Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!shelby!mcnc!thorin!threonine!bell
From: bell@threonine.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell)
Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: Re: Body count. . .
Message-ID: <11539@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Date: 19 Jan 90 19:35:53 GMT
References: <70181@tiger.oxy.edu> <690@banyan.UUCP>
Sender: news@thorin.cs.unc.edu
Reply-To: bell@threonine.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 69

In article <690@banyan.UUCP> gil@banyan.com writes:
>In article <70181@tiger.oxy.edu> mortisia@oxy.edu (Lynn Alyn Tanner) writes:
>>How does the idea of group marriage strike anyone?

A pure group marriage strikes me as problematic,  based on the interaction
count.  In a 2 person marriage,  you have one relationship.  As the number
grows,  you have:

# people	relationships
   3		3
   4		6
   5		10
   6		15

   n		(n-1) + (n-2) + ... + 1

What might be more practical is what I'll refer to as "coupling," where
a pair or more of couples contractually link themselves to make child
care and living expenses easier.  A house with one kitchen and lots of
bedrooms is cheaper than multiple houses,  and cooking for more than one
family isn't that much harder that cooking for 2-4.  Meanwhile,  you could
do things like having everyone work four days a week and take care of the
kids the other day,  and so on.

>Count me in. Only there's a couple problems. Like the fact that the
>more people you include the less mobile you become. Sure, two people
>can move if somebody's job gets transfered, but six ?

This problem might be solved or assuaged by better communications systems.
Working over the telephone by modem is possible now;  switching that to a
video link would make much more possible.  The U.S. is moving towards more
service and information processing-oriented jobs,  and much of the latter
could be done remotely.

Also,  there's been a move away from staying with one company for one's
entire career towards much more job mobility.  If this trend continues,
that sort of thing may become even more common,  especially with the
massive growth of computer-related jobs.  So mobility issues will become
less and less of a problem.

>And what about kids ? Do you track paternity ? What
>happens if the worst comes about and the family splits ? Who has what
>say in how the kids are raised, where they go to school, when they
>have to been in by etc. etc ? Are we talking one _huge_ bed or a bunch
>of normal sized beds ? Can I build a practice studio in the basement ?

For anything of this sort to work,  an extensive contractual agreement
would have to be worked out.  Then the decisions in these cases would
(hopefully) be made in the contract.  Note that such arrangements need not
be designed to be permanent;  trial periods where people can drop out
should be standard procedure.

It need not necessarily involve sex between all partners,  or it could be
agreed that child choice rights go to couples based on the mother,  or all
sorts of things.

I suspect,  however,  that such sorts of arrangements will never become
common.  The increased inter-personal dynamics,  the legal issues,
religious objections and societal disapproval,  and other factors work
against it.  Such arrangements,  after all,  are not necessarily illegal
as is.

But then,  I can't think of another couple that I'm sure I'd be comfortable
making that kind of committment with.  Finding one that both my wife and
I can agree to link up with sounds like a near impossible task.


---
Andrew Bell				   bell@cs.unc.edu