I know that some people despise polygamy for religious reasons, but I honestly think it receives too much hate. To hell with it, hatred is overrated.

But seriously, I believe that polygamy is a great solution to stop people from cheating on their spouses.

I'm rather neutral on the subject, but do you support or are against polygamy? What are you reasons for doing so?

There are only 17 topics on the BBS that are about polygamy. I didn't want to necrobump any of them.

At 8/5/15 09:51 PM, SansNumbers wrote:

At 8/5/15 09:49 PM, TheGamechanger wrote: But seriously, I believe that polygamy is a great solution to stop people from cheating on their spouses.

What exactly is your point here?

My point is that it'll kill two birds with one stone.

nah. cheating is more fun.

At 8/5/15 09:54 PM, Sekhem wrote: will never happen in the u.s.

no tax advantages for ungodly mormons

Such as this?

At 8/5/15 10:18 PM, MrPercie wrote:

At 8/5/15 09:55 PM, TheGamechanger wrote: My point is that it'll kill two birds with one stone.

MURDERER!

Worse, I killed Satan!

The Mormons have banned polygamy for over a century.

I don't really care about it, personally. How other people live their lives doesn't really bother me as long as it isn't violating anyone else's rights. I'm not really into it myself (or dating in general, for that matter,) but I have some friends that are in (mutual) non-monogamous relationships with multiple women and it seems to work just fine for them.

If you're honest about it with the people you're dating from the jump, I don't really see anything wrong with it. My friends who date this way reason that seeing multiple women is much more enjoyable to them, since if one of those women loses interest in them or just starts acting in a way they don't like, they have others that they can immediately replace them with instead of having to endure an unenjoyable relationship or terminate it and spend time seeking out another person to date. The same works in reverse for those women as well, since it's a mutual thing. While this is not something I'd personally be OK with doing myself, I can understand how it may be preferable to others.

On the other hand, I do think that it's unethical to date multiple people without telling them. I also don't think it's healthy for polygamous/polyamorous couples to have children. I think that a child (especially a very young child) needs to have one mother and one father figure in their lives consistently until they are at least mentally developed enough not to be significantly affected by the nature of their parents' love life.

I'm polyamorous myself.

I see no shame in it. We're all happy, so what's the problem?

inb4muhfamilyvalues

also like a ton of prophets in the bible had multiple spouses, including moses

i'm not religious i just know that

k i'm done

At 8/6/15 03:01 AM, Silverlee wrote: I'm polyamorous myself.

I see no shame in it. We're all happy, so what's the problem?

I am the same way. I think people get upset when it comes to marriage. But I wouldn't really mind that either.

At 8/6/15 05:43 PM, mysteriouslila wrote:

At 8/5/15 09:49 PM, TheGamechanger wrote: I know that some people despise polygamy for religious reasons, but I honestly think it receives too much hate. To hell with it, hatred is overrated.

Actually, quite a number of issues other than religious views make polygamy a problem. And also because it often means that only one of the partners get to have several other partners and rarely that everyone may fuck whoever and whenever they want to.

I agree. Anything I've seen on the topic, even in documentaries that are meant to be open minded to the lifestyle, pretty much show one person with a harem. And it's more than a little suspect that they keep falling in love with younger partners. Why it doesn't work, I don't know. Maybe communities are drawn to defined roles including that of leader.
I can get the correct liberal love and fuck whoever you want vibe, I'm not telling anyone how to live. But in terms of practicality this is not something I've only ever seen go one way.

If you can afford it, and they like eachother, fuck it?

At 8/5/15 09:49 PM, TheGamechanger wrote:

There are only 17 topics on the BBS that are about polygamy. I didn't want to necrobump any of them.

we need more threads about masturbation

At 8/6/15 10:12 PM, General-spitsDd wrote:

At 8/5/15 09:49 PM, TheGamechanger wrote:

There are only 17 topics on the BBS that are about polygamy. I didn't want to necrobump any of them.

we need more threads about masturbation

No we don't. This isn't a cum dumping site.

At 8/6/15 10:13 PM, TheGamechanger wrote:

No we don't. This isn't a cum dumping site.

it isnt, oh.... well could you like, direct to a cum dumping site?

At 8/5/15 09:49 PM, TheGamechanger wrote:

There are only 17 topics on the BBS that are about polygamy. I didn't want to necrobump any of them.

Did you try looking up polyamory? You might find a lot more information there. In practice, most polygamous marriages come from old (typically misogynistic) religious traditions, since marriage is a religious institution anyway. Polyamory is its more common cousin among new-age people that see an ideological benefit to it compared to monogamy.

At 8/6/15 03:01 AM, Silverlee wrote: I'm polyamorous myself.

I see no shame in it. We're all happy, so what's the problem?

I can't help being envious that you're getting it to work.

At 8/6/15 10:15 PM, General-spitsDd wrote:

At 8/6/15 10:13 PM, TheGamechanger wrote:

No we don't. This isn't a cum dumping site.

it isnt, oh.... well could you like, direct to a cum dumping site?

xvideos. Not going to link it since it's a porn site.

At 8/6/15 10:52 PM, TheGamechanger wrote: Not going to link it since it's a porn site.

Oddly enough Ng has vast amounts of porno

At 8/5/15 09:49 PM, TheGamechanger wrote: But seriously, I believe that polygamy is a great solution to stop people from cheating on their spouses.

They'd still be cheating, their partner would just be aware of it.

As long as everyone is fine with the arrangement and everyone was up front from the start about it, I don't see the problem.

That said, the amount of open-minded people who may be open to something like polygamous or polyamorous relationships will be exceedingly small, so good luck with that if it's your thing.

At 8/6/15 02:38 AM, DJ-Ri wrote: On the other hand, I do think that it's unethical to date multiple people without telling them. I also don't think it's healthy for polygamous/polyamorous couples to have children. I think that a child (especially a very young child) needs to have one mother and one father figure in their lives consistently until they are at least mentally developed enough not to be significantly affected by the nature of their parents' love life.

Wasn't there some tribe somewhere where everyone basically got with everyone, but they also all helped raise all the kids, as if they were their own without knowing truly whose kid was whose? Why couldn't something like that work?

At 8/6/15 05:43 PM, mysteriouslila wrote: Actually, quite a number of issues other than religious views make polygamy a problem. And also because it often means that only one of the partners get to have several other partners and rarely that everyone may fuck whoever and whenever they want to.

But what about in that tribal example where everyone did get with everyone? What's unfair about that arrangement?

At 8/7/15 08:08 AM, NeonSpider wrote: Wasn't there some tribe somewhere where everyone basically got with everyone, but they also all helped raise all the kids, as if they were their own without knowing truly whose kid was whose? Why couldn't something like that work?

I don't really know anything about the tribe you mentioned, but I do know that there's a well-established history of children being raised by one mother and one father in the majority of civilizations in the world dating all the way back since before the dawn of homo sapiens. This trend can even be observed in a variety of other species besides humans such as penguins, although it is true that monogamy is rare in the rest of the animal kingdom.

It seems obvious to me that humans (as well as a variety of other monogamous species) instinctively mate for life, and that their offspring need to be raised by one mother and one father in order to prevent potential developmental issues as clearly intended by nature. I can also tell you for sure that if my mother was seeing multiple men and I was aware of it, it would have definitely traumatized me as a youth. It would feel pretty wrong to me even as an adult today (although I'm definitely much more mentally prepared to cope with it than I was in my youth,) and I'm sure that many others would feel the same.

At 8/8/15 12:15 AM, DJ-Ri wrote: It seems obvious to me that humans (as well as a variety of other monogamous species) instinctively mate for life, and that their offspring need to be raised by one mother and one father in order to prevent potential developmental issues as clearly intended by nature. I can also tell you for sure that if my mother was seeing multiple men and I was aware of it, it would have definitely traumatized me as a youth. It would probably feel pretty wrong to me even as an adult today, and I'm sure that many others would feel the same.

But how do you know these are intrinsic to human nature and not merely learned social constructs? If you had grown up in a culture where group marriages were the norm, and you were raised by many men and many women as if they were your own parents, and this was seen as normal, how would that have been developmentally harmful?

I agree children need a loving, caring environment (and many of them do not have one even in one-mother/one-father households), but if one mother and one father are sufficient for upbringing, then why would more people be worse? And consider the case of abusive parents -- if there were multiple people, at least the child could feel safe/confide in some of them, whereas in traditional marriage, if a child is born to abusive parents they may feel all alone or like it's their fault and have no one to turn to or etc...

I agree it's not really how we do things in most of the world, but I just don't see how group marriages couldn't work. It seems like it should be able to work. About the only arguments you could make against it would be increased paperwork or litigious type stuff, but those things can be worked out.

At 8/8/15 12:32 AM, NeonSpider wrote: But how do you know these are intrinsic to human nature and not merely learned social constructs?

I don't know this, but I'm of the opinion that it is intrinsic to human nature based on human history (dating back to mankind's most primitive ancestors and therefore predating most modern social constructs) as well as the instances of what appears to be instinctive monogamy in other animals.

At 8/8/15 12:39 AM, DJ-Ri wrote:

At 8/8/15 12:32 AM, NeonSpider wrote: But how do you know these are intrinsic to human nature and not merely learned social constructs?

I don't know this, but I'm of the opinion that it is intrinsic to human nature based on human history (dating back to mankind's most primitive ancestors and therefore predating most modern social constructs) as well as the instances of what appears to be instinctive monogamy in other animals.

Really? What about bonobos, which are great apes. They aren't monogamous at all and are in fact quite promiscuous.

Just because some animals seem to have a monogamous nature doesn't mean all do, or even ones which would be more closer related to humans, such as bonobos.

As to human history, I believe that would depend on the exact cultures in question. Different cultures would have different mores.

At 8/8/15 12:53 AM, NeonSpider wrote: Really? What about bonobos, which are great apes. They aren't monogamous at all and are in fact quite promiscuous.

I acknowledged the fact that monogamy is rare in most of the animal kingdom in my second post in this thread. Bonobos are also not members of the genus Homo.

Just because some animals seem to have a monogamous nature doesn't mean all do, or even ones which would be more closer related to humans, such as bonobos.

I didn't say all do, and I don't see how the behavior of animals belonging to a separate genus from humans that share a distant ancestor with us invalidates the possibility that we are instinctively monogamous.

Marriage and love is still regarded a life-long commitment between two people.

Unless there is a growing consensus that a marriage should not be limited to two partners, and that a polygamy relationship does not destabilize social structure, it has no place in most part of the modern world.

I guess it's their choice. The same way it's my choice to stay with one partner (>implying I have one)

At 8/8/15 12:58 AM, DJ-Ri wrote:

At 8/8/15 12:53 AM, NeonSpider wrote: Really? What about bonobos, which are great apes. They aren't monogamous at all and are in fact quite promiscuous.

I acknowledged the fact that monogamy is rare in most of the animal kingdom in my second post in this thread. Bonobos are also not members of the genus Homo.

Just because some animals seem to have a monogamous nature doesn't mean all do, or even ones which would be more closer related to humans, such as bonobos.

I didn't say all do, and I don't see how the behavior of animals belonging to a separate genus from humans that share a distant ancestor with us invalidates the possibility that we are instinctively monogamous.

You were mentioning penguins in support of monogamous behavior. Bonobos are far closer related to humans than penguins are. In fact, of those animals which are still living, bonobos and chimpanzees are the closest related to humans of any animals on earth, other than humans themselves.

It's funny to use penguins in support of monogamy, make a claim that human's closest genetic ancestors were monogamous (which I don't know if this claim is true or not -- you made the claim, not I), but then once bonobos are shown to support non-monogamous behavior suddenly "Oh those don't count because they're not Homo". .. Then what are penguins?

As to any Homo other than humans, none of the others are known to still exist so at best their behavior is guesswork based on what can be discovered, but the behavior of our closest living animal kingdom relatives, bonobos and chimps, can be directly observed and what is observed is sexually promiscuous behavior in bonobos and violent behavior in chimps. And I don't know about what you think, but I think both describe what can be commonly observed in humans as well.

Though of the two, I'd rather we be more like bonobos than chimps, personally.

At 8/8/15 01:35 AM, NeonSpider wrote: You were mentioning penguins in support of monogamous behavior. Bonobos are far closer related to humans than penguins are. In fact, of those animals which are still living, bonobos and chimpanzees are the closest related to humans of any animals on earth, other than humans themselves.

My point was that monogamous behavior occurs in nature, as does polygamous behavior. That is why I mentioned penguins. I never claimed that they were related to humans or that their behavior served as conclusive evidence that humans are naturally monogamous.

It's funny to use penguins in support of monogamy, make a claim that human's closest genetic ancestors were monogamous (which I don't know if this claim is true or not -- you made the claim, not I), but then once bonobos are shown to support non-monogamous behavior suddenly "Oh those don't count because they're not Homo". .. Then what are penguins?

You clearly missed my point. See above.

As to any Homo other than humans, none of the others are known to still exist so at best their behavior is guesswork based on what can be discovered, but the behavior of our closest living animal kingdom relatives, bonobos and chimps, can be directly observed and what is observed is sexually promiscuous behavior in bonobos and violent behavior in chimps. And I don't know about what you think, but I think both describe what can be commonly observed in humans as well.

I wouldn't define centuries of scientific study as "guesswork." Also, the behavior of bonobos proves only that polygamous behavior occurs in nature, which is something I never disputed. It does not prove that humans are naturally polygamous.

At 8/8/15 01:42 AM, DJ-Ri wrote: I wouldn't define centuries of scientific study as "guesswork."

Anything is guesswork when you don't have all the data. And anything dealing with history includes quite a bit of guesswork. In fact, much of science is guesswork, but when new data or information is presented then old ideas may become obsolete.

I also didn't say "randomly guessing", but the fact of the matter is unless you have complete data, there is an element of guesswork involved.

We can guess the Egyptians probably built the pyramids but do we know this for certain? Were you there? All we know for certain is someone built the pyramids.

There further you go back in time, the less data we have and the more guesswork required. After all, it's much more accurate to be able to directly observer an organism and infer what its behavior is that way vs. trying to figure out what its behavior might have been given various clues and incomplete data.

At 8/8/15 02:16 AM, mysticvortex13 wrote: what of the rhesus monkey which is more often used in laboratory testing?

bonobos may be endangered but cant we clone them and test them that way if they're really our closest relative?

Quoting from wikipedia, "The chimpanzee and human genome diverged 6 million years ago. They have 98% identity and many conserved regulatory regions. Comparing the macaque and human genomes, which diverged 25 million years ago and had 93% identity, further identified evolutionary pressure and gene function."

Basically, chimps and bonobos are more closer related to us than rhesus macaques are. Bonobos are also known as pygmy chimpanzees.

As to cloning, that's hardly been successful unless we greatly advance cloning technology. As-is cloned animals tend to have poor health and shorter lifespans than their natural counterparts, as far as I'm aware. And also you can't accurately observe things such as natural social behavior in captive environments. You have to observe in the wild. Otherwise there's always a chance they may behave differently when captive vs. in the wild.

Human imprinting is sometimes known in captive animals and this wouldn't be natural behavior.