Post Reply
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
6 years ago  ::  Mar 30, 2009 - 11:52PM #1
Ourquad
Posts: 1

I'm 1/4 of a polyamorous quad. We've been together a little over two years but do to some circumstances and letting the relationship mature, we do not live together at this time.


We haven't had a ceremony per se but we all four have exchanged matching rings.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2009 - 7:08AM #2
Norm_uk
Posts: 74

Dec 31, 1969 -- 6:00PM, REteach wrote:

I believe there was a Bullshit! episode (Penn & Teller, Showtime, possibly 2nd season) that interviewed a group in a similar relationship.   It dawns on me that the title of their show could make it sound as if they disapproved.  What they disapproved of is others trying to tell consenting adults what they can and cannot do with each other.  I believe they interviewed an adult son of one of the couples.



I saw that episode and it was an eye-opener. It really does seem that people are restricted in their sexual relationships with other consenting adults simply becase others will not approve.


Made me wonder why we are raised thinking having one partner is somehow moral and better than several. I would be open to the idea of a multiple partnership if everyone was open and honest with each other (heck you need openess and honesty in every kind of relationship for it to work!)...


N.


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2009 - 12:37PM #3
Kiauma
Posts: 27

Modern marriage assumes equal partners with equal say in the marriage, agreeing to a union which benefits both.  This is extremely unlikely in the case of a man with multiple wives.   In Mormon polygamy, for example, the situation has been historically solely for the benefit of the patriarch, exploiting the wives to serve him, as sole benefactor and decision maker.  This is why I see Mormon polygamy is morally wrong, because it is basically an exploitative relationship.   Similarly, an adult marrying a child could clearly only be an exploitative relationship, given the inherent maturity differences


Though of course no US laws allow multiple marriage partners, one could hypothesize a situation in which some people could wish to form a group marriage under presumably equal rights and benefit for all.   This actually could have many benefits for the children; There would be more resources to help start the child off in life, and if one or more 'parents' died there would be others who could continue to guarentee a stable home, among other related benefits.   Heinlein does a good job of describing this in several books.


Thinking about it, one would have to ponder how it might be successful, and how it might fail.   For myself, I have have had to conclude that perhaps in some far flung future such a sitation MIGHT be workable, but today I look around me and I see people have their hands full just trying to deal with ONE spouse, let alone numerous spouses.    In general, I think people are far too narcisistic, needy, selfish, and distrusting to  make such an arrangement work, not to mention the stigma the general public seems to hold of such matters - at least at present.


I actually do not see any moral grounds for ruling it out, at least as far as consenting adults - it is simply an arrangement that faces formidable challenges in practice.   I think humanity has a lot to learn before it can even approach a workable solution, though some very courageous and intelligent people may forge ahead on their own anyway.


So,  that was a very good question, and I appreciate it being brought up - but I simply doubt that you or I will see the idea catch fire in our lifetime or even soon after for the above given reasons.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2009 - 1:33PM #4
MysticWanderer
Posts: 1,328

>>>Modern marriage assumes equal partners with equal say in the marriage, agreeing to a union which benefits both.  This is extremely unlikely in the case of a man with multiple wives. <<<


This is an a priori assumption.  It is by no means necessary or certain that partners in a multiple marriage will not be equal any more than multiple partners in a professional corporation.


 >>>In Mormon polygamy, for example, the situation has been historically solely for the benefit of the patriarch, exploiting the wives to serve him, as sole benefactor and decision maker.  This is why I see Mormon polygamy is morally wrong, because it is basically an exploitative relationship. <<<


First there is No Mormon ppolygamy today nor has there been for almost one hundred years!  Polygamy today is ground's for excommunication of ALL involved by the church.  There are small, cult like sects that still practice polygamy but there are universally condemned by the church for numerous reasons.


Historic polygamy within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints probably had abuses as all marriages do; there are forced or arranged marriages even in the twentieth century that today we would all oppose.  A twenty-three year old  man marrying his 13 year old cousin (Jerry Lee Lewis) is very questionable for many reasons yet it happened. 


That being said polygamy would certainly appeal to more possessive men or women but the laws and customs could control this issue.  The modern American adherence to monogamy is still based primarily upon a JudeoChristian tradition and on inertia.

"Not all who wander are lost" J.R.R.Tolkein
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. ~Anne Lamott
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich von Schiller
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 01, 2009 - 12:09PM #5
Kiauma
Posts: 27

My friend, I think you have completely missed the spirit and intention of my post.  :)


Your every point can be taken for granted.   My intention was not to define all existant marriages, but to try to present a case for what makes some relationships valid and some invalid in my view.     I apoligize for having done so poorly.


You are right, the case of 'the case of a man with multiple wives' is an 'a priori' assertion - but I base it on the simple logic of what would drive many women to wed a single man.   Please, give me an example of a circumstance or situation that would cause many women to marry a single man that is not exploitative or forced, or based in some part on an assumed deference to that man?   Or, turn it around - what would cause you to share a single wife with many husbands?   Extraordinary circumstances, I presume.   In general, I think my statement is a safe assumption.


No, the official Mormon church does not condone multiple marriages any longer.     I did not think I had to explicitly state this, but figured most reasonable people would know that I was referring to polygamists who identified themselves as Mormon ( www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=2156 )   I simply related this as a contemporary example.   Again, I apologize if my wording was poor.

Yes, all forms of marriage or subject to abuses, as are all human enterprises.  This too I thought did not need to be explicitly stated - though I stand by my definition of what separates an exploitative from a beneficial relationship, and would even expand that to say it applies across all human endeavor.  :)

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 04, 2009 - 12:49PM #6
MysticWanderer
Posts: 1,328

May 1, 2009 -- 12:09PM, Kiauma wrote:


My friend, I think you have completely missed the spirit and intention of my post.  :)


Your every point can be taken for granted.   My intention was not to define all existant marriages, but to try to present a case for what makes some relationships valid and some invalid in my view.     I apoligize for having done so poorly.


You are right, the case of 'the case of a man with multiple wives' is an 'a priori' assertion - but I base it on the simple logic of what would drive many women to wed a single man.   Please, give me an example of a circumstance or situation that would cause many women to marry a single man that is not exploitative or forced, or based in some part on an assumed deference to that man?   Or, turn it around - what would cause you to share a single wife with many husbands?   Extraordinary circumstances, I presume.   In general, I think my statement is a safe assumption.


No, the official Mormon church does not condone multiple marriages any longer.     I did not think I had to explicitly state this, but figured most reasonable people would know that I was referring to polygamists who identified themselves as Mormon ( www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=2156 )   I simply related this as a contemporary example.   Again, I apologize if my wording was poor.

Yes, all forms of marriage or subject to abuses, as are all human enterprises.  This too I thought did not need to be explicitly stated - though I stand by my definition of what separates an exploitative from a beneficial relationship, and would even expand that to say it applies across all human endeavor.  :)




As far as what would drive an individual of either gender to accept or even seek a non exclusive relationship with another love remains the central aspect.  I would point out the current "open" marriages that some enjoy where both individual have the option of outside affairs.  Another example is wives and husbands who accept the recurrent infidelities of a spouse with the knowledge that they always return to home.


As far as what would drive me to a relationship involving multiple husbands, I came very close tro just such a relationship at one point in my life and it was only the legal and social conventions that prevented it!  Multiple husbands were not uncommon in precolonial Hawaiian culture.


All relationships have the potential for exploitation, the fact that you cannot understand why another would accept a given relationship does not eliminate the fact that some can are not necessarily exploited just because of the relationship.


As for the "Mormon's" that engage in polygamy there is constant confusion between the organized and growing Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and others who violate the official doctrines and imitate them.  This sad state of affairs is not limited to LDS however but is a little touchy given our history.

"Not all who wander are lost" J.R.R.Tolkein
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. ~Anne Lamott
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich von Schiller
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 04, 2009 - 5:50PM #7
Kiauma
Posts: 27

Thanks for the discussion MysticWanderer.


Most interesting.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook