An unconventional ideal for western cultures as a poly marriage is conducted in Brazil.





An unconventional ideal for western cultures as a poly marriage is conducted in Brazil.



That's so interesting. I really don't know how I feel about polygamy. On one hand it seems like something that could hold women back, but then again the jealousy I see so often in our society between females fighting for one man holds us back, too. If all the people involved are consenting adults who are truly happier this way then why not? But then again I've never known anyone who was in a situation like this so I have no idea how it actually plays out. I did know one bi girl who broke up with her gf because the gf was interested in doing something like this, bringing a man into the relationship and starting a family together (the gf was pregnant at the time but not with her bd) and the girl I knew was NOT having that.
lol, to most people, polygamy is just another way to cater to penis. lets see what happens when a woman tries to marry two men at once.





In the article it keeps saying "couple" but it shouldn't be couple and that means two. Threesome or perhaps menage a trois would seem to be the right terms (or polygamy).
My opinion is this I don't care how people get married at all as long as I don't have to pay. This isn't my thing and I want to marry one guy who wants to only marry me but hey whatever other people prefer is their choice. I will say though that most of Brazil is Catholic and the Catholic Church will never approve of this so they should have the right to choose what marriages they allow or not. Civilly though (It seems from the article this is a civil marriage)the state shouldn't have the right to say what is a valid marriage or not though they do.





This is an old idea with a new name. As long as no one's being hurt, I don't see the problem.
Most people's problems with poligamy come from its close association with cults and crazy religions that practice forced marriages of under aged girls and shunning of young males in order for the old men to keep the women for themselves. There is a world of difference between three grown adults making a choice for themselves and the poligamy cults we occasionally see in the news.
"Well done. Here are the test results: You are a horrible person. I'm serious, that's what it says: 'A horrible person.' We weren't even testing for that."
I actually see polygamy as a set back for the man as opposed to the woman. As a woman (and one who tends to get jealous at that) I can't imagine "sharing my man" with another woman or MULTIPLE other women.
But from an economic standpoint, polygamy is a good thing for woman in societies where a woman supporting herself and her children is not easy or even impossible. In a standard polygamous marriage (tribal standard) the man bears the burden of not supporting ONE family, but MANY families. This is a burden and in standard tribal polygamy the richest men have the most wives. Men who do not have riches MAY have one wife. This is why I feel polygamy holds men back more than woman.
"Well then it's a good thing your faith in me has no impact on how much I make." - MissEgo





I read this article and elected not to post about it anywhere as this has been kind of touchy in the past. But since it's here...
Regarding some of the comments - especially dear JoJo's - did any of you read the whole thing? Among her list of applicants following this one is a quintet with 3 women and 2 men and another triad (that's the word you were looking for Kelly) with one woman and two men. Sooo..?
Also realize that trowing around the polygamy moniker is moderately offensive to many in the Polyamory community; largely because of the associations both with the "cult" (there are way more groups,cultures, and religions practicing polygamy than just THAT one BTW) and because of the feminist backlash already peeking through here. Nobody involved in the modern forms of these types of relationships draws a line between multiple woman sharing a man, multiple men sharing a woman, or any of the multitude of other structures that these relationships take. Only people outside the community, lifestyle, whatever you want to call it do this; I know many strong, feminist women involved in "polygamous" relationships like this one. First and foremost my beloved MM certainly comes to mind!
In any event, we who identify as polyamorous are certainly watching these developments with interest. As gay marriage becomes more accepted you can bet these groups are going to start getting more vocal as well; when several adults decide on a relationship structure regardless of gender or orientation, they start to feel it's kind of bullshit for government to say they can't love as they choose. Read your Heinlein, and learn to realize how much of your relationship concepts and jealousy are learned behavior, plain and simple.





I did read the story. I never knew the term polygamy was offensive to people living non monogamous relationships. My only problem is when it is where the woman has to be monogamous but not the men and these are the ones we see the most in the media because many of them are wrong (especially when the women aren't adults). Otherwise no issue with me. I don't know though that people in this type of relationship will have as much power though because the gay community (including those who aren't gay but support rights)has a bigger group. Not to mention gay marriages are between 2 people but when you are talking more than that not sure how people will relate.





LOL - you might be surprised Kelly. As we became more open about our relationship, people began quietly approaching us that we would NEVER have guessed. It's FAR more common than you might think, and in many ways far more "in the closet" right now than homosexuality. Also note that many gay "couples" aren't sexually or even emotionally exclusive; the non-monogamous type relationships in the gay community are higher percentage-wise.





I've met a few in non monogamous relationships and I have to admit some surprised me. Was I disturbed? only once when I was asked to join (I declined)but otherwise I have a "whatever" attitude about this and pretty much anything. I know that not all gay couples or even married couples are monogamous but it could be argued that people get married to be monogamous (I know this isn't the case, just stating how the churches think). I did hear a story about this couple who married and spent their wedding night with a third person.
True story but I live in a small town (think Mayberry)and we have a well known swinger's group. I know this isn't exactly the same thing but this town is very conservative yet has a group like that.





We discovered 2 other poly couples just on our steet, lol!
There is a rift of sorts between poly folk, swingers, and many other "types". I think as non-monogomy becomes more accepted, the labels within the community will matter a lot less. In any event, the fact that swingers are so common - FFAAAAARRR more so than most strictly monogamous people would think - is indicative to how common these ideas are, though not often openly. That is starting to change though.





I think the real winners in a Polygamous relationship is the children. More adults with time to nurture them. For women, not every woman wants a 20 year career, and not everyone wants to be a housewife. What both likely share (broad generality here) is the want for a stable family and home. A polygamous relationship brings more hands to the work and pools together more resources.
It is a stable family unit in less developed parts of the world. I can see the appeal now here in the West with the decline of so many economies. Families are coming back together living multiple generations in one home or on one farm. Where as a couple could lose a home, combining the incomes of more adults and sharing responsibilities among them makes people feel safe again.




Was discussing this with some people recently. The man-woman-monogamous-holy union just seems to me a relic of religion. There is nothing wrong with however many people being together, what is 'wrong' based on? If 3 or more people love each other and want to build a life together they should be able to do so with the legal security of being a family. The govt can gtfo of people's private lives.





Then if the government gets out of people's private affairs (and that I would agree)then no more tax breaks for couples, and no benefits for spouses. I would agree with all of this as I do not feel anyone should get tax incentives over someone else. However often the same people who say the government should stay out of the bedroom also feel companies should be required to give benefits to partners whether married or not and I disagree.
I like the idea of having two husbands and one could make a lot of money and the second one could stay at home do the cooking and cleaning.



Well you certainly came around. See, people's perceptions are being changed already!
This would take a long time to be accepted in our society. Learned or not, people think it's natural to be a couple, like the love you have to give cannot be shared with anyone else. Civilized society is always way behind as far as accepting things it's not used to. It's still polygamy, though. Just like a sanitation engineer is still a janitor.





No, it's not. A relationship with one man and multiple women is technically described by the term, yes. But that's not what we're talking about here, because that's not the only form these relationships take. One woman and multiple men is technically polyandry. And the forms with multiples of both sexes - well, what's that word? Is there one?
The blanket term "nonmonogamy" is what covers all of "us" - swingers, ply folk, various open relationships, etc. Polyamory is the term adopted by non-monogamous relationships built on multiple partners regardless of the gender structure.
Our most recent situation saw me in a serious relationship with three women, two of whom had other boyfriends. Some of us also had casual sex partners at various times. That isn't polygamy; my situation could be described that way technically, but if that was the case the women wouldn't have other partners, yes? That and the negative implications due to association with that word and religious groups has the non-monogamy community shying away from those terms.





Toh-MAY-Toh or Toh-MAH-Toh?





No Six, I'm sorry - polygamy means one man having multiple wives. That's all it means, that's all it has ever meant, and that's all it's ever GOING to mean. There are implications that go with it; implications of exclusivity within the group and of the women remaining faithful to the man. It does not apply to the modern non-monogamy movement, and even those relationships structured along those lines tend to dislike the term. Period.
I think six is just going by the literal meaning, she is right that non mono and poly mean the exact same thing even if the words have taken on different connotations by the community.
"Well done. Here are the test results: You are a horrible person. I'm serious, that's what it says: 'A horrible person.' We weren't even testing for that."



Yeah, in this male-dominated world we've come to think that it refers only to a man with many wives. It doesn't though, and saying that's all it has ever meant is simply untrue.
Polygyny specifically is one man with multiple wives. Polyandry is one woman with multiple husbands.
Let's call the whole thing off![]()





Because that is mostly what we see on tv, a man (usually a fundamentalist Mormon, which is NOT the same thing as a Mormon)with several wives, often the wives are young. I know there are variations but how often do we see them on tv or in the movies?





All the while quaintly ignoring Muslim and African Nations...........
Anyway. The real reason for One Husband, One Wife as a social convention for marriage stems from hereditary claimants to Family Wealth. Supposed to be no argument to inheritance.
Social convention and tradition hasn't caught up with DNA testing. Inheritance is going to become an interesting an possibly a legal specialty in the future.
Again, the winners are the children who always will have a loving adult around, not just a paid for sitter, or cable channel.
Bookmarks