Laurell K. Hamilton Quotes

Dusty Rhodes and Sapphire. They're a lovely twosome, or threesome, or foursome, or twenty-fifthsome.

I could be such a wonderful wife to another wife's husband.

Why should I limit myself to only one woman when I can have as many women as I want?

I've been in a few love triangles. I've been in a love quadrilateral.

I do think it is possible to be in love with two people at the same time.

I change my mind so much I need two boyfriends and a girlfriend.

You can be with your wife, very happily married, and then you meet some woman and you love her. But you love your wife, too. And you also love that one. Or if she's met some man and she loves the man and she loves you. And then you meet somebody else and now there are three of you. Why only one person?

I'm monogamous from time to time, but I prefer polygamy and polyandry.

I can't say unfortunately but sadly - I've got babies in more than one household.

It is ridiculous to think that you can spend your entire life with just one person. Three is about the right number. Yes, I imagine three husbands would do it?

It's a total lie to say there's only one person you're going to be with for the rest of your life. If you're lucky - and if you try really hard - there will always be more than one.

What if two people want to be your partner, then what?

I'm in a serious monogamous relationship, and I don't want to keep having different boyfriends, and I have this instead - with men and women. It's better. Instead of having sex, we have art.

Some guys fall in love with one girl, I gotta fall for two.

Trying to be able to have, let's say, more than three partners was absolutely impossible, at least for my own relationships.

A monogamous marriage and family is what some women want - but not all of us. We are mostly doing serial monogamy anyway.

Most men find it difficult to remain true to a single woman, but relatively easy to be true to three or four at the same time.

You must be aware that most men (and also not only a few women) are by nature not monogamous. This nature makes itself even more forceful when tradition and circumstance stand in an individual's way.

Several girlfriends are easier to handle than one wife.

Freedom of love is freedom to say yes to many lovers.

I am much more open to plural marriage than I was before, and I now support it in certain situations. I do believe it is right for some people. But our example in America today is gross abuse - I can't support it in fundamentalist compounds.

I have a very big conflict with the individualization of love. I feel like it's egotistical to just love one person when you can love so many of them. I feel so much love that I declare myself a lover of all.

I love playing 'Radagast.' He's my new love, you know what I mean? I'm not divorcing 'Doctor Who.' I'm just going to be married to a few people.

Straight couples don't have to be monogamous to be married or married to be monogamous. Monogamy no more defines marriage than the presence of children does. Monogamy isn't compulsory and its absence doesn't invalidate a marriage.

That's what this gay marriage thing is all about … poly-amorphous marriage … you can marry 18 people, you can marry a duck.