freaky polygamy

here’s a fundamentalist moromon mormon(!) guy with his three wives (not that there’s anything wrong with that! – apart from the fact that there must now be two fundamentalist mormon guys without wives…) and 18 of their 24 collective kids.

the unusual thing (i guess) is: two of the wives are sisters — twin sisters! — and the third wife is their cousin. mamma mia!

i got to thinking about the kids (who all look cute as buttons! – except for the one guy in the back who’s going through some severe teen angst by the look of it). the kids of the two sisters are both half-siblings (’cause they have the same dad but different moms) AND first-cousins (’cause their moms are sisters) to one another.

got that? ok.

the kids of the cousin are half-siblings to the twin sisters’ kids (’cause they all share the same dad but different moms) AND they’re first-cousins-once-removed (’cause their moms are first cousins) to them.

BUUUUUUUT … the two sisters are twin sisters, so they must share virtually identical genomes, right? so that must mean that their kids are genetically similar to one another as though they were full siblings even though they have two different moms.

whoa.

see: The twin sisters who share a HUSBAND (and he’s also married to their cousin)

(note: comments do not require an email. i am my own grandpa.)

26 Comments

  1. Haha, yes, I’ve thought about similar situations. J.P. Rushton once mentioned this phenomenon in a talk about our innate affinity for genetic similarity, be it with friends, with allies, or in this case, spouses. For the guy, marrying both twins has got a help at least a little bit in creating a harmonious household, since from the P.O.V. of each twin, the children of both herself are that of her twin are essentially her children, genetically. But reproductively speaking, for the dad it’s still a plus, because although he doesn’t get a whole lot of genetic variability and its advantage in terms of robustness, he gets additional quantity, which is still very good for his genes.

    Reply

  2. This is sort of similar to the original “Siamese twins”, the Bunker brothers.

    They were conjoined identical twins that married two sisters. Their children were double first cousins. Since they were identical twins, their children were genetically equivalent to half-siblings, thus making them genetically related in the same manner as half-siblings who are also first cousins.

    I wonder if there are cases of pairs of twins getting married, making all their children the equivalent of siblings. Or of triplets, quadruplets, etc. for that matter. Probably not, but would be interesting.

    Reply

  3. “I thought that sh*t was illegal?”

    Why should it be any more illegal than a man having 3 baby mamas he doesn’t support at all?

    Reply

    1. @ Georgia Resident “Why should it be any more illegal than a man having 3 baby mamas he doesn’t support at all?”

      Good point. I’ll need to think about that. On the other hand they do look quite prosperous; I imagine if they weren’t married he’d be paying a lot of child support – and they’d all look a lot poorer and less happy.

      Reply

  4. Two of the moms are definately on welfare. He can only be legally married to one of the women (or none (but married to all three in their church), and all three are on welfare). That’s how this gig works.

    The male experiencing angst probably just realized that when one man takes three wives, two men do not get wives. And since one of his brothers is the starting QB on the JV squad, and the other can sink treys all day, he knows he will be pushed out of town.

    Reply

  5. @jayman – “I’ve thought about similar situations.”

    i guess if two identical twin brothers married two identical twin sisters, all of their children would be pretty nearly as genetically related as full siblings as well! even though they would be cousins. (^_^)

    i have to stop freaking myself out here. (~_^)

    edit: or what john said above. (^_^)

    Reply

  6. @héritier – “Is that a freudian slip? You wanted to write ‘moron’ didn’t you?”

    heh! no, i didn’t want to write moron. (^_^) at least i don’t think that i did….

    Reply

  7. @john – “They were conjoined identical twins that married two sisters. Their children were double first cousins. Since they were identical twins, their children were genetically equivalent to half-siblings, thus making them genetically related in the same manner as half-siblings who are also first cousins.”

    ah, interesting! didn’t know that about chang and eng. thanks! (^_^)

    Reply

  8. @the slitty eye – “I am always impressed by the fertility of the Mormons…”

    yeah, they sure do take that “go forth and multiple” thing seriously. (~_^)

    Reply

  9. @linton – “It’s great to see a bunch of healthy kids again.”

    yeah, they all look so sweet. (^_^) except for the guys, of course, who look … cool, or whatever it is young guys want to look like. (~_^)

    one of the kids died (not one of the ones pictured). dunno why.

    Reply

  10. @luke – “I thought that sh*t was illegal?”

