Poly on the Radio

[miss_s_b]

Today's Beyond Belief is talking about poly relationships, and the interview with the poly guy was quite interesting. He didn't make enough of communication for my liking, but he did ok. Unfortunately, they are having a post match discussion and the monogamous Christian guy is making me want to scream and throw things at the radio with his level of Not Getting It. He is going on about how broken promises hurt people and things, and ignoring the fact that in a poly relationship you don't make promises of monogamy by definition. The wanker. There's a very reasonable woman called Lisa who is cheering me up, though.

Anyway, this brings me to a poll:

Poll #2290

Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: Just the Poll Creator, participants: 32

Is it possible for a person to love more than one person deeply enough to want to spend the rest of their life with them (whether or not you personally could do it)?

Yes
28 (87.5%)

No
0 (0.0%)

Maybe/Don't Know
4 (12.5%)

Marriage should be

Between one man and one woman, for life.
0 (0.0%)

Between any two (previously uncommitted or divorced) people who want to commit to each other, for life
3 (11.1%)

Between any number of people who want to commit to each other, for life
6 (22.2%)

Between one man and one woman, for as long as it lasts
0 (0.0%)

Between any two (previously uncommitted or divorced) people who want to commit to each other, for as long as it lasts
0 (0.0%)

Between any number of people who want to commit to each other, for as long as it lasts.
18 (66.7%)

The state should

Legislate on Marriage, because what happens in people's private relationships affects all of society
4 (13.3%)

Butt out of relationships between consenting adults; as long as there is no coercion, it's nobody's business but the participants.
26 (86.7%)

This poll is faulty!

It should have more ticky boxes
14 (56.0%)

You've worded the questions all wrong!
8 (32.0%)

I can't see how other people have voted and I want to be nosey!
8 (32.0%)

Something else which I will detail at great, mansplanatory length in the comments
3 (12.0%)

---

My February Sponsor is

To view this post with minimal formatting, click here. To view this post in your own Dreamwidth style, click here.

Comments

[pmoodie]

Seems to me that most marriages fail anyway, so what's so special and shiny about the good old fashioned man/women monogamous stuff?

On the other hand, I think I personally would find it very hard to maintain a serious relationship with more than one person at a time. I think it would get very complicated and I crave a simple life. But that's not to say that other people can't make it work.

I suppose it would be ideal for the state to keep it's nose out, but obviously there needs to be some kind of official framework for when the marriage falls apart (or someone dies) and it all gets legal, with people squabbling over money, children and DVD collections.

[matgb]

Seems to me that most marriages fail anyway

Actually, not true.

Most first marriages are fairly succesful. The problem is that those that fail and get divorced have a tendency to try again, and then get divorced, inflating the divorce statistics to make it look like a lot of marriages fail.

Last I looked at an analysis of the stats, 5/6^ths of first marriages end naturally (ie with the death of one or other partner).

How many of them are "happy" marriages wasn't covered, but I'd guess the majority TBH.

It's those damned serial monogamists that cause all the problems.

[pmoodie]

That surprises me, I must say.

I wonder how the stats break down if you look at different age-groups. I'll bet it's the older couples that mostly stick together.

[innerbrat]

TB absolutely fair, they only 'fail' if you define 'success' by the death does us part clause. If you define success and failure in other ways, then your numbers will change.

[pmoodie]

Well maybe "fail" was a poor choice of words, but if you don't go into a marriage with a view towards the death do us part stuff, then why get married at all?

I would judge any relationship to have "failed" if one or other of the people involved is no longer happy with the person (or people) to whom they made a committment.

[pmoodie]

And I would judge my spelling to have failed if I put an extra "t" in commitment.

[ginasketch]

I disagree with the "til death do us part" stuff. I think there's too much emphasis placed on staying together forever. If it works out, great! If it doesn't, then so what? I think this emphasis makes people stay in abusive relationships out of obligation to that oath and the mainstream definition of marriage.

Also, I personally could not live with a partner again. This has nothing to do with the partner themselves, but the fact that I like having freedom and space to be alone if I want to. Living with someone for 5 years under the same roof nearly broke me, regardless of whether that person was a jerk or not.

If I had married Mike, this would have been the living arrangement- our own spaces.
According to the traditional view of marriage, you buy a house together and live under the same roof or you are a "weirdo."

Who cares what the situation is if it makes people happy.

[pmoodie]

I disagree with the "til death do us part" stuff.

Oh, I agree completely. I think you should commit to someone for as long as it works, but if it doesn't, that's it. You shouldn't just walk away without trying to make it work, but neither should you stick with it if one or both (or more) of the people is miserable.

This is why I don't intend to get married. I don't see the need for it. I'm in a relationship with El, we live together and we're happy. Why do we need to have the state put an official stamp on it?