Why men won't marry you

[CabinetMaker]

Good.

Such a dishonest fool you are.

Right. B initiated unprovoked violence. Having an argument (assuming no threat of violence from A in the argument) is no reason to initiate violence.

I suppose that would depend entirely on what the argument was about.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

What, they love each other that much yet can't stand to be together

I'm a joined at the hip kinda girl and I don't mean that they can't stand to be together. I mean if they have incompatible personalities. Some people are the kind that thrive on being alone a lot, maybe even on long wilderness hikes for weeks at a time and that could drive a more needy spouse crazy, if they need someone to sit on the couch with them every night before leading them by the hand to bed.

Generally people work big details out before becoming intimate, but when they find this problem arising they have several choices, live with crazy feelings, divorce or accommodate. I say accommodate, rather than turning to divorce.

without having sexual relations with other people to 'let off some steam'?

There's this monogamous couple I know of that are really in love. He spends most of his life overseas at work. She's alone for years at a time. I think it's hardest on her. Many women leave for less heartache. If they had another spouse it might be easier for her, and in turn, for him. Possibly, anyway. They have kids, too. Really in love and together - yet apart.

If your husband was out having intimacy with another "wife" while you were sat home doing the laundry or something, then you really would be happy with it?

Sure. What would it matter to me if he did that or went bowling with guy friends as long as I knew he was not getting into trouble?

Also, what about these additional 'wives'? Aren't they just effectively 'add ons' so what exactly do they get out of these 'arrangements' if it's for the benefit of your marriage?

Actually, I can think of a long list they would get. 7 instant sons/daughters, a proven husband who is never abusive in any sense of the word, a wife-best-friend, a man who is proven fertile who makes beautiful, friendly, well raised children, an end to being alone or fearing a lonely old age, etc. Not to mention free child-care, free house-help, extra resources, etc.

One big reason a wife like me would think about polygamy is for the lonely women who can't get a good man. My man is so good he gives me survivor guilt. I took him out, so to speak. With monogamy, nobody else can know the joy - no one else can have my one-in-a-million perfect husband...

If you check the link your husband used as 'evidence' to support polygamy it emanates from a dominant male perspective in a patriarchal environment. You might be happy enough with that but most women wouldn't be, certainly not nowadays and for a good while now. Polygamy is very much centred for men, not women.

You assume too much. Just because it's usually the cassa-novas getting the girls, it doesn't mean they are jerks. They get the girls because they are too good to pass up in every way. Every way. And the wife can "tell-all" before they ever say I-do, so only the reputable guys would be that magnetic and influential. Unless you imagine female hostages for life. I don't. Those kind of men would have loyalty issues and would soon be ousted/killed/abandoned, greatly limiting their seed-spread.

There are other routes around infertility without having a myriad spouses so that's a misnoma.

There are end-routes involving another man's sperm when the husband is infertile. That leaves a birth-father without a connection to his children. How nice is that to the children? Why not take the provider/father with the seed and include him?

Do you not think that in general, most couples have already talked about having or not having children before getting married?

I'm married with 7 children and many married friends. People can get cold feet about having more and likewise can suddenly get "the baby bug." That's a dynamic situation.

Your solution to any problem in a marriage seems to be to get another spouse

That's a needlessly inflammatory assertion. I have suggested no such thing. But polygamy is better than divorce and makes more sense, absent any kind of abuse in the relationship.

and you seem blind as to just how destructive that could be in itself.

You should opine about that further if you really think it holds water.

There's a reason why most people make a commitment to the one person if they embark on wedlock, even if things go awry later on. Can you appreciate that much?

Social constructs. I can appreciate the concept of taboos and tradition. Social creatures have a weakness for that sort of thing.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Let's remember where this started:



The "her" was me, suggesting polygamy to him 9 years ago.

He answered you. He said he could love two women. You felt he was dodging your question. Your question amounts to an assertion that you can't be attracted to or have sex with another person if you really love your SO.

That also would be an assertion that you didn't ever love anyone that you had sex with if you moved on later and became open to finding someone else.

It would also seem to indicate that divorcees and widows would have a problem, as would anyone who ever lost their virginity and didn't marry that person they foolishly fell for in the first place.

It's like saying that most people have sex without really loving their intimate partner.

Are you sure of that position?

That's not the question 'in question' here. I asked whether it was okay for women to have multiple husbands and all I got back was "Goes against our inclinations doesn't it?"

That's not an answer.

I wasn't asserting that people can't be attracted to others while in a relationship. If I'm with someone and I see a beautiful woman walking down the street then I'm going to find her attractive. What I won't be thinking is "I wish she could be another partner".

Sex isn't always about love so lets just get real on that one.

Relationships can turn sour. People can fall out of love. There's no problem apart from the ones you're making. Why would I have a problem with someone who's relationship ended finding someone else, or someone who's lost a partner through bereavement?

I'm not asserting that position at all.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

That's not the question 'in question' here. I asked whether it was okay for women to have multiple husbands and all I got back was "Goes against our inclinations doesn't it?"

People don't do things they are not inclined to do and we typically don't perceive women as wanting the needs/demands of many men. It's less about who they can love; more about how much energy they can spare and how also about how males naturally compete. Beta males might find it very palatable, however, as might aggressive, passionate vixens who need seed that otherwise would be less available.

Sex isn't always about love...

Thanks for saying that. That's why some married couples don't have sex at all. Marriage is about more than sex. Do you imagine sexual dissatisfaction to be at the root of affairs or second wives?

Relationships can turn sour. People can fall out of love.

You seem to have a limitation in imagining love existing in your heart for more than one person. I can love a dead husband as a widow as much as a living husband - if life required remarriage.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'm a joined at the hip kinda girl and I don't mean that they can't stand to be together. I mean if they have incompatible personalities. Some people are the kind that thrive on being alone a lot, maybe even on long wilderness hikes for weeks at a time and that could drive a more needy spouse crazy, if they need someone to sit on the couch with them every night before leading them by the hand to bed.

Generally people work big details out before becoming intimate, but when they find this problem arising they have several choices, live with crazy feelings, divorce or accommodate. I say accommodate, rather than turning to divorce.

Well you've just explained it yourself. People generally work the major issues through before getting married, not during. If there's too much incompatibility they're not likely to get hitched.

There's this monogamous couple I know of that are really in love. He spends most of his life overseas at work. She's alone for years at a time. I think it's hardest on her. Many women leave for less heartache. If they had another spouse it might be easier for her, and in turn, for him. Possibly, anyway. They have kids, too. Really in love and together - yet apart.

I would imagine it's hard on both of them but they seem to be managing to make it work? It's a tough situation but their love for each other sees to be pulling them through. What you suggest would likely ruin that special bond. I'll tell you now that if I were a husband in a situation where I was away for extended periods then

A: I'd be missing her like crazy and counting down the days I'd be back with her.

B: The thought of her having another partner in the meantime would be shattering. Love is between two people if there's anything special, not 17...

Sure. What would it matter to me if he did that or went bowling with guy friends as long as I knew he was not getting into trouble?

Uh huh, so you equate sexual intimacy with a game of bowling. Right...

Actually, I can think of a long list they would get. 7 instant sons/daughters, a proven husband who is never abusive in any sense of the word, a wife-best-friend, a man who is proven fertile who makes beautiful, friendly, well raised children, an end to being alone or fearing a lonely old age, etc. Not to mention free child-care, free house-help, extra resources, etc.

One big reason a wife like me would think about polygamy is for the lonely women who can't get a good man. My man is so good he gives me survivor guilt. I took him out, so to speak. With monogamy, nobody else can know the joy - no one else can have my one-in-a-million perfect husband...

So essentially a lot of fringe benefits but still a secondary sharer without any actual love?

You assume too much. Just because it's usually the cassa-novas getting the girls, it doesn't mean they are jerks. They get the girls because they are too good to pass up in every way. Every way. And the wife can "tell-all" before they ever say I-do, so only the reputable guys would be that magnetic and influential. Unless you imagine female hostages for life. I don't. Those kind of men would have loyalty issues and would soon be ousted/killed/abandoned, greatly limiting their seed-spread.

How? In a patriarchal society men rule. In the linked article it was the dominant men who had the pick of their partners. So essentially it's the alpha males who would have harems in such a society like it or not. I think you have very rose tinted glasses on where it comes to this.

There are end-routes involving another man's sperm when the husband is infertile. That leaves a birth-father without a connection to his children. How nice is that to the children? Why not take the provider/father with the seed and include him?

Er, because for most people they want to be married to one person at a time?

I'm married with 7 children and many married friends. People can get cold feet about having more and likewise can suddenly get "the baby bug." That's a dynamic situation.

Right, but I'm presuming that you and your husband had already decided to raise a family before marriage? As before, that's something that's usually ironed out between a couple one way or the other before wedlock. Can people change their minds at a later date? Sure, but bringing another spouse into the equation is hardly a solution for most people.

That's a needlessly inflammatory assertion. I have suggested no such thing. But polygamy is better than divorce and makes more sense, absent any kind of abuse in the relationship.

Sorry, but if a relationship is on the rocks to the point of divorce then you don't cure the problems by having someone else in the mix.

You should opine about that further if you really think it holds water.

Social constructs. I can appreciate the concept of taboos and tradition. Social creatures have a weakness for that sort of thing.

Because we're not designed that way. My objections aren't based on social constructs, social taboos or anything resembling. The one person relationship dynamic is the norm because it reflects who we are. If I love someone then the only person I want to be with is them and them alone.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Well you've just explained it yourself. People generally work the major issues through before getting married, not during. If there's too much incompatibility they're not likely to get hitched.

So why do generalities matter? Does God not make people unique? Everybody is different.

I would imagine it's hard on both of them but they seem to be managing to make it work?

There are vast empty spaces that resemble widow-hood. What if she had a good best girlfriend who slept over with her and helped her raise the kids while he was constantly gone?

What you suggest would likely ruin that special bond.

Should she avoid having close friends to maintain his supremacy of intimacy over her? Why is that level of possessiveness part of loving?

I'll tell you now that if I were a husband in a situation where I was away for extended periods then

A: I'd be missing her like crazy and counting down the days I'd be back with her.

B: The thought of her having another partner in the meantime would be shattering. Love is between two people if there's anything special, not 17...

But why could she love lots of other people and be close to them so long as no sex/sexual attraction is involved? That seems to be your line.

kinda busy today... i'll finish later...

 

[Arthur Brain]

So why do generalities matter? Does God not make people unique? Everybody is different.

We might all be unique but there's plenty of things that most of us have in common as well, for example most of us aren't hermits as we're gregarious creatures by nature on the whole.

There are vast empty spaces that resemble widow-hood. What if she had a good best girlfriend who slept over with her and helped her raise the kids while he was constantly gone?

I would hope she does have good friends who would be there for her.

Should she avoid having close friends to maintain his supremacy of intimacy over her? Why is that level of possessiveness part of loving?

Why on earth do you think I'd have a problem with her having close friends? This has got nothing whatsoever to do with possessiveness or 'supremacy of intimacy'. Has it occurred to you that the reason this couple have a monogamous relationship is because they love and are committed to solely each other? It isn't about one partner having dominance over the other and where you drew that from I really don't know.

But why could she love lots of other people and be close to them so long as no sex/sexual attraction is involved? That seems to be your line.

kinda busy today... i'll finish later...

It's kinda the usual 'line' for two people who are in love. You make a commitment to the other person.

 

[Arthur Brain]

People don't do things they are not inclined to do and we typically don't perceive women as wanting the needs/demands of many men. It's less about who they can love; more about how much energy they can spare and how also about how males naturally compete. Beta males might find it very palatable, however, as might aggressive, passionate vixens who need seed that otherwise would be less available.

We don't tend to perceive men as needing a harem of wives in order to be fulfilled either. You can speak for yourself in regards as to what you want but not most women by any stretch.

Thanks for saying that. That's why some married couples don't have sex at all. Marriage is about more than sex. Do you imagine sexual dissatisfaction to be at the root of affairs or second wives?

Well, I don't think there'll be many couples who don't have sex but if it works for them then fine. Of course marriage is about more than sex but it's a pretty important part of most relationships. If there's sexual problems going on then it's likely there's deeper factors informing that. I would say that sexual dissatisfaction is certainly one reason why people have affairs although I'd say a strong relationship would work through those problems. There's a difference between having sex and making love after all.

You seem to have a limitation in imagining love existing in your heart for more than one person. I can love a dead husband as a widow as much as a living husband - if life required remarriage.

You're not getting my point. Most people fall in love with one person, not multiple people at the same time. That's completely different to having cherished feelings for one dearly departed and developing feelings for someone afterwards.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to your thoughts about my husband, because your theory of mind seems to have misled you into imagining a conservative Mormon talking to you.

Does "the main" indicate a moral high ground? Just because we here currently have no imagination of what it's like to need more than one spouse doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is evil.

Look, you're the one who's drawing this theory about conservative Mormons. I don't know whether your husband is or not and for me it really makes no difference to my position one way or the other. He could be a Presbyterian and it wouldn't alter anything as I'm debating his position, not any particular faith.

It's main because that's how most people are wired. If someone needs more than one special partner in their life then something's not right with the relationship if they need to find intimacy elsewhere.

I'm saying they'd have to deny their attractions and compatibility to the sex they are not with. So if a bi-girl fell in love with her girl-best friend from high school ten years into her marriage to a man, she's now someone who never really loved her husband? I don't understand you.

You could apply this very same 'reasoning' to hetero and homosexuals. The fact remains that most people love and make a commitment to one person in marriage and that's generally how it works.

 

[Yorzhik]

Such a dishonest fool you are.

Coming from you that's a compliment.

I suppose that would depend entirely on what the argument was about.

No. If there is no threat of violence on A's part, then there is never a need to initiate violence on B's part. But suppose you give us a hypothetical and we'll see if I'm wrong.

 

[serpentdove]

[Do you hit women? :chz4brnz:] "...Why are you like that?"

:chz4brnz:

Do you hit people not like yourself?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

People generally work the major issues through before getting married, not during. If there's too much incompatibility they're not likely to get hitched.

Generalities are pointless to those who are not representative of generalities.

So essentially a lot of fringe benefits but still a secondary sharer without any actual love?

I listed a character trait that would require actual love but since you didn't see it on the list, it's here now. Absolutely "actual love" would be a requirement. Godly people actually love everyone, so it's a cinch to love a spouse perfectly, even if it's the second wife or third, etc.

How? In a patriarchal society men rule. In the linked article it was the dominant men who had the pick of their partners. So essentially it's the alpha males who would have harems in such a society like it or not. I think you have very rose tinted glasses on where it comes to this.

So are you assuming the dominant human alphas in our genes are mean vs impressive, accomplished and wise?

Er, because for most people they want to be married to one person at a time?

So you are tacitly admitting it's a standard put above the children and the other parental componant?

Can people change their minds at a later date? Sure, but bringing another spouse into the equation is hardly a solution for most people.

Right; they'd rather cheat or divorce. Or lose the chance at those children...

Sorry, but if a relationship is on the rocks to the point of divorce then you don't cure the problems by having someone else in the mix.

It's better bringing chaos through divorce or holding someone's happiness hostage to a standard that hardly makes sense in a same sex marriage world of self-acceptance.

Because we're not designed that way.

Some of you. You can even say most, if you like.

The one person relationship dynamic is the norm because it reflects who we are.

:think: Some people marry themselves, I've heard.

You are saying the polygamous relationship dynamic does not reflect who some people are?

We might all be unique but there's plenty of things that most of us have in common....

"Most" is still not "all."

Has it occurred to you that the reason this couple have a monogamous relationship is because they love and are committed to solely each other?

If they want monogamy that's great. That's not the issue. I'm talking about hypothetical situations where a person doesn't want to be alone.

It isn't about one partner having dominance over the other and where you drew that from I really don't know.

No, but the way you paint it - it's about both partners having control and security in being the sole/dominant social influence and concern in the other's life.

We don't tend to perceive men as needing a harem of wives in order to be fulfilled either. You can speak for yourself in regards as to what you want but not most women by any stretch.

I want what I have, I have what I want. Our primary concern though is our responsibility to produce laborers for the great harvest. As many children in that purpose as we can. If it's the right thing for someone, more wives = more children.

Thanks for saying that. That's why some married couples don't have sex at all. Marriage is about more than sex. Do you imagine sexual dissatisfaction to be at the root of affairs or second wives?

Of course marriage is about more than sex but it's a pretty important part of most relationships. If there's sexual problems going on then it's likely there's deeper factors informing that. I would say that sexual dissatisfaction is certainly one reason why people have affairs although I'd say a strong relationship would work through those problems. There's a difference between having sex and making love after all.

Some people are into family building in a big way. It's not always sex that drives mating choices.

You're not getting my point. Most people fall in love with one person, not multiple people at the same time.

Most is only most.

Look, you're the one who's drawing this theory about conservative Mormons.

Okay.

I don't know whether your husband is or not

You could already guess not. He's actually already answered that question on this thread from someone else.

and for me it really makes no difference to my position one way or the other. He could be a Presbyterian and it wouldn't alter anything as I'm debating his position, not any particular faith.

Good.

It's main because that's how most people are wired. If someone needs more than one special partner in their life then something's not right with the relationship if they need to find intimacy elsewhere.

You can say that about adultery, not about polygamy. Wanting to have a big family together is not a thing wrong with the relationship.

You could apply this very same 'reasoning' to hetero and homosexuals. The fact remains that most people love and make a commitment to one person in marriage and that's generally how it works.

Most doesn't mean best or even better. I have no problem with monogamy, else we would not be content these past 16 years with our arrangement. It's beautiful for many.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Generalities are pointless to those who are not representative of generalities.

True, some people rashly go headlong into a marriage and hope it'll work out.

I listed a character trait that would require actual love but since you didn't see it on the list, it's here now. Absolutely "actual love" would be a requirement. Godly people actually love everyone, so it's a cinch to love a spouse perfectly, even if it's the second wife or third, etc.

That's not a romantic form of love though is it?

So are you assuming the dominant human alphas in our genes are mean vs impressive, accomplished and wise?

They'd have the most power and force hence dominance. They wouldn't necessarily need to be accomplished or wise to get their way.

So you are tacitly admitting it's a standard put above the children and the other parental componant?

What? I'm not 'tacitly admitting' any such thing. A monogamous couple may choose to have a whole bunch of children, a few, one or none at all.

Right; they'd rather cheat or divorce. Or lose the chance at those children...

Or possibly work things through. It may seem weird to you but when the vast majority of people get married it's to the one person and "sharing" a marriage with someone else is just whacked out.

It's better bringing chaos through divorce or holding someone's happiness hostage to a standard that hardly makes sense in a same sex marriage world of self-acceptance.

So what about a guy who has 78 wives and 425 children, is that healthy in your opinion?

Some of you. You can even say most, if you like.

I'd say the vast majority.

:think: Some people marry themselves, I've heard.

You are saying the polygamous relationship dynamic does not reflect who some people are?

Some people marry Ferris wheels but it's not the norm...

"Most" is still not "all."

I didn't claim it was.

If they want monogamy that's great. That's not the issue. I'm talking about hypothetical situations where a person doesn't want to be alone.

And the solution is to have another partner on those times where the spouse is away?

No, but the way you paint it - it's about both partners having control and security in being the sole/dominant social influence and concern in the other's life.

If you think I'm painting a loving relationship that way then I'm really not sure what you've been reading. I wouldn't describe such in anything like the clinical terms you seem determined to reduce it to.

I want what I have, I have what I want. Our primary concern though is our responsibility to produce laborers for the great harvest. As many children in that purpose as we can. If it's the right thing for someone, more wives = more children.

Right, you have what you want, fine.

Some people are into family building in a big way. It's not always sex that drives mating choices.

True enough. Some monogamous marriages have lots of children.

Most is only most.

Although still representative of the vast majority.

Okay.You could already guess not. He's actually already answered that question on this thread from someone else.

Good.

I didn't make an issue of it one way or the other. That was the pair of you reading into and presuming something that simply wasn't there.

You can say that about adultery, not about polygamy. Wanting to have a big family together is not a thing wrong with the relationship.

You mean relationships don't you?

Most doesn't mean best or even better. I have no problem with monogamy, else we would not be content these past 16 years with our arrangement. It's beautiful for many.

It does for most because that's how the vast majority of human relationships operate.

 

[Yorzhik]

Do you hit people not like yourself?

C'mon SD, we can dialogue so stop changing the subject and stonewalling. Your question can be answered if you answer this first: "If one did [come at me with a hammer], would it be right in your eyes for me to hit her? And if you answer 'yes' to that one, then how about if she has a knife? a fist? a frying pan? a rolling pin? What violence could she initiate (unprovoked) that would not, in your eyes, be proper grounds to respond in kind?"

 

[1PeaceMaker]

True, some people rashly go headlong into a marriage and hope it'll work out.

So there you go. We have those situations to deal with in the here and now.

That's not a romantic form of love though is it?

