What's wrong with Polygamy?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:14 am

Chezzie;921776 wrote: Yes when you read the docu we had and that 20/20 piece theirs a big difference on the way its protrayed. Maybe its more common in America and they have a leaner view. I have no idea how popular it is here in the UK, hell maybe auntie mabel and auntie fanny are not sisters who live with Fannys hubby Dick...Who knows eh!!

For me personally I dont give a fig on who wants to live with who and whether their married or poly or living in sin, aslong as all parties are happy and consentful and no children are hurt in any way by their way of living.
Yup. YAAAAAY Freedom! :yh_party

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:45 pm

Wifelets?!!! What a neat expression.

I wonder if those reality TV people would be interested in my collection? Probably not. Anyway, who really wants the publicity.

AP asks her butler - Freddy Snithington Smythe - to see if her chef - Pierre BonGeule - has spoken to the head gardener - Pedro - about the asparagus. Other "staff" include a personal secretary - James, a bodyguard - Hermann, and of course her chauffeur and dog walker - Max.

The boys do occasionally brawl a bit - I guess it's all that testosterone - but they know I love each of them in a way special to each one and appreciate them all. When God made women, She put us in charge of the animals, and of course that included the boys. We - the brother hubbies and I - I think of them as hubcaps - are one big happy family.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:52 pm

AussiePam;922119 wrote: Wifelets?!!! What a neat expression.

I wonder if those reality TV people would be interested in my collection? Probably not. Anyway, who really wants the publicity.

AP asks her butler - Freddy Snithington Smythe - to see if her chef - Pierre BonGeule - has spoken to the head gardener - Pedro - about the asparagus. Other "staff" include a personal secretary - James, a bodyguard - Hermann, and of course her chauffeur and dog walker - Max.

The boys do occasionally brawl a bit - I guess it's all that testosterone - but they know I love each of them in a way special to each one and appreciate them all. When God made women, She put us in charge of the animals, and of course that included the boys. We - the brother hubbies and I - I think of them as hubcaps - are one big happy family.

so thats why your always happy...Lucky Girl:D

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:56 pm

It can be a little tiring at times, Chezzie, but it keeps a girl fit - I do have an occasional er headache - but, then.. I'm the boss. So when I want to sleep... I sleep... :sneaky:

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:59 pm

AussiePam;922128 wrote: It can be a little tiring at times, Chezzie - I do have an occasional er headache - but, then.. I'm the boss. So when I want to sleep... I sleep... :sneaky:

Im so glad the chauffer is called Max as Hart to Hart sprung to mind and she was lovely...Mrs Hart...cant remember her name..Max was the driver or was that the dog lol...Jeeez over 40 and memory fails me already...Im off to google

Singh-Song · Post by **Singh-Song** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:12 am

Personally, I cannot bring myself to condone polygamy, either in the context in which it is most often employed today (i.e, the harem), or that which seems to be being supported by the dominant voices on this forum, where the base pleasure and enjoyment of the parties involved is seen as paramount above all else. This is in spite of the fact that the overwhelming majority of stable polygamous relationships are inherently one-sided, with promiscuity and sexual freedom only open to one member, one of the largest factors to have fostered sexual inequality throughout human history. Who has taken the inevitable result of their advocated 'free love' relationships into account, considered the development and subsequent fate of the children born as a result of these relationships? These children would grow up- where? Answer- in care homes. In adoption. Broken families with a single parent, with neither the absent parent (who would be the father in 90-99% of cases) or a replacement from any of the parent's multitude of other relationships playing a substantial role in the child's upbringing. :-1 Even taking the one-in-a-million case of a stable polygamous relationship between the child's parents, with the time needed to turn other co-existing sexual relationships into anything more a 'bit on the side', how much emotional investment could the growing, developing child really hope to recieve?

Yes, for the more affluent in society, substitutes can take their place- nannies, tutoring, even relatives for those fortunate enough not to distance their families through their hedonistic lifestyles. But the likelihood of a tangible bond between parent and child, the chances of the child growing to see their parent as anything more profound than 'slut' or 'womaniser'

, is slim to non-existent.

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:05 am

Singh-Song;1126095 wrote: These children would grow up- where? Answer- in care homes. In adoption.If you'll excuse me for doubting your facts here, I think you'd find that hard to substantiate.

Singh-Song · Post by **Singh-Song** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:36 pm

Originally Posted by Singh-Song

These children would grow up- where? Answer- in care homes. In adoption.

If you'll excuse me for doubting your facts here, I think you'd find that hard to substantiate.

I continued the list to the extremely rare cases where the child would be born into a stable polygamous household, so I am not claiming that their paths would be limited to these two paths alone. To tell the truth, in real life 'Developed World' polygamous relationships, the proportion of pregnancies to actually avoid termination would probably be less than 5%, the vast majority of children exiting the womb and entering the world, not into their loving parent's arms, but into an unmarked body-bag. But even today, in our increasingly sex-obsessed society, is it any wonder that the life of an unborn child takes second place to the 'need' for regular, meaningless sex with as many partners as possible?