September 23, 2012
-
Mori Does Dating 31
Obviously a troll post, but it actually has a valid point for some:
“Why do Christian women choose to be mistresses rather than to allow polygamy?”
Now, importantly:
1. Not all Western women are Christian, and not all Christian women are Western.
2. Laws about polyamory and marriage were overwhelmingly passed by men, not women.
3. In many African countries that are predominantly Christian, polygamy is legal, and practiced by Christians. Monogamy is not a Christian thing; it’s a Western thing.
4. “Love,” as we understand it in its modern form of romantic partnership, is a conceit that started circa 1500. Prior to that (and even somewhat after) the understanding was generally that marriages were arranged for long-term dynastic goals, not for sexual or romantic fulfillment.
All that said, the poster has a valid point: for those women specifically looking to be protected and kept by a man, obviously, some sort of second wife status guarantees more than being a mistress.
Of course, none of this addresses that increasingly it is the women who do not want to be tied down, and do not require any compensation from the man. I recall the reactions when a Ph.D student in the lab next door was dating a married man: “I know he has a ring, but I don’t care about that,” she said to a group of fellow students. “I just want to have some fun.” Some were scandalized, but others admired her “strength” and ability to not give a damn about conventional morality. She wasn’t getting any money out of it (unless you count free dinners); she was getting sex and short-term companionship. That was all she was after. The utter ruin of the future of the marriage was categorically not her concern. She wasn’t there to cherish the guy and share his dreams; she was there to use him as a sex toy. He was either too dumb or too flattered by her attentions to see it. The real loser is, presumably, the wife of the cheating man, if she actually needed to depend on him for food/shelter/protection.
So really, what turning mistresses into second wives would protect is first wives who don’t have the economic backing to be independent agents. Also, I suppose it would protect some men from their own stupidity, to a degree: now there’s no illusion that they’re “getting away” with something; they’ve just tacked on a very expensive habit that is formalized in law. Social theorists make noises about “beta” men being protected by the institution of marriage, but accepting this outlook as valid for the sake of argument, I suppose the ritualization and institutionalization of “second wives” protects “beta” women as well.