Why not? Romantic love does not have to equate to a combined personality of sexual obsessive/possessive behavior. I am the only wife of a 16 year relationship wherein we discovered polygamy was not immoral within the first year or two together. We did not need to be possessive/obsessive to keep the wife number down to one, or to feel passionately towards one another.

They'd have the most power and force hence dominance. They wouldn't necessarily need to be accomplished or wise to get their way.

Without admiration it would take a prison and castrated prison guards on 24 hr watch to prevent a mutiny of the harem. At gun/spearpoint.

It may seem weird to you

my culture is yours not that of a polygamous cult....

but when the vast majority of people get married it's to the one person and "sharing" a marriage with someone else is just whacked out.

Bigotry is more whack...

to be cont....

 

[1PeaceMaker]

True, some people rashly go headlong into a marriage and hope it'll work out.

Then for them the solution is misery or a resolution, be it hard-hearted divorce or a soft-hearted alternative. Depends. If it's an emotionally abusive situation that's a time to cut the strings if there's no resolution, then divorce will settle the matter. If it's not that, then alternatives are wiser. Alternatives like unique family structures rather than total, unmerciful estrangement.

That's not a romantic form of love though is it?

Romantic love does not have to be possessive or exclusive. It would be best to avoid that attitude or there will be insecurity for many people. Even monogamous people may deal with a spouse who is a widow/er who is in love with a spiritually living non-corporal spouse.

Kid in school are led to be very possessive over best friends by this social construct and raised on Disney romances. I think that attitude is the root of strict monogamous attitudes.

They'd have the most power and force hence dominance. They wouldn't necessarily need to be accomplished or wise to get their way.

Not even possible without enough infrastructure to imprison them and prevent mutany. Not likely that caring or forward thinking fathers would cooperate...

So what about a guy who has 78 wives and 425 children, is that healthy in your opinion?

The women there are in an extreme position of power. It might seem a little scary for men who want power over women to imagine women who come into a relationship with car keys and a bank account who can just drive away if they don't like the situation and get another husband with their first polygamous husband too tied down for an obsessive chase, but such is the vulnerable life of a polygamous man.

If you think I'm painting a loving relationship that way then I'm really not sure what you've been reading. I wouldn't describe such in anything like the clinical terms you seem determined to reduce it to.

Is it clinically correct? Otherwise, restate the picture with equal coldness, so I can understand...

 

[Arthur Brain]

So there you go. We have those situations to deal with in the here and now.

For some yes, if the rushed decision isn't working out, else what point are you trying to make?

Why not? Romantic love does not have to equate to a combined personality of sexual obsessive/possessive behavior. I am the only wife of a 16 year relationship wherein we discovered polygamy was not immoral within the first year or two together. We did not need to be possessive/obsessive to keep the wife number down to one, or to feel passionately towards one another.

Well of course it doesn't. It's only you who describes monogamous relationships in such bizarre terms as it is. A commitment to one person has nothing to do with sexual obsessive/possessive behaviour in itself. It's only you who seems to think it equates to such.

Without admiration it would take a prison and castrated prison guards on 24 hr watch to prevent a mutiny of the harem. At gun/spearpoint.

Then so much for polygamy being the way to go because it's founded in patriarchal misogyny. In a sense you're probably right. After all, the suffragette movement came about because women had had enough...

my culture is yours not that of a polygamous cult.... Bigotry is more whack...

Outside of sects/cults, polygamy isn't exactly rife in the West is it? It's hardly bigoted to point out that most people do not want multiple married relations either.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then for them the solution is misery or a resolution, be it hard-hearted divorce or a soft-hearted alternative. Depends. If it's an emotionally abusive situation that's a time to cut the strings if there's no resolution, then divorce will settle the matter. If it's not that, then alternatives are wiser. Alternatives like unique family structures rather than total, unmerciful estrangement.

Okay, you've started answering the same points as in the last but I'll address...

Sometimes relationships just fall apart and that's just a sad fact. If you honestly think that bringing another partner into the equation is going to cure the ills then I don't know where you're coming from. You seem to have a very myopic vision on this which is essentially blinding you to the fact that people in the main don't want multiple partners within a marriage and it sure ain't a salve for broken or struggling relationships.

Romantic love does not have to be possessive or exclusive. It would be best to avoid that attitude or there will be insecurity for many people. Even monogamous people may deal with a spouse who is a widow/er who is in love with a spiritually living non-corporal spouse.

As per my last, of course it doesn't. It's only you that equates a one to one relationship as anything resembling.

Kid in school are led to be very possessive over best friends by this social construct and raised on Disney romances. I think that attitude is the root of strict monogamous attitudes.

Or maybe Disney films simply reflect that which is natural to people in the main regarding marriage? What would you prefer, "Snow White Marries The Seven Dwarves"?

lain:

Not even possible without enough infrastructure to imprison them and prevent mutany. Not likely that caring or forward thinking fathers would cooperate...

What makes you think the weaker ones would get a say? After all, it's the dominant ones that rule and call the shots. As earlier it's certainly likely there'd be an uprising as per the suffragette movement but polygamy is rooted in that same patriarchal misogyny so not really a lot going for it...

The women there are in an extreme position of power. It might seem a little scary for men who want power over women to imagine women who come into a relationship with car keys and a bank account who can just drive away if they don't like the situation and get another husband with their first polygamous husband too tied down for an obsessive chase, but such is the vulnerable life of a polygamous man.

Fair enough but that wasn't really my point. My point was as to how having so many wives and children could possibly be beneficial to anyone. The father couldn't possibly be there for all the needs of his children as it would be impossible. He couldn't be there for all of the needs of his wives by the same token. The kids would grow up raised more by an assortment of mothers and wouldn't have a special tie with their dad because he just couldn't be there for them regularly - unless he played favourites and devoted his time to a select few.

Is it clinically correct? Otherwise, restate the picture with equal coldness, so I can understand...

No, it isn't.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Well of course it doesn't. It's only you who describes monogamous relationships in such bizarre terms as it is. A commitment to one person has nothing to do with sexual obsessive/possessive behaviour in itself. It's only you who seems to think it equates to such.

It's obvious I don't equate it to such for myself; I have been the only wife in our marriage for a long time, despite lacking a possessive attitude.

Then so much for polygamy being the way to go because it's founded in patriarchal misogyny.

Once again, you say this like it's a fact. Just because we see a few modern examples of misogyny in polygamy doesn't mean it's the norm in modern or historic/prehistoric human nature.

In fact, half of all people report emotional abuse with lifetime partners and the vast majority of those relationships are monogamous. But that doesn't mean abuse is a normal part of monogamy.

In a sense you're probably right. After all, the suffragette movement came about because women had had enough...

Those were women in a monogamous-misogynist patriarchy.

Outside of sects/cults, polygamy isn't exactly rife in the West is it? It's hardly bigoted to point out that most people do not want multiple married relations either.

Read your quote with some replaced nouns;

Outside of Los Angeles/sinful big cities same sex marriage isn't exactly rife in the West, is it? It's hardly bigoted to point out that most people do not want same sex married relations either.

Mr. Diversity ---> :nono:

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's obvious I don't equate it to such for myself; I have been the only wife in our marriage for a long time, despite lacking a possessive attitude.

Then why do you even bother using such facile descriptors for monogamy then? If you think loving monogamous couples are obsessive or possessive simply because they're committed to one another then that's all on you.

Once again, you say this like it's a fact. Just because we see a few modern examples of misogyny in polygamy doesn't mean it's the norm in modern or historic/prehistoric human nature.

Take it up with your husbands link. He espoused it as fact and it extended from a dominant patriarchy. Considering neither you or he seem to consider it 'natural' for a woman to have multiple husbands then do the math...

In fact, half of all people report emotional abuse with lifetime partners and the vast majority of those relationships are monogamous. But that doesn't mean abuse is a normal part of monogamy.

Cites? Otherwise that is nothing more than a soundbite in lieu of support.

Those were women in a monogamous-misogynist patriarchy.

Oh, so a polygamous patriarchy is somehow less misogynist? Figures...

Read your quote with some replaced nouns;

Outside of Los Angeles/sinful big cities same sex marriage isn't exactly rife in the West, is it? It's hardly bigoted to point out that most people do not want same sex married relations either.

Mr. Diversity ---> :nono:

Well, for a start, no straight person would want to be married to someone of the same gender so that's a given. Look, if you're happy enough sharing your husband with multiple wives then have at it. It's not for the vast majority of people and it ain't bigoted simply to point that out.