# Could you be friends with someone in a group marriage? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 5, 2010, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684 "2010-09-05T14:44:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/81 "2010-09-09T19:29:36Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > The hard part for me is picturing going to someone’s house to do work-work I guess that puts us on the same wavelength because that was my “WTF?” moment about the scenario too. Why would I take work to someone else’s home? I try my damnedest not to take work to MY home, let alone both me and my work to someone else’s. As for their relationship, I don’t see why it would matter to me. There is probably a elevated change of it all ending in drama and if I become close friends with them that could complicate my life in the future, but you take that risk when you become friends with both halves of a couple too. This is not a barrier for most interpersonal relationships, I don’t see why it needs to be here. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/82 "2010-09-09T19:52:03Z")
> [@salinqmind](#): > > Whatever floats your boat/none of my business/who am I to judge…no, it’s too …random, too chaotic underneath. I don’t trust any people with fuzzy boundaries. Wait— what fuzzy boundaries? What are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/83 "2010-09-09T19:53:06Z")
I wouldn’t care. My wife, on the other hand, would love nothing better than to get every detail laid out with a complete history. We had some gay friends who used to try to freak her out with stuff about their romantic relations. It didn’t take much. I would be careful about getting too close, in case of a break up. I would need to remain friends with Dorian (the one I worked with). Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/84 "2010-09-09T20:07:47Z")
> [@Johanna](#): > > > [@salinqmind](#): > > > > Whatever floats your boat/none of my business/who am I to judge…no, it’s too …random, too chaotic underneath. I don’t trust any people with fuzzy boundaries. > > Wait— what fuzzy boundaries? What are you talking about? This. Dorian established a very firm boundary when telling “you” about it: he said that all the sex happens within the foursome. Add to that the fact that he didn’t volunteer the information until prodded (admittedly in a well-meaning fashion) and that the foursome was discreet when you were at their house, and I don’t see any fuzzy boundaries. That remark strikes me as being akin to people complaining about gay people needing to keep their gayness in the bedroom, by which they mean no pictures of a married gay couple on a worker’s desk. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/85 "2010-09-10T00:16:48Z")
> [@Johanna](#): > > > [@salinqmind](#): > > > > Whatever floats your boat/none of my business/who am I to judge…no, it’s too …random, too chaotic underneath. I don’t trust any people with fuzzy boundaries. > > Wait— what fuzzy boundaries? What are you talking about? The inability to form an exlusive bond with another person or honor one’s marriage vows, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/86 "2010-09-10T00:19:15Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > > [@Johanna](#): > > > > Wait— what fuzzy boundaries? What are you talking about? > > This. Dorian established a very firm boundary when telling “you” about it: he said that all the sex happens within the foursome. A "foursome,’ all by itself, already shows a lack of boundaries and an emortional immaturity. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/87 "2010-09-10T00:34:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > > > This. Dorian established a very firm boundary when telling “you” about it: he said that all the sex happens within the foursome. > > A "foursome,’ all by itself, already shows a lack of boundaries and an emortional immaturity. oh boy, here we go. How is a foursome showing “lack of boundaries or emotional immaturity” any more than a twosome? ---
**Author:** ![PotLuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbce88/32.png) [@PotLuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PotLuck)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/88 "2010-09-10T01:49:51Z")
> [@irishgirl](#): > > I’d be fine with the dinner, and the socialising, but on the proviso that I don’t want to hear any more details about their love lives. > I assume they’re all happy with the arrangement and having their emotional and physical needs met- I don’t need to know the details. [snip] > > I won’t go on about how I make my marriage work, and you don’t either, and then nobody gets annoyed, offended, shocked or bored, ok? This, in a nutshell. I’ve wasted a lot of my life being all Judgey McJudgerson about relationships that have less than nothing to do with me and I’m working to change that, but I can’t imagine providing helpful relationship advice to someone in a plural marriage when I couldn’t handle one myself. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/89 "2010-09-10T02:02:57Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > A "foursome,’ all by itself, already shows a lack of boundaries and an emortional immaturity. > > oh boy, here we go. How is a foursome showing “lack of boundaries or emotional immaturity” any more than a twosome? Because it shows an inability form an exclusive, intimate bond with another person. There’s no love involved, just sex and avoiudance of intimacy. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/90 "2010-09-10T02:05:03Z")
By the way, just for the record, there’s no such thing as a “group marriage.” I don’t care what you call it, but it’s not a marriage, unless some state somewhere changed a law without anybody noticing. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/91 "2010-09-10T02:07:25Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@Procrustus](#): > > > > oh boy, here we go. How is a foursome showing “lack of boundaries or emotional immaturity” any more than a twosome? > > Because it shows an inability form an exclusive, intimate bond with another person. There’s no love involved, just sex and avoidance of intimacy. and why is that better or more mature? And, more importantly, how do \*you \*know there is “no love involved.” (or intimancy) You’re really coming at this from a very traditional point of view, whcih is fine, I guess. But I wonder who appointed you god to deiced that “exclusive intimate bond with [one] other person” is the standard to judge love or intimacy by? Personally, it works for me, but I like that other people find things that work for them. Makes the world a better place, and I’m glad they found happiness. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/92 "2010-09-10T02:09:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > By the way, just for the record, there’s no such thing as a “group marriage.” I don’t care what you call it, but it’s not a marriage, unless some state somewhere changed a law without anybody noticing. I was waiting for someone to say this. Surprised it took so long. Let’s just play along a moment, and imagine that the definition of marriage can evolve over time. From Polygamy, and back again, in only a few generations. ---
**Author:** ![PotLuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbce88/32.png) [@PotLuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PotLuck)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/93 "2010-09-10T03:36:25Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > By the way, just for the record, there’s no such thing as a “group marriage.” I don’t care what you call it, but it’s not a marriage, unless some state somewhere changed a law without anybody noticing. > > I was waiting for someone to say this. Surprised it took so long. Let’s just play along a moment, and imagine that the definition of marriage can evolve over time. From Polygamy, and back again, in only a few generations. AFAIK is **Diogenes the Cynic** is right: while plural marriage may exist emotionally and logistically, it’s not recognized legally. (Of course, this is what I’ve gleaned from watching “Big Love”, so take that for what it’s worth.) ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/94 "2010-09-10T04:15:57Z")
Yeah, I have a Mormon friend who told me the official reason that polygamy was forbidden was that it was illegal, and that, as good Christians, they should try to follow man’s law as much as possible. In other words, it is definitely against the law to be married to more than one person. As a practical matter, only the first marriage is recognized by the state, rather than arresting people for trying to get legally married twice. Also, my understanding of polygamy is that it was almost always one male, and multiple females. I’ve heard of a few isolated cultures that recognized polyandry, but my understanding is that such is quite rare. The idea that polygamy can include two couples is a newer idea. As for whether polygamy indicates a lower level of commitment and maturity than pair bonding, I dare not tread. But I will point out that that assumption is often used by homophobes as evidence that homosexuality is inferior. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/95 "2010-09-10T04:34:07Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > By the way, just for the record, there’s no such thing as a “group marriage.” I don’t care what you call it, but it’s not a marriage, unless some state somewhere changed a law without anybody noticing. > > I was waiting for someone to say this. Surprised it took so long. Let’s just play along a moment, and imagine that the definition of marriage can evolve over time. From Polygamy, and back again, in only a few generations. Polygamy and this bullshit concept of “group marriage” are two different things. Polygamy does not involve an equal and mutually reciprocal group. It is, by definition, just one guy with multiple wives. In practice, it’s basically always been little more than a sexist chattel slave system. I’ve lived in a country where polygamy was legal, incidentally. I’ve seen what it is, and it isn’t love. Wives are basically just status symbols like cars or houses. “Group marriage” is the childish delusion that a group of people can all mutually and reciprocally bond the same way as humans usually organically bond in pairs.They can’t. They’re full of shit. They’re just acting out fucked up psychodramas. It’s commitment-phobic, self-centered men men exploiting women who are incest surivors, basically. That’s what all this “swinger” and “polyamorous” horseshit boils down to at the end of the day. Scumbag men taking advantage of emotionally fucked up women. I don’t really care, though, except for when they bring children into it. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/96 "2010-09-10T04:34:25Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@PotLuck](#): > > > > AFAIK is **Diogenes the Cynic** is right: while plural marriage may exist emotionally and logistically, it’s not recognized legally. (Of course, this is what I’ve gleaned from watching “Big Love”, so take that for what it’s worth.) \ A marriage doesn’t have to be recognized legally to be a marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/97 "2010-09-10T04:41:17Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > AFAIK is **Diogenes the Cynic** is right: while plural marriage may exist emotionally and logistically, it’s not recognized legally. (Of course, this is what I’ve gleaned from watching “Big Love”, so take that for what it’s worth.) > > \ > A marriage doesn’t have to be recognized legally to be a marriage. Yes it does. It has no other definition. Mariiage is a legal contract and nothing else. No legal commitment means no marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/98 "2010-09-10T04:55:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > “Group marriage” is the childish delusion that a group of people can all mutually and reciprocally bond the same way as humans usually organically bond in pairs.They can’t. They’re full of shit. How do _you_ know? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s what all this “swinger” and “polyamorous” horseshit boils down to at the end of the day. The OP does not describe a swinger or polyamorous scenario. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/99 "2010-09-10T05:04:22Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > The OP does not describe a swinger or polyamorous scenario. Yes it does. How can it NOT be described as polyamorous? It’s polyamorus by the dictionary definition. It’s also “swinging,” by definition if one or more of the couples is legally married. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/100 "2010-09-10T05:30:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > How can it NOT be described as polyamorous? It’s polyamorus by the dictionary definition. My understanding is that the people who practice the described lifestyle have been compelled to adopt a newer term, polyfidelity, to distinguish stable, formalized, committed, mutually faithful, “closed” relationships from the temporary, informal, “open” type which took over, or was assigned by others, the “polyamory” label. Some will say that polyfidelity is a subset of polyamory, but as you’ve demonstrated the “polyamorous” label clearly has all kinds of implications and associations that polyfidelitous people emphatically want no part of. That’s what I’ve been told by people in such a relationship, and they seemed self-aware, forthright, healthy and happy with their arrangement, so I have no reason to doubt them. So that brings me back to my other point to you: where do _you_ derive your understanding of such relationships as “fucked up,” exploitative, dishonest and unnatural? You _sound_ very much like the people who react with reflexive revulsion to accounts of homosexual or “interracial” relationships. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684.md?page=6)