The issue of polygamy

Operaider said-
"I don't think anything short of banning him will prevent him from taking over threads. There is no way to restrict him from throwing his 2 cents into every thread on the Jref Forum. As you can see from his post this morning in the Computer forum"

I put it to you that completely ignoring such posts is the most effective solution. If he starts a thread, neither post in it, nor read it. If he tries to hijack a legitimate thread, totally ignore his input. No need to use the ignore list. Just exercise self restraint.

If we all hold back from feeding trolls, perhaps they will starve?
 
Soapy Sam said:
Operaider said-
"I don't think anything short of banning him will prevent him from taking over threads. There is no way to restrict him from throwing his 2 cents into every thread on the Jref Forum. As you can see from his post this morning in the Computer forum"
Click to expand...
Sam, could you please use the Quote button? It would make your posts much easier to read.
TIA,
 
The readings on my stupidity meter are way down now. I think it's safe to come out.


OK, where were we?
 
Just for a quick clarification: Polyagamy either -gyny or -andry generally refers to relationships of legal standing i.e. legally having 2 or more spouses (spice? sorry old joke) which at least in most 'developed' countries is illegal. Polyamory is the preferred term for relationships with multiple partners, the other term being open marriage or open relationship.

What differentiated Poly from 'swinging' is there is a level of commitment and caring between partners, where as swinging is just about sex.

Most Poly takes on one of about 4 different forms: primary relationship where each partner has other secondary relationships, "V" one person multiple relationships and little or no contact between the other partners, Triad or 3 people in a closed relationship with each other or 'Families' 2 or more of each gender living together (think commune).

I believe it is possible for a person to love two or more people at the same time and maintain valid, caring relationships. I also have found that in order for that to work everybody involved must consent to the relationships, there must be established rules for those relationships and open, honest communication between all parties is mandatory.

Unfortunately what happens is one person will use polyamory as excuse to initiate what is actually 'overlapping serial monogamy'. In other words they say they are poly, start a relationship (often without the other partners consent) and then end the first relationship when the second one becomes 'more important' or they decide they want it to be exclusive.



Personally, I think extreme fetsh kink BDSM is safer than poly.




:D



Boo (Or was that TMI?)
 
sackett thanks for an interesting post. I love anthropology.

I'm sorry I spotted this thread so late (maybe too late...), but I'll chip in my two cents anyway.

I think polygamy is a lot like anarchism:

1) The common idea of it is not representative.
There's more to anarchism than just "every man for himself", there's more to polygamy than "everyone jumps queen", although people don't tend to think there is.

2) In my opinion, in order to work successfully both would require people of above-average charecter, else the whole enterprise is likely doomed to failure.

3) I don't think I would be capable of performing well in either situation to be honest. As Brian from Family Guy said, "I'm the jealous type".

I've known some people with informal multi-partener relationships, and from what I heard, these weren't too successful.
 
You're welcome, wittgenst3in. Anthropology is always illuminating. I know just enough about the subject to serve as camp cook on an expedition. Oh, and I can help carry the heavy stuff.

Polygamy and polyandry can only work when they're formal, regularised, and legal institutions, i.e., integrated parts of the society. Even then, polygamy can be a burdensome business, as Sir Richard Burton observed in Utah, Arabia, and Africa. In many cases, maybe most, the man who undertakes polygamy is legally obligated to provide a separate domicile for each wife, with all the expense and headaches that implies. The man who tries to maintain a zenaina or harem is asking for trouble -- big, even fatal trouble if the wives conspire against him.

Polyandry may work differently, but it's such an uncommon practice that details are hard to come by. (I said I was an ignoramus.) As with polygamy, I would expect the wife to be obliged to keep the husbands apart. Obviously, only a society that gave women a lot of status would be able to tolerate polyandry.

Utah would be a great place to collect anecdotes about the reality of polygamy, including what it means to be the child of a second or third wife.

However: Mark Twain, after visiting Salt Lake City, opined that Brigham Young deserved a civic medal for taking those twenty-odd old maids off the market. I agree; I've seen pictures of them
 
Another aspect of polygamy, and I do mean gamey

Some years back, I saw a picture of a defiant American polygamist, a bearded joker who claimed to be an offshoot Mormon, posing among his seven or nine or however many wives. He lived, of course, in backwoods Utah. I studied that picture for some minutes, taking in Mr. Polyg's smirk, and also the expressions some of those wives were wearing. (Bottom row, left end: ooooh! what a nicey-spicey little number! with a look that said "Hey you! Yes, you, the handsome one! C'mere.") I reflected that that man might not be able to see them, but he was wearing a pair of mighty long horns on his forehead,

and they were growing longer

day by day.
 
sackett said:
You're welcome, wittgenst3in. Anthropology is always illuminating. I know just enough about the subject to serve as camp cook on an expedition. Oh, and I can help carry the heavy stuff.

Polygamy and polyandry can only work when they're formal, regularised, and legal institutions, i.e., integrated parts of the society. Even then, polygamy can be a burdensome business, as Sir Richard Burton observed in Utah, Arabia, and Africa. In many cases, maybe most, the man who undertakes polygamy is legally obligated to provide a separate domicile for each wife, with all the expense and headaches that implies. The man who tries to maintain a zenaina or harem is asking for trouble -- big, even fatal trouble if the wives conspire against him.

Polyandry may work differently, but it's such an uncommon practice that details are hard to come by. (I said I was an ignoramus.) As with polygamy, I would expect the wife to be obliged to keep the husbands apart. Obviously, only a society that gave women a lot of status would be able to tolerate polyandry.

Utah would be a great place to collect anecdotes about the reality of polygamy, including what it means to be the child of a second or third wife.

However: Mark Twain, after visiting Salt Lake City, opined that Brigham Young deserved a civic medal for taking those twenty-odd old maids off the market. I agree; I've seen pictures of them
Click to expand...

I saw a program about polyandry some time back (or at least that featured as a major part of it). Wish I could remember what it was now, I have a feeling it was one of Michael Palin's romps and it involved a nomad tribe. Basically the tradition was that the brothers in a familiy all shared 1 wife between them. It seemed to work Ok to a degree, however the youngest brother was treated more like a son than a husband by the wife which didn't go down to well.
 
A google on polyandry

will get you a lot of material, of uneven quality to be sure. It would seem that polyandry is a fairly widespread Himalayan practice, usually if not invariably among nomads. (Funny, the Todas live smack dab in the middle of India, far from the Himalayas. But then people can migrate long distances without making a big deal out of it.) Like any practice, polyandry requires examination in the the context of the entire society. I wish some industrious person would publish a study of it.

There's going to be a lot of resentment among multiple spouses if the wife or husband's attentions aren't shared around even-handedly. In old-time Utah, a wife might upbraid her husband by shireking* "You given Abigail a babby but you ain't given ME one!" Imagine a horny adolescent brother finding the bedroom door barred to him every night! There's an axe-murder brewing!

* I rather think there's a lot of shrieking at times in a polygamous household. Yes, mhm
 
According to more modern research, Polyandry in the Himalayas is dying out as increasing numbers of people move to the city and opt not to share their husbands. Traditional Himalayan polyandral families all lived under one roof, as their kinship was an extended family anyway. Again, exposure to modern urban dwelling has resulted in this custom rubbing away.
 
I lived in a threesome for a while (2 guys and me), and it works ok as long as all three are equally capable. This relationship went south because one guy was not willing to deal with his alcoholism.

In the long run, since there are always inequalities in how much people love or can love, I don't think a threesome works. However, I have always been curious about group marriages (hello, Robert Heinlein).

I think the biggest factor that would prevent a multiple-partner marriage from working would be the construct of modern society which frowns upon anything out of the one man/woman construct.

As a note, it annoys me that multiple-partner marriage is always associated with the Yahoo-mormons.
 
bluess said:
. . . the construct of modern society . . . frowns upon anything out of the one man/woman construct. . . . multiple-partner marriage is always associated with the Yahoo-mormons.
Click to expand...
Right there you have it: society and religion must sanction the multiple-partner type of marriage. Freelancers are -not- welcome.

Unfortunately, society and religion are the same thing in far too many places. The yahoo-mormons (I like that phrase, btw) are usually found out West, pretty often in Utah, where LDS and guvmint resemble incompletely separated Siamese twins.

I wonder if the friction and unhappiness in multiple-partner marriages in our society arises mostly because the parnters, however freethinking and independent they imagine themselves to be, are made uncomfortable by a sense of being out of phase with their culture.
 
sackett said:
I wonder if the friction and unhappiness in multiple-partner marriages in our society arises mostly because the parnters, however freethinking and independent they imagine themselves to be, are made uncomfortable by a sense of being out of phase with their culture.
Click to expand...

I think you are right. I would be interested in comments from other posters with experience (theirs or friends) regarding your supposition.

I know that one partner (the illegal one) always feels like their in hiding, and that their is a certain hesitation in being three together.
 
Gimme room, I'm introducing an acronym

The illegal parnters ARE in hiding, or they'd better be.

Which brings up the question: why are multiple-partner marriages (MPM) outlawed in so many societies? Leaving out the religious angle -- and it's odd that Abrahamic religions should ever grow critical of polygamy -- what are the arguments against MPM?
 
Re: Gimme room, I'm introducing an acronym

sackett said:
The illegal parnters ARE in hiding, or they'd better be.

Which brings up the question: why are multiple-partner marriages (MPM) outlawed in so many societies? Leaving out the religious angle -- and it's odd that Abrahamic religions should ever grow critical of polygamy -- what are the arguments against MPM?
Click to expand...

