NationStates Jolt Archive

What are your views on polyamory, polygamy, polyandry?

Personally, I don't quite know what to think of it. I mean, it kinda grosses me out, and it's not something I could ever do, but at the same time, I know that I really don't have any rational reason for that. Just wondering what the forum thinks.

I am of course opposed to systems in which one gender is treated as property, and I am very opposed to situations in which one gender can have multiple spouses but the other cannot.

As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult then have at it I say.

I don't have any problems with it, as long as all involved have agreed

Poll is up now.

I don't care if somebody adopts every dog and cat in the pound, writes to every serial killer in prison, and marries them all. None of my business.

Hmmm, someone voted against, but didn't post why. I'm interested to hear.

For the record, I have not voted, as I don't really have an opinion on this.

I don't care if somebody adopts every dog and cat in the pound, writes to every serial killer in prison, and marries them all. None of my business.

but dogs and cats cant consent....right?

I say marry whom you please if that happens to be many people go for it just make sure its okay with your current partner/s unless you like spending your wedding night on the couch as hot sex without you goes on upstairs

Callisdrun:
"What are your views on polyamory, polygamy, polyandry?"
I can't say I have views on them, but I'm against the government's continued desire to define marriage as only one man-one women just because the majority of people would prefer that type of relationship.

"Personally, I don't quite know what to think of it. I mean, it kinda grosses me out, and it's not something I could ever do, but at the same time, I know that I really don't have any rational reason for that. Just wondering what the forum thinks. "

Do you have irrational reasons for it? I honestly can't fathom how polyamory could gross someone out. To me, it's like saying "short hair cuts gross me out."

Oh, and I'm biased in this matter, I am monogamous but my girlfriend is married.

I can't trace my aversion to it, so I know it's probably totally irrational. Which is why I can't really support the government prohibiting it, since there isn't any solid reason except for my stomach getting kinda uncomfy about it. I mean, it's between consenting adults, so the government really shouldn't care about it, it just makes me feel weird in a bad way. I don't know why, it just does. And yes, some mullets make me feel gross inside. Like mullets.

At the same time, I absolutely do not support legalizing polygyny but not polyandry, on the basis that it's quite unequal treatment.

An open marriage/relationship or a multiple partners marriage/relationship harms no one as long as everyone involved consents to it. So, while it's not something for me (just couldn't do it, wouldn't work for me), it should not really be outlawed, that doesn't make sense.

Really? Say you married someone and you were married for ten years. If your partner came up to you and said, "I love you but it's been a *decade* since I've had sex with someone else. Can I have sex with someone else? Just a little? You can help pick them."

What would you do?

Oh, and I'm biased in this matter, I am monogamous but my girlfriend is married.




:confused:

:confused:

I'm afraid I don't understand the confusion.

I'm afraid I don't understand the confusion.

Was your post a joke? I mean is your so called GF married and cheating on her husband or are you her husband and meant your post as a joke?

Was your post a joke? I mean is your so called GF married and cheating on her husband or are you her husband and meant your post as a joke?

Neither. They have an open marriage.

What are your views on polyamory, polygamy, polyandry?

Personally, I don't quite know what to think of it. I mean, it kinda grosses me out, and it's not something I could ever do, but at the same time, I know that I really don't have any rational reason for that. Just wondering what the forum thinks.

I am of course opposed to systems in which one gender is treated as property, and I am very opposed to situations in which one gender can have multiple spouses but the other cannot.

Well, most types of polygomy and polyandry are done for economic purposes(And there are societies where a women takes on multiple husbands). In most cases where a woman takes on multiple husbands, it is not usually by choice, and when the oldest brother marries, his younger brothers marry the same woman. This is done largely to keep estates intact, where it is practiced, so that it is not split up among several families.

Even when a man takes on multiple wives, it is often done due to economic conditions as well, the Mormons are a great example of this. There are quite a few Mormon men whom don't have to work because their wives have jobs.

But meh... whatever.

Neither. They have an open marriage.




.......Then why be married?

I am currently in a polyamorous relationship with Poliwanacraca, Sarah Polley, Pauly Shore and Polly the cloned sheep.

.......Then why be married?

What an odd question. You seem to be suggesting that the only reason people get married is to make sure thier partner never has sex with another person again.

I've never asked their reasons, but I'll assume it was because they're in love, consider one another soul mates, want to be together for the rest of their lives, and like the tax break.

I am currently in a polyamorous relationship with Poliwanacraca, Sarah Polley, Pauly Shore and Polly the cloned sheep.


I am in a polyamorus relation with both my hands.:D But my right is getting jealous and wants my goodies all to herself. ;)

I don't have any problems with it, as long as all involved have agreed

same as CW

What an odd question. You seem to be suggesting that the only reason people get married is to make sure thier partner never has sex with another person again.

I've never asked their reasons, but I'll assume it was because they're in love, consider one another soul mates, want to be together for the rest of their lives, and like the tax break.


You seem to be missing the point. Why get married and claim to be soul mates if you are just going to have an open relationship and let your partner screw other people?

You seem to be missing the point. Why get married and claim to be soul mates if you are just going to have an open relationship and let your partner screw other people?

No, I'm not missing the point; I'm disagreeing with the assumption. Having sex with person A, doesn't mean you don't love person B. It doesn't mean you don't feel person B is your soul mate. It just means you enjoy person A as well.

No, I'm not missing the point; I'm disagreeing with the assumption. Having sex with person A, doesn't mean you don't love person B. It doesn't mean you don't feel person B is your soul mate. It just means you enjoy person A as well.



In other words cheating. :rolleyes: Get married and go screw around on your spouse.....

I have no problems with it, but can't say whether or not i'd be happy with a polyamorous relationship.

In other words cheating. :rolleyes: Get married and go screw around on your spouse.....

He said they have an open relationship, which would imply that the husband is perfectly fine with it. How then could that constitute "cheating"?

In other words cheating. :rolleyes: Get married and go screw around on your spouse.....

If your spouse has no problem with you sleeping with another, how is that cheating? I mean, they never promised to sleep with only one another. Aren't they the authority on what's considered 'cheating' in their relationship?

If your spouse has no problem with you sleeping with another, how is that cheating? I mean, they never promised to sleep with only one another. Aren't they the authority on what's considered 'cheating' in their relationship?



It sounds like cheating to me. I don't see any good reason to pledge your love for one another and get married but still have other relationships. Seems rather pointless..unless they did it for the tax break alone...But I don't support those tax breaks.

Really? Say you married someone and you were married for ten years. If your partner came up to you and said, "I love you but it's been a *decade* since I've had sex with someone else. Can I have sex with someone else? Just a little? You can help pick them."

What would you do?

*lol
Ask him why the hell he waited for 10 years before asking me.
I'm in an open relationship, I dearly love my boyfriend, but I'm happy that he has other lovers, same as myself.

You seem to be missing the point. Why get married and claim to be soul mates if you are just going to have an open relationship and let your partner screw other people?


because being married is about a lot more than sex? It's also a financial arrangement, as well as a social arrangement. If the partners decide that they sex isn't so great any more, but they like the arrangement otherwise, why ruin both lives by a divorce which will cause acrimony, cost a lot of money, and generally screw everything else up? I wouldn't do it this way, but I can see it happening.

You seem to be missing the point. Why get married and claim to be soul mates if you are just going to have an open relationship and let your partner screw other people?

What does being soulmates have to do with who you have sex with?
Sex is fun, but it doesn't equal love.

Really? Say you married someone and you were married for ten years. If your partner came up to you and said, "I love you but it's been a *decade* since I've had sex with someone else. Can I have sex with someone else? Just a little? You can help pick them."

What would you do?

File for a divorce.

In other words cheating. :rolleyes: Get married and go screw around on your spouse.....

It's cheating if you do it behind your partners back and aren't honest with him/her.
If you both agree that this is how you are happiest, how is it cheating?

What does being soulmates have to do with who you have sex with?
Sex is fun, but it doesn't equal love.



:headbang:


I get the impression you whould not agree no matter what I said...And I got a headache.

File for a divorce.


and lose half your income if you're a man, and screw your kids up. And lose half your friends. And generally be unhappy for years while dealing with the aftershocks of the divorce. INstead of simply acting like responsible caring people who want to see their partners happy and fulfilled. Divorce isn't always the best way of dealing.

It sounds like cheating to me. I don't see any good reason to pledge your love for one another and get married but still have other relationships. Seems rather pointless..unless they did it for the tax break alone...But I don't support those tax breaks.

So once you get married, you no longer have any other friends? You cut all relationships with the rest of your family?

I think the problem you have is to assume that sex = love. It's not.

It's cheating if you do it behind your partners back and aren't honest with him/her.
If you both agree that this is how you are happiest, how is it cheating?


Marriage = agreeing to give yourself to 1 person and 1 person only

Cheating = having sex with another person while married

...Cheating = having sex with another person while married


It's not cheating if your wife provides the cheat codes.

So once you get married, you no longer have any other friends? You cut all relationships with the rest of your family?

I think the problem you have is to assume that sex = love. It's not.


Is your reading comprehension low? SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS! Friends and Family don't count. Jeez.


I think your problem is that you assume sex never means anything and is just a activity you do. I hold it in higher regard than that.

It's not cheating if your wife provides the cheat codes.

seconded that

only in some places. In western society this has been changing for years. Your definition of cheating is sleeping with someone when married. My definition is staying unhappily married when there is a better choice for both partners.

Is your reading comprehension low? SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS! Friends and Family don't count. Jeez.


I think your problem is that you assume sex never means anything and is just a activity you do. I hold it in higher regard than that.
don't have much regrd for anyone's opinion but your own, do you?

It's not cheating if your wife provides the cheat codes.


Forget it. I am talking to myself. Just forget I said anything.

:headbang:


I get the impression you whould not agree no matter what I said...And I got a headache.

*hands UnHoly Smite some aspirin*

On that topic, no.
I can understand that you yourself might be the type who doesn't even think of other women and would never have sex with anyone but his wife. That's your choice, if you're happy with it that's grand. It puzzles me a bit, but it's not my life after all.

You seem to assume, however, that leading an open marriage involves willfully betraying and hurting your partner by having sex with others. That is not the case, on the contrary.
I wouldn't have other sex partners if it wasn't ok with my boyfriend, he knows of each and every one of them, and I keep making sure that he is really ok with the situation. And he's doing the same. I know of his lovers, and he will tell me about them and ask me if I'm ok with him meeting them. And I am ok with it.
I've seen more than one marriage going down the drain because the partners had no way of talking about affairs outside the marriage without hurting their partner, who took it for granted that they were faithful.

sex an money, baby! the marrige killers.

*hands UnHoly Smite some aspirin*

On that topic, no.
I can understand that you yourself might be the type who doesn't even think of other women and would never have sex with anyone but his wife. That's your choice, if you're happy with it that's grand. It puzzles me a bit, but it's not my life after all.

You seem to assume, however, that leading an open marriage involves willfully betraying and hurting your partner by having sex with others. That is not the case, on the contrary.
I wouldn't have other sex partners if it wasn't ok with my boyfriend, he knows of each and every one of them, and I keep making sure that he is really ok with the situation. And he's doing the same. I know of his lovers, and he will tell me about them and ask me if I'm ok with him meeting them. And I am ok with it.
I've seen more than one marriage going down the drain because the partners had no way of talking about affairs outside the marriage without hurting their partner, who took it for granted that they were faithful.


I hold marrige in very high regard, I believe in being faithful 100%.

Is your reading comprehension low? SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS! Friends and Family don't count. Jeez.


I think your problem is that you assume sex never means anything and is just a activity you do. I hold it in higher regard than that.

You only said "relationships", hon.

Nope. I assume that sex is whatever you make it.
It's fun with others, but it's very, very special with my boyfriend.

You only said "relationships", hon.

Nope. I assume that sex is whatever you make it.
It's fun with others, but it's very, very special with my boyfriend.


So? I said relationships...everybody and their pets knew what I meant by that.

Forget it. I am talking to myself. Just forget I said anything.

Regardless of your high regard for marriage, the problem lies with your choice of the word "cheating"

Cheating implies deception. You may think polyamory is morally wrong, but it is obviously not deceptive - hence it is not cheating.

Really? Say you married someone and you were married for ten years. If your partner came up to you and said, "I love you but it's been a *decade* since I've had sex with someone else. Can I have sex with someone else? Just a little? You can help pick them."

What would you do?

Oh, I'd be okay with my lady having side dishes, as long as we talked it over first before she actually went out and got one (after all, it's only cheating if there's deception/betrayal, which wouldn't be the case if I knew about and was fine with it), but none for me, thanks.

Marriage = agreeing to give yourself to 1 person and 1 person only

Cheating = having sex with another person while married

So, "giving yourself" refers only to the physical aspects?
Because you just pointed out yourself that you will go on sharing your emotions in all the other non-sexual relationships that you have with friends and family....

Regardless of your high regard for marriage, the problem lies with your choice of the word "cheating"

Cheating implies deception. You may think polyamory is morally wrong, but it is obviously not deceptive - hence it is not cheating.



Look at my sig, it's pretty obvious why I would see it as cheating in my eyes.

Regardless of your high regard for marriage, the problem lies with your choice of the word "cheating"

Cheating implies deception. You may think polyamory is morally wrong, but it is obviously not deceptive - hence it is not cheating.

Quite right. It's not the sex involved with cheating that is the core problem. It's the deception and breach of trust. If you and your partner talk about having an open relationship and agree that such is fine first, then it's not cheating, because there is no dishonesty involved.

SAnta Cruz? Cool! I lived on 1st street, right above the boaordwalk :D

Look at my sig, it's pretty obvious why I would see it as cheating in my eyes.

I still fail to see how you can cheat on someone by being perfectly honest and open, though.

So, "giving yourself" refers only to the physical aspects?
Because you just pointed out yourself that you will go on sharing your emotions in all the other non-sexual relationships that you have with friends and family....


Sharing emotions are different from sex. Somethings only another person of the same sex would understand. Thats why women have female friends..there are things men don't get about women. And I think YOU know what those things are! *cough*PMS*cough*

Look at my sig, it's pretty obvious why I would see it as cheating in my eyes.

That explains why you think it's wrong. It doesn't explain your inability to grasp the definition of cheating. What deception is involved in polyamory? How is something agreed upon in advance cheating in any way?

Oh, I'd be okay with my lady having side dishes, as long as we talked it over first before she actually went out and got one (after all, it's only cheating if there's deception/betrayal, which wouldn't be the case if I knew about and was fine with it), but none for me, thanks.

Actually, I'd be careful about that, then.
I think it is very important to maintain some form of balance, for both partners. It might be perfectly ok for you if she has a fling or two on the side, but it will put her in a morally defensive position if you don't have any yourself. It's a tricky business ;)

It sounds like cheating to me. I don't see any good reason to pledge your love for one another and get married but still have other relationships. Seems rather pointless..unless they did it for the tax break alone...But I don't support those tax breaks.

What exactly is your definition of cheating? To me, the word "cheat" means to decive another or to break rules. As there's no deception or rule breaking, what they're doing doesn't appear to be cheating.

How is pledging your love to someone mutually exclusive to having another relationship?

Look at my sig, it's pretty obvious why I would see it as cheating in my eyes.

polyagamy is not about cheating. THere are zillioin societies out there where it's not just allowable, it is expected. If a man is barren, his brother helps make children so the man's family will not die out. A woman might have several husbands, all of whom have different jobs and help raise the groups children when they are around, thus "time sharing the family"
Are these people cheating? Is there some unfaithfulnes in the arrangement?

