3 way marriage (Specifically)

[Jonnusthegreat]

Only if it's in that specific male.female/female arrangement. There's also the male/male/female arrangement.

I could imagine a dystopia where the rich get multiple partners of their gender choice and the poor have to team up with someone else. But then you realize as the movie goes on it's not a dystopia, but a utopia, because you get to marry all your bros with some random girl added.

[d00mGuArD]

This is about marriage, not a sleeping arrangement.

You know you can have threesomes without marrying the people involved, right?

As far as I am concerned, I plan to sleep with the women I marry! Better two than one!
Mine is the correct pic. Not the OPs. There is a much much much higher chance to sleep with your wives, than to have kids with them. Marriage MAY mean kids, or maybe not.

[Khaza-R]

Who the hell wants a single wife, let alone two?

[hulkgor]

Not interested in normal marriage, let alone a 3-way marriage.

Not against people doing it, go for it \o/

[Monster Hunter]

Could or Would you do it?

Yes I could, no I wouldn't


If so why or why not?

Because in my view committing that kind of romantic love and dedication is cheapened when it is spread out that way. I am not saying there has to be ultimate sacrifices all the time, but there needs to be some commitment.

Meaning just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.


What would be the pros and cons specifically of a 3 way marriage?

Pros:

Easier on finances to have two working parents and one home maker

Cons:

If one of the 3 isn't pulling their weight it could lead to more constrained circumstances.

Time management could be an issue.

Health Insurance could be through the roof


And do you Support Multiple marriages?

In theory Yes, in practice No, not unless it is for the purposes of rearing children

Polygamy just dosnt work in relationships built on love, humans in love are too possessive of each other's effection,

Old views on marriage are more amenable to polygamy style relationships but there not love based relationships, there buisness transactions around breeding rights. But that style is a relic and was usualy the practise of the upper classes in society's

Humans seem more like gibbons in that we naturally prefer to mate with a single partner for extended periods. We like all animals are not entirly monogamous but we are of a species where the farther takes an active role in child raising, providing and protection as such unlike most other species who hand off child rearing to entirly the females to collectively raise a paternal bond is formed even if the pair nolonger choose to continue mating.

[Mihalik]

Whatever consenting adults are into are welcome to do, I don't care and its none of my business.

Would I personally consent to it? No, for about 900 different PERSONAL reasons.

[Teleros]

3 way marriage (Specifically)

Mmm, lots of young men with no women to marry sure seems like a recipe for a stable society . What, you don't think the result will be Chad + 17 Staceys on the one hand, and 16 pissed off Betas on the other?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

No. Marriage is 1 man + 1 woman, the way God & teleology intended.

[Shadowferal]

Hmm...my list of love songs would change dramatically.

[Ghostpanther]

People can do whatever the fuck they want imo but I wouldn't do it, I don't need 2 people pissed off at me all the time.

Lol! Good one. And no I would not want to do it ether. I am and have been perfectly happy with my setup with one person for decades and want to finish out my days with her.
Marriage for myself, is a spiritual thing and there is only room for one other than myself in it.

- - - Updated - - -

This is about marriage, not a sleeping arrangement.

That is a big part of marriage. Should not be the sole bonding force however and there may come a time when it is not feasible for a variety reasons. But that should not end a marriage ether unless a person is purposely denying affection to another for reasons not connected to health.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

As far as I am concerned, I plan to sleep with the women I marry! Better two than one!
Mine is the correct pic. Not the OPs. There is a much much much higher chance to sleep with your wives, than to have kids with them. Marriage MAY mean kids, or maybe not.

The point being is that you don't have to marry women in order to sleep with them.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Why would they change at all? No fault divorced just mean equal splits and, in some jurisdictions, a waiting period.
You're all parents. Divorce changes nothing.

I know what no fault divorce means but what if there is cheating, and you are in a non no fault state ?

What if kids are involved, how do you handle custody disputes?

Recently Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have gone through a situation where children they both Adopted was a point of contention based on who had rights.

- - - Updated - - -

Mmm, lots of young men with no women to marry sure seems like a recipe for a stable society . What, you don't think the result will be Chad + 17 Staceys on the one hand, and 16 pissed off Betas on the other?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

No. Marriage is 1 man + 1 woman, the way God & teleology intended.

Again that whole paradigm is Nonsense. Nobody is owed a relationship. and the problem for and with incels has zero to do with Chads or Staceys it purely has to do with entitlement and what certain people feel they are owed with no currency and no investment in themselves or other people.

It takes more than calling yourself a supreme gentleman

[Endus]

I know what no fault divorce means but what if there is cheating, and you are in a non no fault state ?

Infidelity is a breach of the terms of the marriage. It would be the same breach in a three-way marriage.

What if kids are involved, how do you handle custody disputes?

The moment you create a framework where more than 2 people can be the legal parents to a child (which you'd have to, as part of this), custody arrangements resolve themselves accordingly. Each parent has 1/3 of the rights to that child. If one parent leaves, a split custody would default to 33/33/33 rather than 50/50, though if two partners are remaining together, they can likely make a stronger case for familiar support and availability, which may affect things somewhat (but this already happens if they, say, remarry).

Recently Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have gone through a situation where children they both Adopted was a point of contention based on who had rights.

Custody battles aren't simple, really. I'm just making the point that this is a negligible increase in complexity; the solutions offer themselves pretty immediately.

If you can understand how to divide into thirds rather than halves, that's as complex as it gets. Beyond that, the negotiations and arguments would be basically the same as under existing law.

[Kokolums]

When people envision making a major change in society, they often do it by thinking only about the best-case scenario and putting zero thought into how humans will corrupt the new system. A multiple partner marriage system would eventually get corrupted into a system where 1 powerful and wealthy male would take 47 female concubines, with a slew of angry lower caste males not finding a mate. The gene pool would become less diverse and we'd open ourselves up to genetic diseases. 1 man 1 women is the best system for maximum genetic diversity in the population to quell genetic deformities and diseases.

[Endus]

When people envision making a major change in society, they often do it by thinking only about the best-case scenario and putting zero thought into how humans will corrupt the new system. A multiple partner marriage system would eventually get corrupted into a system where 1 powerful and wealthy male would take 47 female concubines, with a slew of angry lower caste males not finding a mate. The gene pool would become less diverse and we'd open ourselves up to genetic diseases. 1 man 1 women is the best system for maximum genetic diversity in the population to quell genetic deformities and diseases.

This is all pretty blatantly misogynistic. I'm really not sure why you've decided to ignore women's self-determination and treat them as a prize to be collected, but your claim here has no basis unless you make such an assumption.

[Splenda]

Massive no thanks on a personal level. I'm a 1-and-done girl. However, I see no reason to figure out making it legal.

[Kokolums]

This is all pretty blatantly misogynistic. I'm really not sure why you've decided to ignore women's self-determination and treat them as a prize to be collected, but your claim here has no basis unless you make such an assumption.

Its not misogynistic. I'm not treating women as a prize to be collected.

What you're doing IS blatantly slander though. Post reported for slander.

[Mistame]

This is all pretty blatantly misogynistic. I'm really not sure why you've decided to ignore women's self-determination and treat them as a prize to be collected, but your claim here has no basis unless you make such an assumption.

While the comment does come off as mildly sexist (whether intentional or not), it's hardly misogyny. Those two words are not interchangeable.

[Very Tired]

When people envision making a major change in society, they often do it by thinking only about the best-case scenario and putting zero thought into how humans will corrupt the new system. A multiple partner marriage system would eventually get corrupted into a system where 1 powerful and wealthy male would take 47 female concubines, with a slew of angry lower caste males not finding a mate. The gene pool would become less diverse and we'd open ourselves up to genetic diseases. 1 man 1 women is the best system for maximum genetic diversity in the population to quell genetic deformities and diseases.

Do you... realize how few people in the world would actual be able to afford 47 trophy wives? A fraction of the already small 1% of the population... minus some more of those rich folk who would even be interested in such an arrangement. You're just left with a handful of people and they are somehow meant to dilute the population of the human race of 8 billion people? Minus the fact that those handful of people would likely just get those wives for the sex, not because they want 47 children. Or that fact that if they wanted 47 children, they could literally do that right now if they wanted to without marrying them all.

- - - Updated - - -

This is all pretty blatantly misogynistic. I'm really not sure why you've decided to ignore women's self-determination and treat them as a prize to be collected, but your claim here has no basis unless you make such an assumption.

You should really just go with my answer. Calling people misogynistic doesn't really change anyone's mind. And he's not calling women some prize to be collected, he's saying some women exist who would happily sell themselves as a prize to be collected. And you would be a fool if you didn't think that was true.

[horbindr]

i'm not against 3 person marriages in principle, but in reality i just don't think it would work out. the amount of people who could genuinely make it work would be minuscule, and the amount of people who would have a 2+1 for tax or other reasons marriage would be huge.

first common scenario that comes to my mind would be 2 married people marry a foreign woman with a strict prenup and quid pro quo as a new and improved green card marriage. especially if kids de facto go to biological parents in a divorce. seems like an relatively easy and cheap way to get a maid.

and i can barely imagine the clusterfuck that divorce proceedings would be, especially if multiple children from multiple parents were involved.

[Amerissis]

I don't plan on marrying anyone. I also don't buy into the idea of strictly 2-person exclusive relationships being "the right kind". In fact I could very well imagine any sort of arrangement for myself, but societal expectations actively and passively have me pursue the traditional model. Or in other terms: I'd be down for all sorts of constellations, if judgement and expectations of others weren't as constricted as they are.

- - - Updated - - -



I like the no kids part. But come on. Pull your own weight and be a full time contributer to house-finances then. Anything else is just asking to be the whore to the others for sustinance. Not good form.

No, I hate working I’m the sole provider atm, because my husband is on disability, but I’d stop in a heartbeat if we didn’t need the money