not sure where you got that from, quote wikipedia:
“Polygamy (from Late Greek πολυγαμία polygamía, “state of marriage to many spouses”)[1][2][3][4] is the practice of marrying multiple spouses. When a man is married to more than one wife at the same time, it is called polygyny. When a woman is married to more than one husband at the same time, it is called polyandry. In sociobiology and zoology, researchers use polygamy in a broad sense to mean any form of multiple mating.”
But i did find the term “polyfidelity” which is very precise to what i want, "a type of non-monogamous, relationship in which all members are recognized as equivalent to the other partners and comply to restrict sexual and romantic relationship activities to exclusively only other members within the group. "
and marriage to multiple people is effectively what i want, i want as many partners as we can make work all “married” to each other.
Obviously it’s not tremendously simple to manage, but that’s the ideal. In reality you’d presumably have varying degrees of people being into each other but as long as everyone’s fine with it and no one feels limited by the group fidelity it’s fine.
Personally, thanks to polygamy’s history and recency to current times, yes, I think being married to multiple people is a bad idea. I’m for keeping it illegal until we can be sure it won’t be used like that again. I don’t think now is that time.
I live in Utah where we have a relatively high number of polygamists, and they’re all shit heads. My girlfriend works with a woman who was raised in a polygamist environment, and that lady went through some horrible trauma. Polyamory is the umbrella term that contains what you want, and it’s best to stick to it so that modern polyamory isn’t associated with groups like the FLDS or cunts like Warren Jeffs. Polyfidelity is more or less what my girlfriend and I practice with her other partner, so I totally understand the appeal. I’ll say that I do wish multiple marriages were possible, since it’s effectively what we want in the long run. We’ll probably have to approximate it with some form of contract or corporation.
You are technically correct. However, “polygamy” as become strongly connoted towards cultish, radically patriarchal communities in which a man subjugates several women in an abusive relationship. If you actually want to be understood without fuss, “polyamory” will get your point across much more smoothly. All resistance to the haphazard evolution of language is futile.
the problem is that “polyamory” at best doesn’t specify the group fidelity bit, and at worst actively implies relationships outside the group as well. And the group fidelity is a fundamental requirement for me.
but yes like i said, “polyfidelity” is a better term for what i’m talking about, which i will now use since i’ve learned about it :)
not sure where you got that from, quote wikipedia:
“Polygamy (from Late Greek πολυγαμία polygamía, “state of marriage to many spouses”)[1][2][3][4] is the practice of marrying multiple spouses. When a man is married to more than one wife at the same time, it is called polygyny. When a woman is married to more than one husband at the same time, it is called polyandry. In sociobiology and zoology, researchers use polygamy in a broad sense to mean any form of multiple mating.”
But i did find the term “polyfidelity” which is very precise to what i want, "a type of non-monogamous, relationship in which all members are recognized as equivalent to the other partners and comply to restrict sexual and romantic relationship activities to exclusively only other members within the group. "
I mean yeah, it means marriage to multiple people, which is illegal in most of the world. Polyamory is having multiple relationships.
and marriage to multiple people is effectively what i want, i want as many partners as we can make work all “married” to each other.
Obviously it’s not tremendously simple to manage, but that’s the ideal. In reality you’d presumably have varying degrees of people being into each other but as long as everyone’s fine with it and no one feels limited by the group fidelity it’s fine.
wait i just realized, are you actually saying that being married to multiple people is bad somehow?
Personally, thanks to polygamy’s history and recency to current times, yes, I think being married to multiple people is a bad idea. I’m for keeping it illegal until we can be sure it won’t be used like that again. I don’t think now is that time.
i really don’t like that reasoning, that sounds way to close to the reasoning used to make gay marriage illegal.
Who are you to decide whether i get to marry the people i love?
And I don’t think it’s valid at all to compare the two. Polygamists were never “oppressed”, they were the ones doing the oppression (of their wives).
“marriage” is often just a cover word for having sex though, especially in conservative circles where they avoid the word “sex”.
I live in Utah where we have a relatively high number of polygamists, and they’re all shit heads. My girlfriend works with a woman who was raised in a polygamist environment, and that lady went through some horrible trauma. Polyamory is the umbrella term that contains what you want, and it’s best to stick to it so that modern polyamory isn’t associated with groups like the FLDS or cunts like Warren Jeffs. Polyfidelity is more or less what my girlfriend and I practice with her other partner, so I totally understand the appeal. I’ll say that I do wish multiple marriages were possible, since it’s effectively what we want in the long run. We’ll probably have to approximate it with some form of contract or corporation.
You are technically correct. However, “polygamy” as become strongly connoted towards cultish, radically patriarchal communities in which a man subjugates several women in an abusive relationship. If you actually want to be understood without fuss, “polyamory” will get your point across much more smoothly. All resistance to the haphazard evolution of language is futile.
the problem is that “polyamory” at best doesn’t specify the group fidelity bit, and at worst actively implies relationships outside the group as well. And the group fidelity is a fundamental requirement for me.
but yes like i said, “polyfidelity” is a better term for what i’m talking about, which i will now use since i’ve learned about it :)