Polygamy

Post Reply New Topic

I think you'll find a favourite practice of human beings is to invent, re-invent, and appropriate words for their own usage. It's a huge part of identity. We like being different so we take or invent new words and make them mean what we want them to mean. It irritates me also but there's nothing you can do except simply don't use the words. I don't use words like "neurodiverse", "-phobic" (unless a person actually is psychologically terrified by the prefix), "cis-gendered"....

It just seems to me that words being invented/re-appropriated has no benefit other than to the ego of one using such words. For everyone else, it creates division and keeps humanity from coming together and co-existing. If such a thing is even possible.

Back on topic!

If polyamory ever became a thing, I'd be fine with it because as I said in a previous post in here that I didn't flesh out: it's either monogamy or nothing. The drama with my past/current relationship that I've mentioned in about half of my posts so far helps me see that there are benefits to not being in a relationship. So if what some in this thread are saying is true about women simply piling on to the "desirable" men, it would be no skin off my back.

And if I really wanted a relationship, if that came to pass? If the overreacting of "Polyamory is the end of the less than desirable male!" is actually true? I'd convert to Christianity or a religion that really values monogamy and get hitched.

But with so few neurodiverse people self-aware, if multiple marriages are allowed we'll end up with polygyny, not polyamory in practice, won't we? If polyamory is allowed and polygyny not allowed how is that to be recognized and enforced in practice?

Where is whats his name? I can't remember it to save my life. Lives in NOLA, he's a film maker, I once said I'd eat him like ice cream cause he's hot? Haven't seen him around in a while but him and his old lady are poly, and could probably give you a good definition of it.

From what i know from the scene, polyamorous people can have more than one romantic relationship at once, or they can have a relationship that is just sexual on the side. It's whatever the people involved in the relationship want it to be. It's the same as M/s. Some people go all Gorean and never drop role and it's not even a role to them anymore, and others just do it for a scene. So just like anything else, it's up to individuals. YKIOKIJNMK.

Polygamous is marrying more than one spouse at once. The govt says YKINOK

That's true and a real problem. I have no solution for that. OTOH, polygyny would be mostly NTs, so this would just get some NT women monopolized by NT males, and some low-status NT males will be left alone. At least that is if we mostly have NTs hook up with NTs, and neurodiverse people hook up with neurodiverse people.

Why and how would you have that?

Why are you assuming it's going to be one man with many ladies? It could just as easily be one lady with many guys.

Because it most likely happened before http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20 ... women.html

and on an enormous scale.

It's good to hear different perspectives on here about polygamy and polyamory. I consider myself both a demisexual and sapoiosexual individual. Therefore, in order for me to have any relationship with a person they'd have to be intellectually compatible in some ways and also feel some emotions toward them before pursing anything sexual with a person.

That being said, if it turns out that the older aspie man that I like is not hypersexual or at least prefer a moderate amount of sex than I certainly would not be open to pursing anything with him. What it boils down to is this: I can have a friendship with anyone. And I would not even consider it to be polygamy or even polyamory if we are not actively engaged in a physical relationship with one another. To me, that doesn't even make any logical sense. Again, it would just be a friendship, and I've got several of those already. There has to be both chemistry there and a way to satisfy my urges.

Although autism is something that affects me, it is also something that I've worked on to not see as an impediment to forming attachments to people. Of course, easier said than done. But with practice it has become easier to talk with people and relate a little bit. Over the years, I've been on many dates...some good some bad.

In my opinion, the one major part that would be difficult is if the two women (assuming it is this type of arrangment) became jealous of one another it could cause many problems. Although there is reluctance to admit this, it would be hard for me to not get upset if he spent more time focusing on her rather than keeping a balance. Also, I'm not quite sure that I'd see us all sleeping in a king size bead with one another, lol. It is hard to imagine that.

http://www.wowowow.com/liz-smith/liz-sm ... t-his-way/

Jerry, Jane, and Sue--even the kids are OK with the relationships. Though the Hollywood stars are uncomfortable talking about it--if you watch the HBO special.

Thanks for sharing the article. It was particularly interesting in the last portion where it talks about how it has worked for them. It sounds like he was honest in telling her about this other woman and she was willing to stay married to him. I'm glad that the immediate family as a whole seems to be okay with their arrangement.

Because that is the only thing that works with being NT. When women pair up with multiple males, the males don't know who is father of their children, and thus they don't wan't to support her or the children. It's called paternal uncertainty, and it's an evolutionary principle in multiple species. However, when a male take multiple wives, there is no uncertainty who is father or mother, so it works.

My hypothesis is that polyamory only works in the evolutionary sense when it's combined with asexuality (that is people only have sex in order to reproduce), and the father is responsible for children.

So, in practice, most neurodiverse females will be monopolized by neurotypical males, including some of those who would have otherwise remained alone

I wouldn't be comfortable with sexual polyamory. For me it looks too much like cheating, but there are of course many people that are like that. Personally, I'm definitely only into asexual polyamory.



For me, the difference between a friendship and a relationship is a crush. If you have a crush on somebody, it cannot be a friendship. And a crush doesn't need to have any sexual background.

With genetic testing there is no longer any uncertainty. A few minutes on the Love and Dating forum is all that takes for me to find males that say they would like relationships, but are incapable of supporting a spouse or the children. Perhaps not this sort of relationship, but a relationship nonetheless without a job or steady income capable of supporting a family.

I do understand what you are saying. Am basically conveying that my opinion differs on this subject. I'm in my 30s, not in high school with a crush. It is understandable to have polygamy to me. But how many grown men and women do you know that are married and living with a woman who is simply a "crush" and is not engaging in sex with him. Women have sexual needs to especially at this peak/age. It should definitely be clearly discussed with your intent beforehand if you plan on pursing this, in all fairness. My take on it is this: if you are not wanting sex...fine...but if she is expecting sex and you do not want to do that, more than likely you two are going to be very incompatible. I would never live with a man that I seriously liked and not have sex with him...it seems pointless to me. Why not just have a crush from afar at the office or at school...no point in living with someone if it is the same in public as it is at home. What exactly would the woman be getting out of this by living in this situation. To play scrabble or watch some TV? Again she can do any of this at home or with friends/family. Perhaps I am confused??? There is no way that I would live with someone who just wanted to hang out with one another. It's pointless. If he even asked me, even as much as I liked him, I would laugh at the request.

Yes, our opinions definitely differs, and I find it really rewarding to have a crush just like in high school. That's something that never seems to change.



I know a few, and I bet many people that have been married for a while no longer find sex that interesting. The crush typically wears off within a few years at most, and after that you are together because you have an attachment to each others.



Yes, but wife is mostly asexual just like I am. There is also a pretty good tool to specifically target asexual people: You let the contact phase take a long time, and if they are sexual they just cannot wait, so those will just get tired of a purely romantic setting with no sex.



The same as a man: Company, love, affection, commitment, attachment, doing things together, possibly children. About everything except sex.



Not the same thing. You typically won't cohabitate with friends or family, and you won't get children with them either. The commitment (if there is any) between friends is not as strong, and there won't be any romantic attachment.