Polyamory

[d4deborah]

very well written eudaimonist

 

[blarg the 2nd]

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).

you dont like it so its bad for evry one nice you disgust me

 

[Verv]

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

It doesn't; but it does fall into the category of something that I strongly condemn and will do so publicly and openly. It is an abomination of self-indulgence.

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

In modern society, it is what is most socially acceptable.

Social acceptance is important to people -- hence, the reason why gays are campaigning so hard for their right to social acceptance. Wouldn't you agree that social acceptance is important to them? Especially to kids?

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".

Wait, so you suggest that it could be beneficial to have extra-lovers because they would theoretically be there to act as nurturers?

So in the house lives your mother and your father, and then they might have an extra lover or two who is also a part of your life... And these extra lovers will be extra caretakers and role models for the kids, because God knows that a group of adults wants to all live 3 or 4 of them in a house and all can afford such comfortable arrangements...

... So, you think that people can live this way without jealousy, can devote enough time to one another in the busy modern world, and it will provide a nurturing atmosphere?

... Not to mention, it will somehow set people up with the ability to act rationally in a society with traditional values, which overwhelmingly rejects this arrangement?

Tell me when that started to sound like a bit of a bizarre notion to you.

I seem to remember there was another thread where you even criticized polyamory as 'just going against some of basic human nature.'

But... You are the Ayn Rand fan, aren't you? For you it is all about pure, unadulterated individualism?

Isn't there a certain homeostasis which must exist in society?

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.



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.

... OK so we may agree a bit.

But you have to understand, Eudaimonist, if it is not about 'sex,' then why bring sex into it?

Nobody has the time to cultivate loving relationships with their mates, and it is hard enough to have one functioning relationship.

My girlfriend and I have many other people we enjoy having fun with but it is beyond me that we would ever include them in a relationship that was 'physical.' At no point can I imagine either of us compromising on this. This is not only due to jealousy but also do to the idea of a general loyalty and the basic concept that there is something filthy about treating sex as a hobby.

Perhaps that is an emotion that should also be factored in -- it is not quite jealousy, but rather, it is a sense of 'hatred of indulgence.'

Alcoholics, drug addicts, people who live their life entirely in the lap of luxury, etc. are naturally despised to some degree - this is labeled as 'jealousy' by some but it is labeled as 'rational' by most. Their behavior sets a bad precedent and example to the youth, and portrays an unrealistic world to the adults as well as seemingly says that they do not have to participate in social norms and cultural mores.

It is a natural thing to disdain that which is a radicalized lifestyle that claims to be somehow 'above' or 'free' from the rules we've tacitly agreed to follow.

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

So do a lot of lifestyles. But this is unimportant because we know that many of these claims are ridiculous.

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.

Social values could also change to accommodate Wiking raiding parties and dueling. Social values could also change to accommodate racism, sexism or perhaps we could try to create a Christian or Islamic theological society.

Ideally, I think we'd live in an efficient, non-democratic but also non-racist Fascist society. An enlightened dictatorship, if you will engage me.

We should talk about the social values of an efficient society sometime.

/quote]

very well written eudaimonist

As a Christian, do you believe that the word of God is right?

What do you think Christ, a celibate person who advocated only marriage between a single man and a single woman and who idealized celibacy, would think about such a system?

So why do you think defense of this system is somehow... Good?

I do not understand you.

you dont like it so its bad for evry one nice you disgust me

It sends the wrong message if we condone foolish behavior.

Dueling might seem like a good idea for individuals but would set a terrible precedent in our society even though it is an act done by 'just two folks.'

"Consenting adults," if you will...

Does it disgust you so much that I dare say that society should have standards?

 

[Mling]

Social acceptance is important to people -- hence, the reason why gays are campaigning so hard for their right to social acceptance. Wouldn't you agree that social acceptance is important to them? Especially to kids?

There are areas--both physical, geographic areas, and subcultures-- in which polyamory is relatively accepted. Where I live, a significant minority of people have neutral-to-positive feelings about it--enough that you can mention it fairly casually in public, and in certain subcultures, nobody bats an eye at it.

Wait, so you suggest that it could be beneficial to have extra-lovers because they would theoretically be there to act as nurturers?

The "could" and "theoretically" are sort of monkey wrenches, they? It is beneficial for kids to have more people involved in their lives, if those people act as nurturers. That holds true whether we're talking about lovers or grandparents. A child who has supportive and loving aunts, uncles and grandparents caring for her, in addition to her parents, will be well cared for. A child with abusive parents, aunts, uncles and grandparents won't (though, they might possibly be better off than if they only had abusive parents, because few people are 100% abusive, 100% of the time. They may be able to get away from dad, when he's in a bad mood, and find their aunt in a good mood.)

Same with poly families--of course they wouldn't be good for the kids, if they were unstable and abusive. But if everybody involved in the kids' lives acted as nurturers, then it would be very good.

So in the house lives your mother and your father, and then they might have an extra lover or two who is also a part of your life... And these extra lovers will be extra caretakers and role models for the kids,

Depends on the people involved, but I do know a family in which four people live together and are raising a child together. The four of them have been a stable partner/family unit for 5 years now, and two of them have been together for 10 years, and are legally married (so, there is a married couple, and then each of them have another partner, and the four of them live together.) And yes, they are all caretakers and role models for the child.

because God knows that a group of adults wants to all live 3 or 4 of them in a house and all can afford such comfortable arrangements...

Mortgage divided by 4 incomes is cheaper than mortgage divided by 2 incomes.

And besides, nobody is arguing that "all can afford such comfortable arrangements." Not all married, monogamous heterosexual couples can afford comfortable arrangements either. Is that somehow an argument against marriage, monogamy and heterosexuality?

... So, you think that people can live this way without jealousy,

Not everybody is a slave to their bestial passions. Jealousy is a known challenge in poly relationships, and people learn how to handle it--usually by having open and honest conversations about the reasons behind their jealousy (ex: "You set aside time to go out and have fun with your other partner, and then we only have time to do the bills and go grocery shopping with each other,") and figuring out plans to mitigate the problems (ex: "Yeah...that's not working out too well, is it. Ok, let's figure out times when we can have date nights.")

can devote enough time to one another in the busy modern world, and it will provide a nurturing atmosphere?

the calenders of poly families are notoriously complicated, but some people are very good at managing that.

... Not to mention, it will somehow set people up with the ability to act rationally in a society with traditional values, which overwhelmingly rejects this arrangement?

That's just as much an argument against interracial marriage in certain parts of this country, as it is against poly.

Tell me when that started to sound like a bit of a bizarre notion to you.

So far, it doesn't sound bizarre. You've just described some of the most functional people I know, in sneering tones.

 

[Daniel25]

how did ayn rand's disinterested polyamory work out for her? Besides having her go mad with jealousy, publicly curse her lover's genitilia, then attempt to dismantle her own burgeoning cult in a fever of jealous rage? (The man she was sleeping with in addition to her husband decided to pick up another lover, and she excommunicated him from her fold, and then dismantled her institute, etc. The whole story is amazing and hilarious because she wasn't a hypocrite, she was truly living by her values. They are just insane, inhumane values).

 

[blarg the 2nd]

It doesn't; but it does fall into the category of something that I strongly condemn and will do so publicly and openly. It is an abomination of self-indulgence.



In modern society, it is what is most socially acceptable.

Social acceptance is important to people -- hence, the reason why gays are campaigning so hard for their right to social acceptance. Wouldn't you agree that social acceptance is important to them? Especially to kids?



Wait, so you suggest that it could be beneficial to have extra-lovers because they would theoretically be there to act as nurturers?

So in the house lives your mother and your father, and then they might have an extra lover or two who is also a part of your life... And these extra lovers will be extra caretakers and role models for the kids, because God knows that a group of adults wants to all live 3 or 4 of them in a house and all can afford such comfortable arrangements...

... So, you think that people can live this way without jealousy, can devote enough time to one another in the busy modern world, and it will provide a nurturing atmosphere?

... Not to mention, it will somehow set people up with the ability to act rationally in a society with traditional values, which overwhelmingly rejects this arrangement?

Tell me when that started to sound like a bit of a bizarre notion to you.

I seem to remember there was another thread where you even criticized polyamory as 'just going against some of basic human nature.'

But... You are the Ayn Rand fan, aren't you? For you it is all about pure, unadulterated individualism?

Isn't there a certain homeostasis which must exist in society?




... OK so we may agree a bit.

But you have to understand, Eudaimonist, if it is not about 'sex,' then why bring sex into it?

Nobody has the time to cultivate loving relationships with their mates, and it is hard enough to have one functioning relationship.

My girlfriend and I have many other people we enjoy having fun with but it is beyond me that we would ever include them in a relationship that was 'physical.' At no point can I imagine either of us compromising on this. This is not only due to jealousy but also do to the idea of a general loyalty and the basic concept that there is something filthy about treating sex as a hobby.

Perhaps that is an emotion that should also be factored in -- it is not quite jealousy, but rather, it is a sense of 'hatred of indulgence.'

Alcoholics, drug addicts, people who live their life entirely in the lap of luxury, etc. are naturally despised to some degree - this is labeled as 'jealousy' by some but it is labeled as 'rational' by most. Their behavior sets a bad precedent and example to the youth, and portrays an unrealistic world to the adults as well as seemingly says that they do not have to participate in social norms and cultural mores.

It is a natural thing to disdain that which is a radicalized lifestyle that claims to be somehow 'above' or 'free' from the rules we've tacitly agreed to follow.



So do a lot of lifestyles. But this is unimportant because we know that many of these claims are ridiculous.



Social values could also change to accommodate Wiking raiding parties and dueling. Social values could also change to accommodate racism, sexism or perhaps we could try to create a Christian or Islamic theological society.

Ideally, I think we'd live in an efficient, non-democratic but also non-racist Fascist society. An enlightened dictatorship, if you will engage me.

We should talk about the social values of an efficient society sometime.

/quote]



As a Christian, do you believe that the word of God is right?

What do you think Christ, a celibate person who advocated only marriage between a single man and a single woman and who idealized celibacy, would think about such a system?

So why do you think defense of this system is somehow... Good?

I do not understand you.



It sends the wrong message if we condone foolish behavior.

Dueling might seem like a good idea for individuals but would set a terrible precedent in our society even though it is an act done by 'just two folks.'

"Consenting adults," if you will...

Does it disgust you so much that I dare say that society should have standards?

its disgust me when you declar that i shoud be disgusted with peoeo just becase you thinck ther worng or foolish

i dont thinck its imposble to love and care for childirn just becase your [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ing some one who is not your childs parent

 

[Mling]

how did ayn rand's disinterested polyamory work out for her? Besides having her go mad with jealousy, publicly curse her lover's genitilia, then attempt to dismantle her own burgeoning cult in a fever of jealous rage? (The man she was sleeping with in addition to her husband decided to pick up another lover, and she excommunicated him from her fold, and then dismantled her institute, etc. The whole story is amazing and hilarious because she wasn't a hypocrite, she was truly living by her values. They are just insane, inhumane values).

Yeah, I am no fan of ayn rand.

 

[Eudaimonist]

how did ayn rand's [...] polyamory work out for her?

It worked as well as many people's marriages.

BTW, it is not my position in this discussion that polyamory is wonderful and problem-free.

It is also not my position that marriage is wonderful and problem-free.

It is also not my position that pre-marital relationships are wonderful and problem-free.

AND, it is not my position that avoiding relationships, either for casual sex or for a life of chastity, is wonderful and problem-free.

So, what precisely is the point of mentioning that Ayn Rand's love life was less than stellar? I'm not trying to defend her romantic decisions. I personally disapprove of what she chose, although I do have the benefit of hindsight.

Mentioning Ayn Rand comes across as a bit of a cheap shot because you are going to find examples of polyamorous relationships that seem to work. And the same thing is true for marriage (some work, some bomb). Etc. Etc. Etc.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

It doesn't; but it does fall into the category of something that I strongly condemn and will do so publicly and openly. It is an abomination of self-indulgence.

I can understand why you would think that and I thought that myself at one point, but I've spoken with polyamorists about their polyamory, and it became clear to me that it wasn't about "self-indulgence", but about love. Perhaps you are confusing polyamory with "swinging".

Marriage too could be seen as "about self-indulgence". Some people get married because they are horny and figure that marriage will finally allow them to have sex, or at least regular sex. The reason that others in society don't seem to mind is because they figure that children are on the way, so it excuses any self-indulgence in their eyes.

In modern society, it is what is most socially acceptable.

Social acceptance is important to people -- hence, the reason why gays are campaigning so hard for their right to social acceptance. Wouldn't you agree that social acceptance is important to them? Especially to kids?

Important? Yes. It makes life easier. Necessary? No. One shouldn't be ruled by the acceptance of "society".

Wait, so you suggest that it could be beneficial to have extra-lovers because they would theoretically be there to act as nurturers?

And an extra safety net.

So in the house lives your mother and your father, and then they might have an extra lover or two who is also a part of your life...

An extra partner.

And these extra lovers will be extra caretakers and role models for the kids, because God knows that a group of adults wants to all live 3 or 4 of them in a house and all can afford such comfortable arrangements...

Maybe they live separately. Maybe they stay in the guest room. Maybe they have their own rooms in a large house. These are just details.

... So, you think that people can live this way without jealousy, can devote enough time to one another in the busy modern world, and it will provide a nurturing atmosphere?

It would be impossible for me personally. I would feel jealousy. However, polyamorsts don't feel jealousy in those circumstances. I don't know why. There may be natural polyamorists just as there may be natural homosexuals.

... Not to mention, it will somehow set people up with the ability to act rationally in a society with traditional values, which overwhelmingly rejects this arrangement?

No, the arrangement has no magical power to do anything. It is the people who will do this or fail, just as people will adjust to marriage or fail.

Tell me when that started to sound like a bit of a bizarre notion to you.

It was when you insisted that people must act with "traditional values".

I seem to remember there was another thread where you even criticized polyamory as 'just going against some of basic human nature.'

Did I? I don't recall that. I'd be interested to see the thread.

But... You are the Ayn Rand fan, aren't you? For you it is all about pure, unadulterated individualism?

I'm not certain what you mean by "unadulterated individualism".

I am an individualist, albeit a Aristotelian individualist who recognizes that people have a social nature, not an atomistic one of the John Stewart Mill sort. I think that people ought to live wisely and with good character, not just pursue any stray desire.

Isn't there a certain homeostasis which must exist in society?

I see society as dynamic, not as some static Burkean tapestry. If Burke saw society as a solid, and J.S. Mill as a gas, I see society as a liquid. Unlike a gas it has form, and unlike a solid it is dynamic.

But you have to understand, Eudaimonist, if it is not about 'sex,' then why bring sex into it?

If romantic couples have sex without intending children, why bring sex into it? Should sex be for procreation only? Or can love be a factor?

Nobody has the time to cultivate loving relationships with their mates, and it is hard enough to have one functioning relationship.

I agree. That's why I question the wisdom of polyamory, but I wouldn't say that it is flat out wrong to take a chance. Even marriage has its risks.

My girlfriend and I have many other people we enjoy having fun with but it is beyond me that we would ever include them in a relationship that was 'physical.'

It is beyond me as well, just like it is beyond me why any guy would sleep with another guy, or any girl would sleep with another girl. There is nothing in me to explain such choices. But I accept that individuals are different. Perhaps some people are natural polyamorists.

At no point can I imagine either of us compromising on this. This is not only due to jealousy but also do to the idea of a general loyalty and the basic concept that there is something filthy about treating sex as a hobby.

You are assuming here that polyamorists treat sex "as a hobby". I think that your best target is people who have one night stands, not those that enter into long term polyamorous relationships.

Perhaps that is an emotion that should also be factored in -- it is not quite jealousy, but rather, it is a sense of 'hatred of indulgence.'

Why hatred? What is it with this hatred? I can understand disapproval, but there seems to be something more here.

Alcoholics, drug addicts, people who live their life entirely in the lap of luxury, etc. are naturally despised to some degree - this is labeled as 'jealousy' by some but it is labeled as 'rational' by most. Their behavior sets a bad precedent and example to the youth, and portrays an unrealistic world to the adults as well as seemingly says that they do not have to participate in social norms and cultural mores.

Why should they care about social norms? Alcholism, drug abuse, and growing up as a spoiled rich kid aren't bad because they go against social convention. They are bad because they stunt one's life as an individual. Cultural mores have nothing to do with it.

It is a natural thing to disdain that which is a radicalized lifestyle that claims to be somehow 'above' or 'free' from the rules we've tacitly agreed to follow.

I don't automatically disdain people in this way. For instance, I don't disdain homosexuals because they are in some sense 'above' or 'free' from the implicit rules of traditional straight culture.

In any case, I see such disdain as coming from some primal part of human psychology that doesn't exist in equal proportion in individuals. Some people are not so traditional, and lean more towards being early adopters.

Ideally, I think we'd live in an efficient, non-democratic but also non-racist Fascist society. An enlightened dictatorship, if you will engage me.

That would be far less than ideal for me, but I can't say that I'm surprised that you would hold such views given what you say in this thread.

We should talk about the social values of an efficient society sometime.

We should. I'd like to know why you value "efficiency" so much.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GryffinSong]

I confess that I haven't read through all 17 pages of this, so apologies if I repeat anything others have said. I don't know that polyamory would/could work for me personally, but I think the characterisations of it in here might be quite misleading. The very few polyamorous couples I've heard of through mutual friends are not at all promiscious. They don't sneak around, they don't have casual sex, they are committed to their partners. They have formed a family unit, live together, and share openly what, and with whom, they are doing. At least they're honest about it. I think it's the height of awful to marry someone, promise to love, cherish and be faithful to someone, and then go out and have an affair. It's dishonest, it's disrespectful, it's wrong. At least these couples are open about the fact that they want more than one partner. I think they get some credit for open and honest communication. People who cheat on a supposedly monogamous relationship, not so much.

 

[Mling]

It would be impossible for me personally. I would feel jealousy. However, polyamorsts don't feel jealousy in those circumstances. I don't know why. There may be natural polyamorists just as there may be natural homosexuals.
...

No, the arrangement has no magical power to do anything. It is the people who will do this or fail, just as people will adjust to marriage or fail.

Mark

It's not entirely true that people who have poly relationships don't feel jealousy. It's just that if jealousy isn't handled well, the relationships collapse in spectacular, flaming doom. The two above comments tie together pretty well and show how it works.

When a poly relationship fails, it probably effects more people, in more intimate ways than when a monogamous relationship fails--also, it has the effect that your ex may still remain in your life after your romantic relationship ends. Imagine, say, that you're dating somebody who is also dating a friend of yours. You can break up with your partner, but there's still only one degree of separation between you two.

The power isn't magical--it's social.

If you don't learn how to set clear boundaries, discuss your emotions in a reasonable way, and learn how to be kind to people who you've fought with, your relationships will fail spectacularly. You won't just lose your partners, you'll cause incredible drama that may result in losing your friends and disrupting their relationships as well.

If you do learn how to set good boundaries; how to discuss your emotions calmly, clearly and rationally; and how to break up with people in kind ways that allow you to be friends afterwards, then you'll have the awesome relationships that all those skills allow you to have!

Poly doesn't force people to be better partners, but it raises the stakes in both directions--do it well, and your life is filled with joy and love and unicorns. Do it badly and you cause disaster.

Long before I'd ever heard of poly, I had set a life's goal for myself that, as long as it depended on me, I would be on good terms with all of my exes. Not because I wanted to collect up broken hearts, but because I wanted to be the sort of person who, even when fighting and even when hurt, treated people well enough that relationships could recover from break-ups.

At the moment, I'm hanging out with my only ex, and my girlfriend (who are close friends with each other). I'm quite pleased with how this is progressing so far.

 

[Lady Ogopogo]

I don't know that I've ever seen, like, one woman dating two hetero men...

How about actually living with two?

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Lady Ogopogo....

Biblically polygamy is biblically acceptable, if done in love and care and so by biblical equality therefore biblical polamoury is also acceptable. The problem is male's getting along just as it is with wives getting along. The problem comes from immtaurity and jealousies and social pressures. The worldly system,s usually do not allow it because it is tougher on them to tax multiple marriages and inheritances etc.... and their church systems are better able to control one man one woman relationships, and seeing most are in bed with the political legal system again, multiple wifes or multiple husbands is usually banned. In your case, the evil of "Bountiful and their ungodly forced unions' probably have ruined any chance for poly groupings in BC and Canada.

You'll have to wait for heaven.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's not entirely true that people who have poly relationships don't feel jealousy.

That was my impression from speaking with a polyamorist many years back, but perhaps he didn't mean that all polyamorists are like that. Just a few that he knew. Of course, I could have misunderstood him entirely.

What really astounds me about polyamorists is that they can be emotionally involved in more than one person at a time (according to what I've been told).

Anyway, thank you for the extra perspective. I've added that to my understanding of polyamory.

If you do learn how to set good boundaries; how to discuss your emotions calmly, clearly and rationally; and how to break up with people in kind ways that allow you to be friends afterwards, then you'll have the awesome relationships that all those skills allow you to have!

I understand.

Long before I'd ever heard of poly, I had set a life's goal for myself that, as long as it depended on me, I would be on good terms with all of my exes.

That's a good goal. I'm currently good friends with my ex, who I live with, and without any drama. When something is over with, it's best to put it behind oneself and be constructive about the future.

At the moment, I'm hanging out with my only ex, and my girlfriend (who are close friends with each other). I'm quite pleased with how this is progressing so far.

That sounds good. Good luck to you.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Mling]

That was my impression from speaking with a polyamorist many years back, but perhaps he didn't mean that all polyamorists are like that. Just a few that he knew. Of course, I could have misunderstood him entirely.

Eh...there's a little bit of both. I mean, it is true that, for example, I just don't feel at all jealous when my girlfriend goes off to her boyfriend's house--in fact, I need more alone time than she does, so I sometimes look forward to it. But, when relationships get strained, or life gets stressful, jealously issues can come up. Most classically, it's either about time, or about the sharing of something that feels "special." Some people might not feel jealous about their partner going to the movies or having sex with somebody else, but do feel jealous about them sleeping (literally) in somebody else's bed, or something like that. A lot of people mitigate that by finding things that they only share with a particular partner--one friend reads to his wife, for example, and not to anybody else.

 

[Lady Ogopogo]

Lady Ogopogo....
In your case, the evil of "Bountiful and their ungodly forced unions' probably have ruined any chance for poly groupings in BC and Canada.

What is a "bountiful and their ungodly forced union"? Is that a legal term?

 

[acropolis]

I've hooked up with poly women but wouldn't ever date one.

 

[anaunJq]

ITS JUST ALLOWING A MAN TO BE GREEDY BECAUSE THE ONLY REASON THAT EXISTED WAS DURING THE OLD TESTAMENT WAS BECAUSE A MAN HAD TO GET MANY WIVES BECAUSE OF THE DEATH RATE ESP IN INFANTS AND THAT WAS THE WAY AT THE TIME TO BE FRUITFUL BUT NOW WITH 7 BILLION PEOPLE IN THE WORLD ITS BEST TO SAY ITS JUST BEING GREEDY.

 

[moonkitty]

ITS JUST ALLOWING A MAN TO BE GREEDY BECAUSE THE ONLY REASON THAT EXISTED WAS DURING THE OLD TESTAMENT WAS BECAUSE A MAN HAD TO GET MANY WIVES BECAUSE OF THE DEATH RATE ESP IN INFANTS AND THAT WAS THE WAY AT THE TIME TO BE FRUITFUL BUT NOW WITH 7 BILLION PEOPLE IN THE WORLD ITS BEST TO SAY ITS JUST BEING GREEDY.

That is assuming that all polies are men who want multiple women. I have known women who like having multiple boyfriends--not because all of them give her stuff, but because she feels an emotional connection with them. Or at least that is what I have been told by the few poly women I have met.

 

[Mling]

ITS JUST ALLOWING A MAN TO BE GREEDY BECAUSE THE ONLY REASON THAT EXISTED WAS DURING THE OLD TESTAMENT WAS BECAUSE A MAN HAD TO GET MANY WIVES BECAUSE OF THE DEATH RATE ESP IN INFANTS AND THAT WAS THE WAY AT THE TIME TO BE FRUITFUL BUT NOW WITH 7 BILLION PEOPLE IN THE WORLD ITS BEST TO SAY ITS JUST BEING GREEDY.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY NOT ONLY MEN ARE POLY AND HOW CAN GREED BE A FACTOR WHEN PEOPLE ARE NOT GOODS TO BE OWNED?