Polyamory

[nom]

I read the post you responded that to. so instead of playing games, why not do me the favour and simply say what comparison among married couples you were making? because I don't see it.

 

[Amber the Duskbringer]

fair enough. I want to get under someone elses skin anyway. :3 peez out

 

[Mling]

Would you like your daughter to be polyamorous as a teenager?

First off---the question does utterly nothing to answer the question I asked, which was how wanting your partner to be happy is selfish.

But to the question itself, if she and her partners were doing it well, I'd love it, but it's sort of Dating: 301, and I question the ability of most teenagers to handle it well.

Really, I don't think it's a good thing that teenagers try to jump straight into serial monogamy. I say try, because I often don't think that what they do should really count as serial monogamy--since the relationships often don't last very long, but that's clearly how they think about it. Like, they try to make rules for each other and control each other, and immediately make it "serious." When I was working at the high school, I saw so much relationship drama around "she cheated on me!" and "he's driving other girls around in his truck!" and "now he's dating so-and-so, but she dated what's-his-name, so he's not allowed to date her!" And BLEH!! The "rules" for dating are based on drama-filled TV shows, where each partner has rules for controlling the other, but doesn't actually say what they are, but fit hits the shan if the partner breaks an unknown rule.

I'd prefer that she dated casually, with no expectation of commitment for a while. If she must attempt a "serious commitment," type relationship in her teens, I think one that is based on the idea of personal freedom and respecting the rights of your partner to make their own rules for how they want to be in a relationship (rather than each trying to impose rules on each other) would be highly preferable to what a lot of teens think monogamy is.

Of course, if she got into a monogamous relationship based on the same principles of respect of mutual consent and respect for autonomy, that would be awesome, too. It's just that...when something is the norm, what's common becomes what's expected, which turns into rules which people think they have to follow, or else they're failing. Monogamy is filled with artificial rules (flirting with other people is wrong, you "owe" your partner sex if they do X, etc...) specifically because it is what's most common. (Maybe not even what's actually most common, but what's most often portrayed as being common.)

Just like adoption, in building a family without the most common sort of family bond, reveals what the most important family bonds are; polyamorous relationships lack a common element of most romantic relationships, and as a result, can reveal the most important elements of romantic relationships.

Of course, if it isn't done well, it can fail in pretty dramatic ways, including abuse....but, now that I'm thinking about that, I suspect that the ways that poly is used abusively are probably not half as severe as the ways monogamy is used abusively.

So, all in all, I'd prefer a teenage daughter stick to lighter, more casual forms of dating; if she must commit, though, then yes, I'd be pleased if she was committing to polyamorous relationships.

 

[Mling]

Nothing wrong with marrying a good looking person as a criteria. I sure did. And at age 64 she is still a fox! Her beauty is exceeded by the beauty of her character. I'm not out looking for Pollys to amorously pursue.

You are free to take a Jersey-shore approach to Love if you want to. BTW, my wife can proscribe something for any STDs you might get in the pursuit of Pollys.

I've never actually watched Jersey shore, but based on what I hear about it, and the behavior I've seen in people who really like it, I'd guess that the only things I have in common with Jersey-shore characters is that we have human body parts, eat food and excrete.

 

[drstevej]

So, all in all, I'd prefer a teenage daughter stick to lighter, more casual forms of dating; if she must commit, though, then yes, I'd be pleased if she was committing to polyamorous relationships.

I weep for your daughter.

 

[Amber the Duskbringer]

Oh that was nice :/

 

[drstevej]

Oh that was nice :/

It was 100% sincere. Maybe some day she will understand.

 

[Mling]

I weep for your daughter.

Why? Because I want her to get a sense for what it means to be in a relationship, before she attempts it for real; rather than jumping in bed and making marriage plans with the first person who hugs her?

