Polyamory

[GQ Chris]

Polyamory, just a movement where people that wanna have their cake and eat it too. Not much different from the Romans.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Gotta admit I like the idea though, just as long as the fursuiting is to a minimum.

Nevermind. After some coffee I figured it out.

It is by will alone that I set my mind in motion. It is by bean of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by will alone that I set my mind in motion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Verv]

I'd say the urge to screw as man people as possible as often as possible is pretty fundamental. If it were socially acceptable and I could do it without feeling like a dirt bag I would definitely put together my own harem, but it isn't and I can't so I don't.

Well, yes, of course. Because sex feels good, and scum bags are people who abuse the institution of sex, because it is meaningful and often used by people in a powerful way.

Sex can be a lot of things... But what it can't be?

Laid back, casual.

Everyone wants the best for their spouses as well as they want the best for the families that they have.

No one wants their daughter being taken advantage of by young men, and no one wants their son being preyed upon in some other similar war. Polyamory sounds like a great way to exploit people.

But let's go back to the point... The point being, Verv, that everyone is free to choose and maybe, just maybe, it totally works for some people...

Yes, perhaps in the most ideal of circumstances there are small groups of people who can make this a socially cohesive thing but frankly I am uninterested in condoning their activities because it opens up the door for a lot of unnecessary and dumb behavior.

We're all aware of Occam's razor -- it can be applied to 'social ties' just as well as it can be applied to 'thought.'

Polyamory is unattainable and undesirable for the overwhelming majority of the society; society, in order to function smoothly, has similar social norms and a collective code of morality.

The code of morality is glorified and certain things become 'Sacred Cows.'

We don't accept racism, let's say, because we are a multicultural society and even if someone is intellectually well thought out in their position we find it disgusting.

Likewise, we don't accept Polyamory. If it were to become 'accepatble' in our society we can see a lot of young, idealistic people being led down some dumb paths and we'd rather they be spared the heartbreak.

And more than that... We won't allow our basic values to be called out like this.

But, like racism, we will not legislate against it. We'll just condemn it publicly.

your just bent out of shape becase pepole being bale to have sucsefull relshinships like that wiht the aprovel of others is not what you want and weakens your chances of evry one condmeing what you dont like and want them to condemm

your being disgusting you wanted condemnation i will give it to you

Blarg, my friend, are you typing from a phone?

And, Blarg... I accept your condemnation, humbly.

This thread. I like. Speaking of kinky stuff... My friend wanted to involve me in his "den" of mates. Not sure on that yet. Gotta admit I like the idea though, just as long as the fursuiting is to a minimum.

Why is there a Christian cross next to your name?

You are a 'Christian' who likes the idea and believes in what sounds to besome sort of group sex activity? What are you saying here?

It seems that "intellectually honest" is defined here as "agreeing with dies-l".


eudaimonia,

Mark

Oh, Mark... You are wrong.

To be intellectually honest, this does come down to sex.

WHo says that good friendships on the side of a successful relationship ever have to become sexual? That is an absurd idea.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Sex can be a lot of things... But what it can't be?

Laid back, casual.

I tend to agree. Sex is better with meaning.

"Can't" is too strong a word, though. "Shouldn't" is better.

Oh, Mark... You are wrong.

To be intellectually honest, this does come down to sex.

I would have to ignore what polyamorists are saying to conclude that, and that isn't intellectually honest.

WHo says that good friendships on the side of a successful relationship ever have to become sexual? That is an absurd idea.

I agree, but no one is saying this. They are saying that romantic relationships on the side of a successful relationship should be permitted to exist, whether they become sexual or not. (Note: this assumes that the people involved are open to polyamory.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[plindboe]

So...what do people think about it?

Very foreign concept to me. And it's not just because I don't want to share my loved one, but also because I wouldn't like to love more than one partner in that special way.

As Eudaimonist pointed out earlier, it does seem shallow in a way. I'm not saying it is shallow, but it's just hard from my own point of view to see it differently. I find it hard to understand how a person can commit 100% to a person A and 100% to person B. Seems mathematically impossible.

Anyway, not sure how much of this is culture on how much is nature. It seems that, as with most other mammals, monogamy is more the exception than the rule.

Peter

 

[dies-l]

If what distinguishes having many friends from having many romantic partners is sexuality, then what distinguishes friendship from romance is sexuality. I disagree. I think what distinguishes romance from friendship is intimacy and commitment. Sexuality may be involved, but then, sexuality may be involved in non-romantic friendships, also (ranging from friends who flirt to no-strings-attached relationships).




I never claimed there were many. I pointed out that it exists, and then described an emotional affair (hanging out snuggling and talking, reading to her children etc.) in order to make the point that if monogamous couples are capable of "cheating," in non-sexual ways, and if asexual people are capable of having romantic relationships, then there must be non-sexual components to romance. IE: the difference between friendly and romantic is not necessarily sexual.

Where we seem to be talking past each other is this: I don't think that a couple necessarily needs to be having sexual intercourse for the relationship to be inherently sexual. My relationship with my wife was sexual, long before we ever consummated our marriage. And, likewise, with an "emotional affair", even without sexual intercourse, there is always a sexual element, even if only in the depth of intimacy that is shared.

But, in the case of polyamory, the general idea is that a couple is open to each partner having sexual relationships with other persons. Likewise, the idea behind marriage is typically that two people decide to dedicate themselves to a sexual relationship with one another. Are there people who call their lifestyle polyamory that are not actually having sex with other people? Perhaps, but as you seem to be acknowledging, not many. The same can be said for marriage -- I have known "married" people who have never sexually consummated their marriage. But, the fact that exceptional situations exist does not change the general rule that both marriage and polyamory are defined primarily in regard to their sexual component.

 

[dies-l]

Very foreign concept to me. And it's not just because I don't want to share my loved one, but also because I wouldn't like to love more than one partner in that special way.

As Eudaimonist pointed out earlier, it does seem shallow in a way. I'm not saying it is shallow, but it's just hard from my own point of view to see it differently. I find it hard to understand how a person can commit 100% to a person A and 100% to person B. Seems mathematically impossible.

Anyway, not sure how much of this is culture on how much is nature. It seems that, as with most other mammals, monogamy is more the exception than the rule.

Peter

Very well thought out post.

 

[Amber the Duskbringer]

Why is there a Christian cross next to your name?

You are a 'Christian' who likes the idea and believes in what sounds to besome sort of group sex activity? What are you saying here?

Duh hoy, just because I said I liked the idea doesn't I'm going to do it. Way to be judgmental though. Guess you herped when you shoulda derped.

 

[Amber the Duskbringer]

Nevermind. After some coffee I figured it out.

It is by will alone that I set my mind in motion. It is by bean of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by will alone that I set my mind in motion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

LOL that said I do love how when I said that someone immediately pulled the "not a real christian" card even though I just said I liked the idea. Reading comprehension here is at an all time low what with people thinking I don't have the will to do the right thing.

Sooooo, how much coffee did you spit out upon learning what it meant?

 

[Mling]

Where we seem to be talking past each other is this: I don't think that a couple necessarily needs to be having sexual intercourse for the relationship to be inherently sexual. My relationship with my wife was sexual, long before we ever consummated our marriage. And, likewise, with an "emotional affair", even without sexual intercourse, there is always a sexual element, even if only in the depth of intimacy that is shared.

I agree that sexuality can exist without any form of sex, or discussion of sex. But I also believe that intimacy is a separate thing, not necessarily connected to sexuality. If a couple has no intention of having any type of sex, does not flirt, does not have a passionate "spark" to their relationship intimacy can be present without sexuality. It's a warm, soft, snuggly-blanket sort of intimacy. That sort of intimacy can exist alongside sexual intimacy, or by itself, but either way it's its own separate thing.

But, in the case of polyamory, the general idea is that a couple is open to each partner having sexual relationships with other persons.

Romantic relationships. The role of sexuality in romantic relationship is up to the person.

Likewise, the idea behind marriage is typically that two people decide to dedicate themselves to a sexual relationship with one another.

I see marriage as dedicating yourself to building a shared life with the other person, and to dedicating yourself to growing into the future potential version of yourself that you will grow into with their influence. The role of sexuality in that arrangement is up to the individuals involved.

Are there people who call their lifestyle polyamory that are not actually having sex with other people? Perhaps, but as you seem to be acknowledging, not many. The same can be said for marriage -- I have known "married" people who have never sexually consummated their marriage. But, the fact that exceptional situations exist does not change the general rule that both marriage and polyamory are defined primarily in regard to their sexual component.

No, but exceptional cases often provide insight into the norm that can't be found otherwise. Who would have known, for example, that our brains contain nearly redundant pathways in the visual cortex--one allowing us sight, and the other allowing awareness of sight-- if not for the exceptional cases of people who have damage to one but not the other? Blindsight--extremely rare. The people are functionally blind because they have no awareness of sight, but will duck if you throw a ball at them and can name shapes that are put in front of them, regardless of the fact that they can't see them. Rare, but extremely valuable in untangling the complex phenomenon of sight.

Likewise, the existence of non-sexual marriage and non-sexual poly provide insight into non-sexual forms of intimacy that exist in other kinds of relationships as well.

 

[Verv]

I tend to agree. Sex is better with meaning.

"Can't" is too strong a word, though. "Shouldn't" is better.

Good we are in agreement pretty much but for the sake of everything, I will say 'can't.'

Can't, because even if it is right for some people it is an exception to the rule, and for the purpose of viewing this from a social perspective we cannot let exceptions dictate our sense of public right and wrong.

There are people who can function well while abusing drugs or alcohol frequently -- the majority cannot. I am not about to run around and tell people, "Perhaps it is OK for you to drink until the point of intoxication daily. My friend Ryan does this, and he is a fully functioning member of society that as of yet has no negative health effects, and if he is like my grandfather, he will probably live well into his seventies."

The fact that there are exceptions does not mean that we need to throw the 'rule' out the window. Perhaps it can make us smirk and confirm the rule even more in our own head, the rule now being emphasized by an exception that is so rare.

If you are polyamorous and successful I do not think that it is something worthy of being 'flaunted,' but rather, it is a strange & unnecessary thing that you've stumbled upon.

Let's say it was possible for you to not experience jealousy and for your lover to do the same, even in such a circumstance, it is unnecessary to have others involved. Not only is it unnecessary, but it is harmful to your image, and represents an attack on the values of the majority of society.

Society depends on social norms and standards and an equilibrium, so to speak...

The basic aspects of it should not be torn down unless they are somehow negative for people involved.

Monogamous marriages as a basis for reproduction and social continuation is the most basic and eternal model that we have as humans... There is no reason to attack or throw out this basic structure, or to flaunt something that 'you can do' (read: CLAIM you can do) which is an attack on the basic model.

Sure, we can play Baseball with two batters at once, but most people will probably end up injuring one another in this circumstance. Even if you and some mates have developed the skill or have some inherent way of doing this, there is no reason to bring this new model into the Baseball game because no one really wants to play that way.

I agree, but no one is saying this. They are saying that romantic relationships on the side of a successful relationship should be permitted to exist, whether they become sexual or not. (Note: this assumes that the people involved are open to polyamory.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

I do not see how these could be anything more than sexual flings.

Romance can be 'instantaneous,' but without a lot of attention, they can fade & fade fast.

Perhaps instead of a Romantic relationship we can use what we say in Korean 'Ddeokjeong.' There exists an emotion driving one to desire a shallow sexual encounter, due to perhaps some sense of nostalgia...

You can name it 'romance' but what is 'romance?'

Interpreting a romantic relationship so loosely and it quickly begins to lose the gravity of its meaning.

Most people's standards of romance involve commitment, courtship or soomething that is inherently magical and exclusive. It is no longer romantic if it is shared between multiple parties casually...

Then it's just ddeokjeong. And no one can take you serious when you try to tell us that you are calling a simple desire for a nice dinner, quiet conversation and sex to be 'romantic' in this meaningless, periodical encounter formula.

Duh hoy, just because I said I liked the idea doesn't I'm going to do it. Way to be judgmental though. Guess you herped when you shoulda derped.

LOL that said I do love how when I said that someone immediately pulled the "not a real christian" card even though I just said I liked the idea. Reading comprehension here is at an all time low what with people thinking I don't have the will to do the right thing.

Sooooo, how much coffee did you spit out upon learning what it meant?

So you like the idea of group sex activities.

I don't. Perhaps I like the notion of the extreme physical sensation that I believe can be 'higher up' than conventional sex... But the idea should be regarded as repugnant if you recognize any of the Christian views of sexuality...

But I get it.

You are cool because you pay lip service to unchristian things and are able to distance yourself from the boring, lame Christian conservatives.

Stay cool, dudette.

 

[Amber the Duskbringer]

So you like the idea of group sex activities.

I don't. Perhaps I like the notion of the extreme physical sensation that I believe can be 'higher up' than conventional sex... But the idea should be regarded as repugnant if you recognize any of the Christian views of sexuality...

But I get it.

You are cool because you pay lip service to unchristian things and are able to distance yourself from the boring, lame Christian conservatives.

Stay cool, dudette.

Just get over yourself. Seriously. Hur dur I'mma judge others because of the temptations they face and win against and that will make God like me more hur dur.

Yeah so basically I being honest with myself makes me a bad christian. Got it. According to you I should be lying to myself and saying all things are repugnant. Just because I find it appealing doesn't mean I am going to do it. All humans find sin appealing. That is our nature but to not give into it is what matters.

But good for you, getting in your judgement before the day has even started. Grats. Fred Phelps would be proud.

 

[Mling]

If you are polyamorous and successful I do not think that it is something worthy of being 'flaunted,' but rather, it is a strange & unnecessary thing that you've stumbled upon.

Define "flaunting." Are married people "flaunting," their marriage when they wear rings and speak to each other in public? There's an entire forum here dedicated to married couples, another to engaged couples, and another to courting couples. Is that "flaunting?"

Let's say it was possible for you to not experience jealousy and for your lover to do the same,

even in such a circumstance, it is unnecessary to have others involved.

Maybe, but it could be advantageous, desirable or enjoyable. A friend of mine just wrote a wonderful piece, where he described his understanding of the difference between needs and desires. Attending to your needs make you functional--perhaps content. Mature, carefully considered attention to your desires makes your life joyful and allows you to be a positive, joyful influence on the rest of the world. True--it is not necessary to have multiple lovers. It is also not necessary to have a single lover, or children, or wine, or books, or education, or religion, or flowers, or paintings, or computers. Why do you use unnecessary computer, literacy, book-centric religious beliefs and your views on marriage to point out that this thing is also unnecessary?

Not only is it unnecessary, but it is harmful to your image, and represents an attack on the values of the majority of society.

No--the simple existence of people who do not share your values is not an attack on your values, any more than the existence of Jewish people is an attack on Christianity.

Privileged majorities are always quick to claim that minorities simply being allowed to exist is an attack. It isn't. An attack is something that threatens your existence, either physically or culturally. An attack is something that makes you less likely to be able to be or act as you wish. It damages your body, your rights or your resources. People choosing to act differently than you would choose to--in ways that are entirely personal and have no effect on you-- does none of those things.

Society depends on social norms and standards and an equilibrium, so to speak...

A healthy society depends on the rights of people to be harmlessly eccentric, also, or else it is an oppressive regime which will come to depend on violence to stunt to the humanity of its citizens, which will eventually cause it to collapse.

The basic aspects of it should not be torn down unless they are somehow negative for people involved.

Exactly.

Monogamous marriages as a basis for reproduction and social continuation is the most basic and eternal model that we have as humans...

No. It isn't. Human relationships have always been diverse, and have often included some forms of multiple relationships. Read the Old Testament for examples of Levite marriage, marriage+concubines, incestuous marriage+sexual relations with a slave (Abraham, Sarah and Hagar).

There is no reason to attack or throw out this basic structure, or to flaunt something that 'you can do' (read: CLAIM you can do) which is an attack on the basic model.

Again, the existence of a minority is not the an attack on the majority. Pointing out that a minority exists is also not an attack. I've never even heard a rumor of a poly person encouraging happily monogamous people to try poly. Occasionally, I've heard it suggested to people who are unhappily monogamous, who initiate the conversation with "My relationship is in shambles and nothing we're trying is working--I think we're going to have to break up," but that's it. Poly people don't hide in alleys, offering a free first sample of their addictive poly candy to people who are happy without it. We're completely content to just live our lives and occasionally wave at people to let them know that we exist and they are welcome to exist with us if they'd like. You may turn your back and keep walking if you like.

Sure, we can play Baseball with two batters at once, but most people will probably end up injuring one another in this circumstance.

Nah...you just need to handle the logistics. Stand them far enough apart that they don't get in each other's way---the one in front might do most of the hitting, but if they miss, the one in back still has a chance.

Even if you and some mates have developed the skill or have some inherent way of doing this, there is no reason to bring this new model into the Baseball game because no one really wants to play that way.

Nobody? Then why are people playing that way?

I do not see how these could be anything more than sexual flings.

Argument from lack of imagination says nothing about the thing you're arguing about and everything about you.

Romance can be 'instantaneous,' but without a lot of attention, they can fade & fade fast.

Perhaps instead of a Romantic relationship we can use what we say in Korean 'Ddeokjeong.' There exists an emotion driving one to desire a shallow sexual encounter, due to perhaps some sense of nostalgia...

Yes, that exists. Some people do it. Personally, I'm not a fan, which is why I haven't touched on it.

You can name it 'romance' but what is 'romance?'

Depends on the people, I guess.

Interpreting a romantic relationship so loosely and it quickly begins to lose the gravity of its meaning.

I agree. You're the only person who has done that.

Most people's standards of romance involve commitment, courtship

True--many people's poly relationships involve both. See the descriptions I've given of committed poly families.

or soomething that is inherently magical

Magical? Really? If you insist...but personally, I think love and romance actually exist, no Hogwarts or "weird sisters" attendance needed.

and exclusive.

Most poly people don't have relationships with anybody and everybody they know, so there are varying degrees of exclusion involved.

It is no longer romantic if it is shared between multiple parties

might be. Depends on the people involved.

casually...

Why do people keep talking about "casual," relationships? I've said nothing to indicate that they're casual.

Then it's just ddeokjeong. And no one can take you serious when you try to tell us that you are calling a simple desire for a nice dinner, quiet conversation and sex to be 'romantic' in this meaningless, periodical encounter formula.

Not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that nice dinner, quiet conversation and sex isn't romantic? Most people would disagree, but of course, it depends on the people doing it.

So you like the idea of group sex activities.

You're the only person who's brought up group sex, I think.

 

[GryffinSong]

...Hur dur I'mma judge others because of the temptations they face and win against and that will make God like me more hur dur...

What the heck does "hur dur" mean???

 

[Amber the Duskbringer]

What the heck does "hur dur" mean???

Urban Dictionary: hurr durr

I used it in the terms of the 1st definition. When said person lacked the reading comprehension to not only call out my faith but fail to see that I am honest in my struggles. I don't claim to be perfect. I resisted the temptation, I don't lie and say I never face tempting thoughts. We all have temptations that appeal to us. For some it's affairs, others its drugs, etc etc but to go and call me out and attack my faith because I admitted to it is just ridiculous. The guy asked me if I wanted to and I said that's tempting but I'm going to pass. Heaven forbid I make a joke or else I'm not a christian.

 

[razeontherock]

Honesty points for Amber. (Hypocrisy of being a whited wall is not a virtue)

 

[acropolis]

Polyamory, just a movement where people that wanna have their cake and eat it too. Not much different from the Romans.

That figure of speech doesn't make any sense in this context. Having sex doesn't consume anything.

Sex can be a lot of things... But what it can't be?

Laid back, casual.

Everyone wants the best for their spouses as well as they want the best for the families that they have.

No one wants their daughter being taken advantage of by young men, and no one wants their son being preyed upon in some other similar war. Polyamory sounds like a great way to exploit people.

Sex can certainly be casual. Maybe not for you, and that's totally cool, but for others it can be.

I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding Polyamory, or at least the kind practiced by Mling, since everything she and her partners do appears to be entirely above board, all parties know what they're getting into and what to expect. No is getting exploited by the sound of it. It wouldn't work out for me, and by the sound of it you as well, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work period.

But let's go back to the point... The point being, Verv, that everyone is free to choose and maybe, just maybe, it totally works for some people...

Yes, perhaps in the most ideal of circumstances there are small groups of people who can make this a socially cohesive thing but frankly I am uninterested in condoning their activities because it opens up the door for a lot of unnecessary and dumb behavior.

We're all aware of Occam's razor -- it can be applied to 'social ties' just as well as it can be applied to 'thought.'

Polyamory is unattainable and undesirable for the overwhelming majority of the society; society, in order to function smoothly, has similar social norms and a collective code of morality.

The code of morality is glorified and certain things become 'Sacred Cows.'

We don't accept racism, let's say, because we are a multicultural society and even if someone is intellectually well thought out in their position we find it disgusting.

Likewise, we don't accept Polyamory. If it were to become 'accepatble' in our society we can see a lot of young, idealistic people being led down some dumb paths and we'd rather they be spared the heartbreak.

And more than that... We won't allow our basic values to be called out like this.

But, like racism, we will not legislate against it. We'll just condemn it publicly.

It needs more than just saying 'the majority of people don't like it, so therefore it's bad' in order to justify condemning a particular belief. Poly people aren't cheating on anyone, nor are they doing anything without consent. No laws are being broken. I don't see any reason to be bothered by it just because it bothers many others.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Well, yes, of course. Because sex feels good, and scum bags are people who abuse the institution of sex, because it is meaningful and often used by people in a powerful way.

Sex can be a lot of things... But what it can't be?

Laid back, casual.

Everyone wants the best for their spouses as well as they want the best for the families that they have.

No one wants their daughter being taken advantage of by young men, and no one wants their son being preyed upon in some other similar war. Polyamory sounds like a great way to exploit people.

But let's go back to the point... The point being, Verv, that everyone is free to choose and maybe, just maybe, it totally works for some people...

Yes, perhaps in the most ideal of circumstances there are small groups of people who can make this a socially cohesive thing but frankly I am uninterested in condoning their activities because it opens up the door for a lot of unnecessary and dumb behavior.

We're all aware of Occam's razor -- it can be applied to 'social ties' just as well as it can be applied to 'thought.'

Polyamory is unattainable and undesirable for the overwhelming majority of the society; society, in order to function smoothly, has similar social norms and a collective code of morality.

The code of morality is glorified and certain things become 'Sacred Cows.'

We don't accept racism, let's say, because we are a multicultural society and even if someone is intellectually well thought out in their position we find it disgusting.

Likewise, we don't accept Polyamory. If it were to become 'accepatble' in our society we can see a lot of young, idealistic people being led down some dumb paths and we'd rather they be spared the heartbreak.

And more than that... We won't allow our basic values to be called out like this.

But, like racism, we will not legislate against it. We'll just condemn it publicly.



Blarg, my friend, are you typing from a phone?

And, Blarg... I accept your condemnation, humbly.



Why is there a Christian cross next to your name?

You are a 'Christian' who likes the idea and believes in what sounds to besome sort of group sex activity? What are you saying here?



Oh, Mark... You are wrong.

To be intellectually honest, this does come down to sex.

WHo says that good friendships on the side of a successful relationship ever have to become sexual? That is an absurd idea.

i thinck your scum to sex can be caususl and its not an abuse you ocndemm the slefishness of others for the slefish ness of yourself you ocntinie to be digusitng to me

not evry one has a souse or wants one and htouhg its sad not evry ine want whats best for ther spouse others choose whats best for others but her lying to themselves and going wiht whats best for themselves

no i dont want pepole to be exploited but polyamery is not inherent exploitation.

