Hell yes! But remember, the men are not allowed to be with other women. They have to wait their turn, even if it is sloppy seconds.

I would give them plenty to do. I'd even make a calendar for their time with me if they want. They can help each other do all the chores. I might even let some of them work.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They have to wait their turn,
> even if it is sloppy seconds.

Biologically it is more likely last one in first baby out is his. But ultimately a woman's body decides who's the daddy regardless of who is first and who is last.

If women aren't objects for men it doesn't matter how many men she has relations with for men as long as they get their rocks off in a hat.

Before the Chinese took over 1/4 - 1/5 of the male population were monks.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/when-taking-multiple-husbands-makes-sense/272726/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry_in_Tibet



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2017 01:39PM by anybody.

Hell no either way more than one is too many! Way too much drama! Lol

Well, in my mind marriage is monogamy. Any other form of bonding with or without sex is more natural.

Marriage as a cultural tool to enforce sexual monogamy has always been a poor tool.

Modern human cultures struggle with the fact that monogamy helps with culturally enforced struggles against sexual jealousy but it isn't natural.

The reason children with two parents are more successful in our society is because that is what our society is built upon.

In my opinion calling marriage one of each, two of either, or one of one and many just shows how much marriage is trying to fit an unnatural condition on people and too often for "the sake of the children."

Marriage is dying.

"Would polygamy be better with one woman and many men?"

But then it wouldn't be polygamy, it would be polyandry.

Polygamy (from Late Greek πολυγαμία, polygamía, "state of marriage to many spouses")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

Polygamy is a gender neutral term. Polygyny means one man and multiple women.

A few cultures do allow women to have more than 1 husband. Someone already mentioned Tibet. One South American Tribe expects a woman to have a husband from different generations. She is expected to have children from each of her husbands and can get a bad reputation is she has too many children from any one of them.

Certain Eskimo cultures didn't have polygamy as such but the sharing of one's wife was considered hospitable (so long a the wife wasn't kept away from her husband too long).

My understanding is that culturally a man having more than 1 wife is much more common than a woman have more than 1 husband. Fidelity also varies widely culture to culture and women may have affairs with men other than their husbands.

Puli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fidelity also varies
> widely culture to culture and women may have
> affairs with men other than their husbands.

Sexual fidelity is just the making a moral out of sexual jealousy.

Marriage doesn't exist outside of Western ideals. We call what other cultures less jealous about their sex would never call marriage by our definition.

Pair bonding is real. Multiple person bonding is real. Sexual fidelity as a way to elevate sexual jealousy is a hopeless ideal. It is putting pair bonding in a much too sexual context. We are hypersexual with huge egos. Something has to give and sexual jealousy wins. No wonder polygny is more common than polyandry. It is just because men are in control of the culture.

My wife could take another husband if she wanted. So long as he made enough money that I could retire and go fishing.