discourse on polygamy and promote a more nuanced understanding of the practice.

The history and cultural significance of polygamy in various societies Polygamy has a long history and has been practiced in various cultures around the world. In this essay, we will explore the cultural significance of polygamy in different societies, and how it has evolved over time.

The legal and ethical implications of polygamy Polygamy is a controversial practice that raises many legal and ethical questions. In this essay, we will discuss the legal and ethical implications of polygamy, including its impact on family law, human rights, and gender equality.

The impact of polygamy on women and children Polygamy can have a significant impact on the well-being of women and children in polygamous households. In this essay, we will explore the impact of polygamy on women's rights, mental health, and economic stability, as well as its effects on the development and well-being of children.

The role of religion in the practice of polygamy Religious beliefs and traditions often play a significant role in the practice of polygamy. In this essay, we will examine the role of religion in the practice of polygamy, including how different religious groups interpret and justify the practice.

The psychological and emotional dynamics of polygamous relationships Polygamous relationships can be complex and fraught with emotional and psychological challenges. In this essay, we will explore the psychological and emotional dynamics of polygamous relationships, including issues of jealousy, competition, and intimacy.

The economic implications of polygamy Polygamous households may face unique economic challenges and opportunities. In this essay, we will discuss the economic implications of polygamy, including the division of labor, financial resources, and inheritance rights.

The impact of polygamy on community and social structures Polygamy can have a significant impact on community and social structures. In this essay, we will explore how polygamy affects social dynamics, community cohesion, and gender roles within a society.

The portrayal of polygamy in popular culture and media Polygamy is often portrayed in popular culture and media, but these representations may not always accurately reflect the realities of polygamous relationships. In this essay, we will analyze the portrayal of polygamy in popular culture and media, and how it influences public perceptions of the practice.

The potential benefits and drawbacks of legalizing polygamy The legalization of polygamy is a contentious issue, with proponents and opponents arguing for its potential benefits and drawbacks. In this essay, we will explore the arguments for and against legalizing polygamy, and the potential implications for society.

The future of polygamy in a modern world As society continues to evolve, the practice of polygamy may also undergo changes. In this essay, we will speculate on the future of polygamy in a modern world, and how it may adapt to changing social, cultural, and legal norms.

Polygamy: an Exploration of Its Controversies and Implications

Negative outcomes of polygamy in a society, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Misconception on The Issues and Controversies Surrounding Polygamy

Polygamy and its effects on family and children, analysis of the problems related to polygamy, review of "my husband's nine wives": a positive take on polygamy, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Polygamy and Constitutional Conflict in Nineteenth Century America

An analysis of the mormon religion and the practice of polygamy, the reasons why young people are turning into polygamy, banning polygamy in the united states, exploring polygamy: its history, practices, and controversies, relevant topics.

• Effective Communication
• Conflict Resolution
• Interpersonal Communication
• Conversation
• First Impression
• Labor Unions
• Nonverbal Communication
• Social Justice

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Marriage , Sexuality

Why Governments Haven’t, and Shouldn’t, Recognize Polygamy

• April 26, 2016

In The Western Case for Monogamy Over Polygamy , John Witte Jr. explores the various legal and social rationales given for defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman rather than as a union of more than two persons. He deftly explores centuries of legal, theological, and social arguments in favor of monogamy, as well as the arguments repeatedly raised and rejected in favor of polygamy.

Witte begins his historical account with the ancient Hebrews, who permitted polygamy by appeal to the example of Biblical patriarchs such as Abraham, Jacob, and Solomon—heroic figures who had multiple wives at the same time. If polygamy is so wrong, how can we account for the fact that the legendarily wise “King Solomon had a harem of 700 wives and 300 concubines”? The Biblical precedent set by the patriarchs served as a justification for polygamy for generations of later writers, and became a puzzle requiring explanation for those who condemn polygamy.

The polygamy of the patriarchs, however, may not be an example to imitate but a warning of what to avoid. The Biblical stories exemplify the problems generated by plural marriage: rivalry among co-wives, hatred among half-siblings, disputes over inheritance, and even war. As Witte notes, “The Hebrew word for a co-wife (tzarah) literally means ‘trouble’.” He continues, “royal Greek polygamists had the same bitter experiences with polygamy that befell the Old Testament polygamists.” Wives hated each other and sought preeminence for themselves and their own children, half-sibling rivals hated each other, and stepmothers and stepchildren hated each other most intensely of all. Painful experience brought Athens and Jerusalem to the same conclusion.

Later in history, the teachings of Jesus—with his emphasis on the Genesis account of marriage as between one man and one woman—gave a theological foundation for monogamy. Witte notes, “Roman law maintained a sexual double standard, forbidding wives to commit adultery but allowing husbands to indulge with impunity in sex with prostitutes and slaves. Christianity denounced extramarital sex altogether, and called Christian husbands and wives alike to remain faithful to each other exclusively.”

Start your day with Public Discourse

Christian writers sought various explanations for the polygamy found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Tertullian accounted for polygamy as a temporary dispensation, granted so that human beings might fill up the world as rapidly as possible. Because one man can impregnate numerous women, but a woman can only get pregnant by one man at a time, women are the limiting factor in reproduction. Women in polygamous societies marry at a younger age than women in monogamous societies, so they are able, on average, to have more children over the course of their lives. Considered in terms of numbers alone, polygamy is a more efficient means of human reproduction than monogamy.

St. John Chrysostom accounted for polygamy as suitable for ancient, primitive societies but unsuitable for modern, more developed societies. As a rule, polygamy imperils the education of women (who marry much younger) and of their children (who have younger mothers). Inasmuch as education is more important in modern societies than in ancient undeveloped societies, monogamy is more suitable for modern societies.

With the writings of these patristic authors and the Christianization of western culture, the Church’s teachings on monogamy and condemnation of polygamy were “slowly adopted and enforced” in the West. The same rules of conduct in marriage applied to rich and poor, to king and peasant alike. Equality before the marriage law became the norm.

In the Middle Ages, these norms were for the most part reinforced through scholastic writing. William of Auvergne (d. 1249) argued that natural equity required monogamy so that every man and every woman have potential marriage partners available. If one man takes numerous women as wives, some men who would like to marry will be without wives altogether. This results in increased violence, fraud, prostitution, adultery, rape, and abduction, much to the harm of society.

Witte devotes ample attention to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that polygamy violates the good of marriage by making marriage a kind of slavery of the man over his wives, rather than an association of equals and the greatest kind of friendship. On the other hand, Blessed John Duns Scotus thought that God could grant a dispensation for polygamy through the Church, and other theologians such as Cardinal Cajetan and St. Robert Bellarmine followed Scotus in allowing exceptions.

Official church teaching endorsed the stricter view. Pope Innocent III reasoned that if the Gospel does not permit marriage to another when a spouse is sent away in divorce, how much less would marriage to another be permitted if the spouse is retained? The Council of Trent taught, “if anyone says it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time and that it is not forbidden by any divine law (Matt 19:4ff.), let him be anathema.”

Protestants also largely condemned polygamy, with a few notable exceptions. Henry VIII considered polygamy a way to solve his desire for an heir, and Martin Luther granted a “private dispensation to practice polygamy” to Prince Philip. In the 1530s in Munster, Germany, the Anabaptists practiced polygamy on a widespread scale—with bloody results. As Witte notes, “This Munster experiment proved a textbook example of the many harms that polygamy had already occasioned in biblical times: rape, coerced marriage, household rivalry, abused wives and children, lustful patriarchal excess, battery and murder, social destruction, and warfare.”

Following the Munster experience, all Christians strongly condemned polygamy. Secular law also punished the crime in various and severe ways, including loss of voting rights, whipping, fines, perpetual banishment, hard labor, castration, decapitation, and stoning. Witte describes the seventeenth-century English mind on polygamy: “Too often in polygamous households, wives were commodified, exploited, and abused; children were neglected, undereducated, and made rivals; men were too tempted by their lawful lustful pursuits of other wives to attend to their domestic duties or provide their children with healthy models for the good moral life.” Not religious courts but secular authorities moved decisively and harshly against polygamy. Witte points out that “In 1604, the English parliament for the first time in its history made polygamy a secular crime in England—and a capital crime at that.”

Enlightenment thinkers provided non-theological arguments. For example, Henry Home (1696–1782) of Scotland’s high court justified monogamy as an expression of equality, “All men are by nature equal in rank; no man is privileged above another to have a wife; and therefore polygamy is contradictory” to the natural right of each person to marry. “Men and women are by nature equal, Home argues at length,” Witte points out. “Monogamous marriage is naturally designed to respect this natural gender equality.” But an equality of a different sort can also be established through allowing each person to have as many spouses as agree to marriage. Although rejecting revealed theology, David Hume argued against polygamy as fostering jealousy and competition among wives, as well as leaving many children without proper paternal investment. The relationship between husband and wife is poisoned as the husband seeks new wives and each wife comes to be viewed as a replaceable commodity rather than an irreplaceable lover and friend.

Non-theological arguments were given in favor of polygamy too. In cases in which the population needs to grow rapidly, polygamy facilitates population growth more effectively than monogamy. As Witte notes, “the obvious raw advantage of polygamy for repopulating early modern lands devastated by war and disease or for providing more homes for fatherless children and single women kept alive the ‘necessity’ and ‘utility’ arguments for polygamy.” The interest of powerful men to have heirs or simply more authorized sexual partners drives motivation for polygamy. Witte notes, “the Western case for polygamy is and always has been primarily about a small group of men seeking the social, moral, and legal imprimatur to have and to hold sundry females at once.” A woman’s interest in polygamy is found in cases of massive male deaths in war, which can leave many women without husbands.

The arguments for polygamy did not carry the day, before or after the Enlightenment. As Witte notes:

In an important sense, making the non-religious case against polygamy was nothing new for the Western tradition. Already the ancient Greeks and Romans, long before the birth of Christianity, had prohibited polygamy for reasons of nature, friendship, domestic efficiency, political expediency, and more. These non-religious arguments always remained at the foundation of the ongoing Western case against polygamy.

The brutal punishments for polygamy included being “branded on the forehead with an ‘A’ for adultery,” branded on the cheek with a ‘B’ for bigamist, or “bored through the tongue with a red hot iron” as an expression of the false vow made with the tongue.

Witte’s book includes a fascinating discussion of early (1840s) Mormon teaching on polygamy, which was later abandoned in 1890. An 1882 law disqualified polygamists from voting rights, sitting on juries, and holding public office. The US Supreme Court turned aside the claims of free exercise of religion lodged by polygamists in Reynolds v. United States (1879), Davis v. Beason (1890), and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. United States (1890). In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885), the Supreme Court declared:

Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.

Contemporary sociological research provides extensive empirical evidence justifying the claim that polygamy is disadvantageous for society. Witte cites Rose McDermott’s cross-cultural study of polygamy in 170 countries, which showed,

increased levels of physical and sexual abuse against women, increased rates of maternal mortality, shortened female life expectancy, lower levels of education for girls and boys, lower levels of equality for women, higher levels of discrimination against women, increased rates of female genital mutilation, increased rates of trafficking in women and decreased levels of civil and political liberties for all citizens.

At times, the case against polygamy has been made using arguments, often theological, that would not now hold much sway in the contemporary public square. The case against polygamy begins by considering marriage as a public good. The status of being married is not just about the individual persons and their private relationships; the state publicly recognizes marriage because marriage is a central component of the political common good. Legally recognizing polygamy is a matter entirely different from criminalizing three or more people who live together in a sexual relationship. To recognize polygamy in law is to ask for a governmental stamp of approval of such relationships as “marriages.” We may ask, therefore, whether polygamy is to the advantage or disadvantage of the public good.

Witte’s book is not a systematic political or philosophical treatise against polygamy. It rather provides a useful survey of what has been said over more than 2,000 years of discussion of the issue. The truth is that the good of marriage, and through it the good of future generations, is at stake in how we understand marriage and legally define it.

Related Posts

God has not left behind Israel and its land—he has expanded them.

The normalization of polygamy would undermine our commitment to human dignity—our sense that each human…

The oral arguments on Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court suggest that there is very…

Latest Articles

Who Is My Neighbor? Ukraine, Just War, and the “Good Samaritan” Ethic

Beyond the Crises in the Church: Pope Benedict XVI’s Pontificate and the Reason for Hope

Make the Pro-Life Movement Great Again 

Load-Bearing Walls: How Denying Biological Reality Harms Us All

The Bookshelf: They’re Our Parties and I’ll Cry If I Want To

A Family-Focused Approach to Consumption

• Privacy Policy

© 2024 The Public Discourse

Privacy Overview

Subscribe to Public Discourse

• Daily Emails
• Weekly Emails
• First Name *
• Last Name *

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Op-Ed Contributor

One Big, Happy Polygamous Family

By Jonathan Turley

• July 20, 2011

SINCE the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, Americans have enjoyed unprecedented freedom in their lifestyles and private relationships. The decision held that states could no longer use the criminal code for social engineering, dictating the most intimate decisions of citizens in their choice of partners and relations. But even as states have abandoned laws criminalizing homosexual and adulterous relations, they have continued to prosecute one group of consenting adults: polygamists.

Last week in Utah, one such family filed a challenge to the state’s criminal law. That family — a man, Kody Brown, and his four wives and 16 children — is the focus of a reality program on the cable channel TLC called “Sister Wives.” One of the marriages is legal and the others are what the family calls “spiritual.” They are not asking for the state to recognize their marriages. They are simply asking for the state to leave them alone.

Utah and eight other states make polygamy a crime, while 49 states have bigamy statutes that can be used to prosecute plural families. And they’re not a small population: the number of fundamentalist Mormon or Christian polygamists alone has been estimated to be as high as 50,000. When Muslim as well as nonreligious plural families are considered, the real number is likely many times greater.

The case of the Browns, for whom I am lead counsel, is a clear example of unacceptable government intrusion. The family has not been accused of child abuse or other crime, in almost a year of being under criminal investigation. With such allegations stripped away, the only thing remaining is a family that does not look like those of other Utah citizens. The question is whether that is enough to declare them criminals.

While widely disliked, if not despised, polygamy is just one form among the many types of plural relationships in our society. It is widely accepted that a person can have multiple partners and have children with such partners. But the minute that person expresses a spiritual commitment and “cohabits” with those partners, it is considered a crime.

One might expect the civil liberties community to defend those cases as a natural extension of its campaign for greater privacy and personal choice. But too many have either been silent or outright hostile to demands from polygamists for the same protections provided to other groups under Lawrence.

The reason might be strategic: some view the effort to decriminalize polygamy as a threat to the recognition of same-sex marriages or gay rights generally. After all, many who opposed the decriminalization of homosexual relations used polygamy as the culmination of a parade of horribles. In his dissent in Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia said the case would mean the legalization of “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”

Justice Scalia is right in one respect, though not intentionally. Homosexuals and polygamists do have a common interest: the right to be left alone as consenting adults. Otherwise he’s dead wrong. There is no spectrum of private consensual relations — there is just a right of privacy that protects all people so long as they do not harm others.

Others have opposed polygamy on the grounds that, while the Browns believe in the right of women to divorce or leave such unions, some polygamous families involve the abuse or domination of women. Of course, the government should prosecute abuse wherever it is found. But there is nothing uniquely abusive about consenting polygamous relationships. It is no more fair to prosecute the Browns because of abuse in other polygamous families than it would be to hold a conventional family liable for the hundreds of thousands of domestic violence cases each year in monogamous families.

Ultimately, the question is whether polygamy is allowed under the privacy principles articulated in Lawrence. The court did not state exclusions for unpopular relationships. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the case “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter” but rather “two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle.”

The Browns are quite similar. They want to be allowed to create a loving family according to the values of their faith.

Civil libertarians should not be scared away by the arguments of people like Justice Scalia. We should fight for privacy as an inclusive concept, benefiting everyone in the same way. Regardless of whether it is a gay or plural relationship, the struggle and the issue remains the same: the right to live your life according to your own values and faith.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University.

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essays Samples >
• Essay Types >
• Argumentative Essay Example

Polygamy Argumentative Essays Samples For Students

8 samples of this type

If you're seeking an applicable method to streamline writing an Argumentative Essay about Polygamy, WowEssays.com paper writing service just might be able to help you out.

For starters, you should skim our large collection of free samples that cover most various Polygamy Argumentative Essay topics and showcase the best academic writing practices. Once you feel that you've figured out the major principles of content presentation and taken away actionable insights from these expertly written Argumentative Essay samples, developing your own academic work should go much easier.

However, you might still find yourself in a situation when even using top-notch Polygamy Argumentative Essays doesn't let you get the job done on time. In that case, you can contact our experts and ask them to craft a unique Polygamy paper according to your custom specifications. Buy college research paper or essay now!

Example Of Argumentative Essay On Relativism And Morality: Goodmans Some Moral Minima

Sample argumentative essay on legalizing same-sex marriage, argumentative essay on should gay marriage be legal, introduction.

Don't waste your time searching for a sample.

Get your argumentative essay done by professional writers!

Just from $10/page

Example Of Argumentative Essay On History Of Mormons

Gay marriage argument essays: should it be legalized, should gay couples be able to marry argumentative essay, some moral minima argumentative essay, argumentative essay on relativism and morality.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Everything You Need To Know About Monogamy Vs. Polygamy

Everyone may have different ideas about how relationships and marriage should be, including the types of partnerships that work for them. Often, monogamy and polygamy are two types of partnerships that someone may consider or prefer.  

When it comes to monogamy definition , Merriam-Webster defined monogamy as the practice of having a relationship with only one partner. In comparison, polygamy consists of a marriage in which a spouse of any gender may have more than one wife or spouse simultaneously. In many societies, monogamy is regarded favorably, while polygamy may be judged or misunderstood. 

Polygamy often refers to marriage. However, polyamory is another common term used to signify being interested in or having the capacity to love or date multiple partners. You may also hear the terms “ ethical nonmonogamy ” or “relationship anarchy” regarding having multiple intimate relationships simultaneously.

Monogamy vs. polygamy

Monogamous individuals may pair well with others seeking monogamy, just as polygamous individuals may be suited for others who partake in polygamy. However, relationships may exist between partners who have differing needs or preferences. A woman who has never wanted to be a wife may be more open to the potential of an open relationship without a permanent husband.

While relationships can vary depending on wants and needs, there may be a societal debate on which type of relationship is “better.” In many traditions, monogamy and being married may be viewed as indicative of a loving, faithful, or true union. In those contexts, marriage is perceived as a partnership that may only contain two spouses who commit to a life together until death. 

Preferring polygamy 

Individuals who question the concept of monogamy may cite this type of partnership as outdated, overly restrictive, or unnatural . High divorce rates, reports of infidelity, or sexual boredom are also cited as reasons why polygamy is practiced.

People who hold these may see polygamy as a healthy alternative for consenting adults. More companionship, higher income, and ongoing sexual variety are often cited as advantages of polygamous or polyamorous relationships. The definitions of polygamy can vary and include polyandry and polygyny. Polyandry is a common option for women who are open to polygamy, just as polygyny is for men. These two practices are not legal and go against many state and federal laws, however.

Preferring monogamy 

Individuals who favor monogamy may cite certain parts of traditional relationships such as bonding, less jealousy, emotional intimacy, and decreased worries about STDs as reasons to opt for monogamy. The Huffington Post  champions  monogamous relationships as the pinnacle of values like honor, respect, fidelity, loyalty, and trust. 

However, many polygamous individuals would make the case that the values above might still exist within non-monogamous relationships. In these cases, the debate may be a matter of opinion and preference. Additionally, polygamy is illegal in most of the United States.

Cheating and polygamy

Some people may question whether polygamy is an avenue to cheating on a spouse without feeling guilty. Monogamous individuals might raise these concerns. However, cheating and polygamy are different things. Someone may cheat in a polygamous relationship by not following relationship rules, as they might in a monogamous relationship. 

When someone cheats in a relationship, they may lie to their partner, hide facts or evidence, or sneak around with someone else. Cheating can damage a relationship and may cause trust issues, self-esteem issues, and other psychological and emotional distress for the partner who has been deceived.

All parties may be aware of each other’s relationships in polygamous relationships. They often consent to the situation. Polygamous couples may still have rules for their partners, such as using safety during sex or only having outside sexual relationships that aren’t romantic. If that rule is broken, it may be considered cheating or betrayal.  

What type of relationship works for you? 

Many people instinctively know whether or not they prefer monogamous or polygamous partnerships. However, if you’re unsure, there are several factors you can consider to determine which relationship style suits you better. 

Consider your reasoning 

First, consider your reasons for entering either type of relationship. For example, rushing into a monogamous or polygamous union solely because of imposed social or familial norms or sexual roles may cause long-term problems. Why do you want to try this type of relationship? What examples made you consider it as a realistic option?

Think about what makes you happy 

Next, consider what kind of relationships make you happy and what situations make you unhappy. Suppose the thought of maintaining relationships with more than one partner excites you, and you are not bothered by the thought of a spouse pursuing other relationships alongside yours. In that case, polygamy might match your desires.

If you experience feelings of jealousy or possessiveness at the thought of your significant other being romantically or sexually involved with someone else, you may not want a polygamous connection.

Although possessiveness or jealousy may happen in any relationship, the desire to be your spouse’s only sexual and romantic partner is often reported by monogamous individuals.

Consider your values 

Consider your value system outside of society’s and the future you envision for yourself. If you maintain religious or cultural beliefs at odds with polygamy, you may weigh those beliefs more heavily than your desire to explore multiple partnerships. 

If you do not expect or wish to raise children within a two-parent household, polygamy may fit into your future life. However, the concept of polygamy may not be for everyone.

In these and all considerations regarding your romantic and sexual well-being, consider what will make you the happiest without causing harm to yourself or others. The definition of happiness in your life can be up to you. 

Getting relationship support through counseling 

Relationships are often complicated. Whether an individual chooses to enter a monogamous or polygamous partnership, many factors could impact whether a relationship is beneficial, such as timing, lifestyle, desires, sexual compatibility, and personality. 

When partaking in romantic or sexual connections, you may also want to focus on your relationship with your own emotions and well-being. Exploring and promoting the behaviors and attitudes that make you feel content on a deep emotional level can help support your long-term psychological health. 

If you are already in a relationship and are considering committing to a marriage or other long-term union, you and your partner may benefit from couples counseling. Research has shown that couples who complete some form of premarital counseling  tend to have greater marital satisfaction  than couples who don’t.

Online counseling 

If you are unsure how to fit individual or couples counseling into your busy life, you might consider online therapy. Online therapy is often flexible, so you can arrange counseling sessions according to your and your partners’ schedules or pursue individual therapy on your own time. 

Online counseling has been proven to be just as effective as traditional face-to-face interventions for various issues. One study found that couples who received online therapy experienced significant improvements in their relationship satisfaction, mental health, and all other outcome scores. These findings add to the growing evidence that online therapy is as efficacious as traditional in-person therapy.

Relationship maintenance can be healthy and valuable. A therapist may provide empathetic and knowledgeable support as you pursue the relationship that will make you happiest. Consider reaching out through an online platform such as BetterHelp for individuals or Regain for couples. 

If you’re struggling with issues in any intimate relationship, therapy may be a viable option to pursue. Consider reaching out to a counselor to discuss your concerns. 

Frequently asked questions

Is monogamy better than polygamy? What are the three 3 types of monogamy? Are humans more monogamous or polygamous? What is monogamy vs polygamy vs polyandry? What is a 3-person relationship called? What celebrities are polyamorous? How common is polyamory in the US? Does cheating exist in polyamory? Who is most likely to be polyamorous? What is a dragon in polyamory? What is a 4-person relationship called? How many husbands can a female have in polyandry? Is polyandry marriage legal? What are examples of polyandry? What is a second wife called? 

• Do Monogamy And Jealousy Go Hand In Hand? Medically reviewed by Julie Dodson , MA, LCSW
• What Is Ethical Non-Monogamy? Medically reviewed by Julie Dodson , MA, LCSW
• Relationships and Relations