I still fail to see how you can cheat on someone by being perfectly honest and open, though.


You have your way of seeing things and I have mine. We were raised in different countries and in different backgrounds. Your not always going to understand the way other people see things..no matter how they describe it.

Oh, I'd be okay with my lady having side dishes, as long as we talked it over first before she actually went out and got one (after all, it's only cheating if there's deception/betrayal, which wouldn't be the case if I knew about and was fine with it), but none for me, thanks.

I feel much the same way though, admittedly, I've never had a relationship that's lasted ten years.

shit just talking and looking at another woman when married is cheating then
shit i'm cheating my wife just talking to my mom

Sharing emotions are different from sex. Somethings only another person of the same sex would understand. Thats why women have female friends..there are things men don't get about women. And I think YOU know what those things are! *cough*PMS*cough*

What's PMS?
And yes, I've got plenty of female friends. But to be honest, it would indeed feel like cheating to me if I talked to them about things I felt I couldn't talk about to my boyfriend. I believe in being as open as possible with him, and I count on his support and willingness to understand or at least to accept me the way I am. I also count on him to be the same with me.
If he turned to a friend with a problem that he didn't mention to me, I would feel like he cheated on me.

*lol
Ask him why the hell he waited for 10 years before asking me.
I'm in an open relationship, I dearly love my boyfriend, but I'm happy that he has other lovers, same as myself.

I am glad you're doing well.

You have your way of seeing things and I have mine. We were raised in different countries and in different backgrounds. Your not always going to understand the way other people see things..no matter how they describe it.

Hey, I'm trying to. ;)
Why do you think I'm trying to get a glimpse at every angle of your view here?

What's PMS?
And yes, I've got plenty of female friends. But to be honest, it would indeed feel like cheating to me if I talked to them about things I felt I couldn't talk about to my boyfriend. I believe in being as open as possible with him, and I count on his support and willingness to understand or at least to accept me the way I am. I also count on him to be the same with me.
If he turned to a friend with a problem that he didn't mention to me, I would feel like he cheated on me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMS


Thats fine, you should be 100% open with him. Its healthy. But there are things that only another woman would understand. He should understand that, I know I would. I encourage people to have friends and keep them close even after marriage. Friendship is a great thing and should never be given up without a bloody fight.

File for a divorce.

I think this is unfortunate. I could never throw away a marriage of ten years like it was nothing. I was raised to believe that marriage means forever, not "until I'm unhappy with you."

Hey, I'm trying to. ;)
Why do you think I'm trying to get a glimpse at every angle of your view here?


I know you are trying. But it's past 2am and I have a cold, so I can't be fucked to explain it better. Of course I am not one of those conservatives that doesn't understand the simple logic of you can't clearly explain everything.

Actually, I'd be careful about that, then.
I think it is very important to maintain some form of balance, for both partners. It might be perfectly ok for you if she has a fling or two on the side, but it will put her in a morally defensive position if you don't have any yourself. It's a tricky business ;)

I don't know, for some reason, the idea of her having other sex partners, as long as she loves me, doesn't affect me that much. While, the idea of me having sexual partners other than her really turns my stomach. Sure, I think other women are hot, but thinking about actually having sex with others while still with her doesn't result in a good feeling at all.

I think this is unfortunate. I could never throw away a marriage of ten years like it was nothing. I was raised to believe that marriage means forever, not "until I'm unhappy with you."


I would not be ok with my wife wanting to screw other people. If you wanted to do that you shouldn't have married me....I know she may want to..but actually doing it and asking for permission is another bag of apples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMS


Thats fine, you should be 100% open with him. Its healthy. But there are things that only another woman would understand. He should understand that, I know I would. I encourage people to have friends and keep them close even after marriage. Friendship is a great thing and should never be given up without a bloody fight.

True enough, I know that when I need advice he might not be the best person to ask on every subject. But I would still let him know that I need advice, and I will talk to him about the advice I eventually get, from friends, family, whoever.

It's a sort of emotional faithfulness that I personally see as part of the basis of a good relationship.
I see sex much the same way. It's part of the foundation of a good relationship, but it's not something that has to be kept exclusive to the relationship.

True enough, I know that when I need advice he might not be the best person to ask on every subject. But I would still let him know that I need advice, and I will talk to him about the advice I eventually get, from friends, family, whoever.

It's a sort of emotional faithfulness that I personally see as part of the basis of a good relationship.
I see sex much the same way. It's part of the foundation of a good relationship, but it's not something that has to be kept exclusive to the relationship.

Sex is apart of a healthy marriage. But it should be kept between the married couple...unless its a threeway or a gang bang.;)

I feel much the same way though, admittedly, I've never had a relationship that's lasted ten years.

Well, mine has only lasted 2, but I have to make my best guess.

UnHoly Smite:
" I think your problem is that you assume sex never means anything and is just a activity you do."

I can't speak for others, but I see sex as being a very special activity. It is not just receiving pleasure, but also giving a part of myself to another person. I've only had two sexual partners in my life.

Sex is apart of a healthy marriage. But it should be kept between the married couple...unless its a threeway or a gang bang.;)

I have a feeling you wouldn't be okay with a three way if it was another guy as the third member in it.

UnHoly Smite:
" I think your problem is that you assume sex never means anything and is just a activity you do."

I can't speak for others, but I see sex as being a very special activity. It is not just receiving pleasure, but also giving a part of myself to another person. I've only had two sexual partners in my life.


At the same timeframe?

I have a feeling you wouldn't be okay with a three way if it was another guy as the third member in it.


If thats the case I want a 4 way. I am a man afterall and I don't do dudes. So its actually the hetero in me that would say fuck no. Throw in a chick and let the shit fly. I am a social conservative, but I am still human.:)

It's not something I would like to do, but if other people want group sex I'm fine with that.

I am against legal polygamy because I think it would over-complicate the law, and undo a lot of what feminism has won.

At the same timeframe?

As I said in my first post, I'm monogomous.

If thats the case I want a 4 way. I am a man afterall and I don't do dudes. So its actually the hetero in me that would say fuck no. Throw in a chick and let the shit fly. I am a social conservative, but I am still human.:)

I meant if it was you, a woman and another guy. As in, you wouldn't be having sex with the other guy, but you'd both be having sex with the woman.

I am against legal polygamy because I think it would over-complicate the law, and undo a lot of what feminism has won.

I think it would undo feminism only if women let it.

On the other hand, I can't imagine a divorce between a man with four wives and six children. In that, I agree it would be a litigious nightmare, though I suppose lawyers would be dancing in the street.

UnHoly Smite:
"...I don't do dudes."

That's why they have the TFNOZ rule for situations like that.

The Three Foot No-Penis Zone Rule: No unclothed penis shall come within three feet of another unless there is a female directly between them.

I meant if it was you, a woman and another guy. As in, you wouldn't be having sex with the other guy, but you'd both be having sex with the woman.

I know and I said how I felt. I am just not ok with that....*shivers* She wants another man involved I want another woman involved.

UnHoly Smite:
"...I don't do dudes."

That's why they have the TFNOZ rule for situations like that.

The Three Foot No-Penis Zone Rule: No unclothed penis shall come within three feet of another unless there is a female directly between them.

http://forums.di.fm/images/smilies/laughing-smiley-004.gif

I know and I said how I felt. I am just not ok with that....*shivers* She wants another man involved I want another woman involved.

Makes you a bit of a hypocrite to suggest a threeway in the first place then (is just teasing good naturedly).

I think it would undo feminism only if women let it.

On the other hand, I can't imagine a divorce between a man with four wives and six children. In that, I agree it would be a litigious nightmare, though I suppose lawyers would be dancing in the street.

