It made me chuckle when I read that as "Call me old fashioned. I wouldn't mind playing with another girl, but my boyfriend can't have none"Catie Caraco said:
I caught the Star Trek reference, by the way.
Polygamy
- Thread starter Draconalis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I caught the Star Trek reference, by the way.
I think it's great.
And here's how I personally look on it with my life. If I loved a woman, I would personally never want it to be unrequited under any conditions. And I would rather share that woman with someone else rather than not have her at all. Just because she might like someone other than me doesn't mean that they don't still love me. Heck, she could just want to have sex with another man and that doesn't mean she doesn't love me or still want to have sex with me. People are naturally sexually attracted to lots of people. And again having that attraction or desire or even going through with it doesn't mean that they wouldn't love me or be attracted to me anymore. So long as they're tolerable people and not jerks, it's not a big deal. I don't want to share a person with a bunch of jerks. But if they're nice guys or girls or whatever, it's no big deal.
There are a bunch of people out there who would say silly things like "she's playing you, you're just a toy, you're pathetic", but I think they're stupid and their opinion doesn't matter. And that's why I would be in a relationship with a woman I loved, instead of people like them. They don't know what's right and what's best, and they don't know what's best for me and people I care about. It's more abusive to be told that you're a friend and you know what's best for someone, and that they need to get out of that situation, than to share someone you love. They don't know what your love is, they're not in your position. And they're by default less important and less dear to you.
So yeah, there's no reason to stop loving who you love. Even if one person in the picture loves more than one person.
And here's how I personally look on it with my life. If I loved a woman, I would personally never want it to be unrequited under any conditions. And I would rather share that woman with someone else rather than not have her at all. Just because she might like someone other than me doesn't mean that they don't still love me. Heck, she could just want to have sex with another man and that doesn't mean she doesn't love me or still want to have sex with me. People are naturally sexually attracted to lots of people. And again having that attraction or desire or even going through with it doesn't mean that they wouldn't love me or be attracted to me anymore. So long as they're tolerable people and not jerks, it's not a big deal. I don't want to share a person with a bunch of jerks. But if they're nice guys or girls or whatever, it's no big deal.
There are a bunch of people out there who would say silly things like "she's playing you, you're just a toy, you're pathetic", but I think they're stupid and their opinion doesn't matter. And that's why I would be in a relationship with a woman I loved, instead of people like them. They don't know what's right and what's best, and they don't know what's best for me and people I care about. It's more abusive to be told that you're a friend and you know what's best for someone, and that they need to get out of that situation, than to share someone you love. They don't know what your love is, they're not in your position. And they're by default less important and less dear to you.
So yeah, there's no reason to stop loving who you love. Even if one person in the picture loves more than one person.
*Boards up my House*Hitokiri_Gensai said:I believe its mostly for law purposes, as in, who is legally married to who and all that crap.
Personally, i have two slave girls, and a girlfriend, and im always looking for another slave so, im a polygamist
I SERVE NO MAN OR WOMAN!!!
You won't be getting your hands on this piece of meat anytime soon Madam!
Daystar Clarion said:
I couldn't do it because I'm one of those jealous types. Not by an extreme level, but to share a spouse or divide attention from one seems just like a huge NO to me.
I kinda live that old Kerouac Romance, "There's that special someone out there for me and only me."
....Suddenly my manic depression shot back up like Mt. Krakatoa after reading that.LilithSlave said:
Honestly, some people may be ok with that sort of lifestyle, but to me it sort of makes me feel like #2 again or brings back memories of my last relationship.
"Yeah I care for you. Just not as much as you do for me. So don't go looking at other girls while I don't show you affection."
Me:..."I'm ending this "
Surprised she didn't cheat on my ass. But idk. Jealously is something that spreads faster than a rumor over the internet.
I want to give you the manliest and most scientific hug possible...*Tears well up in my eyes*Draconalis said:
Hmm Pardon my intrusion sir, but is it you or Draconalis that is Pro-Polygamy?Housebroken Lunatic said:
You've proven to bring up valid points and I might have misread a bit.
It started with our original religious laws, and never got changed. Since the most prominent examples of it are when it's used to abuse women and children, it's not exactly a cause most people want to rally behind.