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] you you still prudly condemm others just so you can avoid what you dont want evn whn othe rpeole are not hamring you or nay one else i despise and hate you. or at least dislike you a lot.

if its unabtanble and unwante dfor most peole that should eliminat emost of the peole form ever trying it

it dosent have to interfear wiht freeodm or harm pepoel so its not incompatble wiht morlaity for me and nay behvoir that dose so can be atascked and condemed as far as im ocncerned.

no i wold rather not spare idits by crushing the inocent

that is repulsive to me

you baisc vlus seem to be stpeing on others to serve yourslef by givng you a world you like better

im on a keybored atached to a computer [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Good we are in agreement pretty much but for the sake of everything, I will say 'can't.'

Can't, because even if it is right for some people it is an exception to the rule, and for the purpose of viewing this from a social perspective we cannot let exceptions dictate our sense of public right and wrong.

There are people who can function well while abusing drugs or alcohol frequently -- the majority cannot. I am not about to run around and tell people, "Perhaps it is OK for you to drink until the point of intoxication daily. My friend Ryan does this, and he is a fully functioning member of society that as of yet has no negative health effects, and if he is like my grandfather, he will probably live well into his seventies."

The fact that there are exceptions does not mean that we need to throw the 'rule' out the window. Perhaps it can make us smirk and confirm the rule even more in our own head, the rule now being emphasized by an exception that is so rare.

If you are polyamorous and successful I do not think that it is something worthy of being 'flaunted,' but rather, it is a strange & unnecessary thing that you've stumbled upon.

Let's say it was possible for you to not experience jealousy and for your lover to do the same, even in such a circumstance, it is unnecessary to have others involved. Not only is it unnecessary, but it is harmful to your image, and represents an attack on the values of the majority of society.

Society depends on social norms and standards and an equilibrium, so to speak...

The basic aspects of it should not be torn down unless they are somehow negative for people involved.

Monogamous marriages as a basis for reproduction and social continuation is the most basic and eternal model that we have as humans... There is no reason to attack or throw out this basic structure, or to flaunt something that 'you can do' (read: CLAIM you can do) which is an attack on the basic model.

Sure, we can play Baseball with two batters at once, but most people will probably end up injuring one another in this circumstance. Even if you and some mates have developed the skill or have some inherent way of doing this, there is no reason to bring this new model into the Baseball game because no one really wants to play that way.



I do not see how these could be anything more than sexual flings.

Romance can be 'instantaneous,' but without a lot of attention, they can fade & fade fast.

Perhaps instead of a Romantic relationship we can use what we say in Korean 'Ddeokjeong.' There exists an emotion driving one to desire a shallow sexual encounter, due to perhaps some sense of nostalgia...

You can name it 'romance' but what is 'romance?'

Interpreting a romantic relationship so loosely and it quickly begins to lose the gravity of its meaning.

Most people's standards of romance involve commitment, courtship or soomething that is inherently magical and exclusive. It is no longer romantic if it is shared between multiple parties casually...

Then it's just ddeokjeong. And no one can take you serious when you try to tell us that you are calling a simple desire for a nice dinner, quiet conversation and sex to be 'romantic' in this meaningless, periodical encounter formula.





So you like the idea of group sex activities.

I don't. Perhaps I like the notion of the extreme physical sensation that I believe can be 'higher up' than conventional sex... But the idea should be regarded as repugnant if you recognize any of the Christian views of sexuality...

But I get it.

You are cool because you pay lip service to unchristian things and are able to distance yourself from the boring, lame Christian conservatives.

Stay cool, dudette.

but this is not abuse abus eis notinherant notonly may osme peole function well in this they may function better and you would still condemm them

abuse acutl bause in nay kind of rletionship shuld be condmened doing so to some one becase the rout of the norm will elad to te majorty absuing the minoraty as you so glagly wish to do.

mos ttings are not necisary like your posts and mine yet we desire to do htings thta dont need to be done

acoeidng to you ther is no danger of monogy being thrown out as thats what most peole want if its so sucefull its not going to go away jsut becase somtng difent exists

surly all sports shuld be baned peoe get hurt in them evne if skilld some of the worst injurys ocurr amoung the most skilld

and ther you go telling others how they feel what arogance