Polyamory

[blarg the 2nd]

So...what do people think about it?

To be careful about terms, polyamory is not the same as polygamy, and ...well...I'm not involved in swinging culture, so I can't really say how it compares.

Polyamory is based very heavily on the idea that being in a relationship with somebody doesn't mean you own them. That people should build relationships, not on needing each other, or having some sort of claim to each other, but on desiring each other's company. And, as there's no reason why a person would only desire the company of one other person in the world, or be enhanced by one other person, people may have multiple romantic relationships at the same time.

The best basic example of the polyamorous mindset I can think of is an exchange between a friend of mine, and her boyfriend.

She has both a boyfriend and girlfriend, though the girlfriend lives about 50 miles away. Because of a mix up scheduling classes, she's found herself with a semester off, and is looking for jobs..and some of those jobs are more around her girlfriend then the boyfriend, the plan being she'd move in with her. She was chatting with the boyfriend about the logistics. His response? He suggested that she could use some of his storage space, so she wouldn't have to shuttle all her stuff out there.

Of course, how well it works depends on how well people can communicate and manage their time, expectations and emotions, but when it works, it works quite well. I have to work three nights in a row--my partner isn't fond of this. Gets lonely. She has another partner who can come over and keep her company--she's happier, and I'm happier that she's happier and our relationship is better for it and all-around yay ensues. So yay!

Anyway--thoughts on the idea?

if they can make it worck and be happy doing it wihout any one getitng hurt sounds good to me

 

[disciple2011]

Why would my point of view reflect suffrage?

The women's suffrage movement would have you be valued as a human being of your own worth and value.

Not because you have a husband and possessions.

In essence the idea was that a man does not make a woman complete. She is so at birth. And a woman does not make a man complete either.

We have clung onto antiquated ideals and view those not cleaved to spouses or having children as somewhat inferior or damaged in some way.

The validity of humanity is in our great and profound diversity. Not in all of us having a spouse, a house, 1.3 children, a car and a picket fence.

 

[drstevej]

We have clung onto antiquated ideals and view those not cleaved to spouses or having children as somewhat inferior or damaged in some way.

The biblical view is that both marriage and celibacy are honorable estates (a gift from God). 1 Cor 7:7

 

[disciple2011]

The biblical view is that both marriage and celibacy are honorable estates (a gift from God). 1 Cor 7:7

But sadly most Christians don't follow their King's' commands about remarriage very well. And thus to Jesus would be all adulterers.

Most are living in glass houses hurling rocks at each other.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

It is possible... but I rather think someone will be left out in the cold like Ishmael and his momma were :/

wasnt that more do to her being used as a bayby maker rather then being an acetpeted lover and = to the other peole involved?

 

[40 Rabbits]

The biblical view is that both marriage and celibacy are honorable estates (a gift from God). 1 Cor 7:7

This is a prime example of the dangers of homogenizing the books in the bible. Traditional Judaism views celibacy as an impediment to sanctification. "Go forth and multiply" is viewed as a commandment. Quoting from one of Paul's letters to the Corinthians as "the biblical view" is a little odd, no?

Paul may have been speaking from an Essene viewpoint after joining that community. Jesus and the disciples were certainly celibate. The historians tell us that the Essenes had celibate "priests". Perhaps, this is what Paul was telling the Corinthians about. But, it certainly wasn't the prevalent view for the Hebraic community at large.

 

[razeontherock]

Traditional Judaism views celibacy as an impediment to sanctification. Perhaps, this is what Paul was telling the Corinthians about. But, it certainly wasn't the prevalent view for the Hebraic community at large.

Sanctification is an entirely different process within the new Covenant, with a new Priesthood.

 

[razeontherock]

wasnt that more do to her being used as a bayby maker rather then being an acetpeted lover and = to the other peole involved?

Hmmm, not sure how to address your terms, but it was all disobedience to God! Sara was wrong, Abe was wrong, Hagar was wrong but must be somehow less wrong, Ishmael was innocent at birth but his presence has caused endless grief to Israel ever since.

 

[40 Rabbits]

Sanctification is an entirely different process within the new Covenant, with a new Priesthood.

That goes to the point i'm making. The "new covenant" for the Hebraic community is completely different from the "new covenant" envisioned by Paul. It's not even possible to draw many parallels between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of the Essene community that he "converted" into prior to his going to the Gentile and Hellenistic Jewish communities.

There isn't a direct line between Genesis and the Revelation. It is a road that takes sudden, unexpected turns.

 

[razeontherock]

That goes to the point i'm making. The "new covenant" for the Hebraic community is completely different from the "new covenant" envisioned by Paul.

There isn't a direct line between Genesis and the Revelation. It is a road that takes sudden, unexpected turns.

Disagreed. A have a thread exploring this in detail, but I warn you it covers a lot of dry dusty ground. A lot of detail to try to digest before it becomes useful.

 

[40 Rabbits]

Disagreed. A have a thread exploring this in detail, but I warn you it covers a lot of dry dusty ground. A lot of detail to try to digest before it becomes useful.

Thanks, but I read the bible cover to cover the first time when I was 9. I read it again because of the inconsistencies I mentioned. I then started talking to pastors and priests and anybody else who would talk to me. I started taking Religion classes in University in 1974 and I have been studying ever since.

If your thread is about the bibles, then I assure you there isn't anything there I have not studied already. I am very familiar with the "new covenant" concept in Judaism and the "new covenant" concept in Christianity. They are certainly not the same.

That was the point I was making.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Hmmm, not sure how to address your terms, but it was all disobedience to God! Sara was wrong, Abe was wrong, Hagar was wrong but must be somehow less wrong, Ishmael was innocent at birth but his presence has caused endless grief to Israel ever since.

hell is other pepole and some times family bit of an asumption to asume the israli arab conflict is a divne spanking for ther ancesotrs actions

and to be fair the greeck and roman and us euepren barbaleins have all taken some pretyy big swipes at thease pepole to so singling out the arabs and iselaiy as ultimit arch enemys rather then curent htough bitter tenemy dosent sem quite right

lets face it euorpe had a hand in seiotng up this modenr day conflict as well

if some forin power handed wher i lived back over to native amricans and then some of those natives started acitng hostile to my intrests id be angry to

not sure any side involved has an exaclty clean and honrable record

 

[razeontherock]

If your thread is about the bibles, then I assure you there isn't anything there I have not studied already.

Pleased to make the acquaintance of someone who knows everything! You'd be a great asset in our threads on "New Covenant or renewed Covenant?"

 

[blarg the 2nd]

religous marrage covenents dont mean anyhtng to peoel that dont choosse to be a part of them whtehr thy have difrent faiht or no faith at all

if i ever got hiched to one perosn or more it would be seculer

 

[blarg the 2nd]

<edit>

id say its ok to raise kids in a fmaily wiht amulti partner marrage of nay kind just as long as there cared for it may be harder to care for childirn thata re not your fight and jelopusy may get in the way some times

on the other hand being raised aorund peole who are closest to your parents dosent seem much different then having god parents around

 

[Criada]

Mod Hat On

​

This thread has been cleaned up.
A lot of sniping posts have gone - please try to be civil to one another.
I took out the off topic stuff too
Thanks

Mod Hat Off​

 

[d4deborah]

I am not happy with lots of decisions.. my ex encouraged and supported me meeting other men. left a lot of things in my head

 

[Mling]

I am not happy with lots of decisions.. my ex encouraged and supported me meeting other men. left a lot of things in my head

I'm not sure what you mean there. You're not happy with decision you've made in the past? Or you don't like how many decisions need to be made in poly relationships?

Did you want to meet with those other men, or was it something you were pressured into?

 

[Verv]

J. S. Mill in his book On Liberty said it all well -- and here comes a paraphrase:

There are certain things that the government cannot legally regulate, such as personal choices that 'damage only the people who freely enter into them.'

We can almost all agree that alcoholism, drug abuse, excessive gambling, prostitution, adultery are repugnant -- thus, it is the society's job to criticize these when appropriate and to even occasionally act with open disgust and rancor to such behaviors.
---
Polyamory certainly falls into this category.

Children deserve two loving parents in a stable relationship; if they cannot have that, they deserve at least one parent who is stable and present for them and conducts themselves in a way that is dignified.

"Loving" multiple people and having sexual relations very openly jeopardizes security and plays games with the basic human emotions of jealousy and their desire for stability. It also strains the real basics of a relationship which are founded on a mutual joy of being with one another and not the seeking out of other sex partners or "lovers."

I could write books about why polyamory is negative and stupid, and harmful to the family and those who engage in it.

But right now we just need to cover this with the general blanket of disgust it merits.

Happiness comes from living life well and spending time with your family and friends in a positive way -- it does not come from sexual indulgence or multiplying your lovers.

It flies in the face of the values that we hold as societies -- not just Christian or Muslim or Jewish society, but including majority atheist societies like Japan or China.

It's just bad and goes against the fundamental nature of what we are as zoon politikon (social animals).

 

[Eudaimonist]

We can almost all agree that alcoholism, drug abuse, excessive gambling, prostitution, adultery are repugnant -- thus, it is the society's job to criticize these when appropriate and to even occasionally act with open disgust and rancor to such behaviors.
---
Polyamory certainly falls into this category.

It clearly falls into that category for you personally, but it doesn't have to fall in that category for other people.

Children deserve two loving parents in a stable relationship

Children deserve a stable family. It's not clear that this must consist only of "two parents".

if they cannot have that, they deserve at least one parent who is stable and present for them and conducts themselves in a way that is dignified.

It's not clear that polyamory prevents this. Indeed, it seems to provide extra redundancy into the system, which families used to have before they went "nuclear".

"Loving" multiple people and having sexual relations very openly jeopardizes security and plays games with the basic human emotions of jealousy and their desire for stability.

I agree with you that polyamory poses a serious difficulty for people who are prone to jealousy. But this doesn't mean that polyamory won't work for people are are not prone in this way. IOWs, it may work as a subculture. I agree that it may be risky to make this the dominant family pattern.

It also strains the real basics of a relationship which are founded on a mutual joy of being with one another and not the seeking out of other sex partners or "lovers."

I'm afraid that polyamorists will insist that polyamory need not be about simply having "sex partners". They will say that polyamory can be very much about love and a mutual joy of being with one another.

I could write books about why polyamory is negative and stupid, and harmful to the family and those who engage in it.

I'm sure that you could. We can all write book about stuff we don't like. And other people can write books in defense of that stuff.

Happiness comes from living life well and spending time with your family and friends in a positive way -- it does not come from sexual indulgence or multiplying your lovers.

Right, and polyamorists will insist that they value living life well and spending time with family and friends in a positive way.

It flies in the face of the values that we hold as societies -- not just Christian or Muslim or Jewish society, but including majority atheist societies like Japan or China.

You seem to be talking here about modern industrial societies. Probably so, but that doesn't mean that societal values can't change to accomodate polyamory.

It's just bad and goes against the fundamental nature of what we are as zoon politikon (social animals).

While I am somewhat doubtful of the wisdom of polyamory, it's not at all clear that what you suggest is really the case.


eudaimonia,

Mark