when i was in my 20s i lived in a house with 3 other women for 4 years way out in the countryside

It was just the 4 of us on a farm...we had to provide companionship for each other and satisfy each others needs

it is a lot of work keeping 3 women happy

I will say one thing

I felt totally satisfied as a man for that time

Marriage is all about children and survivor rights

The biggest problem with women is they want to own their man completely...so the women compete to be exclusive

I have fond memories of that time

I'm not so sure that women always want exclusive possession.

During my senior year in high school my girlfriend and I regularly sat together with another couple on the quad lawn at lunch time. One day, as a joke, I suggested that the four of us get married and live together. Among the advantages I outlined were that each of us could have a spouse and a heterosexual and homosexual lover. That way we could have maximum sexual satisfaction and not have to go outside our group and expose ourselves to diseases. The major downside was having to keep our educations and careers in the same area so we could all live together. (Not to mention how we would explain it to our parents and any kids we might have.) We all got a good laugh over it. After all, it was 1960 and people, as far as we knew then, didn't do that sort of thing.

In separate, recent conversations with my former girlfriend and the other girl in the group, they both said that we should have taken the suggestion seriously and done it.

moi621 (imported) wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:58 pm In reply. Please,

bore somewhere else.

Plural marriage is as serious a topic

as is same sex unions.

Moi

You NEED "bored" ... 'commune boy'... please ...tell me you're NOT a closet renegade Moron... er ...make that closet renegade Mormon ...

...so YOU tell ME, Mr. Genius, if somebody wanted OUT of a Plural marriage, HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD SHE HAVE TO DIVORCE?

...and could a guy married to more than one woman divorce just one, or would he have to DIVORCE them ALL and start over?

...and would she have to divorce each one separately, or would she have to divorce them ALL at once? ...and what if she still wanted to stay married to one of them? How would that work? Or would it work?

...and could a BISEXUAL marry BOTH MEN and WOMEN, or would HE have to choose?

...and if a BISEXUAL married both what if the guy decided that he only wanted sex with the WOMEN in the relationship? Is he still Gay,or was he ever Gay in the first place?

...and could a Gay plural marriage invite a woman (or a man) in to keep from being discriminated against because they were Gay?

...what if two women got tired of getting FUCKED all of the time by a (excuuuuse me!) BORE? Would this mean that they were tired of being "BORED" or would it mean that they have just sobered up?

What if they ran off together? Would the BORING BASTARDS hunt them down and kill them like the boring movie "Thelma and Louise"? (Or, the NOT SO Boring movie, BOUND;))

...and what IF she just wanted to DIVORCE the one guy but not the rest? Would this mean that she was a Lesbian, or just a BORED bisexual?

...and what if one divorced HER, but not the rest. Would she still stay married to the rest, or would she NOT be married to ANY of them?

...and HOW much should a DIVORCE Attorney charge? Should they charge by the head, like they would if they were DIVORCING cattle, or one fee, or GROUP RATES, maybe by a bracketed system?

...and how would the sexual equality thing go? Who would wear the "pants" in this relationship?

...and would their be more than one pair of "pants"?

...or would you have to "CHOOSE" whether you would wear PANTS or PANTIES at the get-go?

...and could you switch from "Panties" to "Pants" in mid-relationship, or would that matter?

...who is the FUCKER and WHO is the FUCKEE in a PLURAL marriage, or all ALL of them FUCKED for doing such a STUPID thing in the FIRST place?

...and what if TWO people in this so-called Plural marriage wanted to have sex only with each other?

...would that be "Alienation of affection" to the rest of 'em, or should they just 'masturbate it off'?

...what if a PROSTITUTE MARRIED all of her johns, Is SHE STILL a PROSTITUTE? Or, is she just a WELL-KEPT POLYGAMIST?

FUCK OFF! If a guy can't afford a prostitute and marries her instead and she gives him all the money that she gets is he still her husband, or is he just a FUCKING PIMP?

...moi, has anybody ever told you that you are full of more "stuff" than a Thanksgiving turkey?

...well, bud, consider yourself told...

...YOU are so SCREWED UP, they should sell YOU in a Hardware store!

It is not only about a man married to several ladies.

of the possibilities, not just the permutations. Like or as;

Two seemingly normal couples deciding to unite in a larger marriage,

or a really successful "Mistress".

The possibilities are not just about a man and his ladies.

Moi

Your question really questions the legitimacy of the institution of marriage itself. Why is the 'state' getting involved in this matter at all? It might be said that the 'original' purpose of marriage was to try to corral two horney teenagers into a committed relationship long enough to raise their children. But we all know that in muslim and hindu society, multiple wives (not husbands) is commonplace, so who really knows what the original purpose of marriage was.

These days marriage is about the benefits and status accorded to married couples (repeat, couples) in secular society. Arguing that the tradition is 'a man and a woman', is simply anachronistic. These days there is no fixed definition of a 'man', nor a 'woman', so laws defining marriage as one of each are unenforcable. Laws that limit marriage to couples are at least enforcable, as well as traditional in western society at least.

I would add to this discussion some consideration of the French model. In that model the 'marriage' per se, consists of two persons, traditionally one male and one female, wherein either or both of the partners also have one or more mistresses or (what's the male equivalent?) gigiloes? That's a good model in my view and avoids a lot of the the problems with plural marriage raised by A-1.

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:57 pm It is not only about a man married to several ladies.

of the possibilities, not just the permutations. Like or as;

Two seemingly normal couples deciding to unite in a larger marriage,

or a really successful "Mistress".

The possibilities are not just about a man and his ladies.

Moi

Only because you place a false limit on it. It is quite clear that marriage between one man and one woman won't fly, so why just one man and several women? If the law is revoked then it will be a free for all. One woman 5 men, 3 women 4 men.... I agree with A-1, (except for the bashing you part).

sensenbender (imported) wrote: Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:50 pm Your question really questions the legitimacy of the institution of marriage itself. Why is the 'state' getting involved in this matter at all? ... But we all know that in muslim and hindu society, multiple wives (not husbands) is commonplace, so who really knows what the original purpose of marriage was.

The state's compelling interest in regulating marriage is that marriage involves obligations of support, inheritance, and property transfer, and if there were no successful way for the state to identify a legitimate marriage, the legal system would be hopelessly gridlocked. That is why muslim societies also have marriage laws, and, by the way that is one of the compelling reasons to legalize gay marriage. So that gay people will not waste the court's time on what would otherwise be routine matters of property inheritance.

The Sherpas and Todas of Nepal practice polyandry, men sharing a single wife.

sensenbender (imported) wrote: Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:50 pm wherein either or both of the partners also have one or more mistresses or (what's the male equivalent?) gigiloes?

The correct word for him is cicisbeo, a Piedmontese equivalent of Fr. chiche beau 'beautiful chickpea'; take out a garbonzo bean and then pull back your foreskin and you will understand the allusion.

The Supreme Court rejected Mormon claims of religious protection for plural marriage on grounds that they could only judge normal behavior by western European Judeo-Christian monogamous standards. Most islamic countries now legislate monogamy despite the prophet's permitting up to four wives. Like the Mormons, Muslims are supposed to get the previous wives' consent before embarking on another blissful experience of a true spiritual union. Of course, true Mormons are supposed to practice perfect obedience, so it would be hard to be perfectly obedient and still tell your husband that you won't go along with his decision to marry another woman.

Muslim men can just divorce a woman by saying I divorce thee, so they too have a compelling reason to agree even when they are not in agreement.

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:57 pm It is not only about a man married to several ladies.

of the possibilities, not just the permutations. Like or as;

Two seemingly normal couples deciding to unite in a larger marriage,

or a really successful "Mistress".

The possibilities are not just about a man and his ladies.

Moi

O.K.,

let's go back to the DIVORCE questions and change he's to she's and she's to he's.

Now, it is just as FUCKED UP as it ever was and you didn't get anyplace with it. It is, as they would say, "NOWHERE".

sensenbender, good luck on getting TEENAGERS today to do ANYTHING...

...in the 'DAY' it was LOVE in the Age of Aquarius...

...with that Mayan Calendar date of 12-21-2012 it is fuck everyone you can before the world blows up...

Wars and rumors of wars...

I am TIRED of it, do ya hear? I want my 1960's back...(or at LEAST the first year of the 1970's...)

What A-1 is really getting at is that he is just plain too old and too worn out to handle more than one woman in his married life at a time. If he could have a harem, there'd be no need for guardian eunuchs, because he'd be dead in a few days!

ROFLMAO! (yeah, I can't find the smilies, I don't do MACs well!)

j/k A-1!

saywhat (imported) wrote: Sat Aug 07, 2010 7:24 pm Only because you place a false limit on it. It is quite clear that marriage between one man and one woman won't fly, so why just one man and several women? If the law is revoked then it will be a free for all. One woman 5 men, 3 women 4 men.... I agree with A-1, (except for the bashing you part).

oh hell, man, it is just moi... you just don't know how loveable he can be... a bit like a pet alligator or a fish pond full of Piranha...

...nobody IS bashing him. No, not hardly, he just needs "BORED OUT" a little...

BORING my...er...HIS ASS!



moi, you are a RUDE old buggar, you are...

...yes, you are...