While polygamy and polyamory are pretty different things, the final poll of polygamous support where left-wing people are more accepting than right wing people implies these words are being used...
While polygamy and polyamory are pretty different things, the final poll of polygamous support where left-wing people are more accepting than right wing people implies these words are being used interchangeably by people.
Anyway, from the article:
Polygamy is rare throughout most of the world. In the U.S., having spouselike relationships with more than one person under the same roof was criminalized in 1882. Today, people in the U.S. are rarely prosecuted for living with multiple romantic partners, but every state has laws against getting married while already being married to someone else.
In February, Utah passed a bill to reduce the penalties for adults who voluntarily live in polygamous relationships, making the practice an infraction, a low-level offense that is not punishable with jail time.
In other parts of the world, including swaths of the Middle East and Asia, polygamy is legal but not practiced widely. And in some countries – particularly in a segment of West and Central Africa known as the polygamy belt – the practice is frequently legal and widespread.
Religion often plays a role in how polygamy is governed and practiced within a single country. In Nigeria, for example, polygamous marriage is not allowed at the federal level, but the prohibition only applies to civil marriages. Twelve northern, Muslim-majority states do recognize these unions as Islamic or customary marriages. In India, Muslim men are allowed to marry multiple women, while men of other groups are not.
Polygamy usually takes the form of polygyny – when a man marries multiple women. Polyandry, which refers to wives having more than one husband, is even rarer than polygamy and mostly documented among small and relatively isolated communities around the world. While polygamy laws are usually skewed in favor of allowing men – but not women – to take multiple spouses, many countries’ laws also speak to the rights of women. In Burkina Faso, for example, where polygamy is common, spouses must agree that a marriage will be polygamous at its outset for the husband to be allowed to take another wife in the future.
One-in-five U.S. adults believe that polygamy is morally acceptable, a recent Gallup poll found. This share has almost tripled (from 7%) since the question was first asked in 2003, but is still among the least accepted behaviors Gallup asks about. Self-described liberals are much more likely than conservatives to see polygamy as morally acceptable (34% vs. 9%).
It's really interesting how this behavior is accepted by both probably very conservative religious people and very socially progressive, "total consentual freedom" people and these types of polygamy/polyamory are entirely removed from one another.
I find it very confusing why you think the world works the way it does. First off, why are excess single men destabilizing? There are many countries where excess single men is a problem and it...
I find it very confusing why you think the world works the way it does.
First off, why are excess single men destabilizing? There are many countries where excess single men is a problem and it isn't harmful to society - such as some Asian countries. Furthermore, why is the solution monogamy rather than figuring out how to deal with single men?
Furthermore, as @tindall and others have pointed out, why do you think the people removing themselves from dating are not exactly the kind of people who would remove themselves from dating whether they can marry into a nontraditional structure or not? If someone wants a nontraditional dating structure they will find it and whether it's legal or illegal for them to structure their life in a specific way is simply not a factor when it comes to who they choose to date. It's illegal in many places to be homosexual, and yet there's no shortage of stories from homosexuals in those areas.
This is hogwash. Basically all risk taking studies which have shown anything but a null hypothesis are cemented in financial risk taking related to testosterone, which also happens to show that...
the average level of testosterone in society is greater, leading to increased risk taking
This is hogwash. Basically all risk taking studies which have shown anything but a null hypothesis are cemented in financial risk taking related to testosterone, which also happens to show that women increase financial risk taking, by the way. However, all of these studies are problematic in a way that many economics studies done in a lab happen to be - a controlled environment of an essentially no-stakes game simply does not reflect how people act in reality and its the reason why behavioral economics evolved as an entire discipline which rapidly evolved into perhaps the most dominant form of practical economic theory.
Furthermore, you're making the assumption that reduced risk taking necessarily correlates with societal stability, when there is no proof that this is true. There are many forms of risk taking necessary for societal progress (which inevitably leads to stability) such as entrepreneurial endeavors, exploration, and forming new social bonds (friends, dating, etc).
I've already stated other solutions, such as preferential abortion of men, incarceration, war, and importation of foreign spouses.
I'm sorry but when your list of solutions includes locking people up and starting wars, that's not a solution I'm okay with. This is intolerant towards single men and I don't appreciate this kind of behavior on Tildes.
At this point I'm going to check out of this thread. It's not exactly welcoming. Have a pleasant day.
How does this affect the single male population? Presumably (I don't actually know) homosexuality and bisexuality are balanced across gender? In which case similar numbers are removed from both...
another is a historically high acceptance and incidence of homosexuality and bisexuality
How does this affect the single male population? Presumably (I don't actually know) homosexuality and bisexuality are balanced across gender? In which case similar numbers are removed from both sides of the dating pool? There may be a reduction in single men as a percentage of total population but I think the absolute numbers would be more troubling here.
They are not! This study is unfortunately rather binary, but has good numbers across nations for incidence rates of bisexual and homosexual individuals. This is an active area of study, however,...
Presumably (I don't actually know) homosexuality and bisexuality are balanced across gender?
They are not! This study is unfortunately rather binary, but has good numbers across nations for incidence rates of bisexual and homosexual individuals. This is an active area of study, however, as modern methods have figured out that there's some rather large fluctuations in estimates depending on how you determine someone's sexuality - be it by questionnaire (and how the questions are worded) or by other means.
In which case similar numbers are removed from both sides of the dating pool?
To be clear, bisexuals are often in both dating pools, not removed from either. This is also a very singularly focused idea - sexuality is not the only reason people may remove themselves from a dating pool at any time. Furthermore, a lot of individuals would claim they are in the dating pool, when their behavior would indicate that they are a very poor match for most. Strongly held sexist beliefs, for example, tend to negatively affect your chances at matching people.
Just from skimming the linked results it would seem it's more prevalent in women? Agreed. Definitely agree strongly with this as well. However, I guess I am also a macro-level polygamy-skeptic for...
This study is unfortunately rather binary, but has good numbers across nations for incidence rates of bisexual and homosexual individuals.
Just from skimming the linked results it would seem it's more prevalent in women?
This is also a very singularly focused idea - sexuality is not the only reason people may remove themselves from a dating pool at any time.
Agreed.
Furthermore, a lot of individuals would claim they are in the dating pool, when their behavior would indicate that they are a very poor match for most. Strongly held sexist beliefs, for example, tend to negatively affect your chances at matching people.
Definitely agree strongly with this as well. However, I guess I am also a macro-level polygamy-skeptic for similar reasons to @Rez, although in my opinion his reasoning veers further into Jordan Peterson-esque territory than I am comfortable with. I don't think that single men are inherently unstable but I also am not optimistic about modern cultural context being significantly different enough to see different results of polygamy.
In examining the incel movement, a rational person can instantly see the problem. Ugly personalities blaming anything but themselves for their lack of romantic success. However, it's a group that gained considerable traction -- I can only imagine the scenario if there were actually systemic issues preventing people from finding a romantic partner. I mean, 75 million people in the USA managed to conclude that DT was the best choice for President -- most of them cis men. Should the opportunity cease to exist for a portion of them to realistically pursue romantic partners I can't imagine that being a good thing for society writ large.
Here's the thing though, a cursory glance at the statistics shows that women are actually more single (or perhaps one should say, more unmarried) than ever before. The rise of the incel movement...
Should the opportunity cease to exist for a portion of them to realistically pursue romantic partners I can't imagine that being a good thing for society writ large.
Here's the thing though, a cursory glance at the statistics shows that women are actually more single (or perhaps one should say, more unmarried) than ever before.
The rise of the incel movement has corresponded with an increase in single women, implying that it is not a problem of supply. Simply put, single women are not scarce and not in any risk of being scarce. Women are just feeling more empowered to avoid marriages that they do not want and this is being reflected in the population. The solution to incels is education and shifting cultural norms, not finding a way to ensure single men have a partner.
I agree that the incel movement is completely detached from reality. I don't want to come across as defending them or explaining their behaviour. My problem is that if it's popularity sky rocketed...
I agree that the incel movement is completely detached from reality. I don't want to come across as defending them or explaining their behaviour.
My problem is that if it's popularity sky rocketed in the face of a perceived imbalance -- I can't imagine education and cultural norms being enough when faced with an actual imbalance.
This is precisely the problem, this is exactly what is happening right now in the face of the opposite factually happening. If the reality does not match the perception, what else besides...
if it's popularity sky rocketed in the face of a perceived imbalance
This is precisely the problem, this is exactly what is happening right now in the face of the opposite factually happening. If the reality does not match the perception, what else besides education and cultural norms can possibly fix this?
