More power to you man... I personally think more than one wife sounds like a fucking nightmare. :lol:

I don't think it would be looked down upon if people can be convinced that it is what everyone in the relationship wants. People are so used to the monogamist lifestyle though that they usually assume there is some unhappy "victim" getting played... At least that would be the case for the people I'm used to. I'm sure down South etc. there are a lot of people who would be offended by it for religious reasons.

---

Most people would think like this of course. Considering my first marriage isn't a nightmare, I guess I'm naive (deluded?) enough to think another relationship could also be a positive experience. ;)

I think this fear rests upon the presumption that two women living together will necessarily be jealous of and catty toward each other. My initial response to this idea would simply be, "That's why you choose 'em carefully," but obviously that's a facile approach to the issue.

More to the point, I think that this fear ignores the plethora of practical benefits having an additional partner can bring to the table. For example, bringing another wage earner into the fold increases the household's disposable income without necessarily drastically increasing its expenses rate of consumption. Moreover, having a third set of hands instantly slashes household and childcare responsibilities: our girlfriend cheerfully and without prompting helps us clean, and she loves to take care of the kids. With the reduction in housework comes additional free time for pursuing outside interests and hobbies. And also, as our girlfriend pointed out when we were first talking about getting involved with her, increasing the pool of partners reduces the sexual demands on any one partner.*

It also ignores the ways in which having multiple partners can improve your sex life. For example, it turns my wife on when other women want me, partly perhaps because she's bisexual, but mostly because it validates her choice of me as a man. The fact that other women desire me shows that I'm desirable. I know she's not the only woman who reacts like this, either. On the man's side, polygamy certainly exploits the Coolidge Effect  to both partners' advantage, instead of to their detriment, as usually happens in a marriage. (The idea that married couples have less sex as time goes on is solidly rooted in science; the phenomenon has been observed in all "higher animals" that have been studied.)



A good point, of course, and I'm sure there are situations in which that happens. But all such relationships cannot be painted with that brush. In my case, we actually want that kind of relationship, and we believe we get a lot out of it (it's drawn us so close together), and it would be nice if others would give us the benefit of that doubt.



Ironically, religious proscriptions of polygamy are not rooted in the Bible at all. The only direct prohibition of polygamy in the Bible is for leaders of the church: bishops and deacons (1 Timothy 3). Yes, as people like to point out, the Bible portrays the potential negative consequences of polygamous relationships, but it's not as though the monogamous relationships in the Bible were paragons of perfection either. The Bible depicts imperfections in all human interactions (human-human, human-world, human-God), because it views humans as inherently flawed; we're more than capable of screwing up any kind of relationship. Plenty of strictly monogamous marriages fail everyday; that's not the fault of the relationship type -- it's the fault of the people within the relationship.

From what I can find in the literature, the Western religious opposition to polygamy seems to be more of a cultural than a doctrinal stance, one rooted largely in Roman (and hence Catholic) romantic idealism and a desire to create a separation between Christians and pagans. In essence: "The pagans around us are polygamists, and we're not pagans, so we won't practice polygamy." Of course, such a line of reasoning ignores the fact that most pagans didn't have multiple wives, whether out of inclination or the sheer inability to afford them (the same reasons why most Muslims don't have multiple wives). Not to mention the fact that pagans also wear clothes, go to the bathroom, make love, have children, travel, sing, eat. (Then again, there have been sects throughout Christian history that have forbidden their members to engage in one or more of those very things, too.) As the author of this article points out, the basis of anti-polygamy laws has almost always been rooted in pragmatic religious bigotry: banning polygamy was simply the easiest way to kick the Mormons out.

____________
* Though the importance of this "benefit" seems to be diminishing rapidly. When we first started expressing interest in something serious with her, she said she only liked to have sex once every week or two. She had just broken up with her boyfriend of five years; apparently, Taiwanese men aren't interested in much more than penetration -- as quickly and to the point as possible. Now that she's starting to see there's so much more to sex than penis-in-vagina, she's blossoming into quite the little sexual aggressor.

Not that that's a surprise. Sexually awakened women have much stronger sex drives than even the most virile of men.

---

A few neat points here. Yes, there is more of a taboo for polygamy than there is with gays or lesbians. Or at least there is here where I'm at. Gays and lesbians are pretty much norm here. Anyone with ten friends generally has gay or lesbian friends. No biggie.

I think the thing is though Nonstop is a numbers game. Let's be real. How many openly pro-polygamy folks are there out there? There's you. There's the FLDS church. There's...well...I honestly can't think of anyone else on the top of my head.

Not at all refuting it. I'm just saying. It's a numbers game.

I had an ex-girlfriend's father who was married but still had sex with his ex-wife, who was my ex's mother. All parties knew about it and were cool with it. That's it. That's all I can think of. I knew plenty of people who cheated but it was all hush hush and the **** would hit the fan (and boy it really did) when they found out. Very different from what you're getting at.

I don't believe in judging people unless it affects me. If you had 3 wives, it doesn't affect me one bit, so I could care less. That's what I believe. Myself, I stopped all the funny business after I got married but I still look and yes, I still touch. But the johnson stays in the pants. Mrs. Z is cool with this. I don't kiss either. It stops with my hands and that's it. I think it's a good compromise.

I understand the polygamy mindset from the male perspective. A man with insane drive often has insane sex drive as well. Look at Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, JFK, Tiger Woods, the Rolling Stones, Stephen Hawking, Hugh Hefner, etc., all of whom couldn't keep it in their pants and are very "successful" when it comes to what they do. These people are driven and with life drive comes large sex drive. That's just how it goes.

Heck, look at your average NFL QB. I'm willing to bet anyone a fine bottle of Scotch that 50% of NFL starting QBs have cheated on their spouses, or will cheat on their spouses in their lifetime. You have to have some insane drive to be an NFL QB, as making it in the NFL takes not only God given ability but a whole different level of ambition, and the Quarterback is the ultimate position, the Alpha of the Alphas.

---

I forgot to add that Paul's recommendation against polygamy amongst church leaders was not a moral judgment but rather rooted in practical matters. As he writes elsewhere:



Paul's concern was that church leaders be able to devote as much of their attention to the work of God as possible. As he points out in the above passage, it's difficult enough for someone who's married to one person to fulfill all their obligations as a believer -- how much more difficult would it be, he argues by implication, if someone had to please multiple wives? Moreover, if jealousy would break out in his family, that would set a bad example for the members of the congregation and potentially bring a bad name to the church. The flip side of the "husband of but one wife" prescription is that a man who's been divorced and remarried is likely to be confronted with emotional and social entanglements, particularly if his ex-wife remains in the congregation. Thus it's probably wise for a man with such baggage to steer clear of the potentially volatile complications that come with church leadership.

These are eminently practical reasons why it makes sense for church leaders not to be wrapped up in multiple intimate relationships. In fact, that's the Catholic Church's very rationale for forbidding priests to marry: the Church doesn't regard it as morally evil for clergy to be married -- they want their clergy to devote their time to the work of the Church.

Paul himself points out that his recommendations are practical, not moral, in nature:



If the often-strident Paul can recognize that some are given the "gift" of continence and others are not, it seems to me others should tread carefully in doling out judgment when it comes to sexual issues.

---