What's wrong with Polygamy?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:48 am

Couldn't find that, but I found this. Who has HBO? Will you watch it?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One big, frisky family: HBO drama looks at polygamy

By Lynn Smith

Los Angeles Times

Maybe you know a family like the Henricksons.

The father, Bill, is a genial home-improvement-store owner in Salt Lake City. He lives with three wives and seven children in three adjacent homes in the suburbs, in a private world of consenting polygamy.

Some of their problems are the usual ones - work, money, sex, children - scaled up by a factor of three. The others are extraordinary. As extra-legal polygamists trying to blend into society, they hide their arrangement from police, neighbors, and the mainstream Mormon community.

It's complicated by fundamentalist relatives - eccentric, corrupt and possibly homicidal - who live in a rural compound but can't stay out of Bill, Barb, Nicki and Margene's life.

What glues them together is Big Love, the title of HBO's new version of the twisted family drama that attracted so many devotees to The Sopranos and Six Feet Under.

Though modern-day polygamy might shock some and repulse, tickle or titillate others, HBO and the family's creators, Mark V. Olsen and Will Scheffer,expect people will relate to the Henricksons because they epitomize, in their own way, the essence of Middle American family values.

Big love, Scheffer said, is "that bigness and generosity of heart that allows you to survive the messiness." The series, which has 12 episodes this season, premieres Sunday.

The project has attracted the talents of Bill Paxton in his first romantic lead as the work-a-daddy Bill; Jeanne Tripplehorn as the reluctant-but-solid first wife, Barb; Chloe Sevigny as the troublemaking shopaholic second wife, Nicki; and Ginnifer Goodwinas the inexhaustible, naive third wife, Margene.

Harry Dean Stantonplays Roman Grant, the creepy, corrupt and possibly murderous prophet of the Juniper Creek compound who has 31 children and 187 grandchildren.

"We're playing these characters dead earnest," said Paxton, who portrays the head of the family with his own soft Texas lilt and the hint of a shaman's powerful inner life. He sees Bill as a contemporary Michael Corleone who hopes to break away from Juniper Creek but is constantly pulled back.

Though the actors knew nothing about the modern-day polygamists they would play, they came to understand and admire their characters. Each wife has her own reason for choosing the situation.

"In the society we are representing, there are these women for whom this is the answer to their problems, not a problem in and of itself," Goodwin said. "It will bowl over our audience, and will educate them."

The show has struck a few nerves with mainstream Mormons, who banned polygamy more than a century ago but can't shake the association. To keep church officials in the loop, HBO scheduled meetings with them and shared a few rough cuts.

"Obviously, we don't like the program," said Mike Otterson,director of media relations for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "The sexuality of the program, the nature of the program, is not what we would like, relate to or recommend.... "

In the show, the Henricksons have the sex lives of bunnies. In demand from the enthusiastic Margene, the seductive Barb, and the intense Nicki, Bill gets by with Viagra. It is clear that while they have a rich spiritual life, they are not churchgoers and do not belong to the mainstream Mormon community.

The idea for a show about modern-day polygamists arose one Christmas when Olsen and Scheffer, who are writing and domestic partners, were driving home from visiting relatives in Nebraska.

"We were doing our seasonal TV-movie go-out-and-pitch gig," Olsen said. "I said, 'Let's do a series on polygamy.' "

The more they explored the idea, the more they realized polygamists could embody universal and admirable qualities that define the best family love.

"We want people to fall in love with these characters and to root for this family," Olsen said. The show, produced by Tom Hanks' Playtone Productions, has become their biggest project to date.

To achieve accuracy, they embarked on a steep learning curve involving historical research. Utah state officials confirmed that thousands of polygamists, like the fictional Henricksons, are leaving rural compounds and trying to fit into mainstream society.

"They live among us," said Paul Murphy, a spokesman for the Utah attorney general's office. "It used to be hidden, but it's becoming more open."

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:22 am

Bump!!

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:37 am

Eww.

This is that thread in which I finally wondered what the value of opinion was when unaccompanied by statements of verifiable fact, and the need for engagement with prior statements of verifiable fact where the opinion conflicted.

Are we really going to have more "I think this" "Well I don't, I think the other"? - I'd love to discuss the facts of polygamy, or the demonstrable consequences of polygamy, or the history of polygamy, but I truly don't want another democratic poll on polygamy.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:24 am

spot wrote: Eww.

This is that thread in which I finally wondered what the value of opinion was when unaccompanied by statements of verifiable fact, and the need for engagement with prior statements of verifiable fact where the opinion conflicted.

Are we really going to have more "I think this" "Well I don't, I think the other"? - I'd love to discuss the facts of polygamy, or the demonstrable consequences of polygamy, or the history of polygamy, but I truly don't want another democratic poll on polygamy.
'kay.

Anybody else have an opinion? :wah:

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:31 am

I watch "Big Love" on HBO and have since the start of the season.

It's interesting that each wife has her issues with one or more of the other wives. Jealousy, competition -- just what you would expect to happen in this kind of scenario.

How 'bout a woman with several husbands?

I think it's hard enough to deal with *one* human being, let alone three or more.

Who needs the hassle?

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:51 am

Pinky wrote: Plus, no hassle to have 'relations' when you don't feel like it - "hey, go bother Sandra with that sausage":wah:Maybe that's what the Old Testament's thinking of where it says "In those days the Lord began to cut Israel short"?

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:12 am

It was hung on the wall of the barber shop I went to when I was in short trousers. It gave me a strange perspective on religion.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:16 am

I'm so glad they didn't have the modern translation that has "And the Lord trimmed Israel" in that verse instead (this is all 2 Kings 10:32) - there's too much sexual innuendo in this world already.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:25 am

You need to consider the action of one of those old-fashioned hand-push mowers over a well-kept lawn, Pinky. Googling's not going to help, honestly.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:38 am

Lil~Basco;257477 wrote: How well would a polygamist handle multiple marraiges.....how much attention would each spouse receive and their children....would it be for each like a monogamous relationship in terms of quality time spent with each family? I doubt it. A polygamist would be selling himself short and the people involved with him. Could he afford to be in multiple relationships? I would really question anyone who would be willing to choose polygamy over monogamy.

Accountable;257479 wrote: So would I. In answer to the other questions you ask, I answer Who cares?

They're consenting adults. Pairs get married without the ability to handle their relationships, but we don't make that illegal.
I'm bumping this to see if any fresh ideas have surfaced.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:34 am

Polygamy? Its too flippin complicated, simple as that, its hard enough to have a meaningful sexual relationship with one human being in my opinon, let alone 6 or 26. I mean if you wanna be Hugh Heffner, have a harem if you can perseude that type of girl that you are rich and important enough, go for it you old lecher. But why pretend that you could actually spare enough of your emotional self to love 12 women at the same time??? What rot. It might make sense in extremely patriarchal, tribal religious societies, that live in harsh environments (like deserts), but for modern, post-christian industrial western societies that are supposed to be pluralist and gender neutral? Nah, don't think so. Even the Romans were classy enough to have monogomous marraiges, and when the man wanted a bit of stange he asked his wife was it alright, and was discrete about it (this is a society where the man had the legal power of life and death over everyone else in his family), and the ladies were also able to take a lover if their husbands were the understanding type, the no nonsense approach as usual from the Romans then.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:31 am

Hamster;513776 wrote: Maybe we spend to much time looking for one person who can give us all our needs etc and tick all the boxes? Maybe we should have several who can fulfill different aspects of our needs?

Yeah, thats fine as long as everyone involved agrees hammy, and I am not sure that everyone is usually very cool with it. Its one thing having several partners sexually, its another getting married to them all, or are you talking about group marraiges where say 5 guys marry 5 girls and they all live in a big house? If you ask me thats just a recipie for a big continuous fight. I think that there are lots of very good reasons why human beings tend to end up in monogomous or serial monogoumous relationships, and its also true that you can never have exactly what you want from anyone, as none of us is perfect, its better to aknowedge that fact and do your best with the person that you love the most. If you need to have sexual needs that can't be met by your long term partner then maybe an arrangement can be made (maybe), but its pretty tricky at the best of times, and of course once people have children thats another thing again. Anyway, this is all my own personal opinoin, and its not my place to dictate morality to anyone, as I am not a paragon of percieved morality myself, but its my honest opinion.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:32 am

Hamster;513776 wrote: Maybe we spend to much time looking for one person who can give us all our needs etc and tick all the boxes? Maybe we should have several who can fulfill different aspects of our needs?

I would also remind you that human beings are not commodities either hammy.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:34 am

Did you know that Penguins are monogamous?

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:38 am

Hamster;513776 wrote: Maybe we spend to much time looking for one person who can give us all our needs etc and tick all the boxes? Maybe we should have several who can fulfill different aspects of our needs?

Jim don't even think about suggesting it!!!:(

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:57 am

Hamster;513773 wrote: I think the only reason we don't believe in polygamy is from years and years of "religion" telling us that the only way to be is paired off in two's for the rest of our lives.

OM and I talked about this extensively. It is rare to find an animal in nature who is monogamous. Why should we be any different? Why are our divorce rates so high?
So, What you are saying Hammy is that there is still a chance eh? Sorry OM your gun wont reach across the pond. Just kidding OM. I'm sure she doesnt miss those big fat juicy steaks that much.:wah:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:08 pm

Galbally;513798 wrote: Yeah, thats fine as long as everyone involved agrees hammy, and I am not sure that everyone is usually very cool with it. Its one thing having several partners sexually, its another getting married to them all, or are you talking about group marraiges where say 5 guys marry 5 girls and they all live in a big house? If you ask me thats just a recipie for a big continuous fight. I think that there are lots of very good reasons why human beings tend to end up in monogomous or serial monogoumous relationships, and its also true that you can never have exactly what you want from anyone, as none of us is perfect, its better to aknowedge that fact and do your best with the person that you love the most. If you need to have sexual needs that can't be met by your long term partner then maybe an arrangement can be made (maybe), but its pretty tricky at the best of times, and of course once people have children thats another thing again. Why?

Galbally wrote: Anyway, this is all my own personal opinoin, and its not my place to dictate morality to anyone, as I am not a paragon of percieved morality myself, but its my honest opinion.

Exactly my point. I don't think it's the government's place to dictate morality, either. I think whoever wants to practice polygamy has a screw loose, but I don't think that's a reason to criminalize the behavior.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:09 pm

Hamster;513776 wrote: Maybe we spend to much time looking for one person who can give us all our needs etc and tick all the boxes? Maybe we should have several who can fulfill different aspects of our needs?
Yes, and shouldn't people who wish to explore the idea, on a consensual basis, be legally allowed to do so?

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:16 pm

Why?

Because kids are not adults and they don't get to make these decisions so you have to take their lives into consideration as well, as you are the one making the decisions. Adults may be sophisticated enough to deal with it, but I dunno about kids, and they have other kids to deal with as well. Again, this is my own personal belief, and its not me being judgemental, just being honest again, so no offense meant.

Exactly my point. I don't think it's the government's place to dictate morality, either. I think whoever wants to practice polygamy has a screw loose, but I don't think that's a reason to criminalize the behavior.

I guess accountable that there are certain legal issues involved here, as the law in the US is based on English common law, and thats got a lot of christian tradition in it. There is also a strong cultural bias in our socities against polygamy, and the law reflects that. Whether thats equitable is of course a debateable point. Though you tend to find that however abitrary these things may seem, there are usually pretty good reasons why such ideas have become so general over the millennia. I don't think that its realistic to expect that any society would not impose certain moral ideas on people, and the law usually reflects this, I suppose what is certainly valid is questioning why such things should be so, doesn't mean that they are wrong ideas though either.

Saffron · Post by **Saffron** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:27 pm

Accountable;514520 wrote: ..., but I don't think that's a reason to criminalize the behavior.

I do. Now do I need to write a dissertation about why I disagree with you.

:rolleyes:

Accountable wrote: and shouldn't people who wish to explore the idea, on a consensual basis, be legally allowed to do so?
Yes, in another country! And if men want to practice polygamy or polygyny, then they should go and live in those countries where it is legal.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:45 pm

Galbally;514601 wrote: Why?

Because kids are not adults and they don't get to make these decisions so you have to take their lives into consideration as well, as you are the one making the decisions. Adults may be sophisticated enough to deal with it, but I dunno about kids, and they have other kids to deal with as well. Again, this is my own personal belief, and its not me being judgemental, just being honest again, so no offense meant. None taken. I don't understand, though. You seem to see some kind of harm in polygamy - harm to children.

Galbally wrote: Exactly my point. I don't think it's the government's place to dictate morality, either. I think whoever wants to practice polygamy has a screw loose, but I don't think that's a reason to criminalize the behavior.

I guess accountable that there are certain legal issues involved here, as the law in the US is based on English common law, and thats got a lot of christian tradition in it. There is also a strong cultural bias in our socities against polygamy, and the law reflects that. Whether thats equitable is of course a debateable point. Though you tend to find that however abitrary these things may seem, there are usually pretty good reasons why such ideas have become so general over the millennia. I don't think that its realistic to expect that any society would impose certain moral ideas on people, and the law usually reflects this, I suppose what is certainly valid is questioning why such things should be so, doesn't mean that they are wrong ideas though either.
We're certainly in agreement there.

Question on context: You typed "I don't think that its realistic to expect that any society would impose certain moral ideas on people" were you referring to imposing polygamy, monogamy, or something else?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:48 pm

Saffron;514617 wrote: I do. Now do I need to write a dissertation about why I disagree with you.

:rolleyes: a reason would be nice, if that's not too taxing.

Saffron wrote: Yes, in another country! And if men want to practice polygamy or polygyny, then they should go and live in those countries where it is legal.But why should it be illegal here?

Saffron · Post by **Saffron** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:00 pm

Accountable;514648 wrote: a reason would be nice, if that's not too taxing.
Maybe on another day.

Accountable wrote: But why should it be illegal here?
1. We are not uncivilized Nenderthals.

2. Our country should be based on morals instead of men's needs or urges.

3. Women (all of the women I know, including me) are against it. And for good reasons.

4. Adults should know better.

Maybe I'll think of more later.

Mystery · Post by **Mystery** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:02 pm

Whose morals should it be based on? Why should the gov't decide these types of things?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:26 pm

Saffron;514662 wrote: Maybe on another day.I'm sure.

Accountable;514648 wrote: But why should it be illegal here?
Saffron wrote: 1. We are not uncivilized Nenderthals.I take it you're implying that Neanderthals practiced polygamy? I've never heard that before. Interesting. Do you have a link where I can learn more?

Saffron wrote: 2. Our country should be based on morals instead of men's needs or urges.Our country should be based on Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That was the original basis. Why would you want that changed? Saffron wrote: 3. Women (all of the women I know, including me) are against it. And for good reasons.So the few women that might want more than one spouse should be prohibited on that basis?? You shared in another thread your low opinion of a woman's strength of will and decision-making when it comes to polygamy, so I won't try to convince you.

Saffron wrote: 4. Adults should know better.:yh_eyebro Saffron wrote: Maybe I'll think of more later.Please do.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:26 pm

Mystery;514663 wrote: Whose morals should it be based on? Why should the gov't decide these types of things?
Thank you, Mystery.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:37 pm

Ginger Vitus;514685 wrote: What's your point, Accountable? Is this merely a thread to exercise your political brain muscle or are you really considering the possibility of having another wife?
No way! I think it's an idea as dumb as they come. But lots of people do lots of dumb things I would never do, but I would never consider criminalizing an act simply because I don't "get" it.

Polygamy among consenting adults victimizes no one, so far as I can tell. I want to explore the concept to see if there is any real harm beyond ignorance and prejudice.

Saffron · Post by **Saffron** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:06 pm

Accountable;514679 wrote:

I take it you're implying that Neanderthals practiced polygamy? I've never heard that before. Interesting. Do you have a link where I can learn more?
You are very sarcastic. i don't even know why I try to communicate with you. you obviously have some kind of problem.

Accountable wrote: Our country should be based on Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Exactly, it doesn't say; life liberty and the urges and need of a man's libido.

Accountable wrote: That was the original basis.
Oh was it?:rolleyes:

Accountable wrote: Why would you want that changed? So the few women that might want more than one spouse should be prohibited on that basis??

What?

Accountable wrote: You shared in another thread your low opinion of a woman's strength of will and decision-making when it comes to polygamy, ....
Exactly what the hell are you talking about? What thread?

Accountable wrote: ....so I won't try to convince you.

You haven't convinced me of anything yet. Except that you are very good at writing nonsense.

P.S. You are the only person on my ignore list.

Saffron · Post by **Saffron** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:31 pm

Ginger Vitus;514723 wrote: Am I the only one that finds those multiple quotes really annoying?

I like doing multiple quotes. That way I can address each sentence.

Saffron · Post by **Saffron** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Ginger Vitus;514729 wrote: Seems a little anal retentive to me, but what do I know, huh?

I noticed that you only just joined FG yesterday.:sneaky:

But what do I know? Are you sure you're not Accountable or one of his personalities?

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:40 pm

Saffron;514733 wrote: I noticed that you only just joined FG yesterday.:sneaky:

But what do I know? Are you sure you're not Accountable or one of his personalities?

WHEN a person joined has NO bearing on the quality/importance of their

posts.

:-6

Mystery · Post by **Mystery** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:45 pm

Ginger Vitus;514741 wrote: Okay, shutting up now.

Sorry if I offended anyone.

I may be butting in here, but I actually think Valerie was defending your right to speak your mind.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:46 pm

Mystery;514744 wrote: I may be butting in here, but I actually think Valerie was defending your right to speak your mind.

BINGO!!! Got it in one, Mys!!

:-4