For sure the best solution in the present timeline. But I think it's safe to say the issue would be magnified in the face of an actual problem because you would get uptake from a larger pool of...
If the reality does not match the perception, what else besides education and cultural norms can possibly fix this?
For sure the best solution in the present timeline. But I think it's safe to say the issue would be magnified in the face of an actual problem because you would get uptake from a larger pool of rational people.
I'm not sure I'm following, sorry. What am I missing if we hold that polygyny is more widespread than polyandry? Gay men provide a relationship opportunity for other gay and bisexual men. This...
I'm not sure I'm following, sorry. What am I missing if we hold that polygyny is more widespread than polyandry?
Gay men provide a relationship opportunity for other gay and bisexual men. This reduces the excess of single men. There are now less men that need an opportunity across the gender gap.
However, as gay and bisexual women pair with each other, there are less opportunities available which cancels the gain?
Thanks, I understand your point now! I mean I'm really getting into the weeds with hypotheticals here but in a polygamous society I was viewing monogamous relationships as (probably with some...
Thanks, I understand your point now!
I mean I'm really getting into the weeds with hypotheticals here but in a polygamous society I was viewing monogamous relationships as (probably with some level of exception) the least desirable mates and thus most affected by shortages.
Absolutely. That's probably the difference in perspective here, I am approaching this less from a 'what would our society look like if polygamy was practiced by a subset of it' and more of a...
I think that would require a massive shift in pretty much all of our societal norms
Absolutely. That's probably the difference in perspective here, I am approaching this less from a 'what would our society look like if polygamy was practiced by a subset of it' and more of a Rawlsian veil of ignorance of a polygamous society.
Most statistics show more homosexual men than women and more bisexual women than men. Men seemingly self select themselves out of the heterosexual dating pool at higher rates than women.
Most statistics show more homosexual men than women and more bisexual women than men. Men seemingly self select themselves out of the heterosexual dating pool at higher rates than women.
I agree. I think that polygamy is theoretically acceptable based on principles of consent. But, given that human culture still has patriarchal tendencies, if polygamy were practiced broadly then...
I agree. I think that polygamy is theoretically acceptable based on principles of consent. But, given that human culture still has patriarchal tendencies, if polygamy were practiced broadly then we’d likely see excess males left out of the pairing process.
Having too many men with little to lose is socially destabilizing, driving hyper competitive cultures, human-trafficking of brides, and violent conflict.
Polygamy may work out if we ever reach a distant future where human culture has evolved to the point where the sexual-political power dynamics between men and women are truly equal everywhere.
I frankly don't think it's fair to throw the two into the same bucket, especially when many of the studies and questions seem incredibly focused on marriage and do not make the distinction between...
It's really interesting how this behavior is accepted by both probably very conservative religious people and very socially progressive, "total consentual freedom" people and these types of polygamy/polyamory are entirely removed from one another.
I frankly don't think it's fair to throw the two into the same bucket, especially when many of the studies and questions seem incredibly focused on marriage and do not make the distinction between andry/gyny until after the fact by including additional 'related' details such as 'a judge records the existing wives’ opinions on any new marriages' which is really just a description of how their polygamy works. In many places where polygamy is in law, it's specifically a man with multiple wives, not the reverse.
Furthermore, the term is loaded to marriage. Many polyamorous individuals have no desire to ever be married, or use marriage primarily as a means to reduce taxes, provide citizenship status, or provide benefit to one or more of the partners involved. To understand how polyamory fits into the equation, an entirely different analysis is required.
Good! I mean it will make stuff a bit weird during dating as more variations of what a relationship should look like crop up, but thats why we have vocal cords. Plus it doesn't harm anyone so,...
Good! I mean it will make stuff a bit weird during dating as more variations of what a relationship should look like crop up, but thats why we have vocal cords.
Plus it doesn't harm anyone so, awesome sauce.
This. Our grandchildren will call us bullshit artists when we speak of a time when two adults could afford to raise one child and furnish one house between them. Friends is the future - except...
This. Our grandchildren will call us bullshit artists when we speak of a time when two adults could afford to raise one child and furnish one house between them. Friends is the future - except with just the one apartment, the other one owned (but not occupied) by AirB&B, and periods of haunting silence in place of a laugh track.
Well, more in the sense that it seems like an exaggeration and a conclusion drawn too drastically. I mean the only thing which indicates that it's being more widely accepted is that 13...
Well, more in the sense that it seems like an exaggeration and a conclusion drawn too drastically. I mean the only thing which indicates that it's being more widely accepted is that 13 percentage-point increase in acceptance, and the fact that 1 state reduced some penalties.
This is precisely how rights for many minorities have been won. A good recent example might be gay acceptance. It wasn't all that long ago that more people were disapproving of queer identities...
This is precisely how rights for many minorities have been won. A good recent example might be gay acceptance. It wasn't all that long ago that more people were disapproving of queer identities than were accepting.
I mean, that 13% increase is an increase from 7% to 20%. That's up to thrice as many people supporting poly relationships depending on how much the margins of error affect this. I will concede...
I mean the only thing which indicates that it's being more widely accepted is that 13 percentage-point increase in acceptance
I mean, that 13% increase is an increase from 7% to 20%. That's up to thrice as many people supporting poly relationships depending on how much the margins of error affect this. I will concede that this is very much a Western (US & Western Europe) thing and probably much lower in places like Latin America where I live for example. (EDIT: And people actually practicing polygamy/amory is still very low as seen in the article.)
And the fact that 1 state reduced some penalties.
While that's worse than where gay people were when their support was 20% in the US (in 1996 their support was 27% so we're talking 1980-1990 here), the US at the time didn't have nearly as much stuff to deal with and LGBTQ were probably far more big of a deal then than polyamorous people are today, probably because being closeted is far worse than having one SO instead of 4. (Although that's just a guess.)
Latin America is Western. But anyway, this poll was just for people in the US, and I'm willing to bet that support for polygamy is lower in Western Europe. I also think it's possible that support...
Latin America is Western. But anyway, this poll was just for people in the US, and I'm willing to bet that support for polygamy is lower in Western Europe. I also think it's possible that support for polygamy is decreasing in countries where it's actually legal and that the poll didn't distinguish between polyamory and polygamy (which I believe you mentioned earlier). So I just don't think it's being more widely accepted.
Honestly, how? I'm really not seeing anything wrong other than mentioning the polls of social acceptance is US exclusive and that social acceptance and practice is different (AKA people are more...
Honestly, how? I'm really not seeing anything wrong other than mentioning the polls of social acceptance is US exclusive and that social acceptance and practice is different (AKA people are more accepting of polygamy/amory but not more polygamous/amorous.)
Fair. After re-reading the article I linked, it does seem that polygamy and polyamory each gesture toward each of the arrangements I described in my main comment, with polygamy being closer to the...
Fair. After re-reading the article I linked, it does seem that polygamy and polyamory each gesture toward each of the arrangements I described in my main comment, with polygamy being closer to the religious, probably conservative and sexist "harem" arrangement while polyamory gestures more towards the secular, socially progressive "@Gaywallet/tindall" arrangements (or in real language, polycules) which are more decentralized. This also contextualizes Rez's comments to an extent.
sidenote, but the definition they used for polygamous is this: "A household in which an individual lives with two or more partners, with or without children, and regardless of the presence of other relatives or non-relatives." So they definitely have a proper definition for polygamy, but just ignore polyamory. Also, I'm @-ing gaywallet but not tindall because they replied to me about polyamory vs polygamy so they will likely want to read this, where as tindall is not that certain.
I would suggest looking at an encyclopedia (or heck, even Wikipedia) when looking at this term, because many terms are being redefined into modern language. Modern definitions do not capture the...
I would suggest looking at an encyclopedia (or heck, even Wikipedia) when looking at this term, because many terms are being redefined into modern language. Modern definitions do not capture the historical context, and I can assure you as someone who is semi-regularly persecuted or treated differently for being polyamorous, do not accurately capture the sentiment of most individuals. When I grew up, pretty much the only context anything poly was presented to me was through the lens of a single husband with multiple wives and it was always negative - cults, slave owners, 'barbaric' communities, etc. Polygamy was the word for this and whenever anything else was presented, other words were always used (for example they might describe a 3 person polycule as a thruple).
But what I was really getting at with my reply was that the lens through which they are examining this is very centered on men with multiple female partners, and does not really go in depth to search for and find examples of anything different... they merely mention that they exist. What about the stats for them? What about stats on polyamorous relationships?
We also see something similar in studies of queer populations. A frequent mistake that I've seen many researchers do is to estimate transgender populations based on a questionnaire asking if people are transgender. I don't know about you, but if I got a questionnaire in the mail asking me if I was transgender I would think twice about answering it - who's asking? This is doubly true in countries where there is more rampant transphobia (unfortunately we are headed that was as well, with President Trump having eroded many trans rights and Kamala Harris coming in with a troublesome history of persecuting trans individuals in jail) where the government knowing you are trans could lead to your persecution or even death through terrible means such as stoning.
A common element to include in a paper on a study is the methodology used. Articles get away with obscuring or simply not providing this and often try to argue a point with statistics without providing the context of how these statistics were collected or what considerations were made. These are the reasons which I think it's unfair to group polyamory with this study on what appears to be the dominant form of polygamy and what the definition reflected when I grew up.
While polygamy and polyamory are pretty different things, the final poll of polygamous support where left-wing people are more accepting than right wing people implies these words are being used interchangeably by people.
Anyway, from the article:
It's really interesting how this behavior is accepted by both probably very conservative religious people and very socially progressive, "total consentual freedom" people and these types of polygamy/polyamory are entirely removed from one another.
I find it very confusing why you think the world works the way it does.
First off, why are excess single men destabilizing? There are many countries where excess single men is a problem and it isn't harmful to society - such as some Asian countries. Furthermore, why is the solution monogamy rather than figuring out how to deal with single men?
Furthermore, as @tindall and others have pointed out, why do you think the people removing themselves from dating are not exactly the kind of people who would remove themselves from dating whether they can marry into a nontraditional structure or not? If someone wants a nontraditional dating structure they will find it and whether it's legal or illegal for them to structure their life in a specific way is simply not a factor when it comes to who they choose to date. It's illegal in many places to be homosexual, and yet there's no shortage of stories from homosexuals in those areas.
This is hogwash. Basically all risk taking studies which have shown anything but a null hypothesis are cemented in financial risk taking related to testosterone, which also happens to show that women increase financial risk taking, by the way. However, all of these studies are problematic in a way that many economics studies done in a lab happen to be - a controlled environment of an essentially no-stakes game simply does not reflect how people act in reality and its the reason why behavioral economics evolved as an entire discipline which rapidly evolved into perhaps the most dominant form of practical economic theory.
Furthermore, you're making the assumption that reduced risk taking necessarily correlates with societal stability, when there is no proof that this is true. There are many forms of risk taking necessary for societal progress (which inevitably leads to stability) such as entrepreneurial endeavors, exploration, and forming new social bonds (friends, dating, etc).
I'm sorry but when your list of solutions includes locking people up and starting wars, that's not a solution I'm okay with. This is intolerant towards single men and I don't appreciate this kind of behavior on Tildes.
At this point I'm going to check out of this thread. It's not exactly welcoming. Have a pleasant day.
Isn't the percentage of LGBTQ+ people around 5% of the population?
How does this affect the single male population? Presumably (I don't actually know) homosexuality and bisexuality are balanced across gender? In which case similar numbers are removed from both sides of the dating pool? There may be a reduction in single men as a percentage of total population but I think the absolute numbers would be more troubling here.
They are not! This study is unfortunately rather binary, but has good numbers across nations for incidence rates of bisexual and homosexual individuals. This is an active area of study, however, as modern methods have figured out that there's some rather large fluctuations in estimates depending on how you determine someone's sexuality - be it by questionnaire (and how the questions are worded) or by other means.
To be clear, bisexuals are often in both dating pools, not removed from either. This is also a very singularly focused idea - sexuality is not the only reason people may remove themselves from a dating pool at any time. Furthermore, a lot of individuals would claim they are in the dating pool, when their behavior would indicate that they are a very poor match for most. Strongly held sexist beliefs, for example, tend to negatively affect your chances at matching people.
Just from skimming the linked results it would seem it's more prevalent in women?
Agreed.
Definitely agree strongly with this as well. However, I guess I am also a macro-level polygamy-skeptic for similar reasons to @Rez, although in my opinion his reasoning veers further into Jordan Peterson-esque territory than I am comfortable with. I don't think that single men are inherently unstable but I also am not optimistic about modern cultural context being significantly different enough to see different results of polygamy.
In examining the incel movement, a rational person can instantly see the problem. Ugly personalities blaming anything but themselves for their lack of romantic success. However, it's a group that gained considerable traction -- I can only imagine the scenario if there were actually systemic issues preventing people from finding a romantic partner. I mean, 75 million people in the USA managed to conclude that DT was the best choice for President -- most of them cis men. Should the opportunity cease to exist for a portion of them to realistically pursue romantic partners I can't imagine that being a good thing for society writ large.
Here's the thing though, a cursory glance at the statistics shows that women are actually more single (or perhaps one should say, more unmarried) than ever before.
The rise of the incel movement has corresponded with an increase in single women, implying that it is not a problem of supply. Simply put, single women are not scarce and not in any risk of being scarce. Women are just feeling more empowered to avoid marriages that they do not want and this is being reflected in the population. The solution to incels is education and shifting cultural norms, not finding a way to ensure single men have a partner.
I agree that the incel movement is completely detached from reality. I don't want to come across as defending them or explaining their behaviour.
My problem is that if it's popularity sky rocketed in the face of a perceived imbalance -- I can't imagine education and cultural norms being enough when faced with an actual imbalance.
This is precisely the problem, this is exactly what is happening right now in the face of the opposite factually happening. If the reality does not match the perception, what else besides education and cultural norms can possibly fix this?
For sure the best solution in the present timeline. But I think it's safe to say the issue would be magnified in the face of an actual problem because you would get uptake from a larger pool of rational people.
But wouldn't we expect gay women to 'consume' at similar rates from the other side of the pool?
I'm not sure I'm following, sorry. What am I missing if we hold that polygyny is more widespread than polyandry?
Gay men provide a relationship opportunity for other gay and bisexual men. This reduces the excess of single men. There are now less men that need an opportunity across the gender gap.
However, as gay and bisexual women pair with each other, there are less opportunities available which cancels the gain?
Thanks, I understand your point now!
I mean I'm really getting into the weeds with hypotheticals here but in a polygamous society I was viewing monogamous relationships as (probably with some level of exception) the least desirable mates and thus most affected by shortages.
Absolutely. That's probably the difference in perspective here, I am approaching this less from a 'what would our society look like if polygamy was practiced by a subset of it' and more of a Rawlsian veil of ignorance of a polygamous society.
Most statistics show more homosexual men than women and more bisexual women than men. Men seemingly self select themselves out of the heterosexual dating pool at higher rates than women.
I agree. I think that polygamy is theoretically acceptable based on principles of consent. But, given that human culture still has patriarchal tendencies, if polygamy were practiced broadly then we’d likely see excess males left out of the pairing process.
Having too many men with little to lose is socially destabilizing, driving hyper competitive cultures, human-trafficking of brides, and violent conflict.
Polygamy may work out if we ever reach a distant future where human culture has evolved to the point where the sexual-political power dynamics between men and women are truly equal everywhere.
I frankly don't think it's fair to throw the two into the same bucket, especially when many of the studies and questions seem incredibly focused on marriage and do not make the distinction between andry/gyny until after the fact by including additional 'related' details such as 'a judge records the existing wives’ opinions on any new marriages' which is really just a description of how their polygamy works. In many places where polygamy is in law, it's specifically a man with multiple wives, not the reverse.
Furthermore, the term is loaded to marriage. Many polyamorous individuals have no desire to ever be married, or use marriage primarily as a means to reduce taxes, provide citizenship status, or provide benefit to one or more of the partners involved. To understand how polyamory fits into the equation, an entirely different analysis is required.
Good! I mean it will make stuff a bit weird during dating as more variations of what a relationship should look like crop up, but thats why we have vocal cords.
Plus it doesn't harm anyone so, awesome sauce.
I don't think it's sane to try to raise even one child with only two adults participating.
This. Our grandchildren will call us bullshit artists when we speak of a time when two adults could afford to raise one child and furnish one house between them. Friends is the future - except with just the one apartment, the other one owned (but not occupied) by AirB&B, and periods of haunting silence in place of a laugh track.
The title of the article is
which is more accurate. This one sounds like fearmongering.
