Polyamory.com Forum

Polyamory.com Forum (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Poly Discussions (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Sound other wives be compensated? (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23971)

zephyrrine 05-24-2012 04:14 PM

Sound other wives be compensated?
 
I know that polyamory and plyg are technically different but I feel that some of you might have a good opinion of this. My question is should the other wives (sister wives) in polygamous marriages be compensated if things don't work out?
Before you answer I will ask you to go to this link (http://zephyrrine.wordpress.com/2012...esnt-work-out/)for the post I wrote about my thoughts on this in my blog. Its long and I don't feel like rewriting ,ect.
My answer is yes unless they decided to up and abandon the family or it is decided otherwise in previous discussions.

JaneQSmythe 05-24-2012 07:38 PM

I'm not a huge fan of alimony/palimony myself. Having said that - obviously any man or women, married or not, has an obligation to provide for children that they have produced.

There are few ways that I could see non-legal spouses being entitled to money/compensation - such as there is a pre-nup agreement (or its equivalent) in place, otherwise I see it as the non-working spouses responsibility to make sure that their future financial needs are addressed. For instance, s/he could require that a certain percentage of the household income be directed into an account in his/her name during the course of their relationship as compensation for the "stay at home" duties they assume - it would then be his/her call as to what to do with this money (spend it or save it).

Nobody likes to consider what happens if a relationship dissolves - but if people make assumptions (i.e. "he will take care of me for the rest of my life") then THEY are responsible for the consequences of those assumptions should they prove false. We are all adults - we are all responsible for our own actions. Failing to take action is a decision in itself.

JaneQ

AutumnalTone 05-25-2012 01:47 AM

Nope.

dingedheart 05-25-2012 08:19 PM

So one of the arguments for legalization is to force responsibility of off spring. Wouldn't DNA and paternity suits do that already. And knowing the current system isn't that the risk these second, third , forth "wives" take. Why couldn't they take turns ....every 2 yrs divorce 1 and marry another... revolving like duck duck goose. The one that's married to the guy when he dies wins....or loses depending how you want to look at it.


I say NO

km34 05-25-2012 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dingedheart (Post 137356)
So one of the arguments for legalization is to force responsibility of off spring. Wouldn't DNA and paternity suits do that already. And knowing the current system isn't that the risk these second, third , forth "wives" take. Why couldn't they take turns ....every 2 yrs divorce 1 and marry another... revolving like duck duck goose. The one that's married to the guy when he dies wins....or loses depending how you want to look at it.


I say NO

That's a lot of money to spend over the long run for marriage licenses and whatever it costs to file a divorce. Since most of these families have a lot of kids plus the multiple adults to support, how are they supposed to afford all that paper pushing?

On the real topic, no. I agree about paternity suits forcing fathers (and in some cases mothers) to be responsible for their kids.

zephyrrine 05-25-2012 11:34 PM

so pretty much all of you agree that if a woman who is suppose to married to a man is cast a side she shouldn't be helped. I'm not saying monthly alimony payments, but at least a simple here is some money to help you out or here is a plain ticket back home.

km34 05-25-2012 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zephyrrine (Post 137404)
so pretty much all of you agree that if a woman who is suppose to married to a man is cast a side she shouldn't be helped. I'm not saying monthly alimony payments, but at least a simple here is some money to help you out or here is a plain ticket back home.

If she chose to marry the man, she put herself in that position. She could have made sure she legal documents in place to cover herself or gotten a bank account that only she could access set up to make sure she wouldn't be stranded if the relationship ended.

Now, in situations where underage girls are sold off and forced to marry men, there is a-whole-nother legal issue and they sure as hell deserve some retribution.

Our choices lead us places. Choosing to put yourself in a situation where you have no legal protection is still a choice. Why should a man (albeit an asshole) be punished because he found a woman or women who would willingly enter into a situation where he has that power over them? Does it suck, sure, but just like he chose to be a dick and throw someone out of his house, she chose to ignore the danger of it when she entered into the situation.

AutumnalTone 05-27-2012 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zephyrrine (Post 137404)
so pretty much all of you agree that if a woman who is suppose to married to a man is cast a side she shouldn't be helped.

Here's the thing: she is responsible for her own situation--that's part of being an adult. If she places herself in a situation where she is entirely dependent on somebody else for everything, then she has to be prepared for that to apply in all circumstances. If she doesn't want to be dependent on somebody else for everything, then she can act to make certain she isn't.

JaneQSmythe 05-27-2012 10:52 PM

Just for the hell of it - let's put it the other direction and see if you/we feel differently.

In our Vee I am the only one who produces a significant income. The three of us live quite comfortable on that income so neither of them is under any pressure to contribute to the communal coffers - although they are free to do so (neither is particularly disposed to regular employment - neither is seeking such - I am not pushing for it/ negating it - I view it as a personal decision - I like having them available whenever I want their company vs. I would like the additional financial support, it's pretty even). There are no kids to consider. I pay all of the communal bills from our communal funds - funded by my income. They each have credit cards that they can use to purchase items for themselves or communal use (within reason - large purchases are expected to be discussed.)

In addition to the above - my legal husband (of 16 years) has his own credit card and each month I put a set amount of "fun money" into his private account for him(them? - I don't know if they have any arrangement between them) to spend on luxuries (we laughingly call this "hookers and drugs" money - acknowledging that he doesn't need to account to me how this money is spent). He is expected to pay his own credit card from this account, which includes any money that he generates independently. In addition I fund his Roth IRA maximally every year.

Dude has his own credit card and bank account which I have nothing to do with. Obviously he benefits financially by having room/board/routine living expenses covered without contributing financially to the household. Any money that he generates is his to do with whatever he wants.

The boys are expected to deal with routine "staying at home" duties while I am working - home/car maintenance, shopping, cooking, taking the dogs to the vet, etc. If one of them got a job I would expect them to contribute to the communal coffers and their "at home" duty expectation would be reduced based on the amount of time that they weren't "at home".

So? If one of my "husbands" elects to leave the household, or I can no longer maintain a relationship with them (for whatever reason) am I expected to "provide for" them in some way just because I have chosen to/ agreed to do so in the past? Why or why not?

Jane("Just Askin'")Q

dingedheart 05-28-2012 12:42 PM

Km34,

Don't they breed like rabbits .......just cut that down by 1 kid per wife and go to legal zoom or something ....500 for a divorce ...that's cheap every other year. What a marriage license cost? 25.....

Jane,

Yes .....if you use zeph's model you're on the hook for alimony for your bf.
In fact wouldnt a strict feminist argue there should be no gender bias?


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:48 PM.