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.
I don't have any specific opposition. I am just confounded how to solve the issues of divorce, inheritance, next-of-kin rights, and so on when there are 3+ parties instead of 2.
Why bother with legal marriage when you can all just live together or separate or form any type multiple relationship/family you choose. Its kind of ironic that with the many men terrified of being financially raped by a wife and child any man would even consider the crap storm they would have to suffer with the possibility of multiple plaintiffs in a divorce.
Why bother with legal marriage when you can all just live together or separate or form any type multiple relationship/family you choose. Its kind of ironic that with the many men terrified of being financially raped by a wife and child any man would even consider the crap storm they would have to suffer with the possibility of multiple plaintiffs in a divorce.
Oh, it's deeply ironic - compounding the fantasy! But consider the possibilities uniquely enabled by marriage. Now we have a "crisis" with Syrian refugees, no? Imagine if a man who's a US citizen "marries" a Syrian family. The appeal to them is US citizenship. The extant husband and wife don't have to divorce. The family stays together. But they get a golden ticket to the US. Meanwhile, the American fellow gets, well, whatever husbands get. Is this workable? No. But it's fun to think about.
Why wouldn't the American man just marry a foreign mail-order bride, under the current monogamous marriage laws? Because (1) "the good ones are already taken" is presumably an adage that applies abroad as well as domestically, and (2) the great drawback for foreign brides is loss of family-connections and lonely exile to an alien world. Polyandrous marriage handily overcomes both dilemmas.
I have known one situation where two couples with kids became one enlarged family. They had two townhomes side by side, and the kids knew that all of the parents were to be treated as parents. If one couple wanted to go out of town together, the other would cover down, they would swap it up with bedroom partners, although that bit was not really my business and I didn't care, I appreciated that they cooperated so well and helped one another so much with the logistics of raising children. Nowadays it's hard to have a parent at home, often both work, and I think that this situation, especially when there is more overlap in adult presence to parent kids, is better than both parents being at work long full time hours (maybe also overtime) and paying someone to raise the kids who has no real relationship to the family.
Their dynamic has been in place for over a decade, and it works very, very well for them.
They have what is being called "poly-fidelity." More than two in the relationship, but they are faithful as a group and don't mess around outside of it.
I also know of families where the parents were swingers, they would go to resorts or getaways, and what happened there stayed strictly there. Otherwise, they were faithfully married.
That family was my Aunt and Uncle's household, and they had a very happy, healthy dynamic as well, and did in fact make it until "to death do us part" as he passed away a few years back. Their boys are very happy, successful young men now.
Those of you who say that all of this is impractical and doesn't work, I'm sorry, but I think that is an ignorant blanket statement for you to make. It might not be workable for you or even for most people but for some folks it works very, very well. Much of it depends on levels of communication, trust, honesty, maturity and respect among those involved. You can't be uncommunicative and insecure and immature and pull this off. There have to be rules that everyone in the group agrees to live by, and renegotiation if anyone's needs are not being met. Most people just aren't comfortable being that honest and upfront about needs, issues, sexuality and so on. I think that a happy poly group is far superior to a marriage with two adults living years of quiet desperation in their own personal hell, eventually falling apart when one or both can't take it anymore, having secret affairs perhaps, or unsatisfying sex lives.
In my own poly group, none of us have brought kids into the picture. I'm the only one who has any, and my ex and I had/have agreed that he is going to be the primary custodial parent of them. I don't bring these people to my home, I go see them in their homes. But it's not just a kink thing, though that's part of it, far more important to all of us is awesome intellectual compatibility and enjoying time and activities with one another. Simply put, we're a bunch of great friends who love one another and have sex occasionally. We are just as likely to be nerding out on Doctor Who or something, as we are to be enjoying naked time with hot tub and massage.
I would say that it's working out pretty well. And I don't think it's got any more likelihood of falling apart in a storm of drama than a monogamous relationship does.
Setting that aside, I am really not sure at all that it would be feasible in terms of societal cost, and cost to involved institutions and organizations, if we could all get married. Though perhaps any involved complications could be easily smoothed over with new rules, like stepping up cost for additional spouses on insurance plans, even splits for inheritance, etc. Fortunately we don't actually WANT to all get married, so it's a non-issue.
This board is hilariously heteronormative sometimes. We don't live with our girlfriend, but she lives nearby. I know what "sister wives" get out of it, because they share housework and childcare and that's probably all they expect out of life anyway. It's not like that for us. I probably wouldn't mind cohabitation at some point, but I am not willing to give anything up in a legal sense, and I don't feel right about giving someone the status of lesser wife. She has a job and a house and a life, though, so she's not looking for that anyway.
Cool. This is the second post of yours I've read recently alluding to this. Just as a matter of interest - and I do NOT mean to pass any judgment when I ask this - why a girlfriend? Have you and your husband ever had a boyfriend? If not, would your husband be open to that? If not, why not?
I don't have any specific opposition. I am just confounded how to solve the issues of divorce, inheritance, next-of-kin rights, and so on when there are 3+ parties instead of 2.
I really don't think its that difficult.
Property division: the marital estate just gets added up for 3 people divided into 3rds (or 4ths, 5ths, 6ths, whatever) for divorce division instead of the default 1/2 you get now.
Inheritance: really? So what do you do if someone has more than one kid. Split equally? This is not a new concept.
Next of kin rights: This is the one where we really have no precedent. I'd say the first married person (so the "senior" wife/husband) gets to make medical decisions and such. Thats just my choice, there are other arrangements. It wouldn't be hard to come up with a rule.
What so on? This stuff isn't hard. Poly marriage isn't a technical problem it's a social one.
Cool. This is the second post of yours I've read recently alluding to this. Just as a matter of interest - and I do NOT mean to pass any judgment when I ask this - why a girlfriend? Have you and your husband ever had a boyfriend? If not, would your husband be open to that? If not, why not?
Why do all of you posters get hung up on this? Most poly people have boyfriends and girlfriends, and yes the husbands are open to the wife sleeping with another man just like the wife is open to the husband sleeping with another woman. Usually, the men are MORE accepting because men typically like watching their wives be sexual, which is far more common for men towards their female spouse than the other way around.
Why do all of you posters get hung up on this? Most poly people have boyfriends and girlfriends, and yes the husbands are open to the wife sleeping with another man just like the wife is open to the husband sleeping with another woman. Usually, the men are MORE accepting because men typically like watching their wives be sexual, which is far more common for men towards their female spouse than the other way around.
But of course it depends on the dynamic. I don't understand why that matters, either. The whole "fair is fair" thing is ridiculous in this context. If something makes all of the people involved happy, then yay, go for it. I think the assumption is that the "unicorn" is there just to please the man, and the wife would rather not have her in the mix, but if she's gonna go along with that, then she should get another man if she wants one. Well. Maybe she really likes girls, and it's all the same to her. Maybe that is THE solution that pleases them both. As opposed to one that she might enjoy but would HURT him. Poly people have to respect the needs and the boundaries and the feelings of their partners. Whatever everyone can agree upon sincerely and be happy with, is fair and proper for their situation.
It's not about some arbitrary balance or fairness.
And that's before we even get into power exchange dynamics, for those who do that.
Of course people have other kinds of configurations. A third who is male, who may be straight and involved with only the woman, in or out of the presence of the husband, or a male bisexual (they exist, one of the men I'm dating is one) who plays with both in a couple, or another couple, or well...you name it. But the bi wife and unicorn girlfriend situation isn't inherently unfair, as long as everyone's happy with it.
Why do all of you posters get hung up on this? Most poly people have boyfriends and girlfriends, and yes the husbands are open to the wife sleeping with another man just like the wife is open to the husband sleeping with another woman. Usually, the men are MORE accepting because men typically like watching their wives be sexual, which is far more common for men towards their female spouse than the other way around.
Hung up on what? JJ mentioned THEIR girlfriend. She didn't say anything about a boyfriend. I'm curious, so I asked. I assume it's open for discussion, or she wouldn't have mentioned it.
Perhaps you need to quit being so hung up on what you perceive as other's hangups. You seem as quick to judge as you reflexively assumed I was. Besides, my question was directed at JJ, not you, so maybe you also need to learn to MYOB.
Hung up on what? JJ mentioned THEIR girlfriend. She didn't say anything about a boyfriend. I'm curious, so I asked. I assume it's open for discussion, or she wouldn't have mentioned it.
Perhaps you need to quit being so hung up on what you perceive as other's hangups. You seem as quick to judge as you reflexively assumed I was. Besides, my question was directed at JJ, not you, so maybe you also need to learn to MYOB.
But of course it depends on the dynamic. I don't understand why that matters, either. The whole "fair is fair" thing is ridiculous in this context. If something makes all of the people involved happy, then yay, go for it. I think the assumption is that the "unicorn" is there just to please the man, and the wife would rather not have her in the mix, but if she's gonna go along with that, then she should get another man if she wants one. Well. Maybe she really likes girls, and it's all the same to her. Maybe that is THE solution that pleases them both. As opposed to one that she might enjoy but would HURT him. Poly people have to respect the needs and the boundaries and the feelings of their partners. Whatever everyone can agree upon sincerely and be happy with, is fair and proper for their situation.
It's not about some arbitrary balance or fairness.
And that's before we even get into power exchange dynamics, for those who do that.
Of course people have other kinds of configurations. A third who is male, who may be straight and involved with only the woman, in or out of the presence of the husband, or a male bisexual (they exist, one of the men I'm dating is one) who plays with both in a couple, or another couple, or well...you name it. But the bi wife and unicorn girlfriend situation isn't inherently unfair, as long as everyone's happy with it.
It's not, but people seem to get their ideas from TV where all threesomes are two girls and all poly situations are religious polygamy in West Texas or Utah.
They think they're being cute by saying "why can't she have a boyfriend!" and you'll go WHAT! and they'll be like whats good for the goose...
When in fact, there's probably a lot more open relationships that fall into the hotwife or cuckold category than there are polygamy. At least from what I've seen.
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.
