Worn,

I don't know of many men who wouldn't want multiple wives .

Although it's likely that wealthy men would enjoy the most competition from women because of their market value, women would still be able to freely participate in the marketplace.  Unlike many polygamous societies among religious communities and throughout history, the legal system would prevent women from being bartered and sold by the man who "owned her." Women would be guaranteed the legal right to negotiate, terminate, and choose the contracts they entered.

Secondly, legal protections would provide women with options to avoid an exploitative contract. First, the right to negotiate, enter and terminate would allow a woman to negotiate some kind of insurance and/or exit if the arrangement did not suit her needs. Additionally, there would be legal protections against certain kinds of exploitative contractual conditions, as there are today, to prevent a party from being taken advantage of due to hardship or mental disability (temporary or not). Second, the legal right to participate in the economy would allow women to invest in their own careers and assets, providing them with the freedom to exit a bad contract. Third, because many men would lose out, assuming that this system would have a tendency to favor polygamy, women would also receive a lot of competition. Four, polygamy would not be the only possible arrangement. Parties could still enter monogamous contracts, and I think a polyamorous arrangement including multiple men and women in the same marriage might become popular. So while I agree with you that wealthy men would likely have more market power, I think you are exaggerating the extent women might be exploited by neglecting many legal and market conditions.

Now, to your question about reproduction and making marriage contracts legally binding. With respect to reproduction, it seems your question has more to do with finances. Moreover, it also seems you are assuming that men would necessarily be the sole income earner. A man earning $200,000 USD as a small business owner may be in a situation you described, but it would be in the interest of all parties if some of the wives worked. For example, the living standard of two couples earning $50,000 improves (assuming no financial infidelity) if they pool their resources. Since women can participate in the economy, marriages with more than two parties would likely have more than one member working. This could be beneficial too, as your hypothetical family could have 1 working man, 2 working women, and 1 woman who stays home to care for the children. If you think about it, that's more efficient than the nuclear, monogamous family. Additionally, it is better for the environment. With respect to making marriage contracts legally binding, I don't see why this is a problem. The government can treat marriages just like it does any other business contract.

But you are ordered by the federal courts to embrace gay marriage. So what are the practical steps to achieve your vision?  Seems like a copout to let the liberals win without tainting yourself by aligning with the social conservatives.

> Simon wrote:

> What do you do with the left over bachelor males?

I think the usual solution is to send them to war. Alternatively, there is prostitution.

Arby,

If marriage is such a burden for you, then why don't you get divorced?

"I think the usual solution is to send them to war. Alternatively, there is prostitution."

For this to work you would need near-constant wars with high casualties. Forget the human cost, few countries, if any, can sustain the financial cost.

Prostitution can only work if you assume sex is the only thing bachelor males seek. This is clearly false. But assuming it is, sex must dirt cheap to cater to the poor man. If sex is expensive, the poor man can't afford it, and the better off might as well enter into one of your contracts.

You also mentioned that 1-male-multiple-female relationships can improve the gene pool. Why do we assume it's 1-male-multiple-female? There are many well off females and they can enter contracts with multiple men. Women tend to be more selective for mates and well off women tend to have fewer children. Thus, a 1-female-multiple-male scenario would actually regress the gene pool.

> Arby3 wrote:

>

Worst idea ever. Have you ever been married? 1 is plenty enough.

Hehehe, that was my first thought...

"One woman could potentially contract with multiple men, but it's unlikely."

True, as a result of millennia of social attitude.

That's not to say, however, that the attitude will remain forever, especially in your hypothetical world. Your statement: "I'd rather be single, and I think most men would agree." lends some credence to that, since being single will decrease the likelihood of your having children.

> Arby3 wrote:

>And yes, I am divorced lol. Turns out I married a whore in sheeps clothing.

The inner Australian wants to make a kiwi joke...but I will refrain as much as I can...

a few problems:
1 the society would become dominantly female if you send away to many man. Most societies with an unhealthy mix of female/male population tend to be very inefficient.
2 as someone addressed before, the gene pool will become smaller. Deseases will strike.
3 families will become to large. Clan wars will erupt as in the old days. There will be less freedom for the youth to decide what to do with their life.

Arby3:
"Turns out I married a whore in sheeps clothing."

You thought you married a sheep? That's a whole other set of dysfunction.

~Wornstrum~:

I've been making fun of an Aussie friend for years, calling him a sheep [herder]. (he happened to be born in NZ) Are you saying I randomly hit a nerve with a kiwi stereotype?! I just picked something really nasty and obscene at random. I had no idea.

Not really a random nerve, but aussies tease kiwi's all the time about "sheep [herding]". It doesn't really strike a nerve, just more friendly rivalry...it is all based on a rumour/fact (I am not sure what) that there were more sheep than people in NZ, and I am sure you can see how the jokes evolved...

> Justinian I wrote:

> Simon,

Well it's not really relevant, since the less attractive women could easily cater to the lower class men.

One woman could potentially contract with multiple men, but it's unlikely. There are few cases of polyandrous societies, and of those that are it's between two brothers and one wife. I mean, would you really be willing to be Paris Hilton's 100th husband? I'd rather be single, and I think most men would agree.

Paris Hilton's ? no....

Jessica Alba's? of course i would!