Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!sdcc6!sdcc13!pa1412
From: pa1412@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (pa1412)
Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: Re: Group Marriages
Message-ID: <6259@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Date: 20 Jan 90 02:38:18 GMT
References: <70587@tiger.oxy.edu> <7476@chaph.usc.edu>
Sender: news@sdcc6.ucsd.edu
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 33

In article <7476@chaph.usc.edu> avenell@koh-sun5.usc.edu (Talon) writes:
>mortisia@oxy.edu (Lynn Alyn Tanner) writes:
>>Yes, I was interested in what people would think about group marriage.
>>i.e. Three or more people in love with each other.  Pros & Cons
>
>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

Clearly, I love that word, a group of people who are interrested in
a group marriage should have a different view of how to interact
with one another. Competition results from a fixed resource being
desired by more people than the fixed resource can accomodate. In the
case of a group marriage the fixed resource would be considered by
some to be the affections of the group members.

Well, specifically sex. The group would have to be open to sharing
partners and non-valuation of one or several specific partners over
the others. E.g. Betty is better than Anny or Joe is better than
Fred or similar situations. Otherwise Betty and Joe will become
fixed resources and others will compete for these people. How a
group can become non-value oriented is difficult and usually
requires some form of religious intensity. So, although I personally
would like such an environment, I feel that this situation would not
become prevalent due to being unable to create and maintain the
'religious' discipline required.

--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
pa1412@iugrad2.ucsd.edu