![]()
Wait, but he apparently didn't intend to commit a crime there. It seems like more of the mistake of not making sure he had all the paperwork in order than ill intent. Exactly how did they find that out anyway?
Less than you'd think, Loni. Oftentimes women in poly relationships need their partner's help when finding a lover...men obviously don't want to hit on a girl that's taken in most circumstances, and her saying "no, it's cool, my boyfriend doesn't mind" is a serious red flag to most single men. Hearing the boyfriend say the same thing relaxes them some.
The same applies to men, obviously. In a polyamorous relationship, partner-hunting is a group affair. Considering the other factors involved it usually has to be.
edited 1st May '13 10:27:50 PM by drunkscriblerian
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~![]()
Nothing to do with taxes, he was married to a women but then they split, however before they actually got divorced he went to America and married someone over there. That's the crime he committed, you're not allowed to get married if you're already married.
![]()
![]()
It was exactly that, he thought they were divorced and was mistaken. They found out because his initial wife found the photos of his wedding on Facebook and called the police. I feel kind of bad for whatever officer had to run this, I can imagine that they spent a decent bit of time with the women going "You seriously want us to press charged because he got married after you split but before you divorced?". I'd like to think that no one actually wanted to deal with this, but as it is a crime they had to.
Re:partner-hunting.
I suppose as creepy as it does sound journeyman/drunk have got a point. It's not like they plan to go out a pick a panther for them like the nobles of old.
Although honestly sometimes I feel my life would be easier if I came from a cultural that practiced arranged marriages >_>.
hashtagsarestupidYeah, it's a cultural thing. You gotta do things right if you want to succeed, and that means being part of the process. Besides, depending on how living arrangements go, it might be necessary to directly vet the second partner. If there's separate homes involved, the most that needs done is securing the first boyfriend from any attacks an unruly second one might commit. If you're planning on pooling resources and being an actual family unit, with the men knowing each other well, it's better to have the first boyfriend in on the whole thing from the start. Girlfriend picks a few men she likes, the couple meets them one by one, and the boyfriend says yay or nay on each. You need to get along to have a happy home, after all.
That's how poly works in traditional Africa. Extra people might be added... but the unit as a whole needs to decide to accept them. Unless some idiot is being a dictator (which also happens far too often for comfort). It's not considered good form, though. Or, a recipe for a happy kraal.
There's many a story of an overbearing husband forcibly introducing a new wife (either legally or illegally)... only to end up on the receiving end of domestic strikes of various descriptions and put through sheer hell as a result. Sometimes including the new wife as part of the domestic strike (it can be a bonding experience: wives vs husband... or in the less common scenarios, husbands vs wife): it's unfair to all concerned, including the incomer. Worse case scenario: the established order picks on the newbie and makes their (and their children's) life hell. <_<
That's had historical implications more than once in the larger marriage set-ups of chiefs and other people of import. (Shaka Zulu springs to mind: his dad totally sucked at domestic politics within his own kraal... it... had rather a big impact.)
edited 2nd May '13 1:36:03 PM by Euodiachloris
@Partner hunting: Like I said, it isn't "creepy" at all. It really just plays into looking out for your partner's wants and helping to satisfy them. Best explained by example...
Alice and Bob are dating in a polyamorous relationship. Bob is straight, Alice is bisexual. Alice mentions that she would like to meet a nice girl she could have a sexual relationship with; being a conscientious partner, Bob remembers this and keeps it in the back of his mind.
Bob's out one day - at a club, let's say - and meets Jane. Jane's a lesbian...but Bob finds her intelligent, interesting, and he likes her. Again being a conscientious partner he remembers what Alice said about wanting to meet a nice girl, and endeavors to put Alice and Jane in the same room so they can meet and get to know one another...perhaps intimately if that's how things play out.
Now, Jane's not a "gift" for Alice; she's her own person and gets to make her own decisions here. But if Alice ends up liking Jane, Bob's not going to stand in the way...indeed, he'll make it clear to both of them that they are free to pursue a sexual relationship if that is what they both want. Bob's just trying to look out for Alice's interests...because he wouldn't mind getting to hang out with Jane more often (remember, she's a lesbian and Bob knows this, he isn't going to be getting any but he does like just being around Jane).
That situation, and others like it, is generally what is meant by "finding" someone a partner; it isn't that the other person "picks" someone, but rather that they keep their eyes open for an individual that A: they get along with and B: their partner might get the hots for. Think of it as expanding one's circle of friends...only with more sweaty horizontal action being involved.
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~To add my agreement from the standpoint of someone who had an open marriage that was never acted on by either party, but who had a lot of dating experience before that, "My wife won't care", said to me by a male who was pursuing a hook-up was a huge red flag to me.
The vast majority of the time, that really meant "My wife will blow a gasket if she finds out, so I'm going to do my damnedest to make sure she never does, and I want you to be my Dirty Little Secret." The one time it turned out to be true, he followed "My wife won't care." with "Here, let me give you her work phone number — you can call and ask her."
'Great let's tell her together!' always seem like the best reply to that.
hashtagsarestupidHi everyone. I need help. My best friend refuses to even talk about polyamory with me anymore until I bring him hard scientific studies instead of an accumulation of anecdotes by biased sources. He says I'm being biased, that I'm being a fool for trusting "those internet people" so readily.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Well, let me see: his hypotehses seem to go as follows:
- Irresponsibility: preaching that dangerous thing X can be done as long as you follow pain-in-the-neck security precautions A, B and C is irresponsible, because most people are idiots and will interpret it as "dangerous thing X can be done" and forget about following through with the precautions. This applies to drugs, sex, and polyamoury. For this, I need studies that show that increasing literacy about risky behaviour does not increase the number of people who engage in those behaviours reckslessly.
- Confirmation bias: sources arguing for and against polyamoury are biased and rely on anecdotal evidence. We need rigorous studies about the challenges that poly involves before we can take the step of exploring it and trying it out.
Essentially, he's afraid that I may take the informal conclusions offered in The Ethical Slut and get into a mode of relationship in which I would be way in over my head, and would like me to take as many precautions as possible before getting involved in romantic-sentimental imbroglios that might ruin my life.
He also worries, from his experience in a Swedish campus, that government dispensal of sex education paradoxically encourages reckless sexual behaviour ("I'm fine, this is safe, I got this"), and that publicizing and promoting polyamoury will cause people with the emotional maturity of terracota bricks to misguidedly hurt themselves and each other horribly, without even meaning to.
I myself worry about doing anything stupid. While poly is hardly uncharted territory, the maps are very artesanal and based on anecdotes. There may be dragons, and I need a more solid, evidence-based map before I can step forward; having a solid ethical compass is not enough.
Am I still being too vague?
Ah, and of course one of the central problems is jealousy. What does the literature say about that? Wikipedia has been amazingly not-forthcoming, the conclusions presented being remarkably tentative even for her.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.... This lack of feedback is worrying. Oh, well, time to plunge into the databases and research papers. I'll keep you guys up to date on what I find. You're welcome to give me hints and nudges, of course. But I definitely need real scientific stuff; the plural of anecdote is not data.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Yeah, sorry, I got nothing. The best I can do is trudge through some of my books on anthropology and dig up a few chapters on cultural groups with a concept of marriage involving multiple partners. Most of those don't really look like modern polyamory, though.
Though there are some cultures where people simply don't care about who or how many you do. Those are usually cultures where maternal linage is a thing (as opposed to paternal linage, as is the standard in most of the modern world), so it doesn't matter who the father of a given child is. Children are provided and cared for by the mother and the mother's brother(s), and no one cares if the women have multiple partners.
Yeah, like I said, it's not really like modern polyamory, but I suppose a long shot is better than none. Would you like me to dig up some details?
edited 9th Sep '13 2:16:19 PM by Kayeka
Handle, there's not a whole lot of scientific study of this. That's largely because of the ethical fuzziness of doing constructed experiments on social constructs, but also because there are so many variables that can't be controlled for, and may not even be apparent to the people doing the study.
If your friend won't talk about it because all you have is anecdata, I'd suggest you stop trying to talk to him about it.
