Plural Marriage

K

Kotoko

Laptop Persocom
Registered Senior Member
My husband and I have talked at length about the idea of plural marriage. It came up in another thread, so I decided to discuss it here.

The common misconception is that a woman who would agree to a plural marriage is a lesbian. I am not interested in having sex with other women. I admire other women, and sometimes find them beautiful but not in a sexual way. Just in a mutual respect for their own womanhood, and a desire for female friendship on a very close level.

I work full time, and find myself stretched very thin on a lot of fronts. I am secure in my marriage, and in my own self-image. I am not the jealous type, nor am I the greedy type. I find the idea of a second wife for my husband comforting, and a welcome lifting of a bit of my own "duties". Someone who would help keep my husband sexually satisified, help with the house duties, have a job of her own, be supportive and loving to any and all children in the household. She would have no extra restrictions, other than to stay within the boundries of the marriage as we do. (no swinging or extra-marital affairs) I suppose that if I were the more sexual of my husband and my relationship, it could also be a male and likewise my husband wouldn't be interested in him sexually (neither of us is bisexual) but on a friendship and life-sharing level.


Sharing our lives with a third person, when we both have so much love and affection to share sounds very good to me. I don't see anything wrong with these ideas, and nothing harmful to anyone involved. I am curious to find out what you all think.
 
If you both so clearly feel that it would be a good thing I see no problem with it. It would provide you with some help around the house, some financial help, and a close friend. Your husband would also be fully satisfied and have another close friend to confide in. It would provide a third person to help with the kids providing them with another person to lay down the rules, give them attention, and general care.
 
Well, I think that plural marriage is a hard pill for some people to swallow. I also think that the current going-ons of some members of the Mormon church in Utah make the question even more of a challenge. Those men are marrying women as young as 13, and sometimes sisters or mothers of each other. Not to mention that there is widespread child abuse, and abuse of the welfare and tax system also going on. I think for the most part that polygamy will never be legalized because of the horrible connotations brought about by this group of corrupt individuals.

I also think that marriage should be a contractual affair between two parties, instead of a religious affair. I think that two parties should be able to draft up and agree upon a set of rules and consequences if someone in the marriage breaks those rules. There can be addendums to the contract as long as both parties agree, and there can even be lengths of time with options to renew.

I think that people are too rigid in their ideal of marriage, and people who want to live outside those laws, but with equal protection under marriage laws get screwed for it. Homosexuals also get the short end of the stick by both the law and the court system when it comes to our current marriage statuates, and it's wholly unfair. People should have equal rights under the law, and it clearly isn't the case. In the case of homosexuals, I would even go so far as calling it discrimination based on gender, which is completely unconsitutional. Marriage law excludes people of the same gender marrying, which is discrimination.

We cannot always chose who to love, or how we love one another. And it shouldn't be up to a court of law. With the exception being anyone who is being victimized, like a child or someone with serious mental handicap, I think we need to rethink why we feel that we can tell others how to love.
 
The case you put forward is exactly the case for 'plural marriages', it works for some, so why not? It is perfectly logical.

The only thing you do have to be aware of is that despite your security now, if your husband shows more attention sexually or otherwise to his new 'novelty' wife than to you, jealousy and conflict may arise. This is the downside and you won't know if thats gonna be an issue really until it happens. Good luck.

Also bear in mind the effect the plural marriage may have for the kids dealings with their peers. You being strong enough to deal with any social exclusion through your 'unsusual' life style choice is one thing, forcing it onto kids who may be less equipped to handle any negative reaction is something else. But again, you know your kids better than anyone and can perhaps discuss the matter with them. Include them in the process.
 
We've talked about that, actually. And we may wait until the children are old enough to handle it. They are pretty secure and confident children, but peers can be really ruthless. So we'll have to see. It's not something we are actively pursuing, but something we are interested in doing in our lives. It probably will not happen until both of my kids are old enough to make their own life choices and live on their own if they choose.

I have been in a situation before in a previous relationship with a bisexual man who slept with both males and females and it did not make me jealous. It was his wanton disregard for my safety and his reckless abandon that marred our relationship. However, you are right. My husband is someone who I've been deeply in love with for many years, so it might be quite different.
 
Yep, youa re right Kotoko, it does depend who u are with.

My two ex's I could happily have shared them! In fact this idea of other wife always appealed to me too with my ex! But I would not want to share my new love, and see his affections for me dwindle as his ardour for some new fresh thing increased.

Meanwhile re yourself, It would be awful if your husband and new wife fell in love and decided they didn't want 'plural' and left you out of the picture! You know yourself and you know your husband but you don't know the mind of the third person and what they may bring into the relationship that you cannot anticipate.

Maybe you should look at other ways to get help with home and kids? A live in nanny or if you can't afford this, a lodger who in return for bed and board helps with kids from time to time?
Re sexual side of things, you would find with less pressures on you re work and kids, your stress levels would decline, you'd feel less tired, your sex drive would improve.
Maybe these are alternatives to your current situation?
 
I don't believe that anyone who doesn't parent can give the kind of love and support to a child that I think children deserve. I feel so strongly about that, that my husband and I worked out a plan where he stays home with the children while I work because I have larger earning potential and a stable job market. He is at home for them all the time, and I do not have to worry about them not being raised with a consistant head and heart. It's important to me.

We do have a maid that comes once a week and she does light cleaning and the laundry (I abhor laundry and it used to stress me out to no end).

We balance the chores, but I do the cooking. I love to cook, and find it frustrating to not have the time to enjoy what I am making and experiment. I would love to have an extra hand to help me chop carrots. It's not really that I am tired, just that I like to take time and smell the roses. It makes me more thankful for things and therefore more pleasent.

As for my sex drive, it's very healthy but again I want to have time to actually enjoy a night of pleasure instead of just making it quick because it's past our bedtime or because we finally got the kids to sleep.

As for him running off with the other woman, if that made him happy then I would be supportive of that. I have no fears of being alone, as I have spent years alone without the need for intimacy. And I would not have to worry about supporting myself, as I have supported the family for a long time. I guess for me, it just makes a lot of sense. Other options seem like temporary fixes for what I'm really looking for.
 
Wouldn't a third partner become a commonlaw after living with you guys.. that way.. for a few years?

Basically a contract, no?
 
Basically, but really not afforded the same security under the law. Since a marriage already exists, he/she would not be part of the marital estate. Therefore, they would likewise be excluded from spousal benefits or rights to the home should one or both of us pass away. I don't see that as fair, as in that arrangement someone always gets screwed because of current law.

Contractual agreements between all parties would provide a safety net and a comfort to all parties.
 
If it floats you boat, go for it. My husband and I are both very territorial (not jealous, just territorial). I don't think such arrangements would work for us, but if your party were to move into our neighborhood we sure wouldn't judge you for it. We might find it odd, but as they say, "It's your thang, do what you wanna do, I can't tell you who to sock it to..."

I think you're right to wait until the kids get a bit more mature. It shows your head and heart are in the right place.
 
Kotoko said:
My husband and I have talked at length about the idea of plural marriage. It came up in another thread, so I decided to discuss it here.

The common misconception is that a woman who would agree to a plural marriage is a lesbian. I am not interested in having sex with other women. I admire other women, and sometimes find them beautiful but not in a sexual way. Just in a mutual respect for their own womanhood, and a desire for female friendship on a very close level.

I work full time, and find myself stretched very thin on a lot of fronts. I am secure in my marriage, and in my own self-image. I am not the jealous type, nor am I the greedy type. I find the idea of a second wife for my husband comforting, and a welcome lifting of a bit of my own "duties". Someone who would help keep my husband sexually satisified, help with the house duties, have a job of her own, be supportive and loving to any and all children in the household. She would have no extra restrictions, other than to stay within the boundries of the marriage as we do. (no swinging or extra-marital affairs) I suppose that if I were the more sexual of my husband and my relationship, it could also be a male and likewise my husband wouldn't be interested in him sexually (neither of us is bisexual) but on a friendship and life-sharing level.


Sharing our lives with a third person, when we both have so much love and affection to share sounds very good to me. I don't see anything wrong with these ideas, and nothing harmful to anyone involved. I am curious to find out what you all think.
Click to expand...


why not just be friends? marriage is a hoax to begin with. you would have no dillemma or problem of this nature whatsoever, had you only abdicated the institution of marriage.
 
Marriage isn't a hoax. It's a contract. It's all hearts and flowers only on the surface. My husband and I worked out the legal and financial pros and cons of marriage before going for it. Prior to that we had been living together for about 5 years. We were both up to our eyeballs in debt. He had the money (finally), but no time to work with creditors for payments. I had no money aside from bare survival funds, but plenty of time to handle arrangements and other business matters. Separately, our individual accounts were considered private matters with the institutions, so they wouldn't discuss his affairs with me. I had access to his money and was able to work with my creditors, but to work with his we had to become one legal entity. Once we had the marriage certificate his creditors had no choice but to deal with me. Now we are both 100% debt-free (aside from usual monthly stuff like utilities, etc.).

I've heard it said "Don't marry someone you can't live with." I say, don't marry someone you can't work with.
 
Oxygen said:
Marriage isn't a hoax. It's a contract. It's all hearts and flowers only on the surface. My husband and I worked out the legal and financial pros and cons of marriage before going for it. Prior to that we had been living together for about 5 years. We were both up to our eyeballs in debt. He had the money (finally), but no time to work with creditors for payments. I had no money aside from bare survival funds, but plenty of time to handle arrangements and other business matters. Separately, our individual accounts were considered private matters with the institutions, so they wouldn't discuss his affairs with me. I had access to his money and was able to work with my creditors, but to work with his we had to become one legal entity. Once we had the marriage certificate his creditors had no choice but to deal with me. Now we are both 100% debt-free (aside from usual monthly stuff like utilities, etc.).

I've heard it said "Don't marry someone you can't live with." I say, don't marry someone you can't work with.
Click to expand...

look, the whole institution of marriage is a hoax. it is the legalization of a commitment between two people. why is there any need for that/ why should there be a need for your commitment to be officialized, other than so you have some legal recourse when it doesnt work out? if this needs to be done what is the value of the commitment in the first place? ditch marriage, and you still have the ability to do everything that you can within marriage (excepting the legal benefits, which i see as grossly unfair) only your commitment is honest and does not rely on the threat of legal penalty as a source of its cohesion.
 
Why do you say 'hoax'? A hoax is something that is not true. Marriages are true. They really happen. Some even last. We're on year 3 ourselves.

I understand if you mean that people don't need a legal and binding contract to be a couple, but the legal aspect is the whole origin of marriage. You married to secure holdings and political power. The lower classes started using the institution to emulate the higher classes. They didn't have money or land to base it on, so they based it on emotions, which are freely available to everyone. Now it's just the established tradition.

If it wasn't for the legal benefit of being able to handle each other's financial and legal concerns, we'd probably still be living together. You can't know a person for 15 years without having a good idea if you're going to be able to make it as a couple. Neighbors, friends, drinking buddies, partners, spouses. That was the path it took. We laugh, we fight, we goof around, we've got each other's backs. We didn't need a contract of marriage to do all that, but the contract of marriage gave us the extra legal muscle we needed to win the battle to get out of debt.

If you don't mind my asking, have you ever been married?
 
perplexity said:
If only.

My son was already 9 years old when I married my wife, reluctantly because we'd thought that the commitment between us was nobody else's business in terms of anything written on a piece of paper.

To this day I would agree in terms of personal honesty, that for as far as the our own relationship is concerned we'd be better off with no piece of paper. Far better to know that after 25 years we want to be together but non just because of a legal obligation.

In contractual terms marriage is not so much of a good deal anyway,
examined in practical terms it does tend to lumber you with more by way of obligation rather than the power of any sort to meet the obligation.

However, in the mean time, through 1980 to 1989, we were mostly apart from each other, with our son in Finland and me in the UK, while we struggled with formal appeals to the UK immigration department, for that was before Finland joined the European Union.
Today there would be no impediment.

You could say that in the end we gave in. The battle of principle achieved nothing, a waste of time energy and opportunity. The system did not cave in. My son grew up without the experience of a father to be close to.

With hindsight I was far too stubborn.
If we'd attempted to compromise by drawing up at least a contract on our own chosen terms,
we might have got somewhere.

Well designed contracts eliminate argument.
It is good to know where you stand.

I support the cause of reform;
the institution of marriage is horribly out of date;
but the idea that you are better off with an hoc arrangement,
from day to day as need be, that is really rather silly.

If a situation arises as described by the subject of this thread,
I think it eminently sensible to think in practical contractual terms, good for all concerned.

Cohesion is much more a matter foresight, than it is of hindsight.
Hindsight is a mug's game, not a great deal of use at the best of times.

With best wishes,
Ron Harvey, London, UK

---
Click to expand...

i guess i agree and disagree with you. marriage, when all is said and done, is about ownership. its about property and the enforcement of property rights. you sign a contract so that when the relationship is abolished by one party or both, there is a way to sort out who gets what, and who is possibly to blame for the end of the relationship. if i loved a person, truly loved them, and they wanted something of mine, or wanted to be with someone else, i would let them have it, because what else is love if not an expression of caring for someone else's happiness? i wouldnt say that i would let someone rampantly take advantage of me, but i wouldnt be even considering a relationship on the level of marriage if i thought the other person was selfish or greedy or untrustworthy. the idea behind marriage is to bind someone elses property to you or to your bloodline, and your property to theirs. thats how it was forever prior to the mid 19th century. it creates a framework for sorting out that property when the relationship ends, whether because the people in it die, or because they divorce. its very simple, and as far as i can see has little or nothing to do with love or honesty. i plan to never marry, yet i am certain i will find a way to be in an honest and fulfilling relationship.
 
perplexity Why do you say the institution of marriage is out of date? Are you sure you're not putting too much emphasis on the symbolic stuff, the hearts and flowers and whatnot? When I talk about marriage, I mean the contracts that, as stated above, help sort out property and legal rights, etc both during the relationship and when/if it ends. Funny, when you talk about that, everybody automatically thinks about divorce. I'm guessing a lot of folks here got into crummy relationships and are soured on the idea.

Mu husband and I would have been happy just signing a normal looking contract that declared officially that we were entitled to handle each other's affairs, etc., sort of like a shared power of attorney over our mutual assets. We didn't need the ceremony, but the minister was a mutual friend of mine and my lawyer's and the local newspaper wanted to do a story on her storefront chapel that Friday, so we stepped up plans by about three weeks. (I owed a legal bill, and my lawyer said she'd waive the bill if we did this favor for her.)

The contract of marriage today is not about defining a commitment or proving to the world that you are "in love". It's a business arrangement between two or more private individuals. It carries more weight in legal and financial dealings when your partner needs help. My husband's creditor's didn't care that he sent written authorization telling them that they could freely discuss matters with me. They wanted to see a marriage certificate proving that, as far as the world in general was concerned, we were one legal entity. Once that happened, they shit a brick because I can be a pitbull when I think some stuffed-shirt is trying to jerk me around.

If you're in a situation where that kind of teamwork with legal muscle backing it up isn't necessary, more power to you. I envy you. But life can take a dump on your head whenever it feels like, so you may want to consider marriage as an insurance policy that lets you call in someone who's more than just a f*ck-buddy to provide back-up.

Of course, if neither one of you wants to get married, go for it. I don't see a problem with it. But don't knock it for those us who got the contract. Maybe that's where the differences in our viewpoints lie. I see marriage as a defense against the external forces that can make your life a living hell, whereas most people seem to see marriage as a defense against their partner. Maybe people with that viewpoint shouldn't marry the person they're with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top