Polyandry is a kind of polygamy in which men cluster around one woman. Although the relationship is free and unbounded by any formal institution like marriage, polyandrists are devoted to each other or at least men are devoted to a woman. Hence, the only bond that holds them together is, reportedly, love. Can this really be a true love then? Are men free in a polyandrous relationship? Or maybe they are emotionally retarded individuals, subdued by a tantalizing and sexually insatiate seductress?
Beyond the well-fitted disguise of the relationship’s raison d’etre such as love and dedication, the naked truth of envy and jealousy lurks in the hardcore of the matter. In polyandry a woman is a driving force but that does not necessarily mean that she provides for the family. On the contrary, she takes the lead thanks to her innate charm and conspicuous sex appeal. Therefore, a woman is capable of finding such men who can satiate her desired fantasies, letting her, in consequence, expand in a frivolous way, detached from pressure and financial expectations of the outside world. Comfortable as this situation is for a woman, the relationship may not be as easy for her men, as they have to cope with each other on a regular basis. According to great thinkers, philosophers, artists who are impossible to be enumerated, love is free, unconditioned, unbounded to any institution or law. It is doubtful, however, whether this phenomenon exists in a polyandrous liaison in a non-hypocritical way. Upon the Details.com example of Jon, Ian, Jaiya it is overt that the men, Jon and Ian, are connected with each other only through Jaiya or her (and Ian’s) son, Eamon; otherwise they don’t hang out and barely make eye-contact. Their dedication is superfluous but only towards Jaiya and Eamon. They all share responsibilities and expectations but corrupt feelings make their way through as their relationship is not immaculately reciprocal. Since none of the men can have Jaiya exclusively, they have joined forces as a compromise to stay close to her. Hypothetically, they could actually co-operate much better if they were all bisexual and unanimously conducted coitus in promiscuity resembling, for instance, Markiz De Sade plots. This could hopefully devoid them of any family feelings, identity, and thus, jealousy about their partner. Bearing in mind, however, the rules governing their relationship, providing for the family and responsibilities for fostering a child, polyandrists, like Ian or Jon, cannot break free from the earthly desire of a pre-emptive right to possess a lover, hence jealousy and envy remain.
The polyandrous relationship is often composed of egalitarian polyamorous individuals who believe in existence of chains of relatively stable partners. This implies freedom of relations between its members and the other people who accept this lifestyle and are willing to commit to the expansion of “the family.” It almost sounds as Cosa Nostra, except for the fact that the members do not necessarily earn a living through criminal activities. Despite that, they are closely linked to each other pledging allegiance to the family. As women in such relationships tend to be more easily enchanted by the outside men they meet, they often prompt the family expansion. Men, on the other hand, remain docile about bringing in more male representatives to the clan for fear of losing the beloved female. Obviously, most of them are allowed to go out hunting the opposite sex, the others are restraint by the harsh rules of “no fluid exchange” but the crux of the issue lies somewhere else. Most of them don’t want to see their woman get entangled with the other men but when it happens they take this opportunity to have something out of their life too, in a form of consensual agreement. They are not swingers though, or at least such is the assumption. As a result of this depravation, men fell prey to their woman by firstly falling in love with her and eventually being downplayed in favor of the other man. Some deny this stance by positing that in this way they actually try to overcome the mundane vices like jealousy. Good luck to them.
Men's lack of opposition to such circumstances evokes his weakness. Instead of cutting the corrosive cord off, men, of originally monogamous relationship, let the relationship develop into a triad or other forms. The pain of breaking up is a side-effect and evidence of a strong feeling such as love. Hence, splitting up seems rather uncomfortable. Simultaneously, being jerked around in a triad is not cozy neither. Fatuous dedication is the underpinning of the inability to move on. It is caused by foolishness and naivety of a infatuated man. The more besotted a man is the more desperately he seems to catch at a straw. His once ostentatious courage yields to the prospects of the loss of the beloved. This leads up to the emotional enslavement which unravels man's weakness of attachment to a woman. Nevertheless, it takes two to tango or at least it once did. The indomitable force of woman’s sexuality led to the expulsion from paradise according the old adage. This time her tantalizing wits counter man’s necessity to leave the drowning ship. At the end of the day, a man finds himself in captivity of a subduing, devious seductress, a succubus embodiment.
Taking the above into consideration, it is worth remembering that life is a trajectory of decisions in which morality plays a role. Along with the differences in the mind-set of individuals, morality becomes a subjective matter. On the other hand, living in jealousy only festers depravation. Self-denial aggravates hurt feelings, which bring about serious consequences and casualties such as suicides. Therefore, qualms rise over the issues of whether a woman in need of more action from other men is worth having a relationship with or if it is just the man’s inability to say no to her. By the way, what has happened to the traditional values and does this mean that to tango you need three or more now? One has to answer these questions themselves and ponder on whether being a polyandrist is the right choice of compromise or yet the transgression of a moral code.
