Polyamory & polygamy

[Darth Rotor]

I would think the complexities of sorting out medical insurance would be enough to make someones' head explode.

I think the gripping and head exploding is routine ejaculation under autoamory. (Your post was directly beneath a gripping joke post, so I think this is all linked together.) If not, oh well.

For Saizai: why would a Christian interrupt an intelligent discussion of polygamy and polyaomry with an OT diversion about monogamy? You tend to prefer your threads address the thorny questions you think you are posing.

My take on polygamy got posted in Politics a while back. It does not strike me as irrational, but a higher risk proposition than monogamy due to the increase in variables, and the geometrically more challenging dynamics it presents to interpersonal relationships. I expect there are some people who can manage it, with the right mix of personality types. As tough a fit as just the right man and wife can be to make, I'd expect a polygamy "best fit" to be geometrically more difficult to put together.

Polyamory is an interesting undertaking, hard to sustain. Some call it "fornication." Whatever. It's not impossible, as many non Western cultures seem to handle it OK. I don't see how it can be a 'pact among equals' but that is biased by experiential data points on a number of one guy with multi girlfriends set up and flowed.

Polyfkery describes some of the periods during my twenties. To be honest, it was emotionally exhausting, but since I was young, dumb, and full of cum, I did not much care. I eventually found "the one" for me, and the rest is history.

Between the episodes of Polyfkery were some rather long, dry spells of polybloodyfkall, with a bit of autoamory to keep the prostate over pressure from reaching critical levels.

DR

 

[saizai]

For Saizai: why would a Christian interrupt an intelligent discussion of polygamy and polyaomry with an OT diversion about monogamy? You tend to prefer your threads address the thorny questions you think you are posing.

My intention for this thread was
a) religious perspectives on it (which has turned out to be summarizable as "enh, so?"), and
b) general philosophical discussion.

If you have something to add to (a), please do, since I consider that more interesting for this forum.

Your comments however seem to object purely on a practical / pragmatic level (like the discussion so far in this thread), rather than being particularly religious.

"Fornication" doesn't seem at all particular to poly vs mono; either can have or or can not have it. Granted, those who are into polyamory (rather than polygamy) tend to be more liberal sexually as well, but that's mainly just cultural IMO.

I don't see how it can be a 'pact among equals' but that is biased by experiential data points on a number of one guy with multi girlfriends set up and flowed.

Indeed. Do you know any mixed modern polyamorous relationships rather than stereotypical polygynous ones?

Polyfkery

That's mostly a tongue-in-cheek word actually. Used to describe people who claim polyamory but are really more in the 'swinging' paradigm.

 

[Meadmaker]

meadmaker - Please be clearer. What do you mean by 'no one wants it'?

People who are poly don't want to be married? They think they do, but if they realized the complexities they wouldn't? They don't count, and by 'no one wants it' what you mean is 'the majority of people arguing for gay marriage don't actually care whether polymarriage is allowed'? Or is it really a joke i.e. you realize that sane informed people do want it?

I'm confused as you seem to be contradicting yourself.

I guess I need smilies. Let's try this:


Over in a gay marriage thread, they said polygamy was a straw man. That must be true.


Seriously, though. The two are related. What we see happening is that with the advent of reliable birth control, the rules for sexual relationships, including marriage, changed. Suddenly, it was possible to have sex with minimal danger that it would result in babies, and Roe v. Wade further reduced the risk. It turned out that this whole one man, one woman, relationship wasn't really the thing that everyone wanted. It was just what people were kind of forced into by the whole biology problem.

Now, people are rethinking the whole question of "What is marriage?" It used to be set in pretty simple rules. One man. One woman. Til death do us part. Now, we, as a society, are questioning each of those assumptions. We've pretty much discarded the last part as optional. A lot of people want to cross out man and woman and replace them with "adult" and "another adult". This thread is about crossing out the number "one", and replacing it with "any number of".

