People whining a lot about this manga

No, you are not alone. The people, which love this kind of family don't want to talk with people, which don't! It would be an argue or sth <3

Loving a child is not the same as the eros/love toward a mate. And even with many children, how many times do we see a parent love one child more and it causes difficulties and rivalries. I see that all the time. If the love is not roughly equal and fair, problems arise. Same with polygamy or poly andry. Humans tend to have pereferences. You tend to want ONE to be YOURS. In cultures wehre women are oppressed (Muslim ones come to mind), the women don't have a damn say if a husband wants 2 or 4 wives. They have to swallow it. So, they grow up knowing they have to swallow it and get used to it. It's hardly ideal.

In our culture, for centuries, we've come to expect to love and be loved with a solid degree of exclusivity.

Me, I'd never enter into a Hare-Kon unless I was gonna starve to death or something dire. And if you don't love the guy, even better. Then you don't care if he screws the other wives and mostly leaves you alone but keeps a roof over your head and food in your belly and clothes on your back. A practical marriage.

But a love marriage? I want exclusivity. I got it. It's the best thing ever. Being totally, exclusively adored. Nothing beats that. 'I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine." Solomon screwed up his life with too many wives. But that one line of his resonates forever.

At the same time, if that relationship structure is what you choose, it's your life. Do as you wish. But for those of us who think it's a dysfunctional system except in some dire cases (ie scarcity of a particular gender), which cheats a person of the exclusive eros, we have the right to believe in that system as better and more happiness-gathering.

I will note that in countries where women are oppressed, this system is okay. In countries where women are liberated and can live freely and follow dreams, you just don't see this exceptin rare cases of a religious system or some other commune arrangement.

You're not being fair. Problems can exist in all relationships, even monogamous or only-child families. A parent must strive to be fair and attentive to the needs of all their children, and so must the center of a polyamorous relationship. It isn't about someone being YOURS, that's your own personal take, like a child who never learned how to share or the joy in giving.

It isn't normal to get jealous if the person you love goes out to the store, hangs out with friends, or otherwise isn't paying attention to you 24/7, right? Why is that? Don't you want *all* their attention, exclusively? No, that would't be reasonable, and most people don't have trouble with that.

Anxiety springs forth from uncertainties. You know they are coming back from the store, but if your dad left your family while heading out for cigarettes one day you might feel apprehensive whenever your significant other leaves. You know your loved one will be coming back after hanging out with their friends, but what if one of them is more attractive than you? You worry about your relationship ending, losing it all.

When your parents have a new child on the way, or a parent remarries, or someone new joins the harem, there can be unease and worry. Not because any of these are intrinsically bad, but because they are filled with uncertainties. A risk of getting less. You don't want *all*, you just don't want less than someone else. To be forgotten, cast aside, ignored. If these fears are properly addressed, or you feel secure enough to not have them, then there won't be a problem so long as your needs are consistently met. You don't want to be bored, lonely, stressed, or otherwise unfulfilled. For that, you need a certain amount of attention, intimacy, and security, and this varies from person to person.

Also, consider that the concept of property isn't universal. Does that sound strange? Native Americans did not have this concept, which caused misunderstandings when settlers tried to "buy" land. Isn't the land for everyone? Yet colonists would be furious when they felt their "property rights" were violated.

Same can go for "relationship rights", what you expect and feel is fair. These are not universal, either, so judging another relationship as "dysfunctional" by your values is intrinsically flawed. You can't steal if there is no property, so you won't feel upset if another tribe settles near you, so long as they are not bringing harm to you (in which case it's about the harm caused, not the fact that they settled "in your territory"). You can't cheat if there is no exclusivity, so you won't feel mad if your husband marries a second wife, so long as she does not bring harm to your family. If no one is hurting or being deprived, where is the dysfunction?

Sure, our culture has practiced monogamy for centuries, but that also means centuries ago it was different. As our values changed once, they can and will continue to change.


"In countries where women are liberated ... you just don't see this..."

This isn't fair, either. In those very countries, polygamy is outlawed and looked down upon. If there wasn't such a strong social stigma against it, you'd see it quite a bit more.

When the show "Sister Wives" aired, police launched an investigation into the Brown family. For no other reason than the fact that they were polygamous. Utah renewed its criminal ban on bigamy in response, a third-degree felony that carries a sentence of up to 20 years for the husband and 5 years for the wives.

Most people in polygamous relationships have kept quiet and stayed underground for fear of reprisal, ostracization, and even jail time. "Can live freely and follow dreams" doesn't exist in this case.

Well, in the US polygamy is illegal. So folks engaging in it know it's wrong, although, of course, they could get around it by not officially marrying and just living together and no one would give a legal crap.

I don't care if they make polyandry or polygamy legal, as long as no coercion is involved. Let people cohabit as they wish.

But unless one is raised to be of this sharing mentality, it ain't gonna work. We are so ingrained in an "I love you/You love me" way of seeing life-relationships/families, that this is very hard to break out of. Beyond that, for religious reasons, I believe this is how we were created to be. One man-One woman. But clearly, I think people can decide to break out of that system and create families according to their desire. However, I truly believe something in us wants to be THE ONE to the other.

My 3 decades monogamous relationship is about as perfect as it gets. Folks still think we're newlyweds sometimes out in public. I'd never share this man. Ever. He's mine. I'm his, and the joy of that is..well, indescribable. But to each their own.

I just think that, asthis manga shows, emotional issues have to well up. A woman who loves a man will, if raised in our types of cultures want that man for herself. She may be willing to share if it means that or not aving him at all. I see that as a weakness, nto a strength. A settling, rather than an ideal.

It's far more than the US, take a look:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

In all the countries shaded black, it is both illegal and criminalized, meaning prison time. There is pretty much only 2/3rds of Africa, the Middle East, and Malaysia that allow it.



>> folks ... know its wrong <<

I must strongly object here. They know it's *illegal*, but the law is not inherently moral or ethical. Germany at a certain point required Jews to to wear armbands, after all.

Not 'officially' marrying might circumvent some laws, but other bigamy laws have actually included cohabitation. Utah, for instance, hasn't gone after many cases of polygamy simply because they don't have the manpower for it, but the conviction to do so is still there, and I find that to be a problem on a fundamental level. It's a powderkeg waiting to burn someone.



>> as long as no coercion is involved <<

This applies to any marriage or contract. There's really no reason to single out polygamy.



>> unless one is raised to be of this sharing mentality, it ain't gonna work <<

That may be the case for yourself, but you can't and don't speak for everyone. It is far from impossible for someone never raised in such an environment to accept or like the idea of polygamy. Just look at the myriad of fetishes out there and ask: was parental guidance required before anyone arrived at those particular fetishes? Sometimes parents do influence such things, intentionally or not, but other times it's for entirely different reasons.

For instance, consider how well bisexuality or a cuckolding fetish would fit with polygamy. Can you start to see how some people might naturally like polygamy, even when sharing?

Would a culture that purely practiced polygamy result in a much higher incidence of polygamy? Certainly. In such a world, would some people practice monogamy in spite of being raised polygamous? I would think so. Simply put, we have the capacity to be both selfish and generous.



>> We are so ingrained in an "I love you/You love me" way of seeing life-relationships/families, that this is very hard to break out of. <<

Perspective changes how we interpret the same event. As we live and learn, our perspective changes, sometimes broadening, sometimes narrowing, sometimes shifting. Ingrained or not, we have the capability to think and choose. Just by talking, we have the opportunity to gain a glimpse at another's perspective. When we change how we think about something, we also change how we feel about it.



>> Beyond that, for religious reasons, I believe this is how we were created to be. One man-One woman. <<

That's fine, you can apply that to your life and live happily with your chosen partner. When those who think as you do about "one-man-one-woman" try to enforce those beliefs onto others, such as with anti-gay marriage legislation like DOMA, I stop being fine about it. You can believe your book, but don't you dare think I have to live by its rules any more than you can't eat pork because Muslims can't. If you cannot strongly justify a law outside of your religious texts, then it has no place administering the lives of a multi-religious and secular population.

I hate theocracies, and those pushing for one should try living in one where their religion isn't a majority. Preferably one way out of their comfort zone. I think they lose sight of what it means to be on the other side amidst their fervor of "this is right and proper!" Okay, great, then when you go to work on Sunday, we'll be sure to stone you.



>> However, I truly believe something in us wants to be THE ONE to the other. <<

It's a romanticized idea, one that has probably been reinforced throughout your life, but like any idea you run into trouble if you try to assert it's universality.

