the polygamy thread

[NCbear]

So what do you think about polygamy? Me, I'm OK with consenting adults making their own polyamorous relationships and having those be legal, with all the inheritance and divorce and similar laws associated with "marriage."

I'm NOT at all OK with forcing underage children to marry sexually mature adult males, as has happened with Warren Jeffers and other such "religious" cults.

NCbear (taking a cue from Mme. Zora, who said in the gay marriage thread that the polygamy question deserved its own thread)

 

[Lex]

So what do you think about polygamy? Me, I'm OK with consenting adults making their own polyamorous relationships and having those be legal, with all the inheritance and divorce and similar laws associated with "marriage."

I'm NOT at all OK with forcing underage children to marry sexually mature adult males, as has happened with Warren Jeffers and other such "religious" cults.

I am totally in agreement with you here. I know a few MMM triads that have been strong and heathy for betwen 8-12 years.

Who am I to tell consenting adults who and how they can love?

 

[DC_DEEP]

I agree, and actually, the "consenting adults" argument is one I use when debating the "same-gender marriage" issue.

For what it's worth, I know I have pointed this out before, and will again. Please, NCBear, don't think I'm playing language police with you; this is one case where I think the semantics is important.

Polygamy is the state of having more than one female spouse.
Polyandry is the state of having more than one male spouse.
Polyamory is the state of having more than one spouse, but of both genders.

And yes, Lex, I know several long-term, loving polyandrous relationships.

NCBear, the reason I bring it up is that language colors peoples' perceptions of those situations. That's why, even in those rare instances where you hear of a woman with two husbands, people still usually refer to her as being "polygamous." The gender bias in the terms perpetuates the "more generally, if marginally acceptable" idea of a man with multiple wives.

Back on topic, though: I disagree with bartered or arranged marriage (so I won't do it, nor will I try to tell anyone else not to) and I disagree with underage marriage (as in the Jeffers example). If the arrangements are between consenting adults, it is no one else's business.

 

[Lex]

I suppose you could say that I was polyamorous when I had a BF a while back.

And with the right men, I could probably be in a committed polyandrous relationship.

Nothing like 2 hot poppas to set the mood right.

 

[Pirate Wench]

I didn't know there were any polygamous families in TX till they were on a cable channel talking about their situation.
He has 3 women......the first is the one with the marriage license.

I can't remember if he said he had a legal contract with the others or not, but I know a family in another state had lifetime contracts with the women after the one who was on his marriage license.

Intriguing......but I don't think I could handle that.

I do know that my reaction to "another woman" would be that I'd like to crush her fucking skull like a junebug.

 

[B_spiker067]

I'm against it.













Because all the big dicked guys would have 10 wives. Everyone else would have 0.

 

[Lordpendragon]

There is a clear distinction between pragmatism and preference here.

Much polyandry is pragmatic. Brothers will share the same wife where there is both a shortage of available partners and the need for brothers to stay together because working the little land they have is hard and would not provide for two families.

Much polygamy was pragmatic but also a status symbol of male power and wealth.

Recreational poly-anything in the affluent western world is mostly a matter of personal choice and a sign of the freedom our wealth gives us.

Then there are the religious ones of course. Personally I wouldn't follow the example of someone in the OT, but then each to their own so long as no one is being exploited.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Mostly true, yes, LPD. Although they aren't nearly as common, though, there are some isolated cultures in which a woman with multiple husbands is the norm.

As for polyamory, a friend of mine is going to "officially" join her partners this spring. All 3 are 100% heterosexual; her partners are already legally married. My friend and the male will be having a handfast ceremony. And in getting to know them, I have discovered that they all love each other, just that the two women don't have a sexual thing going on. It's really hard to describe, but really very cool seeing the three of them together.

I think the problems most people would have with it, in any of those convolutions, is that the ideal of "one man, one woman" has been so ingrained in them; jealousy; and self-confidence issues.

In almost all cases where it is completely voluntary and successful, each person has something to contribute to the relationship that the others need but cannot provide for one another.

 

[invisibleman]

I think that polyamorous relationships are ideal, if everyone's needs are met. I find that I don't do well with monogamous ones. I tend to be a little too much for one (not sexually but emotionally and mentally). But, these guys always leave. I never left them. I have had five serious monogamous relationships. I think that they don't last because people always are looking for the next sure thing. A Love attention deficit disorder, of sorts.

 

[Lordpendragon]

Indeed DC - the duality of monogamy. Yin and Yang, but that is just about balance and harmony - if that is achieved by two, three, or four and more, then so be it.

I can't see any rational argument for monogamy in an affluent society. Morally, religiously, ethically, and socially for children perhaps, but not rationally. I would base my reasons on the reality of the failure of more than half of all monogamous relationships, and the hard work that most others have to put in to mantain it.

I often wonder how many people are happily married - on a % basis like the orientation scale.

 

[kalipygian]

Ideally, I would be glad to be in a close relationship with more than one guy, in practice I haven't done well in finding just one to share things with. It would require people with better than average relationship skills.

There is an active polyamorous movement, internet groups, regional gatherings EtC. I haven't myself researched it, but have been told that they include in their definition families of at least 3 who are of mixed gender or the same gender, so one person's definition is not universal, they would include Lex's male triad friends. I have a woman friend who identifies as a poly,(otherwise oriented toward men) she was in a relationship with a man and a woman who were first married to each other, they had a house together, it was ended by the guy.(I didn't know what she saw in him)

Recently read the autobiography ( very well written) of the late Maharani of Jaipur, she was the third wife of the last ruling Maharajah, in her case it was a mutual love match, he was a very progressive and capable person. She had an very active, involved, and liberated life, and was herself a member of parlaiment. She said that a lot of western presumptions about rivalry between multiple wives were mistaken, it was more often like gaining sisters.

I think people should have the same rights and treatment from the government regardless of marital status, single people should not be discriminated against. Tying medical, pension, elder care EtC.to this is something we shoud get beyond

 

[Principessa]

Intriguing......but I don't think I could handle that. I do know that my reaction to "another woman" would be that I'd like to crush her fucking skull like a junebug.

Polyandry sounds nice until I think about the logistics of it. As for sharing my man with another woman...HELL FUCKING NO! I mean I won't even do a MFF threesome. It's not healthy to have two or more adult women under one roof. The estrogen starts to boil then all bets are off.

It might be nice to have a 2nd husband if he were bi or maybe gay. Hear me out. Having a man around the house as a help mate would be fantatstic. This is not something straight men excel in unless we spend years beating it into them.

 

[Pecker]

Unfortunately for me the only polys in my future are unsaturated.

 

[Nitrofiend]

I'm against it.

Because all the big dicked guys would have 10 wives. Everyone else would have 0.

Spiker actually brings up an interesting point. Polygamy would in fact make competition among men much fiercer. The most attractive (be it money, personality, cock, etc.) men will take many wives, leaving the less desirable men with much fewer women to choose from for themselves. Interesting. The same of course applies to MMM... and FFF...in fact even more so because there are far less gays and lesbians than there are straights. Competition would be brutal. Actually nevermind that, the most attractive gay man or woman would be married to every other gay of his or her sex. It's less complicated that way (?).

Also, if a guy has two wives, can the contracts be like a permutation between them? Would either one of his wives say that she has a wife and a husband? And if so, will each need two wedding rings? Nah, that's not practical. Just make an ordinary ring with roman numeral II inscribed on it, so that others are aware. Also put the gender signs of all your husbands and wives on it too somehow. That makes a lot more sense, that way there's no unpleasant surprise to the guy or girl she's cheating with.

These are the types of questions that would have to be asked. Polygamy is about as complicated as the word sounds. THE WORD ITSELF CONVEYS A MATHEMATICAL PRETENSE!

 

[kalipygian]

Unfortunately for me the only polys in my future are unsaturated.

So that means you self identify as a mono? (-unsaturated, like olive oil, maybe not an extra-virgin though)

 

[HazelGod]

For what it's worth, I know I have pointed this out before, and will again. Please, NCBear, don't think I'm playing language police with you; this is one case where I think the semantics is important.

Polygamy is the state of having more than one female spouse.
Polyandry is the state of having more than one male spouse.
Polyamory is the state of having more than one spouse, but of both genders.

In the interest of semantic clarity, which invariably arises during these discussions, I have to point out that your definitions are not entirely correct.

Polygamy: relationship involving one person of either sex having more than one spouse or partner, also of either sex.
Polygyny: when a person has more than one female spouse or partner
Polyandry: when a person has more than one male spouse or partner
Polyamory: practice of being in more than one open relationship at the same time

While the practical differences might vary depending upon whom you ask, the most important distinction in the terms above is one of state, not one of gender.

Polygamy comes from Greek (many marriages or many unions) and connotes relationships that are typical "pair bonds"...just more than one of them concurrently. Think of these cultist types who keep several brides, all of whom have distinct relationships with a common man. Rarely are there any shared relationship aspects amongst the women, and in many cases they may not be aware of each others' existence. The next two are also Greek, translating as many women and many men, respectively.

Polyamory is more from Latin (many loves) and usually describes a more open, honest, and shared approach to a relationship. Believers describe it as more of a philosophical approach to life and relationships than as a definitive label or a set of conditions.

OK, now I can take off my dork-hat and speak my mind. I fall into the "consenting adults" camp, in more respects than just sexuality. If free-thinking adults want to engage in behavior of any kind, then I just can't see where anyone (or any entity) has any authority to proscribe such practices.

Unfortunately, I'm afflicted with the perpetual optimistic naivete of my youth...something I hope I never outgrow...but a few years have given me some perspective on our culture and how it behaves. The idea of the nuclear family is so deeply entrenched in every aspect of our culture that I see little hope for legal recognition of polyamorous relationships within the foreseeable future.

If it weren't so saddening, I'd actually think it was hilarious how these cultural pressures are so diametrically opposed to factual observations. Biological reasearch tells us that sexual monogamy is virtually nonexistent in the world of vertebrate animals, particularly in the higher order mammals. Even the human female "nesting" behavior has been demonstrated to wane after their child reaches 4-6 years old. Yet, the most practiced religions throughout the world demand unions between one man and one woman for their entire lives...a notion mirrored in the legal doctrines of most developed nations.

Personally, I think we'd all be much happier if we weren't under constant pressures to mold our lives into some idealized paradigm that effectively crushes some very primal desires within us.

 

[DC_DEEP]

<...>
She said that a lot of western presumptions about rivalry between multiple wives were mistaken, it was more often like gaining sisters.

Kali, this is what I tried to underscore above, and also what I think the "HELL NO" responses are just failing to understand. In these relationships, (the ones that work, anyway) it has nothing to do with two people competing for the attentions and affections of one person, but rather the cooperation between all of them.

I think people should have the same rights and treatment from the government regardless of marital status, single people should not be discriminated against. Tying medical, pension, elder care EtC.to this is something we shoud get beyond

This is my biggest concern with the current same-gender marriage issue in the United States right now. There are approximately 1400 federal laws that are tied to the "institution of marriage." Tax law, rights of succession, inheritance, child custody, health care, it just goes so far beyond what most people realize. But federal law does not recognize any other partnership, other than a state-sanctioned, legal marriage, in order to take advantage of any of those laws. Because of our individual incomes, it would be vastly advantageous if my partner and I could claim "married, filing jointly" on our income tax returns. That ain't gonna happen. Legally speaking, and in keeping with both the spirit and the letter of the law in the 14th Amendment, I think the government should extend those rights to all citizens, or to none. Personally, my opinion is that every single federal, state, and local law that mentions marriage should be repealed and stricken from the books. Let the churches deal with marriage on their own, without government subsidy.

 

[D_N Flay Table]

eh. I cannot comment on the dynamic of 'gay' polygamy,
but who would want more than one wife? isn't one hard enough to deal with?

 

[HazelGod]

Legally speaking, and in keeping with both the spirit and the letter of the law in the 14th Amendment, I think the government should extend those rights to all citizens, or to none. Personally, my opinion is that every single federal, state, and local law that mentions marriage should be repealed and stricken from the books. Let the churches deal with marriage on their own, without government subsidy.

Well said...I could not agree with you more.

 

[madame_zora]

I agree that "marriage" as such should be left to churches, so anyone wishing to become married in the eyes of their church would be beholden to those church's rules governing marriage.

Civil unions should be available to anybody who wishes to make a public committment of their love, but I see no reason to offer government benefits on either. The church was originally given a protected status taxwise as a trade-off for getting separation of church and state into law, as I understand it (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). I feel this is a situation we've outgrown, and is in desperate need of review. Just because something's been a certain way for a certain amount of time doesn't mean it should stay that way forever (like laws giving black men 3/5ths of a vote and women none).

On the other polygamy site I posted, a man made a couple salient points I'd like to share: There really are far fewer men who are interested in being providers than we are led to believe. Yes, most men want someone to fuck, but I think it's obvious by the number of single mothers that not every guy who wants to blow a load wants to be a father. If man truly enjoys this role and is good at it, why shouldn't he be able to do that for more than one woman?

Polyandry is easy to identify (for me) as an emergence of our wealthy culture. Women no longer need to depend on men for our livelihoods, so sexual arrangements no longer need to be tied to provision. In the days of the OT, women were not unlike broodmares- which isn't something in which I could participate, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for those who could find happiness in that arrangement.

Arranged marriages were also the norm then, and we no longer practise that in our culture. Why isn't that brought up? Yeah, let's go back to the OT days where you met your wife on your wedding day, and you married her- ugly or not.

CONSENTING and ADULT are the vital points here. If those two terms are met, then why should anyone else care?

As for children, I think that the people who choose to bring children into the world should sign a document of financial responsibility for them, however many people are in on the decision. This responsibility cannot be lifted without a court order. Ha- THEN let's see how many guys bitch about condoms. Again, I don't like paying for other people's children- people should only have the number of children they can afford to support. Unwanted children should be able to be adopted by anyone who has the desire, the ability, and the room in their hearts to attend to their needs with love.