    @georgia resident – “Why should it be any more illegal than a man having 3 baby mamas he doesn’t support at all?”

    @linton – “Good point. I’ll need to think about that.”

    @rjp – “He can only be legally married to one of the women (or none (but married to all three in their church)….”

    rjp’s got it right. the hubby there is only legally married to one of them — the cousin, in fact — but he’s married to all three in their church.

    the difference i can see between mormon polygamy and the whole baby mama scenario is that, at least with mormon polygamy, the women are usually only having babies by ONE man. with that whole modern/black baby mama thing, those women are having babies by who knows how many fathers. the genetic relatedness gets very confusing, then. lord knows what it means for the evolution of altruism….

    but, of course, the problem still remains with the polygamous scenario that some fundamentalist mormon guys somewhere wind up having no wives. and if they go outside their community to marry, then the problem just spreads into the broader population.

    in the case of this group, one of the twins was actually previously married to another fundamentalist mormon guy (who had SIX wives). she left him/divorced him. but she actually had five kids with that guy before she married her current hubby.

    that’s why there’s only 18 kids in the photo above (i was wondering why). together, this foursome has 18 kids — plus one who died, so it was 19 altogether. plus 5 from the previous marriage makes 24 kids in the household totally (although some are adults now and have flown the nest). whew!

    Reply

  11. @rjp – “Two of the moms are definately on welfare.”

    the mom (the cousin) who is officially married to the guy is described as a stay-at-home mom. she is presumably not on welfare ’cause she’s officially married to a working husband (he’s head of a construction company). no reason for her to be on welfare.

    another one of the moms (one of the twins) has a job. i don’t know what the third mom (the other twin) does. there was something about her wanting to go to college now that her kids (presumably from her first marriage) are older. dunno.

    i don’t get the impression that they’re welfare bums.

    Reply

  12. Why did WordPress start asking me to follow?

    I never checked the box. Looks like a bunch of blogs are doing it to me.

    Reply

  13. @rjp – “Why did WordPress start asking me to follow?”

    wordpress is trying to emulate facebook. *facePALM!*

    sorry, it’s beyond my control. one of these days i’m gonna leave wordpress. i’m just a little too busy at the moment, tho, to set up my own shop.

    Reply

  14. Fundamentalist Mormons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints) have a reputation for using welfare.

    I’m not sure if these folks in the OP are Fundamentalist Mormons. Fundamentalist Mormons tend to be more rural and less mainstream. They wear old-fashioned dresses and hair-dos. They encourage the extra wives who are technically single mothers to use welfare, and they moralize it as a morally good act since they believe the government is evil and that they are holy/right/good.

    Reply

  15. @ hbd chick. I get this third hand, but I am told that according to the police in Doha, Qatar a man with only one wife will be miserable because she will think she has conquered him and since he is miserable she is miserable. If he as two wives, they will vie for his attention and make each other miserable so he will be miserabe. If there are three wives, two will gang up on the other and make her miserable and she will make everbody else miserable. But if there are four wives they will fight two against two. There will be shifting aliances, but generally each woman will have somebody to talk to and everybody is happy.

    Reply

  16. @hippo – “I’m not sure if these folks in the OP are Fundamentalist Mormons.”

    they refer to themselves on their website as “independent fundamentalist mormons.” not part of that group, then, that wears the dowdy clothes, etc.

    @hippo – “…since they believe the government is evil….”

    well, there’s a lot to be said for that p.o.v. actually. (~_^)

    Reply

  17. @svk – “Funny how liberal blank-slatist lesbian moms forget that none of these traits could possibly be heritable….”

    heh. (^_^)

    from the article:

    “It has also led Mrs Johnson to campaign for a law change in the United States which would make it illegal for men in long-term relationships to donate sperm without their partner’s knowledge.”

    that’s a good idea. should go for egg donations too, of course. and “long-term relationships” should equal marriage.

    Reply

  18. @linton – “There will be shifting aliances….”

    ugh. that’s the worst thing about women — the shifting alliances. if you’ve ever worked with a bunch of women (i have), you’ll know. the alliances shift daily … sometimes hourly! as sherlock holmes said, “How can you BUILD on such a quicksand?” (~_^)

    Reply

    1. @hbd chick ” that’s the worst thing about women — the shifting alliances” Oh that’s good news. Shifting alliances are good. I had thought the Doha cops had been out in the sun too long. I thought that once a woman didn’t like you it was forever and ever. Maybe my observations have been biased.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s