Taverner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 01:16 PM
Original message |
Your thoughts on polyandry? |
Finder
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 01:24 PM
Response to Original message |
|
as long as they are all equal and consenting that is.
|
GreenPartyVoter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 01:25 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Weird you should mention this.. I had a dream last night about |
|
a very yummy blond guy and a very yummy brunette hunk and they were both mine and.....
Well, it was interesting to say the least. ;)
|
skypilot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
GreenPartyVoter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. WAY yummier than that. Much prettier. :^D |
skypilot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
12. Simon and Garfunkel?? |
GreenPartyVoter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
13. oh puh-LEAZE! We're talking chippendales times ten here |
|
Edited on Wed Jun-01-05 01:57 PM by GreenPartyVoter
|
skypilot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
16. Chippendales times ten |
|
They weren't wearing those silly bowties were they? Two things that I can't abide on a naked man: a bowtie or a thong.
|
GreenPartyVoter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
19. Nono.. they were completely nekkid.. and not at all pleased to be sharing |
|
me, but hey them's the breaks. *g*
|
hfojvt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
|
Edited on Wed Jun-01-05 02:18 PM by hfojvt
the bosom buddies? Wayne and Garth?
edit: Jay and Silent Bob?
|
Deja Q
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
31. Ah, I've got it! Bo and Luke! |
NorthernSpy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 01:40 PM
Response to Original message |
3. seems an unnatural sort of thing... |
|
... but of course people may do as they please.
(Or as they think they please. In my observation, these idealistic "polyamorous" arrangements usually end badly.)
|
mongo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
22. Whereas traditional marriage always works out forever and ever |
|
In my observation, these idealistic "polyamorous" arrangements usually end badly.
|
NorthernSpy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
|
Lots of things don't work too well, whether they are traditional or of the avant garde.
|
Shell Beau
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 01:41 PM
Response to Original message |
|
But whatever floats your boat!
|
redqueen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 01:41 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Up to the participants. |
|
I don't think it's crazy at all. Seems to me that many humans are not monogamous, so why not be honest about it?
|
SarahB
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
We always seem to think along the same lines. I suppose ultimately monogamy would be nice on some level again, but I'm not betting much on it anymore. I'm not sure if I have what it takes these days to be completely monogamous. I'm not sure if any one man quite has everything I'd want.
|
skypilot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 01:42 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I'm still having trouble getting some good ole mono-andry going. Don't torture me.
|
hfojvt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
23. this would make things easier |
|
polyandry means one wife two or more husbands. You are thinking of polygamy - one husband several wives. Sounds like a tough balancing act though. If it is hard for two people to stay together, as it seems to be, it would be even harder for three people to stay together. I have always thought that our living arrangements should be more communal, but I am less sure about the sexual relationships.
|
skypilot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
25. Actually, I'm gay.... |
|
Edited on Wed Jun-01-05 02:32 PM by skypilot
...so it would still poly- or mono-andry. But alas, I'm don't have either.:-(
On edit: Or were you trying to respond to some other post?
|
hfojvt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
26. not sure that would have the same name |
|
but my dictionary is perhaps as hetero-biased/oriented as I am :blush:
|
Maddy McCall
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 01:43 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Polyandry is completely an economic institution, nothing to do with "love" |
|
In regions in which there is a limited amount of land, one woman marries a couple of brothers, which solves the problem of splitting the land up for multiple heir-families. The land stays in the family and doesn't have to be divided between brothers, and thus, brothers' children, and brothers' children's children, and so forth.
It has nothing to do with sex or love. It's all about economics.
|
hfojvt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
24. and how is that different many times, from monogamy? |
|
it also was not that unusual, in the past, for an unmarried sibling or two to stay in the family home with their married sibling.
|
Maddy McCall
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
29. Because if two men father children with the same woman... |
|
Edited on Wed Jun-01-05 03:27 PM by Maddy McCall
then no one knows whos children they are, thus, the land isn't split along paternal lines.
And, let me add that most (but not all) polyandrous societies are matrilineal.
|
Wapsie B
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 01:43 PM
Response to Original message |
8. That would take a very special relationship |
|
Edited on Wed Jun-01-05 01:44 PM by bushwentawol
to make it work. Seeing your love with another is more than many can deal with. It's not wrong if all parties are agreeable to it. Consenting adults and all that.
|
MrScorpio
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 01:49 PM
Response to Original message |
GoddessOfGuinness
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 01:58 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Sorry...Couldn't resist. :evilgrin:
Wouldn't be my cup o' tea; but as long as all participants are of legal age, I don't see anything wrong with it.
However, if someone was asking my advice on whether or not to get involved in an intimate 3-party relationship, I'd suggest that they all get some counseling to help address issues that are bound to arise (no pun intended), such as jealousy, the need for personal space, etc.
|
bicentennial_baby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 02:04 PM
Response to Original message |
17. Right for the right people |
|
I'd love to have a group marriage, but the people with which I'd want to have it couldn't handle it. Men... :P
|
eyesroll
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 02:05 PM
Response to Original message |
|
But, hey, I'm not going to tell anyone else what they can or can't do.
|
mongo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 02:16 PM
Response to Original message |
21. Not right, wrong or crazy. |
|
Not for everyone, but certainly works for some folks.
Personally, I think that what is needed is more socially acceptable outlets for recreational sex. A big mayday orgy in every town or something like that.
If recreational sex was more acceptable, and young people experimented more with each other, then I think that we would learn more about our selves and what we want/need. And we would learn how to separate lust and new relationship energy from the qualities that make another person compatible with us on a long term basis.
Some people are by nature monogamous, some are not. If serial monogamy wasn't the expected norm in society, I think that people would figure out what works for them and form better long-term relationships.
|
SOteric
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 03:14 PM
Response to Original message |
27. Polyandry tends to occur in places where |
|
the available pool of men greatly outnumbers the available women, or in the economic circumstance described above by Maddy.
If you're asking would I personally indulge in it, I doubt it very much. But not because of a value judgement on it's inherent rightness or wrongness or relative insanity.
I acknowledge that many people seem to be polyamorous. I don't have a problem with that, I even gave it a shot myself once or twice. Here's the rub: A great many of us just aren't hardwired that way, and really, -that's okay too. Anecdotally at least, it would appear more of contemporary society is hardwired to a kind of serial monogamy than genuinely polyamorous.
I have no interest in the value judgements of either side of this issue.
If consenting adults find valid reason to wish to share their marital community and/or intimate relationships that's fine and dandy. Good luck and more power to 'em.
If consenting adults find valid reason to wish to maintain a more intimate, exclusive marital community, that, too, is fine and dandy. Good luck and more power to 'em.
|
VelmaD
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-01-05 03:15 PM
Response to Original message |
28. I think it's ok when everyone is consenting adults... |
|
but I definitely think you ought to talk to your spouse BEFORE deciding you want to engage in a poly lifestyle.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 05th 2024, 02:22 AM
Response to Original message |