# 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:** 9
**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, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/161 "2010-09-10T21:56:16Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > If all men are pigs and women are easily victimized I didn’t say either one of these things. I didn’t say ALL men are pigs, and I certainly didn’t say that all women are easily victimized. I’m saying that women _who are already vulnerable_ are the ones who get dragged into this swinger garbage. ---
**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, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/162 "2010-09-10T21:59:13Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > **Dio** , if a single woman is in a polyandrous relationship, why can it not be that _she_ is exploiting _the men_? Yeah, right. Even if this were the case, it still wouldn’t be a _loving_ relationship, would it? Ok then. ---
**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, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/163 "2010-09-10T22:00:19Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > **Dio** , do you at least _realize_ that your opinions on this subject (and quite a few related ones) are practically neo-Victorian-meets-Second-Wave-Feminism? It’s like you subscribe to the Katherine MacKinnon idea that all (heterosexual) sex is rape. That’s an urban myth, and I never said any of this was rape. ---
**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 10, 2010, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/164 "2010-09-10T22:05:37Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@jayjay](#): > > > > **Dio** , do you at least _realize_ that your opinions on this subject (and quite a few related ones) are practically neo-Victorian-meets-Second-Wave-Feminism? It’s like you subscribe to the Katherine MacKinnon idea that all (heterosexual) sex is rape. > > That’s an urban myth, and I never said any of this was rape. The MacKinnon-Dworkin confusion was dealt with upthread by the board’s resident nutjob. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > > > **Dio** , if a single woman is in a polyandrous relationship, why can it not be that _she_ is exploiting _the men_? > > Yeah, right. > > Even if this were the case, it still wouldn’t be a _loving_ relationship, would it? Ok then. Why wouldn’t it be _loving_? What definition are you using for the verb _love_? And those are not rhetorical questions. When I say I love someone, I mean that my feelings for that person are such that his or her wellbeing is essential to my own peace of mind. Is that what you mean, or something else? ---
**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, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/165 "2010-09-10T22:07:40Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > That’s an urban myth, and I never said any of this was rape. > > The MacKinnon-Dworkin confusion was dealt with upthread by the board’s resident nutjob. > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Yeah, right. > > > > Even if this were the case, it still wouldn’t be a _loving_ relationship, would it? Ok then. > > Why wouldn’t it be _loving_? Becase you said yourself it was exploitive. > [@](#): > > When I say I love someone, I mean that my feelings for that person are such that his or her wellbeing is essential to my own peace of mind. Is that what you mean, or something else? By your own definition then an exploitive relationship cannot be loving. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/166 "2010-09-10T22:09:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > > > If all men are pigs and women are easily victimized > > I didn’t say either one of these things. I didn’t say ALL men are pigs, and I certainly didn’t say that all women are easily victimized. I’m saying that women _who are already vulnerable_ are the ones who get dragged into this swinger garbage. Okay, so why can’t a strong minded, independent woman decide of her own free will that she’s going to be in a polyamorous relationship? Even if she is a sexual abuse survivor? Why is the default assumption that it’s only vulnerable women getting dragged in and scumbag men doing the dragging? Why can’t the woman be the scumbag, even? ---
**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 10, 2010, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/167 "2010-09-10T22:10:25Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > > > If all men are pigs and women are easily victimized > > I didn’t say either one of these things. I didn’t say ALL men are pigs, and I certainly didn’t say that all women are easily victimized. I’m saying that women _who are already vulnerable_ are the ones who get dragged into this swinger garbage. Here is what you wrote: > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Heterosexism, my ass. I’m saying that men are pigs. That’s what I’m saying. When you write _men are pigs_ without putting any qualifier, you are making a statement synonymous with _all men are pigs_. I mean, if I I wrote _women are whores_, _white people are evil_, or _Etruscans should all be killed_, no would think I was talking about anything other than the entirety of the sets in question, would they? If you meant to _Most men are pigs_ or _Many men are pigs_, you should have written one of those. Now you seem to be backpedaling, at least in my eyes. ---
**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 10, 2010, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/168 "2010-09-10T22:17:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > > > The MacKinnon-Dworkin confusion was dealt with upthread by the board’s resident nutjob. > > > > Why wouldn’t it be _loving_? > > Becase you said yourself it was exploitive. > > > [@](#): > > > > When I say I love someone, I mean that my feelings for that person are such that his or her wellbeing is essential to my own peace of mind. Is that what you mean, or something else? > > By your own definition then an exploitive relationship cannot be loving. My point (and I concede that I was imprecise; I blame the many branches this conversation has taken) was this: You have consistently alleged in this thread that heterosexual polyamourous relationships are bad for the women involved. I was asking you to explain why that must be so. Are you saying that women are so different frommen that it is impossible for them to be exploitative or abusive of them? If so, what is the cause of that difference? If not, then why is it inconceivable that a woman might be involved in an unconventional committed relationship of her own rather than than through the machinations of a man (or men) using physical or emotional coercion to force her into it? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/169 "2010-09-10T22:27:13Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The fact that humans bond in pairs is too obvious and well known to take cite requests seriously. Bullshit, Dio. You asserted it (it being "humans cannot bond with more than one other person at a time), you cite it. That’s the way the Dope has always worked. Would love the cite on “all non-monogamous relationships are inherently immature” too, but that’s about as likely as all the air molecules in the room suddenly deciding to occupy one corner. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/170 "2010-09-10T22:29:59Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Are you saying that women are so different frommen that it is impossible for them to be exploitative or abusive of them? You’ve essentially enumerated the core belief of The Dio Zone. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/171 "2010-09-10T22:48:04Z")
don’t feed it don’t feed it don’t…ARGH! > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > When I say I love someone, I mean that my feelings for that person are such that his or her wellbeing is essential to my own peace of mind. Is that what you mean, or something else? > > By your own definition then an exploitive relationship cannot be loving. Sure. I’ll accept that. What I (and many others) don’t accept is that a polygamous, polyandrous, polygynous or group marriage inherently exploitive. And you’ve not come anywhere near proving it is. ---
**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 11, 2010, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/172 "2010-09-11T00:19:09Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > I didn’t say either one of these things. I didn’t say ALL men are pigs, and I certainly didn’t say that all women are easily victimized. I’m saying that women _who are already vulnerable_ are the ones who get dragged into this swinger garbage. > > Okay, so why can’t a strong minded, independent woman decide of her own free will that she’s going to be in a polyamorous relationship? Because she is strong minded and independent. ---
**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 11, 2010, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/173 "2010-09-11T00:22:00Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > I didn’t say either one of these things. I didn’t say ALL men are pigs, and I certainly didn’t say that all women are easily victimized. I’m saying that women _who are already vulnerable_ are the ones who get dragged into this swinger garbage. > > Here is what you wrote: > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Heterosexism, my ass. I’m saying that men are pigs. That’s what I’m saying. > > When you write _men are pigs_ without putting any qualifier, you are making a statement synonymous with _all men are pigs_. I mean, if I I wrote _women are whores_, _white people are evil_, or _Etruscans should all be killed_, no would think I was talking about anything other than the entirety of the sets in question, would they? > > If you meant to _Most men are pigs_ or _Many men are pigs_, you should have written one of those. Now you seem to be backpedaling, at least in my eyes. I’m not going to get bogged down in one of these nit-picking semantic games. ---
**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 11, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/174 "2010-09-11T00:24:37Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Becase you said yourself it was exploitive. > > > > By your own definition then an exploitive relationship cannot be loving. > > My point (and I concede that I was imprecise; I blame the many branches this conversation has taken) was this: > > You have consistently alleged in this thread that heterosexual polyamourous relationships are bad for the women involved. I was asking you to explain why that must be so. Because the men don’t really love them. If they loved them, they would be exclusive. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/175 "2010-09-11T00:26:02Z")
Someone doesn’t know what ‘nit-picking’, ‘strong minded’ or ‘independent’ means. ---
**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 11, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/176 "2010-09-11T00:28:14Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > don’t feed it don’t feed it don’t…ARGH! > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > By your own definition then an exploitive relationship cannot be loving. > > Sure. I’ll accept that. What I (and many others) don’t accept is that a polygamous, polyandrous, polygynous or group marriage inherently exploitive. And you’ve not come anywhere near proving it is. 1. There is no such thing as a “group marriage.” 2. Polygamy and polygyny are not mutually reciprocal bonds. ---
**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 11, 2010, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/177 "2010-09-11T00:31:57Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > The fact that humans bond in pairs is too obvious and well known to take cite requests seriously. > > Bullshit, Dio. You asserted it (it being "humans cannot bond with more than one other person at a time). Actually, what I said was that I don’t _believe_ groups (especially of more than three) can become mutually and reciprocally bonded (i.e. every individual is equally bonded with every other individual). This is quite obviously not the _observed_ norm, and I’d like to see a cite that it exists at all. I call bullshit. The assertion that such a thing is possible what needs to be proven. I don’t have to prove a negative, and I don’t have to accept your word for it. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/178 "2010-09-11T00:42:21Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Because she is strong minded and independent. So a strong minded woman has to listen to people telling her that it’s sexist and wrong to engage in polyamory in order to know it’s wrong, instead of trusting her own beliefs and knowledge of what’s right for her? ---
**Author:** ![Peeta\_Mellark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bc8723/32.png) [@Peeta\_Mellark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peeta_Mellark)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/179 "2010-09-11T00:47:59Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 1. There is no such thing as a “group marriage.” So the Hawai’ian islanders did not practice _punalua_? The Dieri did not practice _pirrauru_? The Kurnandaburi are lying when they say they practice group marriage? What, do you think the concept of a group marriage was just thought up spontaneously by some hippies? Have you even _googled_ “group marriage”? ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684/180 "2010-09-11T01:12:45Z")
Peeta is not putting up with Dio’s dumb shit tonight! I am loving this thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-you-be-friends-with-someone-in-a-group-marriage/552684.md?page=10)