At the moment, people seem to acquire multiple spouses, but in sequential order. Hmm. Perhaps it would cut down on the divorce rate if new partners were added to an existing marriage, rather than substituting one marriage for another?

Also to consider are demographic changes. If the gender ratio changes dramatically, or if the number of homosexuals rises greatly, then quite a few people could be doomed to spinsterhood. Even if the population is 50/50 male to female, which it isn't quite, you can assume that a certain percentage of both genders is gay. That entire percentage will be eliminated from the potential mate stock of the opposite gender, because each gay mating removes two of the other gender, not just one. For every two gay guys who get together, there are two straight women left without a man. They will therefore have to compete more furiously. Add that a certain percentage of both genders will simply not marry by choice, or is too young, or locked up in prison (another source of disproportion between the genders at this point)....it looks like there are conceivable shortages of potential mates. Everyone will have to lower their standards to compensate, which will drive up the divorce rates later...

Multiple marriages would both add to and alleviate such a crisis. If one man marries two women, then one other man is left without. But if there are twice as many available women than men, there is no other man being deprived, and the extra woman has a mate. It's up to the three of them to decide if sharing a mate is preferable to going without.

I can see advantages and disadvantages in legalized multiple marriages. The only sure beneficiaries will be the divorce lawyers.

Let's just get rid of marriage and all live in sin. So much simpler with the paperwork.

edited to add: sorry, I was going to respond to the quoted passage with possible arguments against multi marriage, but damned if I can think of any beyond how much tedious legality would be involved, plus the difficulty of figuring out people's relationships at a glance.
 
Working hard to think of objections

In a society that allows MPM, apportioning benefits could be a problem. For instance, if several wives have equal claim to a deceased man's social security or life insurance benefits, none of them will get much. Same goes for any minor children left behind.

Multiple wives are a point of vanity in polygamous societies (dunno about multiple husbands among the polyandrous, but probably they are too), and too many men take on more families than they can support, with consequent pressure on social services -- if they exist, and often they don't in polygamous places.

Marriage means children, in most cases. Multiple marriages produce multiple children, and that spikes the population upward.

I wonder how much fathering children of polygamous unions get? You have to hope that polygamous societies provide supplementary parenting of some kind.

It's taken me a good half-hour to think up the above practical objections to MPM. In the main, I would say that "society" (however you want to define it) has only a limited amount of business trying to regulate these matters. Human nature and economic pressures will shape the numbers and forms of MPMs; politicians can find better things to do. Preachers can STFU
 
If a man has multiple wives and they have children, you can be pretty sure (neglecting out-of-marriage children, which are actually not to be neglected) about who their parents are.

If a woman has multiple husbands, you're only sure about the mother.

Maybe it doesn't matter, anyway.
 
You have convinced me. I had planned to never marry, but now I shall, to as many people of as many sexes and sexual orientations as I can find!

Everyone, I hope you know how I feel about you all. What I'm trying to say is, I love all of you. Will you marry me? All of you? Join with me, in holy monkey-trimony! Ah, I can already anticipate that magic couple of hours when the minister says "you may kiss the brides and grooms". The music will play, we'll rent a troop transport to ferry us all down the aisle, and for the honeymoon we'll conquer a tropical island and seize some hotels.
 
TragicMonkey said:
You have convinced me. I had planned to never marry, but now I shall, to as many people of as many sexes and sexual orientations as I can find!

Everyone, I hope you know how I feel about you all. What I'm trying to say is, I love all of you. Will you marry me? All of you? Join with me, in holy monkey-trimony! Ah, I can already anticipate that magic couple of hours when the minister says "you may kiss the brides and grooms". The music will play, we'll rent a troop transport to ferry us all down the aisle, and for the honeymoon we'll conquer a tropical island and seize some hotels.
Click to expand...

You wild love Monkey you! Excluding your proclivity for poo-throwing (and considering the number of partners, I'm sure you'll find someone who wants to join in THAT activity), count Blue in. I shall smile upon you from my piece of Blue heaven.
 
I hope they're all one-man wimmen!

Jellby said:
If a man has multiple wives and they have children, you can be pretty sure . . . who their parents are. . . .
Click to expand...
Oh
no
you
can't.

Mark Twain somewhere has a little piece on Solomon and his 1,250 wives (or whatever the number). Assuming Solomon has to have his nookie every night, and assuming he plays fair and visits his 1,250 wives in strict order, a wife will get her portion of brawn .29 times a year. Now that is hardly enough for a lusty young woman, I don't care if he is Solomon and, as the Queen of Sheba said, "I was not told the half of it."

Twain concluded that Solomon must have been wearing history's biggest pair of antlers, unless he had enough guardian eunuchs to work three full shifts and they never, but never, slipped up or took a bribe -- or, as can happen, nipped off one of the king's buds, since neutering doesn't always render a man disinterested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom