Category: Dating and Relationships
While flicking through the channels this evening, I came across the show sister wives. I initially couldn't even stand to watch it; I found the idea of a man having multiple wives absurd and rediculous. But my BF's mom sort of got me hooked on the show. Now I watch with curiosity, even though I wouldn't personally want to be in a polygamous relationship.
I think religious polygamy is just a great excuse for a man to have a variety of women to play with and not feel guilty about it. Isn't that every man's dream? lol.
My real issue though, is, why would it be so horrible to think that the women should have multiple husbands. That would make both sexes equal, but that's a big no-no in that branch of the Morman religion, and I just think that isn't fair. It's sexist.
Feel free to weigh in your two cents worth. Whatever that may be.
First, I want to express my appreciation for your differentiating the polygamists from other branches of Mormons. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) myself, it drives me nuts how uneducated people are regarding this issue.
With regards to the issue, I don't support the idea, or the practice. The practice has been going on since time immemorial, and while there are a variety of reasons behind its practice, I find the whole idea difficult to accept. It's true that the LDS church did practice it for a brief time in the mid eighteen hundreds, and while it's also true that it was strictly controlled, and for a purpose, it still kind of bugs me. (I won't get into the reasons behind it here). I've always believed marriage should be between a man and a woman, not a man and women, or men and a woman. I think the whole idea is a recipe for disaster. But I know it probably works for some people. I know though that I'd never ever want to share my wife with any man. I can't see too many women feeling much different, even if the extra help and support might seem appealing.
Interesting. You say that the practice has been going on for many reasons. I wonder what those are, because I can only see one true reason, and it doesn't have anything to do with religion. that being said, I'm not very familiar with the morman faith; I don't understand, that's all.
I couldn't be a sister wife because I'm just too posessive in nature. I don't want my man spending time with someone else who is supposedly equal to me in his eyes. If I ever get married, I want it to be because someone thinks I'm unique and special, not just one of the bunch. lol. I couldn't stomach the idea of my husband having sex with some other women, who supposedly have as much a right to sleep with him as I do. How does that equate with morality? How is that in accordance with any god?
Reasons.
In some societies it is difficult fore a woman to support herself without a husband, so she gets one even if she must share.
Next, in some religions there is a rule that says every woman deserves love, effection, and sex if you will. There aren't that many man to go around, so they see it as why should she suffer?
Next, and back to the other societies. The woman has 2 choices, be a wife, or be a prostitute, so many chose wife. It is safer, she can raise children in a loving setting, and she eats daily, plus has love.
Some cultures actually allow women to have more than one husband, but these are few, due to the reason there are more women, something like 3 or 4 to 1 man.
Last, women that practice this say they are happy with it, and the other wives become sisters, and much love is shared.
It is just a different way of living or thinking, and it seems to work.
This topic has been talked about someplace here. Search for it and you'll find more opinion on this subject.
Although I would not personally involve myself in a relationship that involved anyone other than the two of us, I've always believed that in so far as loving arrangements go, there doesn't really exist a hierarchy in terms of acceptable and less acceptable relationship structures. Ultimately, if all parties involved hold similar views and expectations, it's really difficult to criticize. The difficulty that's often sited (and you mentionned it) is that often, women are expected to tollerate their partners sleeping around while themselves having to remain faithful; we often feel really badly for these women (I know I do). It's hard though, because these women are often consenting adults who chose to stay in this kind of relationship (just as they could choose to leave it). Obviously I'm not referring to situations where polygamy is forced.
The trouble would be in legalizing it--Canada hasn't done this, and I suspect it's highly unlikely. We would have to overhaul the entire wedding and insurance structures, and I don't think our country is remotely prepared for it.
Agreed completely Skyla. To say it would be a financial and business nightmare is probably an accurate statement. I think the sociological hurdles would also be quite difficult. I highly doubt it will come to that though, simply because I don't think there is enough momentum to make an uproar. Then again, you don't need so much momentum if you have an extremely vocal group.
I don't think I can say much more about this than has already been said. Write Away, You've asked the reasons for such a practice , and to be honest I think your one reason is probably the dominent one. Even in my own church there were people who had that desire - hense the existence of the fundimentalist Mormons whose philosophies still require the actual LDS church members to perform damage control on occasion.
And now, a history lesson if you want to know the reason my church practices this, just for the heck of it. If you don't care, feel free to end your reading here.
In the very early days of the LDS church, its members were subjected to vicious persecution by various forces, not the least of which was the United States government. Some people just didn't like the church, and what it taught, or how it came to be. Members were driven out of their homes, forced to endure harsh relocation treks across country, or simply murdered. It was good to kill "mormons", it was socially acceptable. I'm sure you can see where this is going. Many men ended up dying, leaving their families scrambling to get by. Women had far less freedoms back then of course. The types of jobs a woman was allowed to do were quite narrow. The short end of this story is simple. In order to help these families, the church was given the order that certain worthy men take upon themselves multiple families - multiple wives. The conditions for this practice were strictly controlled. You had to be able to financially support them, you had to be a worthy priesthood holder (which is a high moral standard of living which we all strive for in my church), your wife had to be okay with it. There were others as well, but you get the idea. I don't know how long polygamy was acceptable, but after a brief time, the practice was done away with since it was no longer needed. Some people got a taste for the idea though, and so over a hundred years later we have the fundimentalist Mormons, with an extremely colored past. There is of course more to this story - I only provided the skeliton. But that's the gist.
Thanks for the history lesson as you call it, Guardian. Sorry, I can't remember your first name. I have actually wondered why polygamy was practiced at one time in the LDS church, and then stopped. So I appreciate knowing, and I can't deny that their reasons did make sense.
It's kind of along the lines of what I was thinking when reading the discussion on reasons for polygamy. Maybe once it was also used to help with raising the human population? I'd guess that, since the human and especially infant and mother mortality rate used to be so high, a guy having multiple wives would give a family higher chances for having children and mothers that survived.
In our modern day though, I'd say it's mostly so a guy can get his rocks off with multiple women, and get away wwith it, without it being an affair or something. But then, most modern day women are in such relationships because they consent to be, so they apparently don't have a problem with that idea. I certainly couldn't do it, and I don't agree with it, but oh well. I wouldn't be a jerk to someone based on that. In fact, I have a very good friend from college who is in a polygamous relationship. She is the third wife of this particular man. She and the first wife both have children that they are raising in this environment. She knows I don't agree with her lifestyle, but we remain good friends anyway, and I'd certainly be there to support her if she needed it.
the reasoning behind why a woman couldn't have multiple husbands (quite apart from the fact that no woman in her right mind would want more than one husband, surely?) has to do with genetics. A man would need to be sure that a child was actually his, if a woman were in a sexual relationship with more than one man this could not be a certainty.
I so do not agree with this, thank you for the history lesson my wife's parents near ever talk about that time in the LDS church so I was not sure why it was practiced. Thankfully its not practice in the sect of the LDS church I belong to, it just would not sit right with me and I do not play well with those want me to share my wife. I am more the long lines of touch you die. Well if someone does not talk me out of flat out killing the person, sorry but my wife and I am hers sexually that is that with us. Any who moving on and to each of there own.
Well, polygamy is biblically acceptible, and I believe mandated, but I'm not sure on that. That explains a lot of the religious aspects of it.
Oh, and for those of you who never believe me about things being in the bible, solomon, seven hundred wives, if you can explain how that's not polygamy, I'll buy you a cookie. A really really good cookie.
Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with polygamy as long as a few conditions are met. First, no under aged girls. That's right I'm talking to you, morman's whose name I can't remember in that one ranch down in texas, keep your morman mits off the little girls. Second, everyone involved says its ok. If you meet those requirements, I don't see anything wrong with it.
As for people who judge it to be wrong, I have to ask why. Its not bothering you, it doesn't degrade from your life, it doesn't even involve you. They never asked you to join in their family circle jerks, and as long as the guy isn't proposing to you, its not really anything you need to be involved in. So, and I appologize if this sounds harsh, what business is it of yours?
Um... the old testament and the new testament are to separate times, and more I could go into but for avoiding a religious debate I will not.
Out of curiosity, did you mean two separate times, or to separate times? Cuz one is obvious, the other is highly questionable.
I agree with Silver, if you aren't involved than why disagree?
If we look at history it hasn't hurt any society.
Now if you are in modern times you have to remember that all women don't live in societies where they are able to earn a living. Ask yourself the question if you'd like being a begger, or alone, or prostitute, or would it be better to be the third wife in a safe, home where you eat daily and your husband cares for you and loves you?
Now in the Biblical times and even now many men go to war and die, so many women are left alone. Next as I've pointed out the birth rate between women and men is wide. Add in gays and well that narrows it down some more.
Most places that practice it go by the rules stated in the history lesson, so it isn't as bad as it seems. If you are a Muslim you must be able to aford your wives or you can't have them.
Seems expensive to me, but I can't bad mouth it.
i don't believe polygamy is bound by religion. Polygamy is also a choice that some people made. We are in the 21st centuary, we are not in the 10th centuary. grunted, they are some religion specificly suggest that if you have the ability to have more than one wife, go ahead, make use of it, and have those women to yourself. But at the same time, why don't such religion suggest if you are a woman, and have the capability to have more than one husband, make use of your capability? ISn't it some sort of discrumination against gender? I don't care about the history, or the setting of such religions, just state it as the sake of argument.
Polygamy in many case, is a decision both party, or multiple party made. i have friends who enter in polygamy relationship because they want to, they wish to, and there's nothing about the practice of their religion.
Infact, In Australia, there're getting more and more what they call polygamy communities, or so call polygamy support/networking groups.
Simply stated: I don't think I could do it, even being a guy and probably on the better end of it. This would hold true even if I had a lot of money and could support multiple partners. If I marry, I want to do it for love and a future; perhaps this is conditioning at work to an extent, but whatever it is, I'm kind of stuck with it and see no reason to change.
I find it somewhat amusing when I note the number of people who, when a controversial topic springs up, hasten to say that they think it's wrong. I support the general feeling that if you're not a part of it directly somehow, your judging it right or wrong is, while perhaps enlightening, largely irrelevant. I can see objectively why polygamy might have been a useful tool to bolster the ranks of the church in times past and, consequently, why it was outlawed after it was no longer required for that purpose. I have known many people who have engaged in polyamory, which is essentially the precursor to polygamy (legalities notwithstanding) and it works for them, so that's really all I personally tend to care about. If it is consented to by all parties involved and will end up harming no one, just let it alone.
although I could never imagine participating in such a thing myself, I'm not gonna knock it.
I personally don't look at it from the religious point of view but the economics point and the loneness point. I believe if I were a femaile that lived in a comunity that I could earn a good living without selling myself, and I had physical needs and wanted children, I'd do it. This happens now in the 21st century.
I think it's really tricky to just decide that if something isn't "harming" anyone, we ought to let it stand. Many sex workers will proclaim that selling sex is not harming anyone. Many people in objectively abusive relationships are quick to assert that they like it, that they aren't in fact being harmed at all despite the bruises that cover their bodies. determining harm is neither entirely subjective nor objective. The reverse of this is true as well: female genital mutilation takes place in several non-western countries. We often want to swoop in, saving these women from the pain and what we consider to be inhumane treatment of their genitals--but when we've done this in the past, our efforts have backfired--the women who didn't have their genitals modified were austricized by their communities and had nowhere left to turn. I'm not supporting female genital mutilation at all--I'm just pointing out that harm is not a static concept that we can just toss around to easily justify or condemn any behaviour. It's very rarely that clear.
You're right, Skyla. Few things are as black and white as we'd like to have them. Sometimes it is choosing the lesser evil, other times there may be harm where no harm is seen. Most of the time we just don't know - without doing extensive research - what effects an action has on those involved. I won't speak on genital mutilation because I really can't see any way of justifying it. It is interesting however that in such cultures where it is common, women who are not subjected are shunned by those who have been. But that's a whole barrol of worms I don't want to swim in.
The real concern here is the harm that may go on behind the scenes. Going back to the early days of my church (because it's what I know about the subject), there was a purpose to taking on multiple wives. When that purpose was no longer needed, it was done away with. There is divine inspiration and a religious commandment here. Even Joseph Smith, the head and prophet of the church, when instructed to instate this rule kept putting it off. Of course, to those who don't believe it probably all just seems highly convenient. That's okay. I'm not here to debate religion again. These days, polygamy seems to have become more of a lifestyle choice. While I don't agree with it myself, I'm not a perfect person either and so can not condemn others for their choices. That said, what I have against polygamy as it is today is this. With one man taking on more than one woman, other men who might have found partners may be forced to seek elseware, or go without. It's hard to find a wife when a bunch of women are taken by one man.
There is, however, some differences between marrying multiple people, and genetal mutalation. The most obvious of these is the fact that one is life threatening, and the other isn't.
However, simply stopping an act would not be enough. That is the mistake that is so often made. The act is not truly the harm, it is the idea that is the harm. One would have to convince someone that the idea is wrong, in order to stop the act. Simply staying someone's hand only delays the act for a short time, and opens the victim up to social stigma. Thus, one must change the idea.
However, I challenge you to find a life threatening aspect in a man marrying multiple women, or certainly in a woman marrying multiple wives. Certainly it does not follow that, because this were legal, that the beating or raping of those wives would be legal. We can not make any stretch of the imagination to say that simply because a man has three wives rather than one, that he will be any better or worse a husband to any of them.
Also, we must see the difference in that, in marrying multiple partners, it is a willful act. A woman chooses to be one of many wives, just as a husband would were the tradition reversed. A woman does not, in the cultures which practice it, choose to have her genetals mutilated. Nor does the wife choose to be beaten, this from a psychological standpoint. That situation is much more complicated than would at first appear. It is not so straightforward as many people would claim it to be, and thus does not fit into the category of choice.
Thus, because we can find no harm in the act, and because it is willful on the part of all involved, and because it fits with all laws which I have outlined in earlier posts, and would seem clear to the logical among us, we should have nothing to deny it. We are, as has been said, free to not involve ourselves with it, and it is no detriment to the society. Certainly monogamous relationships have done no better for our society. Why then should we deny this to those who wish to partake in it?
Personally I have nothing against polygamous relationships; for people who choose to participate in that type of lifestyle, more power to them. Can't say it's something I would want to do myself, but as mentioned in earlier posts, it doesn't harm anyone, and no one has to involve themselves in it if they wish not to. So, I'm not going to say that it's wrong, just that it's probably not for everyone.
To post 20, choice is likewise a tricky concept. And without getting into too many details, female genital mutilation can be performed without causing threat of death to the person. Again, I'm not supporting it, but it certainly takes place in many countries.
And people do choose it. Just like parents choose to circumcise their children (which can actually be seen as ridiculous and unnecessary, especially as it's originally intended purpose has now been taken care of by advances in hygiene). More importantly however is the concept of harm that we keep coming back to. Because harm isn't readily apparent does not mean it doesn't exist. People didn't used to think that women not being able to vote was harmful. People also didn't think that segrigating black people was harmful. We create laws; they don't just emerge out of thin air. We create laws that respond to the needs and concerns of a growing society. I'm not saying anything for or against polygamy, just that things like harm and choice are not as simple as we'd like to think.
If you look at practically everything you mentioned though Skyla, sans the genetal mutilation, you will notice one simple similarity. Each of them involve taking away a right, or denying a right. We denied rights to blacks, we denied rights to women. Even genetal mutilation is, in some arguments, denying rights to women. Thus, how can you claim on one hand that denying the rights of women and blacks is a bad thing, and then say we should be careful about not denying the rights of spouses? Which one are you in support of, restricting rights, or availing people of rights?
Interesting people say it only benefits the men.
How many of you guys will take the sharp criticism, the constant meltdowns and need to vent from your female partner? OK, that would be most of us. And it has psychological effects on us, just like what men used to do in the 50s had psychological effects on women.
Now, compound it: You want to hear it from two? three? four?
And how about comparisons, jealousies, who got what, or who got how much time / alone time / recognition?
Just because they're all there doesn't mean you would be getting more sex. The chances are higher, but still.
And what if two don't get along after awhile, but you still love them both?
Man, the complications I can see with this - especially in the Western Workd, which belongs to the white woman, would be challenging, if what you married was a few western white women.
I don't know if they would be supportive of each other or not. I grew up with the mythology about women being all supportive and sisterly to each other. And yet, they will say things about how another one is acting during her monthly cycle, things maybe your grandfather would have gotten away with. Certainly no self-respecting man now would say those things. So I'm not even sure it can work in the Western White World especially suburbia.
And, like others have said, you would need to be filthy rich to support them all properly. Not those horrid scenes you see on TV where the kids' noses are running, probably haven't been to the doctor like they should, the women are out selling newspapers trying to hopefully get enough money for food, probably birth control is an out in those circles.
Think about it boys: The things they want of us as partners you will never see them do for each other. And I mean the venting, the support, the rest of it. So you would have to do everything you do for your one partner times 2, or 3, or 4. I think the supportive environment, at least in the West among whites, is largely mythical. Possibly more doable in other ethnic groups though.
Oh and you guys who are parents? Another modern women's myth is that we guys go to work and forget about the sick child. You know, and I know, that's not true: We know it from real experience, not overpaid writers of books.
However, compound that situation: You have a houseful of kids from different mothers. Instead of 1 ear infection, you have 4. Varying stages. All at home, you have to be at work to support them (which the mothers resent if they are Western Whites), and you will never stop thinking of them or wondering how they're doing, or if there is anything at all you can do or get for them on your way home.
And how do they do divorce? In America, anyway, the woman takes 2/3 of the income plus the house, the car, and all other assets. So how does that work if you do multiples?
When you start to really think about what it would mean, you'd end up with believing in a two-person relationship, to fundamentalist proportions.
as the joke used to go: Most of us come home and listen to how her day was. But a polygamist gets to come home, and after listening to how her day was, he's gotta listen to hers, then hers, then hers, then come up with an explanation for why she didn't get to go first.
So are we saying that the women that chose this lifestyle need to be mentally checked? Are they all just plain crazy, because we don't agree with it?
I know some women that are intellegent, and free to chose and they would not miind at all. Are they just stupid?
As long as you aren't being forced to do this why should it be such an issue?
I personal don't drink Gin, but many people do, so should I have a right to call them crazy, because Whiskey is better? See my point?
Silver is correct.
Leo, if we were to all subscribe to that mentality, none of us would ever marry. Who wants to go through all that one time, let alone multiple? I certainly don't want to go through it.
Lets take another example. Sex. Its gross, it involves bodily fluids, bodily functions, there's the chance you'll get diseases, there's a chance you'll get pregnant, and have to support a child, there's the simple embarrassment that someone else gets to see you naked. Plus, what if you do it wrong, what if you don't do what she likes, or she doesn't do what you like, or no one does what anyone likes? What if you're bad, what if she's had more than one partner, how do you measure up, what does she think of your skills, are you big enough, is she big enough? The questions could go on and on and on.
Now, how many of us here want to be a virgin?
Admittedly my post was a bit tongue in cheek, though based on first-world white woman problems.
And yours made me laugh.
I wasn't saying anything about my opinion on denying rights to spouses. I was merely pointing out that ascertaining the presence or absence of harm is a flexible (and thus not a rigid) concept. That's all. People having sex in public for the world to gaze upon aren't technically harming anyone, but it's illegal in many countries. Same goes with having public brothels--it's legal in some countries and not in others. The idea of harm is not something that is easily defined.
But they don't have public sex. Am I missing something?
Most times these relationships aren't about the sex. The sex is a factor in the relatiionshiip, but not the reason a man or woman decided to be a part of one.
It is mostly for family, love, sharing, and being a part of a healthy, stable situation.
Nobody need be alone kind of.
Of course people don't have sex in public (well, not most people anyway). I wasn't suggesting that people start doing that. My reference to sex in public was to make the point that something like that wouldn't directly harm anyone, but it's still prohibited by law in most places...meaning, again, that laws are not entirely about the harm that's most readily apparent.
I’d like to add an interesting observation to this discussion. I wonder if it gives polygamy some natural reason, or support for being. Let us place this in the 21st century, so my thoughts are valid now.
First, I have noticed in my life that many women are not as sexual motivated as men. Many don’t require as much sex, or as often, but require companionship.
Next, I know 3 or 4 women that are healthy mentally, and have not been abused in any way that simply do not enjoy sex at all. These women would love a partner, and in this case they are not lesbians, so a male partner, but would like to have little physical intimacy, or not at all. They give it to the husband, and some are married, because it is required, but if it could be worked out that he could receive sex other places, and they not be left, would really enjoy having the chore taken away.
Men tend to need more sex, and many seek it outside the bounds if they do not have it at home, but if they have plenty at home they stay home, and do not stray. I tend to believe this is the reason more gay males are sickened with disease than lesbian women. The rates of lesbian women infected with anything are extremely low. Women, when in a sound relationship don’t have the need to stray.
Now I am not putting a blanket on this, but it seems true for the most part.
Okay, so you have this situation, and you have a polygamist option that is not looking on as being wrong. Because we have a 5 to 1 ratio of females to males, discounting the gay population I think this is the reason many women chose, and are perfectly happy with this type of union.
For the women I have described it is made to order. Women get along well when you take away the jealousy, and threat of being left alone. I believe this is the reason nuns are better suited to a life of celibacy than the priest. We, so far have not heard any scandals about nuns molesting the girls have we? When women decide to have relationships, with men, or women, they are in the relationship. If a nun takes a girl to her bed, that girl will most likely not tell, because she is in a strong relationship, not used for sex.
Just some thoughts.
Well Skyla, according to legal jargan, which is highly questionable I'll admit, public sex is harmful in the subject of public decency. You are harming the public decency. You can't claim that a marriage having more than two people would harm the public decency, its not public.
So we've established that it isn't unwillful, and thus not harmful, it doesn't involve the removal of a body part, and thus isn't harmful, it isn't publicly indecent, and thus isn't harmful. Where shall we go next?
Your claim that harm is difficult to define is really not all that logical. Harm is easy to define. It is anything which causes a negative effect on one's person, or on the accepted standards of a social organization. You and I, Skyla, (though I don't know you from adam, or eve really), could not duel each other because that causes physical harm. Nor could you and I, (and again, don't know you from Eve), could not go into our local walmart and begin to fornicate like rabbits. That causes damage to an accepted social organization. It has been termed indecent, and thus harmful.
However, three or four or however many legal adults, of sound mind and body, who wish to enter into a marriage contract with each other, based around one man or one woman with several satellites, cannot, as far as I can see, possibly cause harm. Can you please point out to me how, undder any possible definition of the word harm, this private decision can be a harmful or damaging one?
If harm is so enigmatic a term, this should not be very difficult for you to do. Please, stretch your imagination to the utmost limits, I implore you, and give me one scenario in which it is either physically or socially harmful.
Note: the word physical in the above sentence also refers to mentally and psychologically and emotionally, ETC.
It appears that you and i simply won't agree on the concept of harm being a flexible term. That's fine with me. I have no insentive to convince you that it is beyond what I've already done. I don't really see how this is going to be a productive discussion.
I actually think public sex is harmful to the opinion, or mind of religious, moralist, or people that wish to control thought, not the public. In Rome public sex was part of daily life.
Now true it usually took place in a gathering of friends, or like a party, and does to this day, however, it was, and is public.
I know this isn't a debate about this matter, but if you give it some thought, we watch public sex, or choose not to watch public sex all the time. I wonder if an actual study could be found that supports the harm?
I agree with you, which is why I started that paragraph by saying in legal jargan. I don't think sex in public is harmful. I think it would be boring if it weren't viewed so though. If it weren't illegal, I don't think people would get so much enjoyment out of doing it.
However, this is off topic.
I am a little disappointed Skyla, I was hoping you would come up with a situation where polygamy would be harmful. How can we have a discussion if there is no contention? You seem to be highly intelligent, I find it hard to believe you can't support your argument more vehemently.
I am not trying to belittle or impune you. I was simply hoping that you would present a bit more of an argument than that we will have to agree to disagree. That, if I may say so, is such a cop out. Surely you can put up more of a struggle for your opinions.
Though I agree with many of the things you're saying here Lightning (Gasp!) I think there comes a point where agreeing to disagree - while perhaps a cop-out - is simply a means by which we remove ourselves from an argument which we do not feel strong motivation to continue. I can't speak for Skyla, but I have definately reached that point in some discussions on these forums. If I've learned anything from these sorts of discussions, there comes a point where nothing anyone can say will really matter. The fact is this issue, like any issue holds many examples of how harm can be dealt, as well as POSITIVE REENFORCEMENT. There have already been interesting examples of both. Personally, though I have very strong beliefs about what constitutes propriety, I myself agree with the idea of living and letting live. People choose their own paths in life. It's only when those paths cause harm to others around them, that I find myself growing concerned. What is harm? Well I think it was already quite nicely defined. In the case of public coitus, you really don't know who will be traumatized from suddenly witnesssing two people going at it like rabbits. Images like that stay with a person, especially at a young age. Sure we could become desensitized, but as the act of love making is supposed to be a private affair, I question that idea very strongly. It frankly creeps me out that the porn industry is so lucritive. Frankly I find it just a means to provide instant arrousal and stimulate one's self without using one's imagination.
In the case of polygamy, while I can accept that there are times where it may have been socially useful, I also find the idea a little greedy. There are a lot of men out there without women. A weak argument perhaps, but one I strongly believe in. It's all about balance. If you have a whole bunch of women attached to one man, and a bunch of men desiring to be married, that creates an unstable void.
aw silver_lightening, how kind of you.
the_blind_guardian is right though--I'm just not passionate enough to continue giving you example after example of how harm is subjective and isn't always easily ascertained. I likewise am inclined to conclude that you're intelligent yourself, which is why I can't really understand how you could possibly think that harm is so obviously defined--surely the fact that our laws and practises have changed over the centuries is proof enough that our concept of harm is an evolving concept? People debate harm all the time--prostitution is seen as harmful in some places and not in others; covering one's face with a vail is seen as a choice by some and an act of oppression by others--exposing children to sexually explicit material is considered acceptable in some countries and not in others--and the debate over what constitutes actual harm rages on. A lot of people who we deem are being harmed may not feel they're being harmed at all--should their subjective opinion regarding their own lived state not factor into it?
Anyway, those are my last thoughts on the matter for now, especially online. We'll probably carry on about something else on the boards at some point though. I'll let you in on something: one thing about your profile made me incredibly happy to read. Want to guess what it is?
Are laws have changed, but as you pointed out in other places it is perfectly okay to do differently, and can you say that these societies are suffering, because they have a different way of life? Not at all!
People are happy, live good lives, and the children grow up just fine.
"I had one dad and 3 mothers, so I'm a social reck." It just doesn't happen.
We are debating and a debate has to have examples.
I personal don't have a problem with others that think this lifestyle is not good, but I think they should sit down and think about the benefits of such an arangement for some. It is really not unreasonable.
Poligamy? IMMORAL100%! IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE ONE YOU'RE WITH, i mean the ones, then don't hurt them by satisfying your selfish pleasures and just let it go, then practice the act if you wish :/
Speaking as someone who's slightly curious about the other sex, I would be willing to mess around a bit in a relationship if my partner consented/joined in but I would not do this in a marriage because that person will be my one true love. However I don't give a damn if someone has more than one spouse; I've been to so many boring weddings in the last 17 years seeing a unique relationship would be refreshing. Hell, I want one of my friends to marry a goat, now that's youtube worthy!
A goat? Naw, she should marry her cat. Girls love their cats, you know.
I personally couldn't see myself in a pollygomous relationship since I'm a one-woman kind of guy, but I don't see a problem with it as long as all parties involved are of legal age and agreeable to the arrangement. Let's not forget that acob in the Bible had more thanone wife. So if memory serves did Abraham.
I would not participate in that sort of a relationship. It sounds like it would be more of a hassle than anything, trying to keep several men or women satisfied all at the same time. However, I won't bash someone just because they do it
Ryan, you take turns having sex and pass your women around like a can of pringles. Then you don't bitch when they have a little fun with each other, because your a sharing family right?:d
I don't know about you, but I don't pass pringles. I eat the shit out of those hyperbolic fuckers.
No, no, the women are 2, you are one, so you get passed around. When they want each other, you just have to get left out.
Of course, you might need a night off, so will be glad for the rest. Catch up on your reading and such things.
Lmfao.
I am not one for ploygamy. I don't share, and I don't want to be shared. As for is it hurting me, or not, the answer is no. We are all given free choice, and if a man wants to have multiple partners, or lovers, or a woman wants to have more than one partner, or lover, then that's his or her right. Who are we to take that away from that away from them? I have to say I'd do badly at having many partners, IU don't think I could keep them all in order in my mind.
I'm not particularly fond of them Cody, but I wouldn't mind sharing a woman. ;)
Again I think in one major way, it's selfish. If you indulge in multiple partners, you're efectively stealing potential relationships away from someone else.
Well, if you look at it from that angle, in the world, I think there is something like 5 women to one man, so you'd actually be giving someone a relationship that might not have one, do to the lack of partners.
I got only one ding dong. so I can make use of it with only one pussy at a time. so no multiple commitments at a time, I say.
Seriously, I don't think I cannot even dream of sharing my partner, if any.
Raaj.