Monday, March 21, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
polygamy: why not?
my girlfriend texted me a couple of months ago saying that i should turn to the cable channel tlc. i obliged, and about three hours into watching several episodes of the show she suggested determined that i was hooked, a newly recruited fan.
the show is called "sister wives", and follows the real-life polygamist marriage of utah native koby brown, his four wives, and their family. normally i am not one to watch reality shows, but my girlfriend and i are of those who find absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of "sharing" a man, certainly if the relationship exists within a realm of love, respect, honor, and committment. such a lifestyle is one that most tend to shun in the open (though i suspect they don't behind closed doors), so the fact that a family was brave enough to divulge themselves to the public fascinated me. besides that i am always interested to see how those from other backgrounds, cultures, and religions practice this way of life.
one of the things i think may stand out for many viewers is how "normal" (to use the words of an interviewer) they all seem. the browns all work, partake in regular past times, and have children who appear to be happy. the only thing that may not be normal in relation to the rest of the country is that koby has managed to stay married for 21, 18, and 17 years to each of his first three wives, the fourth being 9 months thus far. in a culture that welcomes divorce about 50 percent of the time, that's saying something big.
in the past, popular public information about polygamy has come via media probes of so-called religious cults who marry children and their close relatives, or mooch off tax payers by collecting welfare benefits. then of course there is the hbo hit series "big love" which portrays yet another view-albeit fictional- of how polygamist relationships flow.
the thing that always riles me is how people tend to point the finger at couples who choose to live this way. according to recent headlines the browns are not only in danger of imprisonment on bigamy charges, but of losing their children. so far as i know, they have not attempted to have each of the marriages acknowledged by state law which takes the charge of "bigamy" off the table. also, unlike polygamy cases we've heard of in the past, all the women were adults at the time of marriage, and chose to do so of their own free will. so what is the problem? in my opinion, it is nothing more than good ol' prejudice, fear of something not understood... or is it?
it seems more than a bit hypocritical that so many gasp at the thought of a man havin
g multiple women, being open about it, and the women being fine with it, when this is something deeply ingrained in our [american] society. "as long as he knows to come back home at night" is almost a mantra among married women, used by many a girlfriend or mother to console a broken heart. hilary clinton, former first lady of the united states, admitted that she knew her husband cheated for years before she was humiliated the world over by his affair with monica lewinsky, but chalked it up to him having "a problem". hugh hefner is the envy of millions of men, and his live-in girlfriends are celebrated for their "status". even clergy and celebrities are not exempt from such lifestyles; re
verend jesse jackson had a "love child" outside of his marriage, and kim porter is famous for being p. diddy's main squeeze, baring their children while he publicly dates other women.
i don't understand why [at it's jist] it is perfectly alright for adulterous affairs to carry on, children denied the right to their name and heritage, but when a man stands up to say, "hey, these are my WIVES and children whom i love and care for, and whom love and care for me" there is a serious problem. polygamists should serve years in prison, but adulterers run free. polygamists shouldn't raise children, but neil patrick harris and his partner make people magazine cover for adopting twins together. maybe koby brown and his last three wives should say they're not married, just cheating on the first wife so the courts will leave them alone. obviously that seems more logical and just in the eyes of the law; who cares about a bunch of women and children anyway?
the show is called "sister wives", and follows the real-life polygamist marriage of utah native koby brown, his four wives, and their family. normally i am not one to watch reality shows, but my girlfriend and i are of those who find absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of "sharing" a man, certainly if the relationship exists within a realm of love, respect, honor, and committment. such a lifestyle is one that most tend to shun in the open (though i suspect they don't behind closed doors), so the fact that a family was brave enough to divulge themselves to the public fascinated me. besides that i am always interested to see how those from other backgrounds, cultures, and religions practice this way of life.
one of the things i think may stand out for many viewers is how "normal" (to use the words of an interviewer) they all seem. the browns all work, partake in regular past times, and have children who appear to be happy. the only thing that may not be normal in relation to the rest of the country is that koby has managed to stay married for 21, 18, and 17 years to each of his first three wives, the fourth being 9 months thus far. in a culture that welcomes divorce about 50 percent of the time, that's saying something big.
in the past, popular public information about polygamy has come via media probes of so-called religious cults who marry children and their close relatives, or mooch off tax payers by collecting welfare benefits. then of course there is the hbo hit series "big love" which portrays yet another view-albeit fictional- of how polygamist relationships flow.
the thing that always riles me is how people tend to point the finger at couples who choose to live this way. according to recent headlines the browns are not only in danger of imprisonment on bigamy charges, but of losing their children. so far as i know, they have not attempted to have each of the marriages acknowledged by state law which takes the charge of "bigamy" off the table. also, unlike polygamy cases we've heard of in the past, all the women were adults at the time of marriage, and chose to do so of their own free will. so what is the problem? in my opinion, it is nothing more than good ol' prejudice, fear of something not understood... or is it?
it seems more than a bit hypocritical that so many gasp at the thought of a man havin
g multiple women, being open about it, and the women being fine with it, when this is something deeply ingrained in our [american] society. "as long as he knows to come back home at night" is almost a mantra among married women, used by many a girlfriend or mother to console a broken heart. hilary clinton, former first lady of the united states, admitted that she knew her husband cheated for years before she was humiliated the world over by his affair with monica lewinsky, but chalked it up to him having "a problem". hugh hefner is the envy of millions of men, and his live-in girlfriends are celebrated for their "status". even clergy and celebrities are not exempt from such lifestyles; re
verend jesse jackson had a "love child" outside of his marriage, and kim porter is famous for being p. diddy's main squeeze, baring their children while he publicly dates other women.
i don't understand why [at it's jist] it is perfectly alright for adulterous affairs to carry on, children denied the right to their name and heritage, but when a man stands up to say, "hey, these are my WIVES and children whom i love and care for, and whom love and care for me" there is a serious problem. polygamists should serve years in prison, but adulterers run free. polygamists shouldn't raise children, but neil patrick harris and his partner make people magazine cover for adopting twins together. maybe koby brown and his last three wives should say they're not married, just cheating on the first wife so the courts will leave them alone. obviously that seems more logical and just in the eyes of the law; who cares about a bunch of women and children anyway?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)