Open relationship?

[GandK]

Many people do not have nearly as vibrant of a sex life as they could have if they didn't keep it such a big secret.

Huh. Privacy is a huge part of intimacy for me. And I don't mean sex with the windows shut. I mean secrecy itself is a thrill to me.

Perhaps I'm repressed.

[7Wannabe5]

GandK said: Perhaps I'm repressed.

Nah, you are probably just super-freaky nasty. That's okay. Not everybody can be as wholesome as me.

[enigmaT120]

That must have been fun to type!

[wood]

I was thinking exactly the same haha

[7Wannabe5]

Well, she said that she was an INFJ and she is madly in love with her husband who is an EXTJ, so I was just connecting the dots. It's not brain surgery.

[GandK]

I'm happy. Let's go with that.

Either I'm getting a little slap-happy lately or several of you guys have stepped up the funny recently.

[7Wannabe5]

Yeah, that's one of the things that happens when it's hot outside and you hang out with people who are too cheap to throw down for air-conditioning.

[7Wannabe5]

8888

[wood]

It's been a few months since I posted in this thread. The Miss S story ended sort of happily. Me, wife and miss S had some really nice moments together and miss S went on with her travels. She ended up meeting a guy she fell in love with and they are now in a long distance relationship. I guess she has 2 boyfriends now, one who pays for her company and another who she's in love with. I won't be surprised if she's having trouble figuring out the future with both of them.

This has been an interesting first-time experience for me, because I was unsure how I'd handle this whole adventure emotionally. I've been with two people at once before, but not over the course of days and weeks, and not with this much sex involved. Would someone get jealous? Would someone fall in love? Would someone lose interest? How would the chemistry between our different pairings develop?
All in all I'm left with positive feelings. I'm left with the feeling that I wish it had lasted for longer, but not too long, and it was nice getting back to the usual daily life again when it was all over. I imagine this is how someone who's having an affair would feel, except theres no cheating. But there's still the secrecy because no one knows (except you guys), there's still the feeling of adventure and something "new". The feeling of "new" started fading towards the end of her visit, but never faded completely. At the same time, the sense of a close bond between us started feeling apparent. I now look at this as a very nice memory in my life, and look forward to future adventures. I don't know what's up next but one of my friends has a sister we both like, and it would be cool if she came for our new year's party.

Me and wife are also in the process of doing some redefining of our marriage. We've discovered that people, including ourselves, have different ideas of what marriage means, and coming from completely different background cultures it has taken some time to identify all the suddle differences. We have also changed individually and evolved as a couple since we got married in 2014. So we are in the process of defining our relationship towards each other. Marriage is just a label. We created our own definition before marrying and now we need to re-examine it. The only thing we know for certain is that we want to have dinner together and go to bed together every day.

[fiby41]

Polygamy must have been convenient when male mortality due to war and hazardous jobs was higher, and sex ratio would go out of balance.

You might want to check the legality of it tho

[Dragline]

Interesting map. Polygamy was the norm in most agrarian societies for thousands of years for high-ranking males. It is a by-product of those kinds of strict role-based societies as they scale-up and become more unequal. Rulers and important people needed to breed at an expanded rate and it was a way to "share the wealth" through established roles based on birth.

Most religions, which almost all originated in the agrarian society past, have sects of people who equate (in their minds) or confuse (in my mind) what were just agrarian role-norms of ancient societies with important or critical aspects of their faiths. This is most prevalent in some of the Islamic countries right now, but also may be found in certain Christian groups, notably fundamentalist Mormons in the American Southwest -- and others in various parts of the world as well. Many cults effectively adopt these norms, too.

[7Wannabe5]

What was the economic basis for monogamous marriage? I use the past tense, because I just randomly read some articles in Cosmopolitan magazine, and it seems to be the case that even serial monogamy is passe.

[Dragline]

Well, polygamy was really only for the wealthy and the rulers to begin with. You could not really acquire too many sports chariots, but wives and concubines were available if you could support them. Slaves both male and female were available too. Most people could not afford more than one wife.