That's why I'd be against legalization of it unless it was legalized both ways. Multiple wives and multiple husbands. Or of course, a combination of those, if it suits your fancy.

Still would not participate, but that's just me.

That's why I'd be against legalization of it unless it was legalized both ways. Multiple wives and multiple husbands. Or of course, a combination of those, if it suits your fancy.

Still would not participate, but that's just me.

On the one hand, I would agree to say this is fair.
On the other, I don't want to imagine the legal chaos that would ensue when it comes to divorces.... or children.

Makes you a bit of a hypocrite to suggest a threeway in the first place then (is just teasing good naturedly).



I am a man...too much of a man to let another penis anywhere near mine! Penis is the worlds nastiest feature!

It's not something I would like to do, but if other people want group sex I'm fine with that.
.

I missed this the first time... being polyamorous doesn't only mean having group sex. One can be polyamorous and chaste, actually.

there are instinctively monogamous life forms in nature.

they are the exception however.

and humans don't happen to be one of them.

therefor in is monogamy, reguardless of the genders involved and combinations thereof, which is the 'unnatural' act.

nice families of multiple both husbands AND wives, with all at lest one and preferably mulitple interests and perspectives in common, in a culture where this would not pose stressess and insecurity, and such a culture itself, would be far more natural, moral, and healthy, then what is generaly the prevailing and assumed norm in the currently dominant culture.

in cameroi, nearly everyone is born in such families. the 40% or so who don't spend the rest of their lives as relative hermits, eventualy join one.

=^^=
.../\...

It is morally corrupt and eh all round evil.

It is morally corrupt and eh all round evil.

I think there are better ways to express your viewpoint on this matter.

I think it would undo feminism only if women let it.

I agree, and that said, I would be very happy with a harem of both genders (I'm female, btw), but alas, I cannot have that... Oh, well. I'll be happy with one mate since I can't have more. :D

I think there are better ways to express your viewpoint on this matter.
Please help me express them then.

As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult then have at it I say.Yep[. As long as all the spouses know and approve, you should be able to marry as many people of whatever sex you want.

It is morally corrupt and eh all round evil.

one might also validly dissaggree, as i strongly do.

the only objectively rational basis of morality is that if you don't want to have to live in a totaly 'messed' up world, don't mess up the world you have to live in!

likewise "evil" is to knowingly cause avoidable suffering and harm.

any other deffinicians are based upon speculation and unverifiable assumptions.
this is not to deny what cannot be seen, but to not deny what can.

=^^=
.../\...

one might also validly dissaggree, as i strongly do.

the only objectively rational basis of morality is that if you don't want to have to live in a totaly 'messed' up world, don't mess up the world you have to live in!

likewise "evil" is to knowingly cause avoidable suffering and harm.

any other deffinicians are based upon speculation and unverifiable assumptions.
this is not to deny what cannot be seen, but to not deny what can.

=^^=
.../\...



Maybe its the cold talking...but...WTF?

I think Harlesburg is being sarcastic... just a hunch.

I'm happy being monogamous myself, and I don't think I'd be happier if I was not, on the contrary, the thought is unpleasant to me. But I can't think of a good reason (aside from the litigation issues others have mentioned) for polyamorous marriages to be illegal as long as it's fair.

Not my bag, but what consenting adults do in the bedroom is their own business.

Not my bag, but what consenting adults do in the bedroom is their own business.My thoughts. Just 'cause I don't share well.

Personally I would only want one wife but I would not have any problem with someone else having however many they desired.

My thoughts. Just 'cause I don't share well.

:D Yeah, pretty much. :p

What are your views on polyamory, polygamy, polyandry?

Personally, I don't quite know what to think of it. I mean, it kinda grosses me out, and it's not something I could ever do, but at the same time, I know that I really don't have any rational reason for that. Just wondering what the forum thinks.

I've got no problem with it (assuming all parties are consenting, of course). I've had several relationships of this sort, and they've been quite nice.

I feel more comfortable having a monogamous relationship right now, but I wouldn't rule out going back to a "plural" relationship in the future.


I am of course opposed to systems in which one gender is treated as property, and I am very opposed to situations in which one gender can have multiple spouses but the other cannot.
Agreed.

I don't oppose open relationships or open marriages, but I don't believe either would work for me. The only exception might be a relationship with myself and more than one other person where were were all exclusive to each other.

Really? Say you married someone and you were married for ten years. If your partner came up to you and said, "I love you but it's been a *decade* since I've had sex with someone else. Can I have sex with someone else? Just a little? You can help pick them."

What would you do?Say that I wasn't willing to do so, and that if they went through with it it would be cheating.

File for a divorce.There's no reason to do that, unless she goes through with it.

Quite right. It's not the sex involved with cheating that is the core problem. It's the deception and breach of trust. If you and your partner talk about having an open relationship and agree that such is fine first, then it's not cheating, because there is no dishonesty involved.
Indeed!

This kind of thing is something you should talk about with somebody BEFORE you agree to spend the rest of your life with them. My current lover and I have done so, and we're not even engaged. I know that he is willing to consider sharing our bed with somebody else, as long as we do it together, but he is not willing to consider having separate affairs with outside parties. I know that as long as I choose to be his partner I need to respect his comfort level on this subject, because it's a deal-breaker issue for him.

Meanwhile, he knows that I am okay with him having sex with other people, as long as he tells me about his intentions BEFORE he does any messing around. That's my comfort level, and he knows that he needs to respect it.

Honesty is a given in our relationship. Our rule is, "Don't do anything behind your partner's back that you wouldn't want them to find out about."

Sharing emotions are different from sex. Somethings only another person of the same sex would understand. Thats why women have female friends..there are things men don't get about women. And I think YOU know what those things are! *cough*PMS*cough*
You need better friends.

Men can understand PMS. Men, as a general group, experience mood swings more frequently than women do. Men experience headaches. Men experience fluctuations in libido. Men experience gas and bloating.

Meanwhile, many women don't experience PMS at all. I don't. I've had headaches, gas, moodiness, etc, but not directly linked to my cycle. I couldn't empathize with a woman's PMS any better than the average man could.

There's nothing I can think of that I could only talk about with another woman. But then, my friends tend to be very open and informed about sex, sexuality, and the human body. My guy friends aren't ignorant about the female body any more than my female friends are ignorant about the male body.

You'd be surprised at how easy it is for men and women to relate to one another. For example, some of my male friends were discussing the frustration of having your balls hanging in an uncomfortable manner when you don't have the opportunity to shift them, and I was able to easily relate to this because sometimes my boobs are sitting in my bra wrong but I'm in a place where I can't just reach my hand in and move things around.

I think your problem is that you assume sex never means anything and is just a activity you do. I hold it in higher regard than that.

I think you don't have enough sex.

I think your problem is that you assume sex never means anything and is just a activity you do. I hold it in higher regard than that.
I think your problem is that you think sex means love, commitment, etc etc etc. I hold love, commitment, etc in higher regard than that.

Sex can be a way of expressing love or commitment or whathaveyou, but sex itself is a physical activity. Sex means whatever the individuals involved in the sex decide it means. Sex can communicate your love and delight with your partner, or sex can be a chore that you do, or sex can be a random romp with affection but no love involved, or a million other things. Sex is what you (amd your partners) make of it.

I think it's a legal nightmare if one of them leaves.......but other than that, I wouldn't do it, but there are a lot of things I wouldn't do that don't really affect me if other people choose to.

For me, open relationships are the only way to go. I like having that level of honesty with another person. Believe me, if you can talk about who you are banging with your partner, then you can talk about anything.

Alot of people are hardwired to be monogamous but I'm not. Which inevitably leads to other problems developing in the relationship. Which leads to me leaving.

I'm sure this has been corrected reapeatedly, but it's Polyandry and Polygyny. These and group marraige fall under the heading of Polygamy. Now I will read the thread.

I don't care what other people do behind closed doors, as long as they're not my doors :p

Polyamory doesn't sound like something for me. But if others want to and everyone involved consents, I don't see a problem.

I'm sure this has been corrected reapeatedly, but it's Polyandry and Polygyny. These and group marraige fall under the heading of Polygamy. Now I will read the thread.

Polyamory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory) has been the main topic of discussion. Which doesn't fall under the heading of Polygamy at all.

Polyamory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory) has been the main topic of discussion.

Funny. Everyone's been talking about married people, and divorces, and legal nightmares. What does that have to do with Polyamory, and how would that excuse the wording of the poll?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Forms_of_polygamy

Funny. Everyone's been talking about married people, and divorces, and legal nightmares. What does that have to do with Polyamory, and how would that excuse the wording of the poll?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Forms_of_polygamy

Primarily the talk has been about married couples having someone on the side. That's not the same thing.

Primarily the talk has been about married couples having someone on the side. That's not the same thing.

YOu will notice Polyamory is also contained in the section I directed you to.

I reiterate. How does your statment excuse the poor wording of the poll? I really couldn't care less about "the talk".

I voted against all forms of polygamy. However, my reasons are religious. Personally, I don't think government should have anything to do with marriage. God defines what marriage is, not judge whatshisface (at least in the christian faith). If you're not christian, you can go ahead an marry whoever or whatever you want. Tax breaks should be given to people who are committed to living with each other regardless of what they define marriage as.

Government shouldn't be involved in marrying people but you want the tax breaks anyway? I believe this falls under the category of having your cake and eating it, too.

I voted against all forms of polygamy. However, my reasons are religious. Personally, I don't think government should have anything to do with marriage. God defines what marriage is, not judge whatshisface (at least in the christian faith). If you're not christian, you can go ahead an marry whoever or whatever you want. Tax breaks should be given to people who are committed to living with each other regardless of what they define marriage as.

YOu will notice Polyamory is also contained in the section I directed you to.

I reiterate. How does your statment excuse the poor wording of the poll? I really couldn't care less about "the talk".

Polygamy exists in three specific forms, including polygyny (one man having multiple wives), polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands), or group marriage (some combination of polygyny and polyandry). Historically, all three practices have been found, but polygyny is by far the most common.
It's a poorly laid out article. Polyamory is right above the section on serial monogomy.

All polygamous relationships are polyamorous but not all polyamourus relationships are polygamous.

I am not excusing anything, I was merely pointing out that you were neglecting a large portion of the topic at hand. And if you "couldn't care less about 'the talk'" why are you posting on this topic to begin with?

To be blunt, I don't give a fuck. (No pun intended.)

I think your problem is that you assume sex never means anything and is just a activity you do. I hold it in higher regard than that.

Why?

I was merely pointing out that you were neglecting a large portion of the topic at hand. And if you "couldn't care less about 'the talk'" why are you posting on this topic to begin with?

To comment on the poll. That was the point of my post. It should be very obvious I was neglecting the topic, as I myself stated I had not yet read the topic. Perhaps if I disregarded you entirely I might have been allowed to make a comment related to the discussion; I didn't get the chance.

To comment on the poll. That was the point of my post. It should be very obvious I was neglecting the topic, as I myself stated I had not yet read the topic. Perhaps if I disregarded you entirely I might have been allowed to make a comment related to the discussion; I didn't get the chance.

If you're going to quote me, I'd thank you to not cut off half of my sentance.

If you're going to cut off half of my sentance.

Sentence. With three e's. If you can't tell, I'm messing with you now, 'cause it's fun.

Sentence. With three e's. If you can't tell, I'm messing with you now, 'cause it's fun.

Orly? Sorry, let me try again: 53|\|73|\|[3. Better?:p
Yes, I kind of figured that.

Orly? Sorry, let me try again: 53|\|73|\|[3. Better?:p
Yes, I kind of figured that.

Precisely. Good.

This thread is full of rationalizations and bad arguments all trying to justify nothing more than wanting to condone people acting out on their base urges, as the beast of the field do, to explain why they want to act like the dogs and pigs do and we should all just smile about it.

Nothing but bogus justifications for illicit behaviors, random excuses for horrendous conduct, illogical validations of all kinds trying to endorse the idea that the rest of society needs to accept them behaving like animals, as if somehow that choice could ever be thought of as a ‘reasonable’ choice. But it’s all hogwash, they can act like pigs if they want to and treat themselves like dirt, but don’t expect the rest of society to pat them on the back and say “I’m okay you’re okay,” because they aren’t okay, they want to act like animals and they don’t understand the difference between civilized humanity and a herd of cattle.

I was under the impression that the popular definition of polyamory was essentially being able to be in love with multiple people, and wasn't the same thing as polygamy.

Polygamy = multiple spouses.
Polyandry = multiple husbands.
PolyGYNY = multiple wives.

As far as love (the emotion) is concerned, I think it's quite possible to be in love with more than one person, but I wouldn't want to be one of the people that had to share affections like that. I imagine it would be difficult to keep jealousy down, and unless you're living on a hippie commune, it's not exactly what I'd call a stable relationship type.

As far as wanting to have SEX with multiple people is concerned... good lord, there's no debate there - of course most people are accepting of it. Welcome to the world we live in. I personally exercise self-discipline and hold to many traditional ethical sets; as such, I'm strictly monogamous and frankly abstain from most sexual activity within the few relationships I do form. Part of the justification is morals that I've built into my brain, but a larger part of it is that I've never been able to make my sexuality just a "form of expression," or a mechanical exercise: I can't divorce it from my emotions, and if I tried having sexual relationships with multiple people I don't think my brain or heart could handle it.

I voted against because I'm leaning towards abolishing marriage (at least as a legal entity) altogether. Let people bonk who they want and get blessed in whatever groupings by whomever they want and ignore it in a legal sense. If people want certain other people to have rights regarding them then they can submit a living will style of paperwork etc.

This thread is full of rationalizations and bad arguments all trying to justify nothing more than wanting to condone people acting out on their base urges, as the beast of the field do, to explain why they want to act like the dogs and pigs do and we should all just smile about it.

Nothing but bogus justifications for illicit behaviors, random excuses for horrendous conduct, illogical validations of all kinds trying to endorse the idea that the rest of society needs to accept them behaving like animals, as if somehow that choice could ever be thought of as a ‘reasonable’ choice. But it’s all hogwash, they can act like pigs if they want to and treat themselves like dirt, but don’t expect the rest of society to pat them on the back and say “I’m okay you’re okay,” because they aren’t okay, they want to act like animals and they don’t understand the difference between civilized humanity and a herd of cattle.


Wow. I don’t even know where to begin. Such hatred and vitriol. I am 99% sure you are just a troll, but just in case, please seek professional counseling.

What happened to you that you are so adamantly against having emotional attachments with people? What has made human contact so abhorrent to you? Please do yourself and those who care about you a favor; have a chat with a psychiatrist about relationships and intimacy. If you are the morally correct and well-balanced individual you scream that you are then what’s the harm? Perhaps, just perhaps, you could really use some help.

I have been married for almost 18 years now, and poly for the last 7. I do not "cheat" on my husband and he does not "cheat" on me. (Yes, it is possible for polyamorists to cheat... and a sad thing when it happens.)

Polyamory is not just having sex outside my marriage. It is also having LOVE outside my marriage. I am not wired to be "in love" with one and only one person. For me, romantic love works just like familial love... a parent can love multiple children, I can love multiple partners. Some folks just simply are not wired that way. Just like some folks are not wired to be heterosexual.

For me, marriage is a commitment, not of my heart, or of my sexual organs, but a commitment to walk a road together, to be each others support system, to love each other. It does not mean I cannot love others, however... my life and my husbands life have become richer, and our marriage stronger, since begining the practice of polyamory.

It's really hard work, however. It's not for everyone. I am happy for all the people who do not want to be polyamorous to not be. Just so long as they let me be as I am wired to be.

By the way, spiritually I practice polygamy... I consider myself married both to my husband of 17+ years, and to my boyfriend of 6+ years. I have tied myself to both of them via religious ceremony, although I cannot be legally married to both... and tome, that's all that really matters.

Morrighu

I'm sure this has been corrected reapeatedly, but it's Polyandry and Polygyny. These and group marraige fall under the heading of Polygamy. Now I will read the thread.

Sorry. My mistake.

It's a poorly laid out article. Polyamory is right above the section on serial monogomy.

All polygamous relationships are polyamorous but not all polyamourus relationships are polygamous.

I am not excusing anything, I was merely pointing out that you were neglecting a large portion of the topic at hand. And if you "couldn't care less about 'the talk'" why are you posting on this topic to begin with?

When I posted the thread, I was really talking about both. Sorry for the confusion, everyone.

This thread is full of rationalizations and bad arguments all trying to justify nothing more than wanting to condone people acting out on their base urges, as the beast of the field do, to explain why they want to act like the dogs and pigs do and we should all just smile about it.

Nothing but bogus justifications for illicit behaviors, random excuses for horrendous conduct, illogical validations of all kinds trying to endorse the idea that the rest of society needs to accept them behaving like animals, as if somehow that choice could ever be thought of as a ‘reasonable’ choice. But it’s all hogwash, they can act like pigs if they want to and treat themselves like dirt, but don’t expect the rest of society to pat them on the back and say “I’m okay you’re okay,” because they aren’t okay, they want to act like animals and they don’t understand the difference between civilized humanity and a herd of cattle.


Humans are animals. And they act like other animals all the time. Haven't you ever heard of a certain three letter word? Begins with a "W".

Just because, like me, polyamory isn't right for you, doesn't mean that others aren't entitled to make their own choices about it. I don't want any part of it, but at the same time, I can't say that it's wrong if no one is hurting anyone.

Wow. I don’t even know where to begin. Such hatred and vitriol. I am 99% sure you are just a troll, but just in case, please seek professional counseling.

What happened to you that you are so adamantly against having emotional attachments with people? What has made human contact so abhorrent to you? Please do yourself and those who care about you a favor; have a chat with a psychiatrist about relationships and intimacy. If you are the morally correct and well-balanced individual you scream that you are then what’s the harm? Perhaps, just perhaps, you could really use some help.

It's interesting that you think I am full of hatred and vitriol, and that I am screaming something. Plain and straight forward talk, that's all.

I can describe my neighbor's dog in the same way, and we’ll see that I’m not screaming or full of hate for the subject matter. She has a regular boyfriend most of the time, but when she's in heat she'll copulate with any other dog in the vicinity, anything that that will mount her basically. She does this because she doesn't make rationale choices, she doesn’t need to, she's a dog. But if anyone wants to take her as an example, as a role-model for their own behavior, perhaps they would also like to know that she eats her own vomit and rolls on dead animal carcasses whenever she gets the chance as well. None of this means that I don't like her though, she's a good dog, I like her very much. If my friends told me that I started acting like a dog myself though, THAT's when I think it would be time to go get some help.

What are your views on polyamory, polygamy, polyandry?
You seem to be trying to be careful about phrasing, so I wanted to let you know, polyamory refers to multiple loves, or multiple emotional romantic attachments, without gender specification. polygamy refers to multiple marriages, without gender specification. polygyny refers to having multiple wives, and polyandry refers to having multiple husbands.

Humans are animals. And they act like other animals all the time. Haven't you ever heard of a certain three letter word? Begins with a "W".

Wee? War? Win?

Humans are animals. And they act like other animals all the time. Haven't you ever heard of a certain three letter word? Begins with a "W".

And some animals kill their spouse's pups (from a disposed mate perhaps) so that they can have their own young instead of raising someone else’s. This is certainly no justification that we should accept the same behavior in people, just because you say we are animals too doesn’t mean we should act like them.


Just because, like me, polyamory isn't right for you, doesn't mean that others aren't entitled to make their own choices about it. I don't want any part of it, but at the same time, I can't say that it's wrong if no one is hurting anyone.

INdividual people WILL make their own choices, and society WILL make it's collective choice as well. In this case, civilized society will choose not to endorse people act like animals simply because they refuse to control themselves.

Wee? War? Win?

The middle one.

You seem to be trying to be careful about phrasing, so I wanted to let you know, polyamory refers to multiple loves, or multiple emotional romantic attachments, without gender specification. polygamy refers to multiple marriages, without gender specification. polygyny refers to having multiple wives, and polyandry refers to having multiple husbands.

Yeah, me and another dude went over this ad nauseam.

You seem to be trying to be careful about phrasing, so I wanted to let you know, polyamory refers to multiple loves, or multiple emotional romantic attachments, without gender specification. polygamy refers to multiple marriages, without gender specification. polygyny refers to having multiple wives, and polyandry refers to having multiple husbands.

I know, several people have pointed it out. I apologize for the confusion.

I know, several people have pointed it out. I apologize for the confusion.

Well, now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

*G. I. JOE*

I know, several people have pointed it out. I apologize for the confusion.

Don't worry, I'm sure someone new will point it out again on page 13 and again on page 16 ect.

But now I'm confused. Was I confused about the poll? Although, we don't have to derail this thread again to discuss it.

The middle one.

As far as I know, we're the only animal that has wars. Murder of one's own species exists in the animal kingdom but war appears to be a human phenomena.

Nothing but bogus justifications for illicit behaviors, random excuses for horrendous conduct, Sex is horrendous conduct?

She does this because she doesn't make rationale choices, she doesn’t need to, she's a dog. Define "rational", and then demonstrate why polyamory doesn't fit your definition.

As far as I know, we're the only animal that has wars. Murder of one's own species exists in the animal kingdom but war appears to be a human phenomena.

Chimps do it, actually. Tribes have borders and they plan attacks on the other tribe, with the intention of killing them.

The only difference I can really see is that we have a bigger population and more efficient means of killing each other, and our justifications are sometimes more complicated, though often not.

Sex is horrendous conduct?

Define "rational", and then demonstrate why polyamory doesn't fit your definition.

Ha ha, humans, rational? Ha ha ha. Most of us are quite irrational I'd say. I know I am.

Pootwaddle is, as he can't give a rational reason why it's wrong. Polyamory/polygamy isn't for me either, but at least I don't try to pretend that my discomfort with it is rational.

Im coming into this a bit late in the discussion...I didnt really feel like reading ten whole pages...

I dont personally see any issues with polyamory, except for the jealousy factor. If you have it in you to love more than one person at once, then yay. The world needs more love!

Polygamy, on the other hand, I am not so fond of...I feel a marriage is between two people, and that's it.

Yaaaaay for love!

Callisdrun:
"Chimps do it, actually. Tribes have borders and they plan attacks on the other tribe, with the intention of killing them."

Now, I'd heard of dolphin gangrape and gorilla cannibalism but this is a new one to me. I'm going to check this out myself as I've previously encountered research on primates, especially chimpanzees, which turned out to be both highly biased and poorly done.

I know ant colonize will "war" against on another and sometimes raid the nests of other ant species for eggs, which they raise and then use as a sort of lower worker's caste.

Im coming into this a bit late in the discussion...I didnt really feel like reading ten whole pages...
Congratulations on not using any n00b smilies in your first post. BTW 10 pages is relatively small for threads in this forum.

..and you aren't commenting on the wording in the poll.:p


Polygamy, on the other hand, I am not so fond of...I feel a marriage is between two people, and that's it.

Yaaaaay for love!

I don't think marriage should be a legal proposition at all. It's a religious proposition and it is therefore up to your religion to define it. However they choose to define it

Callisdrun:
"Chimps do it, actually. Tribes have borders and they plan attacks on the other tribe, with the intention of killing them."

Now, I'd heard of dolphin gangrape and gorilla cannibalism but this is a new one to me. I'm going to check this out myself as I've previously encountered research on primates, especially chimpanzees, which turned out to be both highly biased and poorly done.

I know ant colonize will "war" against on another and sometimes raid the nests of other ant species for eggs, which they raise and then use as a sort of lower worker's caste.

Well, my source is Nature, as viewed on PBS a while ago.

Look, here's my view on marriage:
Any number of consenting adults should be able to organize themselves however they want.

BTW, Pootwaddle, just because animals do this too doesn't mean human's shouldn't do it. Animals breath, animals eat, animals fuck. If humans stopped doing any of those three things we'd go extinct.
What you're doing is pretty much just a strange version of ad hominem, and I will point out to you that for every bad thing an animal does, there is a reason for why it is bad that is not "my dog does it". Find that reason here, and then maybe we can have a decent argument.

I think it would undo feminism only if women let it.
Women allowed and aided the conditions that made feminism necessary in the first place. Legalise polyamorous marriages and I guarantee you'll get a patriarchal society within three generations.

If thats the case I want a 4 way. I am a man afterall and I don't do dudes. So its actually the hetero in me that would say fuck no. Throw in a chick and let the shit fly. I am a social conservative, but I am still human.:)
Knowing your age, this makes me chuckle.

I am a man...too much of a man to let another penis anywhere near mine! Penis is the worlds nastiest feature!
You really are juvenile.

Ha ha, humans, rational? Ha ha ha. Most of us are quite irrational I'd say. I know I am.

Pootwaddle is, as he can't give a rational reason why it's wrong. Polyamory/polygamy isn't for me either, but at least I don't try to pretend that my discomfort with it is rational.

Rationality is found in the results of the actions, in the outcome... Predicting and getting a successful outcome is a rationale choice, predicting a good outcome but getting a bad outcome when everyone told you it was a bad prediction to begin with is bad rationalizing.


Monogamous goes with words like…
Loyal
Faithful
Unselfish
Persevering
Dedicated
Giving
Reliable
Trustable
Patient
Generous
Sincere
Devoted
Family first, myself second, I’m responsible to help them first.

Polyandrous goes with words like…
Fickle
Unpredictable
Inconsistent
Avaricious
Self-serving
Egocentric
Indecisive
Irresolute
Uncommitted
Changeable
Erratic
Me first, get what I want and they can get what they want for themselves.

Rationality is found in the results of the actions, in the outcome... Predicting and getting a successful outcome is a rationale choice, predicting a good outcome but getting a bad outcome when everyone told you it was a bad prediction to begin with is bad rationalizing.

Rational is the same as reasonable. A rationale is a plausible explanation.


Polyandrous goes with words like…
Fickle
Unpredictable
Inconsistent
Avaricious
Self-serving
Egocentric
Indecisive
Irresolute
Uncommitted
Changeable
Erratic
Me first, get what I want and they can get what they want for themselves.

Polyandrous is not a word.

Polyandrous is not a word.

Yes it is.

Polyandry
Main Entry: poly·an·dry
Pronunciation: 'pä-lE-"an-drE
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek polyandros, adjective, having many husbands, from poly- + andr-, anEr man, husband -- more at ANDR-
: the state or practice of having more than one husband or male mate at one time -- compare POLYGAMY, POLYGYNY
- poly·an·drous
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Polyandrous

Yes it is.

Polyandry
Main Entry: poly·an·dry
Pronunciation: 'pä-lE-"an-drE
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek polyandros, adjective, having many husbands, from poly- + andr-, anEr man, husband -- more at ANDR-
: the state or practice of having more than one husband or male mate at one time -- compare POLYGAMY, POLYGYNY
- poly·an·drous
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Polyandrous

I knew I shouldn't have looked in a pocket dictionary... They always abridge those things...

You really are juvenile.



:rolleyes:


Such awesome intelligence...Your maturity and near perfect debate style and way with words...just wow..You must be a straight D- student. :rolleyes:

Any sort of sexual and social arangement should be alowed as long as people involved are consentual adults.
If either children are involved, or somoene in the arrangement don't have a choice. Then its horrible.
If fully sane grown up people want to have threesomes, group marriages, line marriages, poliamory, poliandry I don't think its ANYONES buisness but their own.

Monogamous goes with words like…
Loyal
Faithful
Unselfish
Persevering
Dedicated
Giving
Reliable
Trustable
Patient
Generous
Sincere
Devoted
Family first, myself second, I’m responsible to help them first.

I *really* do not see why all those words would not go with a group marriage. One would even think that people willing to take responsibility for a whole "tribe" instead of just their own offspring and single partner are far more dedicated, generous, giving etc.

I hold marrige in very high regard, I believe in being faithful 100%.

To show some support for the underdog, I happen to agree that the Judeo-Christian marriage bond is one that should not be perverted with post-industrial Western Liberalism, and of course, polyamory.

Fight me should you so choose, that is merely my opinion, I understand that you perhaps have different opinions, and hey whatever, disagreement happens but the smite-ster here just happens to share my opinion, along with, almost comically, Pootwaddle (and seemingly a minority of others), who had an interesting 'discussion' with me about the male role in childcare... good times.

To show some support for the underdog, I happen to agree that the Judeo-Christian marriage bond is one that should not be perverted with post-industrial Western Liberalism, and of course, polyamory.

I hope you realise that the monogamous version of the Judeo-Christian marriage bond is in a sense a "perversion" of the original polygamic one ?
Remember - Abraham had multiple wives ;) (though not as many as Solomon...)

I hope you realise that the monogamous version of the Judeo-Christian marriage bond is in a sense a "perversion" of the original polygamic one ?
Remember - Abraham had multiple wives ;)



Hey, thats not cool! You should never use their own texts against them! SHAME ON YOU!

Hmm, I recall a great deal of group marraige in the Bible.

King David had eight wives and ten concubines.

I hope you realise that the monogamous version of the Judeo-Christian marriage bond is in a sense a "perversion" of the original polygamic one ?
Remember - Abraham had multiple wives ;) (though not as many as Solomon...)

Right, and both happen to be exceptions to standard 'rules' Abraham was before any such views on polyamory came along, and Solomon was a king, in a time when marriage sealed alliances (and concubines provided heirs) multiple wives was ina different context to actual polyamory....

Hmm, I recall a great deal of group marraige in the Bible.

King David had eight wives and ten concubines.

Solomon had 400 wives, and 700 concubines, but read my above post.

Also noted in the Bible are instances where polygamy resulted in negative consequences...

It's not once noted in the Bible that, specifically, polygamy is bad. However, there are many instances that quote that a man leaves his father and mother to be married with a woman, signifying that a man cannot a) leave his parents more than once or b) marry more than one woman, depending on your view.

Also noted in the Bible are instances where polygamy resulted in negative consequences...

It's not once noted in the Bible that, specifically, polygamy is bad. However, there are many instances that quote that a man leaves his father and mother to be married with a woman, signifying that a man cannot a) leave his parents more than once or b) marry more than one woman, depending on your view.


What you're looking for is: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Of course, Exodus 21:10 gives instuctions on how to treat a second wife, so one doubts that God was against the practice.

so what? The greeks espoused having sex with little boys. SHould we listen to them as well? They're both old assed ideas, which don't make much sense to some people today. Why should we be arsed or demanded to follow them any more?

This thread is full of rationalizations and bad arguments all trying to justify nothing more than wanting to condone people acting out on their base urges, as the beast of the field do, to explain why they want to act like the dogs and pigs do and we should all just smile about it.

