Follow TV Tropes


Useful Notes / For the Love of Many

Go To

The larger majority of human intimate relationships have involved two people. This couple lives together, likely have children together, have sex with each other, love 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.


The practice of having more than one spouse is called polygamy; the conditions of having more than one husband or wife actually have their own names (
polyandry and polygyny respectively).

  • Polyandry: One wife, two or more husbands.
    • The advantages: In a sexist world where men work and women Stay in the Kitchen, this woman's children receive more care and nutrition; the presence of more than one breadwinner increases the likelihood that the little tots will live to adulthood. And if "raising my child to adulthood" doesn't sound like a difficult achievement, keep in mind that, before 1800, 43% of all human beings died during their first 5 years of life.
    • Heir Club for Men rules may also play a factor. In mountainous regions where land is scarce, if brothers marry the same women, their joint household can inherit the family land together. Otherwise, the land would either (a) be split into pieces that are too small to support any of the brothers, or (b) be left solely to the eldest brother, with the others getting nothing.
    • Advertisement:
    • Alternatively, at varying times in varying societies, traditional men's work—such as farm labor—was vital for the family. Multiple husbands meant less work for each of the men and greater family productivity overall.
  • Polygyny: One husband, two or more wives.
    • The advantages: In a sexist world where men work and women Stay in the Kitchen, it allows women to get very high quality husbands. If you could contrive it that your child would be fathered by Brad Pitt, or Albert Einstein, or Johann Sebastian Bach, or Jeff Bezos, but to do it you had to become that man's second wife, would you? The benefits to your child would, after all, outweigh the inconvenience to you. Besides, these rich, successful men 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 females: "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."
    • Advertisement:
    • In a society where men are warriors or soldiers, they get killed at a higher rate then women, leaving a gender imbalance. Doubling up on husbands then becomes the only way for there to be enough to go around. Also, the widows of the dead warriors may become single mothers; this is a hard position for her and her children—especially since she's still expected to Stay in the Kitchen. If her society allows her to remarry, it's better for her kids. Finally, in a situation where large quantities of people were slain during the war, polygyny allows for rapid repopulation — it takes a woman 9 months to have a child, during which time a man could quite possibly have sired hundreds more children; and your antebellum society may well value this efficiency.
    • At varying times in varying societies, traditional women's work was the most labor-intensive or provided the most economic advantage for the family. Some Native American / First Nations 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, because these goods sold the best. In other words, multiple wives meant less work for each of the women and greater family productivity overall.
    • One subset of polygyny is Concubinage, whereby the husband can have only one legal wife, but multiple concubines whose legal status is lower than that of the main wife. One prominent culture which practiced concubinage until it was outlawed in modern times was the Chinese.
  • Group marriage: 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.

If you're looking at these ideas and thinking that they're primarily about practicality, well, you're right. The idea that a person might Marry for Love—a marriage in which your personal happiness takes primacy over questions of procreation, economics, etc, or at least is an equal consideration—is much Newer Than They Think. As recently as 1813, Elizabeth Bennet was still having to decide between marrying for love or marrying for comfort; and before the 1600s, marrying for love was basically not an option whatsoever. Instead, marriages had more to do with child-rearing and political alliances than anything else. This attitude has not entirely disappeared. Even today, would you seriously marry someone who you thought would make a bad parent? Or, for that matter, who couldn't provide for you in a crisis?

Incidentally, polygyny was legal in several ancient cultures, including the ancient Israelites of The Bible; Solomon was said to have 700 wives. It's still legally recognised in much of the world, especially in countries where Islam is the predominant faith. (Eritrea, India, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines recognise polygynous marriages among their sizeable Muslim communities, but not among other people.) Polyandry... not so much, and has mostly been practiced in the Himalayas.


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. This is a modern variant, focusing on love and dating.

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 so often seem to come with it. 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 people who get married to only one spouse will still have emotional bonds with friends, siblings, parents, children. Not the same kinds of bonds they have with their spouse, or so we hope, but bonds nonetheless.

Swingers & Open Relationships

Now we start getting into a committed emotional relationship where the partners still having sex with other people—with, of course, the consent of everyone involved.

The root of this level 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 patently Truth in Television, regardless of what the "Sex Equals Love" trope would have you believe. It's possible to have sex with someone you don't romantically love (see: casual sex, Friends with Benefits), and just as possible to love someone romantically without having sex with them (see: Courtly Love, Chastity Couple). Therefore, if you have sex with someone, it is neither implied nor required that you love them.

This takes two forms. "Swinging" is typically a pair activity; the couple, together, make choices to include one or more outside people in their sexual activity. In an "Open relationship," partners can make individual decisions about who they choose to be intimate with. The ground rules laid down varies from couple to couple: some only allow random encounters, while others say no randos and only sleep with people they know and trust. Others say "Whoever you shag, just use protection."


