rob@dadla.UUCP (Rob Vetter) (08/11/86)
>Monogamy, as opposed to polygamy, is a means of preventing a bunch of hopelessly >horny young men from tearing the place up. Just another statement in support of the hypothesis that monogamy is a female "invention" (see my follow-up article). Can't you control your men better ??? ;-) Seriously, Ami (and others), the point is well taken. How about if I modify my statements as follows: Hypothesis 3A: In a polygynous society, there is a natural tendency of the females to promote monogamy. Hypothesis 3B: In a polyandrous society, there is a natural tendency of the males to promote monogamy. But we're getting off the subject. My desire, though polyGYNy sound nice, is for a true polyGAMous relationship. I see alot of advantages in it - not just sexual. 1) More social stimulation. More people mean more ideas, lifestyles, backgrounds to explore. 2) Easier child-rearing. Why pay for a babysitter or child care if there is always someone at home to take care of the kids ? Parents now work staggered hours (one day, the other swing or graveyard) in order to do this. With three, four or more adults, it seems only reasonable that the time split would be less of a burden on any one of the adults. 3) Less work around the house. It may be slightly more work to do laundry for 5 rather than for 2, but once a month is better than once a week. 4) Increased family income. Alot of this will be offset by family size, but a mortgage of $1500 divided 4 ways is less than a morgage of $1000 divided twice. Other expenses would be similarly reduced. In article <2228@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: > Consider divorce: the complexity would grow exponentially. Not necessarily. Contractual marriages are now common in monogamous relationships. It seems that it would be easy to extend this to a polygamous situation. An extension of legal methods used for corporations or multiple partnerships also seems reasonable. > > Allowing polygamy would >throw IRS, employer benefit offices and welfare administration >into a tailspin. It might make those bureaucracies treat people a little more on an even basis. Differences in taxation between married and single people could be eradicated. (Probably to their benefit not ours :-) ) -- Rob Vetter (503) 629-1044 [ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!dadla!rob " " !psu-cs!vetterr "Waste is a terrible thing to mind" - NRC (Well, they COULD have said it)