Do we want to do that? My opinion is that no good can come of getting the government involved in trying to write the rules on how 3+ people share lives, bodies, and property.

 

[Antiquehunter]

I don't disagree with your final point that polygamy-positive legislation is probably way more effort than what its worth. I also agree that the gay-marriage debate is starting discussions around the definition of marriag - and I don't see that as a bad thing. Progress is progress, and it often isn't easy.

However, suggesting that gay marriage shouldn't be considered or is 'wrong' because it leads to polygamy is a hollow argument - nor is there any evidence to suggest its a slippery slope. I don't think there has been any serious consideration of approving polygamous relationships in any jurisdiction where gay marriage has been approved.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Well, of course you'd say that. You don't want to hit everyone with all of your ammo in the fight against marriage at once.

XV. Traditional Marriage, Destruction of
A. Push for legalisation of gay marriage
B. Wait for people to get used to the idea
C. Ambush them with polygamy
D. Wait again.
E. Suggest marrying of livestock.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Hey! You snuck in E all on your own. That's not on my gay agenda!

 

[Darth Rotor]

My intention for this thread was
a) religious perspectives on it (which has turned out to be summarizable as "enh, so?"), and
b) general philosophical discussion.

Not sure how you mean "religion" and religious

Religious as a cultural baseline?
Religion as "law of God" regarding marriage?
Reilgion as purely philosophy?

It is worth considering the habits of the rich, versus the habits of the poor. Not all persons are equally served by all marriage conventions. My slight understanding of Chinese, Korean, and Japanese cultures is that monogamy is the norm, and mistresses a luxury one either can or cannot afford. Kings and emperors wrere allowed multiple wives. The variations on that among Eastern religions and philosophies (digression: is the Tao a philosophy or Religion? Both?), and my lack of deeper understanding precludes fruther comment from that angle. It seems, from a snapshot view, that over the millenia the Asian norm has titrated down to a monogamous standard, with variable opinions on mistresses and philandry. Hmmm, rather like the French. (See Wolfman's excellent post about a small subculture in China with no marriage, Politics forum. Fascinating, and I hope useful for your examination of the topic. IIRC he entitled the post "A world without marriage." )

Some Islamic norms that allow a man to keep wives in numbers greater than one, providing he can afford them, which is a significantly one way polygamy deal, as it is not a reciprocal standard.

The Christian norm of monogamy has the advantage of the KISS principle, whether or not you take it as God's instruction for the two to become one flesh, which raises an interesting parallel to the Far Eastern Yin and Yang coupling.

As a philosophy, then, Christian monogamy it is egalitarian in nature, whereas polygamy seems to be biased toward the rich. In the Christian mode, if you have one wife as a standard, rich guys don't get extra legitimate lady resources any more than poor guys do. The trick is to find that woman who makes with you a best fit, with her families blessing, that last consideration slightly favoring a rich guy.

Under Christian philosophy, polyamory is not sanctioned by doctrine. Is there anything further to add to that? Not as I can see it. The idea behind that, philosophically, seems to me an effort to reduce that human dynamic tension -- who is your favorite wench? -- as a source of societal friction.

DR

 

[Meadmaker]

Under Christian philosophy, polyamory is not sanctioned by doctrine. Is there anything further to add to that? Not as I can see it. The idea behind that, philosophically, seems to me an effort to reduce that human dynamic tension -- who is your favorite wench? -- as a source of societal friction.

DR

Under Muslim law, I'm told, it's ok to have four wives according to Mohammed, but only if you treat them all equally. Modern Muslim scholars have interpreted this as meaning that it is NOT ok to have four wives, because it is impossible to treat them all equally.

I personally can think of four "family units" that called themselves "poly" that I have known well enough to call friends, meaning I knew them well enough to have some insight into their personalities. I don't know if it means anything, but all of them consisted of an officially married couple, and another woman. In one case, the three were an item for a long time, when two of them got married. (That's when I met them.) Later the non-wife wanted a baby, and they all thought it would be better if the parents were married, so the two got divorced and then the man married the other partner. After the baby was born, they all moved off to California. I lost track of them at that point, although rumour had it that the now third woman (the non-mom and official ex-wife) had left the partnership. Two other groups consisted of a husband and wife, who added occasional long term partners, always female. There was also a lot of "swinging" sorts of sex. A final group consisted of a monogamous couple who added an extra woman, called themselves poly for a while, but it really didn't last long, when the first wife got tired of the deal and walked out.

So, all of them involved one man with more than one woman. None of them were permanent. For what it's worth, I would say mental illness was involved in two of the relationships. (One of the official wives was chronically and severely depressed, marginally functional in society. Another was a bipolar alcoholic.) Anecdotally, it doesn't seem to me to be working out well for most. On the other hand, at least half of plain old marriages end in divorce these days, so maybe it isn't any worse.

 

[clarsct]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Medical benefits: This will be worked out by the insurance companies..no worries.

Legal rights: By contract basis. There are several ways a contract could be worked out. The easiest way to deal with this, legally, is to have the state issue licenses in order to keep track of stuff like census data and whatnot, but only to those people that have a social contract filed with the state. In other words, you would all go see a marriage lawyer(Yet another type of lawyer..*sigh*) and get a contract hammered out, then go file it with the state. In that contract, things like wills, children, death benefits and divorce proceedings will be handled.

In other words, let the People decide how/who they want to marry, and have the state simply keep track, the way it always has. Perhaps they will have a 'standard contract' that they use for hetero couples, as they tend to be the most numerous.

Doesn't seem that complex to me. It does seem like a change, and maybe a decent one for a lot of people to swallow all at once, but it is far more sensible than what we have in place.

As far as Christianity is concern, Church is, by definition, a private club. They can say it isn't a marriage in the eyes of God if they so choose. What they cannot say is that the state should only recognize marriages that are marriages in the eyes of their God.

Something about the Constitution......

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Well, it seems pretty complex to me, but I'm not sure it's worth it to argue about how complex it is if we've nobody around with a real solid idea of what, exactly, would need to be done (where the hell are all our lawyers, eh?). I'd definitely have to see a fully fleshed-out plan for covering all the bases before I could say I support legally recognised polygamy.

 

[clarsct]

Hmmmmmm.

I cross-posted this over at SC to try to get another perspective, and because the only two folks I KNOW to be lawyers are posting there and not here.
http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=269904#269904

I know MdC is over there now, so perhaps we'll get some kind of legal input, which would be nice.

Any other lawyers out there are welcome to comment here, of course, it just seems that we aren't attracting any with our discourse.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'll try to keep an eye on that for lawyer inputs. Thanks, clarsct.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Any other lawyers out there are welcome to comment here, of course, it just seems that we aren't attracting any with our discourse.

Just wait - lemme try something:

"Help! Help! I was in a car accident that wasn't my fault, and now my neck and back are really sore, and I'm so traumatized by the incident that I fear I'll never be able to drive again, which will significantly impede my ability to generate revenue and support my family! Whatever shall I do?!?!?"

If that doesn't attract a lawyer, nothing will.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

I'd like to see AS or a real lawyer tackle this one.... Would be interesting.

My father, who is a real lawyer, has mentioned one such case.

It concerned a rich couple in his town, the names of which he refused to divulge on the grounds that I had met them.

It would appear that the physical passion had left their marriage, and both were seeking fullfillment, or at least recreation, outside the bounds traditionally ascibed. My father's job was to help create a document that said something to the effect of "we both screw around, but it isn't grounds for divorce". Presumably, a divorce would have compromised their combined fortune, and this couple was simply too pragmatic to consider something as messy and time consuming as a divorce.

It's such a calculated and greed driven move that I can't help but admire that couple, however they are.

No, it's not remotely polyamory, but it does give some idea of what can be legally accomplished.