3 ms·
It's not a variant of polygamy, though. If you were a polygamist and only ever had one partner at a time and weren't looking and courting others then you would
by angersock 11y ago
It's not a variant of polygamy, though. If you were a polygamist and only ever had one partner at a time and weren't looking and courting others then you would be, de facto, practicing monogamy.
If I had a spouse, to whom I was devoted, and they were hit by a bus and killed, and then I had another spouse, who was killed by a falling meteoroid, and then a third spouse, who died of an aneurysm, and finally a fourth who left me because of a reasonable fear of death-by-misfortune--I would still be considered monogamous.
Yours is a very tortured interpretation of what polygamy is.
- fab13n 11y agoIf you're a serial widower without being the cause of your spouses' deaths, then you're monogamous indeed. Monogamy does exist, and you can live morally monogamous lives although having several partners over your life. But I don't think that's the topic. The original question was, will it become morally acceptable to be polygamous? And my answer was, you don't have to, of course, but you already can, in a contrieved way. You can live the hookup culture without much stygma. You can dump your partners every 2-3 years, when novelty wears off, possibly having children with each of them. You can temporarily put up with a partner who doesn't satisfy you on some subjects, because you know there will be a next one who will fulfill those currently unmet needs. TL;DR: polygamy isn't the only acceptable way, will probably never be, but some form of it already is a viable and non-stygmatized possibility.