boca;590384What is the reason to disallow poly-whatever?
It is there to frustrate those who have ideas about R2I, or R2A or R2-wherever. There is only one, and the second is not allowed tends to be the crux of the problem. If only a second were to be allowed, one could have one in LIA, and one in LII, and the moving-company sponsors of this forum would make out like bandits. This year R2I.... and the one in LII would be too much of a hassle, and therefore, the next year R2A. And then R2I... and so on.
[QUOTE]Originally Posted by
gotskiz 
What should be the common rule on polygamy? Allow or disallow?
The very first post of mine on this forum expressed the opinion that the man is not all that useful, beyond perhaps keeping the cashflow positive for the family, after he had contributed to a couple of children. I'd say allow poly-whatever, so long as the sharer gets to collect the salvage value of the shared (as a dowry) from the new entrant into the family.
I could easily see a scenario, where man-wife, both going out to work, have two children, both teenagers doing their thing, being responsible and so forth. The man has had the good sense to fix his'self so as to "
shoot only blanks".... as it were.... This couple could actually use a stay at home parent, a female. I could easily see high flying professional women long for another wife to deal with the pesky affairs of dealing with the maintenance staff, home-chores and other miscellaneous details, in exchange for money, access to the "man"-of-the-house (including holidays with him w/o kids) and such.
It would be such a relief to the elder wife.
The reason we have rules against poly-whatever is all the gaming possibilities where people with poor bargaining positions could be subjugated and exploited in such a scheme.
