WI: Britain legalizes polygamy in the 1920s?

That this didn't happen in Uk or countries in similar situation is one of best rebutals for "we can't allow women in military/combat roles because women are more important in reproduction and if they die nation suffers".

I think it's telling that no society tried this, no matter how totalitarian, and that shows how much legal monogamy is entrenched in christian (interpret that as you wish) societies.

And it's also telling that only attempts at something similar was within SS and even then that was niche outlook not shared even within Nazi leadership.
 
Again the social mores of the time make this hard to envisage. After all in 1936 the King had to give up his throne because the church objected to him marrying a divorced woman.

Isn't that a convenient cover, and the real reason for Edward's abdication was he was suspiciously loyal to Germany?
 
Birth control was frowned upon by Church leaders, but it was legal and it was readily accessed by the middle class. It was harder for working-class women to access good advice on birth control, but condoms seem to have been widely purchased by working-class men. One of the complaints that Church leaders raised was the number of condoms that could be found discarded in parks and side streets, suggesting to me that neither contraception nor casual sex were really that anathema to society as a whole in the 1920s.

My apologies I probably put this a bit too strongly, I think the church and the ruling class were negative about birth control, at least for other people, but overall society officially was v. conservative even if there was quite a gulf between what people actually did and what was taught and "thought"
This actually happened in Paraguay after the Paraguayan War, where most men died leaving the country with over 100,000 females and about 30,000 grown males, and about half of the country's children were born out of wedlock. The government allowed polygamy and the church had to look on the other way. But it was temporary to achieve it's goal, and now it's banned in the constitution, not only law.

My guess that Britain would do the same, had they thought that way

It's difficult to track down actual evidence that this did happen in Paraguay following the war of the Triple Alliance which may have resulted in the death of up to 90% of adult males, there are lots of assertions that it did but if you google Paraguayan war and polygamy you don't get any direct responses. Anyway the scale of the loss which is often cited as one of the most disastrous for a nation in modern history, is potentially the key there.
 
That this didn't happen in Uk or countries in similar situation is one of best rebutals for "we can't allow women in military/combat roles because women are more important in reproduction and if they die nation suffers".

I think it's telling that no society tried this, no matter how totalitarian, and that shows how much legal monogamy is entrenched in christian (interpret that as you wish) societies.

And it's also telling that only attempts at something similar was within SS and even then that was niche outlook not shared even within Nazi leadership.

And yet we now have full legal rights for children born out of marriage and there's not a swastika in sight...
 
And yet we now have full legal rights for children born out of marriage and there's not a swastika in sight...

Yes, but we still stick to legal monogamy. which means any introduction of polygamy in society that doesn't have toleration for it already is so unlikely it's for all practical purposes impossible.

At best there could be some legal changes that would improve position of out-of-wedlock children but not outright polygamy.
 
Yes, but we still stick to legal monogamy. which means any introduction of polygamy in society that doesn't have toleration for it already is so unlikely it's for all practical purposes impossible.

At best there could be some legal changes that would improve position of out-of-wedlock children but not outright polygamy.

Wich is why I stated that polygamy would be ASBish, and that the closer we could get to it would be social permissiveness with extra conjugal affairs, coupled with full rights for children born out of marriage. And England would be the wrong place for it. Witch, considering how widespread prostitution was at a time when most men were married, was more a sign of hypocrisy than rectitude.
 
My apologies I probably put this a bit too strongly, I think the church and the ruling class were negative about birth control, at least for other people, but overall society officially was v. conservative even if there was quite a gulf between what people actually did and what was taught and "thought"

Certainly the Church was and it's a fair point. I'm not too sure about the ruling class - the blimpish bits of it almost certainly would have been, but the liberal component would not. But contraception was an important exception to the general censorious attitude - as you said divorce was hard, abortion was illegal, "indecency" in literature or cinema was slapped down hard, (and legal polygamy would certainly have been unthinkable) but condoms were legal and in widespread use.
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
That this didn't happen in Uk or countries in similar situation is one of best rebutals for "we can't allow women in military/combat roles because women are more important in reproduction and if they die nation suffers".

