Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cool Holland thing -- three-way marriage!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Rainbow gatherer Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:21 PM
Original message
Cool Holland thing -- three-way marriage!
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301

Never did see why so many people get so upset over polygamy. If everyone is adult, and they don't mind the arrangement, what's the problem? And who knows, if one of the women is really into working outside the home, and the other is more the stay-at-home type, you have built in daycare by someone that's part of the relationship. Your children, and the other woman's children are both half-siblings and 1st. cousins. Hope it catches on here in the USA!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NorCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. The Freepers will be extra PO'd over this one
Edited on Mon Oct-03-05 02:26 PM by Bush in Berkeley
Perhaps we should tackly homosexual marriage before we start suggesting three-ways for everyone :D

"Not that there's anything wrong with that!"

Oh, and welcome to DU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainbow gatherer Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Freepers need to read their Bible.
Wasn't polygamy the original "traditional marriage"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. The Bible is hardly the place to look for the way to treat women,
particularly the OT. Women were pretty much treated as property and the OT was ok with that. Genital mutilation of females is "traditional" in some African societies as well - that doesn't make it a desirable thing to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainbow gatherer Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Point was, this alternative lifestyle is traditional.
and many conservatives live in denial if they think otherwise. Hey, let people live as they wish. If these three are happy isn't that what counts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. No. Marriage is also a way to legally protect children. It is not at all
clear that children of different spouses would receive the same protection with these arrangements. Children of the less favored spouse would be likely to suffer discrimination in the family. It would be a good way to triple the load of family courts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
24. Yep
In Genesis. How else do you think they populated? Adam and Eve did have daughters. Oh and also in the Old Testament read about Lot and his daughters slept with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
USA_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
37. polygeny
Polygamy - the practice of having more than one spouse is NOT sanctioned in the Bible.

Polygeny - the pratice of having more than one wife, was sanctioned in the Old Testament.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AspenRose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. Might work for some republican "serial monogamists"
Newt, Rudy, etc. }(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
3. What gets complicated about that situation is not the social aspects
...but the financial and legal ones.

What if, during a medical decision where a person's next-of-kin is consulted, they don't agree? Who's 'vote' counts more?

Does the insurance industry consider them all equal? For the same cost? (though I know that this issue is less important in Holland than here).

And what about a divorce? Who gets who's kids? Who pays who what?

THAT is where it gets complicated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
funflower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
28. In most states, marital status doesn't have all that much affect on
Edited on Mon Oct-03-05 02:48 PM by funflower
parental rights. Your kids are your kids, regardless of who is married to whom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #28
46. It might in that particuliar situation
A man marries two women. One woman gives birth to a few children. That woman works many hours and the other woman is the primary care giver. Since they are all married, the children consider this woman their mother in addition to their biological mother. Who gets custody and how much visitation if the threesome split up? Does it matter if two of them stay married? Does it matter which two? What if all three split up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
funflower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #46
93. I would think bio-mom would have parental rights, and caring-mom would
get visitation based on her status as a "psychological parent," but that's just a guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
5. Hello fellow rainbow
although I haven't 'gathered' in a while I still have a belly button ;)

Welcome to DU!

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainbow gatherer Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Same here.
Last event I have connections to was the one in Oregon in 1998 up by Prineville.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Tha national in Oregon?
I was at that one (I thought that was '97, but my memories of the 90s are a little scattered ;) )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainbow gatherer Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. May be right.
Wasn't it in the Ochoho National Park? Beautiful area.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cally Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
6. Why do you assume there will be two women in the
marriage? It could be two men and one woman or any other combination. The child care arrangements could still occur.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mntleo2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. Yeah I Wouldn't Mind...
:bounce:
Cat In Seattle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
31. Actually, a two man, one woman arrangement would work best.
Two of the three could work outside the home and one keep the domicile and kids (if any). The kids would be less of a hassle, because they would all have the same mother and that's what counts (I'm Native American and it just makes sense to me). Also, two men for one woman would be more sexually satisfying for the woman - let's face it, it is all most men can do to keep one woman satisfied, but if every man had a 'husband-partner', they could share the responsibility and make for a happy woman... Just a thought...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #31
76. Dissagre... a man needs two women, or maybe a woman and a sheep....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
7. It is wrong because someone gets exploited. Either the first wife does or
the second wife does - or both. Second and third wives also tend to be much younger - thus increasing the likelihood of exploitation. In some cases with dissident Mormans it has been nothing more than a cover for abuse of underage girls. And if you are so much in favor, would you also think it is cool for a woman to have two husbands?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainbow gatherer Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. To each their own.
:)

And like I said, if someone is of the legal marriage age for monogamy what about polygamy? Or maybe to enter into polygamy the states could set 18 as the earliest you could get married.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. So - do you think slavery would be "ok" as long as the "slave" agreed and
was 18? Or do you think it is ok for someone to work for $1 a day as long as they are 18 and agree to do it? Should that be legal as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainbow gatherer Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. I guess if we buy "made in China"
then we do endorse the idea that if someone agrees to work for a dollar a day then it is okay.

However, slavery and polygamy are two different things unless you believe women are too dumb to make the choice of joining such arrangements. I think women are pretty smart and won't marry a guy who wants her only as a slave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #19
29. Some are, some aren't. That is the point. The law has to protect the
ones who aren't "smart enough" to protect themselves. And see my point about the children. They have no say in the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. if someone agreed
they would not be a slave. Well, unless it was for fun ;)

What's wrong with letting consenting adults live the way they want to as long as it harms no others?

I read this story the other day, and all most could say was something stupid about the slippery slope leading to child marriage and/or bestiality. If someone cannot tell the difference between a consenting adult, a child, and a non-human animal, well.... maybe they have deeper issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #22
33. People get themselves into financial difficulties. They might "agree"
to an arrangement under financial duress that amounts to slavery. No we do not permit that as a society nor should we.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. and that is different from
traditional marriage how? I think that scenario is just as likely, if not more so, in a 2 person relationsip. At least in a group marriage, assuming it is not of the one man/20 wives Mormon type of thing, there would be at least other people to stop that.

I think we need to reframe this, as most modern progressive who think this is not bad, are not aligning with the Conserative Polygamists at all.

WHy is an equal partner group marriage inherently a bad thing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. The key point is "equal". Three way marriages are often going to derail
over that. A two way relationship is difficult enough. Three people make it all the more complicated. I am not saying it will never work but it will be the exception.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #43
52. Well, that's their business, isn't it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #52
56. No it isn't just "their business". Children get no say in the matter so
society has a right and duty to protect their interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:50 PM
Original message
well, not all marriages result in children
and over half of "traditional" 2-party marriages fail. Should we ban them also?

Not trying to be mean or crappy about it, just think that all of the arguments against it are weak, especially when compared to 2-party marriages.

Yes, the more people, the more potential there is for things like jealousy, hurt feelings , etc. within the relationship BUT these things exist in current relationships already.

Should all marriages and relationships be banned because they are difficult and require people to be mature?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
64. Well - half don't fail. And when they do fail children are protected.
True not all marriages result in children. But many do and so far society hasn't come up with a better way to protect children than marriage. Why do something that we know from our knowledge of human nature will just make things worse? So we can predict with some certainty an even higher rate of failure for multiple marriages. Wouldn't it be better to study more WHY marriages fail and try to address those issues? We haven't even tried seriously to study what could be done BEFORE marriage to make it more likely that marriages would succeed. I think we SHOULD make it more difficult for people to get married so we know they really mean it. And maybe have a probationary period of some period of time - after which the marriage could continue or be annulled - "no fault". After the probationary period it would be harder to get a "no fault" divorce. Absent abuse, abandoment or serial infidelity couples would have to submit to mandatory counseling before a divorce would be granted. The cost of the counseling could be subsidized with funds collected from higher marriage license fees. Just some ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #64
68. I would have no problem making marriage
and divorce harder, but again, why limit those ideas to 2-party marriages?

I'm just curious, personally. Not trying to attack anyone. But I have yet to see a great argument that distances it from any other "hard" marriage. Many people use the a lot of the same arguments for gay and mixed race marriages too, btw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Porcupine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #33
95. It's called military service
that frequently is caused by financial duress that amounts to slavery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #22
74. Do you know what the legal consequences of what this trio have done are?
This particular article doesn't tell us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. You're really making a leap here
But I'll take the leap...how about a D/s relationship? (Dominant/submissive.) Some people actually *do* consent to such things, and it's not out of coercion. But in this case we're talking about consensual, adult relationships...as with polyamory.

But, really, you aren't talking about that kind of slavery, and your comparison remains a rather illogical leap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. Illogical leap? Is it a coincidence then that both slavery and polygymy
are condoned in the Old Testament or is it because the society that wrote the OT treated people - and particularly women, as property?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #32
42. Consensual relationships do not equate to oppression
As I said, I have two male partners; my primary partner has two secondary female partners, and my secondary partner has a wife who has a boyfriend. No one is being treated as property here.

The relationship discussed in the article was also between three consenting adults who are all involved with one another. Where is the connection to slavery?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #42
49. See how it works out in 25 years. The article may not have told the
whole story. Oppressive relationships don't usually manifest themselves on the "wedding day".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Okay, I'll let you know how my relationships are doing in 25 years
As long as you let me know about yours. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #50
55. 33 years and counting. Been through all the parts of the marriage vows
except the "death do us part". Thanks for asking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #55
70. As I said, I'll get back to you in 25 years
Or, since you're counting from the beginning of your relationship, I'll get back to you in 19. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #17
51. Let me guess: you're not big into BDSM either, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #51
57. How is that relevant to the discussion? I just don't happen to believe
that three way relationships will work for most people over the long term. 1 male/1 female; 1 male/1 male; 1 female/1female - Ok, I believe all of these can work and should get legal sanction. I am not promoting heterosexual marriage as the one and only way to go. Nor am I suggesting telling people what their sexual practices or that we should criminalize extramarital sex. But I am opposed to legalizing multiple marriages for the reasons I have given.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. I would
("would you also think it is cool for a woman to have two husbands?")

But then, I have two boyfriends. :D (Or rather one primary partner, and one secondary.)

Why does everyone assume that there couldn't also be three women or three men? Or that all three aren't involved with each other?

Such limited thinking. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
48. Except for, they're all married *to each other*--different from OT
(old testament) marriages, where the guy takes a bunch of wives. They're bi, the women. It's legally three-way, and presumably sexually and emotionally as well.

and I for one think it's plenty cool for a woman to have two husbands, or two wives for that matter.

as far as child custody: seems to me that the more parental figures you have, the better for the kid.

and these days in fact a threesome might best represent the true parentage of a child: if for instance in this case one of the women donates an egg for the other to carry...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #48
54. Yes, different on the surface from the OT. Call me a skeptic. See how
it works out in 25 years with these arrangements. My prediction is that if these arrangements proliferate the family courts will be swamped trying to figure out child custody, child support, and spousal support (alimony) when some of these relationships fail - which I would predict will happen at a higher rate than conventional marriages just because thay are more complex. If there are more people to disagree there will be more disagreements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
8. So, how does this work?
What are the responsibilities and rights they have given each other? Are there any they are claiming or acknowledging with that state?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
9. That's it. I'm moving.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
12. some liberals gets upset because polygamy is often
detrimental to women's rights...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
20. "Asked by journalists to tell the secret of their...relationship..."
Asked by journalists to tell the secret of their peculiar relationship, Victor explained that there is no jealousy between them. But this is because Mirjam and Bianca are bisexual. I think that with two heterosexual women it would be more difficult.


I think old-fashioned polygamy often is...but I think this is a positive development for three people who are all involved with one another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. i sorta agree
but slippery slope..easier in countries that are already strong on womens rights issues that in the US
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #20
77. Agreed
"I think this is a positive development for three people who are all involved with one another."

If only people put regular old marriages under such scrutiny, sigh.

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
funflower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
23. I know some people in "group marriages."
Edited on Mon Oct-03-05 02:46 PM by funflower
Everybody seems happy, including the kids. Seems to work for them.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
72. What have they done for legal agrements? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
funflower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #72
92. No idea.
Edited on Tue Oct-04-05 01:25 AM by funflower
They're very casual acquaintances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mshasta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
30. two men...one woman....
paradise!!!!!!!!!!!! :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
USA_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. polyandry
Sorry for the bad news - the only time it works is in the animal kingdom:

http://www.stanfordalumni.org/birdsite/text/essays/Poly...


Polyandry
The mating of one female with more than one male while each male mates with only one female is known as polyandry (literally, "many males"). It is a rare mating system, occurring in less than one percent of all bird species, and is found mostly in shorebirds. Polyandry is often accompanied by a reversal of sexual roles in which males perform all or most parental duties and females compete for mates. The common pattern of sexual dimorphism is often reversed in polyandrous birds: the female is often larger and more colorful than the male. This reversal confused early biologists and led Audubon to mislabel males and females in all of his phalarope plates.

Two types of polyandry have been documented: simultaneous polyandry and sequential polyandry. In simultaneous polyandry, each female holds a large territory containing the smaller nesting territories of two or more males who care for the eggs and tend the young. In our region, only Northern jacanas characteristically practice this form of polyandry. Females may mate with all of their consorts in one day and provide each male with help in defending his territory. A female will not copulate with a mate while their eggs are being incubated or during the first six weeks of the fife of the chicks. If a clutch is lost, she will quickly copulate with the broodless male and lay a new batch of eggs within a few days.

A very rare variation on the preceding theme is "cooperative simultaneous polyandry," in which more than one male mates with a single female and the single clutch of mixed parentage is reared cooperatively by the female and her several mates. This arrangement occurs in some populations of Harris' Hawks and occasionally in Acorn Woodpecker groups.

In sequential polyandry (the most typical form of this mating system), a female mates with a male, lays eggs, and then terminates the relationship with that male, leaving him to incubate the eggs while she goes off to repeat this sequence with another male. Spotted Sandpipers, Red-necked and Red Phalaropes are examples of sequentially polyandrous species that breed in North America. A possible evolutionary precursor of sequential polyandry is found in Temminck's Stint, Little Stint, Mountain Plover, and Sanderling. In these species, each female lays a clutch of eggs that is incubated by the male, followed by a second clutch that she incubates herself. These two-clutch systems can be envisioned as a step toward the sort of sequential polyandry seen in the Spotted Sandpiper, but females of that species never incubate a clutch alone unless their mate is killed -- even when resources are abundant.

There is an interesting sidelight to the story of polyandry in birds. In polygynous mammals (one male mating with several females) such as lions and gorillas, infanticide can occur when a new male takes over a harem. By killing the young of the previous harem ruler, the new male presumably brings females back into heat. This gives him a chance to increase his own reproductive contributions and, perhaps, to reduce use of resources by unrelated offspring. In Northern jacanas it has been reported that females taking over the territories of other females occasionally practice infanticide, destroying the offspring of previous females. The males attempt to defend their broods (which represent their genes, but not those of the new female), just as lionesses attempt to defend their cubs from infanticidal male lions taking over a pride. However, the actual killing of young has not been observed -- only empty nests. If substantiated, this behavior in jacanas is the first known example of infanticide being used as a reproductive strategy by females.

SEE: Polyandry in the Spotted Sandpiper; Monogamy; Polygyny; Cooperative Breeding; Natural Selection.

Copyright 1988 by Paul R. Ehrlich, David S. Dobkin, and Darryl Wheye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
funflower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Last time I checked, we were in the animal kingdom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
USA_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. if you say so!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. And it is RARE in the animal kingdom. Each species has a mating
system that works for them. It is ludicrous to look to animals who have completely different social systems from humans for guidance. Besides, we have plenty of human models of "alternative" marriage arrangements and we can observe how it works or doesn't work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
USA_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. !
It is ludicrous to look to animals who have completely different social systems from humans for guidance.


Actually, that was my point!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainbow gatherer Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #41
89. Most human societies are polygamist.
Western society is NOT the traditional norm on marriage. We get it due to Greek and Roman influence -- of course in Greece and Rome a man married one woman but could have slave girls and boys.

