<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More On Polygamy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://donklephant.com/2006/03/23/more-on-polygamy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://donklephant.com/2006/03/23/more-on-polygamy/</link>
	<description>Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:46:10 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kiya</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2006/03/23/more-on-polygamy/comment-page-1/#comment-9268</link>
		<dc:creator>Kiya</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:32:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2006/03/23/more-on-polygamy/#comment-9268</guid>
		<description>It's fairly common for people to use anonymising handles for their partners in public places like that, just to cut down on the odds of harassment and abuse from strangers.  I certainly do; I don't want my second partner losing his job or something because I identified him by name somewhere googleable.  I believe the women give their legal names on the site (they do most of the writing), but I can't recall if they name their husbands.

There are occasional news stories and documentary things done -- I've given interview for several, myself -- but there's also a reasonable level of paranoia in the community about sensationalisation.  There has to be a reasonable level of trust in the reporter doing the work, that they're not interested in spinning it for sensationalisation or interested in portraying patriarchal harems, hippy communes, or sex maniacs regardless of facts.  (This is a current topic on one of my local discussion lists; some local television station is trying to get interviewees, but they have a 'bleeds-leads' reputation, so people are trying to figure out whether it's worth it.)

There have been people who have had serious social consequences from being willing to talk about their family structures in public.  I know personally one family who had child protective services called on them as a form of active harassment.  (None of the anonymous caller's claims were ever backed up by the investigation, but the file had to be kept open for a long time because he kept calling with new ones.)  The risks of talking to reporters are large and genuine, especially for stable families with kids -- which would be the sorts of families you'd want to see.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s fairly common for people to use anonymising handles for their partners in public places like that, just to cut down on the odds of harassment and abuse from strangers.  I certainly do; I don&#8217;t want my second partner losing his job or something because I identified him by name somewhere googleable.  I believe the women give their legal names on the site (they do most of the writing), but I can&#8217;t recall if they name their husbands.</p>
<p>There are occasional news stories and documentary things done &#8212; I&#8217;ve given interview for several, myself &#8212; but there&#8217;s also a reasonable level of paranoia in the community about sensationalisation.  There has to be a reasonable level of trust in the reporter doing the work, that they&#8217;re not interested in spinning it for sensationalisation or interested in portraying patriarchal harems, hippy communes, or sex maniacs regardless of facts.  (This is a current topic on one of my local discussion lists; some local television station is trying to get interviewees, but they have a &#8216;bleeds-leads&#8217; reputation, so people are trying to figure out whether it&#8217;s worth it.)</p>
<p>There have been people who have had serious social consequences from being willing to talk about their family structures in public.  I know personally one family who had child protective services called on them as a form of active harassment.  (None of the anonymous caller&#8217;s claims were ever backed up by the investigation, but the file had to be kept open for a long time because he kept calling with new ones.)  The risks of talking to reporters are large and genuine, especially for stable families with kids &#8212; which would be the sorts of families you&#8217;d want to see.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Meredith</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2006/03/23/more-on-polygamy/comment-page-1/#comment-9260</link>
		<dc:creator>Meredith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:38:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2006/03/23/more-on-polygamy/#comment-9260</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the info Kiya.  The cite doesn't really provide the example I was looking for, but it at least gave some info about it and had some other good links.  The way that these particular family members call each other things like "The Beast" and "The Prince" just gives me the impression that they are weird.  It's not a very open-minded thing to say, but it still left me feeling like the whole idea is just weird.

I would love to see a documentary made about several polyfamilies so that I would actually see the people and watch their interactions.  I'm just so skeptical about this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the info Kiya.  The cite doesn&#8217;t really provide the example I was looking for, but it at least gave some info about it and had some other good links.  The way that these particular family members call each other things like &#8220;The Beast&#8221; and &#8220;The Prince&#8221; just gives me the impression that they are weird.  It&#8217;s not a very open-minded thing to say, but it still left me feeling like the whole idea is just weird.</p>
<p>I would love to see a documentary made about several polyfamilies so that I would actually see the people and watch their interactions.  I&#8217;m just so skeptical about this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kiya</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2006/03/23/more-on-polygamy/comment-page-1/#comment-9246</link>
		<dc:creator>Kiya</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:55:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2006/03/23/more-on-polygamy/#comment-9246</guid>
		<description>If you want an example, go to http://www.polyfamilies.com, which is run by a four-adult family (two men, two women) with two children.  While there are plenty of other resources for people with multiple relationships, theirs is one of the best for people in situations that polygamy would be relevant to.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you want an example, go to <a href="http://www.polyfamilies.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.polyfamilies.com</a>, which is run by a four-adult family (two men, two women) with two children.  While there are plenty of other resources for people with multiple relationships, theirs is one of the best for people in situations that polygamy would be relevant to.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Meredith</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2006/03/23/more-on-polygamy/comment-page-1/#comment-9230</link>
		<dc:creator>Meredith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:22:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2006/03/23/more-on-polygamy/#comment-9230</guid>
		<description>wj,

I agree.  I can't imagine having to have "relationship" discussions with extra people.  Relationships are difficult enough with 2 people, and it seems like any realtionship is only successful if both people are putting in a lot of hard work.  For each additional member, I think the work needing to be put in would grow exponentially.

I'll bet there are people who could do it, but just like regular marriage with 2 people, I'm sure a majority of people would f' up a polygamous relationship just as fast, if not faster.  

Plus, I would like to see an example of a real polygamous relationship where there is truly equality and happiness between everyone (in western culture).  All of the documentaries I've seen on this depict polygamous relationships as one huge asshole of a guy with weird, quiet, submissive women, who unconvincingly proclaim that everything is fine.  

Finally, show me an example of one wife with multiple husbands (in western culture).  I, as a woman, can think of a thousand reasons why no woman in her right mind would do this, unless she is a huge B who is manipulating a bunch of dumb, submissive guys - a reverse of the typical one man, many wives concept.  (hmmmmm . . . OK, still no, but maybe . . . . . OK, NO).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>wj,</p>
<p>I agree.  I can&#8217;t imagine having to have &#8220;relationship&#8221; discussions with extra people.  Relationships are difficult enough with 2 people, and it seems like any realtionship is only successful if both people are putting in a lot of hard work.  For each additional member, I think the work needing to be put in would grow exponentially.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll bet there are people who could do it, but just like regular marriage with 2 people, I&#8217;m sure a majority of people would f&#8217; up a polygamous relationship just as fast, if not faster.  </p>
<p>Plus, I would like to see an example of a real polygamous relationship where there is truly equality and happiness between everyone (in western culture).  All of the documentaries I&#8217;ve seen on this depict polygamous relationships as one huge asshole of a guy with weird, quiet, submissive women, who unconvincingly proclaim that everything is fine.  </p>
<p>Finally, show me an example of one wife with multiple husbands (in western culture).  I, as a woman, can think of a thousand reasons why no woman in her right mind would do this, unless she is a huge B who is manipulating a bunch of dumb, submissive guys - a reverse of the typical one man, many wives concept.  (hmmmmm . . . OK, still no, but maybe . . . . . OK, NO).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wj</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2006/03/23/more-on-polygamy/comment-page-1/#comment-9048</link>
		<dc:creator>wj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2006 02:01:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2006/03/23/more-on-polygamy/#comment-9048</guid>
		<description>One observation on your point about jealousy:  I know of a fair number of homosexual couples who have been together for decades.  Even without the opportunity to get married.  But every case I know of of people getting to gether in groups has ended in tears.  In fact, with one exception, they have broken down in under three years.  

I am willing to believe that it might be possible to have a menage a trois which could last.  After all, not everybody is massively afflicted with jealousy, so you might manage to form a stable threesome.  But for every additional member of the group, the odds of success drop enormously.  Anyone wishing to argue otherwise needs to start coming up with some hard data which shows their case.  (And no, an example based on one individual totally subjugating several others will not be accepted.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One observation on your point about jealousy:  I know of a fair number of homosexual couples who have been together for decades.  Even without the opportunity to get married.  But every case I know of of people getting to gether in groups has ended in tears.  In fact, with one exception, they have broken down in under three years.  </p>
<p>I am willing to believe that it might be possible to have a menage a trois which could last.  After all, not everybody is massively afflicted with jealousy, so you might manage to form a stable threesome.  But for every additional member of the group, the odds of success drop enormously.  Anyone wishing to argue otherwise needs to start coming up with some hard data which shows their case.  (And no, an example based on one individual totally subjugating several others will not be accepted.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.426 seconds -->
