5 ms·

And the difference is what? Living under the same roof? Making babies? I'm asking seriously.

by fexl 17y ago

philwelch 17y ago
There's no set "rules" about being polyamorous, it's more of a community, but it's a community that doesn't include fundie Mormons and probably never will. They wouldn't fit in--polyamorous types are usually progressive vaguely-hippie types and the fundie Mormons are very traditional and quite frankly sexist (and don't always respect age of consent, etc., which polyamorous people do). A lot of people have the idea that any type of polygamy is inherently sexist, and while that's true for traditional polygamy, it's also true for "traditional" monogamy. The historic Mormon polygamy that the fundamentalists get arrested for practicing was indeed sexist, but so were the 19th century monogamous marriages practiced by most other Americans. Contemporary monogamous marriages aren't nearly as sexist, and there's no reason contemporary polygamous arrangements--i.e. polyamory--are necessarily sexist, either. Polyamory (and the various "open relationship"/non-monogamous lifestyles related to it) are less tied to the ritual of marriage and are often more equitable to women than traditional polygamy. I actually know some polyamorous people who live under the same roof and make babies, for instance. But some people just choose not to mind that much when their partners have sex with someone else, as long as it's safe and consensual. As I said, there's no set rules, other than it has to be safe, sane, and consensual for all parties involved. Which is worlds away from fundamentalist nutjobs in Utah marrying dozens of 13 year old girls.
- pyre 17y ago
  > polygamous arrangements--i.e. polyamory--are necessarily sexist, either. What if people want to have multiple marriage partners? Wouldn't it be polygamy then?
  - philwelch 17y ago
    Yes, but it wouldn't be old-fashioned polygamy. For legal reasons, most polyamorous people separate their lifestyle from the legal institution of marriage. As another post implied, poly people are a few decades behind the gays in terms of social acceptance--it's not likely the marriage laws will be fixed enough for poly people to use them in the near future. (Lots of poly people are married, of course, but only to one person.) "Polyamory" is kind of a neologism anyway. Kind of like when the gays decided to be "gay" instead of "homosexual". Polyamorous people are in fact polygamous in the sexual and romantic sense, but not in the technical sense of marriage.
    - pyre 17y ago
      Further thinking leads me to the conclusion that multiple partners in a legal union (i.e. marriage) would be unmanageable in our current system. If you had two wives, and they each had two husbands, then how would things like insurance coverage for partners work? How would insurance for children work (i.e. if your wife has a child with her other husband, then whose insurance would cover it)?
      - philwelch 17y ago
        Hm, you're probably right. The assumption of monogamy is a lot more prevalent and consequential than the assumption of heterosexuality as far as our marriage laws and customs go.

And the difference is what? Living under the same roof? Making babies? I'm asking seriously.

by fexl 17y ago

And the difference is what? Living under the same roof? Making babies? I'm asking seriously.

There's no set "rules" about being polyamorous, it's more of a community, but it's a community that doesn't include fundie Mormons and probably never will. They wouldn't fit in--polyamorous types are usually progressive vaguely-hippie types and the fundie Mormons are very traditional and quite frankly sexist (and don't always respect age of consent, etc., which polyamorous people do). A lot of people have the idea that any type of polygamy is inherently sexist, and while that's true for traditional polygamy, it's also true for "traditional" monogamy. The historic Mormon polygamy that the fundamentalists get arrested for practicing was indeed sexist, but so were the 19th century monogamous marriages practiced by most other Americans. Contemporary monogamous marriages aren't nearly as sexist, and there's no reason contemporary polygamous arrangements--i.e. polyamory--are necessarily sexist, either. Polyamory (and the various "open relationship"/non-monogamous lifestyles related to it) are less tied to the ritual of marriage and are often more equitable to women than traditional polygamy. I actually know some polyamorous people who live under the same roof and make babies, for instance. But some people just choose not to mind that much when their partners have sex with someone else, as long as it's safe and consensual. As I said, there's no set rules, other than it has to be safe, sane, and consensual for all parties involved. Which is worlds away from fundamentalist nutjobs in Utah marrying dozens of 13 year old girls.

pyre 17y ago
> polygamous arrangements--i.e. polyamory--are necessarily sexist, either. What if people want to have multiple marriage partners? Wouldn't it be polygamy then?
- philwelch 17y ago
  Yes, but it wouldn't be old-fashioned polygamy. For legal reasons, most polyamorous people separate their lifestyle from the legal institution of marriage. As another post implied, poly people are a few decades behind the gays in terms of social acceptance--it's not likely the marriage laws will be fixed enough for poly people to use them in the near future. (Lots of poly people are married, of course, but only to one person.) "Polyamory" is kind of a neologism anyway. Kind of like when the gays decided to be "gay" instead of "homosexual". Polyamorous people are in fact polygamous in the sexual and romantic sense, but not in the technical sense of marriage.
  - pyre 17y ago
    Further thinking leads me to the conclusion that multiple partners in a legal union (i.e. marriage) would be unmanageable in our current system. If you had two wives, and they each had two husbands, then how would things like insurance coverage for partners work? How would insurance for children work (i.e. if your wife has a child with her other husband, then whose insurance would cover it)?
    - philwelch 17y ago
      Hm, you're probably right. The assumption of monogamy is a lot more prevalent and consequential than the assumption of heterosexuality as far as our marriage laws and customs go.