The problem with committed polygamy is it takes several desirables “off the market” who otherwise would be available to others who now faced diminished prospects. And there’s a severe bias in that arrangement toward one male & multiple females, as the “one” can service all others and share identifiable offspring relationships ... vs the reverse arrangement, where multiple men are sitting around wondering why they’re sacrificing for offspring who isn’t identifiably theirs.
The argument that desirable females are taken off the market is not a valid argument so long as the women consent. A construct should not be created to compel women to choose less desirable men. I mean do we pass a law that says rich guys can’t be allowed to marry trophy wives? Of course not.
And the bias of one man and multiple females is innate. Title IX isn’t going to fix that bit of natural reality anymore than it’s ‘fixed’ any other aspect of natural reality.
From my own perspective the arguments against committed polygamy ring hollow whenever an opponent says that serial monogamy or non-committed promiscuity is acceptable.
The other side of the supply/demand argument is that the supply of real men in today’s society is become a commodity for women in a society that prizes effeminate pajama boys, metrosexuals, and mom-pants-wearing Presidents who are probably gay on the down-low. These estrogen-rich beta males do not deserve to reproduce and the world is going to be so much better off if they don’t.
So why should women have to settle for a pansy when the supply of actual men is so limited? Seems to me that the issue of polygamy would not be such an issue if it were not for the fact that it does appeal to women who want a more traditional and patriarchal relationship.
It’s also a bit of a non-sequitur when the argument is made that polygamy should be banned so effeminate, pro-abortion, anti-family males can have a reproductive opportunity made available to them that they have no intent of exercising. <<<