Quote from: DianaP on January 05, 2013, 12:45:27 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2074301/Woman-with-objects-fetish-marries-Eiffel-Tower.html

Wow she's..... a weirdo, lulz. But whatever.

Anyways I'm totally cool with polygamy. Live and let live.

While I am very comfortable with the concept of multiple partners I think the practicalities of the situation tend to get in the way.

There is an assumption also, that hasn't been mentioned is that the 'dominant' male will have several  partners, I think this does occur, I'm unsure if it is anywhere as common for a dominant female to have several partners?

Quote from: Cindy James on January 05, 2013, 01:12:32 AM
There is an assumption also, that hasn't been mentioned is that the 'dominant' male will have several  partners, I think this does occur, I'm unsure if it is anywhere as common for a dominant female to have several partners?

Or, maybe it's a mix. 3 men, 4 women, and the Taj Mahal. 

About that video, it seems like the husband is in the background, at least from the 6 minutes that was shown. Also, 25 siblings? Just... how? 

Quote from: Cindy James on January 05, 2013, 01:12:32 AM
While I am very comfortable with the concept of multiple partners I think the practicalities of the situation tend to get in the way.

There is an assumption also, that hasn't been mentioned is that the 'dominant' male will have several  partners, I think this does occur, I'm unsure if it is anywhere as common for a dominant female to have several partners?

Kia Ora Cindy,

[My apologies Sunshine for the slight derailing of your thread  ]

A few years back I watched an interesting documentary about TOFU [me being a vegetarian and all] and how it was the staple diet for some people, well it didn't just talk about tofu , it also described the way of life of the different tribes that ate it...The Mosuo people were mentioned:

"In the Xiaolianghshan Mountains, Yunnan province (South East China), live the Mosuo people, one of the last living matriarchal societies today. They are closely related to Tibetans. In their social system, paternity and marriage are not the same as in our world. The main pillar of the family is the mother.

But what makes the Mosuo unique is their practice of zuo hun, or "walking marriage". From the age of 13, after being initiated, females may choose to take lovers from men within the tribe, having as many or as few as they please over their lifetime. Male companions are known asaxias and spend their days carrying out jobs such as fishing and animal rearing, and visit the women's homes at night, often secretly; any resulting children are raised by the woman's family. The father and all adult men are known as "uncles" – there is no stigma attached to not knowing who a child's father is.

Sex is practiced freely. They only have to choose a partner to spend the night and only incest is forbidden. Typical marriage and fidelity are something like heresy. Obviously, they don't seem to present signs of jealousy. The western love tragedies of revengeful and victimized lovers make them laugh. They think the visitor is kidding them "How is it possible to end your precious life for something so banal like sex?"

Among the Mosuo, since neither male nor female children will ever leave home, there is no particular preference for one gender over the other. The focus instead tends to be on maintaining some degree of gender balance within a household, even by adoption or "children change"!

Metta Zenda

Zenda, you beat me to it!  I was going to comment on that same tribe. 

Quote from: Kelly J. P. on January 04, 2013, 11:24:15 PM
Being married to two people would probably be troublesome because of the enormous potential for drama and envy.

How is this an argument against multiple partners? As if two-partner unions are somehow free of drama and envy?

The Mosuo are awesome! 

Quote from: DianaP on January 05, 2013, 01:13:41 AM
Also, 25 siblings? Just... how? 

Polygamy!

Ah, yes, having multiple women does make it easier. 

Quote from: Cindy James on January 05, 2013, 01:12:32 AM
While I am very comfortable with the concept of multiple partners I think the practicalities of the situation tend to get in the way.

There is an assumption also, that hasn't been mentioned is that the 'dominant' male will have several  partners, I think this does occur, I'm unsure if it is anywhere as common for a dominant female to have several partners?

No question that it does favor a very patriarchal structure in a lot of ways. My family's history has plenty of examples of that.  But it also enables and fosters a lot of very strong bonds between women (which the history also illustrates) including subtle forms of collusion. Patriarchy is definitely something I see as a problem, and many of the cultures that support polygamy (which in its etymology is just one almost certainly patriarchy-affirming form of polyamory) do demonstrate many of the negative aspects of patriarchal societies.

Consent issues do present a lot of problems here, but then consent issues are also present with other behaviors that persist, regardless of the laws that exist to discourage them, such as incest and various forms of in-family abuse. Perhaps in time societies will decide that the nuclear family itself is a sickness and will move to ban it altogether? Not something likely to happen now. But in terms of forming a logical and equitable basis for which sorts of relationships society condones or permits, I find it hard to justify prohibiting any of them, as long as they can be proven to have been formed consensually.

