Marriage: next step

[probes]

From the beeb (don't brits still see Future? Any need for a full copy-paste?):

Love doesn’t just come in pairs. Is it time that marriage laws come to recognise the fact?

---
Franklin and his girlfriends are what’s called polyamorous or “poly” as the community tends to call it. Being poly simply means you can be in more than one relationship, with the full support and trust of however many partners they choose to have.
Polyamory does not feature in any census tick box but anecdotal evidence suggests that it is on the rise. Some are even calling for it to be recognised by law following the legalisation of gay marriage in the UK and the US. All this raises of the question of whether the future of love may be very different from our current conceptions of romance.

The word polyamory was first coined in the 1960s and literally means “many loves” in Latin. That’s exactly what it is, but talking to poly individuals makes it quickly apparent that there is no one way to be poly. There are no immediate rules. Some people, like Franklin have live-in partners with additional liaisons outside the home. Others have a mixture of short and long-term relationships.
Some live in a big group with their partners and their partner’s other partner(s), so called “family style polyamory”. You get the idea. The one thing they all have in common is openness, understanding, trust and acceptance from all involved.

To start with, in a 2014 review paper Conley found that polyamorous people tend to maintain more friendships as they keep a wider social network. They are also less likely to cut off contact after a break-up.
Monogamous couples on the other hand, often withdraw from their friends in the first, loved-up stages of their relationship.
Conley also found that individuals in poly relationships are better at communicating and that jealousy is often lower. In new research, not yet published, she even discovered that overall relationship satisfaction can be higher in poly relationships, though another earlier 2015 review found that satisfaction was similar among monogamous and “consensual non-monogamous” relationships.
Nor do they seem more likely to spread sexually transmitted diseases. Indeed, an anonymous online study revealed that openly non-monogamous people are more likely to practice safe sex than cheating individuals in seemingly monogamous relationships.

Conley says that married monogamous couples could learn from a poly way of life. They could use using similar ways to communicate and resolve conflict for example. “The idea is that we put too much stress on marriage and need to give it more oxygen by giving people more resources,” she says. “A lot of the strategies used in poly relationships can map onto suggestions of how we improve marriage.”

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160623-polyamorous-relationships-may-be-the-future-of-love

[Sisemen]

Anything that involves loads of promiscuous sex gets my vote

[OFSO]

Quite right, probes. Until he passed away in 2010, I was in a menage a trois with wife and cat. The cat didn't approve of the wife's inclusion but grudgingly went along with it.

[Slasher]

Some live in a big group with their partners and their partner’s other partner(s), so called “family style polyamory”. You get the idea. The one thing they all have in common is openness, understanding, trust and acceptance from all involved.

"Now dear...I expect you to only fcuk the women you have here in the house and no one else, and I'll faithfully shag the arses off my collection of blokes and no others."

[om15]

OK until the question "Who's my Dad?" crops up.

[ian16th]

OK until the question "Who's my Dad?" crops up.

With today's knowledge of DNA, not a problem!

[Slasher]

Well... when you look at it purely in pragmatic light of the human animal, it does make sense. Nature intended that men be not tied down to only one woman (which is why our dicks rule our head) and women were meant to be gang-banged (this is why they're endowed with multiple orgasmic capability. The strongest fittest tadpole will win - inferring better offspring - while the vaginal defenses instantly murder any couch potato who dares to even stand up).

So therefore this monogamous crap is a crime against the Natural Order of Things. Homo Sapiens evolved rather well because Gronk just grabbed a fistful of hair and forcibly shagged anything he wanted, while the Gronkette spent her Saturday nights in heaven getting repeatedly laid by blokes without any wining or dining or having to go through any bullsh!t chat up lines or marriages.

[rgbrock1]

OK until the question "Who's my Dad?" crops up.

Not a problem. when that question comes up the appropriate answer is "yes".

[om15]

Homo Sapiens evolved rather well because Gronk just grabbed a fistful of hair and forcibly shagged anything he wanted, while the Gronkette spent her Saturday nights in heaven getting repeatedly laid by blokes without any wining or dining or having to go through any bullsh!t chat up lines or marriages.

You've been to Glasgow then

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

As I think Bernard Manning used to point out, 4 wives = 4 mothers-in-law. This is why polygamy is very rare