Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Hell we can do that - just by making it illegal to pump your own gas

Already illegal in NJ.

That's seriously the reason that they do it - State job creation program or some such.

The service stations are supposed to be "full service", but all you get is some swarthy, windburned criminal type who barely utters a grunt in greeting, and then takes your credit into the office so he can skim it.

I will add this: I am religious. I lean conservative. Yet, I do think that if one looks at marriage in terms of 'legal partnership' just as one would look at a legal corporation, that it should be available for any consenting adults. People are gonna do whatever they're gonna do anyways, so denying people the right to legally bind their partnerships is stupid.

When I get married, it will be with some sort of religious ceremony because that is what is important to me...but religion doesn't define most legal contracts, it shouldn't define marriage, either.

How do you legally bind a 6 way partnership though? How do you even begin to address things like child support, child custody, taxation, inheritances etc etc. The only way it would be remotely realistic is for each partnership to be its own unique contract - with such issues predefined prior to entering into it. Of course you still couldn't really do it without siginificantly changing some areas of law - and that would create some spectacularly complex divorce cases (i.e. years in court)

The other problem with permitting this is exactly who would use it. As I see it - the only people this would really benefit would be dodgy religious cults who are doing this sort of stuff already with underage girls, or those who are coerced.

A lot of my friends more or less practiced that lifestyle in the 60's and 70's, with some modifications even into the 80's. The children that resulted from those unions are generally well adjusted. I can't always say the same for the adults, but substance abuse caused most of those problems, not the lifestyle.

Yeah but those communes weren't legally enshrined to ensure the legal rights of the people participating in them - it was all done on a voluntary ad-hoc basis, right?

Absolutely! When you are pushing society's norms, and rejecting what your parents told you about life, then you are often on your own, off the grid, so as to speak. Not so different from other movements, that have gained the acceptance they were once denied.

It is, but as regards gay marriage Vs. this - I think the concept is less controversial than many people make out, because its still emphasising the monogamous aspect of a marital relationship rather than just the "gay" part.

Also requires, as I said, a lot less in the way of changing the law than you'd get if you wanted to contractualise something like polyamory.

As in emphasizing the heterosexual part, rather than just the "poly" part? Even gay unions and marriages required new definitions and forms. Then again, not everybody needs for society in general to provide an imprimatur for their lifestyle.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think you've also got to consider how a plural marriage contract could have some undesired implications are regards the ownership of people. Essentially if you have a group of people in a relationship like this - you're creating a legal entity (not altogether different from, say, a corporation) - so you might end up in a situation where, for example, a child is removed from its biological parent because custody has been awarded to the "group" who are more able to take care of and financially support it.

The big issue I see is that it will be very difficult to prevent exploitation.

[Peikko 1,575]

Agreed, with corporations the expectations are fully tangible - making money (for the most part - of course there are non-profits but those also have one very clear goal).

Marriage means so many different things to different people. Managing the expectations and goals of two people is hard enough, how much harder to manage that of a group? There are so many permutations possible and for every new person brought into the marriage there are new expectations and a change in obligations. How for example does one define when a new person can enter into the 'marriage'. Can all parties only enter at the beginning of the contract (as with traditional two person marriage contracts) or can 'new' members arrive and leave at any time? Do all partners have an equal footing in the contract? Is that necessarily so? With a two person contract that is relatively simple to express and enforce but with more than two it's almost impossible to quantify.

While an open ended relationship is perfectly possible and acceptable - there are many models to choose from - the legal contract that is marriage is not so flexible.

I don't see any easy way to make it so either.

[panamania79 2]

Good for them. I would not engage in polyamory or polygamy or polyandry; but have absolutely no problem with people who do. It is really none of my damn business. As long as they love each other(s), and educate their children; who am I to judge? Really.

Whatever floats their boat.I guess they figure it's better to do that and have it out in the open than to be cheating on each other on the slide.

[mawilson 2,133]

Can all parties only enter at the beginning of the contract (as with traditional two person marriage contracts) or can 'new' members arrive and leave at any time? Do all partners have an equal footing in the contract? Is that necessarily so?

Arrive and leave at any time - just amend the "articles of organization" and "operating agreement"

and send a copy to the State of XXX Polyamorous Marriage Division.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, but what happens if not all parties agree? Does each addition necessitate a dissolution of the previous contract (as with current two person marriage)? If that's the case, doesn't a new set of negotiations have to take place in order for all expectations to be managed in this new arrangement? What happens if one of the original parties to the contract does not want to change to the new contract? Do any of the existing contractual obligations pertain to this new agreement? It's so complicated it is mind boggling. Well, that's how it appears to me - perhaps others have a different take on what marriage is that it less complicated so that such a contract could be easily implemented on this rolling basis

[Fandango 1,439]

Yes, but what happens if not all parties agree? Does each addition necessitate a dissolution of the previous contract (as with current two person marriage)? If that's the case, doesn't a new set of negotiations have to take place in order for all expectations to be managed in this new arrangement? What happens if one of the original parties to the contract does not want to change to the new contract? Do any of the existing contractual obligations pertain to this new agreement? It's so complicated it is mind boggling. Well, that's how it appears to me - perhaps others have a different take on what marriage is that it less complicated so that such a contract could be easily implemented on this rolling basis

If you take the romantic aspect out of this and approach it strictly from a contract law angle, I'm sure there are ways to deal with these things. Like I said, imagine it was 6 friends going into business together. Not the wisest of choices, and not my idea of what a marriage is, but eh, different strokes....

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, but what happens if not all parties agree? Does each addition necessitate a dissolution of the previous contract (as with current two person marriage)? If that's the case, doesn't a new set of negotiations have to take place in order for all expectations to be managed in this new arrangement? What happens if one of the original parties to the contract does not want to change to the new contract? Do any of the existing contractual obligations pertain to this new agreement? It's so complicated it is mind boggling. Well, that's how it appears to me - perhaps others have a different take on what marriage is that it less complicated so that such a contract could be easily implemented on this rolling basis

If you take the romantic aspect out of this and approach it strictly from a contract law angle, I'm sure there are ways to deal with these things. Like I said, imagine it was 6 friends going into business together. Not the wisest of choices, and not my idea of what a marriage is, but eh, different strokes....

I haven't even addressed the 'romantic' aspect of the contract. As I said, business contracts have a very clear, easily expressed goals and moreover the business exists 'outside of' the contract - marriages have multiple goals that are difficult to express and the marriage is the contract. A two person contract is really easy in many ways. If there are only two parties to consider, even the term length of the contract is relatively simple. A multiple person contract is necessarily much more complex - unless of course you determine that the marriage can only be drawn up one time, so that the multiple partners have to be in at the beginning or they don't get in at all. I can't see that being acceptable to the sort of folks who would be into these marriages though, flexibility being one of the requirements as it were.

I have no problem with people wanting multiple partners, or even living in a house or houses with these partners or doing whatever they want to do. I do foresee very difficult problems in organizing such relationships contractually, just because of the nature of what marriage is.

[mawilson 2,133]

As I said, business contracts have a very clear, easily expressed goals and moreover the business exists 'outside of' the contract - marriages have multiple goals that are difficult to express and the marriage is the contract.

As far as the law is concerned, marriages do not have "multiple goals". Marriage is a legal

contract that confers a number of clearly defined benefits, including health-care benefits,

social security, pension benefits, tax advantages, hospital visitation rights, inheritance,

custody of children, etc., all of which could be extended to polyamorous marriages.

[SpiritAlight 1]

Terisa Greenan and her boyfriend, Matt, are enjoying a rare day of Seattle sun, sharing a beet carpaccio on the patio of a local restaurant. Matt holds Terisa's hand, as his 6-year-old son squeezes in between the couple to give Terisa a kiss. His mother, Vera, looks over and smiles; she's there with her boyfriend, Larry. Suddenly it starts to rain, and the group must move inside. In the process, they rearrange themselves: Matt's hand touches Vera's leg. Terisa gives Larry a kiss. The child, seemingly unconcerned, puts his arms around his mother and digs into his meal.

Terisa and Matt and Vera and Larry—along with Scott, who's also at this dinner—are not swingers, per se; they aren't pursuing casual sex. Nor are they polygamists of the sort portrayed on HBO's Big Love; they aren't religious, and they don't have multiple wives. But they do believe in "ethical nonmonogamy," or engaging in loving, intimate relationships with more than one person—based upon the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. They are polyamorous, to use the term of art applied to multiple-partner families like theirs, and they wouldn't want to live any other way.

Terisa, 41, is at the center of this particular polyamorous cluster. A filmmaker and actress, she is well-spoken, slender and attractive, with dark, shoulder-length hair, porcelain skin—and a powerful need for attention. Twelve years ago, she started datingScott, a writer and classical-album merchant. A couple years later, Scott introduced her to Larry, a software developer at Microsoft, and the two quickly fell in love, with Scott's assent. The three have been living together for a decade now, but continue to date others casually on the side. Recently, Terisa decided to add Matt, a London transplant to Seattle, to the mix. Matt's wife, Vera, was OK with that; soon, she was dating Terisa's husband, Larry. If Scott starts feeling neglected, he can call the woman he's been dating casually on the side. Everyone in this group is heterosexual, and they insist they never sleep with more than one person at a time.

It's enough to make any monogamist's head spin. But the traditionalists had better get used to it.

Researchers are just beginning to study the phenomenon, but the few who do estimate that openly polyamorous families in the United States number more than half a million, with thriving contingents in nearly every major city. Over the past year, books like Open, by journalist Jenny Block; Opening Up, by sex columnist Tristan Taormino; and an updated version of The Ethical #######—widely considered the modern "poly" Bible—have helped publicize the concept. Today there are poly blogs and podcasts, local get-togethers, and an online polyamory magazine called Loving More with 15,000 regular readers. Celebrities like actress Tilda Swinton and Carla Bruni, the first lady of France, have voiced support for nonmonogamy, while Greenan herself has become somewhat of an unofficial spokesperson, as the creator of a comic Web series about the practice—called "Family"—that's loosely based on her life. "There have always been some loud-mouthed ironclads talking about the labors of monogamy and multiple-partner relationships," says Ken Haslam, a retired anesthesiologist who curates a polyamory library at the Indiana University-based Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction. "But finally, with the Internet, the thing has really come about."

With polyamorists' higher profile has come some growing pains. The majority of them don't seem particularly interested in pressing a political agenda; the joke in the community is that the complexities of their relationships leave little time for activism. But they are beginning to show up on the radar screen of the religious right, some of whose leaders have publicly condemned polyamory as one of a host of deviant behaviors sure to become normalized if gay marriage wins federal sanction. "This group is really rising up from the underground, emboldened by the success of the gay-marriage movement," says Glenn Stanton, the director of family studies for Focus on the Family, an evangelical Christian group. "And while there's part of me that says, 'Oh, my goodness, I don't think I could see them make grounds,' there's another part of me that says, 'Well, just watch them.' "

Conservatives are not alone in watching warily. Gay-marriage advocates have become leery of public association with the poly cause—lest it give their enemies ammunition. As Andrew Sullivan, the Atlantic columnist, wrote recently, "I believe that someone's sexual orientation is a deeper issue than the number of people they want to express that orientation with." In other words, polyamory is a choice; homosexuality is not. It's these dynamics that have made polyamory, as longtime poly advocate Anita Wagner puts it, "the political football in the culture war as it relates to same-sex marriage."

Continued here... http://www.newsweek.com/id/209164 it's pretty long, but interesting

This is nothing new.

Thanks for posting Amby...except in this forum it might not be the most open place for such readings.

[Fandango 1,439]

As I said, business contracts have a very clear, easily expressed goals and moreover the business exists 'outside of' the contract - marriages have multiple goals that are difficult to express and the marriage is the contract.

As far as the law is concerned, marriages do not have "multiple goals". Marriage is a legal

contract that confers a number of clearly defined benefits, including health-care benefits,

social security, pension benefits, tax advantages, hospital visitation rights, inheritance,

custody of children, etc., all of which could be extended to polyamorous marriages.

What he said, MC...

[Chica Yeyé 41]

As far as the law is concerned, marriages do not have "multiple goals". Marriage is a legal

contract that confers a number of clearly defined benefits, including health-care benefits,

social security, pension benefits, tax advantages, hospital visitation rights, inheritance,

custody of children, etc., all of which could be extended to polyamorous marriages.

WHAT?????????????

You mean it's not a match made by God between soulmates to be together forever?? I've been lied to, once more

[Fandango 1,439]

I know you're being sarcastic, Len...but I agree with both. Legally, that's what it is, and spiritually (for me) that's what it is too.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

I know you're being sarcastic, Len...but I agree with both. Legally, that's what it is, and spiritually (for me) that's what it is too.

No pun intended Lisa. Both Bren and I know that we would have been equally committed to each other without getting married. Sadly, this country (and others) is not advanced enough to recognize common law as equal to marriage; which Canada does. And boy wanted to come home. But we still hold that marriage is only a civil contract; nothing more. to each its own.

[Fandango 1,439]

I know you're being sarcastic, Len...but I agree with both. Legally, that's what it is, and spiritually (for me) that's what it is too.

No pun intended Lisa. Both Bren and I know that we would have been equally committed to each other without getting married. Sadly, this country (and others) is not advanced enough to recognize common law as equal to marriage; which Canada does. And boy wanted to come home. But we still hold that marriage is only a civil contract; nothing more. to each its own.

Oh no offense taken, was just using your comment to clarify my position. I can distinguish between legal marriage and religious marriage, but that doesn't diminish the profoundness of the religious/romantic aspect of it for me, and I just wanted to make that point again.