Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!rex!rawdon From: rawdon@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) Newsgroups: alt.sex Subject: Re: Group Marriages Message-ID: <1877@rex.cs.tulane.edu> Date: 19 Jan 90 05:04:16 GMT References: <70587@tiger.oxy.edu> <7476@chaph.usc.edu> <7484@chaph.usc.edu> Reply-To: rawdon@rex.UUCP (Michael Rawdon) Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA Lines: 80 Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: In article <7484@chaph.usc.edu> avenell@alcor.usc.edu (Talon) writes: >>>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. If neither one desires preferential treatment, then no competition will arise. Maybe groups marriages aren't for all (they certainly aren't for me), but they probably work quite well with some. >>>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. I am equally committed to both of my parents. When conflicts arise (though this is rarer nowadays since they are divorced), I used my brain to reason out who was right. Impartial decisions are the way to go in these situations. No "favoring" is involved. To use your own analogy, the judge in a case is on no-one's side (theoretically), and decides, presumably, impratially based on the evidence. >>>3) Direction. Decision-making processes will be skewed by the great >>>quantities of opinions. >>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. I agree that getting married just to get laid is a bad idea, but it may be SOMEONE'S intent behind marriage; just not yours. Even granting that people NEVER grow apart (which seems an absurd thing to grant since it is the same as saying that people do not change, which is clearly a falsehood. I have observed people changing; I have observed myself change; I have observed myself and some of my friends (and relatives) grow apart), people are complex enough that it may be that when people get married, they simply don't know enough about each other to know ALL the contingencies, and something which was originally imperceptible could become a divorce-causing problem several years, or decades, down the line, and the end result is the same. You should marry whoever you feel comfortable at the time of marrying, assuming you want to get married in the first place. It may turn out to be a bad decision, but das ist life. -- Michael Rawdon | Looking down on the smoke, on the factories Tulane University | 'Till the truth creeps up unseen New Orleans, Louisiana | They see themselves in the faces of their children rawdon@rex.cs.tulane.edu | And realize they too are part of the Machine ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- These opinions my own, and are not intended to represent any sort of objective truth, nor the opinions of any other individual or group. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------