A "triple" romantic relationship is called a "triad" - I live in one, and have for over a decade. We own property together, share a bank account, and care for each other when we fall ill. With us, it happens to be me (bisexual male), my wife (bisexual female), and my male partner (gay male) - my wife and my partner love each other in a very platonic way.Draconalis said:
It is illegal in America primarily, like many "moral laws", for religious reasons. In the Netherlands:
Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal ?married? both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301
...it appears quite legal.
We haven't ever had the cops come in and bust us for living together; when we bought a house, all three of our names were on the property deed. You can add as many names as you want to a bank account, etc. It's tricky, but you can live as a triad (or quad, or whatever) - you just can't have a legal marriage; so you need a good lawyer if you, say, want to leave your property to multiple people when you die.
It also sucks in the US because we're not all eligible to be on one another's health insurance plans; but US health insurance sucks in general. It's employer based for the most part, which means if you lose your job you're already in a position of having to rely on the emergency room for all medical care; and they won't treat everything at the ER until it's in the final, life threatening stages. In other words, the emergency room won't give you free blood pressure medication in the US but they WILL try to save your life if you're having a heart attack on the floor.
But back to your general question, why is it illegal? Money and religion, and the desire to control and have power over others - same reasons as most laws.
I believe it is a chaotic system that is hard to manage, not impossible, but far from the simplest option.
On the other hand, if all parties are aware and in support of it and believe they can make it work, then they should go for it.
On the other hand, if all parties are aware and in support of it and believe they can make it work, then they should go for it.
Shit... in the US, the ER (which isn't officially called the ER anymore, I just can't remember what it IS suppose to be called) will treat everything... it just wont be free... not by a long shot.
ED? Yeah, that's it... ED, Emergency Department... cause it's not a room... (No one ever called it the ED)
ED? Yeah, that's it... ED, Emergency Department... cause it's not a room... (No one ever called it the ED)
While I wasn't advocating for intelligent design and in fact using the word "designed" in a rhetorical sense sort of the way this guy uses the word "sculpted" to say exactly the same thing http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=secrets-of-the-phallus&page=2 he is not of course implying that anyone specifically formed your penis out of a lump of clay, as some religions dictate, but rather that there is a specific purpose to the way it is formed.Housebroken Lunatic said:
Personally I thought this was simply as widely accepted as the usual answers to where do babies come from, but if you REALLY want to see the science behind it here is a semi-recent study http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/Penis%20shape%20and%20sperm%20displacement.pdf .
Words like "designed", "sculpted" and "purposed" actually appear quite commonly in evolutionary texts. They in no way imply a designer or intelligent meddling in evolution but rather that the eventual result was something with a practical application to survival.Housebroken Lunatic said:
It does not prove humans are polygamous by nature, but it strongly supports it. If competing with multiple sex partners was such an issue that the by-product was a population whose very physiology is prepared to fight off competing partners even to its own detriment it would certainly imply infidelity. In the event that ancient humans were primarily monogamous our ancestors would have higher chances of reproducing if sperm were more benevolent towards one and other, and at the very least shape and behaviour would provide no advantages, at least none that anyone has seen.Housebroken Lunatic said:
The level of proof you seek may simply be unsustainable, I would point out that you cant "prove" evolution. It is merely a theory that fits all known facts, more often than not falls perfectly in line with new discoveries, and has been reviewed by thousands of scientists who have gotten the same results. It is however still a theory, Much like gravity.
I think this is funny, you seem to be using even less science than the people you are debating, You accused me of Christianity because of semantics, and your usual argument seems to be akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALALALALA. While i would agree its not good science to say such things are "rare" and therefore simply don't apply, Draconalis still has a valid point. To bring more vulgar science into it, Most gorillas seek very few sexual partners, some even mate for life. They, like virtually all species that do this have small testicles, as they require less sperm production and quite frankly making more than you need is a waste. Chimpanzees on the other hand live lives more along the lines of F**k everything that moves have larger testicles in order to increase the likelihood of offspring with each partner. Physiologically we fall much closer to the Chimp than the gorilla. This on its own proves nothing, but if you examine the relation between testicle size and promiscuity in the entire animal kingdom you find a striking correlation. It would just be wrong to exclude humans from that, or to assume that somehow our brain simply trumps all biological understanding.Housebroken Lunatic said:
We're both Pro-Polygamy.Madara XIII said:
I might not be polygamous myself, but I wish those who are all the best and have no criticism whatsoever for their practices of polygamy... Provided that they're honest and open about it that is.
Getting girlfriends/boyfriends and then cheating on them in secret and justifying it by calling yourself polygamous is just disgusting behaviour. If you're going to be polygamous, all people you have sex/romantic relations with should be made aware of that fact if they don't know about it. But this behaviour is hardly a norm for polygamous people (most of them I know of are honest and open about the whole "deal" and I hope that they are in the majority, and the few cheating scumbags are in an insignificant minority).
Anyway, both me and Draconalis are Pro-Polygamy. What we're arguing is the matter of love and lust and how people have different views and feelings about it, and that some consider love and lust to be pretty much inseparable, while others don't.
Draconalis argues that no one thinks that love and lust are inseparable and that everyone makes a distinction. Or he's trying to argue that those who do make a distinction have reached some sort of "profound understanding" of some "fact of life" that people who don't make a distinction haven't.
I argue that the perception of love and lust and their possible inseparability, is a completely subjective matter. That everyone experience and percieve love and lust differently, and that they are in fact inseparable for some people (i.e they can't love anyone they don't feel lust for, and can't have lust for anyone they don't love etc.).
I also argue that it's completely fine that it is that way. That there is no "right" or "wrong" views in the matter of subjective perceptions of experienced emotions.
The law makes no provisions concerning BDSM relationship, so long as no one attempts to have more than 1 marriage occurs. I'm a sub involved with a married top, and both of the married partners have a sub each, and he law doesn't care, provided we're not all trying to file taxes together, or claim benefits from one another.TheDarkEricDraven said:
My captcha was 'THE JAWASTEM'. That's either strangely coincidental, or very disturbing.
No it wouldn't be wrong. Mainly because our brain is so incredibly complex and give rise to such a wide variety of behaviours (some even counterproductive to genetic survival) that you can't just use the same biological principles for humans that you've used when observing animals.BRex21 said:
Animals just do not possess the same ability of self-reflection and abstract thinking as humans do. They also do not possess the ability of communicating complex and abstract ideas that humans do.
And due to the overt simplicity to animal brains as opposed to human brains, this make animal behaviour a lot more predictable and easy to draw concluscions from than human behaviour.
ALso consider the fact that we haven't even mapped out all animal behaviour yet. Scientists constantly learn new things about animal behaviour which shatters yesterdays perceptions, things like certain species of birds that we usued to believe were monogamous actually proved to be polygamous and in some isntances vice versa.
Then there's the "sneaky fuckers"-phenomenon. Previously, pretty much the entire academic world believed that darwinism was about survival of the "strongest", since male and female parties of different species of animals tended to prefer the strongest and most robust mate, and then they discover that members of some species are actually not as strong or robust but they manage to procreate anyway because they decieve the opposite sex in different ways into procreating with them.
So the most reasonable standpoint in this discussion is that there is a whole lot of uncharted territory here. And even IF we were to mapp all animal behaviour, human behaviour would still be a lot more complicated to map the same way. Since animal behaviour is driven a lot more by hereditary impulses being tickled by external stimuli (like the instincts in certain land predators to start chasing something they see running away from them). They don't reflect or think about it, they just "do".
Human behaviour doesn't work the same way. Humans reflect and ponder. Sometimes over ideas that are completely abstract and internal. That makes analogies in the animal kingdom useless, and it's also pretty useless to look at a few simple biological features and simply reach a concluscion that all humans are promiscuous by nature, and at the same time disregard the infinitely wide spectrum and variation of human behaviour occuring, both now and since ancient times.
Remember that we are a species building things like atombombs and creating virus-strains that could wipe out our entire species without having any hope for survival. That's severely counterproductive in terms of survival, so you can't just apply simple "survivalist"-theories to humans like you do to animals, because each such assumption will ultimately prove to be inaccurate.
Its alright if you're into it. Islamic law allows it, but you have to be able to support each wife equally, so thats the way i think it should be. you can marry 2, 4, 8, 20, 1000 women if you want. Just make sure each gets and equal share of the financial pie and each gets an equal share of affection and love from you.