Polyamory

[justanobserver]

this reminds of of that song from the 70s by Stephen Stills - "And if you can't be with the one you love, Love the one your with..."

 

[JesusWalks78]

One man one wife, one love.

 

[Caylin]

I am in a Poly relationship right now, with two women that I love.

 

[Steezie]

I am in a Poly relationship right now, with two women that I love.

Kudos

I could never handle two women. One already can make me dance on a pin, I would probably become a slave if there were two

 

[Casimir]

First I'll note that polygyny (one man having more than one wife) is implicitly condoned in the Bible - obviously in the Old Testament, but also to a lesser degree in the New Testament - most notably in Jesus's Parable of the Ten Virgins. Also, polygyny has always been allowed in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which was founded around 300 A.D. There were cultural reasons why Romans restricted men to a single wife (mostly to do with keeping wealth concentrated among the wealthy), and pre-Christian cultural practices tend to affect interpretations of the Bible.

In any case, I don't see much support for polyamory in the Bible, but I think the reasons for condemning it are over-rated. Certainly, a loving and supportive polyamorous relationship seems more in keeping with the example of Christ than a loveless monogamous marriage.

Of course, there are bad relationships of all kinds, and one can cherry-pick the worst to condemn any kind of relationship, if one is merely looking for someone or something to condemn. I keep in mind that Jesus said that Love is the whole of the law - and Paul said that without Love, everything else is nothing. As such, I'm certainly not going to condemn polyamorous relationships, although obviously they are not suitable for everyone.

Hmmn. It would be nice if the Church paid a bit more attention to this "Love" thing. Anyone else notice that some of the really literal types seem to find a way to uphold every other instruction in the Bible, but tend to discount Love? It makes me wonder whose side they're on, sometimes - but I'm glad to find it absent in this thread so far.

 

[tocis]

I myself am in favour of polyamory and i think it is a healthy and decent way to view relationships and their nature in the 21st century

Quoting the Wikipedia page:

"Polyamory is the practice or lifestyle of being open to having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved."

(Red color added by me)

Under the emphasized condition, I'm fine with it. Everything else would be betrayal or at least major disrespect toward someone involved there.
Of course, this kind of full consent often isn't easy to find. Oh well. There's always a catch, isn't it?
But if everyone agrees, it can be loads of fun. I've been able to dabble a tiny little bit in polyamory lately, and as long as I was convinced that indeed everyone is fine with it, it was really cool (however, that "other girl" involved found a new boyfriend for a lasting thing since then, and we respect her decision).

 

[christalee4]

It looks complicated and has way too many definitions. I've met a couple of people who were into it; what's funny is that they try to distinguish themselves from "swingers", like the swingers were some terribly sleazy and sinful subgroup, and the polyamorites were on a higher plane of spirituality. Why marry if you want to have sex with multiple people?

 

[Caylin]

It looks complicated and has way too many definitions. I've met a couple of people who were into it; what's funny is that they try to distinguish themselves from "swingers", like the swingers were some terribly sleazy and sinful subgroup, and the polyamorites were on a higher plane of spirituality. Why marry if you want to have sex with multiple people?

Swingers aren't bad, but there is a difference. Poly is about the relationships, and as far as I know swinging is just about the sex.

 

[Mling]

I file polyamory under the category of "None of my business." I don't have any real feelings on it.

 

[bammertheblue]

Swingers aren't bad, but there is a difference. Poly is about the relationships, and as far as I know swinging is just about the sex.

Yes, pretty much.

 

[Q2004]

My general policy on the (im)morality of any relationship (sexual or otherwise) is as long as it's non-abusive and between consenting adults, I don't have a say in it.
That said, I could never manage one.

 

[christalee4]

Swingers aren't bad, but there is a difference. Poly is about the relationships, and as far as I know swinging is just about the sex.

'S funny. One of my friends was working in connection with the "adult" industry, and she knew quite a few people who were I guess you would call "swingers" - only they didn't really liked to be called "swingers" because it was too demeaning. They referred themselves as "in the lifestyle".

I just don't see how one could have a real relationship simultaneously with other people. It's like what the OP link described; there is always going to be number one wife or husband who had a longer history. Someone is always to be the favorite or closer to someone else, possibly causing jealousy. Since there are no limits set on the parameters of the relationship (presumably you can add other members to the group), there is always going to be situations in which the newer one is going to monopolize one member more in the beginning.

The allegedly ideal situation for polyamory in which everyone is not jealous, everyone is equal, has no ego, has no hangups has its beginnings in the "hippie" era, with Robert Heinlein and social experimentation. But the reality was far different. People were not treated equally. In fact women were treated even more like sex objects and were exploited, like many of those brainwashed Mormon fundies are currently exploited to believe that their lifestyle is part of some divine plan.

 

[Mling]

'S funny. One of my friends was working in connection with the "adult" industry, and she knew quite a few people who were I guess you would call "swingers" - only they didn't really liked to be called "swingers" because it was too demeaning. They referred themselves as "in the lifestyle".

I just don't see how one could have a real relationship simultaneously with other people. It's like what the OP link described; there is always going to be number one wife or husband who had a longer history. Someone is always to be the favorite or closer to someone else, possibly causing jealousy. Since there are no limits set on the parameters of the relationship (presumably you can add other members to the group), there is always going to be situations in which the newer one is going to monopolize one member more in the beginning.

The allegedly ideal situation for polyamory in which everyone is not jealous, everyone is equal, has no ego, has no hangups has its beginnings in the "hippie" era, with Robert Heinlein and social experimentation. But the reality was far different. People were not treated equally. In fact women were treated even more like sex objects and were exploited, like many of those brainwashed Mormon fundies are currently exploited to believe that their lifestyle is part of some divine plan.

From what I've read about polyamory, (one of?) the most stable and common relationship type(s) involves acknowledgement that there are "primary" and "secondary" partners at the onset of the relationships. My understanding is that if everybody involved tries to be completely equal, then when favoritism and jealousy inevitably erupt, it is much more damaging. The specific people I've been reading about build their relationships like this.

Jack and Jill have been living together for several years, and are primary partners. They have veto power over each other's secondaries and play partners, and they each come first in each other's lives.

Rob and Laura have been married for at least a decade (I want to say 15 or 20 years). Same deal.

Jill and Rob are secondary partners--they've been seeing each other for two or three years. If something in their relationship is causing trouble in either of their marriages (or de facto marriage), the primary relationship trumps this one.

Jack has a long-term, secondary girlfriend I know nothing about, and I know nothing about Laura's extra-marital activities.

Jill occasionally has other secondaries, but none as stable as her relationship with Rob.

Everybody involved "plays" with other people in sexual-type ways, not actually involving sex.

Everybody involved hates drama, has a full understanding of the role they play in everybody else's lives, and is not plotting any type of coup against anybody else. When jealousy does crop up, they have a framework in which to work it out.


So, that's pretty much all I know, but it should answer a few of the "but don't they get jealous?" type questions.

 

[christalee4]

From what I've read about polyamory, (one of?) the most stable and common relationship type(s) involves acknowledgement that there are "primary" and "secondary" partners at the onset of the relationships. My understanding is that if everybody involved tries to be completely equal, then when favoritism and jealousy inevitably erupt, it is much more damaging. The specific people I've been reading about build their relationships like this.

Jack and Jill have been living together for several years, and are primary partners. They have veto power over each other's secondaries and play partners, and they each come first in each other's lives.

Rob and Laura have been married for at least a decade (I want to say 15 or 20 years). Same deal.

Jill and Rob are secondary partners--they've been seeing each other for two or three years. If something in their relationship is causing trouble in either of their marriages (or de facto marriage), the primary relationship trumps this one.

Jack has a long-term, secondary girlfriend I know nothing about, and I know nothing about Laura's extra-marital activities.

Jill occasionally has other secondaries, but none as stable as her relationship with Rob.

Everybody involved "plays" with other people in sexual-type ways, not actually involving sex.

Everybody involved hates drama, has a full understanding of the role they play in everybody else's lives, and is not plotting any type of coup against anybody else. When jealousy does crop up, they have a framework in which to work it out.


So, that's pretty much all I know, but it should answer a few of the "but don't they get jealous?" type questions.

I dunno - still sounds like swingers to me. Many in the "lifestyle" community are indeed longtime married couples, who have regular, different sexual partners. I guess I'm boring, because I don't need all that variety. I'd like to stick with my one and only.

 

[RavenPoe]

I look at polyamory as a stable multi-person relationship, not as players on the side. The example above doesn't fit my definition. My definition would be Tom and his two wives or Janet and her two husbands, or Tom and Janet and Dick and Jill as one marriage.

Funny that Heinlein was referenced, as this reminds me of my favorite book of his - The Moon Is A Harsh Misstress. In it, to adapt to the Luna society and survival, they had a sort of "string marriage" with multiple persons and a heirarchy of power based on the longest married wives and husbands. It was done to survive, and that is probably why man had multiple wives in the past. A man could spread a lot of seed, but a woman was tied up with one child at a time.

 

[RavenPoe]

Oh - and in case my boyfriend reads this - don't get any ideas. It's gonna take all your time and energy just to keep ME happy and satisfied, and I want to dedicate mine to just being with you.

 

[wanderingone]

What consenting adults choose to do is their business. While I know a polyamorous family that appears to be quite content I find the idea personally chaotic and it doesn't line up with my personal understanding of my faith, but that's me and my faith, I see no reason to be involved in the choices others make on how to be a family.

 

[LouTheWicked]

What's the story of polyamory oh wouldn't you like to know...

 

[Futuwwa]

Check my faith icon. I believe monogamy is preferable, but that polygamy is acceptable when done for pragmatic purposes. Polygamy divides your devotion and loyalty, and should not be engaged in just for kicks.