Polygamy: Should it be allowed?

[unpredictablebijou]

I blogged on this topic a while back, but I'll expand a bit here.

There is a specific woman that Bill and I might have married if we had been able to. She and I are both bisexual and Bill isn't. There are a lot of ways in which that relationship could have been truly wonderful for all three of us.

But, with society the way it is, we could not just have her move in with us and be part of our family. It's not just the legal stuff, it's the public recognition of the relationship.

Even if we could have married her, I'm not sure if we would have. It would have depended in large part on how that kind of marriage would have been
structured. It would only have worked for us if she would have been a *real* (i.e. equal) wife, not some kind of "also" or "secondary".

I agree that having more than two people in a relationship presents unique problems, but I don't think that's as much of a problem as the more central issue in holding a marriage together: some people are good at relationships and some aren't.

Making a marriage work is a skill and a talent just like anything else in life. If you don't have the talent, you can work hard and develop the skill. If you do have the talent, you don't need to work quite as hard.

If you have the talent *and* work hard at developing the skill, you can be really good at it.

Not everyone should be in a triad or a group marriage, for the same reason that not everyone should be flying airplanes. (And, by the way, some people aren't cut out to be married at all, but we don't tell them that they can't do it).

Just because some people don't want to be part of a multiple marriage (or wouldn't be very good at it) doesn't mean that those of us who could do it (or who *think* we could do it) shouldn't have the chance.

Yes, it would take more skill, more work, more communication and more flexibility/tolerance, *but* the rewards could be phenomenal.

Yes, there are are a whole bunch of legal things that would have to be worked out, including parenting responsibilities and support for people who get divorced out of a group marriage, but we have a lot of those problems right now.

I know plenty of children who have multiple fathers and mothers because both of the original parents have divorced and remarried. Some of them live truly "interesting" lives (having to maintain relationships with two or more couples, where some of the individuals hate each other).

Some of the kids get screwed up pretty bad and some find a way of making it all work.

Polygamy/polyandry would make some of those problems worse, but it would make other problems more manageable. There would be more spouses to support the children. There would also be more spouses to try to help the members of the marriage who are having trouble.

Of course, there would also be more people to fight with and get pissed off at.

There is also the possibility of having a group marriage where *some* of the spouses are good a parenting and others aren't. With three wives and two husbands, there is the possibility that the parenting responsibilities are divided unequally - perhaps allowing one or more of the wives and husbands to stay at home with the kids full time.

And in the case of infertile people (like my husband) you could have the flexibility of being a parent without necessarily providing the biological raw material. (Yes, it's called adoption, but a group marriage would create more options).

Anyway, I've now gone in a dozen different directions and not really proven anything. But I guess my whole point was that "yes" or "no" to polygamy/polyandry isn't a simple question.

These are all excellent points, and exactly the sort of things discussed in many gatherings of polyfolk, like workshops and support groups. The main thing most people stress is that these questions need to be discussed clearly and often.

I tend to begin my presentations by saying to a group, DO NOT do this. If it's not in your nature to be poly, don't go there. And if you're thinking of trying it just because you want to somehow legitimize an inability to keep your dick in your pants, or your pussy or whatever you keep in there, then you're heading the wrong direction. If regular fidelity isn't possible for someone, then polyfidelity will be even less possible. (That's a generic "you", not you, angela - smiley)

But in a case like the one described above, it seems to me that the main things standing in the way of that potentially happy household were a worry about how society would perceive it, and an assumption that the only "contracts" of value there would be the one that is made in a legal marriage. That made me sorta sad to read; I hope everyone is having a happy life anyway, regardless of where they ended up.

If society is going to ever adjust its attitude about this, there have to be people doing it, and doing well, so that it becomes increasingly obvious that this is a legitimate choice. And that it's not that big a deal, and certainly healthier than the serial monogamy pattern most people are into: marry, cheat, divorce. Marry, cheat, divorce. A kid with two daddies and three mommies who all love each other, or a kid whose parents have honest and realistic views of their own relationships, whatever they are, tends to be a fuck of a lot healthier than someone who has to live through that standard marry-divorce bullshit multiple times.

