The 3 wives club for men: and it's legal

Among other reasons, it's a good deal for a minority of dominant men in the community, while the women involved get less individual attention from their "husbands" and most men are mathematically condemned to lifelong bachelorhood.

Why is the attempt to legitimize having three wives merely a task designation?

"One wife can cook, while another can sew and another can explore with you, while you take care of important spiritual stuff."

Is this what a wife is, someone who can do things for you? This may not be how you intended to come across, but there is little, if any discussion about the relationships between and amongst the 4 persons or the social dynamic which would develop.

I certainly agree that love is a verb, but I don't agree that that verb is a one way street of things your wives are doing for you.

Consentual relationships between individuals are the business of those individuals alone and no one else.

I would put even money that in some federally recognized Native American Nations you can have more than spouse.

Also in Utah among Mormon's IT IS LEGAL to have more than one wife.

Finally, among various cultures throughout the world you can.

Call me an Utopiast because I dare to dream responsably. This is not a pipe dream.

"All my Relations"

David

This COULD have been a non-monogamy discussion or a reflection
on who benefits and who hurts because of "traditional" marriage
customs.

Instead it started out and ended a white male lap discussion
of who's gonna jump on it.

I'm left joking that I feel that was "SO LAST MILLENIUM."

I never hear folks talk about 1 woman having multiple husbands. Where there is no coersion, I'm in favor of it, but where is there no coersion? Also, the fact that having multiple partners seems to be gender biased bespeaks what truly underlies the desire.

There's a polyamory movement going on including in Portland-look it up. Some of it is "swinging" under a different name but there's a serious, spiritual and non- sexist element as well.

Dear :-) and other angry responders.

I would like to quote from my article addressing women having multiple partners too.

Too quote "But seriously folks, anybody have an opinion on whether a man (or a woman for that matter) could have more than one spouse or partner?"

Attention to detail people - that part about ""or a woman for that matter"" directly intimates throughout the flow of the article that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Thus we have balance and everybody is happy - especially :-)

Love, Light, Peace and Harmony

David

Voltairine de Cleyre wrote a great essay on the subject of feminist anarchism and marriage, "Those Who Marry Do Ill" Check it out:


 http://www.doingfreedom.com/gen/readrm/decleyre2.html


" In such a future society natural friendships will soon produce what a thousand years of artificial attempt could not create, an organization, spontaneous, free, solid with the solidity of personal affection. "
Voltairine de Cleyre

We can salvage this discussion, Marco.

five thousand years ago, having many wives was almost required for the survival of the species. Lifespans were short, infant mortality was very high. one man can keep a very large number of women pregnant. The Hebrews used two methods to defeat their adversaries, war, and outbreeding the local populations.

Fast forward to today. The world is over-populated, to the point of being dangerous, and at times very unpleasant. It's hard to find quiet places. people are just about everywhere. Those few places that are left have to remain protected from human invasion.

Today, the method should be reversed. three men, one woman. I know, there are a lot of homophobic/religious people that wouldn't even think about this. But let me put this to you. four people, all working to take care of a say, four children, three work outside the home, one remains with the children. the three that were working could work less, and provide more for the family. This kind of arrangement would have to take a lot of work to overcome the "his, hers, and ours" type of mentality. the men would have to care for eachother just as she does. This kind of arrangement would be far more appropriate for an over-crowded world that we're facing today.

Some of this is already happening, to a degree. Man marries woman, has child, get's divorced, pays child support. She remarries, has second child, divorces and receives child support from two men, remarries. the method that I outlined only requires everyone to still be together, so the children have the benefits of all the parents, and only one home/mortgage/parcel of land is required. The children would benefit from the experience of three fathers, and one mother.


Yes, This would be virtually impossible to implement with today's society. People are too insecure, selfish, and unable to see farther out into the future.

...this discussion, with the exception of a few thoughtful responses, is going in the wrong direction. Our culture has defined one man-one woman as the standard and to think otherwise is blasphemy. I can see how a polygamous family could work well regardless of which sex dominates the group. It doesn't have to be about power either, but a matter of which type arrangement works best for all involved. A one man three woman relationship does not have to be just one big free ride for the guy. Each participates fully to the relationship, both giving and receiving. Of course there can be problems, just like there are in ANY relationship, including straight, bi and gay arrangements. We have placed taboos on certain associations, some for good reason, and others more arbitrarily.

this looks like racist spam from a white new-age wannabe