I think it's telling that no society tried this, no matter how totalitarian, and that shows how much legal monogamy is entrenched in christian (interpret that as you wish) societies.

And it's also telling that only attempts at something similar was within SS and even then that was niche outlook not shared even within Nazi leadership.

What the hell are you talking about? Many societies have legalized polygamy. Also, why would totalitarian societies be more inclined to permit a certain type of sexual relationship than free societies? This just seems like a random post meant to demonize polygamy by equating or associating it with the Nazis. It's both executed poorly and in poor taste.
 

elkarlo

Banned
This is incredibly stupid. I'm entirely certain that Jesus never said that, and even if he did (in other words, if the Bible says he did), that still doesn't discount the fact that the prophets and kings of Israel were permitted, encouraged and in some cases order to take multiple wives by God. Polygamy can definitely be upheld on scriptural grounds. Please do not begin sentences with "So-and-so said..." if you don't know what you're talking about.


You can be a little less rude.

The OT and NT have some seriously different values in em. You can't transplant all the rules/laws from the OT into the NT as some of them are void.
 
What the hell are you talking about? Many societies have legalized polygamy.

Which ones? And I'm talking about country where society doesn't tolerate polygamy, such as christian and jewish. It's one thing to have legal polygamy in state where society allows for it (e.g. islam)

Also, why would totalitarian societies be more inclined to permit a certain type of sexual relationship than free societies?

Because totalitarian state could more easily pass laws legalising polygamy and then supress opposition than democratic. It would be easier for legalised polygamy to be passed in SU under Stalin since there would be no serious opposition and those who would oppose it (e.g. church) could be silenced by repressive aparatus. However in democratic society, such as UK or France, the opposition from conservative circles, including church(es) would be loud and government couldn't simply sent priests and bishops who would speak against it to some gulag equivalent. Also people would be free to state opposition and parties could easily run on that ticket.

This just seems like a random post meant to demonize polygamy by equating or associating it with the Nazis. It's both executed poorly and in poor taste.

It hardly that. It's a point that no matter how bad popualtion ratios were screwed because of war no state where societal norms didn't allow it before didn't institute legal polygamy as a result. It didn't happen in France, it didn't happen in Eastern Europe. And the fact that this idea was fringe even in Nazi Germany shows that society had little tolerance for it back when OT is talking about.
 

katchen

Banned
There would be a much simpler way to deal with the imbalance of the sexes in Great Britain. Simply liberalize immigration from the rest of Europe and the United States giving preference of course to prospective immigrants who are educated and speak and are literate in English. Even White Russian refugees from Communism. It would gin up the birthrate and create major butterflies ITTL.
 
Come on...

It was common for rich men to have a wife at home, and one or more mistresses in smaller houses at a convenient distance, and for people to look the other way. It was only when women were regarded as equal partners in a marriage that those arrangements become socially damaging. Just pass a law giving the children born from those unions legal rights, and you have a de facto poligamical situation with a first wife, with full rights, and second wives with less rights.
And then there was the soviet army's campaign wife concept, were somebody would have a wife back home, and a pretty radio operator girl at the HQ, and the political commissar would claim it was all as legal as Lenin's beard...
 

elkarlo

Banned
There would be a much simpler way to deal with the imbalance of the sexes in Great Britain. Simply liberalize immigration from the rest of Europe and the United States giving preference of course to prospective immigrants who are educated and speak and are literate in English. Even White Russian refugees from Communism. It would gin up the birthrate and create major butterflies ITTL.


Well, they did get some eastern immigrants, as did France.

A lot of inter racial relationships began at this time. Well interracial with the modern concept of interracial that is.
I wonder what happened to those kids? Did they pass and become whites? Or were they absorbed by the non white communities of the UK?
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
Which ones? And I'm talking about country where society doesn't tolerate polygamy, such as christian and jewish. It's one thing to have legal polygamy in state where society allows for it (e.g. islam)



Because totalitarian state could more easily pass laws legalising polygamy and then supress opposition than democratic. It would be easier for legalised polygamy to be passed in SU under Stalin since there would be no serious opposition and those who would oppose it (e.g. church) could be silenced by repressive aparatus. However in democratic society, such as UK or France, the opposition from conservative circles, including church(es) would be loud and government couldn't simply sent priests and bishops who would speak against it to some gulag equivalent. Also people would be free to state opposition and parties could easily run on that ticket.



It hardly that. It's a point that no matter how bad popualtion ratios were screwed because of war no state where societal norms didn't allow it before didn't institute legal polygamy as a result. It didn't happen in France, it didn't happen in Eastern Europe. And the fact that this idea was fringe even in Nazi Germany shows that society had little tolerance for it back when OT is talking about.

1. You said that no society has legalized polygamy, not even totalitarian ones. The word "society" does not exclusively refer to Judeo-Christian societies. And yes, societies that don't tolerate polygamy don't allow polygamy, whereas societies that tolerate polygamy are much more likely to allow polygamy. What's your point?

2. Arguably, it's easier for an absolute monarchy to abolish slavery, whereas in the United States you have to deal with all this "democracy" nonsense. It's easier to make anything legal or illegal in a dictatorship. Polygamy in itself is not an issue specifically relevant to or associated with totalitarianism.

3. The gender imbalance was not so terrible as to overcome centuries of established social mores. The imbalance was also nowhere large enough that anybody should have expected it to do so. And again, I'm not sure what the Nazis have to do with this.

You can be a little less rude.

The OT and NT have some seriously different values in em. You can't transplant all the rules/laws from the OT into the NT as some of them are void.

You can be a little less wrong. It's one thing to blurt out something in real life because someone asked you and expected you to answer; it's another to take the time and effort to type something that's clearly wrong in a topic where you weren't obligated to respond.

The NT specifically says that the OT is valid in all of its parts. But I'm not going to discuss supersessionism with you; your comment was erroneous, and Jesus as commonly portrayed (i.e., the Biblical Jesus) wasn't particularly concerned with sexual relations.
 
1. You said that no society has legalized polygamy, not even totalitarian ones. The word "society" does not exclusively refer to Judeo-Christian societies. And yes, societies that don't tolerate polygamy don't allow polygamy, whereas societies that tolerate polygamy are much more likely to allow polygamy. What's your point?

OK, I could have been more clear and make it absolutly clear I'm talking about western societies. I also though I made that clear in y first post, which it turns out, I didn't. My mistake. :eek:

2. Arguably, it's easier for an absolute monarchy to abolish slavery, whereas in the United States you have to deal with all this "democracy" nonsense. It's easier to make anything legal or illegal in a dictatorship. Polygamy in itself is not an issue specifically relevant to or associated with totalitarianism.

Polygamy is not associated with totalitarianims but such regimes could make it legal much easier. Since, as you pointed out, they don't ahve to deal with democratic process and opposition. The fact that communist regimes in eastern Europe didn't try it shows how much legal monogamy is entrantched in such societies.

3. The gender imbalance was not so terrible as to overcome centuries of established social mores. The imbalance was also nowhere large enough that anybody should have expected it to do so.

And that's what I'm saying all along. Legal monogamy is so entrenched in western society that even such casualties will not get countries to pass different laws.

And again, I'm not sure what the Nazis have to do with this.

They, or part of SS to be exact, were the only ones who tried something along those lines. It was fringe thinking even in Nazi Germany which further shows how deeply entrenched legal monogamy is.
 

elkarlo

Banned
You can be a little less wrong. It's one thing to blurt out something in real life because someone asked you and expected you to answer; it's another to take the time and effort to type something that's clearly wrong in a topic where you weren't obligated to respond.

The NT specifically says that the OT is valid in all of its parts. But I'm not going to discuss supersessionism with you; your comment was erroneous, and Jesus as commonly portrayed (i.e., the Biblical Jesus) wasn't particularly concerned with sexual relations.


I see that you have become argumentative and dismissive. Good day
 
Top