Polyamory is getting slivers of legal recognition in America
economist.com
economist.com
And I think it's important to remember there are reasons behind this - societies where polygamy has historically been allowed have had a ton of issues with women not entering these relationships out of free choice, nor having a choice over whether other women were brought into the relationship.
Polyamory is certainly a practice of consent and communication, and for those who do enter poly relationships with open eyes (and hearts I guess!), more power to you. And I'm glad some rights are being recognised. But we must still be cautious not to throw out some of the protections these old laws offer, even while trying not to stifle positive social change.
Mostly it's that many relationships are complicated, and many relationships aren't as simple as the things the law recognises.
For example, I know a couple that are non-romantic life partners (that's the best description I can think of). They've lived together for 20+ years, are both single (but not interested in dating), and sleep in separate rooms. However they look after each other all the time, have a shared bank account, holiday together, have wills leaving everything to the other, and take jobs to make sure they can always live together.
From a legal point of view though, they get none of the benefits (or drawbacks) that newlyweds get, and their relationship isn't recognised for e.g. immigration purposes should that ever arise.
They were together from early adulthood to old age and lived together -> "friends" :D
Of course it did.
If you put 100 guys and 100 girls on an island, for the first few weeks most girls fuck the same 10/20 men. Then the other revolt, either by violence, or creating a bullshit religion where god told the to marry 1 one 1 so that all men have sex. Magic !
Theres also the issue or raising children when everyone was poor... better be a team
In real society most top guys (in any field) went through a phase where they had 2 to 5 concurrent gf
There's a reason are more selective in mating and and it would be beneficial for monogamy within marriage for a woman especially.
And if you really want to get tribal and old timey, wouldn't the other men just kill and take these top men's possessions on this island, and wouldn't the women need to come up with another option, if they did flock to the top 20?
That said if you want to go further, people on the forums most invested in the subject talk about a "dual mating strategy" for girls where they secretly fuck top guys while staying with lesser guys for ressources.. It's kind of a rabbit hole i warn you.
Henry VIII got married: you won't believe what happened next.
Not too keen on poly groups with kids though. That seems like a huge issue with custody. Kids have so little agency as it is.
Cite your sources?
There actually are people studying non-monogamous relationship models out there so yes those experts do exist if you seek them out.
If your source is just "in my experience" that's fine, just make it clear that's what you are citing. Because otherwise it's just the same appeal to authority issue that you are accusing me of.
__alexs: CITE YOUR SOURCES!
random_person: I just came from outside and noticed.
__alexs: OK, that is a perfectly reasonable response.
Nope, the "cite your sources" thing does not work here either. It belongs on the Talk pages of Wikipedia articles or at the most in discussions where something really contentious is put forward by someone who has not given any indication of where he got his information from.
Like this one apparently.
If that is their experience, they should say so, rather than saying what "usually" happens (their word).
"Cite your sources" is a somewhat combative way to say it, but they invited it by making broader statements than was justified.
A better conversation could have run, "In my experience, [bad thing]." And then somebody could say, "Oh, but in my experience, [good thing]. Perhaps we can put our anecdotes together and draw patterns. I'll start: the difference could be [X]".
I have no problems with such relationships. Certainly would never want to be in one and I don't believe they need state sanctions for anything. You can have the relationships you want and nobody stops you.
Maybe guardianship transferal could be made easier, but tax benefits for relationships should only be valid for people that actually have kids. It is also questionable for people in marriages that do not have them.
I've also seen poly people who were all into it equally, with various partners, not all of whom were shared amongst each other, if you get my meaning. I think if everyone is into the idea ahead of time then it can work for those involved.
AFAICT it varies a lot, and while we shouldn't generalise about all poly relationships, I think it's fair to say that some are the suffering-in-silence kind. But then you can say that about most relationship types.
Edit: didn't mean to accuse you of anything, but to offer a different perspective to how the situation could be viewed
I don't think this will cause a degeneration of society. If anything, the American export of "everything is us versus them" tribal mentality to politics and society is much worse. Granted, some of that always existed but I feel like it was waning until social media and exposure to American politics started reviving it. Please don't let it influence your daily life like that
The fundamental core of the American societal experiment was a separation from an overbearing authority in the pursuit of individual liberties. It seems clear to me that freedom to marry who you want, where you want, and how you want would be pursuant to that eidolon. Now, you don't have to agree with that core tenet, but on an empirical level _that rejection_ would be degeneration: a fall from first principals (which might not be a bad thing depending on your normative frameworks - I'm inferring that you're not a fan though).
I had a religious studies professor make a - reasonably evidenced - claim that the whole 'seperation of church and state' stuff during the revolution was widely understood to basically be lip service. The vast majority of Americans were under the impression that they were starting a Christian country with a Christian government. That same professor made the - less evidenced - conclusion that the implicit divide between that expectation and the legal reality has underscored a considerable portion of American political turmoil to date.
This is nonsense. Humanism is exactly about that.
Primarily state marriage is about sharing privileges and duties before the law.
The "Don't tread on me" side of the population - I don't think "the right" is the correct term here - tends to be want left alone by overreaching governmental busybodies. They also tend to be more on the traditional side of societal norms - again not something which is limited to "the right", there are plenty of traditional left-wing thinkers who did not like the "free love" movement of the 60's and don't like it still - so are not wont to go for polyamory unless they happen to be Mormons and talk about polygyny.