On Polygamy and polyandry in the US.

[Namulith]

You might have already heard of these.

The question is, if the US government will continue to recognize marriage, then should people be able to do these things if they can demonstrate that all parties are adults who gave their consert without any kind of force being used on them?

What do you say?

[TCPeppyTc]

Sounds like it could potentially lead to abuse, power imblance between Man and multiple wives...

[Namulith]

And "traditional" marriages don't have abuse and power imbalances?

[myu]

Traditional marriages can go just as badly as any other kind of marriage. Just because polygamy/polyandry is a different kind, doesn't mean they don't work (or not work, in this case) in similar ways.

I would say that as long as all parties involved have consented to being one of many wives or husbands, and they are able to financially support all of their children and there's abuse, etc, that it's fine. It doesn't really affect anyone who isn't involved it so I don't see a reason why it shouldn't happen. There's a stigma that it's wrong to have multiple wives or husbands and, personally, I wouldn't be able to be a part of something like that because I don't like to share my husband - but I wouldn't stop anyone else from getting into one.

How would you prove that everyone involved gave their consent, though?

[Xortberg]

How would you prove that everyone involved gave their consent, though?

How would you prove that the partners in any marriage gave their consent? There's no way to verify it other than just taking their word for it, really. Having 3 wives doesn't make that any different.

[TCPeppyTc]

So we should revive harems?

[Namulith]

You know that a "harem" isn't just having multiple wives, right?

[Drasiana]

TCPeppy, you're assuming that people in polyamorous relationships adhere to thus:

• One man, MANY women
  
• The man "owns" the women
  
• There is some kind of other culture/religion behind this
  

This is not always the case.

Polyamorous relationships extend from that archetype, to ones as simple as a woman, a man, and another man, who all love each other equally and wish to recognize that in marriage.

The history of marriage has basically shown that the even the "idyllic" picture of marriage (one man, one woman, both of the same race/religion) is not exempt from abuse and strains within, so honestly, as long as the parties involved are consenting adults there's no reason for anyone to get a stick up their ass about what other people do with their love lives.

[TCPeppyTc]

HI Drasny. I was just using "harem" in the loosest sense of that word. I still wonder though, why any woman would consent to having that living arrangement. I suppose there could be a man whos shares a woman with many husbands, but that seems rarer in different societies and religions. I would wonder what kind of man would consent to that.

You are right that the one man one woman relationship is not free of manipulation and power play. Yet it seems the only one (along with man/man, woman/woman) that is based on at least some kind of friendship, and equality. There is a basic assumption that both parties will not fool around with anyone else.

At least in that sense, the power dynamics in polygamy are much different. But again to each their own

[Xortberg]

I still wonder though, why any woman would consent to having that living arrangement. I suppose there could be a man whos shares a woman with many husbands, but that seems rarer in different societies and religions. I would wonder what kind of man would consent to that.

Are you really so closed-minded you can't comprehend the idea of being in love with more than one person? Hell, the average person will probably be in love with at least two people over the course of their lives, just at different points in time. So is it really so difficult to believe someone could be so simultaneously? After all, I'm not limited to just one friend at a time. I have several.

You are right that the one man one woman relationship is not free of manipulation and power play. Yet it seems the only one (along with man/man, woman/woman) that is based on at least some kind of friendship, and equality. There is a basic assumption that both parties will not fool around with anyone else.

Good God, man. Monogamous couples cheat on each other all the time, so don't go spouting some bullshit about how they're more meaningful because they're faithful. If anything, I could say polygamists respect their partners more than monogamists, since they're willing to allow said partner more freedom. And that whole "polygamy isn't based on friendship" thing is utter bullshit. Again, having multiple friends doesn't cheapen the friendships. Having multiple partners, assuming all are consenting, doesn't do anything to cheapen that relationship either.

Also, as a point of curiosity, didn't Dras once before ask you not to call her Drasny?

[Drasiana]

Also, as a point of curiosity, didn't Dras once before ask you not to call her Drasny?

Yes, I did. I guess it wasn't that hard to notice!

I still wonder though, why any woman would consent to having that living arrangement.

Maybe because she's in love with the people she's married to?

I suppose there could be a man whos shares a woman with many husbands, but that seems rarer in different societies and religions. I would wonder what kind of man would consent to that.

One that's in love with the people he's married to?

You are right that the one man one woman relationship is not free of manipulation and power play. Yet it seems the only one (along with man/man, woman/woman) that is based on at least some kind of friendship, and equality. There is a basic assumption that both parties will not fool around with anyone else.

So, okay, you've clearly never met an actual polyamorous person and are just adhering to the imagery of "big sleazy rich guy surrounded by oil-slathered babes giving him massages and making him sandwiches because that's all they're allowed to do". The only "basic assumption" here is being made by you. And, uh, the whole "fooling around with anyone else" thing in polyamorous relationships is consensual and kind of the point. Saying, "Hey, you want to date/have sex with that other chick? Cool!" is not the same thing as finding out that your monogamous partner has been sneaking around with another chick behind your back...something that happens so often that it's been engrained in our media and our very basic fears about relationships of any kind. That is not from adherance to a polyamorous society.

Cheating =/= Being in love with more than one person

Cheating is a defiance of trust. Actually going out and messing around with someone and intentionally keeping it a secret from your partner is wrong, and the feeling of broken trust as a result of "x is doing x with someone that isn't me" isn't related to just romantic relationships either.

However, if you're going to argue that polyamorists are "selfish", think of every person you've ever met that gets angry if their boyfriend/girlfriend hangs out with someone of the opposite gender that isn't their partner.

At least in that sense, the power dynamics in polygamy are much different.

What "power dynamics"? What about people just, I don't know, being in love? That's what your relationship should be about, no matter who or how many people you are with. Again, you're basing this entire argument on "all polyamorists are Jabba the Hutt and his Slave Leias", which is rediculous and ignorant.

But again to each their own

Do not post in a topic designed for debate and then say "well it's just my opinion so you can't respond to it".

[TCPeppyTc]

I am so sorry Dras. I really do not know any polyandrous people. I hate validate your criticisms of me, but when I heard "polyandry" and "polygamy" I really did think it was just on Mormon compounds, or just kings in bad fantasy books.

Please tell me because I am genuinely interested. Are there girls out there who would be fine with being one girlfriend of many? and getting to like the other ones?

If the polyandry is all done by consenting adults, and not girls whos father traded them for horses/ gold, then I am fine with the idea.

BTW sorry for calling you Drasny.

[Drasiana]

> Kings in bad fantasy books

Okay I lol'd

The thing is, in a lot of polyamorous relationships (that are not in some religious/cultural/weird cult setting), it's not necessarily about a girlfriend being "one of many". It's not about being "owned". Xort's comparison to friendship is indeed quite accurate here, because that's pretty much what love is...just a deep and trusting form of friendship. You wouldn't tell your friend that they can't have other friends, so it's a similar concept. This instance of polyamory is the exact opposite of the "guy and his lusty harem" idea; it's almost in itself a deconstruction of this idea that in relationships, "ownership" is involved. It's the acknowledgement that they do not "own" their partner, thus the partner has more freedom in their relationship pursuits.

It's really just a case of "guy loves girl A but also has a thing for girl B, both of whom he knows to be open people, so he discusses it with them and they decide to try out a three-way relationship". He's not collecting them like Pokemon. Alternatively it could be a girl and two guys, or a guy and a girl and another guy, or a girl and two other girls, so on and so forth.

edit: you might find people who do the whole "ownership" in their relationships, be they poly or mono, but this is often associated with a BDSM lifestyle that IS consensual but is another can of worms entirely.

[myu]

:l Okay, so I know you're MAKING A JOKE LOL, but it isn't really funny and kind of just makes you look silly. If you don't know what polygamy and polyandry are about, you can always look it up on the internet and get more background information on it, that way people won't have to spend several posts trying to make you understand the debate topic.

There are probably girls out there who aren't as possessive or jealous as others, but sharing the man you love with someone else probably takes a lot of adjusting. I remember there was a show about this one family, not sure if it's still running or not. Apparently the women considered each other sisters, but there was still competition for the man's affection, obviously.

[FoxMcCloud]

A friendly tip, if you ever have a question or just want to know about something. Try researching and reading into topics online. Google is a great search engine and usually 90% of the time you can find an answer to your question. While it has been answered and other things. Here is more information if you are interested.

Note: the site links to a page that will google your question. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=polygamy+and+polyandry+

[TCPeppyTc]

I suppose this is kind of like "free love" then? That couples love each other but dont care about who they have sex with? This idea I know was practiced by many hippies, and before them Socialists/ free thinkers in the 1910s-20s. Im just saying I have heard of it. ( Not saying all polyandrists are left wing or liberal at all)

It sounds tolerable in theory, and even democratic. Yet I would be surprised if many people could pull it off. I say this, because it is human nature to be jealous/ dissatisfied. It is also unlikely that a man with many gfs, or a woman with many bfs, would like all of them equally.

One is always more attractive/ funnier/ more interesting than the other, which would lead to you wanting to spend more time with said man/woman. Which then leads to unhappiness if you actually care about the person.

This is just me thinking aloud. If anyone here is thinking of pursuing a polyandrous relationship, I wont shoot them down. Just explaining for above reasons, why it is not for me.

But if there was commitment and couples just wanted to "experiment" with both parties agreeing, unlikely there would be much jealousy/ distress. So Dras on that I agree with you,

@FoxMccloud. Thanks, but this wasnt an issue of me not knowing anything about it, just me having an exagerrated/ skewed understanding of what it was.

[Drasiana]

Prior research is useful, yes, but then again what TCPeppy assumed about the topic is really just one of the broad, common misconceptions that's caused polygamy in itself to become so looked down-upon.

edit: AGH NINJA POST brb typing up a response

[TCPeppyTc]

@ Dras. Polygamy got looked down upon, because in most societies and cultures that have actually existed, it was almost exactlly like my misperception of modern polyadnry.

I suppose there is a "feminist" argument for ancient polygamy ( its a form of protection for woman whos husband died in war, and cant get any job except that of wife/mother) but in all its forms it seems pretty demeaning of women.

From the Ottoman and Chinese harems, and even biblical polygamy, it was never about love, just lust on part of conquering warlord, and the economic/ political ties between families. There were almost never any women who had many happy loving husbands to care for.

That I belive is main reason it was looked down upon.

Talking of Polygamy, Genghis Kahn was quite the polygamist. Did you know that today, there are millions of people in Mongolia/China who have his DNA?

[Drasiana]

I suppose there is a "feminist" argument for ancient polygamy ( its a form of protection for woman whos husband died in war, and cant get any job except that of wife/mother) but in all its forms it seems pretty demeaning of women.

what the

how is that feminist? Feminism would be saying allow the woman to protect herself, not immediately run to another man to "protect her". Dude, seriously?

From the Ottoman and Chinese harems, and even biblical polygamy, it was never about love, just lust on part of conquering warlord, and the economic/ political ties between families. There were almost never any women who had many happy loving husbands to care for.

That's not just polygamy. That's marriage in general.

And again, you're bringing up harems. This form of polygamy, ie. people who love each other and just want to get married, is the exact opposite of a harem. A harem is basically keeping women as livestock. That is not what polyamory is about.

Anyway, to respond to the points of your previous post:

"Free love", yeah, that's a good way to put it I guess, just without all the beads and weed.

The idea of liking all of them "equally" or rating them based on arbitrary categories is just an assignment to one of the many flawed relationship approaches that have sadly become commonplace.

This is what I like to call the "Checklist".

I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of a "perfect man" or "perfect woman" and how everyone must have one. In the mind of our theoretical man, see, here is his idea of the Perfect Woman:

• Blond, probably medium-length hair
  
• Medium-sized breasts
  
• Plays the guitar for a living
  
• Has a sort of "country rock girl" style
  
• Super sweet
  
• Really smart on the inside
  
• Maybe she has a cute accent
  

Now, there's nothing really wrong with recognizing traits that you like, but the problem with this dream partner checklist is that people will often seek out the person that meets this criteria and that alone. Their fantasy claims their pursuits and it becomes harder to admire anyone that does not fit in with the checklist.

This is not a good thing. The reason it isn't good is because people can't really be gauged in a handful of categories that arbitrarily determines them to be "better" than another. Saying "I want a man who's funny" is not as simple as it sounds, because then comes the question of the type of humor, and the fact that people generally do not have personalities that you can describe with a single word.

Take girl A. Let's call her...Nella, which totally doesn't sound like Bella which totally doesn't make this a tongue-and-cheek jab at Twilight. Nella has two guys in her life that she really, really likes, loves even. But, though she's stressed over this for months, can never come to the conclusion of which one is "better" than the other.

The first guy is thus: a science major, kind of nerdy, but in a way Nella really likes because hey, she's kind of nerdy too. He's shy, in a sweet way, and has this really adorable awkward smile he makes when he does something embarassing. He's tall and lean, and dresses nicely. Some of his hobbies include making LP's of video games and listening to classic metal bands. He's a fan of Carl Sagan and Ray Bradbury and his favourite show is Futurama, but he doesn't really watch television that often.

• So, Nella likes him, because he's sweet, has some similar interests, looks appealing to her. They're the same age so have similar stresses, and can work through them together.
  

A challenger approaches! Guy two: somewhat older than Nella. Didn't go to school for very long and instead picked the life of an artist. But he's very good at that! In fact, his artwork is beautiful. He's a little gruff, kind of a country guy, but has a soft spot for cute things and animals. Physically he's pretty built--he played sports in high school, and remains a fan of sports to this day--and has a bit of a sexy beardshadow thing going on here. He knows a lot about pop culture and is kind of a social butterfly.

• And Nella also likes him. He's more extroverted, kind of tough, but not in an overly eye-rolling "macho" way, and his liking cute things shows his soft side. The age difference allows him to share his wisdom with her while she does the same for him from a different angle. He's physically attractive, indeed--different than Guy 1, but still attractive.
  

Here are two "real" guys who equally have qualities found attractive by Nella. Nella does not have a "checklist", so she is open to both of these men, despite their obvious contrast, because there are qualities she admires in both of them; there are no "guidelines" for who she loves, because she isn't in love with static traits, she is in love with actual people.

Other people may find it immediately obvious which man they'd pick...but those are other people. Nella likes qualities in them both, they would both be good boyfriends.

So why not, with both of their consent, have them both as boyfriends? She has so much love for both these men, but would be unhappy being only able to express that to one of them.

Yes, people can be selfish, and people do vy for attention...but they do that every day, with all their relationships, be it from their boss, a parent, a teacher. a friend, even a pet. But the idea here isn't being selfish. It's just sharing the love, man.

[TCPeppyTc]

I see Dras.

The thing about ancient polygamy isnt feminist by todays standards. And this is just an argument I have heard a feminist professor give. Ideally woman should care for herself and run her own life, but that was not possible in ancient babylon/India/China/Greece, etc.

Only way for her not to starve was to marry some guy, so good to allow many wives, due to restrictions and limitations of the time ( is the argument I heard)

[Drasiana]

That's not "feminist" in the least, because the basis of feminism is equality. The woman there goes from depending on one man to depending on the other, who then treats her like livestock. I think you really misinterpreted that professor.

[TCPeppyTc]

I may have. The professors point was that we should not judge the practices of the past too harshly. I agree with you that it was a manifestation of inequality. foot in mouth again..

Also, Dras, I was not confusing harems with polyamory. I brought them up to explain why people today look down on polygamy/ polyamory, because of said exapmles actually existing at one point

[Drasiana]

Well, that's good and all. Did you even read the rest of my post dealing with polyamory in today's standards? >__>

[Namulith]

After some thought, I have a plan for marriage.

The plan is that the state will proceed to use "civil union" in place of marriage more and more. Said civil unions will have the same things marriages currently have. Groups such as churches can still continue to use marriage and give them.

Rather than say, adding a constitutional amendment that says gays can marry nothing and only that, instead, there will be one that says any adult persons can have a civil union. As that would help more people.

[Drasiana]

But what if people want to say they're getting married instead of civil unionized?

A civil union is a civil union and not a marriage because it usually does not have the same benefits as marriage does. To say civil unions should have the exact same benefits as marriage is to say that it should be, well, a marriage.