Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-24-2012, 04:14 PM
zephyrrine zephyrrine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-24-2012, 07:38 PM
JaneQSmythe JaneQSmythe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pennsyl-tucky
Posts: 1,040
Default

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
__________________
Me: poly bi female, in an "open-but-not-looking" Vee-plus with -
MrS: hetero polyflexible male, live-in husband (together 21+ yrs)
Dude: hetero poly male, live-in boyfriend (together 3+ yrs) and MrS's best friend
Lotus: poly bi female, "it's complicated" relationships with Dude/JaneQ/MrS
TT: poly bi male, married to Lotus, FB with JaneQ
VV and MsJ: bi-women with male primaries, LTR LDR FWBs to JaneQ


My poly blogs on this site:
The Journey of JaneQSmythe
The Notebook of JaneQSmythe
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-25-2012, 01:47 AM
AutumnalTone AutumnalTone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kansas City Metro
Posts: 2,186
Default

Nope.
__________________
When speaking of various forms of non-monogamy...it ain't poly if you're just fucking around.

While polyamory, open relationships, and swinging are all distinctly different approaches to non-monogamy, they are not mutually exlusive. Folks can, and some do, engage in more than one of them at a time--and it's all good.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-25-2012, 08:19 PM
dingedheart dingedheart is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,257
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-25-2012, 10:16 PM
km34 km34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 624
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dingedheart View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-25-2012, 11:34 PM
zephyrrine zephyrrine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-25-2012, 11:52 PM
km34 km34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 624
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zephyrrine View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-27-2012, 08:56 PM
AutumnalTone AutumnalTone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kansas City Metro
Posts: 2,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zephyrrine View Post
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.
__________________
When speaking of various forms of non-monogamy...it ain't poly if you're just fucking around.

While polyamory, open relationships, and swinging are all distinctly different approaches to non-monogamy, they are not mutually exlusive. Folks can, and some do, engage in more than one of them at a time--and it's all good.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-27-2012, 10:52 PM
JaneQSmythe JaneQSmythe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pennsyl-tucky
Posts: 1,040
Default

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
__________________
Me: poly bi female, in an "open-but-not-looking" Vee-plus with -
MrS: hetero polyflexible male, live-in husband (together 21+ yrs)
Dude: hetero poly male, live-in boyfriend (together 3+ yrs) and MrS's best friend
Lotus: poly bi female, "it's complicated" relationships with Dude/JaneQ/MrS
TT: poly bi male, married to Lotus, FB with JaneQ
VV and MsJ: bi-women with male primaries, LTR LDR FWBs to JaneQ


My poly blogs on this site:
The Journey of JaneQSmythe
The Notebook of JaneQSmythe

Last edited by JaneQSmythe; 05-27-2012 at 10:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-28-2012, 12:42 PM
dingedheart dingedheart is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,257
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
marraige, polygamy, polygyny

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:55 AM.