Poly-gamy/-andry/-gyny/-amory Thoughts?

[Homburg]

Well it is selfish, that doesn't mean it's any more selfish than having kids for any reason other than that you like them and want them - that's selfish too, pretty much everthing we do is for selfish reasons.

The equivocation level of this statement is so high as to render it entirely impotent. Thank you for adding nothing.

That may not bother you, that's your prerogative, it is a question I'm interested in discussing, however superficially, mainly because I do have children and I like them just fine, that's all.

I have four kids, so I do know from where I speak.

....

On other topics, is there a reason why you are being such a hostile ass in this thread? Being condescending is one thing, but becoming virulently defensive when you are called on your condescension takes a special brand of asshattery.

 

[xssve]

I think until you have a uterus and the will to use it, your opinion is probably completely irrelevant to this thread, too.

Can we please go back to discussing the various "poly-" prefix things now?

I'll take you at your word then, you are not allowed to change your mind on this, ever.

We can go back as soon as you jackals stop trying to take a bite out of my ass - my thoughts on this have been confirmed, all it takes is one woman who has experienced this to confirm why I prefer to take calculated, rather than blind risks in this area.

I'm "fixed", so it's really not even an option for me.

 

[00Syd]

*gets popcorn*

 

[xssve]

The equivocation level of this statement is so high as to render it entirely impotent. Thank you for adding nothing.



I have four kids, so I do know from where I speak.

....

On other topics, is there a reason why you are being such a hostile ass in this thread? Being condescending is one thing, but becoming virulently defensive when you are called on your condescension takes a special brand of asshattery.

I wasn't being hostile at all, I made a comment and I got jumped on, what, am I supposed to apologize? I didn't say anything all that controversial here, but if you want to pick a fight, bring a lunch.

 

[BiBunny]

I'll take you at your word then, you are not allowed to change your mind on this, ever.

Awesome. I won't change my mind, but I damn sure don't need your permission not to. Even the Domly One has no desire to meddle in my reproductive affairs, bless his precious heart.

We can go back as soon as you jackals stop trying to take a bite out of my ass - my thoughts on this have been confirmed, all it takes is one woman who has experienced this to confirm why I prefer to take calculated, rather than blind risks in this area.

I'm "fixed", so it's really not even an option for me.

I wasn't being hostile at all, I made a comment and I got jumped on, what, am I supposed to apologize? I didn't say anything all that controversial here, but if you want to pick a fight, bring a lunch.

Maybe, just maybe, now would be a fantastic time to play shut the fuck up.



Anyway...poly. I'm still curious as to why it's always viewed as "man with two (or more) wives" or "woman with two (or more) husbands." You rarely ever see a man or a woman saying he/she has a husband and a wife. Anyone have any conjectures about why that might be? I suppose it could just be the heterosexual bias, but I tend to think there might be more to it than that.

 

[Homburg]

I wasn't being hostile at all, I made a comment and I got jumped on, what, am I supposed to apologize? I didn't say anything all that controversial here, but if you want to pick a fight, bring a lunch.

You are obviously spoiling for a fight. No point in continuing to talk to you.

--

Maybe, just maybe, now would be a fantastic time to play shut the fuck up.

Those who need it most, see the need for it the least.

Anyway...poly. I'm still curious as to why it's always viewed as "man with two (or more) wives" or "woman with two (or more) husbands." You rarely ever see a man or a woman saying he/she has a husband and a wife. Anyone have any conjectures about why that might be? I suppose it could just be the heterosexual bias, but I tend to think there might be more to it than that.

Yup, I'd guess het bias. And an explicit assumption that the sex what is singular in a mixed triad is the one what the other two revole around.

 

[xssve]

Awesome. I won't change my mind, but I damn sure don't need your permission not to. Even the Domly One has no desire to meddle in my reproductive affairs, bless his precious heart.

No, you don't and that was indeed the point, I'm pro choice myself, not having a uterus myself, as you correctly note, that pretty much makes it your decision.

Fact, is, I didn't want kids at 25 either.

Maybe, just maybe, now would be a fantastic time to play shut the fuck up.

I agree completely, and I commend you on your decision, although you could have shut the fuck up a long time ago, and saved us both some time.

 

[xssve]

You are obviously spoiling for a fight. No point in continuing to talk to you.

Works for me. Does everybody have a chip on their shoulder around here or just you three?

In light of my original response which you chose to take badly for whatever reason, and respond to with hostility, I remember the Eighties too, when kids were nothing but the latest accessory.

I consider it much more selfish to have them if you aren't committed to the considerable resulting inconvenience.

Threadjack over, unless there was something else.

 

[00Syd]

*munch munch*

 

[BiBunny]

No, you don't and that was indeed the point, I'm pro choice myself, not having a uterus myself, as you correctly note, that pretty much makes it your decision.

Fact, is, I didn't want kids at 25 either.

I agree completely, and I commend you on your decision, although you could have shut the fuck up a long time ago, and saved us both some time.

*Yawn* Surely you could have come up with a better reply than that.

And if you were interested in continuing the thread, you could actually contribute to the real discussion. But since you haven't, then you're obviously just determined to be an asshole. If you must be an asshole, please at least have the decency to be an amusing one.

Yup, I'd guess het bias. And an explicit assumption that the sex what is singular in a mixed triad is the one what the other two revole around.

I think you're probably right. I doubt it's always the case in reality, though I'm sure it really is fairly common. I mean, how often do you hear two subs talking about how, though they love their interactions with one another, they wouldn't be involved together were it not for their Master or Mistress?

Oh, and incidentally, how come the D/s poly discussions almost always center around a Dom/me with more than one sub? You hardly ever see it being about a dominant couple with a sub.

I'm on a roll today with pointing out inconsistencies, apparently.

 

[MisterSir]

*munch munch*

Hey hey come on now, share the wealth, share the wealth.

 

[Homburg]

Works for me. Does everybody have a chip on their shoulder around here or just you three?

We just do things differently around here. Discussion is preferred to combative attitudes, and common ground is better than bloodied ground.

In light of my original response which you chose to take badly for whatever reason, and respond to with hostility, I remember the Eighties too, when kids were nothing but the latest accessory.

Nah, man, it wasn't your initial response. It was your subsequent responses to being called on bad behaviour.

I consider it much more selfish to have them if you aren't committed to the considerable resulting inconvenience.

Too true. On this we certainly agree.

--

If you must be an asshole, please at least have the decency to be an amusing one.

I'm pretty happy with amusing assholes.

I think you're probably right. I doubt it's always the case in reality, though I'm sure it really is fairly common. I mean, how often do you hear two subs talking about how, though they love their interactions with one another, they wouldn't be involved together were it not for their Master or Mistress?

Oh, and incidentally, how come the D/s poly discussions almost always center around a Dom/me with more than one sub? You hardly ever see it being about a dominant couple with a sub.

I have seen a few examples, but this is an area, D/s does kind of go along with the stereotype of two partners revolving around the dominant third.

I'm on a roll today with pointing out inconsistencies, apparently.

Not a bad position to be in.

 

[xssve]

I thought you said you were going to shut the fuck up?

W/regard to the thesis: "Is the "traditional" marriage beginning to die out? (Not in the gaybashing states, obviously but in general, in real life?)".

I've been predicting this for some time, and Heinlein famously foreshadowed it in Stranger in a Strange Land.

The background is, that the "traditional" nuclear family is really not that traditional at all, the more traditional form is the extended family, and that is largely an adaptation to agrarian economics, i.e., large families, several generations living together or in proximity, sharing labor and economic resources in semi-communal fashion.

The nuclear family is largely an urban phenomena, where maintaining an extended family becomes less convenient, space requirements, etc., and it's easier to spread out a little further, and become less interdependent.

As this drift continues, and it has, the stresses become greater on the nuclear family itself - modern economics is highly unstable, and with each disruption, families are broken apart and deracinated: Slavery was very hostile to African American family life, followed by the Civil War itself, and subsequent apartheid was nearly as stressful as slavery: welfare, as tool for regulating the labor market, relied heavily on Man-in-the-House rules both to regulate seasonal agricultural labor and to loosen the domestic labor market, creating wage deflation by forcing more women into the labor market.

The Civil War was itself a huge demographic shift, both in terms of economic destruction as well as creating large numbers of single parent households.

Similar stressors occurred due to WWI and WWII, until the baby boomers revolted against and overturned the Ancien Régime - the aftershocks and reaction formations against which we are still experiencing.

In practical terms, modern capitalism has a divisive effect, foretold by De Sade, as "the war of all against all" - much of the country has become semi-nomadic, traveling to where the work is, either together, or often, separately, putting further stress on the nuclear family, which is really just filling the gap between the extended family and the of the incomplete r-strategy existential alienation of the interchangeable, disposable economic unit - there just isn't any smaller social unit to fall back on other than the individual.

Birds of a feather, on the other hand, tend to flock together, and there are distinct advantages to communal arrangements, familial or otherwise, that extend beyond a more interesting sex life: it enables more complex and flexible arrangements w/regard to divisions of labor, including childcare (!), which creates more opportunities in terms of work schedules, etc. Essentially, it reflects a perfectly natural adaptation to urban/industrial economics, in many ways, closer to the tribal unit of Hunter/Gatherer economics - various forms of polygamy/amory, communal child rearing, etc. (which preserves, and even optimizes K-strategy advantages) is much more common in HG economies, possibly even more the rule than the exception.

So, while there is still considerable resistance to it and likely will always be - underlying the agrarian value system, which persists in spite of the decline of the agrarian economy, lies the pastoral value system, patriarchal and polygynous, and it too is deeply ingrained culturally, and pretty feisty - but with each swing of the pendulum, the notion seems to gain more acceptance, and it will be interesting to see what new and diverse arrangements might result.

 

[BiBunny]

The "shut the fuck up" was meant for you, dearie, not for me, though I imagine you know that already and delight in being contrary.

I have seen a few examples, but this is an area, D/s does kind of go along with the stereotype of two partners revolving around the dominant third.

I agree. I wonder if anyone has any experiences they would like to share along these lines? I'd be interested to see how the two dominants/one submissive model works. I know I've seen people say they couldn't imagine how it would work with two separate dominants, but I was more curious about, say, a dominant couple who brings in a submissive to serve the both of them.

Hmm. Fodder for another thread, perhaps?

 

[Keroin]

Hey hey come on now, share the wealth, share the wealth.

Hey, move over you two. I brought gummie bears.

Who needs TV?

 

[Sir_Winston54]

.... Anyway...poly. I'm still curious as to why it's always viewed as "man with two (or more) wives" or "woman with two (or more) husbands." You rarely ever see a man or a woman saying he/she has a husband and a wife. Anyone have any conjectures about why that might be? I suppose it could just be the heterosexual bias, but I tend to think there might be more to it than that.

I'm not sure why the label is XYY or YXX, rather than XYX or YXY, but perhaps Homburg's thesis that the singular member is considered the "pivot" is mostly correct. It's also probably easier to describe XYY or YXX than XYX or YXY - "man with two (or more) wives" or "woman with two (or more) husbands," rather than "woman with a husband and a wife" or "man with a husband and a wife."

.... Threadjack over, unless there was something else.

Thank you. (Even though the hijack actually /ed a bit later.)

.... Yup, I'd guess het bias. And an explicit assumption that the sex what is singular in a mixed triad is the one what the other two revole around.

See response re Bunz above.

.... I think you're probably right. I doubt it's always the case in reality, though I'm sure it really is fairly common. I mean, how often do you hear two subs talking about how, though they love their interactions with one another, they wouldn't be involved together were it not for their Master or Mistress?

Oh, and incidentally, how come the D/s poly discussions almost always center around a Dom/me with more than one sub? You hardly ever see it being about a dominant couple with a sub.

I'm on a roll today with pointing out inconsistencies, apparently.

A D/s tripling (or greater) is another question entirely... I tried to phrase the OP in such a way to eliminate questions of kink/non-kink, to broaden it to the entire spectrum of poly relationships.

.... I have seen a few examples, but this is an area, D/s does kind of go along with the stereotype of two partners revolving around the dominant third.

Again, see Bunz note above, lol!

.... W/regard to the thesis: "Is the "traditional" marriage beginning to die out? (Not in the gaybashing states, obviously but in general, in real life?)".

I've been predicting this for some time, and Heinlein famously foreshadowed it in Stranger in a Strange Land.

The background is, that the "traditional" nuclear family is really not that traditional at all, the more traditional form is the extended family, and that is largely an adaptation to agrarian economics, i.e., large families, several generations living together or in proximity, sharing labor and economic resources in semi-communal fashion.

The nuclear family is largely an urban phenomena, where maintaining an extended family becomes less convenient, space requirements, etc., and it's easier to spread out a little further, and become less interdependent.

As this drift continues, and it has, the stresses become greater on the nuclear family itself - modern economics is highly unstable, and with each disruption, families are broken apart and deracinated: Slavery was very hostile to African American family life, followed by the Civil War itself, and subsequent apartheid was nearly as stressful as slavery: welfare, as tool for regulating the labor market, relied heavily on Man-in-the-House rules both to regulate seasonal agricultural labor and to loosen the domestic labor market, creating wage deflation by forcing more women into the labor market.

The Civil War was itself a huge demographic shift, both in terms of economic destruction as well as creating large numbers of single parent households.

Similar stressors occurred due to WWI and WWII, until the baby boomers revolted against and overturned the Ancien Régime - the aftershocks and reaction formations against which we are still experiencing.

In practical terms, modern capitalism has a divisive effect, foretold by De Sade, as "the war of all against all" - much of the country has become semi-nomadic, traveling to where the work is, either together, or often, separately, putting further stress on the nuclear family, which is really just filling the gap between the extended family and the of the incomplete r-strategy existential alienation of the interchangeable, disposable economic unit - there just isn't any smaller social unit to fall back on other than the individual.

Birds of a feather, on the other hand, tend to flock together, and there are distinct advantages to communal arrangements, familial or otherwise, that extend beyond a more interesting sex life: it enables more complex and flexible arrangements w/regard to divisions of labor, including childcare (!), which creates more opportunities in terms of work schedules, etc. Essentially, it reflects a perfectly natural adaptation to urban/industrial economics, in many ways, closer to the tribal unit of Hunter/Gatherer economics - various forms of polygamy/amory, communal child rearing, etc. (which preserves, and even optimizes K-strategy advantages) is much more common in HG economies, possibly even more the rule than the exception.

So, while there is still considerable resistance to it and likely will always be - underlying the agrarian value system, which persists in spite of the decline of the agrarian economy, lies the pastoral value system, patriarchal and polygynous, and it too is deeply ingrained culturally, and pretty feisty - but with each swing of the pendulum, the notion seems to gain more acceptance, and it will be interesting to see what new and diverse arrangements might result.

Excellent backgrounder, well researched and explicated - thank you. I would like to see more responses regarding the outlook for the future, and how poly relationships might work out in (primarily) the U.S., given the resurgence over the past two to three decades of the religious right, the federal/state/local governments' deepening involvement in more and more areas of personal liberties, and a broadening libertarian viewpoint espoused largely due to more exposure via the intertubes.

I agree. I wonder if anyone has any experiences they would like to share along these lines? I'd be interested to see how the two dominants/one submissive model works. I know I've seen people say they couldn't imagine how it would work with two separate dominants, but I was more curious about, say, a dominant couple who brings in a submissive to serve the both of them.

Hmm. Fodder for another thread, perhaps?

My second response to you above indicates my preference for this thread to focus on the broader spectrum; however, I'd have no objection to - and would almost certainly contribute to - a thread exploring thoughts on the aspects of D/s poly-ism about which you're inquiring. I think that the two would have a number of areas of agreement, but an examination of the narrower area of D/s poly-ism would likely provide some notable differences.

 

[Homburg]

I agree. I wonder if anyone has any experiences they would like to share along these lines? I'd be interested to see how the two dominants/one submissive model works. I know I've seen people say they couldn't imagine how it would work with two separate dominants, but I was more curious about, say, a dominant couple who brings in a submissive to serve the both of them.

Hmm. Fodder for another thread, perhaps?

I knew a dominant couple that had submissives about. The guy was an insufferable dickweed, so I can't say as how I was up on the internal workings of the relationship. I did get to know the Fdom half, and she basically said that they didn't play together, and had other folks to toy with as need be. I don't know that they ever kept communal property though.

If I see her again, I'll ask her more details. She's no longer with said insufferable dickweed, so she's a lot easier to deal with.

 

[intothewoods]

The "shut the fuck up" was meant for you, dearie, not for me, though I imagine you know that already and delight in being contrary.



I agree. I wonder if anyone has any experiences they would like to share along these lines? I'd be interested to see how the two dominants/one submissive model works. I know I've seen people say they couldn't imagine how it would work with two separate dominants, but I was more curious about, say, a dominant couple who brings in a submissive to serve the both of them.

Hmm. Fodder for another thread, perhaps?

I know two tops who are married and have a kid. I think she's technically a switch, but she primarily tops. He IDs as a sadistic Dominant. For the most part, the submissives in their lives are for him, but she sometimes co-tops, and is involved with them in other more complicated ways. She's almost his relationship confidante, I think. As far as I know, their marriage is basically one of equals with some kinky sex thrown in. They satisfy their D/s needs outside of the marriage.

 

[JustaNobody]

I think part of the issue with multiple dominants involved with one sub is connected to BiBunny's comment. If a dom/me has two subs, there is a significant likelihood the subs will be involved with each other at the direction of the dom/me. On the other hand, someone who is submissive toward multiple people is not in a position to dictate how those dom/mes will interact with each other.

In my case, my fellow dom is a good friend of mine, but there is an implicit agreement that the sub we share has two separate D/s relationships, one with each of us, and nothing is going to happen involving all three of us at once. This is a relatively new relationship for both doms, so I can't comment on the long term stability, but I thought I'd toss this into the discussion. Hopefully I'll be able to add more insight as things progress.

 

[myinnerslut]

i may be being daft here, but i cant see how two doms one sub would work unless the doms are on the same page. if you have dom x say go left and dom y say go right, what is the sub to do??

id imagine it would be tough for the doms involved, but i cant imagine it working unless there is a high level of communication between the two. or you have a hierarchy of tops (listen to dom x over what dom y has to say) not my style but it could work, i suppose.

 

[BiBunny]

i may be being daft here, but i cant see how two doms one sub would work unless the doms are on the same page. if you have dom x say go left and dom y say go right, what is the sub to do??

id imagine it would be tough for the doms involved, but i cant imagine it working unless there is a high level of communication between the two. or you have a hierarchy of tops (listen to dom x over what dom y has to say) not my style but it could work, i suppose.

I don't see how that would work, either. I was more curious about, say, a couple co-owning a sub/slave.

 

[00Syd]

I don't see how that would work, either. I was more curious about, say, a couple co-owning a sub/slave.

I know a dominant couple (married, totally in love/lust) that have a pet they both play with. Not sure the exact dynamic but it seems to work pretty well for them.

 

[Homburg]

A dominant couple makes more sense. Two separate doms, one sub is a recipe for conflict. Two dominants in a close relationship with a mutual toy added in may well work much better. Could get interesting for the submissive. I think I would want a clear hierarchy established, or at least some hard-coded rules. Something along the lines of "Top A gave me an order which I am currently following. If I am told by Top B to do something else, I have specific instructions on how to deal with the conflict." Something like Top A is the alpha, and her orders come before Top B, or Top B gets told "I am currently doing something for Top A. May I continue this, and I will comply as soon as I am finished?" And then Top B either says yes, or gives a good reason why he is countermanding Top A (thus providing the submissive with a good excuse to tell Top A.)

And, more importantly, the submissive needs an out if he or she feels like she is being specifically put into conflicting situations for political/sadistic amusement. Yeah, there is a school of thought that would consider such discomforts to be just desserts or Top's prerogative, but it would be using the submissive to screw with the other top/ or vice versa. That ain't kosher in a cohesive triad/quad/whatever. You don't play one person off another. This would fall under setting appropriate grounds rules in a complex situation.

 

[JustaNobody]

I was also a little skeptical when I was approached, too, but I'm not in a place where I have a great deal to lose by giving it a try, so that's what I'm doing. As mentioned, this arrangement is fairly recent, so it may not end up working well in the long run.

In this case, the other dom is not particularly interested in giving long-term standing orders, which makes things somewhat simpler. I agree, having a hard rule for conflicts of orders is important. What we have at the moment is this: Whichever dom is physically present has the choice to enforce or override the other's rules during that time. I can see how this wouldn't be enough to cover conflicting orders if he was interested in giving long-term orders, but it's working so far. And although the other dom and I are certainly not involved with each other, we're close enough friends that we're not going to intentionally mess with each other through her.

 

[romantic_always]

I thought this was a thread about the anthropological and psychological opinions on various types of polygamy?

There are so many cultures in Africa and India and around the world that approve of it and encourage it, because it strengthens the family first and foremost, not because it's a sexual deviance. That can come into play and be abused, but it's usually not the case. I'm taking a class in which we are discussing this.