Polyamory

[Gracchus]

There are a fair number of people who think "monogamous" and "polyamorous" are inherent traits wired into the person, like you're saying. some people identify as one or the other, the way they identify as "gay" or "straight." (Which, interestingly, makes it possible to be a monogamous person in a poly relationship )

I'm not completely convinced, myself, but some people are pretty hardcore about the idea.

Did you know that in species with high sexual dimorphism males almost always leave after copulation, while in species where males and females resemble each other more closely, monogamy is the rule, and the males usually stick around and help with parenting and nurture? (Of course, in the latter case, the females are more likely to take off.)

Humans exhibit a range of behaviors that reflect the wide range of sexual dimorphism in humans.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There are a fair number of people who think "monogamous" and "polyamorous" are inherent traits wired into the person, like you're saying.

Just to be clear, I'm talking about orientation here, not behavior. It isn't the behavior that is "wired", but natural sexual/emotional reactions.

some people identify as one or the other, the way they identify as "gay" or "straight." (Which, interestingly, makes it possible to be a monogamous person in a poly relationship )

It does. I'm sure that this must happen. One would be talking about monogamous in two different senses, which I distinguish above.

I'm not completely convinced, myself, but some people are pretty hardcore about the idea.

I lean towards being hardcore, but I am willing to be proven wrong by the evidence... as long as I don't have to be a test subject.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[drstevej]

Edited to add- And what the HECK is this whole thing with "would you want your daughter to do it?" Did I miss the post where you added "Would you want your son to do this?" Why do debates like this nearly always come down the the hypothetical daughter?
O wait, I know why

The use of daughter was a response to a poster who mentioned her daughter. Had she said son, I would have used that referrent.

BTW, marriage is presented in the Bible as a picture of Christ and His Bride, the church. Polyamory distorts the image.

Ephersians 5
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

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

Again, Sex at Dawn, very interesting book, which makes a very convincing argument based on biology and anthropology that monogamy is not necessarily the be all and end all of human sexuality.

Short version, looking at human reproductive structures and behaviours, we are built and act precisely the way an animal that expects to have sex with multiple partners is and does.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Originally Posted by corvus_corax

Edited to add- And what the HECK is this whole thing with "would you want your daughter to do it?" Did I miss the post where you added "Would you want your son to do this?" Why do debates like this nearly always come down the the hypothetical daughter?
O wait, I know why
​

<edit>
Since people are naturally protective of their daughters, and worry about them becoming sexually active, by invoking the hypothetical daughter, you get to claim double standards and such when people's empirical objective views don't match their personal subjective ones. You'll often see the precise same tactic in use in discussions on porn, and sometimes homosexuality, although as homosexuality becomes more generally accepted, thats becomming less common.

 

[disciple2011]

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?

Polyamory is nothing more than humans being human.

The human animal is not meant to mate for life. Few species on the planet mate for life. Biologically, mating for life, it is an aberration. That is why it is rarely practised.

 

[corvus_corax]

The use of daughter was a response to a poster who mentioned her daughter. Had she said son, I would have used that referrent.

Ah, reading back, I see that now.

BTW, marriage is presented in the Bible as a picture of Christ and His Bride, the church. Polyamory distorts the image.

Even though I'm not a Christian, I understand that. Wives submitting to everything, the near command to husbands to love their wives, the "two becoming one", I get it I really do.
I just don't believe in commanded submission (well, I do, but that's a topic for a whole 'nother thread haha), or commanding someone to love (hey, it was a different culture), and I don't believe two people ever become one actual (metaphorical) person.

I am glad to see you drop the "incest" comparison though

And now on to other things (you might want to read this drstevej, as it kind of addresses your point regarding "would you want your relative doing this"

Sounds like something that could (and probably does) work much better with relationships that don't involve heterosexual men (meaning more than one). Nothing against heterosexual men, mind...but they have serious possessive instincts that would give them a hard time being comfortable in a relationship like that. Adding another girl to the relationship, like your friend did, doesn't pose the same threat that adding another guy would. Even the most free-love guy I've ever met got a little bit squirrelly when his girlfriend started giving other boys the 'eye'.

It's not entirely their faults, it's hardwired in the brains of most male mammals. I think polyamory is a nice idea but in the topsy-turvy-gray-shaded world of human relationships it probably doesn't pan out so well for 99% of people.

My wife and I were talking about this very thread last night.
Come to find out, I'm far more open to her being poly-amorous than she is to me being the same. The vividly imagined possibility does not arouse jealousy in me (although the imagined thought of her "cheating" on me does, frighteningly so).
And regarding her, we were specifically talking (and me imagining) about her having a boyfriend, not even a girlfriend.
I'm far more okay with her being poly amorous than just going out and having sex with some guy she finds "hot".
On the other hand, she's the exact opposite. She might find an affair ('cheating') to be forgivable, but poly-amory? Apparently absolutely not.
So here's one heterosexual guy who doesn't get jealous thinking about it, and my wife does occasionally give other guys 'the eye' (yeah, her and I both look at others)

I always imagine coming home and telling my partner about it. Going out to see a date, and coming home to see my current partner is the key part of that dynamic. I don't know how well I'd manage two serious partners of equal weight. To me, I think I'd need a significant gap of seriousness between primary partner and anybody else.

/\THIS . My wife at least conceded "well I can sort of understand that". I she or I were ever poly-amorous (and we won't be, because she doesn't agree with it), this would be the 'standard', so to speak.

And on another note-

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

I haven't read something this vile and hateful in a long time
Polyamory =/= Cucking. Polyamory =/= whoring oneself.

Off topic post is off topic (kind of like all those posts on this thread that equal poly with "sex sex sex sex sex sex" and nothing but sex).
And nature red in tooth and claw? You mean like male lions committing infanticide, and then taking the lioness whose children he just killed? More discriminating?
Surely you jest
Of course, they're just doing what's in their nature to do so.

O wait.....

 

[Eudaimonist]

Polyamory is nothing more than humans being human.

So is hetersexuality. So is homosexuality. There seem to be different kinds of "human".

The human animal is not meant to mate for life.

True, but serial monogamy is a serious contender. It's not like the choice is between lifelong monogamy and polyamory.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Short version, looking at human reproductive structures and behaviours, we are built and act precisely the way an animal that expects to have sex with multiple partners is and does.

That still leaves open room for serial monogamy. I personally am not "built" for polyamory psychologically. I'm afraid that your book is unlikely to explain that to my satisfaction, if that is actually the argument it advances.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Blackwater Babe]

That still leaves open room for serial monogamy. I personally am not "built" for polyamory psychologically. I'm afraid that your book is unlikely to explain that to my satisfaction, if that is actually the argument it advances.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Well actually... biologically, humans display a number of anatomical and behavioural traits that suggest we are, in fact, built for polyamory.

No one is saying you should be, or anything of the sort. If you are not psychologically "built" for it, that is, of course, perfectly fine. However... I'm sure you are aware of the nature/nurture argument, and the question relevent here is; are you, and most of us, prone to thinking of humans as naturally monogamous (or serially monogamous) because that is our natural instinctive state, or because we are brought up with it being presented as the only "normal" way of doing things, i.e. a social construct.

 

[disciple2011]

The only reason marriage was created by humans was to make sure that there was an identifiable heir to a man's wealth upon his death.

All other symbolism and pomp was added to it because humans just love to make a spectacle of themselves.

Again, like most things in the human experience, it is all about possessions.

Humans are animals and animals must spread their genetics to ensure survival.

 

[drstevej]

Well actually... biologically, humans display a number of anatomical and behavioural traits that suggest we are, in fact, built for polyamory.

The male human displays a number of anatomical and behavioural traits that suggest they are, in fact, built for date rape. Does that justify it?

 

[drstevej]

The only reason marriage was created by humans was to make sure that there was an identifiable heir to a man's wealth upon his death.

I thought that was why government was created.

 

[drstevej]

Polyamory is nothing more than humans being human.

The human animal is not meant to mate for life. Few species on the planet mate for life. Biologically, mating for life, it is an aberration. That is why it is rarely practised.

So being "average" in the animal kingdom is best?

Spoiler: Click to see an aberrant species

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Is that the teaching of the

Church?

No. But unlike some people, I don't demand that people who don't share my religion abide by its tennets.

To determine the ethics of a situation, I find the "fully informed adult consent" is a pretty good indicator.

Obviously, if one is a Catholic, its a bit more complex... but we're discussing polyamory, not the Catholic church's stance on polyamory, since that would be a really short conversation.

 

[nom]

<edit>

the teaching of jesus on marriage is that what GOD put together, man should not separate. my first reaction? "a marriage slip doesn't mean god put them together". in other words, I would not want to presume to know what god put together. but yes, I am looking forward to either growing old with someone or dying alone.. which made many a lady pout, just so you know - put that in your STD pipe and smoke it

now <edit>: how is marriage by definition selfless, and polyamory selfish? I'd even accept scripture stating so, even though that's hardly the topic.

 

[Reine]

Marriage is a business arrangement to protect the involved parties. They dedicate their lives and time building and sharing assets, producing offspring and saving for retirement. They work together to gain a material and emotional system for their existence. marriage is a symbol of the intentions of each person, and it is the protection in case either party doesn't hold up their end of the deal. It is a simple as that.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Marriage is a business arrangement to protect the involved parties. They dedicate their lives and time building and sharing assets, producing offspring and saving for retirement. They work together to gain a material and emotional system for their existence. marriage is a symbol of the intentions of each person, and it is the protection in case either party doesn't hold up their end of the deal. It is a simple as that.

Really? I thought it was the means by which young attractive women cash in their beauty for half a man's fortune.

 

[razeontherock]

@ Reine's last post: I won't say if that idea is wrong or right, but I find it to be horrible at worst and sickeningly disappointing at best.

 

[Reine]

Really? I thought it was the means by which young attractive women cash in their beauty for half a man's fortune.

I don't know how all the current laws work with that, but I would suggest to a man marrying today, with the current divorce laws and such.. if he was worried about that... to marry a woman that makes equal or more money than he does. Then if she decides to divorce him... he can get shared physical placement and she will pay the child support.

BUT... it is of course best to marry someone and make yourself so incredibly awesome that she would never think of leaving