Quote from: ~RoadToTrista~ on January 05, 2013, 02:44:44 AM
Polygamy!

My mom had 14 siblings, not counting herself. And that was in a monogamous household.

My direct family hasn't practiced polygamy since the 1800s, so far as I know. One of my great-great- grandmothers, in fact, colluded with the wife of a doctor who wanted to marry her, to sidestep his rather transparent attempt to blackmail her into becoming his 5th wife.  This happened at a time in the 1850s or 1860s when she was already engaged to my eventual great-great-grandfather, who had yet to arrive in the Salt Lake Valley.

Quote from: Elspeth on January 05, 2013, 02:33:45 AM
How is this an argument against multiple partners? As if two-partner unions are somehow free of drama and envy?

Let's assume that a trio has at its head a male, with two females as his wives. If the male displays that he favours one woman over the other, there arises a probable scenario for jealousy. If both wives are sufficiently mature, then this problem may be mitigated, but the effects of this favouritism are highly individual, so I can't really conjure statistics on how many multiple-partner relationships suffer from this versus how many don't.

There is other, more general, potential for drama in a multiple-partner relationship versus a two-person (or single person) relationship. Specifically, the fact that there are more people in the relationship alone is enough to raise the probability of drama. The personalities involved have a higher probability of clashing because not only are there more people, but more person-to-person relationships (i.e. three to the two-person relationship's one).

It's all probability, of course. A two-person relationship is just more likely to work with less drama over a longer period of  time, but this isn't always the case. Theoretically speaking, anyway.

One thing that would affect the statistics in favour of multiple-person relationships is the fact that knowledgeable people [considering] entering multiple-person relationships are more likely to be mature enough to handle these types of relationships than the average unacquainted person, and these people may possibly have a more mature attitude regarding relationships in general.

From that perspective, I believe three-person relationships have not only more potential for drama, but a higher probability of drama. It's my opinion that, before mitigating factors, that point is difficult to debate... but after their consideration, it's probably up to opinion, unless someone has actual statistics.

Also, I am in no way saying two-person relationships are without drama or are not flawed - just that they are probably flawed less often.


Personally, I prefer a single-person relationship. It's all moot to me.

Quote from: Elspeth on January 05, 2013, 03:00:40 AM
Consent issues do present a lot of problems here, but then consent issues are also present with other behaviors that persist, regardless of the laws that exist to discourage them, such as incest and various forms of in-family abuse.

If it's abuse, then it's obviously not consentual, by definition. 

Quote from: Kelly J. P. on January 05, 2013, 03:05:48 AM
Let's assume that a trio has at its head a male, with two females as his wives. If the male displays that he favours one woman over the other, there arises a probable scenario for jealousy. If both wives are sufficiently mature, then this problem may be mitigated, but the effects of this favouritism are highly individual, so I can't really conjure statistics on how many multiple-partner relationships suffer from this versus how many don't.

There is other, more general, potential for drama in a multiple-partner relationship versus a two-person (or single person) relationship. Specifically, the fact that there are more people in the relationship alone is enough to raise the probability of drama. The personalities involved have a higher probability of clashing because not only are there more people, but more person-to-person relationships (i.e. three to the two-person relationship's one).

It's all probability, of course. A two-person relationship is just more likely to work with less drama over a longer period of  time, but this isn't always the case. Theoretically speaking, anyway.

One thing that would affect the statistics in favour of multiple-person relationships is the fact that knowledgeable people [considering] entering multiple-person relationships are more likely to be mature enough to handle these types of relationships than the average unacquainted person, and these people may possibly have a more mature attitude regarding relationships in general.

From that perspective, I believe three-person relationships have not only more potential for drama, but a higher probability of drama. It's my opinion that, before mitigating factors, that point is difficult to debate... but after their consideration, it's probably up to opinion, unless someone has actual statistics.

Also, I am in no way saying two-person relationships are without drama or are not flawed - just that they are probably flawed less often.


Personally, I prefer a single-person relationship. It's all moot to me.

Yeah, that's why over 75% of marriages fail. Note that I said "fail," not "end in divorce." For example, my parents haven't spoken in years and live miles from each other, but are still legally married. 

Quote from: Zenda on January 05, 2013, 02:01:31 AM
"In the Xiaolianghshan Mountains, Yunnan province (South East China), live the Mosuo people, one of the last living matriarchal societies today. They are closely related to Tibetans. In their social system, paternity and marriage are not the same as in our world. The main pillar of the family is the mother.

Personally, I do consider matriarchies superior to just about anything I've seen in American societies or subcultures.  Let freedom ring! 

Nice comment Elspeth, it also started a thought.

This may be wrong but it is a thought. Outside of a traditional two people relationship.

Men seem to have 'problems' with 'their' woman having sex with multiple partners but don't seem to have a personal problem with themselves having multiple partners.

I'm not sure why. Yes I can see the problem on one on one relationships and cheating and infidelity etc. But in general, and using that very broadly, men seem to see a woman having multiple sex partners as some sort of threat to their masculinity.

Possibly my view is that if I have multiple partners one at least may get me off before they get off and lay in contented bliss while I'm  thinking 'I could really use a good lover'

Quote from: DianaP on January 05, 2013, 03:09:13 AM

Yeah, that's why over 75% of marriages fail. Note that I said "fail," not "end in divorce." For example, my parents haven't spoken in years and live miles from each other, but are still legally married. 

Hm. My numbers must be old - I'm still working with the old "over 50%" figure.

My parents have been divorced since my early childhood. I only have one memory involving my father, and it's not even an appropriate or positive one. Wasn't enough time for me to develop any sort of unconditional (or otherwise) love for him, in any case.

With "over 75%" in mind, I must contend that over 76% of three-person relationships fail.

Quote from: DianaP on January 05, 2013, 03:09:13 AM
If it's abuse, then it's obviously not consentual, by definition. 

Agreed. But the issue remains, how do we effectively prevent it? Does prohibiting people from forming voluntary unions that they do desire necessarily prevent abuse?  I think there are power issues that do need to be addressed somehow, but that can only be done if there's a truly open dialogue and some high degree of transparency. And probably some way of providing those within patriarchally structured subcultures some kind of exit or release?  How exactly do we get there? It doesn't seem the present system is doing that very well. Silence, secrecy and abusive power relationships seem pretty common to me, but maybe that's only because I used to have free access to all the police reports of domestic abuse in my rural county back when I was in my late teens, doing radio news (and given the understanding by the authorities that those reports were private, and not to be reported on air).

Quote from: Elspeth on January 05, 2013, 03:10:08 AM
Personally, I do consider matriarchies superior to just about anything I've seen in American societies or subcultures.  Let freedom ring! 

Neither matriarchy nor patriarchy is a good system. Either way, 50% of people won't have freedom. 

Quote from: Elspeth on January 05, 2013, 03:17:11 AM
Agreed. But the issue remains, how do we effectively prevent it? Does prohibiting people from forming voluntary unions that they do desire necessarily prevent abuse?  I think there are power issues that do need to be addressed somehow, but that can only be done if there's a truly open dialogue and some high degree of transparency. And probably some way of providing those within patriarchally structured subcultures some kind of exit or release?  How exactly do we get there? It doesn't seem the present system is doing that very well. Silence, secrecy and abusive power relationships seem pretty common to me, but maybe that's only because I used to have free access to all the police reports of domestic abuse in my rural county back when I was in my late teens, doing radio news (and given the understanding by the authorities that those reports were private, and not to be reported on air).

You can't really prevent abuse 100%, and letting people voluntarily enter relationships that they desire wouldn't necessarily lead to abuse. Although, your last comment made it sound like you thought that abuse was okay as long as there was consent, which would be impossible if it was abuse.

I do not know about other bisexual people but I would prefer to be monogamous.

But I would be ok with my partner wanting to fulfill his/her sexual desires with someone else as long as it doesn't violate or destroy our relationship.

And while I would open to the idea of being in a relationship with more than one person, it just doesn't rock my boat, unless the relationship with the other person is purely sexual and my partner is completely ok with it and is actively involved as well. But this rarely ever happens with anyone.

Quote from: DianaP on January 05, 2013, 01:13:41 AM
Or, maybe it's a mix. 3 men, 4 women, and the Taj Mahal. 

Also Diana the Taj Mahal is a mausoleum! >.<

Quote from: Alexia6 on January 05, 2013, 03:28:02 AM
Also Diana the Taj Mahal is a mausoleum! >.<

I know. It was an allusion to an earlier point I made about a lady marrying the Eiffel Tower.