I have not seen this particular discussion before, so here goes:
Q: If the law of the land(s) were changed, and polygamy were legal and socially acceptable, would you? Why or why not?
For the sake of this discussion, let’s assume that the practical issues regarding health benefits, insurance, etc. were worked out. For example, companies could provide health insurance based on the number of adults in the household, rather than assuming a single spouse, insurance benefits would be paid to a household, rather than to a single surviving spouse, and so on. We will also assume that this consensual by all parties involved.
I can see a lot of advantages to it - like the ability to have a dual (or more) income household, and still have a stay-at-home parent. If one spouse is mad at you, you might get some ‘comfort’ from one of the other ones. Unless, of course, they gang up on you. :mad:
So, would it work for you personally? Would you try it?
how are you defining polygamy, I think of that as multiple marriage, where do you draw the line? how many spouses total? Whats the relationship between the multiple spouses?
White Ink - I was throwing the door wide open. We don’t legislate how many kids you can have, nor what sex they must be. What if marriage were the same way? I was letting you define it in your own way.
Would you like to be a co-husband or wife? Would you like to have multiple spouses? (spousen? spice?)
The Dread Piratess says that she wouldn’t mind having a few extra wives around the house, as long as she was the senior wife. I don’t think that I could be a co-husband, though.
There’s a nifty group marriage setup in Robert Heinlein’s book Friday that I always thought would be kinda cool, until I worked out the logistics for the “real world”. I know myself well, and I am not a good sharer. I would be consumed by jealousy if another woman decided it was her turn to have the WryGuy for the night.
I think I would do it…I’d marry one that was handy around the house like those women on the home improvement shows, one that was a mechanic, an electrician would be good to have around, another one that liked to ride colts, and the I’d have to try for Paris Hilton to bankroll the whole deal. This thing has possibilities.
My biblical namesake had two wives and I think I could too. Maybe three, but no more than that. I don’t think I could handle being a co-husband though.
I actually think there are some situations where a third person in a relationship could make things easier rather than harder. As with all things, there are trade-offs - some things will be more difficult, others easier.
I’d definitely go for it, though, if it meant me and two women. I rule out the two men/one woman (or three men) option only because I envision a 3-way relationship being equal between all partners (all loving each other, etc.) and I couldn’t feel romantic love for another man.
I wouldn’t mind being a co-husband if they other one would do the things I hate doing.
He could go garage saleling with the wife, discuss interior decorating, plant flowers, do the dishes, make the bed. Actually, I think they did this on The Man Show.
One husband is quite enough for me, thanks. There are times when I think I’d like to have a wife to do all the crap I hate to do, but in the long run, it’d be easier and cheaper to hire a housekeeper!
I think there are a lot of practical advantages to this. As you said, triple or quadruple paycheques, always somebody around to stay with the kids, chores could be divided up (and many hands make light work, as the saying goes)…
But I can’t see it work emotionally, though. I, for one, could not attach myself to two different people on that level. It’d feel as if I was stretching myself too thin, if ya get my drift.
And I think I’d feel hurt if the person I was with could express the same intensity of feeling he feels for me, towards another person. I think somehow, you need the assurance that you’re the most important person to the person who’s most important to you. Well, I do, anyway. Don’t know about y’all, ofcourse.
