Keysar Trad, polygamy, polyandry, dangerous ideas and the fix is still in for men

Anxious punters eager to save a buck or three but still anxious to be confronted by dangerous ideas will be relieved to learn that Keysar Trad has gazumped his Sunday talk on why Polygamy and other Islamic values are good for Australia by publishing a column in today's SMH asking Why should polygamy be a crime?

They'll even more pleased to know you can learn a lot more useful information about polygamy by heading off to the wiki with that name here.

For free. 

Because of course Trad is mainly interest in a specious, dissembling form of special pleading than he is in providing information or a balanced view on the subject.

Let's cut to the chase because it's too tedious to follow Trad down the labyrthnine paths of his thinking. What about the notion that - if men can have more than one wife - what about women having more than one husband? After all, fair's fair, goose for the gander, and vice versa, and so forth and etcetera:

While Islam sanctions polygyny, it does not condone threesomes. Islam also does not permit polyandry, a form of relationship in which a wife takes more than one husband. There are many reasons for this. Some are medical, some relate to paternity. Others pertain to the sexual proclivities of the different genders. The sex therapist Bettina Arndt, promoting her book Sex Diaries, outlined the merits of women saying "yes" more often to sex with their husbands. If Arndt's research is reflective of a greater portion of the population, a monogamous relationship leads to reduced interest in sex among women and a perpetual state of conjugal frustration among men.

Well it's a relief to know that Islam doesn't condone threesomes. That's a huge step forward from those dark, evil hippie days with all that talk about free love, and loving the one you're with if you can't be with the one you live. All that murky Tantra nonsense.

But what's this nonsense about polyandry? What on earth are the medical reasons that mean it's not a goer? And what does the notion of paternity have to do with anything if we're heading to the original state of the world, a matriarchal society? (I keed, I keed).

But the capper is the nonsense about how if you're in a monogamous relationship, and the frail, genteel woman isn't up to the job of the huge male appetite for sex, then you should shop around for extra wives to ease your state of conjugal frustration.

Yep, it's the old myth about men having giant insatiable pricks which lead to too much fainting amongst women, who simply can't handle sex, and the funniest thing is that it puts Trad in bed with Bettina Arndt. What a pair of odd bedfellows, but the level of crocodile tears from Trad gets even more startling:

If men in monogamous relations are not satiated, by its very nature polyandry creates an overwhelming burden for a woman in long-term relationships.

How quaint. I don't think I've heard the word 'satiated' in this context since I read my last piece of soft porn or a nice bodice ripper. Satiated, he rested against her heaving bosom. Oh yes, a satiated bosom.

But isn't it wonderful for Trad to worry so about the overwhelming burden for women in long term relationships created by that dangerous concept, polyandry.

Why next he'll be telling us all how the face and form of deviant, perverted women - when exposed to the helpless, lustful gaze of the male eye - can only lead to rampant sex, and must of course lead the cloaking of all that unwholesome uncovered meat by clothing best suited to a desert climate in a sand storm.

Who someone marries first is an accident of history. If a man who has an affair had met his mistress before his wife, he may have married her. Why maintain the facade that is the Justinian doctrine of monogamy knowing it has failed as a social experiment?

A man can have multiple girlfriends. Why not formalise that into a commitment for life? Why should “bigamy” be a crime?

Um, where were we again? A woman can have multiple boyfriends? Why not formalise that into a commitment for life? Why should women be penalized by the hopelessly outdated retarded phallocentric thinking of males, dressed up in the form of a religious ordinance?

Apparently - so Trad claims - the last time he spoke on this subject, he was misrepresented by the media, misquoted, abused and mocked, in much the same way as Christ was once tormented by the unbelievers.

Well just as Trad is worried about the fate of bigamists, let's hope he's worried about the fate of homosexuals, and sees a way forward for gay marriage. Why am I reminded of Christopher Hitchens on the ABC's Q & A (here)?

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: But that's what secular means. But in that case I think it behoves the religious to say what they genuinely mean. Now, Frank just talked about homosexuality as if the church had never condemned it as a mortal sin.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes. Yes. Yes.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: I mean, it's extraordinary. I would not know that you were a member of the Society of Jesus, except that it was a very Jesuitical point you were making and concealed your main one.

TONY JONES: I'd like to...

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: And I'm sorry, Waleed, it's the same. Islam says the same. You cannot be a good Muslim and publicly be a homosexual. Why don't you...

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Absolutely.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: ...given the wonderful freedom of a secular conversation, when no one is going to say anything about your right to say it, why don't you say what you actually think? How about that?

Well because in Trad's case, the hidden agenda is the ongoing oppression of women, dressed up in the guise of their liberation, which naturally is the liberation to serve and service men.

Let's hope that what went around once for Trad comes around again, as he mounts his case for polygamy mainly by attacking monogamy, which would be a bit like me attacking polygamy because (a) by Trad's own admission, even permissive towards polygamy Islamic societies tend to monogamy and (b) recent experiments, such as those conducted by wild cat Mormons, have proven to be disastrous, and are usually designed by men to exploit women socially, sexually and economically.

Meantime, Trad seems intent on cultivating a culture of civil disobedience:

When a couple marry in a Christian church, it indicates they want their marriage to be governed by the rules of that church. The same applies for unions conducted under Muslim rules. For a marriage to be valid under Islam, it requires the consent of both parties, at least two witnesses and a dowry paid by the groom to the bride as a gift for her to use as she pleases.

There is no requirement for such a union to be "legally" registered with a secular body that does not recognise the clauses in a Muslim union. Plural relations of this nature that take place in Australia are treated like de facto relationships and are not registered. This keeps them outside the ambit of the nation's criminal and marriage laws. Such unions are not considered adulterous because they follow the rules of an Islamic union. They are not secret and they carry no stigma under God.

Uh huh, and just in cause you were thinking that polygamy might now be all the go (or plural relations as we now must call them), let's retreat a little in the dance:

This is not to say that people are actively encouraged to enter such unions. Islam stipulates very strict equality in the treatment of wives. If a man cannot treat his wives equally, the Koran says he should have only one. Monogamy is the norm in Muslim communities. However, men who are capable of supporting more than one partner equally are advised to be open, honest and accountable in their relationships and to treat their wives fairly.

Yep, and shove her in a sack of black cloth made out of chaff  bags. Well I guess there's equality and then there's equality, Wahhabism style.

Yes, polygyny may lead to jealousy. We are all human. But in a caring and sharing world where we become euphoric when we give to those in need, sponsor orphans and provide foster care, the ultimate in giving is for a woman to give a fraction of her husband's time and affection to another woman who is willing to share with her. It is a spiritually rewarding experience that allows women to grow while the husband toils to provide for more than one partner.

Spiritually rewarding? 

Spare me while I go out into the back yard and heave a little bilious bile on the plants, in the hope that it helps them grow, before I have to read another line of sanctimonious claptrap about the rewarding spiritual experience facing women who allow their men to rut like rancid camels, while they - poor dears - are too tired and frail to do the same.

There's a lot wrong with monogamy and a lot wrong with western institutions like marriage (serial monogamy seems to be the current best practice) but reverting to Islamic notions of polygamy - themselves a frail and threadbare imitation of much older societal ideas - ain't the solution, no more than reverting to the ideas of the Torah, or thinking that maybe it's about time the notion of concubines made a come back (though I am excited by the thought that the festival of dangerous ideas might pick up on my idea of reviving slavery, and shipping poor Chinese to Australia so we can have a decent supply of butlers, maids, cooks and gardeners. Seems like maybe I should add concubines to the list to take care of male needs, because after all it'll be a spiritual experience for the dears).

There you go Bettina Arndt. In your folly, you are fodder for the likes of Trad. Can I propose a wide ranging polygamy that sees this lot married off and then despatched to a giant polygamous commune based on Islamic principles, perhaps somewhere near Antarctica?

Truly, as Christopher Hitchins will argue tonight in the Opera House, religion poisons everything. The only question is why the likes of Trad seem to feel the need to be even more offensive and poisonous than the likes of Pell when it comes to the role of women in the world ...

Hey ho, on we go, what a splendid idea this festival of dangerous ideas is turning out to be, with more fodder for loon pond in a weekend than some might dream of finding in a life time ...

(Below: now stop all that, we don't believe in threesomes, at least not when the men are at the top of the food chain).