The case for polygamy

[Pax]

http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/060807.pdf

This article sheds a lot of light on polygamy. One of the things that it points out that in certain ways polygamy is good for women but bad for men. It also states that the custom of having a husband/wife is a roman tradition not a jewish christian one.

[notyoueither]

What do you make of this, Jon?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/three-is-the-new-two-as-couples-explore-the-boundaries-of-non-monogamy/story-e6frg6zo-1225956410108

Three is the new two as couples explore the boundaries of non-monogamy
November 20, 2010 12:00AM

Polyamory is more widespread than you'd expect and often it has nothing to do with cults or religion

THE Hill-Thompsons* are like any other young family expecting their first baby.

They're buying maternity clobber on eBay, weeping during ultrasounds and giggling when the malapropistic midwife leading their prenatal classes advises them to gouge their birth companions carefully.

There is, however, one thing about the Hill-Thompsons that makes them a little unusual: there are three of them.

Mari (a 33-year-old student doing her second degree), Sara (a 32-year-old uni lecturer) and David (a 35-year-old IT geek) have been a sexually monogamous, three-way unit for six years.

They are not religious, they're not cult members and they're not even that into group sex.

They just happened to all fall in love with each other at roughly the same time.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

For the most part, the Brisbane trio have kept the details of their polyamorous private life to themselves. But they are slowly coming out of the closet now Mari is eight months up the duff. Sara is also hoping to conceive in the not-too-distant future.

Telling people about their super-sized relationship is complicated by a lack of unloaded language options. Threesome sounds too sexy and there is no triplicate version of the word couple.

"Usually we just tell people there are three of us," Mari says. "But polyfidelitous might be the best technical term."

Polyamory, also known as ethical non-monogamy, is billed by many activists as the new gay; the next sexual revolution. It's separate from swinging, in that (as the Latin root suggests) emotion is involved. Its also very different to religious polygamy such as that portrayed on the HBO TV show Big Love.

In short: more than two people, more than just sex, God optional.

Books, blogs and academic research into the practice are all rising, as is the predictable outrage from traditionalists and even from some non-traditionalists who say the trend muddies the gay marriage debate.

While a common joke is that the complexities of poly relationships leave little time for activism, in Canada on Monday the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association will begin fighting for group marriage rights in that nation's supreme court.

"What they plan to say," the Vancouver Sun has written, "is that polyamory is a more highly evolved form of family-conjugal relationship that is beneficial to all of its participants; the way of the future, if you will."

The CPAA contends that at least two million Canadians live in polyamorous relationships, many belonging to what is known as the friends with benefits category.

It's hard to know the number of polyamorists in Australia because for some reason the question isn't asked on the census. There is, however, at least one in Britain.

Actress Tilda Swinton, 50, shares a house with playwright John Byrne, the 70-year-old father of her twins. Her other companion is 32-year-old Sandro Kopp, an artist she met while filming The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. Kopp had a small role as a centaur.

"The arrangement is just so sane,' Swinton has said. "John and I live here with our children, and Sandro is sometimes here with us, and we travel the world together. We are all a family."

Byrne agrees, saying of Kopp: "We all love him dearly."

Given the ubiquity of cheating spouses (there are now commercial websites devoted to facilitating marital infidelity), it seems grossly hypocritical to judge those who are open and ethical about having more than one lover.

But Mari, Sara and David endure way more than their fair share of rude and weird reactions. Their jog-as-a-family neighbours won't wave back to them and Sara's mum thinks she is some kind of insatiable, nymphomaniac adulteress.

"But dammit, we're not freaks!" Sara says. "We're not hurting anyone. And we have three earners, three minds to think through situations and now three people to care for a baby."

The story of how the Hill-Thompsons came to be the Hill-Thompsons is long, complicated and, at times, tragic.

Mari and David are high school sweethearts who have been together for 16 years and married in 1999.

"My only other relationships were crushes on girls in my childhood," David says. "I had never have thought I would find myself in a permanent three-way relationship until it happened."

Mari and Sara bonded as friends in the late 90s after Mari was raped. Sara then ended up in an abusive marriage in Colombia before visiting Mari and David in Brisbane in 2004. She and Mari got together within days. Then things progressed.

"David found the term polyamory online," Mari recalls. "I was really relieved to discover that there were other people who had found they could love more than one person at once.

"Sara had asked me lots of questions that I felt were very scientific: I had just wanted her to say she

felt the same, and to kiss me!"

Six years later, negotiating life together still involves tricky logistics and sleep rosters. In the early days, they slept in a queen and a single bed pushed together with a lumpy piece of foam filling the gap and a couple of stitched-together sheets on top. Now they take it turns to sleep in twos, only slumbering altogether (sideways in a king-sized bed) a few times a week (pregnant bellies permitting).

"Our schedule has changed over the years and I am sure it will continue to change," Mari says. "We also alter the sleeping rotation if anyone is likely to feel particularly lonely sleeping by themselves for whatever reason."

As for sex, the gang tend to avoid the three musketeers approach in this domain, too.

"It takes a lot of brainpower to think about three people's sexual pleasure and emotional states at once," Sara says. "Having to think that hard makes sex difficult."

Another intriguing aspect of the arrangement is Mari and Sara's status as committed feminists. It certainly confounds assumptions that they are the hapless members of some sort of harem. After all, while some chauvinist types might think David is fortunate to share his life with two women, others might regard living with two feminists as involving two too many.

Life, meanwhile, goes on.

The triumvirate is attending hypnobirthing classes, negotiating who will stay home and who will work, and reading a book called Psycho Kitty in the hope of making their crazed cat baby-friendly.

And as they count down the days until the birth of little Kate next month, they are convinced that any stigma their daughter faces in the community will be well and truly countered by the 50 per cent increase in the usual loving parenthood quotient she will have at home.

* Pseudonyms have been used.

ej@emmajane.info

I think it opens up some interesting questions.

Which of the children should enjoy the rights and priviledges of being legitimate?

Should the woman who is not married into the group be cared for by her chosen family in the event of illness or incapacitation, or should her parents be able to kick the others to the curb?

If something happened to David while Mari and Sara are on the outs, should Mari be able to kick Sara to the curb?

These are the subjects that state sanction of marriage and family cover.

Also, look at the numbers. Two million Canadians?! Hmmm. They may be counting children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

Polyamory's current form has been grounded in concepts such as gender equality, self-determination, choice, mutual trust, equal respect among all partners, the intrinsic value of love, and the ideal of compersion. As of July 2009, it was estimated that more than 500,000 polyamorous relationships existed in the United States.

[Flubber]

I think it opens up some interesting questions.

Which of the children should enjoy the rights and priviledges of being legitimate?

Should the woman who is not married into the group be cared for by her chosen family in the event of illness or incapacitation, or should her parents be able to kick the others to the curb?

If something happened to David while Mari and Sara are on the outs, should Mari be able to kick Sara to the curb?

These are the subjects that state sanction of marriage and family cover.

Also, look at the numbers. Two million Canadians?! Hmmm. They may be counting children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

Polyamory's current form has been grounded in concepts such as gender equality, self-determination, choice, mutual trust, equal respect among all partners, the intrinsic value of love, and the ideal of compersion. As of July 2009, it was estimated that more than 500,000 polyamorous relationships existed in the United States.

1. All children should be entitled to support. 'Legitimacy" should be irrelevant but on our current legal model, the guy and 1 of the women would be responsible for a given child. (there may be exceptions)

2. Medical decisions are always best handled by the person appointed by the incapacitated but very few people take the steps to appoint someone. This issue still arises for heterosexual couples that live together if they have not married. Medical authorities have no documentation to allow them to listen to the 'cohabitator" over the parents.

3. AFAIK it should be possible and not that hard to create a joint tenancy in a family home for 3 people with no more difficulty than two. I canniot speak for all jursisdictions but generally I am aware of no prohibition or reason for a prohibition on larger joint interests (and if there is, they can always own their share as a divided interest)

These problems are solveable within existing legal methods. heck I could apoint Asher to make my medical decisions for me if I choose

[notyoueither]

I'm aware that polyamorous families can use contracts and POAs.

What happens when parents challenge a POA?

How much do all these legal services cost? Is it reasonable to assume that all people will be aware that they need to use them, and will be able to pay for them?

[notyoueither]

Also, maybe you know or can look up, what happens when illigetimate child and child by marriage disagree about care for a parent and neither have POA?

[Flubber]

I'm aware that polyamorous families can use contracts and POAs.

What happens when parents challenge a POA?

How much do all these legal services cost? Is it reasonable to assume that all people will be aware that they need to use them, and will be able to pay for them?

In most Canadian jursidictions I believe public legal education would have pamphlets and kits which would assist at no cost. Many people can do for themselves if their situation is simple but it gets costly if their are issues or complications

** Note that two spouses is not really a complication on the medical decisions issue. You still can appoint anyone you want.

On parental challenge-- good luck -- In most cases I believe the medical authorities will act on a 'valid on its face" document before them abnd the issue could well be moot before it gets before a judge

[Flubber]

Also, maybe you know or can look up, what happens when illigetimate child and child by marriage disagree about care for a parent and neither have POA?

I see no reason they would not have equal standing. The marriage or not of ther aprents should not matter. Its no different than with loving attentive son and estranged drug addled son (both legitimate). I don't know how the authorities deal with a divided family

[notyoueither]

In most Canadian jursidictions I believe public legal education would have pamphlets and kits which would assist at no cost. Many people can do for themselves if their situation is simple but it gets costly if their are issues or complications

Right. Complications. Is that not what citizens count on governments to guard against?

Two million Canadians?!

This is not a small number. It would be over 5% of the population, and many of those people would have to be children.

** Note that two spouses is not really a complication on the medical decisions issue. You still can appoint anyone you want.


On parental challenge-- good luck -- In most cases I believe the medical authorities will act on a 'valid on its face" document before them abnd the issue could well be moot before it gets before a judge

Many situations linger for a good long while, and this issue was a major source of grief for gay and lesbian couples prior to gaining recognition, and still does in jurisdictions where their relationships do not have standing.

[notyoueither]

I'd read that it is not uncommon for immigrants to come into Canada as a man and wife and then bring over the second and subsequent wives under the table.

That could be where some of the 2 million comes from.

In that case, would we not be helpful by shining light on these relationships and making the multiple wives aware that they have rights and alternatives? Or should we leave them living ____ (what kind of?) lives in the shadows?

Would the harm of the fundamentalist sects that survive in the dark crevices survive the arrival of social services and education that normalisation would bring?

[Jon Miller]

There are a whole lot of problems in the wings in such a relationship (Also if there were many more such relationships) that have no connection to whether there is state support for their relationship or not.

Just because some people do it, doesn't mean that there should be state/societal support and assistance.

I would actually think that most polygamous people in the US at least aren't members of cults/religious, rather they are just very 'progressive' and think that traditional marriage is outdated/etc.

I disagree.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I'd read that it is not uncommon for immigrants to come into Canada as a man and wife and then bring over the second and subsequent wives under the table.

That could be where some of the 2 million comes from.

In that case, would we not be helpful by shining light on these relationships and making the multiple wives aware that they have rights and alternatives? Or should we leave them living ____ (what kind of?) lives in the shadows?

Would the harm of the fundamentalist sects that survive in the dark crevices survive the arrival of social services and education that normalisation would bring?

The issue is

"Should the state support and sanction such polygamous relationships. Do we want more of them?"

You would see a lot more polygamous relationships if it was state sanctioned.

As pointed out in this thread, traditional marriage is a product of the enlightenment and such... polygamy isn't incompatible with Christianity.

JM

[notyoueither]

We're not going to stop the relationships by withholding recognition. Has the battle of the LGBT movement taught us nothing?

We are going to read heart-wrenching stories of partners denied access to loved ones and being kicked to the curb by legally recognized relatives. It already happens.

Women will be brought into the country as 'nannies' and will live as virtual slaves with no legal status, rights, or recognition that they are actually wives (and mothers).

Our societies have been trying to stamp out polygamy, for religious reasons, for several hundred years. The cults move to out of the way towns and create human breeding farms.

[notyoueither]

Husband, why are we living out here and hiding from the authorities?

Because, dear wife 5, the bad government does not recognise the holiness of our marriage.

Oh.


Husband, why are we living out here and hiding our children from the school?

Because, dear wife 5, our daughters will not want to be married off at 12 to the other elders if they learn that they have options and are quite far removed from live stock.

Wait a minute!

[Jon Miller]

Are the 3 in your quoted article hiding from the authorities?

The only polygamous people who hide from the authorities are crazy cultish people.

JM

[Jon Miller]

We're not going to stop the relationships by withholding recognition. Has the battle of the LGBT movement taught us nothing?

We are going to read heart-wrenching stories of partners denied access to loved ones and being kicked to the curb by legally recognized relatives. It already happens.

Women will be brought into the country as 'nannies' and will live as virtual slaves with no legal status, rights, or recognition that they are actually wives (and mothers).

Our societies have been trying to stamp out polygamy, for religious reasons, for several hundred years. The cults move to out of the way towns and create human breeding farms.

Not for religious reasons. For cultural, rational, and enlightened reasons.

Plenty of married women live as virtual slaves too.

The issue is that do we, as a society, want to support polygamy. It would be stepping back over 500 years to change our minds to yes.

JM