Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!snorkelwacker!usc!chaph.usc.edu!alcor.usc.edu!avenell
From: avenell@alcor.usc.edu (Talon)
Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: Re: Group Marriages
Message-ID: <7484@chaph.usc.edu>
Date: 19 Jan 90 03:29:00 GMT
References: <70587@tiger.oxy.edu> <7476@chaph.usc.edu> <WELCH.90Jan18181400@aristotle.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@chaph.usc.edu
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 59

>>1) Competition.  When dealing with such an intimate type of
>>realationship, the involvement of more than one spouse will develop
>>striff, dissent, jealous, envy, and greed.

welch@aristotle.cis.ohio-state.edu (Arun Welch) writes:
>Why? What's special about n>2 that will cause this that won't cause it
>in n=2?

Obviously, I did not make myself clear (which is not unusual).  For
example, one man is married to two women (I think this is more common
than other "arrangements" but it does not affect the point).
Competition will be generated between the two women.  If there are
only two people in the marriage, one does not "need" to beat out the
other to get preferential treatment.

>>2)  Commitment.  The most significant feature and benefit of marriage
>>is commitment.  If there are more than one spouse, one cannot say, "I
>>commit to you".

>Why can't one commit to more than one person? Commitment doesn't have
>to be exclusive. Are you only committed to one of your parents?

On the contrary, true commitment must be exclusive for when conflicts
between parties arise, one must decide in favor of one.  For example,
a lawyer cannot commit to both defense and prosecution.  Regarding my
parents, I would say, "Yes, I am commited more to one than the other."
When a conflict arises, I must side somewhere.

>>3)  Direction.  Decision-making processes will be skewed by the great
>>quantities of opinions.  

>How does more than one differing opinion skew the decision-making more
>than just one? Besides, multiple opinions allows for more people to
>present ideas. One would assume that some sort of decision-making
>apparatus would be generated, just as it is for two people.

I think it is fairly well-know that the more people involved with
something, the more complex it becomes.  Invariably, when I want to
make a decision involving other people, the less involved, the easier
and quicker the answer arrives.  Multiple opinions are great, but what
if those involved have fundamentally contrary opinions.  In a two
person marriage, one can just choose a person with the same
fundamental beliefs but as the number grows, the variation will also
grow.  Too many cooks in the kitchen, especially when deciding the
direction for the "common" children.

>In fact, if me and my SO disagree on something like birth control,
>chances are we're not going to have sex.  If there were more than one
>other person involved, chances are at least one of us will get
>laid.... the more people you have, the more chances you have of
>finding someone who's compatible with your current thinking.

Well, if one's concern is to get "laid", one has already corrupted the
intent behind marriage and can get "satisfaction" without it (just
about anywhere).  Furthermore, the concept of "current thinking" is
probably one of the BIGGEST causes of divorce.  The idea that people
grow apart.  Yeah right.

Frank "Talon" Avenell				avenell@usc.edu