Why is polygamy, bigamy, polyamory, etc. immoral?

[citizenthom]

Until you can delineate what is or is not a legitimate reason, it is hard to carry on with this vein, since we will obviously have different ideas of legitimacy.

Well, you're not marrying me, so we don't have to have similar ideas about it.

Mostly it's about consensus and reasonableness. For instance, my future wife and I have both agreed that we're mostly OK with middle-of-the-night initiations; but I can see how another couple would agree that continuous sleep is a "legitimate reason." The overall point is that when the couple doesn't agree, sex wins. If the spouse desiring sex is making unreasonable demands, that needs to be dealt with away from the bed.

Since marriage is about mutual respect and consideration, why should one spouse's desire to have sex trump the other spouse's desire to not have sex?

Because A.) refusal carries a lot more risk of damage than having sex with your spouse does, and B.) refusal has a tendency to very quickly become a habit, which magnifies the problem.

And because this thread BADLY needs to get back on track: "sorry, I already had sex/am going to have sex with my other spouse" would be an extremely hurtful and inappropriate reason for refusal.

 

[Skaloop]

Well, you're not marrying me, so we don't have to have similar ideas about it.

No, but we are discussing it, so we should try to be on the same page regarding each others views. And I am curious as to the situations I mentioned, and if you consider them legitimate reasons for not having sex.

Mostly it's about consensus and reasonableness. For instance, my future wife and I have both agreed that we're mostly OK with middle-of-the-night initiations; but I can see how another couple would agree that continuous sleep is a "legitimate reason." The overall point is that when the couple doesn't agree, sex wins. If the spouse desiring sex is making unreasonable demands, that needs to be dealt with away from the bed.

So the obligation to have sex does have its conditions.

Because A.) refusal carries a lot more risk of damage than having sex with your spouse does,

Not necessarily. Feeling like they are being forced to have sex when they don't want to (even if it's not actual force) could be a trigger for someone who has suffered a rape or other sexual assault.

and B.) refusal has a tendency to very quickly become a habit, which magnifies the problem.

The same could be said for the other side forming a habit of expecting sex when one's spouse doesn't want it, and thereby overlooking legitimate reasons.

And because this thread BADLY needs to get back on track: "sorry, I already had sex/am going to have sex with my other spouse" would be an extremely hurtful and inappropriate reason for refusal.

Unless the couple agrees on such a reason being legitimate, as you mentioned above.

 

[Penumbra]

I can't imagine that the sex would be worth having if one partner doesn't want to do it. How could the other partner enjoy such a thing?

 

[Skaloop]

I can't imagine that the sex would be worth having if one partner doesn't want to do it. How could the other partner enjoy such a thing?

Thats a good point. If someone wants it so bad when their partner doesn't, I'd say that rather than forcing them to have mediocre, uninterested, unmotivated sex, the horny party should take matters into their own hands.

 

[SithDoughnut]

And because this thread BADLY needs to get back on track: "sorry, I already had sex/am going to have sex with my other spouse" would be an extremely hurtful and inappropriate reason for refusal.

Depends on the people in question. Not everyone thinks like you, you know.

 

[Verv]

I find this a rather unenlightening response. Perhaps you could elaborate for those of us following along at home?

Social harmony involves the idea of abiding by certain standards that make people feel comfortable. E.g., prostitution only happens in these places in these circumstances, and open homosexuality only happens in these places, etc.

So would you say it is fair to characterize this as religious thinking without empirical evidence?

Have you ever heard of philosophy?

I am sorry but you neo-liberals just are totally missing the complete picture.

You think everything needs total, empirical evidence and proof and if I do not have some empirical evidence it ought to be dismissed.

OF course this is why you think the way that you do: it is almost impossible to prove anything that you do not want to be proven, and it is difficult to tackle questions that cannot be proven.

However, what are moral and ethical questions but those that are based on philosophy and interpretation of the human heart?

If all questions were answered only by empirical evidence, I think we would live in a society that would be Fascist in nature. You can ask me to elaborate on this later if you would like.

I disagree. I have seen relationships with multiple partners that work. I do not think any of the things you have listed are so ingrained in humans that it is not possible to overcome them.

For someone who enjoys 'empirical proof' you sure think you can assuage me with your anecdotal evidence.

You know how people overcome those traits? They often become monks.

How do you think a polyamorous relationship would affect a child?

Your thoughts are extreme and not based on fact.

 

[Belk]

Social harmony involves the idea of abiding by certain standards that make people feel comfortable. E.g., prostitution only happens in these places in these circumstances, and open homosexuality only happens in these places, etc.

Is social harmony static or dynamic?

Have you ever heard of philosophy?

I am sorry but you neo-liberals just are totally missing the complete picture.

You think everything needs total, empirical evidence and proof and if I do not have some empirical evidence it ought to be dismissed.

Yes, us silly "neo-liberals". Expecting you classical romanticists to come up with things like evidence and supporting theories. I mean, we act like there is a proven method for cutting through the bias humans are known to introduce to any topic.

OF course this is why you think the way that you do: it is almost impossible to prove anything that you do not want to be proven, and it is difficult to tackle questions that cannot be proven.

Wow! You know why I think the way I do? [Dory voice] Are you my conscience? [/Dory voice]

However, what are moral and ethical questions but those that are based on philosophy and interpretation of the human heart?

You don't think there are scientific studies into why humans behave the way they do?

If all questions were answered only by empirical evidence, I think we would live in a society that would be Fascist in nature. You can ask me to elaborate on this later if you would like.

If it is going to be as condescending as your first response I'll pass.

For someone who enjoys 'empirical proof' you sure think you can assuage me with your anecdotal evidence.

I know huh? And yet, of the two of us, I was the only one who bothered to give any evidence whatsoever. Strange, huh?

You know how people overcome those traits? They often become monks.

Or they use all the other methods humans have devised to deal with issues. Because amazingly enough there is not just a single path through life.

How do you think a polyamorous relationship would affect a child?

Really? "Won't someone think of the children"?
Ok.

It would affect them in no way different from any other relationship.

Your thoughts are extreme and not based on fact.

And you are apparently delusional since you think you know what my thoughts are.

 

[Shemjaza]

But I agree with citizenthom that a romantic relationship is not like a parent-child relationship. The objections I have against a 'classic' polygamous relationship (one husband, multiple wives; wives have fewer rights than the husband) have to do with it resembling a parent-child relationship too much: it isn't equal, one has power over the others. That doesn't seem healthy to me.

I’d agree 100% that the ‘classic’ polygamous relationship with the dominant patriarch bossing around his submissive (and possibly quite young) little wives seems unhealthy.

That being said, I doubt a traditional monogamous marriage from centuries past (or the isolated or backward cultures who still maintain them today) would seem healthy to many of us today. Consider how recently it was even considered possible for a man to rape his wide.

So you're still with them?

Sadly no. But it wasn’t the poly aspect of the relationship that ended it.; more the growing apart and going different directions in life. You know, those things that can happen to any kind of relationship.

It is also a literal giving. Once you are married, you owe your body to your spouse, and exclusively to your spouse.

That’s one interpretation of what marriage is. Personally I think marriage is about the commitment to be the best person you can to support your partner. I don’t think exclusive sex is that impressive (and to me it’s unnecessary).

If you're not willing to fulfill someone sexually, then you should not make a promise to them that entails not having sex with anyone else. Similarly, and relevant to this thread, if you cannot be sexually fulfilled by a single person, you should not promise to have sex with only them: that's lying to them.

Sure, but there are many people who want to be married and spend their lives together, but don’t promise or require sexual fidelity.



Personally if I had a partner who I loved, but who couldn’t handle an open relationship, I’d be happy to live without... but my personal preference would be to have that opportunity open.

Every successful marriage I've seen has featured mutual sexual obligation--and yes, that does include having sex sometimes because the other person is in need. Most marriages' problems either start with refusal in that area, or get worse when other problems do leak into the bedroom.

Personally, I think a more important thing in a marriage would be the ability to be empathic enough to know your partner wasn’t in the mood, and be happy to leave it till later.

 

[Gwenyfur]

I’d agree 100% that the ‘classic’ polygamous relationship with the dominant patriarch bossing around his submissive (and possibly quite young) little wives seems unhealthy.

That being said, I doubt a traditional monogamous marriage from centuries past (or the isolated or backward cultures who still maintain them today) would seem healthy to many of us today. Consider how recently it was even considered possible for a man to rape his wide.




Sadly no. But it wasn’t the poly aspect of the relationship that ended it.; more the growing apart and going different directions in life. You know, those things that can happen to any kind of relationship.




That’s one interpretation of what marriage is. Personally I think marriage is about the commitment to be the best person you can to support your partner. I don’t think exclusive sex is that impressive (and to me it’s unnecessary).




Sure, but there are many people who want to be married and spend their lives together, but don’t promise or require sexual fidelity.



Personally if I had a partner who I loved, but who couldn’t handle an open relationship, I’d be happy to live without... but my personal preference would be to have that opportunity open.




Personally, I think a more important thing in a marriage would be the ability to be empathic enough to know your partner wasn’t in the mood, and be happy to leave it till later.

QFT

 

[citizenthom]

I can't imagine that the sex would be worth having if one partner doesn't want to do it.

It's more about being willing to start. Lower-drive people still find that if they're open to foreplay and initiation, they get into the mood rather quickly. And if they don't, that's often a sign of physical disorder...or a sign that the marriage needs serious work.

 

[SithDoughnut]

It's more about being willing to start. Lower-drive people still find that if they're open to foreplay and initiation, they get into the mood rather quickly. And if they don't, that's often a sign of physical disorder...or a sign that the marriage needs serious work.

Or they're just not in the mood, perhaps because they've had a bad day, or they're tired.

I think knowing that your partner is not in the mood, and therefore not pushing them for sex, is a much healthier way to run a relationship.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

It's more about being willing to start. Lower-drive people still find that if they're open to foreplay and initiation, they get into the mood rather quickly. And if they don't, that's often a sign of physical disorder...or a sign that the marriage needs serious work.

Not necessarily. In my situation my lower drive was caused by PCOS and the medication I have to be on for it. Even if I "started" I still was not into it..and I know its the same for others. It has nothing to do with my emotions for my partner, but with the physical changes my medication and illness cause within my own body. I would not consider that a physical disorder, but a symptom of a necessary evil. (i.e. take meds or become diabetic)

 

[Gwenyfur]

Not necessarily. In my situation my lower drive was caused by PCOS and the medication I have to be on for it. Even if I "started" I still was not into it..and I know its the same for others. It has nothing to do with my emotions for my partner, but with the physical changes my medication and illness cause within my own body. I would not consider that a physical disorder, but a symptom of a necessary evil. (i.e. take meds or become diabetic)

I had the same problem after my hysterectomy and 2 rounds of chemo...
12 years later, I still find that there are times that my libido is right down there with having a root canal done...

Has *nothing* to do with my partner...everything to do with how my body works these days...eh...I'm alive...and he's more than willing to understand that it's nothing to do with him as a man, when my drive is parked...just as he's more than ready when my drive is at the racetrack

 

[Nooj]

I am sorry but you neo-liberals just are totally missing the complete picture.

What are neo-liberals?

 

[Eudaimonist]

What are neo-liberals?

That is what I am wondering too. Neoliberal happens to be a term that is used to describe people who have free market economic views, and is often associated with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, but I'm guessing that's not what is meant here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Orraez]

Where?

Yes, I had the same thought.There are some NT writings that command certain clerics to have only one wife but it is not a universal command. The OT condones polygyny in many places.