But polygamy tends to create more economic problems than it solves, especially when it comes to succession. (And it creates an over-supply of single men with nothing to do but stir up trouble who need to be enslaved or sent off to war somewhere.)

Property rights and succession to thrones or family lands/trades are easier to deal with in monogamous situations. Marriage was almost never about love until the last few 100 years.

[Chad]

Not sure why anyone in a relationship with 3 or more even wants to add the word marriage to it. Thus, no polygamy. I'm all for non-traditional relationships. Though, overall, Draglines negative, creates an over-supply of single men with nothing to do but stir up trouble , is a serious concern if it ever became common.

[7Wannabe5]

@Dragline:
Since I believe that human beings are generally as flexible and varied in the realm of sexual strategies/preferences as they are in the realm of food strategies/preferences, I don't think that normative metrics or discussions about what constitutes "natural" are all that useful. However, it is interesting to note that recent genetic studies revealing ratio of archaic fathers to mothers of current human population do roughly correlate with generalized primate rule of thumb that assigns species polygyny/monogamy ratio based on relative size of males to females. Humans fall out at around 1.5 females/male on this range. So, it is interesting to consider how cultural/economic forces can push the ratio in one direction or the other.

It is my belief that the overall ratio doesn't really vary that much, but the way in which it manifests can vary considerably. For instance, it is generally well accepted practice in our culture to have sex with your beloved wife, but also make occasional "use" of pornography. Line starts to blur somewhere along the continuum of eyes-rolled amusement because you didn't hear what your wife was saying when the 22 year old waitress was bending over in her short skirt, and the credit card statement with multiple charges at New Tokyo Health Spa.

Not sure why anyone in a relationship with 3 or more even wants to add the word marriage to it. Thus, no polygamy. I'm all for non-traditional relationships. Though, overall, Draglines negative, creates an over-supply of single men with nothing to do but stir up trouble , is a serious concern if it ever became common.

Books written by 30-something year old men in our culture will sometimes indicate that there are two sexual strategies followed by human males. An early promiscuous wild dispersal of seed without responsibility/authority phase vs. a pair-bonding help with nesting/feeding of young strategy. Since I have interacted with a variety of men, varying in age from 16 to 70, it is my opinion that there are actually 3 rough strategies followed by human males*, and the 3rd is polygyny. Which of these 3 strategies an individual will use will depend on socio-economic factors, personality, age and personal resource base or realm of dominance. IOW, the answer to your question is that an older man with an extensive resource base will generally tend towards preference towards making some ongoing contractual use of resource base when forming or maintaining sexual/romantic/affectionate/practical/social relationships with any number of females. IOW, (another terrible analogy to follow) same reason why it is commonplace for wealthy older men to own many cars, even if they don't drive them very often, but very uncommon for wealthy older men to choose to hot-wire a car and go for a joyride.

Anyways, since "Discards: Your Way to Wealth" is one of my primary life manuals, I do not view the possibility of an over-supply of single men OR the reality of a demand on the market for multiple "wives" as a huge problem. The simple solution is more females offering short-term contracts with overt terms, and more men and women practicing polyamory. I have recently been offered open-end contract of support as affectionate travel companion for older, affluent man with freedom to take younger partners myself, and I am giving it some consideration. **


*And consequently human females also. Chicken/egg. Depends on perspective/model. If a female agrees to be a faithful second "wife" then she is practicing polygyny, as opposed to polygamy or poly-amory. To my chagrin, I must admit that I accepted a contract on these terms on one occasion, but then broke it a month later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny_threshold_model

**However, I would note for the record that what I might choose to do, and what I would advise my DD26,who has her child-bearing/rearing years ahead of her still, to do would vary considerably.