The Bible does not limit the number of wives you can have -- and the Koran limits it to 4.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
funflower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #89
94. Welcome to DU, Rainbow Gather! Glad to see you're from God's country!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainbow gatherer Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #94
100. That's a great photograph.
I just love the Columbia Gorge! That area has a lot of nice memories. I love the Maltoma Falls as well as Rooster Rock State Park. Swimming, hiking...what a great area. Of course, we Oregonians love it when people visit Oregon...

Just go home after you are done -- especailly California yuppies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #35
45. So this observation of a natural occurrence in the animal kingdom...
(I guess we're vegetables??) is proof that we're not allowed to do it?

Oooookayyyyyyyyyyyy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mshasta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #35
63. blah......blah....blah....
if I want a fucking threesome what are you going to do about it?



:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. Not legalize it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
34. I want three wives and two husbands!
:D

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
39. Great...now anti-gay marriage types can say : "See we told you."
They've been selling this notion of a gay-marriage domino theory all along. First it will be gay marriage, then it will be 3way maraiges, then people will want to marry thier pets, and then it will be a big NAMBLA free-for-all.

This story will play into thier hands.

I think the solution is : KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR RELATIONSHIPS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #39
47. They can say whatever they want
And will anyway.

Consenual relationships between adults are not in any way akin to abusing non-consenting animals and children.

Yes, the fundies and freepers will take this stance because they're reactionary and bigoted, but I sure hate seeing our own doing it, or capitulating to them when they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #47
60. I take offense to being characterized as "reactionary and bigoted"
I think I have given some good reasons why this kind of arrangement should give us pause and it is certainly not just to preserve the status quo (reactionary) or because of prejudice toward particular people (bigotry). Yes, sometimes "traditional practices" protect the reactionaries and bigots - but don't forget that at one time polygamy was the "traditional practice." Monogamy was a civilized innovation to protect women and children from the reactionary bigots. Have you ever lived in a society that practices polygamy? I have and believe me there is nothing progressive about it. And don't kid yourself that these new kinds of polyandry are all that different. Note that in the Holland case it is one man and two women and I would lay money on it that it will usually be one man and two or more women - not the other way around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #60
69. I didn't call YOU reactionary and bigoted
I said we shouldn't capitulate to those who are. However, if you do in fact believe that polyamory is akin to bestiality and child rape, I would say that you are at the very least uninformed and you are most certainly offending ME.

Please don't tell me my relationships are not progressive and imply that I'm oppressed. There are in fact many, many consensually polyamorous people in this country, in many other variations than the "dreaded" F-F-M. Your assumptions are (I hope) are based on a lack of understanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #47
67. They will say it and the country will believe them.
And we'll lose our rights. I wish that the gay marriage thing could have waited 10 more years....a whole new generation is being raised either pro-gay or at worst indifferent. A backlash is very hard to undo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #67
71. Well this is exactly what bothers me about this argument
Wait 10 years...qualify who's not "freaky" enough to scare the normals.

Civil rights are civil rights.

These are the same sorts of arguments that were made in the past when women and minorities sought equality. You don't wait until the bigoted RW thinks it's okay to fight for your rights.

I think it's worth noting, however, that we're talking about the Netherlands (and we have no control over what they do whether we like it or not). It seems as if the argument being made here is that group civil unions in another country are somehow going to result in a backlash here, and therefore we should not have fought for the right to marriage equality in the US. Huh?

(BTW, I think you meant a generation being raised anti-gay? Or is pro-gay bad?)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #39
75. oh yawn...
let them squawk until they are blue in the face...maybe we'll get lucky and they'll suffocate on their own bs. :D

that being said, i agree with your last sentence. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #75
79. the fundies won't change their arguement one Lick
the ones you worry about then, are the 'moderates'

if it's them you need to reach or consoLe, then go the route they understand: money.

in this day and age of increasing debt and Lack of options for home ownership, or residency in the middLe cLass, a third parent is needed to raise a famiLy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. you are so right
i hadn't really thought about that angle. :thumbsup:

hehe, 'reach or console'... :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. :P
:loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

reach them... or more reaListicaLLy, consoLe them for being 'forced' to toLerate a worLd they don't understand. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. but it hurts their beautiful minds!!
:P

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
53. The problems that I see with this
1. Marriage under U.S. law is a partnership. Both partners are equal. If there are more than 2 people in a marriage, at least one person will more unequal than the others. In societies that have traditionally engaged in marriage of more than one spouse, there is usually some hierarchy (husband absolute head of household, senior wife is most important, husband has a designated favorite wife, oldest brother married to one woman in Tibet is head of household).
2. Divorce could be a problem as far as financial and parental issues.
3. Would there be a limit on this? Would group marriages have to be exclusive groups such as Mary, John, and Kevin marry. Can Kevin marry Jane too or must they all marry her?
4. Would this greatly change marriage especially if the groups didn't have be exclusive? Why shouldn't you marry your best Platonic friend if you both can later marry sex partners of your choice and remain married to each other?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gollygee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #53
59. I agree 100%
Also to have same-sex marriage in the US requires a very simple change to existing language. No big deal. But to allow something like this we'd have to re-think everything regarding property rights, custody and child-support issues, and especially divorce (if one person leaves is the whole marriage over? how is property distributed after a divorce? etc.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #53
62. a partnership does not equal "2"
many businesses have more than 2 partners, if I am not mistaken.

As far as children go, they would also have benefits, such as the family being more likely to be able to afford to have someone at home (or to take turns) to take care of them in a loving, nurturing environment.

It is only recently in history that we have been living as a single, nuclear family under one roof. One could say that some of our modern problems may be a result of that, the fracturing of society.

I would think that we as a species are evolved enough to get beyond some of these "problems", all of which crop up in 2-party marriages.

Also, in the event of a divorce (or one person leaving a group), would the child not by default go to the birth parents, unless they were deemed unfit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. Well the birth parents might not be in the "best interests of the child"
Edited on Mon Oct-03-05 04:21 PM by yellowcanine
Family courts would have to decide. The best caregiver might not be a birth parent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
58. "Two chicks at the same time!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
61. An old David Crosby song...
"I don't really see, why can't we go on as three?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
73. i think it's time to go euro
:bounce:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #73
78. ya think?
i wonder how hard Dutch is to learn...hmmmmm

:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #78
80. i thought they spoke french?
'Lucas' the danish rapper spoke, 'frangLes' - simiLar to 'spangLish' - a rapping and mixing frech and engLish.

he sucked, and stiLL sucks. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. i think in franglais all the time
it's fun and cool :D

i'll learn Dutch baby...i've got the languages locked down, you know me! :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sadiesworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
85. I guess some DUers have moved so far to the left
they've met the fundies on the right.

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. i couLd take that either way i suppose
:toast:

i'LL go with the good one. :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sadiesworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. Don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #87
88. i'LL take it as someone(s)' bad side then.
which is good for me. :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
90. Oh, man - Freeper heads exploding as we type
I hope they all explode like in that old Lemmings game. I would not miss them all that much :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
91. Oh, man - Freeper heads exploding as we type
I hope they all explode like in that old Lemmings game. I would not miss them all that much :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
U4ikLefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
96. Why the hell would I want TWO wives nagging me?!?
Oh the agony!!! ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #96
99. i hear digging, but i don't hear chopping
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fescue4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 01:38 AM
Response to Original message
97. That would be fun for about 10 minutes
Ok, an hour

And then its twice the problems, 1/4 the fun.

But if its floats yer boat, doesnt bother me any.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kailassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 04:30 AM
Response to Original message
98. USA_1 and anyone else who thinks polyandry only occurs
in the animal kingdom should look up their Tibetan history. Tibetan farming societies used to all be fraternally polyandrous because the soil was so poor it took more than one man to support the family. It still does happen there but is dying out now.

http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanSociety/marriage...

It is also dying out now in several regions in India.

http://www.lankalibrary.com/rit/ekage.htm

Personally, being married to one man was bad enough. If I'd had to put up with his brothers too ... ugh ... and between the three of them I would still have been left cold at night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WritingIsMyReligion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
101. "Cool"?
I'm a die-hard feminist, as my siggy (WHEN IT APPEARS!) shows. I highly dislike the idea of polygyny, even if it is all "okay."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Sep 18th 2014, 02:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC