Polyamory

[DeathMagus]

I actually find the whole notion that love and possession are in some way connected to be pretty...how to put this...much totally insane.

Seriously.

I love my partner. I don't own her. She can do what she wants, so long as I know about it. To state that I have some kind of inherent and exclusive right to her automatically based on the simple fact that we're in a relationship is a statement of insecurity.

A monogamous relationship should be based on mutual consent to monogamy, a polyamorous relationship should be based on mutual consent to polyamory, and neither should ever be accepted as standard simply due to the dictates of the culture.

Right - acceptable behavior in a relationship should be determined entirely by those in the relationship.

 

[Verv]

I actually find the whole notion that love and possession are in some way connected to be pretty...how to put this...much totally insane.

Seriously.

I love my partner. I don't own her. She can do what she wants, so long as I know about it. To state that I have some kind of inherent and exclusive right to her automatically based on the simple fact that we're in a relationship is a statement of insecurity.

A monogamous relationship should be based on mutual consent to monogamy, a polyamorous relationship should be based on mutual consent to polyamory, and neither should ever be accepted as standard simply due to the dictates of the culture.

Polyamorous relationships are immoral and should not exist; The notion that there is no exclusivity in a relationship essentially takes away the sanctity of that union and is a rationalization for people to fulfill their deeds of the flesh.

And what kind of an example is that to those around them? What does that say -- what is the point of always giving into other desires and risking relationships in situations that produce jealousy and feelings of inadequacy while setting a terrible example for others around you?

What is the point of doing the easy wrong over the hard right?

 

[sidhe]

Polyamorous relationships are immoral and should not exist; The notion that there is no exclusivity in a relationship essentially takes away the sanctity of that union and is a rationalization for people to fulfill their deeds of the flesh.

*sigh*

Your moral worldview is not the only one that exists. I consider the inherent expectation of monogamy to be immoral, but I don't expect everyone to believe that.

And what kind of an example is that to those around them? What does that say -- what is the point of always giving into other desires and risking relationships in situations that produce jealousy and feelings of inadequacy while setting a terrible example for others around you?

People around me should be mature enough to decide what is appropriate for themselves. I, currently, am monogamous. Were I not, that's not "setting a terrible example", it's demonstrating that you don't have to be a sheeple.

What is the point of doing the easy wrong over the hard right?

Because "wrong" and "right" in relationships are subjective. We are individuals, not parts of the Borg. We have our own views, own morals, and own lives.

Think about yourself in those terms, Rorschach.

 

[Steezie]

Polyamorous relationships are immoral and should not exist; The notion that there is no exclusivity in a relationship essentially takes away the sanctity of that union and is a rationalization for people to fulfill their deeds of the flesh.

A polyamorous relationship is not strictly about sex; it is a loving relationship with the same complexity that a relationship involving two people has. Some would say more so.

And what kind of an example is that to those around them? What does that say -- what is the point of always giving into other desires and risking relationships in situations that produce jealousy and feelings of inadequacy while setting a terrible example for others around you?

Jealousy and inadequacy are generated only when the relationship is being mishandled, same as a monogamous relationship.

 

[Dysnomia]

To say that there is no exclusivity in a polyamorous relationship is not strictly true--individuals in such a relationship are faithful to each other. Depending on the ground rules set out by the partners it may be that folks are able to pursue others outside the immediate relationship, or--as is more common--folks in that relationship stay IN that relationship.

I don't think I am myself, but a good friend of mine self identifies as polyamorous... and He struggles with it because he is in a monogomous relationship, with someone who would be very hurt if he were to "stray". I believe he could love both his long term partner and another equally, under the right circumstances, but unless the partner is fully informed and consenting, I think its going to cause a lot of pain. Thats the problem with it. As with everything, if everyone involved gives their full, informed consent, I don't have a problem with any behaviour, however polyamorous, or polygamous, or even adulterous relationships tend NOT to be conducted with the full and informed consent of all involved.

Failure to keep your partner informed causes incredible amounts of pain and harm to the relationship. I have no problems with those identifying as polyamorous, provided they ALWAYS confide in their significant other(s) about feelings they might have for others. That is not so say those significant others should roll over and approve, but that the environment is friendly toward discussion of the issues at hand.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't see why polyamory is such a big deal. As long as people are open and consensual about it, it's all well.

The way I am, I could never be with more than one person. That's very foreign to me. But other people are built differently, and people should do what they feel is right.

-Lyn

 

[Kharak]

what part of the statement do you want evidence for?

I do not even understand why you doubt it as it is common sense.