You asked about a teenage daughter. I don't want a teenager to be attempting adult relationships unless she is really, truly mature enough to manage it and has realistic expectations for what it entails. This is for all the same reasons that I would want her to learn to walk before I strapped water skis on her and tossed her off the back of a boat.

Could you explain why you think this is worth weeping over? Every part of my explanation specified that my goal is for her to learn to manage respectful, consensual relationships. I can't imagine why somebody would think this is tear-worthy.

 

[drstevej]

First, the "if she must commit" sounds like you place little value on commitment. That is very sad. Second your pleasure at the possibility of multiple partners saddens me when I think of the price her kids will play in growing up in this mix and match arrangement.

 

[Mling]

First, the "if she must commit" sounds like you place little value on commitment. That is very sad. Second your pleasure at the possibility of multiple partners saddens me when I think of the price her kids will play in growing up in this mix and match arrangement.

I've mentioned making life-long plans with my current partner, enhanced by doses of other people who contribute positive things to each of us individually and to our relationship as a whole. That should tell you more about my values regarding commitment than the fact that I don't think it's ideal for a teenager to attempt it until they spend some time with relationship training wheels.

Ya know how, when you first learn to drive, you do it be driving randomly in a parking lot for a while, and then you set a destination that's 20 miles away and set out for it? You know how you give a kid a sandbox, some rocks and a shovel and let them just see how gravity works, before you expect them to draft out architectural plans?

Same concept. Just because I put a sandbox in the back yard doesn't mean I want my kid to play in it for the rest of her life. It means I understand that she needs time to just explore, before she can have any meaningful understanding of what engineering and architecture are.

I heavily value commitment. Enough so that I don't want any child of mine to try to play-act it out when they aren't ready, and get hurt so badly that it damages their ability to ever commit again for the rest of their life.

As for the price paid...I can only imagine that having committed, loving, healthy parents is good for kids; and if something improves the health, love and commitment of their parents without detracting from the living situation of the child, that it would ultimately be to the child's benefit.

You don't seem to have listened in the slightest to how I'm actually describing my view of relationships, or my future goals, and whatever you're projecting on me is not what I'm envisioning or saying. Please just ask questions, instead of assuming that I must be doing the worst that you can imagine.

Actually, I'm really, really curious. What are you imagining, as the future of a poly relationship with kids?

 

[Daniel25]

mindless beasts, red in tooth and claw show more discrimination in love than a harlot-cuckold "couple"

 

[40 Rabbits]

Monogamous relationships are relatively rare in the history of mankind. The more common family has been polygamous. The last 2000 years has seen a tremendous amount of pressure for polygamous societies to conform to the monogamous ideal of Pauline Christianity. I am sure that polyamory has been around as long as polygamy.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Monogamous relationships are relatively rare in the history of mankind. The more common family has been polygamous.

Possibly so, but marriage-for-love and romantic love are relatively recent developments as well. At one time, marriage was just a political or business arrangement, or just some needed thing the tribe needed to do to survive.

Perhaps it is the individualism that arose in the West that led to such developments, but they do seem to be natural. In other words, these were social developments regarding the social acceptance of natural aspects of our psychology. In ancient Greece, for instance, infatuation was viewed as a kind of temporary insanity. Today, it is not uncommon to view having such feelings at least once in one's life as a requirement for a full life.

So, it's not like we (or most people) can't develop a romantic attachment to someone, and feel hurt or jealous if there is cheating on that relationship. I don't think that a "we are all naturally polygamous" argument really works in full. In a polygamous society, I expect at least some people -- the natural monogamists -- to have been at least vaguely dissatisfied.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Perhaps it is the individualism that arose in the West that led to such developments, but they do seem to be natural.

I would contest that assertion. And, for the record, I am monogomous.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I would contest that assertion. And, for the record, I am monogomous.

Feel free. It's a judgment call.

Just to be clear, though, I'm not saying that socially acceptable marriage-for-love or romantic love were inevitable. That's not what I mean by calling them natural developments. I mean that their source is ultimately natural human biology/psychology. There is something there that made these developments possible. Just as both heterosexality and homosexuality have natural biological/psychological roots, so too do monogamy and polyamory. I don't believe that these are entirely "socially constructed", though no doubt culture does have an influence.

That's the only way I can make sense out of the subject. I'll admit that I could be mistaken.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Mling]

Well, any way of configuring relationships is natural, as they all happen in nature! (We are a part of nature).

I think nature includes a lot of variation.

 

[Verv]

I have never wanted to "share" my girlfriend with anyone. My girlfriend would be irate if I were to sleep with anyone else, and vice versa.

Why?

Because there is an amount of trust & security that goes into a relationship.

But why, Verv, must we close our relationships sexually?

So we know our kids are our kids, so we stay with the right people for the right reasons, so we are not taken advantage of nor are we lead to take advantage of other people...

This is something that people inherently understand from a young age.

You see children be exclusive in who they let play with their toys and who they choose to be friends, and when you get older and have crushes on the opposite sex there is the simple fantasy of being with that one person and being able to share your life with them in a special union...

... And we are accused of muddying the waters by asking people if they find it acceptable for their loved ones to engage in this behavior. This is because the emotions and the body are acutely aware of how utterly bizarre and bestial said proposal is -- yet how easy it is to rationalize it to the person whose sexual appetite dictates their thoughts...

But again: How would you want your daughter in a relationship with two men? God knows they would be all professional about it, and there'd be no chance they were laughing all the way to the bedroom.

If you ever needed more proof of the decline of Western civilization, this is it.

No -- I am not being melodramatic; people were saying this 50 years ago, and they were right 50 years ago. We are merely living through the final, limping pathetic stages.

And I am glad I live in the East.

 

[Verv]

Well, any way of configuring relationships is natural, as they all happen in nature! (We are a part of nature).

I think nature includes a lot of variation.

You are abusing your own English language.

Nature often has an implication for how it is normal or acceptable or in concordance with propriety to behave or sometimes even how people normally, acceptably or properly mess up from time to time.

It's natural for people to seek out monogamous love. In the past, polygamy tended to be something done out of necessity.

It is also fairly natural that someone would make the mistake of, in the heat of passion, cheating on their lover for one reason or another, as it seems to be common... But just as such, it would be natural for the cheater to be regretful and shamed...

You are proposing something that hits every rational and natural human in the stomach like a ton of bricks.

Between the 5th century BC and the 17th century AD there was a long line of Chinese philosophers who held a very rich dialog on what is the proper way for human beings to behave...

They were Confucianists, Taoists, Buddhists, Neo-Confucianists, Neo-Taoists, etc. They often called this school of thought 'Seong-ri-hak.'

Seong for 'disposition' or 'nature', 'ri' for 'reason' or 'logic,' and 'hak' for knowledge.

The aim was to undrstand what is the nature of humans and what is the most proper and best way for us to behave, and what characteristics are good to cultivate and what others should be removed.

... And you aren't going to find anyone saying 'indulging in all of the sex you want with multiple partners on a flexible and loose schedule is proper.'

 

[Archer93]

Would you like your daughter to be polyamorous as a teenager?

My view.
I have an eight year old niece.
I wouldn't 'like' her to be polyamorous. I wouldn't 'like' her to be monogamous either. What I would like, is for her to be able to make her own decisions from an informed perspective.

Some people are naturally monogamous, some are naturally polyamorous. Both are equally valid and have their own difficulties and challenges to face in the context of a relationship.

Open discussion is good. Decrying other people's experiences and natures, and attempting to tell people that they're wrong, is unhelpful and childish.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well, any way of configuring relationships is natural, as they all happen in nature! (We are a part of nature).

I think nature includes a lot of variation.

Certainly, but by natural, I mean that my guess is that there is some genetic/biological influence, and that culture alone doesn't strike me as enough to explain what is going on.


eudaimonia,

Mark