Category Archives: Polygamy

TheBibleand theBook of Mormonteach that the marriage of one man to one woman is Gods standard, except at specific periods when He has declared otherwise.1

In accordance witha revelationtoJoseph Smith, the practice of plural marriagethe marriage of one man to two or more womenwas instituted among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the early 1840s. Thereafter, for more than half a century, plural marriage was practiced by someLatter-day Saints. Only the Church President held the keys authorizing the performance of new plural marriages.2In 1890, the Lord inspired Church PresidentWilford Woodruffto issue a statement that led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church. In this statement, known as theManifesto, President Woodruff declared his intention to abide by U.S. law forbidding plural marriage and to use his influence to convince members of the Church to do likewise.3

After the Manifesto, monogamy was advocated in the Church both over the pulpit and through the press. On an exceptional basis, some new plural marriages were performed between 1890 and 1904, especially in Mexico and Canada, outside the jurisdiction of U.S. law; a small number of plural marriages were performed within the United States during those years.4In 1904, the Church strictly prohibited new plural marriages.5Today, any person who practices plural marriage cannot become or remain a member of the Church.

This essay primarily addresses plural marriage as practiced by the Latter-day Saints between 1847 and 1890, following their exodus to the U.S. West and before the Manifesto.

Latter-day Saints do not understand all of Gods purposes for instituting, through Hisprophets, the practice of plural marriage during the 19th century. The Book of Mormon identifies one reason for God to command it: to increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant in order to raise up seed unto [the Lord] (Jacob 2:30). Plural marriage did result in the birth of large numbers of children within faithful Latter-day Saint homes.6It also shaped 19th-century Mormon society in other ways: marriage became available to virtually all who desired it; per-capita inequality of wealth was diminished as economically disadvantaged women married into more financially stable households;7and ethnic intermarriages were increased, which helped to unite a diverse immigrant population.8Plural marriage also helped create and strengthen a sense of cohesion and group identification among Latter-day Saints. Church members came to see themselves as a peculiar people,9covenant-bound to carry out the commands of God despite outside opposition, willing to endure ostracism for their principles.10

For these early Latter-day Saints, plural marriage was a religious principle that required personalsacrifice. Accounts left by men and women who practiced plural marriage attest to the challenges and difficulties they experienced, such as financial difficulty, interpersonal strife, and some wives longing for the sustained companionship of their husbands.11But accounts also record the love and joy many found within their families.They believed it was acommandmentof God at that time and thatobediencewould bring great blessings to them and their posterity, both on earth and in the life to come. While there was much love, tenderness, and affection within many plural marriages, the practice was generally based more on religious belief than on romantic love.12Church leaders taught that participants in plural marriages should seek to develop a generous spirit of unselfishness and the pure love of Christ for everyone involved.

During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as arevelation from God.13Not all, however, were expected to live it. Indeed, this system of marriage could not have been universal due to the ratio of men to women.14Church leaders viewed plural marriage as a command to the Church generally, while recognizing that individuals who did not enter the practice could still stand approved of God.15Women were free to choose their spouses, whether to enter into a polygamous or monogamous union, or whether to marry at all.16Some men entered plural marriage because they were asked to do so by Church leaders, while others initiated the process themselves; all were required to obtain the approval of Church leaders before entering a plural marriage.17

The passage of time shaped the experience of life within plural marriage. Virtually all of those practicing it in the earliest years had to overcome their own prejudice against plural marriage and adjust to life in polygamous families. The task of pioneering a semiarid land during the middle decades of the 19th century added to the challenges of families who were learning to practice the principle of plural marriage. Where the family livedwhether in Salt Lake City, with its multiple social and cultural opportunities, or the rural hinterlands, where such opportunities were fewer in numbermade a difference in how plural marriage was experienced. It is therefore difficult to accurately generalize about the experience of all plural marriages.

Still, some patterns are discernible, and they correct some myths. Although some leaders had large polygamous families, two-thirds of polygamist men had only two wives at a time.18Church leaders recognized that plural marriages could be particularly difficult for women. Divorce was therefore available to women who were unhappy in their marriages; remarriage was also readily available.19Women did marry at fairly young ages in the first decade of Utah settlement (age 16 or 17 or, infrequently, younger), which was typical of women living in frontier areas at the time.20As in other places, women married at older ages as the society matured. Almost all women married, and so did a large percentage of men. In fact, it appears that a larger percentage of men in Utah married than elsewhere in the United States at the time. Probably half of those living in Utah Territory in 1857 experienced life in a polygamous family as a husband, wife, or child at some time during their lives.21By 1870, 25 to 30 percent of the population lived in polygamous households, and it appears that the percentage continued to decrease over the next 20 years.22

The experience of plural marriage toward the end of the 19th century was substantially different from that of earlier decades. Beginning in 1862, the U.S. government passed laws against the practice of plural marriage. Outside opponents mounted a campaign against the practice, stating that they hoped to protect Mormon women and American civilization. For their part, many Latter-day Saint women publicly defended the practice of plural marriage, arguing in statements that they were willing participants.23

After the U.S. Supreme Court found the anti-polygamy laws to be constitutional in 1879, federal officials began prosecuting polygamous husbands and wives during the 1880s.24Believing these laws to be unjust, Latter-day Saints engaged in civil disobedience by continuing to practice plural marriage and by attempting to avoid arrest. When convicted, they paid fines and submitted to jail time. To help their husbands avoid prosecution, plural wives often separated into different households or went into hiding under assumed names, particularly when pregnant or after giving birth.25

By 1890, when President WoodruffsManifestolifted the command to practice plural marriage, Mormon society had developed a strong, loyal core of members, mostly made up of emigrants from Europe and the Eastern United States. But the demographic makeup of the worldwide Church membership had begun to change. Beginning in the 1890s converts outside the United States were asked to build up the Church in their homelands rather than move to Utah. In subsequent decades, Latter-day Saints migrated away from the Great Basin to pursue new opportunities. Plural marriage had never been encouraged outside of concentrated populations of Latter-day Saints. Especially in these newly formed congregations outside of Utah, monogamous families became central to religious worship and learning. As the Church grew and spread beyond the American West, the monogamous nuclear family was well suited to an increasingly mobile and dispersed membership.

For many who practiced it, plural marriage was a significant sacrifice. Despite the hardships some experienced, the faithfulness of those who practiced plural marriage continues to benefit the Church in innumerable ways. Through the lineage of these 19th-century Saints have come many Latter-day Saints who have been faithful to their gospel covenants as righteous mothers and fathers, loyal disciples of Jesus Christ, and devoted Church members, leaders, and missionaries. Although members of the contemporary Church are forbidden to practice plural marriage, modern Latter-day Saints honor and respect these pioneers who gave so much for their faith, families, and community.

The Church acknowledges the contribution of scholars to the historical content presented in this article; their work is used with permission.

Go here to see the original:

Polygamy (Plural Marriage) | LDS Church Perspective on ...

Latter-day Saints believe that monogamythe marriage of one man and one womanis the Lords standing law of marriage.1 In biblical times, the Lord commanded some of His people to practice plural marriagethe marriage of one man and more than one woman.2 Some early members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also received and obeyed this commandment given through Gods prophets.

After receiving a revelation commanding him to practice plural marriage, Joseph Smith married multiple wives and introduced the practice to close associates. This principle was among the most challenging aspects of the Restorationfor Joseph personally and for other Church members. Plural marriage tested faith and provoked controversy and opposition. Few Latter-day Saints initially welcomed the restoration of a biblical practice entirely foreign to their sensibilities. But many later testified of powerful spiritual experiences that helped them overcome their hesitation and gave them courage to accept this practice.

Although the Lord commanded the adoptionand later the cessationof plural marriage in the latter days, He did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment. Significant social and cultural changes often include misunderstandings and difficulties. Church leaders and members experienced these challenges as they heeded the command to practice plural marriage and again later as they worked to discontinue it after Church President Wilford Woodruff issued an inspired statement known as the Manifesto in 1890, which led to the end of plural marriage in the Church. Through it all, Church leaders and members sought to follow Gods will.

Many details about the early practice of plural marriage are unknown. Plural marriage was introduced among the early Saints incrementally, and participants were asked to keep their actions confidential. They did not discuss their experiences publicly or in writing until after the Latter-day Saints had moved to Utah and Church leaders had publicly acknowledged the practice. The historical record of early plural marriage is therefore thin: few records of the time provide details, and later reminiscences are not always reliable. Some ambiguity will always accompany our knowledge about this issue. Like the participants, we see through a glass, darkly and are asked to walk by faith.3

The revelation on plural marriage was not written down until 1843, but its early verses suggest that part of it emerged from Joseph Smiths study of the Old Testament in 1831. People who knew Joseph well later stated he received the revelation about that time.4 The revelation, recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 132, states that Joseph prayed to know why God justified Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon in having many wives. The Lord responded that He had commanded them to enter into the practice.5

Latter-day Saints understood that they were living in the latter days, in what the revelations called the dispensation of the fulness of times.6 Ancient principlessuch as prophets, priesthood, and templeswould be restored to the earth. Plural marriage was one of those ancient principles.

Polygamy had been permitted for millennia in many cultures and religions, but, with few exceptions, was rejected in Western cultures.7 In Joseph Smiths time, monogamy was the only legal form of marriage in the United States. Joseph knew the practice of plural marriage would stir up public ire. After receiving the commandment, he taught a few associates about it, but he did not spread this teaching widely in the 1830s.8

When God commands a difficult task, He sometimes sends additional messengers to encourage His people to obey. Consistent with this pattern, Joseph told associates that an angel appeared to him three times between 1834 and 1842 and commanded him to proceed with plural marriage when he hesitated to move forward. During the third and final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully.9

Fragmentary evidence suggests that Joseph Smith acted on the angels first command by marrying a plural wife, Fanny Alger, in Kirtland, Ohio, in the mid-1830s. Several Latter-day Saints who had lived in Kirtland reported decades later that Joseph Smith had married Alger, who lived and worked in the Smith household, after he had obtained her consent and that of her parents.10 Little is known about this marriage, and nothing is known about the conversations between Joseph and Emma regarding Alger. After the marriage with Alger ended in separation, Joseph seems to have set the subject of plural marriage aside until after the Church moved to Nauvoo, Illinois.

The same revelation that taught of plural marriage was part of a larger revelation given to Joseph Smiththat marriage could last beyond death and that eternal marriage was essential to inheriting the fulness that God desires for His children. As early as 1840, Joseph Smith privately taught Apostle Parley P. Pratt that the heavenly order allowed Pratt and his wife to be together for time and all eternity.11 Joseph also taught that men like Prattwho had remarried following the death of his first wifecould be married (or sealed) to their wives for eternity, under the proper conditions.12

The sealing of husband and wife for eternity was made possible by the restoration of priesthood keys and ordinances. On April 3, 1836, the Old Testament prophet Elijah appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple and restored the priesthood keys necessary to perform ordinances for the living and the dead, including sealing families together.13 Marriages performed by priesthood authority could link loved ones to each other for eternity, on condition of righteousness; marriages performed without this authority would end at death.14

Marriage performed by priesthood authority meant that the procreation of children and perpetuation of families would continue into the eternities. Joseph Smiths revelation on marriage declared that the continuation of the seeds forever and ever helped to fulfill Gods purposes for His children.15 This promise was given to all couples who were married by priesthood authority and were faithful to their covenants.

For much of Western history, family interesteconomic, political, and social considerationsdominated the choice of spouse. Parents had the power to arrange marriages or forestall unions of which they disapproved. By the late 1700s, romance and personal choice began to rival these traditional motives and practices.16 By Joseph Smiths time, many couples insisted on marrying for love, as he and Emma did when they eloped against her parents wishes.

Latter-day Saints motives for plural marriage were often more religious than economic or romantic. Besides the desire to be obedient, a strong incentive was the hope of living in Gods presence with family members. In the revelation on marriage, the Lord promised participants crowns of eternal lives and exaltation in the eternal worlds.17 Men and women, parents and children, ancestors and progeny were to be sealed to each othertheir commitment lasting into the eternities, consistent with Jesuss promise that priesthood ordinances performed on earth could be bound in heaven.18

The first plural marriage in Nauvoo took place when Louisa Beaman and Joseph Smith were sealed in April 1841.19 Joseph married many additional wives and authorized other Latter-day Saints to practice plural marriage. The practice spread slowly at first. By June 1844, when Joseph died, approximately 29 men and 50 women had entered into plural marriage, in addition to Joseph and his wives. When the Saints entered the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, at least 196 men and 521 women had entered into plural marriages.20 Participants in these early plural marriages pledged to keep their involvement confidential, though they anticipated a time when the practice would be publicly acknowledged.

Nevertheless, rumors spread. A few men unscrupulously used these rumors to seduce women to join them in an unauthorized practice sometimes referred to as spiritual wifery. When this was discovered, the men were cut off from the Church.21 The rumors prompted members and leaders to issue carefully worded denials that denounced spiritual wifery and polygamy but were silent about what Joseph Smith and others saw as divinely mandated celestial plural marriage.22 The statements emphasized that the Church practiced no marital law other than monogamy while implicitly leaving open the possibility that individuals, under direction of Gods living prophet, might do so.23

During the era in which plural marriage was practiced, Latter-day Saints distinguished between sealings for time and eternity and sealings for eternity only. Sealings for time and eternity included commitments and relationships during this life, generally including the possibility of sexual relations. Eternity-only sealings indicated relationships in the next life alone.

Evidence indicates that Joseph Smith participated in both types of sealings. The exact number of women to whom he was sealed in his lifetime is unknown because the evidence is fragmentary.24 Some of the women who were sealed to Joseph Smith later testified that their marriages were for time and eternity, while others indicated that their relationships were for eternity alone.25

Most of those sealed to Joseph Smith were between 20 and 40 years of age at the time of their sealing to him. The oldest, Fanny Young, was 56 years old. The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Josephs close friends HeberC. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday. Marriage at such an age, inappropriate by todays standards, was legal in that era, and some women married in their mid-teens.26 Helen Mar Kimball spoke of her sealing to Joseph as being for eternity alone, suggesting that the relationship did not involve sexual relations.27 After Josephs death, Helen remarried and became an articulate defender of him and of plural marriage.28

Following his marriage to Louisa Beaman and before he married other single women, Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married.29 Neither these women nor Joseph explained much about these sealings, though several women said they were for eternity alone.30 Other women left no records, making it unknown whether their sealings were for time and eternity or were for eternity alone.

There are several possible explanations for this practice. These sealings may have provided a way to create an eternal bond or link between Josephs family and other families within the Church.31 These ties extended both vertically, from parent to child, and horizontally, from one family to another. Today such eternal bonds are achieved through the temple marriages of individuals who are also sealed to their own birth families, in this way linking families together. Joseph Smiths sealings to women already married may have been an early version of linking one family to another. In Nauvoo, most if not all of the first husbands seem to have continued living in the same household with their wives during Josephs lifetime, and complaints about these sealings with Joseph Smith are virtually absent from the documentary record.32

These sealings may also be explained by Josephs reluctance to enter plural marriage because of the sorrow it would bring to his wife Emma. He may have believed that sealings to married women would comply with the Lords command without requiring him to have normal marriage relationships.33 This could explain why, according to Lorenzo Snow, the angel reprimanded Joseph for having demurred on plural marriage even after he had entered into the practice.34 After this rebuke, according to this interpretation, Joseph returned primarily to sealings with single women.

Another possibility is that, in an era when life spans were shorter than they are today, faithful women felt an urgency to be sealed by priesthood authority. Several of these women were married either to non-Mormons or former Mormons, and more than one of the women later expressed unhappiness in their present marriages. Living in a time when divorce was difficult to obtain, these women may have believed a sealing to Joseph Smith would give them blessings they might not otherwise receive in the next life.35

The women who united with Joseph Smith in plural marriage risked reputation and self-respect in being associated with a principle so foreign to their culture and so easily misunderstood by others. I made a greater sacrifice than to give my life, said Zina Huntington Jacobs, for I never anticipated again to be looked upon as an honorable woman. Nevertheless, she wrote, I searched the scripture & by humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for myself.36 After Josephs death, most of the women sealed to him moved to Utah with the Saints, remained faithful Church members, and defended both plural marriage and Joseph.37

Plural marriage was difficult for all involved. For Joseph Smiths wife Emma, it was an excruciating ordeal. Records of Emmas reactions to plural marriage are sparse; she left no firsthand accounts, making it impossible to reconstruct her thoughts. Joseph and Emma loved and respected each other deeply. After he had entered into plural marriage, he poured out his feelings in his journal for his beloved Emma, whom he described as undaunted, firm and unwavering, unchangeable, affectionate Emma. After Josephs death, Emma kept a lock of his hair in a locket she wore around her neck.38

Emma approved, at least for a time, of four of Joseph Smiths plural marriages in Nauvoo, and she accepted all four of those wives into her household. She may have approved of other marriages as well.39 But Emma likely did not know about all of Josephs sealings.40 She vacillated in her view of plural marriage, at some points supporting it and at other times denouncing it.

In the summer of 1843, Joseph Smith dictated the revelation on marriage, a lengthy and complex text containing both glorious promises and stern warnings, some directed at Emma.41 The revelation instructed women and men that they must obey Gods law and commands in order to receive the fulness of His glory.

The revelation on marriage required that a wife give her consent before her husband could enter into plural marriage.42 Nevertheless, toward the end of the revelation, the Lord said that if the first wife receive not this lawthe command to practice plural marriagethe husband would be exempt from the law of Sarah, presumably the requirement that the husband gain the consent of the first wife before marrying additional women.43 After Emma opposed plural marriage, Joseph was placed in an agonizing dilemma, forced to choose between the will of God and the will of his beloved Emma. He may have thought Emmas rejection of plural marriage exempted him from the law of Sarah. Her decision to receive not this law permitted him to marry additional wives without her consent. Because of Josephs early death and Emmas decision to remain in Nauvoo and not discuss plural marriage after the Church moved west, many aspects of their story remain known only to the two of them.

Years later in Utah, participants in Nauvoo plural marriage discussed their motives for entering into the practice. God declared in the Book of Mormon that monogamy was the standard; at times, however, He commanded plural marriage so His people could raise up seed unto [Him].44 Plural marriage did result in an increased number of children born to believing parents.45

Some Saints also saw plural marriage as a redemptive process of sacrifice and spiritual refinement. According to Helen Mar Kimball, Joseph Smith stated that the practice of this principle would be the hardest trial the Saints would ever have to test their faith. Though it was one of the severest trials of her life, she testified that it had also been one of the greatest blessings.46 Her father, Heber C. Kimball, agreed. I never felt more sorrowful, he said of the moment he learned of plural marriage in 1841. I wept days. I had a good wife. I was satisfied.47

The decision to accept such a wrenching trial usually came only after earnest prayer and intense soul-searching. Brigham Young said that, upon learning of plural marriage, it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave.48 I had to pray unceasingly, he said, and I had to exercise faith and the Lord revealed to me the truth of it and that satisfied me.49 Heber C. Kimball found comfort only after his wife Vilate had a visionary experience attesting to the rightness of plural marriage. She told me, Vilates daughter later recalled, she never saw so happy a man as father was when she described the vision and told him she was satisfied and knew it was from God.50

Lucy Walker recalled her inner turmoil when Joseph Smith invited her to become his wife. Every feeling of my soul revolted against it, she wrote. Yet, after several restless nights on her knees in prayer, she found relief as her room filled with a holy influence akin to brilliant sunshine. She said, My soul was filled with a calm sweet peace that I never knew, and supreme happiness took possession of my whole being.51

Not all had such experiences. Some Latter-day Saints rejected the principle of plural marriage and left the Church, while others declined to enter the practice but remained faithful.52 Nevertheless, for many women and men, initial revulsion and anguish was followed by struggle, resolution, and ultimately, light and peace. Sacred experiences enabled the Saints to move forward in faith.53

The challenge of introducing a principle as controversial as plural marriage is almost impossible to overstate. A spiritual witness of its truthfulness allowed Joseph Smith and other Latter-day Saints to accept this principle. Difficult as it was, the introduction of plural marriage in Nauvoo did indeed raise up seed unto God. A substantial number of todays members descend through faithful Latter-day Saints who practiced plural marriage.

Church members no longer practice plural marriage.54 Consistent with Joseph Smiths teachings, the Church permits a man whose wife has died to be sealed to another woman when he remarries. Moreover, members are permitted to perform ordinances on behalf of deceased men and women who married more than once on earth, sealing them to all of the spouses to whom they were legally married. The precise nature of these relationships in the next life is not known, and many family relationships will be sorted out in the life to come. Latter-day Saints are encouraged to trust in our wise Heavenly Father, who loves His children and does all things for their growth and salvation.55

Resources

The Church acknowledges the contribution of scholars to the historical content presented in this article; their work is used with permission.

Read more here:

Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo - Church Of Jesus ...

- Pastor Habil Were met his second wife at a church he was ministering and decided to befriend her

- This was after his first wife hinted him it was time he married another woman to be him children since he could not do so

- The couple had been married for 12 years but was still childless

- The two women got along well even before the second was officially introduced to the family

- They all live together but in different rooms with the man of God having his own room

- After the second wife bore him children, they worked together with the first wife to raise them

In almost all African societies, polygamy is an acceptable and valid form of marriage - in fact, monogamy has been associated with people of lower social status.

Proponents of polygamy have claimed that the more wives a man has, the more children he is likely to have.

READ ALSO: Tanzania's tantrums over border closure pointless, could make a bad situation worse

One polygamist who was allowed full and active participation in the life of the church was Pastor Habil Were. Photo: Edwin OchiengSource: Original

READ ALSO: Coronavirus: Client tips hairstylist KSh 267K, adds KSh 353K for other staff

And the more children, the greater the chances that the family will enjoy immortality.

This is indicative of the high regard in which the tradition is held by some African people, particularly in men.

However, the theological thinking of various Christian denominations is divided on the subject of polygamy.

While some churches are reluctant to allow the wives of polygamists to occupy prominent posts within the church, others are reluctant to permit a polygamist to occupy a church leadership role.

READ ALSO: Tearful moment as man stolen as a child reunites with mother 32 years later

Yet others, such as some of the African Independent Churches, accommodate polygamists and allow them full and active participation in the life of the church.

One such polygamist who was allowed full and active participation in the life of the church was Pastor Habil Were who opened up to TUKO.co.kes Lynn Ngugi about his polygamous life.

Habil was a doting husband to his wife of 35 years but having a childless marriage seemed to have been a bother for his wife who then created room for him to be able to court another woman.

READ ALSO: Mombasa woman who boiled stones for her children to get own rental house from govt

Habil was a doting husband to his wife of 35 years but having a childless marriage seemed to have been a bother for his wife. Photo: Habil WereSource: Original

Were met his second wife at a church where he was ministering and befriended her before professing his love for her, which according to him, was accidental.

But the woman confessed to having had a mutual feeling and that he did not have to apoogise.

The second wife became a frequent guest at Weres home and the two women become friends even before the man of God decided to take her in as his second wife.

READ ALSO: 44-year-old single Octomom shares glimpses of life in lockdown with 14 children

Knowing the first wife unable to conceive, the second wife vowed to protect her with all she had including leaving her husband if he ever chose to abandon his first wife.

To ensure there was peace at home, he clearly outlined each ones position in the family but that did not stop problems from popping up time to time nonetheless.

The women lived together in the same house but different rooms while the man of God and his own room but never drew up a schedule to indicate in whose room he would sleep in or when.

READ ALSO: Meet Bungoma midwife helping pregnant women deliver safely for free

The second wife became a frequent guest at Weres home and the two women become friends. Photo: Habil Were.Source: Original

The happy couple was finally blessed by children but that did not stop his first wife from enjoying the joys of motherhood as they worked together to take care of of the children.

According to the apostle, a number of churches had accepted him as a polygamous man of God but usually asked him to keep his status a secret while preaching to the masses.

Were, who has no plan of marrying a third wife, defended his decision to marry two wives using scriptures from the Holy Book citing Abraham who sired a child with his servant after Sarah failed to bear him a child.

He further called out on polygamous men to proudly own their status and not to shy from speaking about their position

Do you have a groundbreaking story you would like us to publish? Please reach us through news@tuko.co.ke or WhatsApp: 0732482690. Contact Tuko.co.ke instantly

See the article here:

My wife pushed me to marry another woman - Pastor Habil Were - Breaking NEWS in KENYA for Today Right Now & Kenyan News | TUKO

Many fans are missing Sister Wives and yearning for other polygamy-based shows and movies to watch.

While there is no denying some tune in to watch TLCs Sister Wives because they have fallen in love with the Brown family That is not what originally drew people to the show. The original allure of the show for most people is polygamy. A lot of people are obsessed with wanting to understand plural marriage better.

And, who could blame them? Polygamy relationships work quite different than a typical monogamous relationship. Moreover, there tends to be a thick layer of drama associated with polygamy. After all, it is HARD to share the one you love with so many other people.

Unfortunately, the 2020 Season of Sister Wives is over. Moreover, some fans of the Brown family were not thrilled with how the season played out. There are some who even question if the series should be renewed for another season. A combination of uncertainty about the shows future and a lack of new episodes to watch has many fans yearning Yearning another polygamy-based show or movie to sink their teeth into.

Fortunately, weve done a little digging. And, weve compiled a list of shows and movies you might enjoy!

My Five Wives is another polygamy-based TV show from TLC. The show aired from 2013 to 2014. It was based out of Utah. It told the story of Brady Williams and his five wives Paulie, Robyn, Rosemary, Nonie, and Rhonda. The Williams family is somewhat unique in the fact that they exited the fundamentalist Mormon religion. They, however, remained strong as a family unit.

Seeking Sister Wife is another polygamy-based series from TLC. The show also featured two seasons from 2018 to 2019. According to Cheat Sheet, the show was never officially cancelled. The series followed the story of families looking to add an additional sister wife to their family.

Stepping away from TLC, Polygamy, USA aired on the National Geographic Channel back in 2013. The series focused on fundamentalist Mormon polygamists living in Centennial Park, Arizona. This series, however, isnt really a drama or a reality TV show. It took a more educational and serious approach to diving into the polygamy world.

Unfortunately, not every polygamy-based series and movie shows the lifestyle in a positive life. Escaping Polygamy is a series that initially premiered on the A&E network. It later moved to Lifetime. It is currently three seasons in. The series tells the story of three adult sisters who exited a polygamist sect called The Order.

Now, one common theme among polygamy-based TV shows and movies is a husband with several times. Polyandry, however, is a thing. TLC once aired a special about a woman named Amanda Liston. Brother Husbands is the name of the special. It featured Amanda and her husbands at the time Chad Liston and Jeremy Johnston. The show aired back in 2017. The trio were raising five children. They lived together in a single home.

TLC fans had hoped Brother Husbands would turn into a series. Unfortunately, that didnt end up happening. Still, there is a one-hour special Sister Wives fans can enjoy.

Notably, Amanda Liston has made appearances on a few other shows including King of the Nerds on TBS and Engaged and Underage on MTV.

Three Wives, One Husband is a four-episode Netflix series. It premiered back in 2017. The series told the story of Enoch Foster. Foster is the father of 16 children. The series also featured his two (and almost three) wives. The family live together in a secluded polygamist community located in Utah.

If you are looking for something not in the realm of reality TV HBO premiered a series called Big Love back in 2006. The series gave a fictional look into the polygamy world. The show was surprisingly well-received by HBO viewers. It ran from 2006 to 2011 before being cancelled.

Hulu Original The Handmaids Talehas a bit of a polygamy theme. The show tells the story of a dystopian future. In this future, husbands have a wife and a handmaid. The handmaid serves to be with the husband for the sole purpose of bearing a child for he and his wife. The handmaid is only part of the family until she gives birth to a child. They remove the handmaid from the family after. This prevents attachment to the baby.

The Other Lamb is a drama and horror movie released in 2019. The movie tells the story of a woman born into an all-female cult. The cult is led by a man. The woman slowly begins to question both his teachings and her own reality.

As hard as it is to believe, this list is far from complete. There are a wealth of polygamy-based shows and movies forSister Wivesfans to enjoy. Hopefully, this list can give you a little taste of the polygamy TV thatSister Wivesfans miss.

So, does learning of so many polygamy-based TV shows and movies surprise you? Have you watched any of these shows before? Will you be checking them out now? Tell us about it in the comments down below!

Trisha Faulkner has been a freelance writer for a decade with a focus on news/reporting for the last three years. She enjoys writing about the Showtime series Shameless, CBSs Survivor, Netflix, TOWIE, and some entertainment/celebrity news. In her spare time, she enjoys raising awareness about autism and spending time with her two children.

Visit link:

Missing 'Sister Wives'? Here Are Other Polygamy Shows & Movies - TV Shows Ace

NASHVILLE Once in the bluest of blue moons, the zeitgeist produces a cultural phenomenon so bizarre and so universally discussed as to be nearly inescapable. This spring, in the spirit of pet rocks, mood rings and streaking, Netflix launched Tiger King, a documentary series that landed online at the very moment a pandemic moved our lives online, too.

A show about a murderous feud between the owner of a roadside zoo and a media-savvy animal rights advocate sounded promising to me. There are more tigers in captivity in the United States than there are in the wild, and a huge percentage of those captive tigers are kept in hideous conditions. Tiger King seemed like the perfect opportunity to raise awareness of the plight of captive tigers and possibly inspire Congress to pass the Big Cat Public Safety Act, which would go a long way toward protecting these magnificent apex predators.

Tiger King did nothing of the sort. The documentary is less about tigers than about polygamy, misogyny, suicide, murder for hire, drug addiction and a narcissistic animal abuser named Joseph Maldonado-Passage a.k.a. Joe Exotic who enjoys cult hero status in some circles, despite being sentenced to 22 years in prison for wildlife crimes.

One reason for all the captive tigers is, of course, capitalism. People will pay a shocking amount of money to have their picture taken with a cute tiger cub or a cute cheetah or lion cub but the nonlethal stage of a big cats life is only a few weeks. Once its too big to generate money in a cub-petting scheme, its destined for a roadside zoo, a tiny backyard cage, a canned hunt or a surreptitious, point-blank execution.

Mr. Maldonado-Passages 15 minutes of fame have expired, but social media sites are still crammed with videos of people playing with wild animals, both those bred for the pet trade and those taken from the wild and reared as pets. The desire to bond with animals seems to be baked into human nature, but the internet has turned this urge into a performance art, and those expensive photos with tiger cubs are just the tip of the iceberg. Every squirrel that sits on a human shoulder, like every chipmunk that comes to a human whistle, is now the sidekick in a show. Post a selfie with a baby cottontail cuddled to your cheek, and watch the likes pile up. On Instagram, everyone is Joe Exotic.

Spring is baby season in the natural world, and all around the country right now, good-hearted people are rescuing lost baby animals and turning them into pets. The impulse is easy to understand. A fledgling songbird looks far too fragile to be tossed into the world. Baby bunnies in a nest seem too vulnerable to be left on their own, right out in the open like that. A fawn sleeping alone in the shadows looks like its been served up to a coyote. Its only compassionate to bring the little lost ones inside and feed them whatever the internet says they eat, right?

The trouble with these good intentions is that most orphaned animals arent orphans at all. Natures way of keeping vulnerable youngsters safe is often to hide them in a place where the parents activity wont draw the attention of predators. A mother cottontail deliberately leaves her babies alone all day, feeding them once in the early morning and once in the evening. A doe hides her newborn fawn while she forages for food. A hollering baby bird that looks pitifully abandoned almost certainly has frantic parents nearby, desperately hoping the giant biped predators will go away.

The only thing wild animals need from us, in most cases, is to keep our true pets indoors while their youngsters are learning how the big world works.

The big world is very hard on baby animals, and some of these babies will be injured and some of their parents will be killed. But in those cases, the frightened baby doesnt need a warm box in your kitchen, eating leftovers and serving as a prop in social media posts.

What it needs is to be taken to a licensed wildlife rehabilitation specialist who knows how to care for it properly and, later, how to reintroduce it safely into the wild, far from human habitation. A wild animal habituated to human presence is an animal that someone else is bound to kill for fear it might be rabid.

Leaving nature to its own devices is very hard if youre paying any attention at all. I, too, have been guilty of intervening where I did not belong shooing off the crow intent on eating the cardinal nestlings, bringing the monarch caterpillars indoors to raise safely away from cardinals. But a crow has babies to feed, too, and captive-raised monarchs, it turns out, are weaker than their wild siblings. Once back in the garden, such butterflies may be passing inferior genes on to the next generation.

Interacting in a healthy way with wild animals may come down to making peace with a truth thats very hard for a compassionate person to accept: Every living thing we see, as well as every living thing we dont, is either predator or prey. Or both. If we truly care about the wild animals that burrow under our toolsheds and clamber across our grass and shelter in our trees, we must find a way to accept the casual brutality of the natural world. We must teach ourselves to let the wild things be wild.

Margaret Renkl is a contributing opinion writer who covers flora, fauna, politics and culture in the American South. She is the author of the book Late Migrations: A Natural History of Love and Loss.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Read this article:

How Not to Be a Tiger King - The New York Times

Star of90 Day Fianc: Before the 90 Days,Usman thinks polygamy is the only answer to having children. The couple has a lot to work through before another wife can be added to the mix.

The couple, who are decades apart in age, have quickly become themost talked-about duoon the show. Baby Girl Lisa from day one has shown her controlling side, yet Usman seems to take it. In the last episode, fans watched as the couple successfully gained his mothers blessing to marry. After the show aired,90 Day Fiancestar revealed that he felt like he got "trapped" in his complicated relationship with Baby Girl Lisa.

Related: 90 Day Fianc: Usman Wants Baby Girl Lisa to Be One of Four Wives

Unbeknownst to Lisa, Usman has always known that he would most likely have more than one wife. The rappers revelations came about when he was doing a live interview with on the Lip Service podcast. The three women were poking fun at Lisas age and Usman revealed that he must have children, one way or the other. SojaBoy revealed that he is worried about Baby Girl Lisas age becoming an negating factor in the ability to have children. He then revealed that he would look into finding another wife to have his children, as it is normal in their cultureto practice polygamy. Fans had an inkling that children would become an issue for the couple as they watched the same situation with Angela Deem and Michael Ilesanmi. Michael let slip that if Angela could not deliver him a child, he would go find a Nigerian to sleep with.

Breaking with her traditional behavior of jealousy, Baby Girl Lisa seems into the idea of four wives as long as he can pay for them. For once, Lisa has no control over the situation if she does decide to marry Usman as the Nigerian law is on his side. The law states that the man must be able to fully support each wife with all the essentials. Usman made it clear in the last episode of 90 Day Fianc Before the 90 Days that he was the alpha man and was to be respected by his wife, not bossed around. He even went as far as to say he would take his wifes opinion but in the end, all decisions were his. The Pennsylvania native was not thrilled with the proclamation and stormed off while giving Usman the finger.

There have already been rumors that the couple were married but divorced shortly after. It seems apparent that the aspiring rapper just wants to come to America to further his music career and Lisa really would just like someone to control, even if it is fake love.

Next: 90 Day Fiance: Ash Expresses Misogynistic Views During Dating Seminar

90 Day Fianc: Before the 90 Days airs on Sundays at 8pm EST on TLC.

Source: Lip Service

KUWTK's Kylie Jenner Confirms She & Travis Scott are Quarantining Together

Read the original:

90 Day Fianc: Usman Thinks Polygamy Is the Only Answer to Having Children with Lisa - Screen Rant

Representational Image.

The word Islamophobia came into vogue in 2001, after the 9/11 attack on the twin towers and other sites in the United States. In the aftermath of these attacks, the American media popularised the word Islamic terrorism and for the first time in global history a religion was associated with the political act of terrorism.

In India, hate against minorities was already prevalent when 9/11 took place, but the arguments until then had been different. This hate was a by-product of communal politics, which smouldered during the freedom movement, as a reaction to Indian nationalism. Hindu communal politics propagated Islam as a religion associated with violence. It was proclaimed that Islam spreads through force, that its adherents indulge in violence, and that Muslim kings destroyed Hindu temples, and encourage polygamy, have larger families, are more aggressive, eat beef to hurt Hindu sentiments, and so on. All this was already a part of social common sense here.

The events in India of the last few months, beginning with the abolition of Article 370, bringing in the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, and the spectacular democratic protests at Shaheen Bagh and other sites inspired by it across India, created a situation where mechanisms to spread hate against them became more aggressive. To cap it all came the Covid-19 pandemic. Then, after the Tablighi Jamaat incident, the blame of spreading Covid-19 was falsely put on Muslims as a whole. This finger-pointing became a part of the popular thinking, making the life of the Muslim communities in India generally quite difficult, even unbearable. Even the lynching of sadhus near Palghar by some villagers was initially presented as the act of the hated community, against all logic and substantive evidence.

Normally the international community articulates an occasional protest and criticism against such gross inhumanity and violation of human rights of minorities. This time the levels of demonisation of Muslims was so intense that many international platforms and voices that matter expressed their unhappiness over the painting of Muslims as the villains in India. The Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission (IPHRC) set up by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has called for steps to protect Muslims in India.

In addition, a drama unfolded in the UAE, where lakhs of Indians, many of them Hindu, live. Some of these Hindus have become communal to the core and they also proudly display their photographs with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whom they seem to consider a leader only representing the interests of the Hindus. A few of them tweeted on the Tablighi Jamaat, using virulent slurs with gay abandon. Others claimed that it is the Indians who have contributed to the growth of Gulf countries.

Some prominent members of the royal family in the UAE took up the cudgel to counter these hate speeches. A princess, Hend Al Qassimi, tweeted, upholding Gandhi, that the ruling family is friends with India, but your rudeness is not welcome. You make your bread and butter from this land which you scorn and your ridicule will not go unnoticed. She then quoted UAE laws prohibiting hate speech by citizens and non-citizens alike. This royal intervention has opened the floodgates to comments from others.

She further made an important point Dont these successful so-called powerful millionaires know that hate speech is the prelude to genocide? Nazism wasnt born in a day. It was allowed to grow like a weed that went wild because people chose to look the other side and it thrived on that specific weakness called silence. Hate is being preached openly in India against Muslims, in a nation of 182 million Muslims.

Modi, who has typically responding belatedly to such incidents in the past, woke up with these goings-on. Not only are large numbers of Indians gainfully employed in these countries, they are also repatriating millions of rupees back home. India is the third major country with trade with West Asian nations. Modi tweeted, COVID-19 does not see race, religion, colour, caste, creed, language or border before striking. Our response and conduct thereafter should attach primacy to unity and brotherhood. We are in this together. Of course, the Prime Minister knows who are spreading this hate, in the media, social media or through word-of-mouth channels, but there is no reprimand against them in his tweet.

On similar lines, the sarsanghchalak (top leader) of the RSS, Mohan Bhagwat, also said that a whole community should not be targeted for the actions of few. Both these top Hindu nationalist leaders fortunately woke up after the reprimands Indians were getting internationallyparticularly the reaction from UAEGulf countries have already started terminating the jobs of some Indians for spreading hate.

Interestingly, at the same time, Union Minister Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi described India being a jannat (heaven) for Muslims.

Many commentators are hoping that the statements of Modi and Bhagwat can put the brakes on the ongoing hate speeches and acts against the hapless minority. But things are not so simple. Todays atmosphere has been built up over close to a century of work, done by communal forces. The molecular permeation of these hateful interpretations of history, and the representation of Islam and Muslims by American-influenced media after 9/11 are the twin pillars of his edifice of hate, which has dug fairly deep into the social thinking in India.

Covid-19 has demonstrated how deep the roots of communal thought process are. This was possible only because of the decades-long divisive propaganda against the concept of fraternity, which is the foundation of Indian nationalism. The protests from the UAE, which incidentally gave the highest civilian honour to Modi in 2019, may bring a short hiatus to the process here, but the real struggle is inside the country, where the social perceptions of Indian nationalismarticulated by Gandhi and Nehru in particularare to be made to reach all Indians through innovative and rational mechanisms.

The author is a social activist and commentator. The views are personal.

Originally posted here:

Slam the Brakes on Rampant Islamophobia - NewsClick

Nordic human rights NGOs are focusing their attention on Moroccan Sahrawis living peacefully in Morocco, while they turn a blind eye to the situation of an entire population victim of polisario abuses in the Tindouf camps.

Forced marriages of underage girls are among the most blatant violations of human rights perpetrated by the Polisario in the Tindouf camps. Underage girls are forced to abide by these archaic practices to quell the nauseating instincts of the separatist movement leaders.

women in the Tindouf camps are subjected to other violations, particularly polygamy or the practice of interchanging women between militiamen.Ten years after she was raped by the current head of the Polisario, Brahim Ghali, who was then positioned in Algiers as the separatists representative, the young woman Khadijatou Mahmoud is still fighting for justice in Spain against her rapist.

Khadijatou Mahmoud, ex-translator in the Tindouf camps, also denounced in her plea the sexual assaults suffered by other Sahrawi women in the Tindouf camps in Algerian territory.

However, NGOs in Norway and Sweden ignore the fate of these victims of abuses as they turn a blind eye to the embezzlement of the aid they send to the needy inhabitants of the Tindouf camps. This aid is actually sold by the polisario leaders on the markets of neighboring countries.

An identified theft involving Brahim Ghali and his accomplices at a time when the camps populations need everything to cope with the hardships of their everyday life, a life made more difficult with the Coronavirus pandemic in the camps that have no running water or sanitation, nor any adequate health facilities to treat the sick.

North Africa Post's news desk is composed of journalists and editors, who are constantly working to provide new and accurate stories to NAP readers.

Read the original post:

How Nordic NGOs turn a blind eye to what is happening in the Tindouf camps - The North Africa Post

Posted on May 1, 2020 at 1:20 pm

90 Day Fiance: Before the 90 Days personality, Usman Umar, dished about his messy romance with Lisa Babygirl Hamme, on a recent episode of Angela Yees podcast, Lip Service.

The unlikely couple supposedly wed in February, but fans are suspicious that the Nigerian rapper, aka SojaBoy, is in it for a green card and TLC fame.

Cheating rumors have been following Lisa HammeBabylove, and Usman didnt squelch speculation during the recent chat fest.

Usman Umar implied that he was sticking with Lisa Hammebecause she tricked him into believing that she might hurt herself and that was only the beginning.

An interviewer asked Usman Umar if he was in love with his American bride and Usmans dry response raised listener eyebrows.

Yeah, I have to be, he said flatly. Because somebody who has been with you almost every day, you get used to that person. And if you dont talk to that person, sometimes you miss them. So by the time you start missing somebody, definitely I think you love them or you care for them.

Usman Umar confirmed that his music career has always been number one, and admitted that he did sometimes doubt his relationship with Lisa. When the podcasters hinted that he was trapped by Lisa, 52, Usman didnt hold back.

Honestly, I can say yes. I can say yes, Usman confessed. The point here is that I am doing this to make Lisa happy.

Usman Umar, 31, dropped a polygamy bombshellrevealing that he is open to marrying multiple women. He explained that in Nigeria, Muslim men can legally marry up to four wives, as long as they can financially support them equally. Usman also noted that Lisa cannot give him a child.

Lisa cannot give me [a] child, and I need a child. You know? Usman explained. But if I do this to make her happy, maybe the time is coming that I will have [a] child. Because in my religion, and in my culture, Im allowed to get married with four wives.

Last week, Lisas rep responded to Usmans comments, and confirmed that the couple was still together. Rocco Straz spoke to In Touch Weekly, repeating Nigerian law, and emphasizing the financial burden of such an arrangement.

As far as fourwivesin the Islamicreligion, it is acceptable for him to take fourwives, BUT and I mean BUT, he must be able to provide for all fourwives, Straz said.

[This includes] financially, housing, utilities, vehicles, car insurance and medical insurance, the rep added. At that point, if he is able to do all of that, he may take another wife. Thewivesdo not have to contribute their personal finances with him.

Watch 90 Day Fiance: Before the 90 Days, Sunday nights, at 8 pm, ET, on TLC.

Stay Connected With All About The Tea:TwitterInstagramYouTube

See original here:

'90 Day Fiance' Lisa Hamme Says She's Open to Allowing Usman Umar to Practice Polygamy! - All About The Tea

Editor's note: Netflix's new docuseries "Tiger King" takes viewers into the strange world of big cat collectors. Featuring eccentric characters with names like Joe Exotic and Bhagavan "Doc" Antle, the series touches on polygamy, addiction and personality cults, while exploring a mysterious disappearance and a murder-for-hire.

To Allison Skidmore, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of California, Santa Cruz who studies wildlife trafficking, the documentary didn't bring enough attention to the scourge of captive big cats.

A former park ranger, Skidmore first started studying the issue in the U.S. after the infamous death of Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe in 2015. She was shocked to learn about how little oversight there was stateside. We asked her about the legality, incentives and ease of buying and selling tigers.

1. How many captive tigers are in the U.S.?

Unfortunately, there's no straightforward answer. The vast majority of captive tigers are crossbred hybrids, so they aren't identified as members of one of the six tiger subspeciesthe Bengal tiger, Amur tiger, South China tiger, Sumatran tiger, Indochinese tiger and Malayan tiger. Instead, they're classified as "generic."

Advertisement:

Less than 5% or fewer than 350of tigers in captivity are managed through the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a nonprofit organization that serves as an accrediting body in the U.S. They ensure accredited facilities meet higher standards of animal care than required by law.

All the rest are privately owned tigers, meaning they don't belong to one of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums' 236 sponsored institutions. These are considered generic and fall outside of federal oversight.

There's no legal requirement to register these generic tigers, nor a comprehensive national database to track and monitor them. The best educated guess puts the number of tigers at around 10,000 in the U.S. Estimates put the global captive tiger population as high as 25,000.

In comparison, there are fewer than 4,000 tigers in the wild down from 100,000 a century ago.

2. How do tigers change hands?

The Endangered Species Act and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna prevent the importation of tigers from the wild. So all tigers in the U.S. are born in captivity, with the rare exception of an orphaned wild cub that may end up in a zoo.

Only purebred tigers that are one of the six definitive subspecies are accounted for; these are the tigers you see in places like the Smithsonian National Zoo and generally belong to the Species Survival Plan, a captive breeding program designed to regulate the exchange of specific endangered species between member zoos in order to maintain genetic diversity.

All other tigers are found in zoos, sanctuaries, carnivals, wildlife parks, exhibits and private homes that aren't sanctioned by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. They can change hands in any number of ways, from online marketplaces to exotic animal auctions. They can be bought for as little as US$800 to $2,000 for a cub and $200 to $500 for an adult, which is less expensive than many purebred dog puppies.

3. Can I legally buy a tiger?

The U.S. is plagued with complicated and vague laws concerning tiger ownership.

However, there are no federal statutes or regulations that expressly forbid private ownership of tigers. State and local jurisdictions have been given this authority, and some do pass bans or require permits. Thirty-two states have bans or partial bans, and 14 states allow ownership with a simple license or permit. Four states Alabama, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Nevada have no form of oversight or regulation at all.

An overarching, cohesive framework of regulations is missing, and even in states that ban private ownership, there are loopholes. For example, in all but three states, owners can apply for what's called a "federal exhibitor license," which is remarkably cheap and easy to obtain and circumvents any stricter state or local laws in place.

You now need a permit to transport tigers across state lines, but there's still no permit required for intra-state travel.

4. What's in it for the owners?

Some see it as a business venture, while others claim they care about conservation. I consider the latter reason insincere.

Many facilities promote themselves as wildlife refuges or sanctuaries. These places frame their breeding and exhibition practices as stewardship, as if they're contributing to an endangered animal's survival. The reality is that no captive tiger has ever been released into the wild, so it's not like these facilities can augment wild populations. A true sanctuary or refuge should have a strict no breeding or handling policy, and should have education programs dedicated to promoting conservation.

Bottle-feeding at a 'pseudo-sanctuary' in Southern California. Allison Skidmore, Author provided

Ultimately, tigers are big money makers, especially tiger cubs. The Animal Welfare Act allows cub petting from eight to 12 weeks of age. People pay $100 to $700 to pet, bottle-feed, swim with or take a photo with a cub.

None of these profits go toward the conservation of wild tigers, and this small window of opportunity for direct public contact means that exhibitors must continually breed tigers to maintain a constant supply of cubs.

The value of cubs declines significantly after 12 weeks. Where do all these surplus tigers go? Unfortunately, due to a lack of regulatory oversight, it's hard to know.

Since many states don't account for their live tigers, there's also no oversight regarding the reporting and disposal of dead tigers. Wildlife criminologists fear that these tigers can easily end up in the black market where their parts can cumulatively be worth up to $70,000. There's evidence of U.S. captive tigers tied to the domestic black market trade: In 2003, an owner of a tiger "rescue" facility was found to have 90 dead tigers in freezers on his property. And in 2001, an undercover investigation led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ended up leading to the prosecutions of 16 people for buying, selling and slaughtering 19 tigers.

5. What role does social media play?

Posing with tigers on social media platforms like Instagram and on dating apps has become a huge problem. Not only can it create a health and safety risk for both the human and tiger, but it also fosters a false narrative.

If you see thousands of photos of people with captive tigers, it masks the true problem of endangered tigers in the wild. Some might wonder whether tigers are really so endangered if they're so easy to pose with.

The reality of the wild tiger's plight has become masked behind the pomp and pageantry of social media. This marginalizes meaningful ideas about conservation and the true status of tigers as one of the most endangered big cats.

Allison Skidmore, PhD Candidate in Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

See original here:

"Tiger King" and America's captive tiger problem - Salon