Is it? I don't think saying polygamy/amory is getting more accepted is giving an opinion on that change.
Well, more in the sense that it seems like an exaggeration and a conclusion drawn too drastically. I mean the only thing which indicates that it's being more widely accepted is that 13 percentage-point increase in acceptance, and the fact that 1 state reduced some penalties.
This is precisely how rights for many minorities have been won. A good recent example might be gay acceptance. It wasn't all that long ago that more people were disapproving of queer identities than were accepting.
I mean, that 13% increase is an increase from 7% to 20%. That's up to thrice as many people supporting poly relationships depending on how much the margins of error affect this. I will concede that this is very much a Western (US & Western Europe) thing and probably much lower in places like Latin America where I live for example. (EDIT: And people actually practicing polygamy/amory is still very low as seen in the article.)
While that's worse than where gay people were when their support was 20% in the US (in 1996 their support was 27% so we're talking 1980-1990 here), the US at the time didn't have nearly as much stuff to deal with and LGBTQ were probably far more big of a deal then than polyamorous people are today, probably because being closeted is far worse than having one SO instead of 4. (Although that's just a guess.)
Latin America is Western. But anyway, this poll was just for people in the US, and I'm willing to bet that support for polygamy is lower in Western Europe. I also think it's possible that support for polygamy is decreasing in countries where it's actually legal and that the poll didn't distinguish between polyamory and polygamy (which I believe you mentioned earlier). So I just don't think it's being more widely accepted.
Why are you afraid of polygamy?
I said it sounded like fearmongering, not that it sounded scary.
Honestly, how? I'm really not seeing anything wrong other than mentioning the polls of social acceptance is US exclusive and that social acceptance and practice is different (AKA people are more accepting of polygamy/amory but not more polygamous/amorous.)
Fair. After re-reading the article I linked, it does seem that polygamy and polyamory each gesture toward each of the arrangements I described in my main comment, with polygamy being closer to the religious, probably conservative and sexist "harem" arrangement while polyamory gestures more towards the secular, socially progressive "@Gaywallet/tindall" arrangements (or in real language, polycules) which are more decentralized. This also contextualizes Rez's comments to an extent.
More mindful articles might be this one or this one?
sidenote, but the definition they used for polygamous is this: "A household in which an individual lives with two or more partners, with or without children, and regardless of the presence of other relatives or non-relatives." So they definitely have a proper definition for polygamy, but just ignore polyamory. Also, I'm @-ing gaywallet but not tindall because they replied to me about polyamory vs polygamy so they will likely want to read this, where as tindall is not that certain.
I would suggest looking at an encyclopedia (or heck, even Wikipedia) when looking at this term, because many terms are being redefined into modern language. Modern definitions do not capture the historical context, and I can assure you as someone who is semi-regularly persecuted or treated differently for being polyamorous, do not accurately capture the sentiment of most individuals. When I grew up, pretty much the only context anything poly was presented to me was through the lens of a single husband with multiple wives and it was always negative - cults, slave owners, 'barbaric' communities, etc. Polygamy was the word for this and whenever anything else was presented, other words were always used (for example they might describe a 3 person polycule as a thruple).
But what I was really getting at with my reply was that the lens through which they are examining this is very centered on men with multiple female partners, and does not really go in depth to search for and find examples of anything different... they merely mention that they exist. What about the stats for them? What about stats on polyamorous relationships?
We also see something similar in studies of queer populations. A frequent mistake that I've seen many researchers do is to estimate transgender populations based on a questionnaire asking if people are transgender. I don't know about you, but if I got a questionnaire in the mail asking me if I was transgender I would think twice about answering it - who's asking? This is doubly true in countries where there is more rampant transphobia (unfortunately we are headed that was as well, with President Trump having eroded many trans rights and Kamala Harris coming in with a troublesome history of persecuting trans individuals in jail) where the government knowing you are trans could lead to your persecution or even death through terrible means such as stoning.
A common element to include in a paper on a study is the methodology used. Articles get away with obscuring or simply not providing this and often try to argue a point with statistics without providing the context of how these statistics were collected or what considerations were made. These are the reasons which I think it's unfair to group polyamory with this study on what appears to be the dominant form of polygamy and what the definition reflected when I grew up.
Or incredibly relieving, depending on your perspective.