Those groupies probably aren’t in exclusive relationships with the rock star- they most like date or even have a steady relationship with someone who is more of a peer.
Yeah, but how many of those groupies are exclusively attached to their chosen celebrity? My guess is most of those girls are one night stands, and then they go home to find a boyfriend, or go back to the boyfriend they already have, without mentioning the “I slept with a drunk celebrity” part of their trips.
What I’m saying is that groupies aren’t anything close to a real harem, polygamy or polyamory. Might as well say the bachelor down the street has a harem, because he has a new date every week.
Nope. And people who think so are largely culture-centric. Anti-polygamy laws in the U.S. are rooted in racism, and it’s ridiculous that men can shack up with several women or have mistresses but can’t make legal commitments to more than one woman. I’ve gone rounds about this in other threads, but this quote from Reynolds sticks: polygamy is almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people.
Just my two cents:
Gay marriage will be accepted in the US; the people will finally come to realize that sex shouldn’t determine who can marry who.
Given that premise, polygamy would be the next logical step. However, there is one significant difference. Our legal system has evolved with polygamy being illegal, so a change to allowing polygamy would have significant repercussions in the number of legal details to work out.
Also, laws against polygamy have a basis in protecting women. That probably isn’t the biggest reason against it; religious and traditional reasons are probably the main ones. But we’d have to make sure that we don’t lose any important protections against abuse. I believe that one is more easily worked out (by addressing the abuses themselves rather than a condition that might or might not support them).
Ah, well you see I don’t count that as “poly” I count that as more of a “open relationship”. IMHO a marriage is where everyone lives in the same household.
Cite? In the USA it’s almost entirely a reaction to the early LDS church.
In general, you’re right, if we can believe even the most moderate sociobiologists (folks who believe that evolution shapes behavior … not a very remarkable claim). Given human breeding dynamics, it makes evolutionary sense for both men and women to instinctively dislike sharing their mates (though for slightly different reasons).
But we aren’t slaves to our instincts, and some instincts, while felt strongly in many, are not felt at all by others. There are people who have no fear of heights or falling, which is hard for me to imagine.
I’m not a jealous person. I actually don’t think I’ve ever felt the emotion. As a kid, I had a hard time understanding the distinction between jealousy and envy, and my understandingnow is more intellectual than visceral.
I haven’t ever shared a mate, but I believe I could – that is, if all the myriad other details could be worked out without too much drama. I could easily be mistaken in that, though!
You’re effectively defining “genetic superiority” as “able to amass wealth”, and then proposing a change that would make that definition more valid.
“Survival of the fittest” is indeed a tautology, as creationists like to say. It’s not a criticism of evolution, and it doesn’t make it useless, any more than “1 + 1 = 2” (which is equally tautological). But it is a good thing to keep in mind: those that survive are by definition the “fittest”, and “fitness” changes dramatically depending on the circumstances.
Currently, the “fittest” happen to be the poorest, who are multiplying most rapidly. That may not be what you want, but it’s how it is. While I don’t think that’s the best scenario, I certainly don’t agree the richest deserve any special advantages in breeding rights, and don’t necessarily even possess any genetic superiority.
I suppose the thread title does refer to polygamy, and I agree that what Dunkelheit described is not that. The discussion seems to have broadened somewhat, though. Usually when someone talks about “poly” they mean polyamory.
Well, since actual polygamist marriage isn’t legally possible, it probably doesn’t happen as often as it might do if it were legalized. I do know of several people who live with at least some of their partners – the author of the “Poly in Pictures” comics I linked to has just moved in with a portion of her extended poly family. But there are many flavours of poly on the spectrum, from open relationships to committed polyglots. I would prefer a committed polyglot myself, if I ever found the right people to form one with. My ideal scenario would be to have another couple (or two?) that my husband and I could commit to and live together with. I don’t know if that’ll ever happen, but it’s a sweet thought to hold on to.
That would put most FDLS relationships in the category of “open marriages” instead of “polyamorous” as it isn’t uncommon for each wife to have her own house.
I’d say the difference between a poly marriage and an open marriage is the level of commitment to the other partners - someone in an open relationship might “date” other people, but doesn’t form any serious intimate emotional relationship. Poly marriage have interrelationships that last for years. Open marriages have extracurricular relationships that the other person knows about and consents to, possibly for a few months at a time.
But in the same compound, so it’s really very similar.
Good distinctions. That’s why I describe myself as in a poly marriage rather than an “open” one, because what I’m about is not “dating” other people on a casual basis, but having intimate, committed emotional relationships with more than one person at a time.
Whatever the moral issues, it is disruptive to social harmony because in theory you end up with a higher number of young men without a partner.
See my thread on Polygamy.
Have you, like, read the thread?
Not a problem. Some jurisdictions already have their laws set up for this (e.g. Ontario, so as to deal with foreign polygamous marriages), and let’s face it, things often get quite complicated when relationships break down, once lovers, new spouses and step-children enter the picture.
Next time, read the thread before you weigh in, lest you look silly.
I’ll point out that in general, he is correct. Those saying otherwise have no cites and/or are talking more about a open relationship, rather than several people living together as if married.
Here’s a point. I understand there are sucessful poly relationships. I know a few couples that way. But all of them come from environments where polygamy is not the norm, and where they met as adults.
The only examples we have for environments where polygamy is the norm, are the Mormon offshoots. Now, I can talk about reasons why the ‘lost boys’ situation is an expected norm given an environment like that. Some examples being that, even in normal situations, high school girls like to date older boys who are more mature, and older boys are complete dickwads who aren’t quite mature enough. Or how, at heart, marriage is about taking care of another person, and there is no-one who is a poorer caregiver than someone who is under their majority. Even someone who has a job at a gas station and dropped out of school has more spending cash than a high school kid.
What polygamy does is that it refuses to remove the married people, who are older and have more money, from the dating pool. This will naturally skew things one way or another. Go on, think about how it’ll change things. My best guess is that it’ll have younger women going for older men. As for women with multiple husbands… it’s possible, but, given everything we know about social behavior, it’s not going to be enough to balance out the men with multiple wives.
I think it’s reasonable to say that it would be bad for society if polyamory were a common thing. There are people, mature people, who can handle it. But you have to consider that most of the people in the world really aren’t all that mature. And you have to look at people at their stupidest and most emotional points, and see how that factors in to things.
Am I wrong here?
ETA: Most of the poly relationships I know of, are relationships where at least one person is bi and thus there’s a more than two-way relationship. If Bob and Charles both love Mary, but Bob and Charles don’t love each other so much, it can cause stresses. If Bob and Charles love each other, and Mary loves Bob and Charles, it’s much more likely that it’ll last. But what percentage of the population is bi? Is it more than a third? Technically, for this sort of things to work, it’d need to be two thirds, wouldn’t it?