Revision of 'Partner' function to allow polyamorous relationships

Actually folks we already have it...its called













wait for it




















wait for it

























GROUPS

Ta daaaaaaa


Shadow

I think we should also be able to create partnerships with inanimate objects.

Fine. Remove the discriminatory "two-only" partner category and we'll be good to go.

Huh? two only? the two only "Partnership" is for like Marriage RL. How many countrys do you know that let you marry more than one person and not go to Jail for it. ''

However, if you want more than one "Marriage" partner Groups are an effective tool as it has to be 3 or more.

Just noting how to work within the limitations of SL.

Shadow

We can start with most of the Middle and Near East, which have traditionally allowed polyamorous marriages. It's also practiced in some African tribal groups (both polygamy and polyandry). I'm not certain, but I believe the Polynesian people also practiced some form of poly marriage.

For the most part, only countries unduly influenced by one particular religious tradition ban polyamorous marriage. Interestingly, the holy scripture of that tradition contains many examples of and no prohibitions against poly marriage.

In most of the United States, you will not go to jail for entering into a polyamorous marriage. The state won't recognize it as valid, and you may be guilty of a misdemeanor under certain outdated blue laws, but only in the most backwards states will you risk any jail time (obviously, if there is intent to decieve and defraud, other laws come into play).

Of course, none of this is strictly relevant to the question of what should be possible in a virtual world. But you did ask.

Mormons who practice polygamy are called Fundamentalists, oddly enough, and are usually looked on with a bit of disdain by more mainstream LDS because they typically cannot support even one family and give a really bad impression of the LDS to gentiles.

or

We're together but not "together."

Actually about 90% of mature pose balls are couple only. You have to get creative and waste money on uneeded pose balls and unlink and relink to make any decent group ones and not alot of 'solo" ones either.

If we do get the ability to add multiple partners, perhaps we can list the top "players" on the "Leaders" board as well.

This made me laugh so hard.

Only if we can implement rules to stop bisexuals from gay-ming the system.

Siggy.

Just make a 'To do' list.

my kind of girl.

I don't mean to criticize, but a more telling poll might be something along the lines of:

[ ] I approve of the proposal and would use such a feature.
[ ] I approve of the proposal but would not use such a feature.
[ ] I approve of the proposal, but don't feel it's a good use of development time.
[ ] I don't approve of the proposal.
[ ] I don't care one way or the other.

I think this covers most of the caveats and objections raised in this thread, and does so without bias. (Not that there was any in the original poll, but there's no shortage of highly biased polls in these forums, if you hadn't noticed. )

*twitches in convulsions.* We had this in one of my old games. We had D/s support in the game and we would always count how many "leashes" we had.....No comment.

I really think this takes away the meaning of the partner feature..
Why not just make a group??

Honestly, Its a total waste of development time, IMO. If you want to have a dodecahedronal marriage arrangement, make a group, lay it out in the charter that thats what it is, and go to town. Dont waste development time over such a piddly thing. Frankly, I don't see much use in the "partner" tag, either - even if its a nice symbolic gesture, you could just as easily make a blurb about it in your profile if you're "married" to someone. Partnering carries with it none of the various social/financial benefits (or obligations) of a RL marriage, so in my view the whole thing is pretty much superfluous.

See my idea is a hole in the market!

SL need clubs for groupweddings and grouplove and groupsex!
So i have to start the struggle with Poser.

Where do i find 20 volunteers to be tied on those balls for hours and hours till animations are right?

Well, it prolly will result in a hernia club

Shouldn't that be a "Who To Do" list?

As this strikes close to home, being a RL polyfidelous partner, I voted yes. IF this took that much development effort to implement, then of course put it on a back burner. But I don't see it taking that much to do (Just adding a larger blank for Partner(s) in the profile and removing a limit on the partner function).

My concerns are moreso towards fellow players after reading all the replies here.
Some things to keep in mind about a polyamorous relationship:

A) It is NOT a purely sexual thing - This is about relationships; emotional, heart-felt relationships. We are not "players" or "sluts" or "attention whores." We simply remove a self-imposed limit to the number of people we can be in love with. To us, this is more than just having group sex animation balls, or a bed big enough for 3. It's bout being in love and wanting the world to know it.

B) It in no way demeans the status of a monogamous relationship - Some people only want one partner, some want more. Nobody is wrong.

C) Polyamory is not polygamy - Swingers are polygamous; swingers are not neccessarily polyamorous. This is about being in love with more than one person and everyone involved being happy about it.

D) It does not break any laws - There are no laws that say you cannot be romantically involved with more than one person. There are only laws against "legal marriage" and those laws are not enforcing moral code as much as they are policing things such as insurance fraud.

I am willing to bet that most of the "No" votes are due to misinformation and ignorance to the truth of polyamory. We're not trying to demean monogamous people. We're not trying to cheat the system for more money or priveledges. We just love more than one person. We would like as much respect for our relationships as monogamous couples get for theirs.

Again, if this takes more programming than I think, set it aside for now. But if it's easy, put it in. We have always been able to make a group in order to share land/objects. We want this so that when someone looks at our profile, they can see that we've made a commitment to more than one person and are proud.

I think the easiest way to code this is to allow people to specify a Group in their partner field. The partner field would then display <many> or <group: group name> with a button that opens the group's status window (where its members can be viewed). This way, the UI doesn't need to change a great deal to accomidate for a (theoretically) unlimited number of partners.
==Chris