NationStates Jolt Archive

So I told some people at a group dinner that I want to be a polygamist and start a group marriage with other couples. I got some evil stares and some head shakes and nobody responded to me. Now I realize that religions like Christianity stigmatize polygamy and that recently, some polygamists in Utah were caught having sex with underage teens, but how many of you actually believe polygamy is bad? If you do think its bad, can you elaborate on why?

I think it's easily abused........but so is just about everything else. I don't really care as long as everyone is of age and consenting and not being abused.

You can be a polygamist in most Muslim nations. However you are required for the most part to get permission from the first wife. You also need a residence for every wife. You also need to make enough money to support them. So it may sound like a swell plan but I think it would be more of a headache than anything.

In-Laws. Nuff said.

You want to have two or more wives? Are you insane?

So I told some people at a group dinner that I want to be a polygamist and start a group marriage with other couples. I got some evil stares and some head shakes and nobody responded to me. Now I realize that religions like Christianity stigmatize polygamy and that recently, some polygamists in Utah were caught having sex with underage teens, but how many of you actually believe polygamy is bad? If you do think its bad, can you elaborate on why?

I don't think polygamy is any worse than having more than one non-marriage relationship in rapid succession. It's probably better, in fact, because at least all of your wives know you're sleeping with other women.

Of course, I don't think multiple non-married partners is good. It seems like it would be inherently unequal to the wives, and I just don't think a person can be truly committed to marriage with more than one person. I may be wrong, though.

You can be a polygamist in most Muslim nations. However you are required for the most part to get permission from the first wife. You also need a residence for every wife. You also need to make enough money to support them. So it may sound like a swell plan but I think it would be more of a headache than anything.

Yeah, one guy and a bunch of girls doesn't sound very plausible to me.

If all parties involved are willing and consenting to the relationship then there is no problem with these parties being involved in such an arrangement.

Polygamy is only bad when there is coercion. If people are unable to make their own choices and are forced into a corner where this is there only choice, then polygamy in itself is bad. As in the case involving FLDS.

It should remain a choice for adults who are willing and are able to make an informed decision. They are able to freely enter and leave as with a monogamous relationship.

If all parties involved are willing and consenting to the relationship then there is no problem with these parties being involved in such an arrangement.

Polygamy is only bad when there is coercion. If people are unable to make their own choices and are forced into a corner where this is there only choice, then polygamy in itself is bad. As in the case involving FLDS.

It should remain a choice for adults who are willing and are able to make an informed decision. They are able to freely enter and leave as with a monogamous relationship.

Well, to be fair, the same is true for monogamous marriages.

Sadly enough polygamy is an easily abused system. Besides the FLDS it's another way to leech off of the welfare system.

Well, under certain conditions. All partners must be of age, and of informed consent. And it must be legal for there to be multiple wives and husbands. I've heard of a foursome, two men and two women. So not just one guy with many women. Or, perhaps a group of women or a group of men, etc.

Well, to be fair, the same is true for monogamous marriages.
Yes, that's true. Abuse in polygamy is seen as worse because it's more publicized.

I personally am not 'mature' enough to live in a polygamist situation, my man is MINE and I won't share him with some skank.

Multiple sex/love/whatever partners = fine.
Multiple spouses = not fine.

I don't care if people have one partner or 17, but you can't milk the system for 17 people's health insurances.

Obligatory Wikipedia nod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy)

I think it comes down to consent. Adults in control of their lives should be able to construct any sexual arrangements they want. That said, I can see where the various forms of polygamy would be riotously unstable. Group marriages sound like a headache, and I don't think its a coincidence that polygyny most often occurs in settings were women are socially subordinated. Serial monogamy is working out for me just fine, thanks. But you fill your boots.

So I told some people at a group dinner that I want to be a polygamist and start a group marriage with other couples. I got some evil stares and some head shakes and nobody responded to me. Now I realize that religions like Christianity stigmatize polygamy and that recently, some polygamists in Utah were caught having sex with underage teens, but how many of you actually believe polygamy is bad? If you do think its bad, can you elaborate on why?

I do wonder why you would choose to just suddenly announce this to a group of people at dinner . . .

I mean I'm all in favor of consenting adults doing what ever the hell they want with each other but you would have gotten a weird look from me as well due the the "why the hell are you telling ME, and WHY NOW?" factor.

Multiple sex/love/whatever partners = fine.
Multiple spouses = not fine.

I don't care if people have one partner or 17, but you can't milk the system for 17 people's health insurances.

Yeah, the whole system is really prejudice towards 2 person marriages.

Yeah, one guy and a bunch of girls doesn't sound very plausible to me.

Probably works best if the women are just as into each other as they are the guy.

Probably works best if the women are just as into each other as they are the guy.

I was gonna say, doesn't sound too bad. :p But a more equal ratio of guys to women is preferable. Spice of life, and all, and you know how straight guys feel about lesbians...? It works the other way 'round, too. ;)

I think anti polygamy laws are goofy in this day and age at any rate. If we're going to say the Government has no right to tell homosexual couples they can't marry, then why would it have the right to tell people that they get one and only one spouse?

Think of it this way: If I go out and convince 5 girls to come live with me and all have sex with me, it's perfectly legal. If I start calling them my girlfriends, no problem. If I marry one of them, no problem, even if I keep having sex with them all. Call more than 1 my wife and suddenly I'm a felon.

Polygamy is multiple wives; if you want to talk about group marriages in less gender specific terms, you're talking about polyamory. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being in a committed relationship with more than one person.

If you, personally, cannot give more than one person love and consideration, or cannot stand the thought of your partner being interested in anyone else, those are your own personal issues and you are better off monogamous. Claiming the moral high ground by using force to impose your personal issues on others is blatant hypocrisy.

Likewise, I cannot see how serial monogamy is any better, yet I do not want to throw people who jump from relationship to relationship in jail (or otherwise persecute them for their personal behavior).

Polygamy is multiple wives; if you want to talk about group marriages in less gender specific terms, you're talking about polyamory. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being in a committed relationship with more than one person.

Actually, polygyny is one man with multiple wives. Polygamy is the correct gender-neutral term for marriages with multiple partners. Polyamory is a sexual relationship, not necessarily marriage, with multiple informed, consenting partners. [/nitpick]

Actually, polygyny is one man with multiple wives. Polygamy is the correct gender-neutral term for marriages with multiple partners. Polyamory is a sexual relationship, not necessarily marriage, with multiple informed, consenting partners. [/nitpick]

Ah, jesus, somebody needs to make a glossary of terms for this thread.

you need more options for the its wrong side.

It is not inherently evil.

but it is almost always used by the men involved to control/opress the women involved.