I'm going to go back to this example, but look at siblings. All children want love, attention, and approval from their parents. Siblings can get jealous and rival each other, competing for affection, but a parent who understands how to give each child what they need will foster a harmonious environment. I love my sister, we have a great relationship, and I wouldn't want her gone so I could be THE ONE to my parents. Yet, some children would feel that way, resenting a sibling who gets more. Meanwhile, an only child might wish they had a sibling.

A romantic relationship works on similar principals. We seek approval and praise from our spouse just as much as we did from our parents. We want to be hugged and held, because it's comforting. We want to make them happy, as we wanted our parents to be happy.

The difference, of course, is romantic intimacy and sex. Within this difference lies another source of competitive feelings: procreation. For men, monogamy ensures he is the father. For women, monogamy ensures protection and resources. Both benefit, so its prevalence isn't surprising from an anthropological standpoint.



>> My 3 decades monogamous relationship is about as perfect as it gets. Folks still think we're newlyweds sometimes out in public. I'd never share this man. Ever. He's mine. I'm his, and the joy of that is..well, indescribable. But to each their own. <<

I'm sure you'd strongly object if someone called your happy, consenting relationship 'wrong', right?

I understand your feelings. When I first picture sharing my spouse, my gut reaction is "Aw hell no!" But, I want to understand, so I try imaging what it would take for me to accept such an arrangement:

1. If you knew, without a doubt, that another wife would fill a hole in your husband and make his life completely content and happy beyond measure, would you allow it?

Yeah, that wasn't enough for me, either. I was a little swayed, but the rejection was still strong.

2. Now, what if you knew, for a fact, that he would never leave you for this other woman? That he would always give you affection when you needed it? That you were guaranteed to stay together, always?

Eh, it's a tiny bit comforting, but I'm still not liking it.

3. How about when you get to know this wife, she turns out to be an amazing person? You like her, respect her, and are awed by her. She becomes your immediate best friend, someone you could trust with your life.

Somehow, my feelings of rejection lessen quite a bit here. I found I just wasn't trusting of a hypothetical stranger. When I add in the happiness of my partner, the assurance that I wouldn't lose them, and a deep trust and friendship with the other spouse, I can start to see how I could accept such a relationship. Especially now that I have a beautiful daughter and feel content; if polygamy meant she could have a stronger foundation growing up, I feel far, far less rejection.

You say that certain cultures like Muslim ones have "no say" in the wives that their husband acquires. I submit to you that it's not practiced in certain Muslim countries (Azerbaijan, Turkey, for instance) and that in order to take another wife the man must show conclusive proof that he can provide for another spouse without forsaking his first (or other) wives.

The idea that someone has "preferences" and that they want someone exclusively is a Western Romantic concept. In societies where polygamy and polyandry (the latter in the Himalayas) are practiced it is considered practical and straightforward. One wife does the cooking, one rears the children, one does the shopping. It's like a team effort. It may not sound like "true love", but not everyone in the world is expecting or looking for that. To claim that EVERYONE in the world should subscribe to how we think of love in a Western mindset is pretty presumptive and, well, ignorant.

I am in the West and I subscribe to my philosophy. I don't have to agree or subscribe to another. I said in another (or earlier in this discussion, forget) that polyandry and polygamy can work--particularly if the mindset is established early and situations mean it is pragmatic. I present that often it is maintained not for pragmatism, but due to male desire to have that harem. NOtice it isn't women who have a choice to have multiple husbands in most of these situations It's men who have the right to have many wives. Whereas in an overpopulated world, that is no longer pragmatic. A woman with many husbands (bringing in more income, having more strong backs to work fields and livestock) with one woman having fewer children that are BETTER provided for is actually SMARTER in the world we live in now. The continuation of polygamy is misogyny, imo, the holdover of strong patriarchies. Not the ideal for a difficult situation.

I'll add that with this manga, the justification is the plunging birthrate in Japan. Notice none of these wives are breeding yet. So, the justification is not realizing "fruit of the womb," as it were. They are having sex, but it's not prorcreative.

If the real purpose is to encourage children, then polyandry makes more sense for Japan, because the reason often given for not having children is that 1. it's too expensive and 2. there is not enough time due to working so much and 3. if a woman quits work to be a housewife/mother-at-home, income is so curtailed only 1 child is feasible.

Well, one woman not working outside the home could, if she was healthy and fertile, have multiple children. Add 2 orr 3 husbands with incomes, and now she can have more children that can be well-housed, well-fed, well-educated. Polyandry is how you solve that problem, not polygamy.