Posts
7:21 AM
Unknown
Jenny Sharpe of Thunder Bay responded to an article on Sister Wives/polygyny with what she sees as the possible advantages of polyandry (one woman, multiple men.)
In times of extreme global population growth and economic uncertainty why not consider “brother-husbands” family units instead?
Since I support full marriage equality, I do think people should be free to choose polyandry as well as any other marital polycule or monogamous combination.
Would it not make sense economically for four men and one woman to pool their economic resources?
Anyone pooling their resources can make sense: a man and a woman, two men, two women, three men, three women, two men and one women, etc.
We have gone from 800-square foot two-bedroom bungalows to palatial mansions in North America as family homes, which would be plenty of room for larger family units. With more adults contributing economically, it would be easier for a family to pay the mortgage, utilities and avoid foreclosure. Economic savings could then be invested in the education of the family’s offspring, or pay for a boat and motor, etc.
This family unit could be reasonably self-sufficient. If a woman chose with care, one handyman husband could replace everything from roof shingles to furnace to maintaining family vehicles. Another might be skilled at gardening or doing household accounts. One might have great prowess in intellectual pursuits and dinner conversations and one could provide musical entertainment at said parties with little need to contract such tasks out.
Sounds great.
These suggestions are often made in jest, but some people are laughing all the way to a better life.
A weakness of the “sister-wife” unit is the large number of children which might result. A “brother-husband” family unit could not produce 16 offspring (as the polygamous family of reality TV fame has done with one man and four wives). Instead, these units would heroically reduce population growth.
They would do it by their own choices, which is fine by me.
We’ve been told it takes a village to raise a child. Surely, children would thrive in the care of five loving adults rather than the traditional two.
It often works that way in deliberate poly situations; certainly better than most "monogamous" situations in which multipe stepparents who are hostile to each other are involved.
Family responsibilities such as taking a vacation day to attend school trips, or missing pay to pick up a sick child from school could more efficiently be juggled by five adults, especially when grandparents live miles away.
This is all true. Polyandry, polygyny, or whatever, let people decide for themselves. An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination."item"'>Jenny Sharpe of Thunder Bay responded to an article on Sister Wives/polygyny with what she sees as the possible advantages of polyandry (one woman, multiple men.)
In times of extreme global population growth and economic uncertainty why not consider “brother-husbands” family units instead?
Since I support full marriage equality, I do think people should be free to choose polyandry as well as any other marital polycule or monogamous combination.
Would it not make sense economically for four men and one woman to pool their economic resources?
Anyone pooling their resources can make sense: a man and a woman, two men, two women, three men, three women, two men and one women, etc.
We have gone from 800-square foot two-bedroom bungalows to palatial mansions in North America as family homes, which would be plenty of room for larger family units. With more adults contributing economically, it would be easier for a family to pay the mortgage, utilities and avoid foreclosure. Economic savings could then be invested in the education of the family’s offspring, or pay for a boat and motor, etc.
This family unit could be reasonably self-sufficient. If a woman chose with care, one handyman husband could replace everything from roof shingles to furnace to maintaining family vehicles. Another might be skilled at gardening or doing household accounts. One might have great prowess in intellectual pursuits and dinner conversations and one could provide musical entertainment at said parties with little need to contract such tasks out.
Sounds great.
These suggestions are often made in jest, but some people are laughing all the way to a better life.
A weakness of the “sister-wife” unit is the large number of children which might result. A “brother-husband” family unit could not produce 16 offspring (as the polygamous family of reality TV fame has done with one man and four wives). Instead, these units would heroically reduce population growth.
They would do it by their own choices, which is fine by me.
We’ve been told it takes a village to raise a child. Surely, children would thrive in the care of five loving adults rather than the traditional two.
It often works that way in deliberate poly situations; certainly better than most "monogamous" situations in which multipe stepparents who are hostile to each other are involved.
Family responsibilities such as taking a vacation day to attend school trips, or missing pay to pick up a sick child from school could more efficiently be juggled by five adults, especially when grandparents live miles away.
This is all true. Polyandry, polygyny, or whatever, let people decide for themselves. An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Posted in: 
0 comments:
Post a Comment