[fiby41]

Societal implications of legalizing polygamy

[7Wannabe5]

@fiby41:

I would assume this chart actually visualizes the implications of polygyny (many wives), as opposed to polygamy (many spouses gender-neutrality?) I would also imagine that a similar chart for monogamy would show less movement, and a thicker middle, but would also need sub-model of hidden black-market (clandestine affairs, prostitution, pornography, etc.) for complete accuracy? I would also suggest that a chart for open polyamory (many spouses and/or other relationships, gender-equality) would exhibit a complex, resilient, multi-dimensional web with all sorts of flows up, down and around.

Somewhere in the Quran, something is written along the lines of "There are many good or valid or acceptable reasons to pick a wife. Beauty, money, family connections or shared-faith. Shared faith is the best reason. " If both men and women are doing the picking of up to 4 different partners for 4 different reasons (maybe co-parent, long-term lover, hobby-cuddle-buddy, and next-new-thang?) the possibilities become immense!

[fiby41]

Societal implications of legalizing polygamy

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1 ... &source=48

[fiby41]

I would assume this chart actually visualizes the implications of polygyny (many wives), as opposed to polygamy (many spouses gender-neutrality?)

Polygamy only.
If dowry is the cost women pay to marry up, then women of high socioeconomic status pick mates off the top of the male dominance hierarchy.

The overarching argument is:
1 Muslims are the only group to be constitutionally allowed multiple wives
2 historic practice is used as a justification for it
3 if historic precedence is being used as a justification for modern practices (it shouldn't) then examples from Hindu history can be used to justify polygamy

Example, the Pandava brothers married Kunti in the epic Mahabharata. Swayamvar is a competitive event in which men compete for the hand of the bride-to-be in marriage. Although Arjuna had won Kunti's swayamvar and Kunti approved of him, when they went to his mother, who was in forest-exile, to seek her blessings, she was engrossed in meditation.

Arjuna: Look, I want you see...
Mom: What's there to see? I'm busy, share among yourselves as always...
Now kiss... One at a time, please.

Somewhere in the Quran, something is written along the lines of "There are many good or valid or acceptable reasons to pick a wife. Beauty, money, family connections or shared-faith

1 Muhammad's first wife was a lot older & richer than he. She died soon after (childless) survived by only Muhammad who inherited all her wealth.
2 Pedophile: Ayesha (1 of 13) was married to Muhammad at 6 who consumated (=had sex) the marriage at 9.

Shared faith is the best reason.

3 Love jihad: Marrying a nonbeliever is forbidden, unless the spouse converts first, before marriage, of course.
4 Having sex with that which your right hand posseses ie. a slave, is okay
5 Nikah: One night marriage
6 And on top of that you can have 4 wives... the possibilities become immense!

[7Wannabe5]

@fiby41:

Trust me. I am no advocate of the practice of allowing men 4 wives and women only 1 husband, OR the practice prior to Islam of allowing men as many wives as they wanted. However, I would note that the number 4 was a limitation set by the religion, not a recommendation. Obviously, cuckoo-bananas modern sects of any religion will make use of any misinterpretation of original texts that best serve their purposes.

Anyways, Muhammads' first wife was older and wealthier, but she did not die childless. They had daughters. One of whom was the "mother" of the Shia lineage. Conversion was not always required for marriage, and Muhammad did have a son who only survived to be around 3 years old with a wife who remained Christian. Think of the possibilities for different courses of human history if that child had survived!

That said, I must admit that I was wrongly assuming that the term "hypergamy" referred to females choosing to have multiple sexual partners, not the practice of marrying up the ladder. There is also very little research into what the "natural" choices or practices of females might be over the long run in a situation in which they are granted full legal status. What I am attempting to add to the discussion is the consideration of the possibility that strict monogamy is also an example of "historic precedence being used to justify modern practice." Determining social status of an individual in modern American is a bit of conundrum, but there is some evidence that when women achieve full economic parity at a fairly high level of affluence, and are given leeway to engage in multiple relationships, they switch over to choosing additional males more on the basis of masculine beauty, just like men have always done historically. As the lyrics to the country song go:

A poor girl wants to marry
And a rich girl wants to flirt
A rich man goes to college
And a poor man goes to work