In the meantime, I'm doing it anyway, and its surprising how NOT a big deal it is, even here in the heartland. We don't go announcing it all over the place, and our language choices are a little different (we tend, for example, to use the term "beloved" or "mate" instead of wife and husband, but hell, we'd probably do that anyway) but we don't really hide anything. People see what they're comfortable seeing.

That's more than enough of my two cents.

bijou

 

[Liar]

In an isolated area, it is usually not practical for a woman who is married at 14 to 16 [not at all atypical] to have real employment.

Well, that is not the kind of polygamy (or polyandry, I wasn't aware there were gender specific terms until I read this thread) that was asked about here. The question was, specifically, "between consenting adults". And an adult can reasonably be responsible to bring in a paycheck to the household.

 

[Belegon]

And an adult can reasonably be responsible to bring in a paycheck to the household.

Financially I would think that the ROI could be rather good in a multiple spouse environment.

Most of your basic costs are diminished (per capita) as the household increases in size...

housing, property taxes, power, heat, cooling... cable, phone, etc. All these are only marginally influenced by a larger household (housing is, of course, vulnerable to a square footage need difference.)

only food and water should have major upticks as you add an additional resource user.

 

[TxRad]

Which one are you, darlin'?

At my age I've learned to do all three and then a few.....

 

[R. Richard]

Well, that is not the kind of polygamy (or polyandry, I wasn't aware there were gender specific terms until I read this thread) that was asked about here. The question was, specifically, "between consenting adults". And an adult can reasonably be responsible to bring in a paycheck to the household.

Liar:
A real adult, one who is educated at least to the point of a high school diploma, and who lives in a metropolitan area can reasonably be expected to bring in a paycheck.

The reality of the current situation, is that the women who are the multiple wives of a current, real-world polygamous male are normally married at a very young age and before they graduate from high school. The only skill they have are traditional housekeeping skills. Unfortunately, every woman in the area in which they live has pretty much the same skill set. Thus, employment is pretty much limited to working in the husband's business, IFF the husband has a business. Most of the husbands not only don't have a business, they aren't even steadily employed. The reason for the employment situation is that, under current laws, the polygamists live in very rural, very poor areas. Exacerbating the problem is that the polygamous husband, for financial reasons, wants to get his daughters out of the house ASAP. Thus, marriage of polygamous daughters normally occurs at a very early age. The newly married teenage girl has no job training and no real possibility of working for anyone but her husband. The real world situation I have described is NOT an agreement between consenting adults.

Of ocurse, the expulsion of 'excess' teenage males from a polygamous community is NOT an agreement between consenting adults.

Inevitably, polygamy winds up involving children in the worst part of the lifestyle. I am talkimg about the worst part of the lifstyle economically. The young girls are trapped in a system from which ther is little real hope of escape. The young boys start life with basically the clothes on their backs, a suitcase with a few changes of clothing and little in the way of job training.

I live in the western US. AFAIK, the polygamy problem in the US is in the western part and mostly linked to the former religious practices of certain sects in the area.

 

[DeeZire]

I think polygamy/polyandry would be great for the greeting card industry, songwriters (love songs would take on a whole new twist) and it would be a good way to address the housing crisis; assuming the polygamists/polyandrists weren't popping out kids like rabbits. We do have an over-population crisis, which seems to be on everyone's ignore list.

 

[cloudy]

Liar:
A real adult, one who is educated at least to the point of a high school diploma, and who lives in a metropolitan area can reasonably be expected to bring in a paycheck.

The reality of the current situation, is that the women who are the multiple wives of a current, real-world polygamous male are normally married at a very young age and before they graduate from high school. The only skill they have are traditional housekeeping skills. Unfortunately, every woman in the area in which they live has pretty much the same skill set. Thus, employment is pretty much limited to working in the husband's business, IFF the husband has a business. Most of the husbands not only don't have a business, they aren't even steadily employed. The reason for the employment situation is that, under current laws, the polygamists live in very rural, very poor areas. Exacerbating the problem is that the polygamous husband, for financial reasons, wants to get his daughters out of the house ASAP. Thus, marriage of polygamous daughters normally occurs at a very early age. The newly married teenage girl has no job training and no real possibility of working for anyone but her husband. The real world situation I have described is NOT an agreement between consenting adults.

Of ocurse, the expulsion of 'excess' teenage males from a polygamous community is NOT an agreement between consenting adults.

Inevitably, polygamy winds up involving children in the worst part of the lifestyle. I am talkimg about the worst part of the lifstyle economically. The young girls are trapped in a system from which ther is little real hope of escape. The young boys start life with basically the clothes on their backs, a suitcase with a few changes of clothing and little in the way of job training.

I live in the western US. AFAIK, the polygamy problem in the US is in the western part and mostly linked to the former religious practices of certain sects in the area.

This is the worst type of stereotyping.

Those things happen within one very tiny religious sect. It doesn't mean it would happen if polygamy/polyandry were accepted in society in general. That's nonsense.

 

[3113]

The reality of the current situation, is that the women who are the multiple wives of a current, real-world polygamous male are normally married at a very young age and before they graduate from high school.

But, Richard, this is rather like back in the days of prohibition when liquor was illegal and was sold to everyone, including little kids. See, if it's illegal to sell booze, then it doesn't matter if you sell it to someone of legal drinking age, right? But if it IS legal to sell booze--but illegal to sell it to someone underage, then you're less likely to sell it to someone underage because you want to stay in business, and money can be made selling it legally to adults rather than risking losing your license by selling it to kids.

Yes? Your argument about underage girls is rather like saying, "Bartenders sell illegal booze to kids, and if we make it legal, they'll sell it to more kids." Yet the opposite is true. Make it legal, and the bartenders suddenly have something to lose if they sell to kids.

Now. If Poly--whatever is *legal* under the condition that it be between *consenting* adults with all kinds of paperwork required to establish things like taxes, child support, etc. THEN that actually cuts down on underage girls getting married because marrying underage, non-consenting girls is STILL illegal...but marrying legal adult women is not. So you might as well marry the legal adult women and not get into trouble than invite trouble by marrying the underage girls.

Of course, religious groups that cater to men marrying underage girls will do so no matter what the laws. If you believe what you're doing is god's will, you'll do all kinds of illegal things. So using religious groups, or patriarchal societies that allow men to legally abuse females doesn't argue the point either. The problem in both cases (Religious group/patriarchy) is that even IF they only took one adult woman to wife, they'd still want a woman who was uneducated, stayed at home, couldn't think for herself, etc. And they's still abuse her--and they'd make sure their daughters didn't get an education either, and didn't know their rights, and thought their place was in the home serving whatever man they planned to marry her to. This is certainly historically true in non-polygamous western civilization when fathers married their 12-16 year old daughters to older men. Obviously, monogamy did not prevent such a thing from happening. Advances in women's and children's rights are what changed and started to prevent such things.

Abuse of young girls or older women will happen with these sort of men no matter whether they are polygamous or not. Polygamy just gives them the chance to do it to more girls/women.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

This is the worst type of stereotyping.

Those things happen within one very tiny religious sect. It doesn't mean it would happen if polygamy/polyandry were accepted in society in general. That's nonsense.

Agreed. Hell yes. We're talking about two completely different things now, and "the polygamy problem in the US", to quote RRichard, has nothing to do with ADULTS who choose a multiple-partner lifestyle of any sort, and who have the right to make whatever contracts and partnerships they like. Confusing the two confuses the issue.

Isolating a 14-16 year old girl and forcing her to become a spouse at that age has nothing to do with polyamory. And there are any number of religious groups who believe in one sort of forced, youthful marriage or another, whether it means multiple spouses or not.

Should polygamy be allowed, and polyandry and polyamory and all that? Of course. Should a 14 year old get married? Probably not. Should anyone, ever, be forced to get married to someone else? Certainly not. Should anyone, ever, be put in a position of isolation and submission because of any household or religious structure? Hell no. If that's what we're talking about, we should call it that. That's not poly-anything as such.

I am neither 14 nor Mormon. And I am not a problem.



Well, not usually.

bijou

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think polygamy/polyandry would be great for the greeting card industry, songwriters (love songs would take on a whole new twist) and it would be a good way to address the housing crisis; assuming the polygamists/polyandrists weren't popping out kids like rabbits. We do have an over-population crisis, which seems to be on everyone's ignore list.

A somewhat different issue, which can be addressed by 3113's last post-- The folks that "pop 'em out like rabbits" are mostly doing God's Will.

Of the Polyamorous households I've known, many of them were childless.

 

[R. Richard]

This is the worst type of stereotyping.

Those things happen within one very tiny religious sect. It doesn't mean it would happen if polygamy/polyandry were accepted in society in general. That's nonsense.

Cloudy:
I disagree.

First of all, the problem of excess young males would not disappear if polygamy were legal. There would just be more population in which to hide the rejected young males. The problem is a mathematical one and I am a mathematician.

Second of all, consider the situation where an educated, trained woman would want to be the second, third or more wife of a polygamous male. Would she be willing to very possibly subordinate the welfare of her children to the children of another, more favored wife? I don't think so.

Thirdly, how many men can afford to support more than one family? Even where the polygamous husband can support more than one family, what happens when disaster strikes? Does an educated, trained woman immediately take up the slack and, as necessary, begin to support the other wives and children at least partially? I don't think so.

Fourthly, let us assume that one of the wives wants to divorce the polygamous husband. The wife and/or her child(ren) are sick and need very expensive care. Under current law, the husband and the other wives are required to provide financially for the divorcing wife [check out the 'deep pockets' legal theory.] This means that a wife is now paying alimony/chld support to another woman, instead of supporting her own children. [Yes, I know women who have married a man who is forced to support an ex-wife and/or kids. However, the woman is not legally required to contribute to the support of said ex wife and/or kids] If the other wife/wives are still part of the marriage, they would come under the divorce court mandates. I don't think that very many educated, trained women would sign up for that.

If you disagree, please analyze my points.

 

[cloudy]

Cloudy:
I disagree.

First of all, the problem of excess young males would not disappear if polygamy were legal. There would just be more population in which to hide the rejected young males. The problem is a mathematical one and I am a mathematician.

You're making the assumption that all multiple marriages will be one man with multiple wives. What about the women with multiple husbands? So, no, it's not a mathematical problem at all, regardless of what you are.

Second of all, consider the situation where an educated, trained woman would want to be the second, third or more wife of a polygamous male. Would she be willing to very possibly subordinate the welfare of her children to the children of another, more favored wife? I don't think so.

See above

Thirdly, how many men can afford to support more than one family? Even where the polygamous husband can support more than one family, what happens when disaster strikes? Does an educated, trained woman immediately take up the slack and, as necessary, begin to support the other wives and children at least partially? I don't think so.

See above. Most women work these days. Join us in the 21st century, please.

Fourthly, let us assume that one of the wives wants to divorce the polygamous husband. The wife and/or her child(ren) are sick and need very expensive care. Under current law, the husband and the other wives are required to provide financially for the divorcing wife [check out the 'deep pockets' legal theory.] This means that a wife is now paying alimony/chld support to another woman, instead of supporting her own children. [Yes, I know women who have married a man who is forced to support an ex-wife and/or kids. However, the woman is not legally required to contribute to the support of said ex wife and/or kids] If the other wife/wives are still part of the marriage, they would come under the divorce court mandates. I don't think that very many educated, trained women would sign up for that.

Obviously, laws would have to be changed, I think that's a given.

If you disagree, please analyze my points.

Just did.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Richard, you needn't worry about all those poor young men -- I am sure many women wouold be willing to marry two or three of 'em at a time.

You are concentrating on one single aspect of polyamory-- I think you'd find that "one man- many women" would make up only a small percentage of the partnerships that would form in such a case.

 

[cloudy]

Richard, you needn't worry about all those poor young men -- I am sure many women wouold be willing to marry two or three of 'em at a time.

You are concentrating on one single aspect of polyamory-- I think you'd find that "one man- many women" would make up only a small percentage of the partnerships that would form in such a case.

exactly.

 

[Recidiva]

Richard, you needn't worry about all those poor young men -- I am sure many women wouold be willing to marry two or three of 'em at a time.

You are concentrating on one single aspect of polyamory-- I think you'd find that "one man- many women" would make up only a small percentage of the partnerships that would form in such a case.

It would if I have anything to say about it. I have a list. Okay, now it's labeled "harem" but they're all volunteers.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It would if I have anything to say about it. I have a list. Okay, now it's labeled "harem" but they're all volunteers.

*steps forward*

 

[Recidiva]

*steps forward*

Oh, women are definitely welcome. Well, ones specifically named Stella_Omega at least.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh, women are definitely welcome. Well, ones specifically named Stella_Omega at least.

I'm so proud to be an exception to your rule!

 

[Recidiva]

I'm so proud to be an exception to your rule!

And I'm so proud to have such good taste.

 

[R. Richard]

Cloudy & Stella:
From what I have read, a man is supposed to get married in order to pass his genes on to another generation. This would not seem to work well in a polyandry situation. If it does work well, please provide specific examples.

Some time ago, in Africa, there were matriarchal societies in which a few women owned the sources of wealth [animals/land, whatever.] The men of the tribe who wanted to survive economically would 'marry for money.' However, they also had non-wealthy women wuth whion they actually lived. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Now, it has been postulated that educated, trained women would immediately marry uneducated, untrained young boys expelled from polygamous societies. [The boys will be uneducated and untrained, as a society never invest much in those it plans to expell or maintain in field hand slavery.] Why would an educated, trained woman want to marry not one, but several uneducated, untrained boys who would then likely be looking for 'young stuff' rather than the unreasonable educated, trained woman they are married to until they can get a divorce and some separation money? The situation seems very unclear. However, I am always willing to learn. [Please cite current situations where educated, trained women are attracted, in numbers, to uneducated, untrained boys.]

 

[cloudy]

Cloudy & Stella:
From what I have read, a man is supposed to get married in order to pass his genes on to another generation. This would not seem to work well in a polyandry situation. If it does work well, please provide specific examples.

Some time ago, in Africa, there were matriarchal societies in which a few women owned the sources of wealth [animals/land, whatever.] The men of the tribe who wanted to survive economically would 'marry for money.' However, they also had non-wealthy women wuth whion they actually lived. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Now, it has been postulated that educated, trained women would immediately marry uneducated, untrained young boys expelled from polygamous societies. [The boys will be uneducated and untrained, as a society never invest much in those it plans to expell or maintain in field hand slavery.] Why would an educated, trained woman want to marry not one, but several uneducated, untrained boys who would then likely be looking for 'young stuff' rather than the unreasonable educated, trained woman they are married to until they can get a divorce and some separation money? The situation seems very unclear. However, I am always willing to learn. [Please cite current situations where educated, trained women are attracted, in numbers, to uneducated, untrained boys.]

oh, for fuck's sake...

you're either being deliberately dense, or are just oblivious to the real world. I'm not sure which.

 

[3113]

Cloudy & Stella:
From what I have read, a man is supposed to get married in order to pass his genes on to another generation. This would not seem to work well in a polyandry situation. If it does work well, please provide specific examples.

My. You really aren't living in the 21st century. Um...if men get married in order to pass on genes and nothing more then in the 21st century marrying to do this is a waste of time.

What part of "sperm donator" don't you understand? If that's all a man wants to do, pass on his genes, then he can do it far more widely and effectively just by donating sperm at a sperm bank. In fact, they'll freeze the sperm for a nice long time so even when he can no longer get it up, his sperm will be spreading itself around.

So. Obviously, men marry for other reasons than to spread their genes around. Also. If that was the only reason for men to marry, why would they engage in monogamy?

Some time ago, in Africa, there were matriarchal societies in which a few women owned the sources of wealth [animals/land, whatever.] The men of the tribe who wanted to survive economically would 'marry for money.' However, they also had non-wealthy women wuth whion they actually lived.

Um. And? What if those women had a written contract with those men that said "No money to you if you have another woman. I get all the men I want, you don't get all the women you want. Or else, you're out on your ass."

We're not arguing for men and women having no marital contracts--just for them having whatever kinds of contracts they want.

Now, it has been postulated that educated, trained women would immediately marry uneducated, untrained young boys expelled from polygamous societies.

You're working under the assumption that if polygamy was legal that it would only exist in "societies" like the Mormon cults. That all the neighbors on one street would be polygamous. Try imagining this: your next door neighbor has three wives. And if he dumps the preteen sons he's had by these wives on the side of the road, he can be arrested for child abandonment because HE DOESN'T LIVE IN A CULT! He lives right there, next door to YOU. He pays taxes, sends his kids to regular schools, obeys the laws of the city....

Are you understanding now?

You've got this weird idea that legal polygamy = legal polygamy cults. One is not the other.

 

[john-the-author]

Actually, as much as I'd like to agree with this, I don't think I can just yet. It's not a disagreeance with any given situation where the people involved (assuming they're adults, of course) are knowledgeable of the circumstances and consenting, or even a statement on the preservation of the confines of conventional marriage; mostly, it's a question of the legalities involved. Things like Health Insurance (let's face it, if gay couples can't pull it off...) divorce, and whatnot. We would have to find a specific set of laws for this situation before I can completely agree. There's also the issues that can evolve out of children being raised in such an environment. If the child is this mother's (or father's) child, when in the situaton does the other spouse come into play, and what effects can that have on a child? What concerns me in the child's case isn't that there aren't worse situations for children now, but that to a degree we're aware of such situations, and psychology hasn't caught up in terms of treatment of the aftermath.

In social terms of acceptability... If it feels good, do it.

Nicely said, QC, and I agree with your observation. I think we're going to have resolve the question of gay marriage first; it'll help forge some legal ground on this issue.

I know of only a couple of non-traditional marriages that actually work and work well. One of them--two men and a woman--has worked very well for about 27 years. They have a daughter together. Another is my favorite co-author, who is also polyandrous. She's married to one man and another one lives with them. They all get along very well, too, but they've only been together for maybe a decade and there are no children in the mix yet.

Yes, if it feels good, do it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Cloudy & Stella:
From what I have read, a man is supposed to get married in order to pass his genes on to another generation. This would not seem to work well in a polyandry situation. If it does work well, please provide specific examples

Don't believe everything you read, Richard-- people get married for the damnedest reasons! Lots of women these days are trying out something called... The Pill, have you ever heard of it?

Besides, if you'd read an earlier post of mine, you would have seen that two men successfully passed on their genes in a polyandrous marriage. One son apiece.

Now, it has been postulated that educated, trained women would immediately marry uneducated, untrained young boys expelled from polygamous societies.

Let's see, I have a choice; a crusty, beer-bellied middle-aged man with a plethora of bizarre opinions on how women and men are supposed to behave--Or a gorgeous, lusty, and teachable young pup who can keep up with me in bed, and has the fire in his belly to make things happen, and sees women as truly equal partners in life.

I do believe it's a no-brainer!

[Please cite current situations where educated, trained women are attracted, in numbers, to uneducated, untrained boys.]

Please cite current situations where trained, educated women are attracted in any way at all to wretched old misanthropes. In any number.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

Actually, as much as I'd like to agree with this, I don't think I can just yet. It's not a disagreeance with any given situation where the people involved (assuming they're adults, of course) are knowledgeable of the circumstances and consenting, or even a statement on the preservation of the confines of conventional marriage; mostly, it's a question of the legalities involved. Things like Health Insurance (let's face it, if gay couples can't pull it off...) divorce, and whatnot. We would have to find a specific set of laws for this situation before I can completely agree. There's also the issues that can evolve out of children being raised in such an environment. If the child is this mother's (or father's) child, when in the situaton does the other spouse come into play, and what effects can that have on a child? What concerns me in the child's case isn't that there aren't worse situations for children now, but that to a degree we're aware of such situations, and psychology hasn't caught up in terms of treatment of the aftermath.


Q_C

Why does there need to be a set of laws about something before it's okay? I know plenty of blended families and poly households who manage to make the health insurance happen in creative ways that make sense. No legislation necessary. Same with divorce. One takes all divorces on a case-by-case basis, and conflicts are dealt with. Same-same with child raising, household tasks, income production and so on. The advantage that poly households have is that they MUST discuss and organize these things, rather than just trusting in an outdated form of legislation to take care of it for them. That goes for the interpersonal dynamics as well.

I also know children who have grown up in poly households and are now adults. They seem to be no more or less fucked up than anyone else. Psychology can handle it already, I promise. The hardest thing for a kid growing up with a group of adults, or with gay parents, or any other form of non-traditional partnerships, is not going to be the loving multiple household, I promise you. It will be what his peers have to say about it when they have been raised by close-minded parents. Maybe if the culture were more openminded kids wouldn't have to face that.

R Richard is now clearly too far in outer space for me to understand.
Legal marriage is a form, and a relatively recent form at that, of property law. Men don't get married to pass on their genes. Men have AFFAIRS to pass on their genes.

Wow man.

bijou