You're passing off flawed reasoning for factual evidence regarding the ethnographic study of human history and 'marriage' (however Westerners define it for other people). What historical evidence do you have to suggest that there was a need for survival based polygamy other than an assumption that there were far less women?

Considering the manner in which estates were divided, having a lot of children grow to adulthood would actually discourage polygamy among poorer classes which predominated society. Even nobility of certain cultures would never dream of polygamy and the estate splitting threats of too many children from different wives. They had enough problems with alleged bastards and extended family as it was. The whole dispute with Normandy over England, in fact, had precipitated into war because of such as dispute by extended marriage.

 

[HighwayMan]

It's funny because society and the media are heavily centered around polyamory, but then expect monogamy in relationships.

 

[Verv]

A polyamorous relationship is not strictly about sex; it is a loving relationship with the same complexity that a relationship involving two people has. Some would say more so.

Jealousy and inadequacy are generated only when the relationship is being mishandled, same as a monogamous relationship.

How do people even do this, and how are they culturally brought to such a point where this is possible?

It is not possible to share such a concept of love as it is inherently going against the concept of what female search for in mates: fidelity that guarantees protection.

It goes against the animal instincts of the female human.

To say that there is no exclusivity in a polyamorous relationship is not strictly true--individuals in such a relationship are faithful to each other. Depending on the ground rules set out by the partners it may be that folks are able to pursue others outside the immediate relationship, or--as is more common--folks in that relationship stay IN that relationship.

I don't think I am myself, but a good friend of mine self identifies as polyamorous... and He struggles with it because he is in a monogomous relationship, with someone who would be very hurt if he were to "stray". I believe he could love both his long term partner and another equally, under the right circumstances, but unless the partner is fully informed and consenting, I think its going to cause a lot of pain. Thats the problem with it. As with everything, if everyone involved gives their full, informed consent, I don't have a problem with any behaviour, however polyamorous, or polygamous, or even adulterous relationships tend NOT to be conducted with the full and informed consent of all involved.

Failure to keep your partner informed causes incredible amounts of pain and harm to the relationship. I have no problems with those identifying as polyamorous, provided they ALWAYS confide in their significant other(s) about feelings they might have for others. That is not so say those significant others should roll over and approve, but that the environment is friendly toward discussion of the issues at hand.

It is a relationship that violates the principles of nature and messes about with our very human concepts of jealousy and human nature, and if we are animals, why should we tread so easily upon some very important things that help define us as humans?

I don't see why polyamory is such a big deal. As long as people are open and consensual about it, it's all well.

The way I am, I could never be with more than one person. That's very foreign to me. But other people are built differently, and people should do what they feel is right.

-Lyn

In a very objective sense it does not effect those outside of it, but at the same time no man is completely an island and we all have to live in a society; some of us do not want to be confronted with a behavior we deem sickening.

Nazis have a right to march on the streets, but isn't it sickening to you?

You're passing off flawed reasoning for factual evidence regarding the ethnographic study of human history and 'marriage' (however Westerners define it for other people). What historical evidence do you have to suggest that there was a need for survival based polygamy other than an assumption that there were far less women?

Considering the manner in which estates were divided, having a lot of children grow to adulthood would actually discourage polygamy among poorer classes which predominated society. Even nobility of certain cultures would never dream of polygamy and the estate splitting threats of too many children from different wives. They had enough problems with alleged bastards and extended family as it was. The whole dispute with Normandy over England, in fact, had precipitated into war because of such as dispute by extended marriage.

No... It was because there were far less men who went off to war to die.

Christian and Muslim scholars plainly agree with me.

These were tribal societies.

You have not properly studied history and divided the different epochs.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

What a shock. A biblical literalist who's only possible argument against relationships he can't understand is "its UNNATURAL!!1!11!one!"

 

[Verv]

What a shock. A biblical literalist who's only possible argument against relationships he can't understand is "its UNNATURAL!!1!11!one!"

It goes against the nature of humanity for reasons that I did not even say that were Biblical.

In fact, I took a very simple approach and viewed it from the human animal perspective that seems to be the Sacred Cow of atheism when it comes to the measurement of what is moral or not -- by examining what is natural.

Would you like to go back and try to reply to me again?

The information I provided here might help you in your venture.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

It goes against the nature of humanity for reasons that I did not even say that were Biblical.

In fact, I took a very simple approach and viewed it from the human animal perspective that seems to be the Sacred Cow of atheism when it comes to the measurement of what is moral or not -- by examining what is natural.

Would you like to go back and try to reply to me again?

The information I provided here might help you in your venture.

If it were against human nature, humans wouldn't do it. And yet...

 

[Verv]

If it were against human nature, humans wouldn't do it. And yet...

A common definition of natural is:

" of, pertaining to, or proper to the nature or essential constitution:"

or

"in accordance with the nature of things: It was natural that he should hit back."

or

"13. consonant with the nature or character of. 14. in accordance with the nature of things: It was natural that he should hit back. 15. based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind: natural justice. 16. in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional. 17. happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc."


One could also simply call homosexuality and polyamory as irrational, in violation of the principles of human nature, etc.

 

[jpcedotal]

One thing I managed to discover about myself over the last few years is that I am actually polyamorous. This was a bit of a shocking discovery since before that I'd always considered myself extremely monogamous.

After going through that, I can honestly say I have at least a taste of what it feels like to have to tell the people around you that you are gay because the reactions of different people ran the gamut between fascinated and angry.

I'm curious as to why this is.

I understand that a lot of it is religious and I had several friends say to me "Religiously, I don't agree with it, but you are my friend and I accept you." Much of our social fabric is woven out of Christian cloth and Christianity typically frowns on a relationship with multiple partners so, again, that much I understand.

However beyond that it seems strange to me how quickly attitudes change. Many of the reactions I observed to this news were negative even though I am not currently and have no plans to be in a polyamorous relationship.

I guess it falls along the same lines as the phrase "Im no different now than I was before you knew" and that honestly confuses me.

What are your thoughts?

Leaving my Bible at the door, I can't keep one woman happy for very long so it would be insanity for me to "up the ante".

 

[DeathMagus]

Here's the thing. Humans, and all life, have naturally evolved over millennia strictly to survive, reproduce, and pass along to the next generation their genes or genes very similar to theirs.

The minute that these activities are no longer the be-all and end-all of human existence - the very instant such a thing happens - the naturalism argument is no longer valid.

Naturalism hasn't been a valid argument for thousands upon thousands of years, because the very idea of culture is a tacit admission that food, sex, and making babies are not the most important things we can do with our lives.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

A common definition of natural is:

" of, pertaining to, or proper to the nature or essential constitution:"

or

"in accordance with the nature of things: It was natural that he should hit back."

or

"13. consonant with the nature or character of. 14. in accordance with the nature of things: It was natural that he should hit back. 15. based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind: natural justice. 16. in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional. 17. happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc."


One could also simply call homosexuality and polyamory as irrational, in violation of the principles of human nature, etc.

How does homosexuality or polyamory breach any of these definitions?

I get that you personally thing it is irrational, however I don't see why it should automatically follow that anything you consider irrational automatically be "unnatural"?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Here's the thing. Humans, and all life, have naturally evolved over millennia strictly to survive, reproduce, and pass along to the next generation their genes or genes very similar to theirs.

The minute that these activities are no longer the be-all and end-all of human existence - the very instant such a thing happens - the naturalism argument is no longer valid.

Naturalism hasn't been a valid argument for thousands upon thousands of years, because the very idea of culture is a tacit admission that food, sex, and making babies are not the most important things we can do with our lives.

Freud and many othe disagree with you. Humans live in cultures, societies and civilisations precisely because such arangement increase the chances of the members of the group passing on their genes, reproduce and survive.

 

[Steezie]

It goes against the nature of humanity for reasons that I did not even say that were Biblical.

In fact, I took a very simple approach and viewed it from the human animal perspective that seems to be the Sacred Cow of atheism when it comes to the measurement of what is moral or not -- by examining what is natural.

Would you like to go back and try to reply to me again?

The information I provided here might help you in your venture.

What's natural doesnt support your position either.

There are many examples of polyamory in the natural world.

 

[sidhe]

It goes against the nature of humanity for reasons that I did not even say that were Biblical.

In fact, I took a very simple approach and viewed it from the human animal perspective that seems to be the Sacred Cow of atheism when it comes to the measurement of what is moral or not -- by examining what is natural.

Would you like to go back and try to reply to me again?

The information I provided here might help you in your venture.

Ah...I see the issue.

You're using "natural" in the sense of "right and proper to an objective standard", but that's not what the metaphysical naturalism of atheism refers to.

"Natural", in that sense, means "observable in nature" - thus, no deities (not observable), but homosexuality is natural, because it can be observed.

You've mixed your metaphors, so to speak.

 

[DeathMagus]

Freud and many othe disagree with you. Humans live in cultures, societies and civilisations precisely because such arangement increase the chances of the members of the group passing on their genes, reproduce and survive.

There's a distinction between banding together and cooperating and the development of art, religion, music, philosophy, etc.