And then finally down at the bottom is the idea of the two-person committed monogamous relationship, which is what Western culture (currently) considers the ideal. In this relationship it's against the rules to do anything sexual or romantic with someone besides your spouse/significant other. If you break the rules, you're cheating. If you change the rules, then you're not in a monogamous relationship anymore; you belong to one of the poly* categories discussed already.

Consent of partners

You'll notice that none of these relationships give you the right to just go out and do whatever (or whomever) you want, without the permission or consent of your partners. Generally, that's reserved for being single. All these relationships involve being committed to somebody—sometimes more than one somebody—and if you get together with someone when your partner(s) has told you not to, then you are cheating and that's that. This is where multi-partner relationships get tricky. Say you're in a relationship with Alexis and Bryce, and you then want to sleep with Charlie on the side. Alexis is amenable... But Bryce says no, and won't budge. (Maybe Charlie was mean to them in high school.) It's hard enough to get permission to do anything from one spouse; imagine having to clear your actions with two!

Open relationships can also fall victim to infidelity if one of the partners breaks any ground rules established, especially if outside play is only allowed under specific circumstances. Say, if Alice and Bob are a couple but Alice is bi, they may have threesomes with other women for Alice's sake (and Bob is hardly complaining himself), but anything outside this arrangement by either of them would be considered cheating. Or if a male couple includes a bisexual, he may be allowed to sleep with women on the side, but both men might view sleeping with another man as cheating since they can get that at home. Fetishism can lead to this as well. If one partner has a kink that the other isn't willing or able to indulge, that partner may have permission to sate that need outside the relationship, but they're only allowed to have sex with each other. The scenario needn't be this specific, however. If the rule is "You can sleep with trusted friends only" and your partner catches you with someone you met online that night, congratulations, you've broken their trust.

What should be pointed out is that none of these activities have to involve cheating. "Cheating" and "extramarital sex" (or "extrarelationship sex," though this is a less snappy term) are overlapping circles on a Venn diagram, but not identical circles. "Cheating" involves extramarital sex without permission. Extramarital sex with permission, on the other hand, is a significant feature of these relationships. Additionally, there is such thing called "emotional cheating," where you express loving emotions to a third party without the permission of your partner(s) — extramarital Courtly Love, basically. You don't have to even touch someone to break the rules; but, conversely, touching someone does not necessarily break the rules in and of itself.

Open vs closed relationship

There is one last distinction to cover: 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. An open one can have people added to it.

It's possible to have a closed polygamous marriage. As an example, let's take the television series Big Love, where one man has three wives. If the marriage is closed, then that's it as far as sex, intimacy, etc is concerned: Bill Paxton isn't allowed to get any more wives (or sleep with anyone else on the side), and his three wives are likewise limited to him. If Bill Paxton's character decides to sleep with a fourth character, that's cheating. (Heck, if he decides to sleep with his third wife when it's someone else's turn on the schedule, that's considered cheating too!)

In an open relationship, partners are allowed or even encouraged to venture outside their current roster of (sexual 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; 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.") or for limits to be placed on some other element ("If you find anyone you'd enjoy spending the night with, hun, have fun! Just make sure they know it's not going to go beyond sex.")

Long story short, a "closed" relationship is one that is exclusivenote . The only question remaining is who you're being exclusive with.


Yes, we need to talk about death a little bit here, because there are cultural traditions in which widows and widowers are considered to be still married to their dead spouses. In most modern traditions, marriages are regarded as only valid "until death do us part," so that only living people can be considered married to each other. But in some religions, marriages still exist in an afterlife of some sort, whether or not they actually practice polygamy between living people.note  This is especially true if divorce isn't an option—Catholicism, the biggest branch of 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, Tertullian, arguing both for and against it at different times. Needless to say, marriage customs can be very complicated in regards to these things.

Personal opinion

Finally, there is room for a fair amount of personal discomfort in these things. One person might think the idea of having one monogamous partner for the rest of their life (or the rest of eternity, going by the previous section) would be horribly stifling or downright unrealistic. Another person might think it's hard enough to maintain one relationship and couldn't imagine applying that same level of commitment to two or more people at once. This doesn't necessarily mean they're monogamous. Fuckbuddies and friends with benefits simply see each other when they have time, but when you're romantically involved with multiple people, you have to make time. Some people can handle that, some can't. Discussing ethical non-monogamy requires raw honesty from all parties involved, but it is important to establish your boundaries on the matter early on. If it turns out you're not on the same page, it's better to part as friends now than deal with the inevitable fallout of someone getting caught breaking rules later.

Alternative Title(s): Polyamory


How well does it match the trope?

Example of:


Media sources: