Leaderboard

Wow...you really have taken this to a whole new level. First, I don't know how you can quantify anything you have said here. I agree that 'many fathers' is not equivalent to one father, but HOW DO YOU KNOW that 'partial attention by many fathers' (whatever that means) is less beneficial than 'full attention by one father' (again, whatever that means) for the children involved? I think that is more your opinion and less any supported fact. Second, cultures in Africa and Asia that 'practice poly' are 'backwards socially, politically...etc'? That is a highly ethnocentric point of view, and coming from someone who 'understands discrimination' I would think you'd know how to use a little more critical analysis. I think you have bought into the lies of American society that our way of life is the best and nothing else can compare. Then you straw man this to basically imply that they are backwards because they are poly...that is quite an implication and judging by that statement it serves to add more evidence to your opinion that only one MOM and one DAD should have kids...no alternatives. Not to further add to the hijack of this post, but if these 'poly' cultures are dying (if that is even happening, I am just placating your claims), is it because they voluntarily want to adopt some western ideology? Or is it because they are being forced to do it? Or is there some other outside influence that is unseen? You can't just assert that because a subservient culture assimilates into its dominant culture that the less powerful culture actually wants to do it. And even if assimilation is successful, does that mean all of that primary culture is discarded? Or do the two cultures combine with aspects of both the subservient and dominant (you only need to look at Haiti's Voodoo and Jamaica's Rastafarian religions to get an answer to that)? You must provide all types of anthropological data to support this statement or your claim just looks bigoted. And more over, are you really going to use the "Western" model of marriage and family as the end all ultimate example, with our 50+% divorce rates, dead beat, overworked and stressed out parents, child abuse/neglect figures, etc? Something isn't working in the nuclear family ideal, and I wholeheartedly support someone elses' choice to introduce children into their alternative lifestyle as long as the kids are loved, supported and cared for (by however many parents) because at this point, it can only add benefit to a highly flawed model. I guess we atheists are just supposed to roll over and die because the christians/muslims are taking over? Whatever, if for nothing more than just to shove it in the face of the puritanical, narcissistic personalities like those of the religious right and fundamentalist muslims I support all of our rights to raise a family in whatever healthy way we choose.

I think the issue of multiple parents can be either a good thing or a bad thing for kids. If the parents are all dedicated to being parents then I think the kids home life will be great. Just like kids with two great parents. It's all about the parents and whether they are good parents or not. Nothing to do with the number of parents. There might be some challenges when the parents of other kids are involved, but other parents are going to judge you whether you have a 'normal' household or a poly household. There will always be parents who won't let their kids play with your kids for some reason or another. Why define your life, and your families life, by what some unknown random person might, or might not, do? Screw em! Live your life the way you want to, that is my philosophy anyway.

Big Rock, I know I'm always suggesting that you read something, but Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality by Christopher Ryan, Ph.D. & Cacilda Jethá, M.D. discusses societies in the past and present where poly families are the standard. Here is a description of the book from the website: "Ryan and Jethá show that our ancestors lived in egalitarian groups that shared food, child care, and often, sexual partners. Weaving together convergent, often overlooked evidence from anthropology, archeology, primatology, anatomy, and psychosexuality, the authors show how far from human nature sexual monogamy really is. They expose the ancient roots of human sexuality while pointing toward a more optimistic future illuminated by our innate capacities for love, cooperation, and generosity. In the tradition of the best historical and scientific writing, SEX AT DAWN unapologetically upends unwarranted assumptions and unfounded conclusions while offering a revolutionary understanding of why we live and love as we do. A controversial, idea-driven book that challenges everything you know about sex, marriage, family, and society." You need to work on thinking about what you say before you type. You make yourself seem xenophobic and uninformed. It is not an endearing quality.

Years prior to my wife and I considering swinging, we often had debates/discussion about my having been briefly involved in a polyamorous triad in the year before I met her. She had rather strong opinions that it was wrong, and that the married couple had broken their vows, and I was wrong for aiding them in doing that. My response to that was that no cheating happened, everybody knew and approved of what was going on, and no promises were broken...even marital vows...that they (the couple) had not previously agreed were no longer valid. Life isn't set in stone. A decision you make when your 25 doesn't mean you have to be chained to that decision for the rest of your life (in this case a vow of sexual monogamy) if you both agree to change that decision. Also, agreeing to have sex with others does not have to mean you are somehow despoiling your marriage. For many swinging couples, it's rather the opposite. It can add so much to a marriage that a "vanilla" marriage will never be able to experience. Marriage is an institution. But, as with any institution you are not being forced to partake of an external definition of what that institution is. If you enter a monastery, taking vows of celibacy, and later decide to leave the monastery...have you broken the institution? No, you've decided the definition of that institution given to you is one that does not work for you anymore. You are not chained to that institution. There are many ways in which you can serve a purpose that while initially might be embodied in one institution, you find at a later juncture does not have all the answers for you. Marriage is such an institution. More; marriage is not a monolithic definition that applies in absolute rigidity across all cultures, all times, all people. The very definition of marriage is highly subjective, viewing through those lenses. What is YOUR definition of marriage? That's the most important question. Not someone else's idea of the definition, or some church, group, culture, etc. Figure out your own definition. It is your life, and only your life. Nobody else should get to dictate to you in what manner you choose to express, enjoy, and revel in your marriage. For my wife and I, our definition is our unending commitment of love, of souls, of family, of life to each other. Nobody can hold a candle to that. Whether someone is enjoying a lunch time conversation with my wife or is having sex with her without my being there (but of course in the know), they can not violate our marriage, and what it means to us.

First of all, give yourself a 'pat' on the back for well done conclusion about what is causing you concern, in knowing what it is, as many will not recognize jealousy or the issue. And, it is your concern and it is real. Secondly, talk to your husband and let him know direct what your concern/s are for both of you, but it must also be constructive.