The institution of marriage is honoured these days more in the breach than the observance. Babies are born to single mothers, a large number of marriages seem to be based on "off with the old spouse, on with the new", and many men think nothing of having sex, even unprotected sex, with another woman while still married to the first one. Even the women, who have more at stake, seem to behave in the same way.

My question is, should a man who begets a child by a second woman while he is still married to the first be treated as a bigamist, and punished by the law as such? Should the begetting of a child be considered, ipso facto, as a statement of marriage, with the consequent responsibilities? Should common law marriage be legitimised?

As a gay, I declare my lack of interest in this topic.

(By the way, my avatar is endangered because it doesn't seem to have got hold of the right idea, and does not produce enough chicks!)

i will probably get put down here , but from my experance in Thailand, i would say 8 out of 10 men, 9 out of 10 of the rich men, have all cheated on there wives here, be it Thai or ferang...

it is so easily avilable, and seems sociably exceptable esp in the bangkok circuit to go to high end massage parlours to conduct business......

I don't know I'd go as high as 8 out of ten. Maybe 7.5. There are faithful men out there and I know more than a few (in a small place, if they were cheating everyone would know about it). But in a culture that seems to condone it and often promote it, women who will gladly be a mia noi regardless of the presence of a wife and men who have little or no respect for women (and, ime they are often taught these values by their very own mothers) it is high.

Is fathering a child akin to bigamy? Well, it would be among rural Thais, yes where the little piece of paper isn't what makes you married.

I don't know I'd go as high as 8 out of ten. Maybe 7.5. There are faithful men out there and I know more than a few (in a small place, if they were cheating everyone would know about it). But in a culture that seems to condone it and often promote it, women who will gladly be a mia noi regardless of the presence of a wife and men who have little or no respect for women (and, ime they are often taught these values by their very own mothers) it is high.

Is fathering a child akin to bigamy? Well, it would be among rural Thais, yes where the little piece of paper isn't what makes you married.

very good post SBK

I was thinking more of Western countries.... Mia noi status is a kind of marriage, as is tetragamy (?) among Muslims; I was referring to the Western, so-called Christian, practice of monogamy.

Why get married to a woman and have to spend all that time with her if you want to sleep around? Better just to stay single and save all the headaches.

I agree completely.

Koheesti and UG, So do I in fact.

isanbirder, the majority of Thai Muslims I know do not have more than one wife, it is the Buddhists who do. Not having lived in the US since 1989, I have nothing to say about what peoples lives there are really like since I don't really know.

I think there's WAY too many variables to give a straight answer.

I think it's a little like comparing apples and oranges. If an unfaithful spouse doesn't have a child with another woman, then it's not bigamy. This would imply that the pivotal part of any relationship is children.

Someone could send a message to Arnold or Maria. They might have more insight into the question.

Why get married to a woman and have to spend all that time with her if you want to sleep around? Better just to stay single and save all the headaches.

Spot on. Face saving all around.

Why get married to a woman and have to spend all that time with her if you want to sleep around? Better just to stay single and save all the headaches.

Spot on. Face saving all around.

but so many people here do ..................

Koheesti and UG, So do I in fact.

What is going on here?

isanbirder, the majority of Thai Muslims I know do not have more than one wife, it is the Buddhists who do.

Yes, I appreciate that, SBK.

This thread was actually a response to a post on another thread which spoke of a man in England who had numerous children by several women, and expected the State to pay for the upkeep of all of them. If I phrased it in such a way that UG , Koheesti and SBK agreed, I must have got it wrong.

Yes, in these days people in any country are going to sleep around; I was more concerned with the children. You can't really stop men (or women) being promiscuous; can you think of a better way to ensure the children of such unions are cared for?

If I phrased it in such a way that UG , Koheesti and SBK agreed, I must have got it wrong.

Most likely.

lol, shocker I know.

Like I said, I am not really up on the current mores of the west but IMO, if you are in an emotional longterm relationship with someone and embark on a similar relationship with someone else that is akin to bigamy. The locals don't care if you have the little piece of paper, what matters is the relationship and I agree with that concept. Kids or not, if you are in a relationship that is akin to marriage, regardless of the little piece of paper, and you are screwing around with someone else on a regular basis or have an emotional relationship with someone then its the same idea as bigamy and you might as well just be single.

I think the main reason expats in Thailand get married or live with a woman is to have (almost) guaranteed sex. Then to have someone cook and clean for them. Very little emotion attached to it. They don't even care about the extra high cost in money or freedom because they are ruled by their penis. Me, I'm too cheap and poor for that. I also value my own freedom much more than the next guy. Oh, and if I like someone enough to ask them to be around me every day and night I respect them enough not to cheat.

i will probably get put down here , but from my experance in Thailand, i would say 8 out of 10 men, 9 out of 10 of the rich men, have all cheated on there wives here, be it Thai or ferang...

it is so easily avilable, and seems sociably exceptable esp in the bangkok circuit to go to high end massage parlours to conduct business......

I would go further than that. It is actually more than socially acceptable. It is actively encouraged and even forced in some situations. When I was in the position to go out with the Thai bosses I generally had to make excuses to duck out early so as not to be pressured into accompanying them to their favorite fish bowl.

Here in Thailand the concept of multiple wives traditionally has not been taboo if the man could afford it, so bigamy doesn't really have the same social connotations as it does in the West, even if it may have the same legal definition. I think asking the state to become involved in personal relationships at this level is a huge mistake, so in my opinion if everyone involved has decided that the existing situation is the best of a bunch of bad choices, I don't believe the law needs to get involved.

As to how to pay for it, the father of the child needs to support his child. End of story. If he can't, then the state should help out but the debt should accrue to the father. It is not a perfect solution, but a man who is impoverished will have more difficulty attracting further mates, thus providing some kind of negative stabalizing feedback in the system.

Why get married to a woman and have to spend all that time with her if you want to sleep around? Better just to stay single and save all the headaches.

I'm 100% dedicated to my wife and daughter. The thought of sleeping around is as alien to me as going to the moon. I like to look at a pretty girl walking past sure. I'm only human. But if it was offered to me on a plate by the most gorgeous woman in Thailand I'd turn it down. Rather than be flattered I'd be contemptuous of her with her knowing I was married with a family. I dunno. Maybe it's my growing up environment. My mum and dad celebrate their 45th wedding anniversary next year. Until the day they died my grandparents stayed married to their spouses they met in their teens.

Basically my simple rule of thumb would be the same as koheesti. Why get married if you want to shag around. I could be single and be in a karaoke bar or massage parlour every night. I'm hurting nobody. My family life is perfect so why would I destroy it?

As to how to pay for it, the father of the child needs to support his child. End of story. If he can't, then the state should help out but the debt should accrue to the father. It is not a perfect solution, but a man who is impoverished will have more difficulty attracting further mates, thus providing some kind of negative stabalizing feedback in the system.

This has been the problem in the UK for the past decade or so.

The recent Tottenham Hale rioters and looters were basically unemployed youth from single-mother homes, where the father was not a part of the family (and often not known) and the family was funded through local and national government.

It should be positively no support from government, and this should be made known to the public. No rent-free council flat, no social benmefits. Then see how many unmarried mothers there are.

I'm 100% dedicated to my wife and daughter.

Basically my simple rule of thumb would be the same as koheesti. Why get married if you want to shag around. I could be single and be in a karaoke bar or massage parlour every night. I'm hurting nobody. My family life is perfect so why would I destroy it?

Totally agree.

I am dedicated to my wife and baby daughter for the rest of my life - and they to me (I hope).

The recent Tottenham Hale rioters and looters were basically unemployed youth from single-mother homes, where the father was not a part of the family (and often not known) and the family was funded through local and national government.

It should be positively no support from government, and this should be made known to the public. No rent-free council flat, no social benmefits. Then see how many unmarried mothers there are.

Exactly; this is what prompted the original post, which was nothing to do with what happens in Thailand, or with people who (and thank God for that) are faithful to their wife and family. It was intended to be a way of dealing with those who procreate children outside the family.

As to how to pay for it, the father of the child needs to support his child. End of story. If he can't, then the state should help out but the debt should accrue to the father. It is not a perfect solution, but a man who is impoverished will have more difficulty attracting further mates, thus providing some kind of negative stabalizing feedback in the system.

This has been the problem in the UK for the past decade or so.

The recent Tottenham Hale rioters and looters were basically unemployed youth from single-mother homes, where the father was not a part of the family (and often not known) and the family was funded through local and national government.

It should be positively no support from government, and this should be made known to the public. No rent-free council flat, no social benmefits. Then see how many unmarried mothers there are.

Wouldn't work. These people are already irresponsible. Removing the safety net would not make anyone more responsible, it would just make everyone homeless and turn them into thieves or worse.

If you want to stop this, you have to stop it at the social level. The West has done everything they can in recent memory to break the family and turn everyone into mindless consumers. If you want to stop this trend, you have to start promoting family values again at the expense of corporations. People need to be coerced into consuming less so that they have more time to spend on social engagements. Mothers need to be convinced to stay at home with the children rather than getting a job to make more money. Parents need to be intimately involved in the schooling of their children, to the point where schools themselves may even be optional. Pensions and social security need to be abolished so that families alone have the responsibility of taking care of their parents, and this care needs to be done at home, not a nursing facility.

Real structural changes need to be made to Western culture if you are going to make a family the center of society again. You can't do a quick fix like cutting entitlements. That is a very short sighted action which will have extremely bad consequences.

If you want to stop this, you have to stop it at the social level. The West has done everything they can in recent memory to break the family and turn everyone into mindless consumers. If you want to stop this trend, you have to start promoting family values again at the expense of corporations. People need to be coerced into consuming less so that they have more time to spend on social engagements. Mothers need to be convinced to stay at home with the children rather than getting a job to make more money. Parents need to be intimately involved in the schooling of their children, to the point where schools themselves may even be optional. Pensions and social security need to be abolished so that families alone have the responsibility of taking care of their parents, and this care needs to be done at home, not a nursing facility.

Real structural changes need to be made to Western culture if you are going to make a family the center of society again. You can't do a quick fix like cutting entitlements. That is a very short sighted action which will have extremely bad consequences.

But it would take a social revolution to put such a proposal into practice.

I am not condemning it - I think there is a very valid set of proposals here.

But it is against the self-interest of so much of the population, especially the major corporations and the newspapers and magazines, television and advertising that support the current status that it would be very difficult to get even a fingernail into the door-crack of the current political establishment.

How would you propose to implement it? In the US the Christian Right has such policies, but they also have some other fringe policies which are held up to ridicule (by the previously mentioned media) and thus the whole policy is derided.

To get a basic social change one needs to keep to a few simple truths, not allow the loony fringe in (UKIP has collected quite a fringe following in the UK, which has badly affected their standing in any election) and not go into too much detail of how to carry out the reforms, because that would enable the media to pick everything apart and denigrate small details, thus imperilling the whole.

I'm 100% dedicated to my wife and daughter.

Basically my simple rule of thumb would be the same as koheesti. Why get married if you want to shag around. I could be single and be in a karaoke bar or massage parlour every night. I'm hurting nobody. My family life is perfect so why would I destroy it?

Totally agree.

I am dedicated to my wife and baby daughter for the rest of my life - and they to me (I hope).

Many years ago the State of New Jersey did a comprehensive study with respect to unwed mothers. What they discovered was, is that any type of behavior that is rewarded ensures that more of that behaviour will be forthcoming. They made a cutoff of benefits at 4-5 kids who could receive compensation from the state and miraculously unwed women on state assistance stopped having children beyond that 4-5.