Polyamory is getting slivers of legal recognition in America(economist.com)
economist.com
Polyamory is getting slivers of legal recognition in America
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/01/12/polyamory-is-getting-slivers-of-legal-recognition-in-america
47 comments
[deleted]
It's always been a pet peeve of mine that legal recognition of relationships is a thing (I understand there's tradition, and that it helps with a lot of common situations especially where children, inheritance, power of attorney etc. are involved).
Mostly it's that many relationships are complicated, and many relationships aren't as simple as the things the law recognises.
For example, I know a couple that are non-romantic life partners (that's the best description I can think of). They've lived together for 20+ years, are both single (but not interested in dating), and sleep in separate rooms. However they look after each other all the time, have a shared bank account, holiday together, have wills leaving everything to the other, and take jobs to make sure they can always live together.
From a legal point of view though, they get none of the benefits (or drawbacks) that newlyweds get, and their relationship isn't recognised for e.g. immigration purposes should that ever arise.
Mostly it's that many relationships are complicated, and many relationships aren't as simple as the things the law recognises.
For example, I know a couple that are non-romantic life partners (that's the best description I can think of). They've lived together for 20+ years, are both single (but not interested in dating), and sleep in separate rooms. However they look after each other all the time, have a shared bank account, holiday together, have wills leaving everything to the other, and take jobs to make sure they can always live together.
From a legal point of view though, they get none of the benefits (or drawbacks) that newlyweds get, and their relationship isn't recognised for e.g. immigration purposes should that ever arise.
It's like history books describing same-sex people as "friends" in every occasion.
They were together from early adulthood to old age and lived together -> "friends" :D
They were together from early adulthood to old age and lived together -> "friends" :D
> It all began with Dungeons & Dragons.
Of course it did.
Of course it did.
I guess a dungeon full of sex slaves counts as polyamory too.
Only if they consented to it and get to cuddle afterwards.
Of course. That is pretty much a requirement for traditional dungeon family values.
Doing a quick check on "Traditional Family Values" - Wikipedia lists 6 "official" and ~50 "unofficial" mistresses for Louis XV (King of France from 1715 to 1774). It notes that the Church was not exactly thrilled with this...but it was pretty much a matter of private words & feelings. RHIP, and official public criticism, sanction, etc. never seem to have been on the table.
Church was not exactly thrilled with this
Henry VIII got married: you won't believe what happened next.
Henry VIII got married: you won't believe what happened next.
If there was no "love" monogamy would just be seen as as socialism for the sexual market.
If you put 100 guys and 100 girls on an island, for the first few weeks most girls fuck the same 10/20 men. Then the other revolt, either by violence, or creating a bullshit religion where god told the to marry 1 one 1 so that all men have sex. Magic !
Theres also the issue or raising children when everyone was poor... better be a team
In real society most top guys (in any field) went through a phase where they had 2 to 5 concurrent gf
If you put 100 guys and 100 girls on an island, for the first few weeks most girls fuck the same 10/20 men. Then the other revolt, either by violence, or creating a bullshit religion where god told the to marry 1 one 1 so that all men have sex. Magic !
Theres also the issue or raising children when everyone was poor... better be a team
In real society most top guys (in any field) went through a phase where they had 2 to 5 concurrent gf
Or maybe it was an institution for women. Remember that birth control until a about 150 years ago wasn't great. So you're a woman who wants kids, wants someone strong to provide income for many of the labor based jobs. If you get pregnant you have to take care of the baby. If the top man wants 20 women, will he bother taking care of you after the baby? Will he have enough time for you? Will the wealth he amasses provide for you after he's dead? Is your kid lucky enough to be the heir to the wealth? Will you be able to compete with the other women, especially as you get older and the man keeps getting young women?
There's a reason are more selective in mating and and it would be beneficial for monogamy within marriage for a woman especially.
And if you really want to get tribal and old timey, wouldn't the other men just kill and take these top men's possessions on this island, and wouldn't the women need to come up with another option, if they did flock to the top 20?
There's a reason are more selective in mating and and it would be beneficial for monogamy within marriage for a woman especially.
And if you really want to get tribal and old timey, wouldn't the other men just kill and take these top men's possessions on this island, and wouldn't the women need to come up with another option, if they did flock to the top 20?
Lion's teaming up to take over a pride. I've seen this documentary. If this is what humanity is now chasing, I don't think its going to be good for anyone, but needs must.
I do agree with everything and at the end it's an pareto optimum for both men and women I think. No father wants his daughter end up alone with a child indeed.
That said if you want to go further, people on the forums most invested in the subject talk about a "dual mating strategy" for girls where they secretly fuck top guys while staying with lesser guys for ressources.. It's kind of a rabbit hole i warn you.
That said if you want to go further, people on the forums most invested in the subject talk about a "dual mating strategy" for girls where they secretly fuck top guys while staying with lesser guys for ressources.. It's kind of a rabbit hole i warn you.
I know a few poly folks. They seem happy, albeit mostly in a “this is fine” kind of way. Is that due to the stigma or actual unhappiness? Who knows. Plenty of societies in history had relationships like this.
Not too keen on poly groups with kids though. That seems like a huge issue with custody. Kids have so little agency as it is.
Not too keen on poly groups with kids though. That seems like a huge issue with custody. Kids have so little agency as it is.
Poly relationships usually start with one of the partners gaslighting the other into opening up the relationship while the other silently agrees to it even though they don't want it. People usually do it for stability on one hand and the feeling of excitement of having a new partner in the other without having to face the
repercussion because the other person "Agreed". My two best friends ( girl and guy ) were in a healthy relationship, the guy tried to open up the relationship, went completely downhill after that. I know small sample space. If you are unhappy just breakup and not increase complexity of the system. People will do anything rather than fix problems in their relationship.
I have seen this too, but with the genders the other way around. She wanted variety, he did not, but because he wanted her he agreed, and died quietly inside.
I've also seen poly people who were all into it equally, with various partners, not all of whom were shared amongst each other, if you get my meaning. I think if everyone is into the idea ahead of time then it can work for those involved.
AFAICT it varies a lot, and while we shouldn't generalise about all poly relationships, I think it's fair to say that some are the suffering-in-silence kind. But then you can say that about most relationship types.
I've also seen poly people who were all into it equally, with various partners, not all of whom were shared amongst each other, if you get my meaning. I think if everyone is into the idea ahead of time then it can work for those involved.
AFAICT it varies a lot, and while we shouldn't generalise about all poly relationships, I think it's fair to say that some are the suffering-in-silence kind. But then you can say that about most relationship types.
If two people are unhappy with each other, maybe drawing in third parties isn't a good idea.
I have no problems with such relationships. Certainly would never want to be in one and I don't believe they need state sanctions for anything. You can have the relationships you want and nobody stops you.
Maybe guardianship transferal could be made easier, but tax benefits for relationships should only be valid for people that actually have kids. It is also questionable for people in marriages that do not have them.
I have no problems with such relationships. Certainly would never want to be in one and I don't believe they need state sanctions for anything. You can have the relationships you want and nobody stops you.
Maybe guardianship transferal could be made easier, but tax benefits for relationships should only be valid for people that actually have kids. It is also questionable for people in marriages that do not have them.
> Poly relationships usually start with one of the partners gaslighting the other
Cite your sources?
Cite your sources?
Probably from having seen this happen in their own circles? The "cite your sources" thing is rather tiring, it is an appeal to authority where no authority is required or even desired. There are no "experts on polyamorous relationships" who can tell people how to feel when their partners decides they need a little more excitement in their life after all, or are people now expected to follow the "experts" in their love life as well?
The accusing people who are just getting on with their lives of manipulating their partners is also pretty tiring.
There actually are people studying non-monogamous relationship models out there so yes those experts do exist if you seek them out.
If your source is just "in my experience" that's fine, just make it clear that's what you are citing. Because otherwise it's just the same appeal to authority issue that you are accusing me of.
There actually are people studying non-monogamous relationship models out there so yes those experts do exist if you seek them out.
If your source is just "in my experience" that's fine, just make it clear that's what you are citing. Because otherwise it's just the same appeal to authority issue that you are accusing me of.
Yeah, then just say that. Don't mean what you wrote this time, but write "cite your sources". Just say what you mean, without playing that weird game of annoying people with irrelevant citation requests.
I'm not sure what you're expecting but "personal experience" seems like a perfectly reasonable response to my original question.
random_person: It's raining.
__alexs: CITE YOUR SOURCES!
random_person: I just came from outside and noticed.
__alexs: OK, that is a perfectly reasonable response.
Nope, the "cite your sources" thing does not work here either. It belongs on the Talk pages of Wikipedia articles or at the most in discussions where something really contentious is put forward by someone who has not given any indication of where he got his information from.
__alexs: CITE YOUR SOURCES!
random_person: I just came from outside and noticed.
__alexs: OK, that is a perfectly reasonable response.
Nope, the "cite your sources" thing does not work here either. It belongs on the Talk pages of Wikipedia articles or at the most in discussions where something really contentious is put forward by someone who has not given any indication of where he got his information from.
> discussions where something really contentious is put forward by someone who has not given any indication of where he got his information from.
Like this one apparently.
Like this one apparently.
Probably from having seen this happen in their own circles?
If that is their experience, they should say so, rather than saying what "usually" happens (their word).
"Cite your sources" is a somewhat combative way to say it, but they invited it by making broader statements than was justified.
A better conversation could have run, "In my experience, [bad thing]." And then somebody could say, "Oh, but in my experience, [good thing]. Perhaps we can put our anecdotes together and draw patterns. I'll start: the difference could be [X]".
If that is their experience, they should say so, rather than saying what "usually" happens (their word).
"Cite your sources" is a somewhat combative way to say it, but they invited it by making broader statements than was justified.
A better conversation could have run, "In my experience, [bad thing]." And then somebody could say, "Oh, but in my experience, [good thing]. Perhaps we can put our anecdotes together and draw patterns. I'll start: the difference could be [X]".
That’s my observation as well but I don’t really care what adults choose to do as long as kids aren’t involved.
I don't know anything about poly relationships, but it seems that if a couple with kids are unhappy in their relationship, and adding another adult fixes their relationship issues, then it would be a positive thing for the kids as well. Ie, kids shouldn't automatically rule out poly relationships. Though I'd agree, having kids with a person outside the marriage could be legally a mess. Then again, single people have kids all the time and have to deal with the messy details of that.
All of the things you're describing involve selfish behavior on the part of the adults. One partner wants this, both want that, but "should" seems to be missing from the equation.
The slippery slope people were right!
Degeneration of society is being accepted on the legal level.
This is an ambitious take. There are so many cogent counterarguments here that it's tough to choose one, but consider this:
The fundamental core of the American societal experiment was a separation from an overbearing authority in the pursuit of individual liberties. It seems clear to me that freedom to marry who you want, where you want, and how you want would be pursuant to that eidolon. Now, you don't have to agree with that core tenet, but on an empirical level _that rejection_ would be degeneration: a fall from first principals (which might not be a bad thing depending on your normative frameworks - I'm inferring that you're not a fan though).
The fundamental core of the American societal experiment was a separation from an overbearing authority in the pursuit of individual liberties. It seems clear to me that freedom to marry who you want, where you want, and how you want would be pursuant to that eidolon. Now, you don't have to agree with that core tenet, but on an empirical level _that rejection_ would be degeneration: a fall from first principals (which might not be a bad thing depending on your normative frameworks - I'm inferring that you're not a fan though).
What I find interesting is that it seems, in the US, that the same people who reject the control of the government in things like guns, taxes, state-level decisions, etc., are the same that want to impose control of the government on things like marriage, sex, etc.
IMO It's because - going back as far as the constitutional convention - political ideology in America has largely comprised of aesthetic movements that wear the shells of theory and policy for memetic power.
I had a religious studies professor make a - reasonably evidenced - claim that the whole 'seperation of church and state' stuff during the revolution was widely understood to basically be lip service. The vast majority of Americans were under the impression that they were starting a Christian country with a Christian government. That same professor made the - less evidenced - conclusion that the implicit divide between that expectation and the legal reality has underscored a considerable portion of American political turmoil to date.
I had a religious studies professor make a - reasonably evidenced - claim that the whole 'seperation of church and state' stuff during the revolution was widely understood to basically be lip service. The vast majority of Americans were under the impression that they were starting a Christian country with a Christian government. That same professor made the - less evidenced - conclusion that the implicit divide between that expectation and the legal reality has underscored a considerable portion of American political turmoil to date.
It makes sense since separation of church and state isn't in the constitution. The establishment clause was to avoid the establishment of a federal religion. Many states had their own state religions until the 1800s. The founders did base the idea of Natural rights based on a creator. Most were either deists or christians. It's hard to come to the idea of inalienable rights without believing in a creator.
> It's hard to come to the idea of inalienable rights without believing in a creator.
This is nonsense. Humanism is exactly about that.
This is nonsense. Humanism is exactly about that.
State or religious marriage is a relationship with an authority. You can swear eternal loyalty to anyone and however many people you want to without any of that.
Primarily state marriage is about sharing privileges and duties before the law.
Primarily state marriage is about sharing privileges and duties before the law.
While this is true on a purely de jure interpretation of the dynamics at play, a more clear-cut example - like same-sex marriage - makes it clear that the "right to marriage" includes not only the right to life-scale commitment to a person(s) but also the right to have that commitment recognized by the state. Insofar that marriage as a legal construct carries additional privileges alongside the simple recognition, which it does, the "right" to marriage must also include the "right" to access the consequent privileges or you have a structure of authority stripping those privileges by omission.
Why does it bother you that people can live their life in a way that makes them happy and fulfills them, but it in no way infringes on how you should live your life? They'd probably be happy for you that found your one soul mate; you could be happy for them too!
Edit: didn't mean to accuse you of anything, but to offer a different perspective to how the situation could be viewed
I don't think this will cause a degeneration of society. If anything, the American export of "everything is us versus them" tribal mentality to politics and society is much worse. Granted, some of that always existed but I feel like it was waning until social media and exposure to American politics started reviving it. Please don't let it influence your daily life like that
Edit: didn't mean to accuse you of anything, but to offer a different perspective to how the situation could be viewed
I don't think this will cause a degeneration of society. If anything, the American export of "everything is us versus them" tribal mentality to politics and society is much worse. Granted, some of that always existed but I feel like it was waning until social media and exposure to American politics started reviving it. Please don't let it influence your daily life like that
"Degeneration" is a meaningless word. There is no total order relation [1] defined on the set of societies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order
Whatever happened to the "don't tread on me" side of the right? Can we get those guys back?
They are there, but, as posted by others here, mostly care about gun ownership and covid restrictions and their own speech, but not about people getting literally tread on by police or humane treatment of asylum seekers, etc.
You should have thought of that when you banned them all for saying that the sky is blue and water is wet.
The "Don't tread on me" side of the population - I don't think "the right" is the correct term here - tends to be want left alone by overreaching governmental busybodies. They also tend to be more on the traditional side of societal norms - again not something which is limited to "the right", there are plenty of traditional left-wing thinkers who did not like the "free love" movement of the 60's and don't like it still - so are not wont to go for polyamory unless they happen to be Mormons and talk about polygyny.
The "Don't tread on me" side of the population - I don't think "the right" is the correct term here - tends to be want left alone by overreaching governmental busybodies. They also tend to be more on the traditional side of societal norms - again not something which is limited to "the right", there are plenty of traditional left-wing thinkers who did not like the "free love" movement of the 60's and don't like it still - so are not wont to go for polyamory unless they happen to be Mormons and talk about polygyny.
I'm not sure you answered my question but thanks for the background.
Maybe if you accept their freedom to prejudice and discriminate.
And I think it's important to remember there are reasons behind this - societies where polygamy has historically been allowed have had a ton of issues with women not entering these relationships out of free choice, nor having a choice over whether other women were brought into the relationship.
Polyamory is certainly a practice of consent and communication, and for those who do enter poly relationships with open eyes (and hearts I guess!), more power to you. And I'm glad some rights are being recognised. But we must still be cautious not to throw out some of the protections these old laws offer, even while trying not to stifle positive social change.