Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!srcsip!nic.MR.NET!thor.acc.stolaf.edu!agnes.acc.stolaf.edu!seebs
From: seebs@agnes.acc.stolaf.edu (The Laughing Prophet)
Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: Re: Group Marriages
Message-ID: <10686@thor.acc.stolaf.edu>
Date: 19 Jan 90 05:06:02 GMT
References: <70587@tiger.oxy.edu> <7476@chaph.usc.edu>
Sender: news@thor.acc.stolaf.edu
Reply-To: seebs@agnes.stolaf.edu (The Laughing Prophet)
Organization: Followers of the Jigging Cat
Lines: 67

In article <7476@chaph.usc.edu> avenell@koh-sun5.usc.edu (Talon) writes:
>I suggest that group marriages are a bad idea for the following
>reason:

>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.  Furthermore, the
>individuals will invariably be placed on a performance basis.  As in,
>the one who puts out the best will derive the greatest favoritism.

Bullshit. Ever hear of *friendship*? That's the basis of a good relationship.
And it has *nothing* to do with who puts out the best. I place my lovers
based on:
1] who's around at the moment
2] who I *haven't* been with as much
(and)
3] keeping things *equal*.

Why should they compete? Both of them have my love, and they know that.
If they want more than that, they ask. If the request is reasonable, I
do my best to grant it. This seems to work quite nicely. And I really
don't *give a shit* if they don't put out. I'm not asking for handouts.
If we make love, it's because *everyone* involved wants to. And who wants
to more often doesn't matter. There is more to love than sex, as you
very well know.

>2)  Commitment.  The most significant feature and benefit of marriage
>is commitment.  If there are more than one spouse, one cannot say, "I
>commitment to you".  Conflict of interest will soon become the
>standard for the participants.

Once again: Bullshit. "I commitment to you" is presumably to be read as
"I am committed to you," or "I have a commitment to you." COMMITMENT DOES
NOT HAVE TO BE EXCLUSIVE. I have a natural tendancy for dedication and
commitment. There are *many* people I have commitments to. There is no
conflict of interest here. We are all friends - we look out for each other's
interests. Is this so hard to do?

>3)  Direction.  Decision-making processes will be skewed by the great
>quantities of opinions.  This will hinder crucial decisions which
>invariably arise in the future, for example, child development,
>finances, sexual relationships (related topic like birth control and
>abortion), etc.

Well, with only three people involved, we can just use a "majority rules"
(and the majority happens to most often be my lovers ruling "against" me.
Like I'm complaining.) system.
>I will probably think of some more reasons later.

Frank, I respect your intelligence. However, this posting has been far
below your standards.

Would everyone like to hear what *is* a problem for group marriages/
relationships?

Social Pressure to conform.

Yup. That's it. Anything else can be overcome by a little bit of love and
compassion, combined with tolerance.

>Frank "Talon" Avenell				avenell@usc.edu

--SeebS--
Kilroy the Prophet...        Anonymous posting service here...
seebs@acc.stolaf.edu         Disclaimer: if(!mine(me->opinions)) shoot(me);
"Got a wife in Cheno babe, and one in Cherokee..." --GD
--SeebS-- (Peter Seebach)       Fighting for love in a somber world...