WHAT WOMEN WANT?

Incidentally, I think that polygamy, due to the existing of the converse term polyandry, mostly refers to situations where a male has claim to a number of females... sadly the -gamy suffix is very old-fashioned in its meaning. Any kind of -gamy (apart from my Origamy) means "possession of woman by man".
Polyandry of course sucks donkey balls... and I'm not saying this because I'm a guy.

The inverse of polyandry (Male/Female N:1 -- or perhaps N:0)  is polygyny (Male/Female 1:N, or perhaps 0:N).  Both are subsets of polygamy (which is generally Male/Female M:N).

Polyandry actually (in practice) means that a female is the time-share property of several males, leading to a tripled workload, tripled "conjugal duties", etc. etc.... and of course, three times the number of children are expected (though the wife will probably die trying to produce them).

In some practice; it would be an error to assume that this is universal. 

And, to bring this back to EFT, do we have a marriage proposal in the offing?  Or just a boring actual business proposal?

I know that technically polyandry is part of a complementary subset, however, the general behavior of language is that a set that divides into complementary binary constituents is named in use according to the maxim of economy: Of the subsets only the "marked" (i.e. notable, unusual) variant is fully distinguished from the parent set: So, polygynous couplings (grouplings  ) aren't actually called polygynous, they're being called polygamous - since it is understood that a polyandrous groupling would be named as such (being the notable, unusual variant).

All these "gamousities" are names for traditional cultures of coupling, that's their real use, to describe traditional ways (meaning, old-fashioned, male-dominate, ownership-based) of marriage. So, well, the traditional marriage types are all particularly tasking of the female. Having that compounded by having multiple males and one female is highly likely to be worse than all the other forms of gamicity. It could be that there are some instances that aren't but I haven't heard of it.
Ironically, the multiple wives scenario is often reviled by feminists because they interpret it to mean that one man is equal to (worth) several women. They usually fail to see that in terms of traditional marriage being a work camp for the woman, having multiple women to one set of chores is actually not so bad...
Not that the specific cultures of polygynous marriage don't do their damndest to make up for and obliterate this benefit.

(Yes, I admit it, I enjoy making up these terms on the fly )

I used monogamy to mean a monogamous (including unmarried couples) relationship, and Poly to refer to a Polyamorous one.

And thus compared apples ("-gamy" -- marriage) and oranges ("-amory" -- love).

Of course to be complete, one should also include peaches ("-fidelity" -- restriction to a set of sexual partners), which are different still.

I appreciate your dedication to the English language, and the proper use of same. However, modern usage of "monogamy" has morphed to include all monofidelous relationships. I debated including a parenthetical statement after "Polyamorous one" along the lines of (including those who have had non-state weddings and commitment ceremonies, etc), but I couldn't get the right wording. That one is sufficient, I suppose.

But my imprecise language doesn't invalidate my point.

Monogamy is marrying one person, polygamy is marrying more than one person.
Monamory is loving one person, polyamory is loving more than one person.
Monofidelity is sleeping with one person, polyfidelity is sleeping with more than one person.

Since both marriage and fidelity can certainly be present without love, I'll limit my discussion to -amory. I'll restate my case, using the more precise language:

Polyamory is not at all about infatuation or nor ability to conquer, nor proving that "I still got it". No more than monamory is about keeping one person all to yourself. Monamory is loving one person. Polyamory is loving more than one person. That's all.

Since both marriage and fidelity can certainly be present without love, I'll limit my discussion to -amory.

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree until you define "love".

Since both marriage and fidelity can certainly be present without love, I'll limit my discussion to -amory.

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree until you define "love".

I did that already, or rather, I let Sv. Heinlein do it for me. I'll repeat:

Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.

Polyandry of course sucks donkey balls... and I'm not saying this because I'm a guy.
Polyandry actually (in practice) means that a female is the time-share property of several males, leading to a tripled workload, tripled "conjugal duties", etc. etc.... and of course, three times the number of children are expected (though the wife will probably die trying to produce them).

It worked for my first marriage for longer than my own parents' "until death do us part" monogamy.  No children were ever planned and none happened.  Happened that two men loved one woman and had great respect for each other (happened to have been fast friends since early teens).

And, to bring this back to EFT, do we have a marriage proposal in the offing?  Or just a boring actual business proposal?

I never really looked at it that way, but you're right, the way he phrased it could be a marriage proposal, but as there's been no (visible) romance between the two, I don't find it too likely that it's anything but a business proposal, especially given the title of the arc.

having multiple women to one set of chores is actually not so bad...

Hell, yeah!  I deeply, deeply appreciate my guy's girlfriends.  Despite what sam says, I've never had much libido, and see no reason why my guy should have to "keep down" with me.  He has good taste in women, so I get extra friends.

