Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This presupposes that all the partners in the relationship are equally attracted to everyone else. Then there would never be a problem of mate competition. But that's not how humans (and I suppose all living things) evolved. Sexual reproduction is a competitive sport.
I didn't want to get too deep into polyamory, but the possibilities are many, including not just all members being equally attracted to each other.
Just with three people, here are the possibilities:
Triangle - all three are attracted to each other equally
V - One is attracted to the other two, but those two are not attracted to each other
Y - Two are attracted to one which brings them together, but if those two break up, the threesome falls apart
The options quickly multiply with quads and groups of people 5 and higher.
I've been in a V-relationship with all females and am in a Y relationship with two females, one male. However, my wife and I still identify as lesbian, and while we consider my "roommate" to be attractive on the emotional level, we aren't attracted to him esthetically, as a male. He recognizes this also and is okay with it. However, when we have children, we will recognize him as their father.
It's a Y-relationship in the sense that if my wife and I were to divorce, or if one of us were to die, our "roommate" (I don't know what else to call him since "boyfriend" and "husband" don't fit) would not go off with either of us.
I am pro-consensual polyamory, not necessarily mutual attraction. As long as all the members consent to the given relationship, that's what matters. If not all of them are attracted to each other, it's not a problem so long as they're okay with it.
For example, when I was in a V-relationship, both my girlfriends knew about each other and were okay with me dating both of them at the same time, even though they were not attracted to each other.
Quote:
The whole point of mating is to maximize your chances of passing your genes to the future. You improve your odds of accomplishing this by picking the mate whom you think has the best genetic fit to yours, and has the greatest chance of giving you the most survivable offspring.
For males, the reproductive strategy has been based on maximizing quantity of sexual contact. The male has literally millions of sperm to waste, but he only needs one lucky sperm to successfully inseminate an ovum. The male is also fertile all the time; he can ejaculate a dozen times a day if he wants to. Polygamy is a reproductive strategy that fits males to a T.
The female, meanwhile, produces only one ovum at a time....so her strategy is radically different. It is based on ensuring optimal quality of the sperm (donor) that inseminates her. She is only fertile once a month. While the male has millions of chances to win the genetic lottery over his lifetime, the female is limited to 12 per year over at best 30 years.
You can argue biology, but as soon as we start talking about homosexuality, using biology as reasoning becomes less valid. There's obviously more to relationships than just biology, otherwise all people would only ever be attracted to healthy opposite-sex members, which is obviously not the case when you start getting into homosexuality, asexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, and other minority sexualities like fetishism, BDSM, etc. So I think the reasons for polyamory and other sexualities such as asexuality are above and beyond just biology.
Quote:
The female must therefore be more selective in mate choice. The female who participates in a polygamous relationship has made the calculation that her male partner is sufficiently well endowed (genetically, financially, or both) that her offspring by him will be a high quality child who will be provided for, despite competition from the other females within the harem. This is probably why only rich and powerful men keep harems. They can afford it.
But the scenario you envision of the multilateral husband-wife household will never be stable. The females will - by necessity - gravitate to the best male of the group..... the best being the most physically fit perhaps, or the most intelligent, or the richest - the alpha male. This triggers male rivalry within the household which invariably leads to violence. In the language of game theory, it is not an evolutionarily stable strategy.
This to me sounds like theorizing. While they're nice hypotheses, I don't know how much ground they hold in actual reality. There hasn't really been extensive research on polyamory of all sorts. Most of the polyamory that gets talked about is one man, many women. But there are many other options and practices out there that fly under the research radar. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I'm just saying it's hard to know right now how applicable your points are.
If homosexuality is ok,then what exactly is wrong in polygamy or incest..?
An adult man,marries legally 1,2,3 adult women...
And the other way round...
An adult woman marries 1,2,3 adult men...
Male hetero polygamy is legal in most Muslim countries...
What about homosexual polygamy too...
They are consenting adults,aren't they..?
As for incest,what is wrong in any...combination of parents & children..?
Father marries daughter
Mother marries son...
Son marries his sister
Also,what about homosexual incest,either..alone or combined with polygamy..?
Father keeps marriage with wife but marries his homo son too & his homo (or not) daughter as well...
All...consenting adults,not psychopaths,not declared insane by any court.
They just...like so...
And no..outsiders or...fortune seekers,right..?
( Talking about...family-oriented people... ).
Let's hear your comments...
Hopefully polite & constructive.
You forgot to mention animals. If gay marriage is OK, why not allow people to marry their pets? And before you respond, I'm talking about marriage, not sex.
There are lots of people that are closer to their pet than their spouse. Why not allow them to marry?
so should people with bad genes not be able to breed? lots of people are carriers of genes for diseases etc. Jews and Quebecois have much greater chances of having a child with taysachs if they breed with either jews or quebecois. blacks have higher instances of sickle cell anemia...
if it's genetically unhealthy to allow incest, then why not forbid others from breeding?
You forgot to mention animals. If gay marriage is OK, why not allow people to marry their pets? And before you respond, I'm talking about marriage, not sex.
There are lots of people that are closer to their pet than their spouse. Why not allow them to marry?
because they are not human and cannot consent. i agree incest and polygamy would have to be legal if it's between consenting adults. if gay marriage is legal, then the others must be legalized
As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, I don't have to participate, and they keep the noise down after ten o'clock, anything and everything they want to do is groovy by me.
I agree with this. If all involved are consenting adults let them have it.
Beacuse that's convoluted logic which has NO relevance to heterosexual marriages nor same-sex marriages either!
yes it does. they are also consenting adults
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
