It seems that what I call "consentual poligamy" is simply one form of the larger set of sexual arrangements known as polyamory. It's not as uncommon as you think.
If that is true, and God doesn't want us to have Sex simply for fun, why then did He invent the clitoris? It could be argued that God wants the process of creating more of His creations to be enjoyable, but the clitoris is not really in a position, if you will, to participate in good old missionary-style fornication.
It is really only good for such naughty things as masturbation, fisting, and fellatio. So the idea that God doesn't like recreational sex really doesn't hold water.
Anyone who voluntarily has unprotected sex with someone other than a tested life partner is an idiot. Condoms take but a moment to put on, but they can save your life. They do not interfere, or significantly affect the experience.
Certainly, there is the current, fairly recent problem of AIDS and other STD's, but that doesn't explain it in the least; this jealousy has been around a lot longer than any of those problems.
Still, there are two facets to this problem, as I see it. The first is the idea that sex is somehow philosophically different from other pasttimes. The second is that if someone were to have sex with another person, they would immediately stop loving their regular partner.
Sex is not terribly different from many other sports, no matter what the bible thumpers say. (If God had intended sex to be engaged in for procreation, why would he have included the clitoris?) Sure, sex can result in pregnancy, or disease, but there are plenty of other hobbies that can result in worse. (Watch football sometime -- then tell me you wouldn't rather have a baby than have your knee broken in three places.) Disease can be prevented by taking reasonable precautions.
Any psychological significance to sex we created ourselves. Don't ask me why; that's a whole 'nother subject. So that leaves the question of whether or not someone who has slept with someone other than their partner can possibly still love their partner.
Actually, it seems to be a silly question. If your partner cares for you, a sexual experience with another won't change that. They're not suddenly going to sit up in bed and say "my God, I've just realized that whatsisname is a lousy lover!" Well, actually, they might do that, but it doesn't necessarily mean they won't care just as much as before.
On the other hand, if your partner didn't care for you before the experience, the likelihood (or lack thereof) that they'll start caring again won't change. If your relationship isn't solid in the first place, monogomy won't help it.
So to sum up, whether or not your partner has sex with another won't matter in the long run. Whether or not you get jealous about it will.
There are two things that I firmly believe that at first might seem incongrous, but in reality are not. The first is that children should be raised in a large family setting, with 4 or 5 children in the household. This teaches the children concepts such as sharing, getting along, and self preservation, as well as providing a build-in support system and peer group.
The second is that parents should not have more children than parents, and preferably less. This planet is currently vastly over populated, and we should be doing our best to reduce this problem, before it becomes mandatory, either through legislation or disease and combat.
So how does one reconcile these two beliefs? Through either consensual polygamy or multiple parent groups. These are similar, differring only in matters of intimacy (sexual and emotional). In both cases the family grouping consists of multiple parents, either several couples in the latter, or whatever mixture is hit upon in the former.
(Let me state now that consensual polygamy is not related to the harem concept of one dominant male and multiple subserviant females, but is a (generally) roughly equal mixture of male and female peers. Nor does it have anything to do with the concept of someone being married to more than one person, without each other person's knowledge and consent.)
Consensual poligamy is just that, a group of multiple people all married each other, openly and willingly. Generally, sexual and emotional intimacy is shared amongst all partners, though group sex or homosexuality is not implied or required. Each member must agree to marry each other member, equally, and with the same level of commitment.
Multiple parent groups, on the other hand, is more traditional, and is simply two or three couples who band together for the purpose of raising children and sharing responsibilities.
These couples or individuals come together, forming a single household, sharing costs and child rearing duties. In addition to the benefits of raising children in a large family without increasing the overall population, other benefits can be had.
There will generally always be a parent available for the children to play with, talk to, or otherwise get assistance. With just one or two parents, it may be common for both parents to be tired and cranky after a long day at work, but with six, there is bound to be at least one who is in a good mood. If one or more parents travel on business, there are still parents at home, lessening the overall effects of an absent parent.
Multiple parents provide a far more stable financial environment than one or two. Food can be bought and prepared in bulk, saving time, money, and effort. Rather than buying every toy imaginable for a single child (expensive), one or two toys can be given to each child and the shildren can practice sharing. In a two-parent family, when one parent is out of work, the resulting loss of income can be devastating. In a multiple parent situation, however, that loss of income is much less noticeable. Buying one large home is much less expensive than purchasing three or more smaller homes.
If there are parents in the group who can work alternate schedules, or work from home, it may be possible to arrange for at least one parent to be at home at all times. Further, with the greater flexibility provided by the lareger number of incomes and lowered costs, it may be possible for one or more parents to work only part time, or not work at all outside the home.
Parents too reap benefits from such an arrangement. It is much easier to find time alone from the children if there are four or five other parents to look after them. For example, in a family with six parents, in order to have four parents looking after the children each evening, each parent has two nights a week, completely free from the children, without having to find and pay a babysitter.
When one parent feels the need to talk or cuddle, or be active, and the other doesn't, a traditional couple must compromise. In a larger parental group, if one parent does not feel like being social, or caring, there are others to turn to within the family.
There are downsides to such arrangements, however. First, anything not strictly mainstream is bound to be talked about and ridiculed. Relatives will certainly talk, and may even openly disaprove. Children who tell classmates that they have three fathers and three mothers may get teased, or even beaten up. (They are, however, more likely to have siblings who can come to their aid.)
Tensions due to differing income, numbers of children, and so on may be more pronounced in a group. Also, the effects of one parent leaving the group (as in a divorce) may be different from traditional families.
As difficult as it is to find one mate that one can stand spending the rest of one's life with (and that feels the same way in return), finding four or five seems downright impossible. Keep in mind that the parents will be sharing the parenting duties completely, and therefore should agree on subjects like methods of punishment, religion, politics, nutrition, television, and so on. Not an easy task.
Still, I feel the benefits far outweigh the negatives. Some may agree, others may condemn the whole concept, and still more may consider it an interesting theoretical idea, but not take it seriously. You decide what you think. (And remember, feel free to e-mail me with your thoughts on the subject.
I disagree completely. As far as I'm concerned (and really, what else matters?) the word man actually has two meanings. Just as a perch can be a fish and a high place to hang out, man can refer to a male human or a that mixed-gender group of all humans. Other words related to man similarly have two meanings, dependant on usage, one refering specifically to male humans, and the other refering to a person or group of indeterminate or mixed gender.
Women get a word with but one meaning, while men (males of the species) have to share their word. So in reality, it is men (specifically males) who are getting the short end of the stick.
| << Tech ] | [ Home | Back ] | [ Life >> |