Ironically, the multiple wives scenario is often reviled by feminists because they interpret it to mean that one man is equal to (worth) several women.

Strange it is, since I see the same thing as evidence of the expendability of men.  One hard-lovin' man to 1000 women -- by the time he gets back around to the first one, if she conceived, birthed & suckled successfully, she's ready to go again (from a purely reproductive outlook).

But I like men so I think, being technically expendable means that you're kept around because you're actually wanted.

Happened that two men loved one woman and had great respect for each other (happened to have been fast friends since early teens).

Awww, that is totally adorable!  Thank you, or something.

It worked for my first marriage for longer than my own parents' "until death do us part" monogamy.  No children were ever planned and none happened.  Happened that two men loved one woman and had great respect for each other (happened to have been fast friends since early teens).

Yeah, I can understand and imagine that, but like I said, the terms are really for traditional patterns (and those are usually quite harsh, since traditionally, life was hard and then you died).
I think modern and advanced arrangements between people who climb above the mere culture would probably need new terms to describe them.

Happened that two men loved one woman and had great respect for each other (happened to have been fast friends since early teens).

Awww, that is totally adorable!  Thank you, or something.

Adorable wouldn't be a term I'd use, but thank you or something.

Things broke up when Bill went sociopathic on us.  Spent their legal anniversary (I wasn't legal) holed up it the bedroom with a 16-year-old daughter of some SCA friends.  (Legally married her later, had his vasectomy reversed and they've apparently raised a passle of born-again kids).  (Bill had been as atheist as me when we met and throughout our mutual experiences, but he was more obnoxiously protestant than I'd been raised when he tracked me down and emailed me in the late 90s, my name being easy to find and his common as mildew so I can't check how he is since that email exchange went away when a hard drive self-destructed).

The whole time we were married was risky as hell.  For much of it all three of us were in the USAF and "Don't ask don't tell" wasn't even a concept.  And until I got out, it was a part-time thing since while they were stationed together I was stationed elsewhere and that wasn't close.  Though there was one happy time when I had a three week TDY to the base they were at, the rest of our time together was when they or I could take leave and that was only a few weeks per year.  Until I got out and could go permanent.  Risk still existed since they were still in (she'd signed up for six years, he'd re-enlisted).  And of course, I was technically in the "inactive reserve" for a few years.  If we'd been busted, there would have been unpleasantness.

Then Bill screwed everything up, I wound up back in Los Angeles with my future second wife, Naomi's six ended and she returned to the east coast.  Ten years later I got back in touch with Naomi, spent some (celibate) time with her and Michael and they introduced me to one of his "ex" lovers.  (Mike and Lisa still went at it like crazed minks every now and then until we lost Mike a couple years back).  (And whatever four or so people do behind closed doors is none of Jerry Falwell's or the government's business whatever those assholes would prefer).

Waiting for a call back from Naomi.  Just got Lisa's ashes home.  Hoping she'll go with me up to New Hampshire so I can scatter Lisa from a viewpoint she loved, the Kangamagus Highway facing the Presidential Range of the White Mountains.  Probably pull Lisa's dad out and scatter him a few miles along, though I suspect he'd have preferred to be scattered where the janitor of a Hamburg brothel would have to sweep up the mess (the man had some stories).

It worked for my first marriage for longer than my own parents' "until death do us part" monogamy.  No children were ever planned and none happened.  Happened that two men loved one woman and had great respect for each other (happened to have been fast friends since early teens).

This usually works out in favor of one man, and to the disfavor of all the others.  The chick bangs one guy, while the others orbit hoping for leftovers.  The orbiters hope that when the one man blows the relationship up, mistreats the chick, which he usually does, the chick will start giving them the sex they deserve, but, when the relationship with the one man blows up, she does not, and instead finds some other way to self destruct.

This usually works out in favor of one man, and to the disfavor of all the others.  The chick bangs one guy, while the others orbit hoping for leftovers.  The orbiters hope that when the one man blows the relationship up, mistreats the chick, which he usually does, the chick will start giving them the sex they deserve, but, when the relationship with the one man blows up, she does not, and instead finds some other way to self destruct.

That the way it worked in all of your Poly relationships, is it?

Why did the chick cross the road?


To get away from Sam     

Srsly, if people are that fond of poultry, they should get each their own.

If folks haven't seen it, the Church of All Worlds had a very famous article called "A Bouquet of Lovers" which was very good at describing how to do a poly relationship in a reasonably safe way, both emotionally and medically...  Should be easily findable w/ Google...

People might disagree with it, but it seemed pretty reasonable to me, and definitely worth a read if considering any flavour of "poly" (other than "ester" )

ex-Gooserider