History UsefulNotes / ForTheLoveOfMany

5th Jul '16 11:44:50 PM germanlureag
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Finally, there is room for a fair amount of personal discomfort in these things. "I don't believe that these things could actually work," you say to yourself. "I mean, sure, they ''think'' it works, and they're certainly trying hard, but it'll never hold together." In the end, all you can do is remind yourself that one man's {{Fetish}} is another man's {{Squick}}. Yes, there are people out there who think that anything besides a committed two-person relationship is preposterous. Likewise, there are people who would laugh at the idea of monogamy! "We all want variety in our sex lives," they would say, "and unless you have a ''very'' understanding partner, you're not likely to get that variety from just him or her. Do both of you a favor and get permission to play around." They too have a valid argument.Who's right? No one can tell you; in the end, it's [[ThisIsSomethingHesGotToDoHimself Something You've Got To Do Yourself]]. (Most decisions are, when it comes to sex.) Find out what works for you, and then don't let anybody tell you it doesn't or can't work. .

to:

Finally, there is room for a fair amount of personal discomfort in these things. "I don't believe that these things could actually work," you say to yourself. "I mean, sure, they ''think'' it works, and they're certainly trying hard, but it'll never hold together." In the end, all you can do is remind yourself that one man's {{Fetish}} is another man's {{Squick}}. Yes, there are people out there who think that anything besides a committed two-person relationship is preposterous. Likewise, there are people who would laugh at the idea of monogamy! "We all want variety in our sex lives," they would say, "and unless you have a ''very'' understanding partner, you're not likely to get that variety from just him or her. Do both of you a favor and get permission to play around." They too have a valid argument.Who's right? No one can tell you; in the end, it's [[ThisIsSomethingHesGotToDoHimself Something You've Got To Do Yourself]]. (Most decisions are, when it comes to sex.) Find out what works for you, and then don't let anybody tell you it doesn't or can't work. .you .
2nd Jul '16 10:04:16 PM germanlureag
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Finally, there is room for a fair amount of personal discomfort in these things. "I don't believe that these things could actually work," you say to yourself. "I mean, sure, they ''think'' it works, and they're certainly trying hard, but it'll never hold together." In the end, all you can do is remind yourself that one man's {{Fetish}} is another man's {{Squick}}. Yes, there are people out there who think that anything besides a committed two-person relationship is preposterous. Likewise, there are people who would laugh at the idea of monogamy! "We all want variety in our sex lives," they would say, "and unless you have a ''very'' understanding partner, you're not likely to get that variety from just him or her. Do both of you a favor and get permission to play around." They too have a valid argument. Many poly* relationships lasts years, decades, or lifetimes, whereas BritneySpears had a mono* relationship that blew up in a matter of hours. Who's right? No one can tell you; in the end, it's [[ThisIsSomethingHesGotToDoHimself Something You've Got To Do Yourself]]. (Most decisions are, when it comes to sex.) Find out what works for you, and then don't let anybody tell you it doesn't or can't work. And if they tell you that anyway? Prove them wrong.

to:

Finally, there is room for a fair amount of personal discomfort in these things. "I don't believe that these things could actually work," you say to yourself. "I mean, sure, they ''think'' it works, and they're certainly trying hard, but it'll never hold together." In the end, all you can do is remind yourself that one man's {{Fetish}} is another man's {{Squick}}. Yes, there are people out there who think that anything besides a committed two-person relationship is preposterous. Likewise, there are people who would laugh at the idea of monogamy! "We all want variety in our sex lives," they would say, "and unless you have a ''very'' understanding partner, you're not likely to get that variety from just him or her. Do both of you a favor and get permission to play around." They too have a valid argument. Many poly* relationships lasts years, decades, or lifetimes, whereas BritneySpears had a mono* relationship that blew up in a matter of hours. Who's right? No one can tell you; in the end, it's [[ThisIsSomethingHesGotToDoHimself Something You've Got To Do Yourself]]. (Most decisions are, when it comes to sex.) Find out what works for you, and then don't let anybody tell you it doesn't or can't work. And if they tell you that anyway? Prove them wrong. .
13th Dec '14 6:05:24 AM Patachou
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The advantages of polyandry, a woman having multiple husbands, in a sexist world where men work and women stay at home, is that her children receive more care and nutrition; the presence of more than one breadwinner increases the likelihood that the little tots will live to adulthood—an important consideration if, as it was throughout history, child mortality rates are in the 50% area. The advantages of polygyny (in the same sexist world where men are the breadwinners) are... Well, think of it this way: if you could contrive it that your child would be fathered by BradPitt, or AlbertEinstein, or JohannSebastianBach, but to do it you had to become that man's second wife, would you? You might: the benefits to your child outweigh the inconvenience to you. Besides, these are rich, successful men who can probably provide for you more healthily than their currently-single competitors. This is the impetus behind animal herds involving one alpha male and a bunch of women: he who is best and most fit (as chosen by natural selection) is the one I want my kids to be fathered by, for the sake of their futures. Alternatively, at varying times in varying societies, traditional women's work that was the most labor intensive or provided the most economic advantage for the family - for instance, some native American tribes went from monogamy to polygyny as American colonization became more prominent, because it became financially advantageous for the families to be able to produce more textiles and other goods that the women typically made, for trade and the like. In other words, multiple wives meant less work for each of the women and greater family productivity over all. And finally there's the "group marriage", which is a marriage between three or more people of any combination of sexes and genders. These can get complicated, but in theory bring all the advantages listed above under one (very big) roof.

to:

The advantages of polyandry, a woman having multiple husbands, in a sexist world where men work and women stay at home, is that her children receive more care and nutrition; the presence of more than one breadwinner increases the likelihood that the little tots will live to adulthood—an important consideration if, as it was throughout history, child mortality rates are in the 50% area. The advantages of polygyny (in the same sexist world where men are the breadwinners) are... Well, think of it this way: if you could contrive it that your child would be fathered by BradPitt, Creator/BradPitt, or AlbertEinstein, UsefulNotes/AlbertEinstein, or JohannSebastianBach, Music/JohannSebastianBach, but to do it you had to become that man's second wife, would you? You might: the benefits to your child outweigh the inconvenience to you. Besides, these are rich, successful men who can probably provide for you more healthily than their currently-single competitors. This is the impetus behind animal herds involving one alpha male and a bunch of women: he who is best and most fit (as chosen by natural selection) is the one I want my kids to be fathered by, for the sake of their futures. Alternatively, at varying times in varying societies, traditional women's work that was the most labor intensive or provided the most economic advantage for the family - for instance, some native American tribes went from monogamy to polygyny as American colonization became more prominent, because it became financially advantageous for the families to be able to produce more textiles and other goods that the women typically made, for trade and the like. In other words, multiple wives meant less work for each of the women and greater family productivity over all. And finally there's the "group marriage", which is a marriage between three or more people of any combination of sexes and genders. These can get complicated, but in theory bring all the advantages listed above under one (very big) roof.
4th Sep '14 8:39:13 PM Bagpiper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The larger majority of human intimate relationships have involved two people, historically a man and a woman (though [[{{Homosexual}} times have changed]]): this man and woman live together, have children together, have sex with each other, and don't turn to other people to fulfill any of those needs. However, it is possible to put together intimate relationships that involve more than two people. These situations are what this article is about.

to:

The larger majority of human intimate relationships have involved two people, historically a man and a woman (though [[{{Homosexual}} times have changed]]): not always]]): this man and woman live together, have children together, have sex with each other, and don't turn to other people to fulfill any of those needs. However, it is possible to put together intimate relationships that involve more than two people. These situations are what this article is about.
8th Apr '14 3:14:33 PM Crystal6
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The advantages of polyandry, a woman having multiple husbands, in a sexist world where men work and women stay at home, is that her children receive more care and nutrition; the presence of more than one breadwinner increases the likelihood that the little tots will live to adulthood—an important consideration if, as it was throughout history, child mortality rates are in the 50% area. The advantages of polygyny (in the same sexist world where men are the breadwinners) are... Well, think of it this way: if you could contrive it that your child would be fathered by BradPitt, or AlbertEinstein, or JohannSebastianBach, but to do it you had to become that man's second wife, would you? You probably would: the benefits to your child outweigh the inconvenience to you. Besides, these are rich, successful men who can probably provide for you more healthily than their currently-single competitors. This is the impetus behind animal herds involving one alpha male and a bunch of women: he who is best and most fit (as chosen by natural selection) is the one I want my kids to be fathered by, for the sake of their futures. Alternatively, at varying times in varying societies, traditional women's work that was the most labor intensive or provided the most economic advantage for the family - for instance, some native American tribes went from monogamy to polygyny as American colonization became more prominent, because it became financially advantageous for the families to be able to produce more textiles and other goods that the women typically made, for trade and the like. In other words, multiple wives meant less work for each of the women and greater family productivity over all. And finally there's the "group marriage", which is a marriage between three or more people of any combination of sexes and genders. These can get complicated, but in theory bring all the advantages listed above under one (very big) roof.

to:

The advantages of polyandry, a woman having multiple husbands, in a sexist world where men work and women stay at home, is that her children receive more care and nutrition; the presence of more than one breadwinner increases the likelihood that the little tots will live to adulthood—an important consideration if, as it was throughout history, child mortality rates are in the 50% area. The advantages of polygyny (in the same sexist world where men are the breadwinners) are... Well, think of it this way: if you could contrive it that your child would be fathered by BradPitt, or AlbertEinstein, or JohannSebastianBach, but to do it you had to become that man's second wife, would you? You probably would: might: the benefits to your child outweigh the inconvenience to you. Besides, these are rich, successful men who can probably provide for you more healthily than their currently-single competitors. This is the impetus behind animal herds involving one alpha male and a bunch of women: he who is best and most fit (as chosen by natural selection) is the one I want my kids to be fathered by, for the sake of their futures. Alternatively, at varying times in varying societies, traditional women's work that was the most labor intensive or provided the most economic advantage for the family - for instance, some native American tribes went from monogamy to polygyny as American colonization became more prominent, because it became financially advantageous for the families to be able to produce more textiles and other goods that the women typically made, for trade and the like. In other words, multiple wives meant less work for each of the women and greater family productivity over all. And finally there's the "group marriage", which is a marriage between three or more people of any combination of sexes and genders. These can get complicated, but in theory bring all the advantages listed above under one (very big) roof.
1st Dec '13 6:14:46 PM roryokane
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The practice of having more than one spouse is called '''polygamy'''; the condition of having more than one husband or wife actually has its own names ("polyandry" and "polygyny" respectively).

to:

The practice of having more than one spouse is called '''polygamy'''; the condition conditions of having more than one husband or wife actually has its have their own names ("polyandry" and "polygyny" respectively).
26th Oct '13 10:23:02 PM slvstrChung
Is there an issue? Send a Message


You also have '''swinging''', which is the belief that you can be in a committed emotional relationship while still having sex with other people—with, of course, the consent of everyone involved. The root of swinging is the understanding that sex and love are not faces of the same coin, and that one does not have to proceed directly from the other. This is of course patently TruthInTelevision; regardless of what the "SexEqualsLove" trope would have you believe, it's possible to have sex with someone you don't love, and possible to love someone romantically without having sex with them. People who swing simply maintain this idea into their committed relationships: as long as they have permission from their spouse / significant other / etc and are taking all appropriate precautions, they don't see anything wrong with having some casual sex on the side. Obviously, the spouse gets the same rights and privileges as you do.

to:

You also have '''swinging''', which is the belief that you can be in a committed emotional relationship while still having sex with other people—with, of course, the consent of everyone involved. The root of swinging is the understanding that sex and love are not faces of the same coin, and that one does not have to proceed directly from the other. This is of course patently TruthInTelevision; regardless of what the "SexEqualsLove" trope would have you believe, it's possible to have sex with someone you don't love, love (see: casual sex, RapeTropes), and possible to love someone romantically without having sex with them.them (see: CourtlyLove, ChastityCouple). People who swing simply maintain this idea into their committed relationships: as long as they have permission from their spouse / significant other / etc and are taking all appropriate precautions, they don't see anything wrong with having some casual sex on the side. Obviously, the spouse gets the same rights and privileges as you do.
26th Oct '13 10:13:30 PM slvstrChung
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The next idea down the list (from most commitment to least) is the idea of '''polyamory''', which is when you are in more than one committed relationship at a time, with the consent of everyone involved. Most people will tell you that, even if you can love more than one person at a time, it's hard to be ''committed'' to more than one person at a time, due to the selfish aspects of human nature. Polyamorists disagree. They don't reject commitment, but they do reject exclusivity, jealousy, possessiveness and the negative or limiting emotions that seem to come with it so very often. The main difference between this and polygamy is that marriage is not considered a necessary part of a polyamorous relationship—and nor, for that matter, is sex. Polyamory simply means that you want to form significant emotional bonds—of any manner—with more than one person. In that sense you could argue that we are ''all'' polyamorists: even if we don't plan to have romantic relationships with more than one person, most of us intend to have friends and family around.

You also have '''swinging''', which is the belief that you can be in a committed emotional relationship while still having sex with other people—with, of course, the consent of everyone involved. The root of swinging is the understanding that sex and love are not faces of the same coin, and that one does not have to proceed directly from the other. This is of course patently TruthInTelevision; regardless of what the "SexEqualsLove" trope would have you believe, it's possible to have sex with someone you don't love, and possible to love someone romantically without having sex with them. People who swing simply maintain this idea into their committed relationships: as long as they have permission from their spouse / significant other / etc and are taking all appropriate precautions, they don't see anything wrong with having some casual sex on the side. Obviously, the spouse gets the same rights and priveleges as you do.

to:

The next idea down the list (from most commitment to least) is the idea of '''polyamory''', which is when you are in more than one committed relationship at a time, with the consent of everyone involved. Most people will tell you that, even if you can love more than one person at a time, it's hard to be ''committed'' to more than one person at a time, due to the selfish aspects of human nature. Polyamorists disagree. They don't reject commitment, but they do reject exclusivity, jealousy, possessiveness and the negative or limiting emotions that seem to come with it so very often. The main difference between this and polygamy is that marriage is not considered a necessary part of a polyamorous relationship—and nor, for that matter, is sex. Polyamory simply means that you want to form significant emotional bonds—of any manner—with more than one person. In that sense you could argue that we are ''all'' polyamorists: even if we don't plan to people who get married and have romantic relationships a spouse (or two) still have emotional bonds with more than one person, most their friends, their siblings, their parents. Not the same ''kinds'' of us intend to bonds they have friends and family around.

with their spouse, [[ParentalIncest or so we hope]], but bonds nonetheless.

You also have '''swinging''', which is the belief that you can be in a committed emotional relationship while still having sex with other people—with, of course, the consent of everyone involved. The root of swinging is the understanding that sex and love are not faces of the same coin, and that one does not have to proceed directly from the other. This is of course patently TruthInTelevision; regardless of what the "SexEqualsLove" trope would have you believe, it's possible to have sex with someone you don't love, and possible to love someone romantically without having sex with them. People who swing simply maintain this idea into their committed relationships: as long as they have permission from their spouse / significant other / etc and are taking all appropriate precautions, they don't see anything wrong with having some casual sex on the side. Obviously, the spouse gets the same rights and priveleges privileges as you do.



This brings us to one last distinction: an '''open''' relationship versus a '''closed''' one. A closed relationship is just that: whoever you're with, that person / those people are it for you. It's possible to have a closed polygynous marriage, for instance: say you have three wives, and all three of them have you. If the marriage is closed, then that's it as far as sex, intimacy, etc is concerned: you're not allowed to get any more wives (or sleep with anyone else on the side), and your three wives are likewise limited to you (and maybe each other). In an open relationship, partners are allowed or even encouraged to venture outside their current roster of (sexual / romantic / both) partners. If you're a swinger, that line starts to blur a little: sex can be a lot more casual, although it may still involve deep romantic feelings, or great friendships with various sex partners, and all of it can change for individuals over time, of course. But it's still possible to swing with only a specific set of people ("Okay, hon, we're going to sleep with each other and also with the Joneses, but with nobody else"). Long story short, a "closed" relationship is one that is exclusive[[note]]This article, back when it was written solely by someone who is admittedly mono* , used the word "faithful" here. This word can be offensive to poly* individuals, as the word itself strongly implies cheating, which would be ''nonconsensual'' to at least one other partner.[[/note]]. The only question remaining is ''who'' you're being exclusive with.

Obviously, there is room for a fair amount of personal discomfort in these things. "I don't believe that these things could actually work," you say to yourself. "I mean, sure, they ''think'' it works, and they're certainly trying hard, but it'll never hold together." In the end, all you can do is remind yourself that one man's {{Fetish}} is another man's {{Squick}}. Yes, there are people out there who think that anything besides a committed two-person relationship is preposterous. Likewise, there are people who would laugh at the idea of monogamy! "We all want variety in our sex lives," they would say. They too have a point. Many poly* relationships lasts years, decades, or lifetimes, whereas BritneySpears had a mono* relationship that blew up in a matter of hours. Who's right? No one can tell you; in the end, it's [[ThisIsSomethingHesGotToDoHimself Something You've Got To Do Yourself]]. (Most decisions are, when it comes to sex.) Find out what works for you, and then don't let anybody tell you it doesn't or can't work. And if they tell you that anyway? Prove them wrong.

Cultural traditions vary as to whether deceased spouses are considered ''still married'' to anyone else, living or dead. Cultures may regard marriages as having dissolved at death, so that only ''living'' people can be considered married to each other. Or they may regard marriages to still exist in an afterlife of some sort, whether or not they actually practice polygamy between living people.[[note]]For example, though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the largest denomination of UsefulNotes/{{Mormonism}}) has long since prohibited polygamy among the living, they recognize ''posthumous'' polygamy between the dead and between the living and dead, meaning that a living person remains married to a deceased spouse and is free to remarry a new living spouse, who will ''also'' remain married to them when deceased. Then when the widow or widower themselves dies, everyone they permanently married is considered to still be married to them in the afterlife.[[/note]] Needless to say, marriage customs can be very complicated in regards to death.

to:

This brings us to one last distinction: an '''open''' relationship versus a '''closed''' one. A closed relationship is just that: whoever you're with, that person / those people are it for you. It's possible to have a closed polygynous marriage, for instance: say you have three wives, and all three of them have you. If the marriage is closed, then that's it as far as sex, intimacy, etc is concerned: you're not allowed to get any more wives (or sleep with anyone else on the side), and your three wives are likewise limited to you (and maybe each other). In an open relationship, partners are allowed or even encouraged to venture outside their current roster of (sexual / romantic / both) and/or romantic) partners. If you're a swinger, that line starts to blur a little: sex can be a lot more casual, although it may still involve deep romantic feelings, or great friendships with various sex partners, partners; and all of it can change for individuals over time, of course. But it's still possible to swing with only a specific set of people ("Okay, hon, we're going to sleep with each other and also with the Joneses, but with nobody else"). Long story short, a "closed" relationship is one that is exclusive[[note]]This article, back when it was written solely by someone who is admittedly mono* , used the word "faithful" here. This word can be offensive to poly* individuals, as the word itself strongly implies cheating, which would be ''nonconsensual'' to at least one other partner.[[/note]]. The only question remaining is ''who'' you're being exclusive with.

Obviously, there is room for a fair amount of personal discomfort in these things. "I don't believe that these things could actually work," you say Finally, we need to yourself. "I mean, sure, they ''think'' it works, and they're certainly trying hard, but it'll never hold together." In the end, all you can do is remind yourself that one man's {{Fetish}} is another man's {{Squick}}. Yes, talk about '''death''' a little bit here, because there are people out there who think that anything besides a committed two-person relationship is preposterous. Likewise, there are people who would laugh at the idea of monogamy! "We all want variety in our sex lives," they would say. They too have a point. Many poly* relationships lasts years, decades, or lifetimes, whereas BritneySpears had a mono* relationship that blew up in a matter of hours. Who's right? No one can tell you; in the end, it's [[ThisIsSomethingHesGotToDoHimself Something You've Got To Do Yourself]]. (Most decisions are, when it comes to sex.) Find out what works for you, and then don't let anybody tell you it doesn't or can't work. And if they tell you that anyway? Prove them wrong.

Cultural
cultural traditions vary as to whether deceased spouses in which widows and widowers are considered ''still married'' to anyone else, living or dead. Cultures may regard be still married to their dead spouses. In some traditions, marriages are regarded as having being dissolved at upon death, so that only ''living'' people can be considered married to each other. Or they may regard In others, marriages to still exist in an afterlife of some sort, whether or not they actually practice polygamy between living people.[[note]]For example, though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the largest denomination of UsefulNotes/{{Mormonism}}) has long since prohibited polygamy among the living, they recognize ''posthumous'' polygamy between the dead and between the living and dead, meaning that a living person remains married to a deceased spouse and is free to remarry a new living spouse, who will ''also'' remain married to them when deceased. Then when the widow or widower themselves dies, everyone they permanently married is considered to still be married to them in the afterlife.[[/note]] Heck, some people don't even believe in divorce!--Catholicism, the biggest branch of UsefulNotes/{{Christianity}}, subscribes to the idea that if two people get married, they are spiritually linked ''forever'', even if they both decide they don't want to be anymore. Catholicism also exemplifies the uncertainty about widowed spouses re-marrying, with one influential writer, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian]], arguing both for ''and'' against it at different times. Needless to say, marriage customs can be very complicated in regards to death.these things.

Finally, there is room for a fair amount of personal discomfort in these things. "I don't believe that these things could actually work," you say to yourself. "I mean, sure, they ''think'' it works, and they're certainly trying hard, but it'll never hold together." In the end, all you can do is remind yourself that one man's {{Fetish}} is another man's {{Squick}}. Yes, there are people out there who think that anything besides a committed two-person relationship is preposterous. Likewise, there are people who would laugh at the idea of monogamy! "We all want variety in our sex lives," they would say, "and unless you have a ''very'' understanding partner, you're not likely to get that variety from just him or her. Do both of you a favor and get permission to play around." They too have a valid argument. Many poly* relationships lasts years, decades, or lifetimes, whereas BritneySpears had a mono* relationship that blew up in a matter of hours. Who's right? No one can tell you; in the end, it's [[ThisIsSomethingHesGotToDoHimself Something You've Got To Do Yourself]]. (Most decisions are, when it comes to sex.) Find out what works for you, and then don't let anybody tell you it doesn't or can't work. And if they tell you that anyway? Prove them wrong.
13th Oct '13 3:11:58 AM Gilgameshkun
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Obviously, there is room for a fair amount of personal discomfort in these things. "I don't believe that these things could actually work," you say to yourself. "I mean, sure, they ''think'' it works, and they're certainly trying hard, but it'll never hold together." In the end, all you can do is remind yourself that one man's {{Fetish}} is another man's {{Squick}}. Yes, there are people out there who think that anything besides a committed two-person relationship is preposterous. Likewise, there are people who would laugh at the idea of monogamy! "We all want variety in our sex lives," they would say. They too have a point. Many poly* relationships lasts years, decades, or lifetimes, whereas BritneySpears had a mono* relationship that blew up in a matter of hours. Who's right? No one can tell you; in the end, it's [[ThisIsSomethingHesGotToDoHimself Something You've Got To Do Yourself]]. (Most decisions are, when it comes to sex.) Find out what works for you, and then don't let anybody tell you it doesn't or can't work. And if they tell you that anyway? Prove them wrong.

to:

Obviously, there is room for a fair amount of personal discomfort in these things. "I don't believe that these things could actually work," you say to yourself. "I mean, sure, they ''think'' it works, and they're certainly trying hard, but it'll never hold together." In the end, all you can do is remind yourself that one man's {{Fetish}} is another man's {{Squick}}. Yes, there are people out there who think that anything besides a committed two-person relationship is preposterous. Likewise, there are people who would laugh at the idea of monogamy! "We all want variety in our sex lives," they would say. They too have a point. Many poly* relationships lasts years, decades, or lifetimes, whereas BritneySpears had a mono* relationship that blew up in a matter of hours. Who's right? No one can tell you; in the end, it's [[ThisIsSomethingHesGotToDoHimself Something You've Got To Do Yourself]]. (Most decisions are, when it comes to sex.) Find out what works for you, and then don't let anybody tell you it doesn't or can't work. And if they tell you that anyway? Prove them wrong.wrong.

Cultural traditions vary as to whether deceased spouses are considered ''still married'' to anyone else, living or dead. Cultures may regard marriages as having dissolved at death, so that only ''living'' people can be considered married to each other. Or they may regard marriages to still exist in an afterlife of some sort, whether or not they actually practice polygamy between living people.[[note]]For example, though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the largest denomination of UsefulNotes/{{Mormonism}}) has long since prohibited polygamy among the living, they recognize ''posthumous'' polygamy between the dead and between the living and dead, meaning that a living person remains married to a deceased spouse and is free to remarry a new living spouse, who will ''also'' remain married to them when deceased. Then when the widow or widower themselves dies, everyone they permanently married is considered to still be married to them in the afterlife.[[/note]] Needless to say, marriage customs can be very complicated in regards to death.
1st Aug '13 2:51:32 AM SeptimusHeap
Is there an issue? Send a Message


This brings us to one last distinction: an '''open''' relationship versus a '''closed''' one. A closed relationship is just that: whoever you're with, that person / those people are it for you. It's possible to have a closed polygynous marriage, for instance: say you have three wives, and all three of them have you. If the marriage is closed, then that's it as far as sex, intimacy, etc is concerned: you're not allowed to get any more wives (or sleep with anyone else on the side), and your three wives are likewise limited to you (and maybe each other). In an open relationship, partners are allowed or even encouraged to venture outside their current roster of (sexual / romantic / both) partners. If you're a swinger, that line starts to blur a little: sex can be a lot more casual, although it may still involve deep romantic feelings, or great friendships with various sex partners, and all of it can change for individuals over time, of course. But it's still possible to swing with only a specific set of people ("Okay, hon, we're going to sleep with each other and also with the Joneses, but with nobody else"). Long story short, a "closed" relationship is one that is exclusive[[hottip:* :This article, back when it was written solely by someone who is admittedly mono* , used the word "faithful" here. This word can be offensive to poly* individuals, as the word itself strongly implies cheating, which would be ''nonconsensual'' to at least one other partner.]]. The only question remaining is ''who'' you're being exclusive with.

to:

This brings us to one last distinction: an '''open''' relationship versus a '''closed''' one. A closed relationship is just that: whoever you're with, that person / those people are it for you. It's possible to have a closed polygynous marriage, for instance: say you have three wives, and all three of them have you. If the marriage is closed, then that's it as far as sex, intimacy, etc is concerned: you're not allowed to get any more wives (or sleep with anyone else on the side), and your three wives are likewise limited to you (and maybe each other). In an open relationship, partners are allowed or even encouraged to venture outside their current roster of (sexual / romantic / both) partners. If you're a swinger, that line starts to blur a little: sex can be a lot more casual, although it may still involve deep romantic feelings, or great friendships with various sex partners, and all of it can change for individuals over time, of course. But it's still possible to swing with only a specific set of people ("Okay, hon, we're going to sleep with each other and also with the Joneses, but with nobody else"). Long story short, a "closed" relationship is one that is exclusive[[hottip:* :This exclusive[[note]]This article, back when it was written solely by someone who is admittedly mono* , used the word "faithful" here. This word can be offensive to poly* individuals, as the word itself strongly implies cheating, which would be ''nonconsensual'' to at least one other partner.]].[[/note]]. The only question remaining is ''who'' you're being exclusive with.
This list shows the last 10 events of 23. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.ForTheLoveOfMany