Animals form monogamous pair bonds. Animals have sex. Animals make babies. I guess this means that monogamous unions, sex, and procreation are all "illicit behaviors" and "horrendous conduct."

It's also funny that you should use pigs and dogs as your example species. Bush pigs and warthogs have been observed to be monogamous, and the majority of the canids are monogamous as well.

so what? The greeks espoused having sex with little boys. SHould we listen to them as well? They're both old assed ideas, which don't make much sense to some people today. Why should we be arsed or demanded to follow them any more?
In my humble opinion, it is profoundly stupid to decide that something is moral simply because it's what people used to do a long time ago.

Monogamous goes with words like…
Loyal
Faithful
Unselfish
Persevering
Dedicated
Giving
Reliable
Trustable
Patient
Generous
Sincere
Devoted
Family first, myself second, I’m responsible to help them first..

Or possibly the words?

Insular
Exclusionary
Distancing
Removed
Unwelcoming
Unsharing
Keep out, don't come near us, we are for ourselves alone and all outsiders are turned away at the gate...


Polyandrous goes with words like…
Fickle
Unpredictable
Inconsistent
Avaricious
Self-serving
Egocentric
Indecisive
Irresolute
Uncommitted
Changeable
Erratic
Me first, get what I want and they can get what they want for themselves.

Or how about these?

Involving
Welcoming
Sharing
Flexible
Loving
Supporting
Community minded, love thy neighbor, bring more people into the fold, care for others not just ourselves, good Samaritan, willing to include others...


The point I am trying to make is that your lists are entirely arbitrary and based on your own personal prejudice. Polyandry can provide a STRONGER family, as there are more members to fall back on if one should stumble. In a monogamous marriage, there is only one other person to pick you up if you should fall. Multiple marriage can give children a more stable support base; if you need a parent, there are always some around to take care of you. In a multiple marriage, if one partner dies, the rest of the family is not left to fend for itself with a single parent. If one member falls sick, there are plenty of others to take care of her/him. And love is not divided, it is multiplied.

It is not a system that works for everyone. But it does work, and work well, for many.

Women allowed and aided the conditions that made feminism necessary in the first place. Legalise polyamorous marriages and I guarantee you'll get a patriarchal society within three generations.

Given that we already have a patriarchal culture, I don't think we'd have to wait three generations.

Furthermore, whether or not women "allowed and aided" patriarchy in the past, women have fought for every single right and every measure of equality that we have. This has been done despite entrenched patriarchy stretching back hundreds, even thousands, of years.

Monogamy certainly hasn't done a damn thing to stop patriarchy from being imposed, nor has it stopped women from fighting back against said patriarchy. Why should polyamory be any different?

I *really* do not see why all those words would not go with a group marriage. One would even think that people willing to take responsibility for a whole "tribe" instead of just their own offspring and single partner are far more dedicated, generous, giving etc.
Some people seem to sincerely believe that a person has a finite amount of love that they are able to give, and that a person can only love a very small, limited number of people.

Many also believe that it is impossible for somebody to love unless they personally "own" another being; for instance, men are supposedly unable to love a woman who is not his exclusive property, and are also supposedly unable to love any child that does not biologically belong to them.

I assume that the people who believe these things must believe them because it's how they, personally, feel. I feel sorry for them if that is the case.

As far as I know, we're the only animal that has wars. Murder of one's own species exists in the animal kingdom but war appears to be a human phenomena.
Actually, most social (i.e. living in groups, packs, or tribes) predators tend to fight each other over land and resources, much like humans do. Humans only do it in a more high-tech manner, with stealth ICBM flamethrowing tanks instead of teeth and claws.

Ha ha, humans, rational? Ha ha ha. Most of us are quite irrational I'd say. I know I am.
Despite our supposed logic and reason, 95% of humanity has no common sense at all, i.e. no rationality. That's why I founded the SPC -- the Sane People's Coalition -- in the first place.


Monogamous goes with words like…
Loyal
Faithful
Unselfish
Persevering
Dedicated
Giving
Reliable
Trustable
Patient
Generous
Sincere
Devoted
Family first, myself second, I’m responsible to help them first.
It does? I don't see why you can't have all of those things in polygamy too.


Polyandrous goes with words like…
Fickle
Unpredictable
Inconsistent
Avaricious
Self-serving
Egocentric
Indecisive
Irresolute
Uncommitted
Changeable
Erratic
Me first, get what I want and they can get what they want for themselves.
a) That means indecisive or erratic or inconsistent people. Polyamorists aren't indecisive or erratic or inconsistent; they're apparently capable of loving multiple people and treat all of them the same way, like monogamous spouses. It's probably difficult to understand unless you actually are one, and I'm just going by what they say (I don't really understand love at all in the first place),

Such awesome intelligence...Your maturity and near perfect debate style and way with words...just wow..You must be a straight D- student. :rolleyes:
I bow to your superior abilities in verbally addressing sarcasm, o thou for whom "overkill" has no meaning.

To show some support for the underdog, I happen to agree that the Judeo-Christian marriage bond is one that should not be perverted with post-industrial Western Liberalism, and of course, polyamory.
I agree. The Judeo-Christian marriage should not be perverted by earthly, imperfect laws and tax codes, either. Ditto Muslim and Hindu and Shinto marriages. That's why I'm in favour of abolishing the legal institution of marriage altogether.

In my humble opinion, it is profoundly stupid to decide that something is moral simply because it's what people used to do a long time ago.
Actually, the whole idea of trying to decide that something is "right" or "wrong" for others is pure hubris. Let people decide their own morality for themselves; don't claim "X is wrong!" or "Y is right!" because all you'll succeed in doing is attempting to make decisions for others, who may well disagree.

/2¢
I assume that the people who believe these things must believe them because it's how they, personally, feel. I feel sorry for them if that is the case.

That's quite true. I used to believe love was impossible because I wasn't capable of feeling it, so why should anyone else?

(then again, I was 15 at the time so how "capable" I was of feeling anything is debatable. Carry on.)

Some people seem to sincerely believe that a person has a finite amount of love that they are able to give, and that a person can only love a very small, limited number of people.

When, in fact, the heart, like any other muscle, grows stronger and more able the more you use it. Exercise it by loving more people, not less!

Many also believe that it is impossible for somebody to love unless they personally "own" another being; for instance, men are supposedly unable to love a woman who is not his exclusive property, and are also supposedly unable to love any child that does not biologically belong to them.

When, in fact, love is (according to the very wise Robert Heinlein) the condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own. Slavery is not a well known cause of happiness, and as such, not particularly a good precursor to love. And some of the most loving people (especially, it seems, in the field of religion) are often those with no children of their own... (consider, for instance, Mother Theresa, or Jesus) whose love for others is legendary.

I assume that the people who believe these things must believe them because it's how they, personally, feel. I feel sorry for them if that is the case.

And I wonder if people who believe those things have ever actually experienced love. I wonder if those people experience the feelings of possesiveness and assume that is love. Sad, really.

Hmm, I recall a great deal of group marraige in the Bible.

King David had eight wives and ten concubines.

Solomon "the wise" had even more.

I am currently in a polyamorous relationship with Poliwanacraca, Sarah Polley, Pauly Shore and Polly the cloned sheep.

You are? Man, I never thought I'd see the day when I was sharing a partner with a dead sheep... :p


To answer the actual question posed in this thread, polyamory is one of those things where I don't personally like it one little bit, but I absolutely support other people's rights to do it. It doesn't fit at all within my definition of love, but I'm reasonable and sane enough to recognize that my definition of love isn't everyone's (nor should it be). I have quite a few poly friends, and I can't conceive of objecting to their relationships. They're adults. They make their own decisions, and if those decisions make them happy and no one gets hurt, what possible cause would I have to complain?