So I want to hear your thoughts on polygamy

[BSPBleach]

hmm.....i know besides mormon's, like most religions say polygamy is wrong, legally it's wrong (then again, splitting them up into different marriages is illegal at a point as well)

personally, idk. i don't think it's wrong as long as everyone is okay with it and happy. idk if i'd be able to do it. i know i can love multiple people, and at the same time, i just don't know if i'd be able to share them. it's interesting idea though.

i played around with the thought once and was like, what if it was okay for girls to have multiple husbands too? so like a girl marries a man with multiple wives, and she herself has multiple hubands or whatever they each have. if the idea of polygamy is for to share the partners of their partners, well that'd get quite confusing. errr.....well just orgy o.O  

[WalrusCokeheadLizard]

Esiris

WalrusCokeheadLizard

I don't see a problem with it as long as you're honest with whoever you are about it. It would be worse for you to get bored in a relationship and decide to cheat on a person and break their heart

I don't think being poly keeps people from cheating- it has the same pitfalls that being mono has and poly people can still cheat on their partners. cat_3nodding

Our relationships can take as much or as little work as any mono couple- and that means that people can fall into ruts and stuff too.

Huh, guess I learn something new everyday =p  

[cvbkfgbkjmgbcj]

First, a question: Are there different words for relationships where
1) there is one person who has multiple partners, who are not romantically involved with each other
2) there are 3 or more people who are all equally romantically/sexually involved with each other?
Second, I don't think a relationship can be truly right equal if one person has many partners. I feel like this would put that one person in a role above/different from the multiple partners, allowing him/her to make executive decisions, show favor, etc. which would not make a healthy relationship.
I do think that the 2nd type of relationship could work (though it's not for me), because all the people are equally involved, so a power imbalance would not necessarily be created.  

[Blackrose_Knight]

Shiny Leather Boots

First, a question: Are there different words for relationships where
1) there is one person who has multiple partners, who are not romantically involved with each other
2) there are 3 or more people who are all equally romantically/sexually involved with each other?
Second, I don't think a relationship can be truly right equal if one person has many partners. I feel like this would put that one person in a role above/different from the multiple partners, allowing him/her to make executive decisions, show favor, etc. which would not make a healthy relationship.
I do think that the 2nd type of relationship could work (though it's not for me), because all the people are equally involved, so a power imbalance would not necessarily be created.

Both are non-monogamous types of relationships and both could work equally.

Equality has many forms. As long as people in relationships have equal say, and equal voice in the relationship type and are then equally heard and respected - which is my style of relationships which falls closer to well neither of your options.

Let me explain. I am in love and married to Chryos. I am also in love with Riri and Annette who are also married. Riri and Chryos basically have friendship but no romance between the two. Same for Chryos and Annette - best buddies but not romance. Chryos has a girlfriend S. I think she is pretty cool - but she is not my type. I am just getting to know her but I suspect we will form a pretty good friendship. We all care for each other on some level or another but not always romantically. We all have equal say and feel free to speak our minds. I don't feel an imbalance of power - and I should know about them I play with power.

On power imbalances - I participate in BDSM. I find nothing wrong with a consented upon power imbalance. I agree let go of my power for a few hours at a time with my play partner. Its nothing formal or anything, but I don't mind bowing my head for a few hours. Now if that power was taken from me - is another story and THAT would be wrong. I feel the same away about other people who play with power - if it is given and taken freely and with consenting adults I don't much care.

Now on say TLC's (yuck hate that channel) Sister Wives I do detect a bit of power imbalance in their relationship (1 husband, 4 wives not permitted to have other lovers but they seem to be friends with one another). It seems... off to me but that is like from watching 3 episodes and an Oprah interview. Now, I think their power imbalance is consensual. I mean the wives knew up front what they were getting into. That is just my outside opinion though.  

[BSPBleach]

Blackrose_Knight

Let me explain. I am in love and married to Chryos. I am also in love with Riri and Annette who are also married. Riri and Chryos basically have friendship but no romance between the two. Same for Chryos and Annette - best buddies but not romance. Chryos has a girlfriend S. I think she is pretty cool - but she is not my type. I am just getting to know her but I suspect we will form a pretty good friendship. We all care for each other on some level or another but not always romantically. We all have equal say and feel free to speak our minds. I don't feel an imbalance of power - and I should know about them I play with power.

x.x
i hope that's a less confusing and complicated situation in real-life sweatdrop  

[Esiris]

Shiny Leather Boots

First, a question: Are there different words for relationships where
1) there is one person who has multiple partners, who are not romantically involved with each other
2) there are 3 or more people who are all equally romantically/sexually involved with each other?

Rosie did this pretty well- but there is a term for the second group- depending on how many people are involved in the co-romantic and sexual relationship it would be called a Polyfedilitious Triad for three- and then the triad part changes to reflect the number of people.

Quote:

Second, I don't think a relationship can be truly right equal if one person has many partners. I feel like this would put that one person in a role above/different from the multiple partners, allowing him/her to make executive decisions, show favor, etc. which would not make a healthy relationship.

It probably happens that way for some people- but it hasn't for us. I knew I was poly long before Annette did, our solution was good communication and paying attention to how people feel. Here's another example, Rosie has a relationship with M. and M has a relationship with B. For personal reasons I only want to be part of a polyfidelitous relationship- which means that we're kind of a closed group. People can join our group- but members in the group aren't sleeping around with anyone they please. There was a time when I didn't know if M and B were polyfidelitous- so Rosie postponed a date with M until it was worked out. Now that we're all on the same page everything is fine and she goes out and has a great time with M.

Quote:

I do think that the 2nd type of relationship could work (though it's not for me), because all the people are equally involved, so a power imbalance would not necessarily be created.

Imbalances aren't always created- and sometimes people don't want "equal relationships" between all their partners and they should be allowed to determine if that's what they want for themselves and people can decide to be part of that relationship or not. As Rosie mentioned- if you didn't know we were poly, we'd look like we were just 2 sets of married couples (I don't care what the Law says- Annette and I are married). Rosie and Chryos plan to move into their own place someday- not Rosie and Annette, not Rosie and I, which shows that we all have a strong pairbond in the poly mix.

I know some people might not think that is "equal" but it is fulfilling for all of us. The whole equal thing doesn't really work in real life anyway- I mean, who keeps a spreadsheet on how much their parents and friends love them? How do you measure that? Money spent? Hours spent? Some kind of strange Likert Scale for a quiz after each experience? I really don't think people do that kind of thing- or if they do, it sounds really unhealthy.  

[The Otto Leo]

As long as it's all consensual and done at the legal age (18 in the States), I'm fine with it.  

[cvbkfgbkjmgbcj]

Esiris

Shiny Leather Boots

First, a question: Are there different words for relationships where
1) there is one person who has multiple partners, who are not romantically involved with each other
2) there are 3 or more people who are all equally romantically/sexually involved with each other?

Rosie did this pretty well- but there is a term for the second group- depending on how many people are involved in the co-romantic and sexual relationship it would be called a Polyfedilitious Triad for three- and then the triad part changes to reflect the number of people.

Quote:

Second, I don't think a relationship can be truly right equal if one person has many partners. I feel like this would put that one person in a role above/different from the multiple partners, allowing him/her to make executive decisions, show favor, etc. which would not make a healthy relationship.

It probably happens that way for some people- but it hasn't for us. I knew I was poly long before Annette did, our solution was good communication and paying attention to how people feel. Here's another example, Rosie has a relationship with M. and M has a relationship with B. For personal reasons I only want to be part of a polyfidelitous relationship- which means that we're kind of a closed group. People can join our group- but members in the group aren't sleeping around with anyone they please. There was a time when I didn't know if M and B were polyfidelitous- so Rosie postponed a date with M until it was worked out. Now that we're all on the same page everything is fine and she goes out and has a great time with M.

Quote:

I do think that the 2nd type of relationship could work (though it's not for me), because all the people are equally involved, so a power imbalance would not necessarily be created.

Imbalances aren't always created- and sometimes people don't want "equal relationships" between all their partners and they should be allowed to determine if that's what they want for themselves and people can decide to be part of that relationship or not. As Rosie mentioned- if you didn't know we were poly, we'd look like we were just 2 sets of married couples (I don't care what the Law says- Annette and I are married). Rosie and Chryos plan to move into their own place someday- not Rosie and Annette, not Rosie and I, which shows that we all have a strong pairbond in the poly mix.

I know some people might not think that is "equal" but it is fulfilling for all of us. The whole equal thing doesn't really work in real life anyway- I mean, who keeps a spreadsheet on how much their parents and friends love them? How do you measure that? Money spent? Hours spent? Some kind of strange Likert Scale for a quiz after each experience? I really don't think people do that kind of thing- or if they do, it sounds really unhealthy.

Thank you for sharing; you've definitely made me re-think my beliefs. Obviously I've been more influenced by societal thinking than I thought (i.e., "All polygamous marriages happen when brainwashed young girls are forced to marry older men"-type thing.). Having real-life examples of honest, working relationships makes it easier to understand polygamy.  

[Esiris]

Shiny Leather Boots

Thank you for sharing; you've definitely made me re-think my beliefs. Obviously I've been more influenced by societal thinking than I thought (i.e., "All polygamous marriages happen when brainwashed young girls are forced to marry older men"-type thing.). Having real-life examples of honest, working relationships makes it easier to understand polygamy.

Thanks for being open minded and willing to think things through! cat_3nodding

As someone who is poly- I hate having polyamory characterized with that kind of abuse, it's like, if one 15 year old girl is forced to marry some guy, "That's Life", not abuse- but if he abuses a whole group of girls that's suddenly bad. I guess I think abuse is abuse and that people know not every monoamorous relationship is abusive, but it's so easy to stereotype poly people.

So- thanks again! emotion_bigheart  

[Purple Robot Queen]

Esiris

Purple Robot King

I'm not claiming that it would lead to any greater conflict, just that it would lead to increased legal complexity. And I'm not saying it's unworkable or immoral, just problematic from a legal standpoint. Looking at it objectively that's just a simple statement of fact. It could still work, it just requires rather complex logistical planning in comparison with the relatively simple alterations necessary to allow gay marriage.

I don't see it as a statement of fact because of how complex and complicated other legal arrangements already are.

It is a statement of fact, because any form of legal agreement increases in complexity as you increase the number of parties who play a role in that agreement. It's still perfectly possible to decide how to distribute social security benefits if an individual dies, or to divide up possessions should two parties amongst eight involved decide that they want a divorce without altering the legal relationships between any other members of the group. But it's more complicated with more factors involved than a break between two individuals would be. That is a fact. I'm sorry if you don't recognize that, but it is.

With all that being said, it's still workable. And I reiterate, I personally don't care what forms of relationships other people choose for themselves. I'm just pointing out the reality that the logistical complexity is very different from that of instituting gay marriage, which makes this a different kind of issue than that. For your own sake I'd suggest taking that consideration seriously, because refusal to recognize the unique obstacles that an issue faces does nothing but undermine your own assertions by making you look biased and uninformed. I say that without any aggression or hostility, it's simply a piece of constructive criticism that I think will help you in the future if you take it to heart.

Anyway, since I don't really have any strong feelings about this issue, that's the last of what I'll say about it.  

[Esiris]

Purple Robot King

It is a statement of fact, because any form of legal agreement increases in complexity as you increase the number of parties who play a role in that agreement.It's still perfectly possible to decide how to distribute social security benefits if an individual dies, or to divide up possessions should two parties amongst eight involved decide that they want a divorce without altering the legal relationships between any other members of the group. But it's more complicated with more factors involved than a break between two individuals would be.

How do you measure that "fact"? A smooth transaction between 10 people is complex but a messy transaction that can have 10x the work is less complex? I don't think you can call things "facts" without proof- which would have to include a metric and not just you saying so.

Quote:

I'm just pointing out the reality that the logistical complexity is very different from that of instituting gay marriage, which makes this a different kind of issue than that.

And I'm pointing out that there isn't anything about what you're saying that is supported by facts or anything that can be measured- when my gf's grandma died about 8 people inherited and it wasn't "complex"- because the will was spelled out and the executor was effective. My grams died and 4 people have made this stuff drag on for over a year.
My grams will was less "complex" according to you- but the situation was actually more complex.

Complexity is not a function of numbers of people involved- it's about the willingness to really work together and that is something we can measure- a blending of collaborative law and mediation can make something that has 5 people less contentious and complex than mediation alone with 2 people would (Langan).

Quote:

For your own sake I'd suggest taking that consideration seriously, because refusal to recognize the unique obstacles that an issue faces does nothing but undermine your own assertions by making you look biased and uninformed.I say that without any aggression or hostility, it's simply a piece of constructive criticism that I think will help you in the future if you take it to heart.

And I think the character attack when you say I look biased and uninformed isn't logically sound.
My suggestion to you would be to not make claims that can't be supported, things like metrics and citation help with that, and it's better to avoid arguments that try and taint the poster (such as suggesting they're biased and uninformed) because it only talks about the person and not the facts- which doesn't make sense because if something is true, it's true no matter who says it or what their reasons for saying it are.


Langan, Elena B. "We Can Work It Out": Using Cooperative Mediation – A Blend Of Collaborative Law And Traditional Mediation – To Resolve Divorce Disputes." Review Of Litigation 30.2 (2011): 245-318. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 June 2012.