I think its flawed. Who wants two wives? [/obligatory wife bashing]

I'm fine with the concept.

polygamy is like communism in theory it could work and is just a matter of consenting adults.

In practice the husband either plays the wives off against each other, or uses the threat of getting a new younger wife to keep the rest in line.

you need more options for the its wrong side.

It is not inherently evil.

but it is almost always used by the men involved to control/opress the women involved.

I don't think polygyny is necessarily a tool of female oppression, but rather that polygyny "works better" in cultural settings were women are oppressed. In relatively egalitarian societies women would have more options to secure their living and wouldn't have to submit to a polygynous(is that a word?) marriage.

you need more options for the its wrong side.

It is not inherently evil.

but it is almost always used by the men involved to control/opress the women involved.

You keep repeating this errant statement in different threads yet you don't to back it up with proof.

Polygamy does not lead to abuse on its own. There are other, more important factors in abuse cases. For example: men who get hard ons from looking at pictures of kids. That would be a more important factor than if the guy is a polygamist.

You keep repeating this errant statement in different threads yet you don't to back it up with proof.

Polygamy does not lead to abuse on its own. There are other, more important factors in abuse cases. For example: men who get hard ons from looking at pictures of kids. That would be a more important factor than if the guy is a polygamist.

name an egalitarian society where polygamy is a common and socially accepted practice?
name some societies today where polygamy is a legal practice ?
In those little cults found to practice polygamy what normally is the status of the women there ? looked like brainwashed 1800's women to me.

Actually, polygyny is one man with multiple wives. Polygamy is the correct gender-neutral term for marriages with multiple partners. Polyamory is a sexual relationship, not necessarily marriage, with multiple informed, consenting partners. [/nitpick]
Functional usage is polygamy being generally understood to be multiple wives, and is not used as a gender neutral term. Proper formal use is not conducive to communication in many situations - just try correcting the near universal mispronunciation of forte.

Polyamory is multiple romantic involvements, and not purely sexual relationships.
Multiple sexual relationships is called 'normal'. ;)


name an egalitarian society where polygamy is a common and socially accepted practice?
name some societies today where polygamy is a legal practice ?
In those little cults found to practice polygamy what normally is the status of the women there ? looked like brainwashed 1800's women to me.
Polygamy is socially acceptable in a significant segment of egalitarian societies. There is far more to multiple marriages than simply cultists and muslims. I happen to know many polygamous triads (even a few quads). If you are not poly friendly, and it sounds like you are most assuredly not, you would never know. Most poly people tend not to talk about it with bigots.

There is a fantastic example of this after the supreme court heard a sodomy case - Justice Powell (I think) told one of his clerks that he voted that way because he had never met any homosexuals, when ironically enough, his clerk was actually gay.

Forget your stereotype idea of poly relationships - it just isn't accurate. It is just as valid for me to say that 'traditional' marriages are characterized by infidelity and feelings of imprisonment.

Functional usage is polygamy being generally understood to be multiple wives, and is not used as a gender neutral term. Proper formal use is not conducive to communication in many situations - just try correcting the near universal mispronunciation of forte.

Polyamory is multiple romantic involvements, and not purely sexual relationships.
Multiple sexual relationships is called 'normal'. ;)



Polygamy is socially acceptable in a significant segment of egalitarian societies. There is far more to multiple marriages than simply cultists and muslims. I happen to know many polygamous triads (even a few quads). If you are not poly friendly, and it sounds like you are most assuredly not, you would never know. Most poly people tend not to talk about it with bigots.

There is a fantastic example of this after the supreme court heard a sodomy case - Justice Powell (I think) told one of his clerks that he voted that way because he had never met any homosexuals, when ironically enough, his clerk was actually gay.

Forget your stereotype idea of poly relationships - it just isn't accurate. It is just as valid for me to say that 'traditional' marriages are characterized by infidelity and feelings of imprisonment.
I am sorry.
Please let me clarify my request by society I am referring to something a bit larger then just a community. More along the lines of a nation state.

Also thank you, While you were not able to name any of the egalitarian polygamy that you referenced, You were able however to name several of the non egalitarian societies proving my point that the latter is much more common then the former.

Meh, as long as everyone are adults and, consents to it, I don't care.

Functional usage is polygamy being generally understood to be multiple wives, and is not used as a gender neutral term. Proper formal use is not conducive to communication in many situations - just try correcting the near universal mispronunciation of forte.

Well, if you're talking a general enough understanding, the western mainstream likely hasn't thought about/discussed polyandry or group marriage enough to even dignify them with names. So if polygamy means "one man multiple wives" to the general public, its because their imaginations haven't been sufficiently broadened to consider other poly arrangements. But now we're really splitting hairs. ;)

Polyamory is multiple romantic involvements, and not purely sexual relationships.
Multiple sexual relationships is called 'normal'. ;)


Yeah, I run in the wrong circles.

I believe it all comes down to why. If the society you are part of has an abundance of females compared to males, then polygyny may be appropriate. Similarly, if the converse were true, then polyandry may be appropriate. Also, very warlike societies might embrace polygamy in consideration of orphans, due to high losses of one sex by war.

I am not aware of any society in todays world which really fits the above to actually need to follow polygamist practices unless perhaps you start looking at bloodlines. In large, sexually balanced, and mixed bloodline societies (ie. mainstream societies), polygamy is hardly necessary, and in fact, is likely to be detrimental to the society as a whole. The irony of which I will omit for another thread.

I believe it all comes down to why. If the society you are part of has an abundance of females compared to males, then polygyny may be appropriate. Similarly, if the converse were true, then polyandry may be appropriate. Also, very warlike societies might embrace polygamy in consideration of orphans, due to high losses of one sex by war.

I am not aware of any society in todays world which really fits the above to actually need to follow polygamist practices unless perhaps you start looking at bloodlines. In large, sexually balanced, and mixed bloodline societies (ie. mainstream societies), polygamy is hardly necessary, and in fact, is likely to be detrimental to the society as a whole. The irony of which I will omit for another thread.

So you would assume that the normal form of relationship is monogamy? And that in order to differ from this, special exceptional circumstances must come to play?
What do you base this assumption on, precisely? And why would you assume that anything but monogamy would be detrimential to society?

To answer the OP, I've got an open relationship and like it that way. But I don't think I would consider marrying more than one person of either sex, mostly because I'm not too happy with too many people around me.

polyamoury is a very good thing, when its even handed on both sides of the bed. if and when its handled in such a way as to not create insecurities.

if its contrary to someone's belief, well everyone is welcome to their own beliefs, but there's no moral legitimacy in forcing those beliefs onto others.

the heart is not monogamous.

what is a not so good thing is human firtility being as high as it is, vis a vis life span.

which is almost completely a seperate issue.

i consider laws that force people into monogamy who don't personally in their heart of hearts believe in it, are utterly imoral laws. and the nations which force and enforce them are as well for doing so.

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

Meh, if they're happy(actually happy, not crazy person being abused but not realising happy) then let them have at it.

So you would assume that the normal form of relationship is monogamy? And that in order to differ from this, special exceptional circumstances must come to play?
What do you base this assumption on, precisely? And why would you assume that anything but monogamy would be detrimential to society?

<snip>


No, I would not assume that (without consideration of societal circumstance) the normal form of relationship is monogamy. Personally, I believe that monogamy as a human standard is quite abnormal.

The only assertion I made is that the society in question will dictate what will be the norm, based on societal circumstance. My example of a large, sexually balanced, mixed bloodline society in which (implied) monogamy is the norm, would necessarily be at odds with a subset that chose to practice polygamy.

The polygamist society is likely to be detrimental to the parent, monogamous, society because; first of all, it is in defiance of what the norm is in the parent society, but more-so it is no longer abiding by the societal norm of sexual balance and mixed bloodline.

No, I would not assume that (without consideration of societal circumstance) the normal form of relationship is monogamy. Personally, I believe that monogamy as a human standard is quite abnormal.

The only assertion I made is that the society in question will dictate what will be the norm, based on societal circumstance. My example of a large, sexually balanced, mixed bloodline society in which (implied) monogamy is the norm, would necessarily be at odds with a subset that chose to practice polygamy.

The polygamist society is likely to be detrimental to the parent, monogamous, society because; first of all, it is in defiance of what the norm is in the parent society, but more-so it is no longer abiding by the societal norm of sexual balance and mixed bloodline.

I think you'll find that society not always dictates the number of spouses an individual can or must have.
Take the most apparent and recent example of traditional Muslim societies : polygamy is an option, not a duty. In fact, polygamy is only allowed if all the potential wives can be cared for in that same way by the husband, new wives only to be taken on with the consent of the other wives.

A man without the financial means might well stay monogamous, even in a polygamous society.

So I told some people at a group dinner that I want to be a polygamist and start a group marriage with other couples. I got some evil stares and some head shakes and nobody responded to me. Now I realize that religions like Christianity stigmatize polygamy and that recently, some polygamists in Utah were caught having sex with underage teens, but how many of you actually believe polygamy is bad? If you do think its bad, can you elaborate on why?
Gotta be honest, if I hear a dude talking about how awesome polygamy is, my first assumption is that he's a loser who probably can't get ONE woman, let alone have multiple wives.

I don't have any problem with polygamy as a concept, it's just that the overwhelming majority of its earthly proponents seem to be d-bags.

Polygamy was spawned out of economic necessity in third world countries. Polygamists in this country are doing it for other reasons than necessity and should be slapped.
Seems like it is for mere sexual escapades than anything else. Still can't figure out why even the most homely of women would consent to that mess in this country. If you want drama then a horde of griping women is for you!

So I told some people at a group dinner that I want to be a polygamist and start a group marriage with other couples. I got some evil stares and some head shakes and nobody responded to me. Now I realize that religions like Christianity stigmatize polygamy and that recently, some polygamists in Utah were caught having sex with underage teens, but how many of you actually believe polygamy is bad? If you do think its bad, can you elaborate on why?

I'm with Smunkee on this one, it can be abused, but I see nothing wrong with the idea.

Obviously the most important thing is consent. If the first spouse is fine with it, and obviously the second one is as well, it's not really hurting anyone.

I am against hypocritical, double-standard polygamy as it is practiced in some splinter sects of the Mormon faith and Islam. I am of the opinion, that if it is legal for men to have multiple wives, it should also be legal for women to have multiple husbands. Furthermore, since I am for homosexuals' rights to marriage, if polygamy is legal, homosexual polygamy should be as well.

Just my two cents.

Polygamy is almost always justified on frivolous religious grounds, and itself represents a form of reactionary social chauvinism which is extremely sexist and basically makes the women the 'harem' of the big man of the house. It's against all concepts of an equal relationship and responsibility. As far as I am concerned polygamy is a watered-down term for perverted and domineering men who want some justification for their behavior.

I some people's concept of consent is a little off, and it ignores the fact that all polygamist relationships come from a religious or otherwise community in which reality is distorted and a profoundly sexist and chauvinist mindset is drilled into the young girl, they are told to submit to their husband. These relationships can never survive prolonged exposure to the outside world, and will only exist in these isolated communities. I see it clearly as a form of oppression.

Polygamy is almost always justified on frivolous religious grounds, and itself represents a form of reactionary social chauvinism which is extremely sexist and basically makes the women the 'harem' of the big man of the house. It's against all concepts of an equal relationship and responsibility. As far as I am concerned polygamy is a watered-down term for perverted and domineering men who want some justification for their behavior.

I some people's concept of consent is a little off, and it ignores the fact that all polygamist relationships come from a religious or otherwise community in which reality is distorted and a profoundly sexist and chauvinist mindset is drilled into the young girl, they are told to submit to their husband. These relationships can never survive prolonged exposure to the outside world, and will only exist in these isolated communities. I see it clearly as a form of oppression.

What if it's one woman with several husbands?

What if it's one woman with several husbands?

So tiny it's irrelevant.

So tiny it's irrelevant.

When did you get to decide what's relevant?

I know people who have several long term relationships at the same time. The one I know best is a woman, who is with a few different men, and I think one other woman.

Your response is a cop-out. It doesn't fit with your dogmatic world-view, so you simply choose to ignore it.

When did you get to decide what's relevant?

I know people who have several long term relationships at the same time. The one I know best is a woman, who is with a few different men, and I think one other woman.

Your response is a cop-out. It doesn't fit with your dogmatic world-view, so you simply choose to ignore it.

Find me more than 10 polygamist families where the female has many male husbands.

If anything your point is a copout, it's like searching for the ever illusive female rapist while ignoring the myriad of male rapes.

Find me more than 10 polygamist families where the female has many male husbands.

If anything your point is a copout, it's like searching for the ever illusive female rapist while ignoring the myriad of male rapes.

How about an entire people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry_in_Tibet)?

I'm not gonna jump right in and say polygamy is bad. I know I wouldn't practice it. I don't find it acceptable because I consider that a man and a woman should involve soley in an exclusive relationship.

Does it work? Only a polygamist can say for sure.

How about an entire people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry_in_Tibet)?

Oh God, if all you can do is quote backward feudal practices long since gone, please leave now....

If all parties involved are willing and consenting to the relationship then there is no problem with these parties being involved in such an arrangement.

Polygamy is only bad when there is coercion. If people are unable to make their own choices and are forced into a corner where this is there only choice, then polygamy in itself is bad. As in the case involving FLDS.

It should remain a choice for adults who are willing and are able to make an informed decision. They are able to freely enter and leave as with a monogamous relationship.

/\ This /\

Oh God, if all you can do is quote backward feudal practices long since gone, please leave now....

You asked for an example of polyandry, you got one. It does happen, and it does exist. And it's a lot more than just a handful of people.

Currently, after collective farming was phased out of in China and the farmed land reverted in the form of long-term leases to individual families, polyandry in Tibet, while still officially illegal, is de facto the norm in rural areas for economic reasons.



... doesn't sound like it's "long gone", does it?

I was gonna say, doesn't sound too bad. :p But a more equal ratio of guys to women is preferable. Spice of life, and all, and you know how straight guys feel about lesbians...? It works the other way 'round, too. ;)

Lesbians are really into straight guys?
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/smiley_scared_thumb.gif

Poligamy breeds terrorists.

I'm not gonna jump right in and say polygamy is bad. I know I wouldn't practice it. I don't find it acceptable because I consider that a man and a woman should involve soley in an exclusive relationship.

Does it work? Only a polygamist can say for sure.

The question to ask at this point is why you think that?

So I told some people at a group dinner that I want to be a polygamist and start a group marriage with other couples. I got some evil stares and some head shakes and nobody responded to me. Now I realize that religions like Christianity stigmatize polygamy and that recently, some polygamists in Utah were caught having sex with underage teens, but how many of you actually believe polygamy is bad? If you do think its bad, can you elaborate on why?

You have an Option 9, but middle ground? It seems like your poll, and inherently the topic isn't serious enough to provoke much forethought from you.

That being said, I don't feel it is naturally good or evil, I believe that God's plan for marriage is monogamous, but I would also say that God's plan for marriage is Christ centered. So I wouldn't say inherently wrong, or evil, not for me, as it does not conform to my beliefs (well, also it's illegal here in the US, so that sways my opinion on a more civil basis). But if someone really thinks that they can handle two (or more!) wives, (or vice versa, I guess, because I won't be 'phallocentric' here) well, I say have at! (again, other than the illegality).

Also, of course, having sex with minors (in the given circumstances, and many others not directly relevant) is wrong IMO, but that of course is not really what this thread is about, I just wanted to clarify that though I'm relatively neutral about polyamory, I'm less neutral about statutory 'rape'

Well, to be fair, the same is true for monogamous marriages.

The only difference is, you don't have to keep that second family secret. :D

Sadly enough polygamy is an easily abused system. Besides the FLDS it's another way to leech off of the welfare system.

Which is why if you legalise it, you have a ratio system that says for each partner who is unemployed, you have to have one that is employed. For odd numbered relationships, this number is rounded to the nearest even number.

That is assuming that the polygamous family unit is adhering to the laws and have a proportionate number employed, this exclude those legally disabled and unable to work.

That is just one example of how it could be done, to allow for multiple spouses without worry of welfare abuse.

Create no special exemption laws.

TO create informed opinions, add polygamous relationships to the comprehensive sexual education programme. Relationships are already discussed.

There are a number of ways to reduce the potential abuse through the use of legislation that makes the relationship legal but still prevents potential abuse.

Multiple sex/love/whatever partners = fine.
Multiple spouses = not fine.

I don't care if people have one partner or 17, but you can't milk the system for 17 people's health insurances.

Which is why you create laws that require a proportional number of people to be employed in order to receive benefits. In fact, you could do it for even monogamous couples who are abusing the welfare system right now.

I'm with Smunkee on this one, it can be abused, but I see nothing wrong with the idea.

Give people time and any system can be horribly abused. I mean, look at what we've done to democracy.

Obviously the most important thing is consent. If the first spouse is fine with it, and obviously the second one is as well, it's not really hurting anyone.

I am against hypocritical, double-standard polygamy as it is practiced in some splinter sects of the Mormon faith and Islam. I am of the opinion, that if it is legal for men to have multiple wives, it should also be legal for women to have multiple husbands. Furthermore, since I am for homosexuals' rights to marriage, if polygamy is legal, homosexual polygamy should be as well.

Just my two cents.

This is well stated. I agree with it. :)

How about an entire people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry_in_Tibet)?

This worth reading. Good find, CW.

The question to ask at this point is why you think that?

My answer is the way that I was raised. I was brought up to believe that a realtionship with a man and a woman should be exclusive. It's just a matter of the way that I was raised.

But as I already stated, I'm not gonna jump in a say that it's bad. I don't really know that. If it works, it works. If people are willing to engage on it, that's their own business. All I know is I would never do it for my own moral values.

My answer is the way that I was raised. I was brought up to believe that a realtionship with a man and a woman should be exclusive. It's just a matter of the way that I was raised.

Another way of saying "I suspect it might be bollocks, but I don't feel like thinking about it"?

Nobody is going to ask you to have 2 husbands and a wife, I mean it's personal preference after all. But to say "this is how it should be cause that's what I've been told when I grew up" is not going to be good enough as an argument, sorry.

My answer is the way that I was raised. I was brought up to believe that a realtionship with a man and a woman should be exclusive. It's just a matter of the way that I was raised.

And there is nopwt wrong with that. I was wondering what the rational was behind it apart form social conditioning I mean.

It is obviouse that many people are capable of loving more than one person, as so I don't see any argument along the lines of 'one person one spouse, is natural' as getting anywhere.

Also I was brought up to be a racist bigot, something that I rebelled strongly against, and so while I understand the whole 'I was brought up thataway' line you can of course rebel agaisnt any upbringing if you do not see any value in it.
Which brings me back to my origianl question of why? what value do you see in a monogamous relationship, that you do not see in a polygamous one?

I never understood this explanation of "it's the way I was raised" as if somehow you'd be forced to do something you disagree with...

The true test, I think, of a moral society is how we can tolerate things we personally find repugnant, but which we still respect as personal rights.

First I confess, I didn't read every post. I may be repeating things already said. That's alright. You can all not read my post too.

I think polygamy is something that is inherently flawed. I mean sure, it's nice to feel desired by many people. And it's great to have other people around around to help with the paying the bills and do the dishes, and the more people there are to mow the lawn the less often it's your turn.

But people want to feel special and chosen. People want attention and nurturing. People want to be the one who is loved.

Additionally, it seems unfair, that polygamy seems to always mean a man with many wives. That marginalizes women. Why would anyone want a marginalized spouse?

The only difference is, you don't have to keep that second family secret. :D



Which is why if you legalise it, you have a ratio system that says for each partner who is unemployed, you have to have one that is employed. For odd numbered relationships, this number is rounded to the nearest even number.

That is assuming that the polygamous family unit is adhering to the laws and have a proportionate number employed, this exclude those legally disabled and unable to work.

That is just one example of how it could be done, to allow for multiple spouses without worry of welfare abuse.

Create no special exemption laws.

TO create informed opinions, add polygamous relationships to the comprehensive sexual education programme. Relationships are already discussed.

There are a number of ways to reduce the potential abuse through the use of legislation that makes the relationship legal but still prevents potential abuse.



Which is why you create laws that require a proportional number of people to be employed in order to receive benefits. In fact, you could do it for even monogamous couples who are abusing the welfare system right now.



Give people time and any system can be horribly abused. I mean, look at what we've done to democracy.



This is well stated. I agree with it. :)



This worth reading. Good find, CW.

Seriously, you win the thread.

And there is nopwt wrong with that. I was wondering what the rational was behind it apart form social conditioning I mean.

It is obviouse that many people are capable of loving more than one person, as so I don't see any argument along the lines of 'one person one spouse, is natural' as getting anywhere.

Also I was brought up to be a racist bigot, something that I rebelled strongly against, and so while I understand the whole 'I was brought up thataway' line you can of course rebel agaisnt any upbringing if you do not see any value in it.
Which brings me back to my origianl question of why? what value do you see in a monogamous relationship, that you do not see in a polygamous one?

As much as I understand that you can rebel against some traits of the way you were brought up, I've never considered polygamy as an option to rebel against. To me, getting involved in a polygamous relationship isn't something I would do. And yes, one is capable of loving more than one person, but I won't do it at the same time. That's me.

Reason: The heartbreak I would experience by having to share the love of my spouse with someone else.


Cabra West
Another way of saying "I suspect it might be bollocks, but I don't feel like thinking about it"?

Nobody is going to ask you to have 2 husbands and a wife, I mean it's personal preference after all. But to say "this is how it should be cause that's what I've been told when I grew up" is not going to be good enough as an argument, sorry.

I'm not arguing polygamy. If someone wants to engage on it, that's a personal choice. All I know is that my values would never allow me to engage in it. If you feel like that's not a good enough argument, sorry. But once again, I'm not arguing against polygamy.

Why would anyone want a marginalized spouse?

Ohh ohh I know this one, is it coz they are easyer to control?:D

One thing that annoys me to no end is when people try to claim that one system or the other is the "natural" choice, or that all humans MUST desire to be monogamous or MUST desire to be polygamous.

Bull.

Some humans like being monogamous. Some humans prefer being polygamous. Neither is wrong, in and of itself.

It's possible to be an asshole no matter how monogamous you are, just like it's possible to be an asshole if you're polygamous. Both systems have, historically, been revoltingly sexist and oppressive as social institutions. Neither one is perfect, because we're talking about human relationships and humans aren't perfect.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea of being in a polyamorous relationship. I've been in two different trio relationships, as well as being in open relationships in the past, and I've been comfortable with those systems.

However, with my current partner I don't think polygamy would work. I don't think we'd be happy including another person in our relationship. It's not just about your feelings as an individual, it's also about your partner(s)'s feelings AND the dynamic of your relationship.

Short version: different strokes for different folks.

You have an Option 9, but middle ground? It seems like your poll, and inherently the topic isn't serious enough to provoke much forethought from you.

That being said, I don't feel it is naturally good or evil, I believe that God's plan for marriage is monogamous, but I would also say that God's plan for marriage is Christ centered. So I wouldn't say inherently wrong, or evil, not for me, as it does not conform to my beliefs (well, also it's illegal here in the US, so that sways my opinion on a more civil basis). But if someone really thinks that they can handle two (or more!) wives, (or vice versa, I guess, because I won't be 'phallocentric' here) well, I say have at! (again, other than the illegality).

Also, of course, having sex with minors (in the given circumstances, and many others not directly relevant) is wrong IMO, but that of course is not really what this thread is about, I just wanted to clarify that though I'm relatively neutral about polyamory, I'm less neutral about statutory 'rape'

Pssh, if your not doing something just because God or the government says you shouldn't, then you need to reconsider your values.

First I confess, I didn't read every post. I may be repeating things already said. That's alright. You can all not read my post too.

I think polygamy is something that is inherently flawed. I mean sure, it's nice to feel desired by many people. And it's great to have other people around around to help with the paying the bills and do the dishes, and the more people there are to mow the lawn the less often it's your turn.

But people want to feel special and chosen. People want attention and nurturing. People want to be the one who is loved.

Additionally, it seems unfair, that polygamy seems to always mean a man with many wives. That marginalizes women. Why would anyone want a marginalized spouse?

There are many polygamists out there who would wholeheartedly contradict your notion that their marriage is flawed.

Polygamy in fact means a marriage between more than two spouses, polygyny would be one man with several wifes, and one women with several husbands would be a case of polyandry. So no, women are not marginalised terminologically here.

I think marriage is what you make of it. In the Western world, there's the prevailing idea that marriage is about the love of a lifetime, lasting until death, prince charming meets Cinderella kind of thing.
It can be, certainly. But it isn't always, not for everyone and not everywhere.
I've been talking to women from East Africa, who were quite happy to live with one husband and several co-wives. And from some accounts I've read, Tibetean husbands are on average happy enough with their one wife. It's all a matter of what the individual sees in it, and hopes to get out of it, really.

You have an Option 9, but middle ground? It seems like your poll, and inherently the topic isn't serious enough to provoke much forethought from you.

That being said, I don't feel it is naturally good or evil, I believe that God's plan for marriage is monogamous, but I would also say that God's plan for marriage is Christ centered. So I wouldn't say inherently wrong, or evil, not for me, as it does not conform to my beliefs (well, also it's illegal here in the US, so that sways my opinion on a more civil basis). But if someone really thinks that they can handle two (or more!) wives, (or vice versa, I guess, because I won't be 'phallocentric' here) well, I say have at! (again, other than the illegality).

Also, of course, having sex with minors (in the given circumstances, and many others not directly relevant) is wrong IMO, but that of course is not really what this thread is about, I just wanted to clarify that though I'm relatively neutral about polyamory, I'm less neutral about statutory 'rape'

Pssh, if your not doing something just because God or the government says you shouldn't, then you need to reconsider your values.

Another way of saying "I suspect it might be bollocks, but I don't feel like thinking about it"?

Nobody is going to ask you to have 2 husbands and a wife, I mean it's personal preference after all. But to say "this is how it should be cause that's what I've been told when I grew up" is not going to be good enough as an argument, sorry.

I would say that its good enough for an opinion though, I don't recall Nanatsu saying anything other than she wouldn't do it.

I would say that its good enough for an opinion though, I don't recall Nanatsu saying anything other than she wouldn't do it.

It's good enough for a personal preference (I'm demanding, and I would demand more from an opinion) ;)

She did indeed edit her post to say it was just her personal stand, but that happened after I had replied...

It's good enough for a personal preference (I'm demanding, and I would demand more from an opinion) ;)

She did indeed edit her post to say it was just her personal stand, but that happened after I had replied...

I didn't notice that she had edited... :(

I think polygamy (and other forms of open relationships) are fine, I can't imagine them working for me, so I wouldn't enter into an open relationship. The only other thing aside from monogamy that I can think of that might work for me is polyfidelity.

Seriously, you win the thread.

If you want an equal system, apply the rules to everybody. With choice, people will most likely just follow their desire. This applies to non-criminal matters that have otherwise been deemed illegal activity.

After all, we're only a few years into the 21st century, and we still see people who insist that homosexuality is not natural and the act of sodomy should be considered illegal, yet most accept it. In time, this will change. Remember, this is just one example of something deemed illegal even when it doesn't hurt other people simply because some wish to control the freedom of others.

In our history, we've oppressed groups for skin and gender.

That has been changed significantly, at least in the modernised, western world.

With knowledge people can make choice and if people want to be in a polygamous relationship, it should be their call. Either way, it shouldn't be forced.

One thing that annoys me to no end is when people try to claim that one system or the other is the "natural" choice, or that all humans MUST desire to be monogamous or MUST desire to be polygamous.

Bull.

Some humans like being monogamous. Some humans prefer being polygamous. Neither is wrong, in and of itself.

It's possible to be an asshole no matter how monogamous you are, just like it's possible to be an asshole if you're polygamous. Both systems have, historically, been revoltingly sexist and oppressive as social institutions. Neither one is perfect, because we're talking about human relationships and humans aren't perfect.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea of being in a polyamorous relationship. I've been in two different trio relationships, as well as being in open relationships in the past, and I've been comfortable with those systems.

However, with my current partner I don't think polygamy would work. I don't think we'd be happy including another person in our relationship. It's not just about your feelings as an individual, it's also about your partner(s)'s feelings AND the dynamic of your relationship.

Short version: different strokes for different folks.

^ This. Very little annoys me more than people who argue that only their personal sexual/romantic preference is "natural," and everyone else is just deluded or repressed. I am monogamous by nature; I have many friends who are very definitely poly, which I find not at all shocking or horrible, but simply not for me. Neither form of relationship is the only way or the way it's "meant" to be, because people are not all cookie-cutter clones who want the exact same things out of relationships.

As for polygamy (as opposed to polyamory), it worries me a bit because it has so often been used in abusive ways. If the polygamous marriage is between genuinely consenting adults, then I certainly have no problem with it. If it's between one 50-year-old man and three 16-year-old girls who have been told that they'll go to hell if they don't agree to it, well, then we've got a problem.

I think polygamy (and other forms of open relationships) are fine, I can't imagine them working for me, so I wouldn't enter into an open relationship. The only other thing aside from monogamy that I can think of that might work for me is polyfidelity.

Agreed. Except I don't really think you can define polygamy as an open relationship. It seems like the definition of polyfidelity, actually.

Agreed. Except I don't really think you can define polygamy as an open relationship. It seems like the definition of polyfidelity, actually.

Agreed. I think polygamy is a commitment to more than one partner. An open relationship is usually commitment to one partner, but no sexual exclusiveness.

No, I would not assume that (without consideration of societal circumstance) the normal form of relationship is monogamy. Personally, I believe that monogamy as a human standard is quite abnormal.

The only assertion I made is that the society in question will dictate what will be the norm, based on societal circumstance. My example of a large, sexually balanced, mixed bloodline society in which (implied) monogamy is the norm, would necessarily be at odds with a subset that chose to practice polygamy.

The polygamist society is likely to be detrimental to the parent, monogamous, society because; first of all, it is in defiance of what the norm is in the parent society, but more-so it is no longer abiding by the societal norm of sexual balance and mixed bloodline.

Good. Indeed, almost a good enough reason to do anything. 'Societal norms' as a form of control are inherently evil.

If everyone is old enough to choose, and agreeble with the concept, let them marry in twos and threes and... whatever.

If it means the societal norms have to change to accomodate, that's a good thing. If it means the laws have to be recalculated to be fair to all, rather than tailored to one socio-religious model - even better.

I never understood where the 'threat' lay in not adhering to a rigid definition of marriage. No one is going to force you to marry someone of the same sex, or marry multiple partners. If you would allow someone to force you in such ways, then you'd probably allow someone to abuse you even within a 'traditional' (and I use the term loosely since there are many different traditions globally) marriage. In which case, the problem lies with you, not with the institution.

It's good enough for a personal preference (I'm demanding, and I would demand more from an opinion) ;)

She did indeed edit her post to say it was just her personal stand, but that happened after I had replied...

It seems you replied while I was editing my inital post.:p

Yes. Polygamy is bad.


Its bad enough when your wife/girlfriend is nagging you or is angry at you. Polygamy mulitiplies that by 2<.

Who would want that?


;)



No. I kid. I dont care about the gender or number of consenting adults a person bones.

it seems far too complicated to work without a social or religious mandate behind it.

how do you decide who gets added to the group? does everyone have to agree? what happens if 2 women just dont get along? how do you decide who gets what when someone decides to divorce the group? if you have a "standard" one man with multiple wives, what happens when he dies, are the women all married to each other still?

given the divorce rate for 2 person marriages, how much more trouble would there be with marriages with more than 2 people?

i say marry one woman and cheat on her like everyone else does.

Agreed. Except I don't really think you can define polygamy as an open relationship. It seems like the definition of polyfidelity, actually.

Agreed. I think polygamy is a commitment to more than one partner. An open relationship is usually commitment to one partner, but no sexual exclusiveness.I suppose it could be - I was thinking of a polygamous marriage where, say, a man with multiple wives periodically searches for another wife to marry.

Gotta be honest, if I hear a dude talking about how awesome polygamy is, my first assumption is that he's a loser who probably can't get ONE woman, let alone have multiple wives.
I don't have any problem with polygamy as a concept, it's just that the overwhelming majority of its earthly proponents seem to be d-bags.That all depends on the phrasing. The way the OP did it, makes me think the same.

Unless they are talking about how much they love their wives, and how much better their life is now that they are in a loving relationship with their partners (I have to add that caveat), most guys who say something like 'it would be great to have multiple partners' are just guys who think it would just be an extension of their threesome fantasy.

It is a visibility bias - those who are frat boys thinking they are getting a continuous orgy are very vocal and annoying about it, actual poly people tend to be rather subdued about discussing it with strangers. It is no different than thinking all gay guys are flamboyant queens - they are highly visible, but you don't realize the 'normal' guy walking down the street is gay too.

Polygamy is almost always justified on frivolous religious grounds, and itself represents a form of reactionary social chauvinism which is extremely sexist and basically makes the women the 'harem' of the big man of the house. It's against all concepts of an equal relationship and responsibility. As far as I am concerned polygamy is a watered-down term for perverted and domineering men who want some justification for their behavior.

I some people's concept of consent is a little off, and it ignores the fact that all polygamist relationships come from a religious or otherwise community in which reality is distorted and a profoundly sexist and chauvinist mindset is drilled into the young girl, they are told to submit to their husband. These relationships can never survive prolonged exposure to the outside world, and will only exist in these isolated communities. I see it clearly as a form of oppression.
What makes the news is polygamy based on frivolous religious grounds.
This does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that poly people are religious nuts. Most poly people are just average people who have fallen for someone while already involved in a relationship - what makes them different is how they handle it.

Some people are open about it and discuss this new relationship with their partner, and talked about how to handle it. In some cases, they incorporate the new person into their lives, and thus become a poly family. Contrast this to the selfish people who just cheat on the person they supposedly love and respect.

All polygamous relationship do assuredly not come from a "community in which reality is distorted and a profoundly sexist and chauvinist mindset is drilled into the young girl, they are told to submit to their husband." Such hostile bigotry is uncalled for, and is quite frankly what I would expect from someone who has had some prejudice drilled into them.

it seems far too complicated to work without a social or religious mandate behind it.

how do you decide who gets added to the group? does everyone have to agree? what happens if 2 women just dont get along? how do you decide who gets what when someone decides to divorce the group? if you have a "standard" one man with multiple wives, what happens when he dies, are the women all married to each other still?

given the divorce rate for 2 person marriages, how much more trouble would there be with marriages with more than 2 people?

i say marry one woman and cheat on her like everyone else does.
All relationships are complicated; poly relationships even more so as each person added to the family group increases the number of relationships exponentially. This is not insurmountable though - open communication and patience is needed, just like any other relationship.

As far as what goes on in the group, that all depends on the members of that group - they decide for themselves what they want, need, and are ok with. Not all poly relationships are the same; they all reflect the needs, wants, desires, and personalities of the people involved.

I have a simple challenge for everyone who wants to make outrageous claims about how horrible poly relationships are: prove that monogamous relationships are perfect. If you cannot point to mono relationships being demonstrably consisting of egalitarian utopias where everyone has all their needs met all the time, stop abhorring poly relationships. Wife-beater is not a polygamous term.

Just doing a quick google came up with this http://www.xeromag.com/fvpoly.html, not the best, but probably a reasonable primer about poly. You might get a slightly different view than what you get from a sexually repressed militant religion.

I'd love for my wife and I to be married to another bi man and bi woman. We could have four incomes, great vacations together and lots of hot dirty sex.


edit: as long as no kids are involved!

it seems far too complicated to work without a social or religious mandate behind it.

how do you decide who gets added to the group? does everyone have to agree?

Yes.

what happens if 2 women just don't get along?

Divorce. What did you think would happen?

how do you decide who gets what when someone decides to divorce the group?

The same way you decide who gets what in a two person marriage, court.

if you have a "standard" one man with multiple wives, what happens when he dies, are the women all married to each other still?

I suppose that depends on how it's set up. Are they all in love with him and just married him, or are they all in love with each other and married everyone?

given the divorce rate for 2 person marriages, how much more trouble would there be with marriages with more than 2 people?

Why the hell should anyone care?

Multiple spouses --> multiple mothers-in-law :headbang:

I think that its fine. As a libertarian I believe that trivial things like that, which really don't hurt anyone, are fine so long as all parties therein concur and accept it.

Actually, polygyny is one man with multiple wives. Polygamy is the correct gender-neutral term for marriages with multiple partners. Polyamory is a sexual relationship, not necessarily marriage, with multiple informed, consenting partners. [/nitpick]

Accuracy isn't nitpicking. Well sorted.

Ah, jesus, somebody needs to make a glossary of terms for this thread.

Someone just did. See above.

A haiku on the matter :

STIs are bad,
Condom use in orgies low,
You died of AIDS, aww.

A haiku on the matter :

STIs are bad,
Condom use in orgies low,
You died of AIDS, aww.

Obviously you don't go to the same orgies I do ;)

Another way of saying "I suspect it might be bollocks, but I don't feel like thinking about it"?

Nobody is going to ask you to have 2 husbands and a wife, I mean it's personal preference after all. But to say "this is how it should be cause that's what I've been told when I grew up" is not going to be good enough as an argument, sorry.

She's saying that polyamory isn't the thing for her, personally. Earlier she said she was fine with other people having such arrangements, IIRC

She's saying that polyamory isn't the thing for her, personally. Earlier she said she was fine with other people having such arrangements, IIRC

*sigh*

Again, no, she said that afterwards. After editing her post.

Maybe I ought to go back and edit mine as well now, to stop people jumping down my throat about this...

*sigh*

Again, no, she said that afterwards. After editing her post.

Maybe I ought to go back and edit mine as well now, to stop people jumping down my throat about this...

I'm not jumping down your throat. At least I didn't think I was, sorry. My post was meant to be read as if said with a calm, "let's all get along, everybody" tone. Sorry if I seemed like I was yelling :(

I'm not jumping down your throat. At least I didn't think I was, sorry. My post was meant to be read as if said with a calm, "let's all get along, everybody" tone. Sorry if I seemed like I was yelling :(

Nah, don't worry, it's just that you must be the third poster pointing out to me that my response seems over the top considering her edited post. ;)

I'd love for my wife and I to be married to another bi man and bi woman. We could have four incomes, great vacations together and lots of hot dirty sex.


edit: as long as no kids are involved!

Funny, thats one of the main reasons I want to have multiple spouses. More people too look after the kids. More incomes to support them. More ideas and experiences to share with your children. Plus, if someone dies or gets hurt, there is still plenty of support for your kids.

Funny, thats one of the main reasons I want to have multiple spouses. More people too look after the kids. More incomes to support them. More ideas and experiences to share with your children. Plus, if someone dies or gets hurt, there is still plenty of support for your kids.



I just don't like the idea of having kids. ugh *shudders*

I just don't like the idea of having kids. ugh *shudders*

They taste quite nice once you have boiled the shit out of them.

Funny, thats one of the main reasons I want to have multiple spouses. More people too look after the kids. More incomes to support them. More ideas and experiences to share with your children. Plus, if someone dies or gets hurt, there is still plenty of support for your kids.Meh, just join a commune.

you want to have two wives!?!?!?!?! :eek:

Thats sounds loke someone who wants to have two open heart sugerieswhen one will sufice :p

you want to have two wives!?!?!?!?! :eek:

Thats sounds loke someone who wants to have two open heart sugerieswhen one will sufice :p

Well I don't know, a man may need two wives, one for cooking the other for cleaning.

Joke people it's a joke.

Meh, just join a commune.

commune. Bah, I really enjoy participating in capitalism.

Nah, don't worry, it's just that you must be the third poster pointing out to me that my response seems over the top considering her edited post. ;)

On my first post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13649791&postcount=49) to this thread I stated, from the very beginning that I wouldn't practice it as a personal choice but that I wasn't going to jump right in and say ipolygamy's bad.

When I edited the post that you quoted, it was to state that fact again in case someone didn't read my first post. Obviously, you were one of those people who didn't.

It's fine to be a Polymamist. I honestly think, though some disagree, with most kids these days, their getting more Mature. And as they get more mature, it keeps coming at an earlier age. Kids at certain ages are exceptions, but 90% of kids know DAMN RIGHT what they are doing. Adults like to think that until kids become adults, that kids' lives are full of Ignorance and bliss. WRONG. I'm not saying ALL ages know what their doing, but most do. ALSO: Polygamy, though not realy a religion, has been apart of human life since it first popped up. Polygamy, though NOT a religion, has been around as an IDEAL, since ancient times.
And this isn't one of the half-a**ed posts. The way modern religions have things, they make it look like Polygamy is a thing made by the Devil Incarnate, and that EVERYTHING about it is evil, the people who are a part of it, Demons. and to all of those people I have this.... :upyours:.
In conclusion: CHRISTAINS, over the years, have probably had Polygamy. To all those people who say that "Oh, polygamy was founded in blah blah blah" I'm Talking about the IDEA of it. To have more then 1 wife. Also, people who quote this and tell me to get the facts, I have this to say..... NO U.

Yes.
Divorce. What did you think would happen?
The same way you decide who gets what in a two person marriage, court.
I suppose that depends on how it's set up. Are they all in love with him and just married him, or are they all in love with each other and married everyone?
Why the hell should anyone care?

which all seems far too complicated to me. so many decisions to make with so many people involved.

Nothing necessarily wrong with polygamy, I just would never do it myself.

<snip>
In conclusion: CHRISTAINS, over the years, have probably had Polygamy.
<snip>

True.

Early writings by historians of the period covering the early days of Christianity indicate that many, including some of the Apostles, had more than one wife.

Funny, thats one of the main reasons I want to have multiple spouses. More people too look after the kids. More incomes to support them. More ideas and experiences to share with your children. Plus, if someone dies or gets hurt, there is still plenty of support for your kids.

This, I agree with. It's not inconceivable that the 'perfect' family structure is some kind of loose arrangement of people caring for one another, and providing a small tribe-like intra-society in which to nurse young. That doesn't have to be polygamy - but it doesn't have to not be polygamy, either.

Plus - to be honest, it's getting to the point where one person really can't sustain a family, and a lot of two-working-parent families are having trouble. Some form of extended family is becoming increasingly 'necessary'.

which all seems far too complicated to me. so many decisions to make with so many people involved.

Most of what you quoted is no more complicated than what does/might occur in a traditional two person marriage, so I fail to see how it's "too complicated".

i guess if polygamy works for you and those concerned then that's ok.

Must be expensive though ;)

Most of what you quoted is no more complicated than what does/might occur in a traditional two person marriage, so I fail to see how it's "too complicated".

oh come on. the more people the more complicated it is.

oh come on. the more people the more complicated it is.

I don't really see this... if you have a divorce where custody is being shared, it's really no more complicated to arrange a three or four way split than a two way split. And - depending on acrimony, that example might not be a four way split anyway... it could be a two-way split, with each party being two individuals... etc.

To be honest, it would seem that, the more people involved, the more stable a situation like that would actually become... property or children being considered in a ten-person-marriage are most likely to be granted favour towards the largest cohesive unit, with secondary allowance for one or more departed constituents. It doesn't really seem like it has to be complicated at all.

Plus, of course... complicated isn't the best argument, anyway. Democracy is more 'complicated' than despotism....

I don't really see this... if you have a divorce where custody is being shared, it's really no more complicated to arrange a three or four way split than a two way split. And - depending on acrimony, that example might not be a four way split anyway... it could be a two-way split, with each party being two individuals... etc.

To be honest, it would seem that, the more people involved, the more stable a situation like that would actually become... property or children being considered in a ten-person-marriage are most likely to be granted favour towards the largest cohesive unit, with secondary allowance for one or more departed constituents. It doesn't really seem like it has to be complicated at all.

Plus, of course... complicated isn't the best argument, anyway. Democracy is more 'complicated' than despotism....

im not saying anything but that its more complicated.

so complicated that it wouldnt be worth it TO ME.

im not saying that its so complicated that it cant be done. although without the force of law, someone is going to get taken advantage of when it breaks up.

im not saying anything but that its more complicated.

so complicated that it wouldnt be worth it TO ME.

im not saying that its so complicated that it cant be done. although without the force of law, someone is going to get taken advantage of when it breaks up.

The same is true with a two-person marriage. Indeed, the balance is much less even in a two-person marriage. 50% of people in a two-person divorce are likely to get short-changed - especially if they are men (depending on what you consider to be the worthwhile 'spoils' of divorce).

I don't see any real, intrinsic, way in which a four-person marriage splitting up is going to create a more complicated scenario... dividing 1 by four is no more complicated than dividing 1 by two... it just gives smaller fractions (to each fraction). And - as I said, something like custody actually becomes less complicated when - for example - three-fourths of a marriage stay together....

eh, I'm not into polygamy, but I'm actively polyamorous, (it's similar but less tied into concepts of marriage and without the male-dominated connotations polygamy normally involves) and to me I can't see anything wrong with it. The alternative to my current situation was certainly a lot worse, since I'd have been denying myself happiness by forcing to only choose one person I loved, and if I'd 'cheated' and non consensually been in 2 relationships whilst keeping one of my partners in the dark, I'd consider that to be morally wrong, especially since I'm still romantically attracted to her.

So yeah, I'm in favour of open polyamory when applicable. Not saying mono couplings aren't good, just saying there's no reason in my mind to restrict yourself.