Bigamy

[Coito ergo sum]

My relatives have been here since 1066

and mine have lived in Normandy since 853

And mine were the source of the word "Normandy".

Mine, too. Also the city of York

[Coito ergo sum]

My relatives have been here since my great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, granny was raped on a Viking raid.

...I heard she wanted it.

[Animavore]

My relatives have been here since my great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, granny was raped on a Viking raid.

...I heard she wanted it.

Who wouldn't?

[Svartalf]

My relatives have been here since 1066

and mine have lived in Normandy since 853

And mine were the source of the word "Normandy".

Hallo Cousin.

[Jason]

[JimC]

If only we were descended from Bonobos...

[Clinton Huxley]

My relatives have been here since 1066

and mine have lived in Normandy since 853

And mine were the source of the word "Normandy".

Mine, too. Also the city of York

Yes, but we are still in the same house. Need to get the bloody plumbing sorted.

[camoguard]

The self assembling business or contract relationship works well until children are factored in. They did not not consent to any of the contracts. So the big questions arise when, say, wife 4 didn't give birth to any kids, but was the primary caretaker of three kids fathered by her husband with other wives. If wife 4 files for divorce, does she have any claim to custody or visitation of her nonbiological children?

What happens to the marital home if husband 2 did the bulk of the financing of the home, but he files for divorce and wants husbands 1, and 3, and wives 1 through 4 out of the house, but he wants to stay married to wife 5?

Guardianship can be a process much as it already is which deals with wife 4. Also, did you know that a step parent who gets divorced can file for visitation with the step children. As a step father in that situation I think that's awesome. So guardianship has standards. If people have an issue, they file a claim. We have a system for that mostly. If you can show some level of parenting over some significant period of time or something, you've got a case.

As for divorce, I mentioned the business model. I think that's like quitting your job. For the greatest simplicity, I would look at each person as their own business with their roster of employees. When you divorce, you would legally end your employees' stake in your relationship. If they don't end their relationship in somebody who happens to be related to you, then that's fine with me. Everybody has their own one-to-many relationship. It's easy to keep track of.

[Coito ergo sum]

The self assembling business or contract relationship works well until children are factored in. They did not not consent to any of the contracts. So the big questions arise when, say, wife 4 didn't give birth to any kids, but was the primary caretaker of three kids fathered by her husband with other wives. If wife 4 files for divorce, does she have any claim to custody or visitation of her nonbiological children?

What happens to the marital home if husband 2 did the bulk of the financing of the home, but he files for divorce and wants husbands 1, and 3, and wives 1 through 4 out of the house, but he wants to stay married to wife 5?

Guardianship can be a process much as it already is which deals with wife 4. Also, did you know that a step parent who gets divorced can file for visitation with the step children. As a step father in that situation I think that's awesome. So guardianship has standards. If people have an issue, they file a claim. We have a system for that mostly. If you can show some level of parenting over some significant period of time or something, you've got a case.

You're missing it. The difficult issue is not wife 4 asserting her rights -- it's the child. If wife 4 raised the kids, but did not birth them, will the kids have the right to a parental relationship with her? That is one of the myriad thorny problems.

It's not that situations can't be envisioned where it can be sorted out -- the problem is that an already difficult to sort out system is made orders of magnitude more thorny by adding more and more marital relationships to the same family.

As for divorce, I mentioned the business model. I think that's like quitting your job. For the greatest simplicity, I would look at each person as their own business with their roster of employees. When you divorce, you would legally end your employees' stake in your relationship. If they don't end their relationship in somebody who happens to be related to you, then that's fine with me. Everybody has their own one-to-many relationship. It's easy to keep track of.

It's not that simple. Much of divorce law has been designed to protect certain persons who were traditionally disfavored in the marital relationship. If you make it an even-footing business model, where the terms are negotiated, can you think of any demographic that is going to generally lose out?

And, merely saying that you would legally end your employees' stake in your relationship doesn't address the issues -- is the marital home sold and proceeds divided? What happens to bank accounts? What happens when there are 5 spouses, one wants to divorce, and he or she was one who sacrificed a career to stay home -- do all the other spouses pay alimony? Is child support paid by the noncustodial ex-spouse even for non-biological children>? Why or why not?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've only met one "extended" family that worked. Four women, three men, somewhere between 7 and 11 kids. (They never actually stopped long enough to count them.) They had been together long enough to have kids in high school. For legal purposes they had a contract to share property. etc., but they rotated sleeping arrangements with a blissful disregard for what society thought was "normal". Happiest family group I've ever encountered.

[camoguard]

The self assembling business or contract relationship works well until children are factored in. They did not not consent to any of the contracts. So the big questions arise when, say, wife 4 didn't give birth to any kids, but was the primary caretaker of three kids fathered by her husband with other wives. If wife 4 files for divorce, does she have any claim to custody or visitation of her nonbiological children?

What happens to the marital home if husband 2 did the bulk of the financing of the home, but he files for divorce and wants husbands 1, and 3, and wives 1 through 4 out of the house, but he wants to stay married to wife 5?

Guardianship can be a process much as it already is which deals with wife 4. Also, did you know that a step parent who gets divorced can file for visitation with the step children. As a step father in that situation I think that's awesome. So guardianship has standards. If people have an issue, they file a claim. We have a system for that mostly. If you can show some level of parenting over some significant period of time or something, you've got a case.

You're missing it. The difficult issue is not wife 4 asserting her rights -- it's the child. If wife 4 raised the kids, but did not birth them, will the kids have the right to a parental relationship with her? That is one of the myriad thorny problems.

It's not that situations can't be envisioned where it can be sorted out -- the problem is that an already difficult to sort out system is made orders of magnitude more thorny by adding more and more marital relationships to the same family.

As for divorce, I mentioned the business model. I think that's like quitting your job. For the greatest simplicity, I would look at each person as their own business with their roster of employees. When you divorce, you would legally end your employees' stake in your relationship. If they don't end their relationship in somebody who happens to be related to you, then that's fine with me. Everybody has their own one-to-many relationship. It's easy to keep track of.

It's not that simple. Much of divorce law has been designed to protect certain persons who were traditionally disfavored in the marital relationship. If you make it an even-footing business model, where the terms are negotiated, can you think of any demographic that is going to generally lose out?

And, merely saying that you would legally end your employees' stake in your relationship doesn't address the issues -- is the marital home sold and proceeds divided? What happens to bank accounts? What happens when there are 5 spouses, one wants to divorce, and he or she was one who sacrificed a career to stay home -- do all the other spouses pay alimony? Is child support paid by the noncustodial ex-spouse even for non-biological children>? Why or why not?

I'm making the claim that the system already works to analyze wife 4's situation. It already exists.

As for the second half, I'm not making the claim that multiple shapes of relationships are less complicated than marriages. They have the same problems. And with children and money and staying at home, regulation might need looking into. We have an adaptive system of laws. I'm fine just letting things play out a case at a time. Smart and cautious people will prenegotiate contractually. Screwed over people who don't prepare will have to sue like they do now.

[FBM]

It ain't cheatin' if everybody does it: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/21/opini ... index.html

Face it: Monogamy is unnatural

(CNN) -- Kristen Stewart, Ryan Phillippe, LeAnn Rimes, Jude Law, Mark Sanford and Bill Clinton. What do they have in common?
Many are quick to label a person who strays from his or her marriage or relationship as a "cheater," but it's really not that simple. It's time for our culture to wake up and smell the sex pheromones: monogamy is not natural for many, or probably even most, humans.
With people living longer than ever before, a greater tolerance toward the human impulse to experience sexual variety is needed. Whether a person succeeds at being sexually monogamous depends as much on biology as environment.

History and biology suggest that strict monogamy, which has social advantages, is not a "one size" fits all proposition.
The rise of the love marriage
Marrying for love is a relatively new concept. Beginning with Enlightenment -- the cultural movement of the 18th and 19th centuries -- when the pursuit of happiness became a legitimate human pursuit, marrying for love slowly but surely became an aspiration in the Western world.
But for most of human history, marriage was primarily a socioeconomic transaction. Spending the rest of your life with someone was more about the protection of property and the sharing of labor than it was about romance.

The side effect of the rise of marriage as a romantic proposition was that sexual jealousy became a more prevalent ingredient in marriage than it had been previously. Over time, sexual fidelity has come to be regarded as the barometer of a successful marriage -- regardless of what science tells us about natural human inclinations.
Mate debate: Is monogamy realistic?
Lovebirds cheat
Biologically, we humans are animals. So it makes sense to look to the animal kingdom for clues as to what we are built for. Let's start with birds. For some time, bird species such as lovebirds and penguins were celebrated among humans for their seemingly monogamous ways. About 90% of birds were thought to be strictly monogamous.
But DNA fingerprinting knocked birds off the monogamy perch. Analysis of avian DNA indicates that many nestlings' fathers are not their biological fathers.
This led experts to distinguish between unions that are sexually exclusive and those that are socially monogamous -- meaning a pair that raises a family together but indulges in what are called "extra pair copulations."
"Faithless pairing" is the norm
The evidence shows that monogamy is a rarity among mammals. Only 3% to 5% of all the mammal species on Earth "practice any form of monogamy." In fact, no mammal species has been proven to be truly monogamous.
One species, the prairie vole was subjected to scrutiny by biologists because it appeared to be truly monogamous. But it turns out that as a species, it just has a very high rate of sexual monogamy. Not every prairie vole resists straying.
Studies of prairie voles helped scientists understand that from a chemical and biological standpoint, sexual monogamy depends not just on particular hormones that are released in the brain, but on receptors for these hormones.
Among humans, here's the rub: we have the chemicals and the receptors, but it varies from person to person how much we have. Based on brain wiring alone, inclination toward fidelity can vary dramatically from one individual to another.
In other words, "once a cheater, always a cheater," might have as much to do with brain wiring as with a person's moral compass, upbringing or culture.
The bottom line is that flings are far from folly, at least in the animal kingdom. Even swans -- symbols of fidelity -- are not immune.

One partner for 50 years?
It's also important to look at human longevity with respect to cultural expectations of monogamy.
As recent as over 100 years ago, it was far more likely that an individual would lose his or her spouse at a young age. Remarriage by widows and widowers -- also known as serial monogamy -- was one way for humans to fulfill the need for sexual variety.
Today, the median age for first marriages is 28 for men and 26 for women. Disease is far less likely to kill someone in their prime and life expectancy hovers in the late 70s.
See also: Is this how we 'do' with marriage issues?
Because fidelity is considered the barometer of a successful marriage, this means that a person is theoretically expected to have one sexual partner for about 50 years.
This seems like a lot to expect of any human being -- even the most honorable, ethical and moral.
Those who are able to stay with one partner for a long haul are sometimes looked upon with awe. Certainly, a lasting and happy marriage tends to be far better for the children.
It has long been assumed that men struggle more with monogamy than women. Some experts have started to question this theory. With the development of a drug that promises to boost female libido, one can argue that sexual boredom and the temptation to stray is as big of an issue for women as it is for men, if not more so.
Human monogamy is influenced by many factors. Instead of pointing fingers or acting morally superior toward those who stray from marriages, we should recognize that strict sexual fidelity is a lofty but perhaps fundamentally doomed aspiration.
No two individuals, and no two couples are alike, and we should respect that.
Moreover, one's perspective on monogamy is not necessarily an indicator of one's personal practices. Many people have incorrectly assumed that because I've read, thought, and written about the problems with human monogamy that I am myself promiscuous.
For the record, nothing could be further from the truth. Nor am I, as many commenters on this Yahoo post suggested, a Satanist or a whore.
I am just a woman with a healthy respect for science.

[camoguard]

I'm not even attempting to have a monogamous faithful relationship. On the other hand, I'm communicating that to my partner because I think she should have that information.