• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Polyamory & polygamy

Whatever floats your boat.


I'm not sure there's anything to cite, really. Whatever consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is nobody's business but their own. I could care less whom you ◊◊◊◊.

Kids need a nurturing environment. What difference if they have two moms, two dads, or five dads and three moms?
 
I'm all for it, if handled responsibly. Actually, I've seen up close and personal when these relationships work right, and when they don't work at all.

Like regular marriage, these relationships don't work out more often than do.

If anyone cares, I could probably pontificate quite a bit on the subject. I've even been accused regularly of being in such a relationship, though the exact details of my home life are considerably more complex than a blanket label like 'polyamory' can cover.

Still, if anyone's actually interested, I'll let flow such a torrent of words, that our most patient readers will be tempted to 'tl/dr' my post.
 
From what I have read and remembered of your posts, Z, you're a pretty open guy. I think it's cool. Not everything you've discussed has been up my particular alley, and my alley is pretty wide, itself, but it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
 
clarsct said:
From what I have read and remembered of your posts, Z, you're a pretty open guy. I think it's cool. Not everything you've discussed has been up my particular alley, and my alley is pretty wide, itself, but it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Click to expand...


AAARRGGGHHH!!!!!

Did I mention that I'm metaphor-impaired and simile-challenged? It really rattles my boat when someone posts a can of stones like this and tries to rock my chain up the creek without ice skates!

:p

But thanks, I think that was supposed to be complimentary...
 
As to polyamory, whatever gets you off.

If by polygamy we are talking state recognition of such relationships, I'm not so sure. I'm not deadset against it, having honestly not given the issue a lot of thought, but my gut leans a bit towards no. I am prepared to be swayed, though. So, if anyone has given it some thought, and wishes to post pro or con, I'd be interested.

Personally, I'll stick to my Minion, thanks.
 
True Chjristianity allows for polyamoury but church Christianity changed the law of the Lord to the law of man. ... because the law of man makes one man one woman and easier way to tax and keep inheritances simple.

But it should only be attempted if one has great love and understanding rather than a great hormonal drive, ..for instead of heaven you get Hell.

And furtthermore because males and females are equal with the Lord, polyandry is also possible if a woman is able to satisfy two in more ways than one..

And in all cases, the evil of jealousy has to be controlled and conquered, if three are to be one... it takes love brethren, and that kind of love really only comes from the creator of love.

Got to fly

david
 
Z: It was. Sorry, I tend to communicate in metaphore most of the time. When I do not communicate in simile.

What I am saying is that I think it's good that you do what you do, and you're open about it. I would not want to do some of those things, but others I have tried and liked quite a bit.(I am trying to identify with you a little, here. I am told it helps improve communication.) I am not worried about what you do, though, as it does not impact me.

I hope this clarifies thing for you. I am aware, from other posts, that you and your wife(s?) lead a fairly open lifestyle, but I also remember you saying that you don't mind sex with other guys, either. Which is something I have no interest in, personally. I don't care that you do, but it simply isn't my thing, as it were.


Once again, I hope this is a decent enough clarification.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
As to polyamory, whatever gets you off.

If by polygamy we are talking state recognition of such relationships, I'm not so sure. I'm not deadset against it, having honestly not given the issue a lot of thought, but my gut leans a bit towards no. I am prepared to be swayed, though. So, if anyone has given it some thought, and wishes to post pro or con, I'd be interested.

Personally, I'll stick to my Minion, thanks.
Click to expand...


I don't see why it wouldn't be recognized by the state. What difference does it make to the state whom you ◊◊◊◊?
 
Davidjayjordan said:
True Chjristianity allows for polyamoury but church Christianity changed the law of the Lord to the law of man. ... because the law of man makes one man one woman and easier way to tax and keep inheritances simple.

But it should only be attempted if one has great love and understanding rather than a great hormonal drive, ..for instead of heaven you get Hell.

And furtthermore because males and females are equal with the Lord, polyandry is also possible if a woman is able to satisfy two in more ways than one..

And in all cases, the evil of jealousy has to be controlled and conquered, if three are to be one... it takes love brethren, and that kind of love really only comes from the creator of love.

Got to fly

david
Click to expand...


Except for all the creator/Bible stuff in his post, he's actually making a good point.

Jealousy is one of the key problems in polyamorous relationships - jealousy and control.

I'm aware at the moment of three polyamorous relationships. The first and oldest is an unhealthy polygyny, in which the male controls the two women with a nearly iron fist, has very strict rules, and in the past, has even attempted to disrupt the natural bonds between mother and child to assign those bonds artificially to his first wife.

The second is a polyandrous relationship which is non-sexual but very emotional, and while I won't say it's healthy - I sense heavy codependence - it's at least a happy relationship.

The third is only borderline polyamorous, on the grounds that one participant has been so psychologically scarred that she is largely unable at this time to show genuine affection. Otherwise, though, it's the healthiest of the three relationships, and shows genuine promise. All participants are considered equals, and all participants are also considered their own free agents.

Dave correctly points out that love is the key to a quality polyamorous relationship - if it's the hormones talking, go swinging. Sex is a hard enough basis to manage a one-on-one relationship; using it as a foundation for a multipartner relationship is a recipe for disaster.
 
clarsct said:
I don't see why it wouldn't be recognized by the state. What difference does it make to the state whom you ◊◊◊◊?
Click to expand...
None. At least it shouldn't. But there is a difference between the state allowing you to do whatever you like with your bits and the state granting any kind of status to you because of what you do with your bits. I don't see it as automatic that because relationship type x is recognised officially, relationship type y must necessarily be also so recognised. Again, though, I'm willing to hear you out.
 
clarsct said:
Z: It was. Sorry, I tend to communicate in metaphore most of the time. When I do not communicate in simile.

What I am saying is that I think it's good that you do what you do, and you're open about it. I would not want to do some of those things, but others I have tried and liked quite a bit.(I am trying to identify with you a little, here. I am told it helps improve communication.) I am not worried about what you do, though, as it does not impact me.

I hope this clarifies thing for you. I am aware, from other posts, that you and your wife(s?) lead a fairly open lifestyle, but I also remember you saying that you don't mind sex with other guys, either. Which is something I have no interest in, personally. I don't care that you do, but it simply isn't my thing, as it were.


Once again, I hope this is a decent enough clarification.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that helped!

Personally, I say, to each their own. But let them be HONEST with themselves about what they want, need, and have.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
None. At least it shouldn't. But there is a difference between the state allowing you to do whatever you like with your bits and the state granting any kind of status to you because of what you do with your bits. I don't see it as automatic that because relationship type x is recognised officially, relationship type y must necessarily be also so recognised. Again, though, I'm willing to hear you out.
Click to expand...

I'm sort of with you here... but I'd take it farther.

I don't think ANY relationships should be formally recognized by the government, except those which actually impact such things as taxation and medical benefits - but in those cases, I suggest a social mutual support contract, rather than the archaic and religious concepts of 'marriage'. I know I've gone into this before... basically, if a person provides some level of support or mutual sharing of resources with another person, I think the two people (I'm talking adults of course) or more should be able to enter into a social contract whereby resources, responsibilities, benefits, etc. can be mutually and legally shared - be it a man and wife, two unmarried persons, a collective household, roommates of convenience, whatever. If three guys are living and working together, and each is independently supporting themselves, then they would get no such contract; but if they pool their resources, and one requires support from the others, for example, due to medical emergency, I think they ought to be able to manage a social contract to share benefits and responsibilities.
 
MdC:

Well, from a logical viewpoint, I would say the state shouldn't grant any status whatsoever to people because of what they do with their 'bits'. But as it seems to do so, then doing so ought to be even across the board. To grant one specific segment of society certain rights because of a behavior(sex), then deny all others those rights based on....

Well, I actually don't know what they base it on. A Book? Apparently?

Well, it seems a bit silly and one-sided to me. If they're going to make a distinction between heterosexual, monogamous relationships, then on what basis is that distinction made? How is THAT particular form of sexual relation superior to any other that it needs to be granted special consideration?

Makes no sense to me. It isn't even the 'traditional' relationship, if you look back through history, or even the Bible.

Logic trumps a Book for me every time.
 
Z said:
I'm sort of with you here... but I'd take it farther.

I don't think ANY relationships should be formally recognized by the government, except those which actually impact such things as taxation and medical benefits - but in those cases, I suggest a social mutual support contract, rather than the archaic and religious concepts of 'marriage'. I know I've gone into this before... basically, if a person provides some level of support or mutual sharing of resources with another person, I think the two people (I'm talking adults of course) or more should be able to enter into a social contract whereby resources, responsibilities, benefits, etc. can be mutually and legally shared - be it a man and wife, two unmarried persons, a collective household, roommates of convenience, whatever. If three guys are living and working together, and each is independently supporting themselves, then they would get no such contract; but if they pool their resources, and one requires support from the others, for example, due to medical emergency, I think they ought to be able to manage a social contract to share benefits and responsibilities.
Click to expand...
This makes sense to me.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
If by polygamy we are talking state recognition of such relationships, I'm not so sure. I'm not deadset against it, having honestly not given the issue a lot of thought, but my gut leans a bit toward no. I am prepared to be swayed, though. So, if anyone has given it some thought, and wishes to post pro or con, I'd be interested.
Click to expand...
I've known a few "family groups" in the Pagan community who were unofficially polygamous and polyandrous. I've never seen one that worked for any length of time, not to say that it couldn't. There never seems to be an equal division of love.

One problem, as things stand now, is that since polyspousaly (or whatever you want to call the general term) is not officially recognized, it is quite possible that one or more members of the union will be cheated if they break up. Now I can see why this would be a nightmare for the courts to try to resolve, so about the only way I would support it becoming legal is if it required a prenuptial agreement by all members of the union.

That being said, I have known more than one couple of what you would assume to be average married couples, in which one or both members have a lover on the side of which the spouse is not only aware of, but approves of. They are not a unit, but there is an agreement. These usually don't work for long either, but they have a better chance than polyspousaly.
***
But of course, I am reminded of a joke. It is at a cocktail party where wealthy couples are gathered

Wife: Phillip, I saw you kissing a pretty girl I've never seen before, over by the hors d'oeuvres.

Husband: I should confess to you my dear, that is my mistress.

Wife: Oh Phillip! I cannot abide that. I want a divorce.

Husband: Well, if you must, my dear, but you well know that our prenuptial agreement would mean no more world cruises, no more mink coats and no more Rolls Royces for you.

Wife: I... I will have to think about it.

Husband: You do that my love. But really, it is not so odd. You see that girl over there kissing Edward? That is his mistress.

Wife: Ours is prettier.
 
Last edited:
clarsct said:
MdC:

Well, from a logical viewpoint, I would say the state shouldn't grant any status whatsoever to people because of what they do with their 'bits'. But as it seems to do so, then doing so ought to be even across the board. To grant one specific segment of society certain rights because of a behavior(sex), then deny all others those rights based on....
Click to expand...
If society grants status to pairs of people, then I agree that any pair of people (as Z notes, speaking of adults) should logically be able to grab the same status. Does it necessarily follow, though, that a larger group than two should get the same status? It is not clear to me that it does (nor is it clear that it doesn't).

ETA: [aside to Tricky]I've met a few couples who claim a committed monogamous relationship 44 weeks a year--every week that the Texas Renaissance Faire isn't in session.[/aside]
 
Last edited:
That's not for me. It's difficult enough having one committed relationship.

If you want to be in that type of relationship, I won't stop you. As long as everybody is completely honest about what's going on, I don't see a problem.

As far as state recognition, I think marriage should be a religious institution, not a secular one. Legal partnerships would make more sense to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom