# Polygamy vs Monogamy



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

Fizz said:


> I think most people are focusing on polygyny and not polyandry when they think of polygamy. There are women who practice polyandry which wouldn't result in as many children for example compared to polygynous family. It is less common of course, but it does still exist.


Would you? I don't usually hear women extolling the virtues of multiple men. I'm curious about that.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

ManhattanINTP said:


> Would you? I don't usually hear women extolling the virtues of multiple men. I'm curious about that.


I'm not interested in having a bunch of testosterone in one household. I'm sure there could be a problem if one of them wanted to be the alpha male/husband but I'm sure that would happen in a polygynous marriage with a female wanting to be the alpha wife. Personally, polyandry would not be my preferred method of marriage and I would not be involved in a polygynous family as well. With the latter, I would especially avoid it if the male wanted children from each wife.

I have a hard time imagining myself marrying one person at the moment, so marrying multiple seems like too much for myself. I also don't think people should marry multiple partners if they cannot support them or the children. Financial and emotional needs are top priorities in a relationship and it's harder to spread it when there's more people to deal with.


----------



## Chrysantheist (Jul 1, 2011)

ManhattanINTP said:


> I'm with you. We'd have to have our own space others didn't come in without an invite. Though that is a must regardless of the future situation.
> 
> I don't think the energy expediter would be any higher; every other partner has every other partner to get affection from, so you'd only give what you were comfortable with to whoever. Hopefully all members of the relationship would understand the needs of one another.


I hadn't thought of that. Thank you, that does make sense. I suppose it is one of those things that you never really know how it's going to work until you're in it, trying to make it work. 

I'd imagine it would be really nice to have two introverts and two extroverts as well, that way the extroverts would have someone to hang out with when the introverts need some alone time. And two introverts would mean there aren't three extroverts begging the introvert to come out and play. 

There are a lot more polyamorous couples out there, if the internet and dating sites are any indication. I would hope someone is doing research on it and examining modern dating practices so that we can see how effective they are and whether they work or not. 

From purely observational data, it seems that most polyamorous relationships involve a "primary" couple, and they will invite one or two other people to be lovers or "girlfriend/boyfriend" types to one or both of the primary couple. I haven't seen a whole lot of what you describe as ideal.


----------



## antiant (Jul 4, 2010)

Chrysantheist said:


> There are a lot more polyamorous couples out there, if the internet and dating sites are any indication. I would hope someone is doing research on it and examining modern dating practices so that we can see how effective they are and whether they work or not.
> 
> From purely observational data, it seems that most polyamorous relationships involve a "primary" couple, and they will invite one or two other people to be lovers or "girlfriend/boyfriend" types to one or both of the primary couple. I haven't seen a whole lot of what you describe as ideal.


There's a lot of polyamorous information/research on the internet as well as books. If you look deep enough, there are positive examples of polyamory and polyamorous relationships, it's just kind of underground and for good reason, considering the political and social climates, however they are definitely present. Frankly, I'm more interested in polyamorous relationships and that particular 'lifestyle' rather than polygamy/polyandry and marriage. I've read numerous books on polyamory, all very informative as far as giving sound relationship advice. It really doesn't matter if you are monogamous or poly, as the information provided in those polyamorous books can be applied to any style of relationship, considering that all of us have to communicate effectively to our partner(s), which is key to any good relationship.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

Fizz said:


> I have a hard time imagining myself marrying one person at the moment, so marrying multiple seems like too much for myself. I also don't think people should marry multiple partners if they cannot support them or the children. Financial and emotional needs are top priorities in a relationship and it's harder to spread it when there's more people to deal with.


Financial support may not be an issue though in Polyandry; there can only be 1 child every year or so max. So, you have several wage earners to a child instead of several children to a wage earner. It's not all about the money, though money sure is nice. But like you said, providing emotional support to multiple partners (among other things) would get taxing. 



Chrysantheist said:


> I'd imagine it would be really nice to have two introverts and two extroverts as well, that way the extroverts would have someone to hang out with when the introverts need some alone time. And two introverts would mean there aren't three extroverts begging the introvert to come out and play.


Good idea. At least an equal amounts of introverts/extroverts. 



> From purely observational data, it seems that most polyamorous relationships involve a "primary" couple, and they will invite one or two other people to be lovers or "girlfriend/boyfriend" types to one or both of the primary couple. I haven't seen a whole lot of what you describe as ideal.


Seems like that would be the most likely occurrence. Like you said it's definitely not ideal to me, since non-primary members may feel left out and develop resentment. Then again, some people may prefer that. Being a non-primary member has many of the comforts of a relationship, without many of the responsibilities.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

ManhattanINTP said:


> Financial support may not be an issue though in Polyandry; there can only be 1 child every year or so max. So, you have several wage earners to a child instead of several children to a wage earner. It's not all about the money, though money sure is nice. But like you said, providing emotional support to multiple partners (among other things) would get taxing.


My concern there would be not being able to provide emotionally, as you stated. It seems that I would have to spread my attention thin to multiple partners. Let's say in this scenario I have two husbands. I would have to split up days of the week to spend with each other, if I wanted it to be even, I would have to have one day to myself without either man or possibly alternate every week. I also think emotions can be complicated enough and there would have to be a lot of transparency so that each partner does not feel like I'm being unfair. 

I would not want to compromise my partner(s)'s relationship preference if they wanted me all to themselves. I would feel selfish if I had two partners but disallowed them from having anyone other than myself. This of course is a personal preference and not to be taken as my belief for other couples. I would not be in a polygynous marriage as I would feel that to be unfair. I don't think I would be satisfied sexually or emotionally in a relationship like that. Of course this is coming from assumptions and not experience.

On average, males are more likely to be less forgiving of physical cheating over emotional cheating. I think sharing me with another man would put a lot of strain on the opposite partner. Though in this context it's not "cheating" but it's still physical intimacy with another partner. In the evolutionary theory of how the human mind works based on biological sex, that could pluck at some irate strings in a male. Though as a female, I would feel the same way sharing my partner with others.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

Fizz said:


> My concern there would be not being able to provide emotionally, as you stated. It seems that I would have to spread my attention thin to multiple partners. Let's say in this scenario I have two husbands. I would have to split up days of the week to spend with each other, if I wanted it to be even, I would have to have one day to myself without either man or possibly alternate every week. I also think emotions can be complicated enough and there would have to be a lot of transparency so that each partner does not feel like I'm being unfair.
> 
> I would not want to compromise my partner(s)'s relationship preference if they wanted me all to themselves. I would feel selfish if I had two partners but disallowed them from having anyone other than myself. This of course is a personal preference and not to be taken as my belief for other couples. I would not be in a polygynous marriage as I would feel that to be unfair. I don't think I would be satisfied sexually or emotionally in a relationship like that. Of course this is coming from assumptions and not experience.
> 
> On average, males are more likely to be less forgiving of physical cheating over emotional cheating. I think sharing me with another man would put a lot of strain on the opposite partner. Though in this context it's not "cheating" but it's still physical intimacy with another partner. In the evolutionary theory of how the human mind works based on biological sex, that could pluck at some irate strings in a male. Though as a female, I would feel the same way sharing my partner with others.


I can sympathize with this. Polygyny and polyandry are doomed to fail most of the time. Maybe a minority of individuals could make them work, but nether systems are for me. 

We seem to differ on polygamy. That's understandable.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

ManhattanINTP said:


> I can sympathize with this. Polygyny and polyandry are doomed to fail most of the time. Maybe a minority of individuals could make them work, but nether systems are for me.
> 
> We seem to differ on polygamy. That's understandable.


How do we differ on polygamy? Are you a proponent? You admitted that you believe polygyny and polyandry were likely to fail, both of which are just the sub-groups or definitions of polygamy to define specifically who the host partner is.

When I say "host partner", I mean the one marrying multiple people. I make people sound like parasites


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

It's something I would happily try. I need variety to keep me interested, and this makes a lifetime monogamous relationship very problematic to me. If I were to cycle my time with several dynamic partners, the combination of the diversity and their personal growth would keep me stimulated. Another issue is that I'm very loyal to someone once I bond with them in a relationship. So if I did yearn for more in a monogamous relationship, I would ignore my feelings and stick it out. 

Once I read something about men's testosterone reliably dropping after a long term monogamous relationship, leading to some negative personality affects. I don't see why I should sacrifice anything of myself if I don't have to.

A polyandrous relationship wouldn't necessitate this, as I could get the whole spectrum of relationship experiences from others. I'll take a quality polyandrous relationship over a quality monogamous relationship. I'm sure the males in the relationship would also prove to be very good friends, and I like all my friends to know each other, so that settles a separate type of companionship. 

Though I think polygyny and polyandry are problematic and sexist, I don't think polygamy is. A group marriage with equal partners would not have the issues of spreading oneself too thin.


----------



## Paradox of Vigor (Jul 7, 2010)

ManhattanINTP said:


> Condemnation of the side you do not believe in will make rational discussion impossible


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh the irony!!! Hahaha. Then your discussion isn't very rational is it?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

Condemnation =/= dissent.


----------



## rycbar (Aug 2, 2011)

As Oscar Wilde once said, "Polygamy is having too many wives. Monogamy is having one too many wives."


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

1: The pros and cons of polygamy and monogamy for adults without children, and how the two compare. 
polygamy- pros-just the ability to have access to sex and respect your partners when they are not interested. 
cons- jealousy, sexually transmitted disease, unwanted pregnancy of multiple partners which leads to financial problems
monogamy- pros- financial stability, more commitment to the household and joint cooperation, deeper emotions for your partner
cons- less sex, jealousy, working around their schedule, cant have sex with others u find desirable


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

ManhattanINTP said:


> Therefore, for a polygamist relationship to work smoothly in western culture:
> 
> 1: It would have to resemble a group marriage system of both sexes.
> 
> ...


I think it's a mistake to try and structure any relationship, especially when there are different personalities involved. I don't think that polygyny necessarily devalues women and I certainly don't think polyandry devalues men (in practice it probably devalues women more).

Any combination can work as long as people's needs are being met.

I know a polyrelationship with 2 women and 1 man. That works for them. One of the women is more traditional and does the cooking etc. She also has a child. They've been together for many years now.



Chrysantheist said:


> *Would you participate in such a structure? Why and why not?*
> 
> I've thought about it. I'm not opposed to polyamory. I'm not jealous and I'm pretty secure overall. I think it would be something that would interest me and I could find it enjoyable, especially having both a male & female partner (or two males, I suppose, in your ideal situation?). I don't want kids though, and it's hard enough to find a partner who doesn't want kids. Now you have to find 3. Yikes. Also, I'm not terribly interested in marriage at this point in my life. Or relationships, for that matter.
> 
> ...


I'm like this too. I need my space. But then, I could be part of a MFF, and this would allow me plenty of me-time without either of my partners feeling abandoned, as they'd have each other.
I just wouldn't want any kids involved.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

@twoofthree

I think a structure prevents conflict. Knowing what your needs are is the best way to have them met. So, thinking beforehand as to what you want is productive. The decisive periods in a relationship where everything is chaotic and settling into a norm is a good time for conflict to arise and baggage to build up.

I don't think it's possible to completely structure a relationship, of course. I also think a structure should be amended when it is clear that it is not serving the needs of the members, since the structure is meant to support human interests, not be an entity in itself. That said, starting out with a structure is generally a better idea in my opinion than going headfirst into an emotionally charged situation. 

I'd say a poly relationship based where one gender does not have the right to marry multiple partners, but the other gender is allowed _does _devalue the gender with less marrying rights. If only because you are saying "You cannot marry anymore partners because you are a man/woman." 

If it just turns out that there is not an equal number of both genders, I don't think it devalues anyone. (Like 2 woman 1 man, or 2 man 1 woman.) It's when there's specific rules related to the gender of the members that I believe one is devalued. 

I could also be in a 2 man 1 woman relationship. I need my private time too and don't get jealous, so I can understand it completely.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

ManhattanINTP said:


> @twoofthree
> 
> If it just turns out that there is not an equal number of both genders, I don't think it devalues anyone. (Like 2 woman 1 man, or 2 man 1 woman.) It's when there's specific rules related to the gender of the members that I believe one is devalued.
> 
> I could also be in a 2 man 1 woman relationship. I need my private time too and don't get jealous, so I can understand it completely.


OK. I misunderstood what you said then.
I thought you were advocating that things needed to be balanced.

As far as structure:
I'd start with couple and a basic agreement that they're open to the idea of polyamory.
From there the growth would be quite organic. With each addition, the rules could be adapted to fit the new situation.


----------

