Do we overzealously push monoamorousness?

[Dissident Dan]

In this society, monoamorous relationships are what pretty much everybody expects/demands. When someone's partner has sexual relations with someone else, it is considered "cheating", and it is taboo. If you ask your partner if you can have a polyamorous relationship, you are liable to be slapped or dismissed. Monoamorous relationships are the social norm, and deviation from that is usually thought to be bad and immoral.

However, humans have a strong sexual desire and desire variety. Perhaps it is just looking for trouble when people try to force each other into monoamorous relationships. Perhaps we should re-evaluate whether monoamorous relationships have to be the norm and whether we should make people feel that it is necessary that a relationship be such. Perhaps society should not create this overwhelming pressure to be monoamorous and let people decide how their relationships are formed (monoamorously or polyamorously) without this prime directive of monoamoursness.

What do you think?

 

[jammieg]

I agree Dan, given all the interesting people in this world why should I limit myself to one person for the rest of my life and possibly eternity? Because so many others do and it seems to work well for them? That's why I say(at least that's what I say), I'll not get married, but then it works really well for others I'm for free sex with whoever as long as it's safe sex, the reasoning for the social norm is likely that rampant sex kills which it does, that's what I told a girlfriend once, if she wants to have sex with other people then go ahead but so I get to as long as it's safe and we are honest about it, the hardest part seems to be doing it with safety first. What is that old saying that everyone knows everyone by 3 people, what if everyone had unprotected sex with 3 random people over the course of a week? That might pretty much do in humanity so it's a good thing we don't all do that.

 

[olde drunk]

please, please, please

will someone post a very good, logical and convincing argument for this.

i have been trying to talk my wife into this for 24 years and have yet to come up with a rock solid argument.

peace,

 

[hypnagogue]

You seem to assume that 'monoamorous' relationships are entirely enforced by cultural pressure. Could it not be that there are reasons for desiring such a relationship as natural and emotional as the reasons for desiring multiple partners? If so, who is to say which natural emotional response is to be priveleged?

A standard ethical approach would be to weigh the consequences of accepting one over the other. Imagine we have a man and a woman in a relationship, and the man wants multiple partners while the woman wants an exclusive relationship. Who is more emotionally scarred by accepting the other's desires, the man or the woman? I think it is obviously the woman. If the woman's pain is a natural response that would have existed regardless of cultural context, and thus cannot be easily 'conditioned away,' then I think it is clear that the 'monoamorous' relationship is the superior ethical choice.

 

[jammieg]

My method of convincing my wife would be to find a male stripper you can't trust and introduce your wife to him, if you can accept that then she will reciprocate and eventually barriers will fall down, but then the problem is can such acceptance and understanding be reached by 2 people who have been together a long time so suddenly? Almost certainly not, and would likely end the marriage so one should work up to such new things slowly and carefully. The reasons this work are irrelevant compared to trying it, but basically if she's one who can't handly you even looking at porn then it's going to take some time to work up to it. One of the basic principles in life is if you want this from someone you often have to give it first, but knowing it and doing it are very different things.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
You seem to assume that 'monoamorous' relationships are entirely enforced by cultural pressure. Could it not be that there are reasons for desiring such a relationship as natural and emotional as the reasons for desiring multiple partners? If so, who is to say which natural emotional response is to be priveleged?

I'm not by any means saying that being monoamorous is the wrong way to go. I'm just think that it often tends to be such a presumption that it can hinder the quality of people's lives. I am asking everyone's thoughts on whether we push monoamorousness to heavily.

I am not saying that culture is the entire reason behind any particular monoamorous relationship, although I think that it is usually at least a very large factor. If a monoamorous relationship is what someone really wants, then that's fine for that person. I'm just hinting that society should probably leave that up to individuals without the stigmas attached to polyamorousness.

 

[Thallium]

This can be described with no other word than: SICK.

I would not accept this because I would be jealous as hell over knowing that my husband got hot and heavy with another woman or women, feeling lust and being horny on another woman. How humiliating isn't that? Ever thought of that you suckers?!

If my husband, I have none, tried to convince me of this polyamorousness I would tell him to go to hell and throw him out or move far away from him. What a disgrace!, and what a disrespectful, weak, easy whore he would have been!

This "theory" or whatever you call it, is a downright sign of the demoralising state of Man.

Go hang yourselves, bloody perverts!

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Thallium
Go hang yourselves, bloody perverts!

Another victim of her own culture...

I think the reason why this is a subject for debate in the first place is the fact that people have two disparate instincts:

1) On the one hand, we seem biologically driven to form pair bonds for at least the time it takes to make a baby and take care of it until it can walk around and find its own food.

2) On the other hand, we seem biologically driven to seek out additional sexual partners after a relationship has matured.

If you look at the way pheremones and hormones operate in the body (and in many other mammals like voles, in which direct chemical studies have been performed), there is a period of "puppy love" in which hormones essentially force us together. That grade-school feeling of not being able to live without someone else's touch is an example of one hormone, vasopressin, at work. It provides an emotional reward for being around that person, and particularly for having sexual relations with him/her.

There are many studies on the effects of this hormone on social/sexual activity. Here's one to start with:

http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/1999/September/erseptember.7/9_7_99voles.html

After a period of time, the pheremones that provoke the pair-bonding instinct lose their effectiveness, and we naturally get "bored" of our lovers, no matter how pefect for us they may be. Sure, as intelligent, rational animals, we are able to overcome that boredom and replace it with comfort, trust, companionship, and stability -- the hallmarks of a good marriage -- but the initial lustful spark always disappears.

So, it's well established that pair-bonding is hormone-driven, and both the desire to stay with one mate and the desire to find another mate are biological (not cultural) in nature.

As far as sharing one's partner -- well, some people are simply more jealous than others. Some people are jealous when a friend buys a nice new sweater on sale. Some people are jealous when someone picks up a quarter off the ground. These sort of people would probably never be able to enjoy the so-called "swing" lifestyle.

Some people, however, see the gift of a new experience as the greatest gift you can give someone you love. Some people feel that relationships should open doors to new experiences, not close them. Some people find sharing new sexual encounters with their spouses to be deeply satisfying. These people should are not "bloody perverts" who should be hanged -- they're simply people who understand that there are many different kinds of sexual experiences, and a sexual experience in itself is not a dirty or illicit act. I don't like being cheated on, but if my partner were to be honest about her intentions, I probably would not be averse to helping her experience new things. Sex does not kill relationships -- lies do.

I also subscribe to the philosophy that absolute trust demands absolute freedom. There's no way you can trust your partner completely (nay, you can't even know your partner completely) if you're making rules for him/her. To make a rough analogy, consider the relationship that develops between an inmate and a prison warden. The two can establish what could honestly be called a friendship -- the warden may develop a significant amount of trust for the inmate. The inmate, however, is not really free, and thus the warden's trust is not really legitimate. The second the inmate has the chance to escape, he will betray all of the trust he has developed with the warden, and will try to escape.

The same scenario happens in relationships all the time.

Some people choose to attack the biological/hornomal dilemma by seeking out new sexual experiences as a couple. From what I have seen, the couples who choose to do this are deeply in love, very strongly bonded, and very happy. They share everything -- even those deep, dark secrets that everyone has, but wishes they didn't. They probably know each other better than any "normal" couple could. If these people are happy, so be it. Put down your noose and let the bloody perverts be happy.

- Warren

 

[selfAdjoint]

Hogamus higamis, men are polygymous
Higamus hogamus, women monogamous.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Hogamus higamis, men are polygymous
Higamus hogamus, women monogamous.

That was the most forced rhyme I've ever encountered.

- Warren

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Hogamus higamis, men are polygymous
Higamus hogamus, women monogamous.

The HECK you say! Don't you ever watch TV - especially those true-to-life SOAP OPERAS? Or movies?

Actually, I've known several polygamous women. They just couldn't decide which one they loved more...

That's not for me, though. I'm a ONE-man woman.

 

[the_truth]

No society on Earth other than the ancient world has condoned adultery. The reasons for this are obvious as if god intended us to have many partners he would have made men and women in unequal proportions. The contradiction of this is of coruse that men and women are tempted by adultery, the explanation for this being that they are sins created to test our soul self.

Though we are naturally monogamous, it seems that the idea of a marriage for sex, a marriage for children and a marriage for retirement is becomming less and less taboo. Frankly I hope that people who wish to sleep with many partners eventually make a decision to settle down and raise a stable family. As it would be unreasonable to not experience raising a family.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by chroot
That was the most forced rhyme I've ever encountered.

- Warren

It's not mine, it came from one of the old time New Yorker smart alecks. Dorothy Parker?

 

[selfAdjoint]

No society on Earth other than the ancient world has condoned adultery.

Depends on what you mean by condoned. See tsunami's post. And in real life, nods and winks. There is no law against it in most places, and the old custom in the south, that a cuckold has the right to slay his cuckolder, is currently out of favor.

 

[Thallium]

Read my post!

Would you not be jealous if your woman slept with another man, one whom she fancied, felt sexually attracted to, made passionate love to and so on?

You would want to live with that? And get on untouched? Well, then there is something wrong! But of course that is impossible for anyone here to believe now that we live in a liberal world where everything is acceptable. "Hey it's 2004!" "Excuse me! this is the 21 century!" and so on...

The next step would be to legalise rape of babies.. I'm waiting for it..

 

[hypnagogue]

There's nothing wrong with polyamorousness in a relationship if both parties accept it. However, this indicates a difference in the type of bond that exists between such people and the type of bond that exists between a couple in a monoamorous relationship. Whether this difference is best characterized by a negative trait such as jealousy or whether it is best characterized as a positive indication of a stronger/deeper/"better" pair bond is an open question, and probably varies depending on the personalities involved.

For my own part, I think writing it off entirely to jealousy is a poor generalization. I believe that if both parties wish for a monoamorous relationship, it is in fact often (though not always) primarily indicative of a stronger emotional connection between the two than would exist if they wished to be polyamorous. Can that emotional bond possibly be as strong if both parties want a polyamorous relationship? I'm not saying it can't, but I doubt it.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Thallium
Read my post!

I read it.

Would you not be jealous if your woman slept with another man, one whom she fancied, felt sexually attracted to, made passionate love to and so on?

I actually think it'd be fun to watch. Keep in mind she wouldn't be doing such things as an individual, they'd be experiences we'd share.

You would want to live with that? And get on untouched?

Certainly if she had sex with another man and then stopped touching me I'd have a problem, yes.

Well, then there is something wrong! But of course that is impossible for anyone here to believe now that we live in a liberal world where everything is acceptable. "Hey it's 2004!" "Excuse me! this is the 21 century!" and so on...

Live your life the way you want to, but don't attempt to force your views on other people. It'll just make you unhappy.

The next step would be to legalise rape of babies.. I'm waiting for it..

I have no idea why you think a couple exporing their sexuality in an open, honest manner has anything to do with raping babies. If those are the kind of leaps of logic you commonly make, I feel sorry for anyone who has to deal with you in real life. You're irrational.

- Warren

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Thallium
This can be described with no other word than: SICK.

Thallium, please calm down. There's no need for screaming. We're just trying to have a discussion here. I know that the second you hear of such things of polyamorousness, you have a "gut instinct" revulsion. But, if you want to be honest with yourself, you will slow down and actually consider the arguments and then decide yay or nay (or not decide) in a calm manner.

I would not accept this because I would be jealous as hell over knowing that my husband got hot and heavy with another woman or women, feeling lust and being horny on another woman. How humiliating isn't that? Ever thought of that you suckers?!

Please, there's no reason for insults. It seems that such a relationship is obviously not for you, but I don't see why you have to consider it immoral and wrong from everybody. Some people don't feel that jealousy, or at least not in your intensity. Also, jealousy alone isn't a very good argument, because if jealousy is acceptable for one to consider something immoral, then it must be immoral for someone to have anything that someone else doesn't have. Obviously, this is absurd.

If my husband, I have none, tried to convince me of this polyamorousness I would tell him to go to hell and throw him out or move far away from him. What a disgrace!, and what a disrespectful, weak, easy whore he would have been!

What exactly is the problem with it. You say that it's so bad, but neglect to say why.
----------------------------------

Originally posted by the_truth
No society on Earth other than the ancient world has condoned adultery. The reasons for this are obvious as if god intended us to have many partners he would have made men and women in unequal proportions.

Well, firstly, this argument holds no ground with a non-theistic person. Secondly, that argument assumes that it would only be one sex that gets to be polyamorous. If both sexes are to be equal, then there wouldn't be a disproportionate number, because a) if the disproportion helped one sex, it would hinder the other, and b) by allowing both sexes to be polyamorousness, the problem (that you appear to be talking about) of some people being without partners would not occur.

Also, the ratio or women to men in the world is greater than 1.

The contradiction of this is of coruse that men and women are tempted by adultery, the explanation for this being that they are sins created to test our soul self.

As it would be unreasonable to not experience raising a family.

Why is that? Is there some mandate that everyone must live one's life by some formula?

 

[Hurkyl]

It would be nice if either side could make an argument that doesn't essentially start with the assumtion that their side is right.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by the_truth
No society on Earth other than the ancient world has condoned adultery.

What do you consider adultery? Is polygamy adultery to you? Polygamy currently does exist.

I saw a documentary on National Geographic that was really interesting. There is a tribe in the Amazon where the women have multiple husbands. I thought that was a neat idea. There is another tribe that has an annual celebration where woman (married or single) are encouraged to have as many sexual partners as they want for that one (day or days, can't remember).

The reasons for this are obvious as if god intended us to have many partners he would have made men and women in unequal proportions.

Are you implying that there are an equal number of men and women?

Though we are naturally monogamous

I don't think humans are "naturally" monagomous, rather the opposite is probably true, however we are raised to believe (in most current societies) that monogomy is the "proper" thing.

I think the decision to be monogamous or not should be left to the parties involved.

Personally, if I am "in love" with someone, I am completely monagomous, I can't imagine being with anyone else, but that's just me.

 

[Thallium]

Irrational and so on. Yes, in a philosophical discussion we are supposed to stay logical and neglect and ignore all feelings like they did not exist. We do never allow any emotions in logical reasoning and logical reasoningwill bring us to the real truth, the nature of all things yes, yes, yes.

And my "gut instinct" is wrong yes, yes, yes. If I thought about this in a logical way, I would be able to accept it because my feelings are irrational, yes, yes, yes.

And someone here wanted to here "yay" or "nay" - NAY.

And why polyamorous marriages are bad? To ME they are bad because I would feel jealous, I would feel that my husband did not love me completely and was devoted to me and my body only, I would feel adn KNOW that he had dirty thoughts about other women, that he fantasised ruglarly about other women(PERHAPS the same woman he slept with the night before etc etc etc etc etc etc).

Chroot thought it would be FUN TO WATCH? What kind of entertainment would that be? Your own love making passionate love to another man? FUN? Sharing the experience? Arrogant bollocks.

This world is getting sicker and sicker and I don't like it..

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Thallium
IAnd my "gut instinct" is wrong yes, yes, yes. If I thought about this in a logical way, I would be able to accept it because my feelings are irrational, yes, yes, yes.

No, you may not accept it. That's okay. No one is saying you have to.

And why polyamorous marriages are bad? To ME they are bad because I would feel jealous

Okay. Then don't have a polyamorous relationship. That doesn't mean no one else should, either.

I would feel adn KNOW that he had dirty thoughts about other women, that he fantasised ruglarly about other women

Reality check: he probably does, even in your monogamous relationship. A strong fantasy life seems to be important to good sexual health, by the way. People are not bad because they have fantasies.

Sharing the experience? Arrogant bollocks.

Just because you don't want that sort of thing doesn't mean it's "sick," or that anyone is a "baby raper," or that anyone should be hung. Get a grip.

This world is getting sicker and sicker and I don't like it..

Suicide is always an option.

- Warren

 

[Njorl]

While I see nothing rationally prohibitive of polyamorous relationships, we are not rational beings. Monoamorousness, or rather, the lack of polyamorousness is beneficial to society. It prevents fighting, particularly fights between young men over young women. This may seem paternalistic, but that is essentially the point of having a society. While I believe the repressiveness of banning polyamorousness would be worse than any of its consequences, discouragement of it is a good thing.

Njorl

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Thallium
Irrational and so on. Yes, in a philosophical discussion we are supposed to stay logical and neglect and ignore all feelings like they did not exist. We do never allow any emotions in logical reasoning and logical reasoningwill bring us to the real truth, the nature of all things yes, yes, yes.

And my "gut instinct" is wrong yes, yes, yes. If I thought about this in a logical way, I would be able to accept it because my feelings are irrational, yes, yes, yes.

And someone here wanted to here "yay" or "nay" - NAY.

And why polyamorous marriages are bad? To ME they are bad because I would feel jealous, I would feel that my husband did not love me completely and was devoted to me and my body only, I would feel adn KNOW that he had dirty thoughts about other women, that he fantasised ruglarly about other women(PERHAPS the same woman he slept with the night before etc etc etc etc etc etc).

Chroot thought it would be FUN TO WATCH? What kind of entertainment would that be? Your own love making passionate love to another man? FUN? Sharing the experience? Arrogant bollocks.

This world is getting sicker and sicker and I don't like it..

First I'd just like to point out that we're only having a theoretical and logical ADULT conversation about this topic. If you can't handle it, don't read it. Yes, you'd be jealous. But the pendulum would swing both ways. You also, would be able to have multiple partners. while he might having dirty thoughts about other women, you'd be having them about other men. So the jealous insecurity would be unwarranted.

Bottom line is that you're having an emotional reaction to what is nothing more than a DISCUSSION.

Grow up.

 

[Thallium]

Perhaps because I am a woman I react this way. Men have unlike attitudes when it comes to sexuality.

I knew that about dirty fantasies. They are unpreventable.

Polyamorous relationship is a transformation of the word fornication which puts it directly to place. But okay then, fornication is acceptable. To some. Not me.

Can we live with fornication? Is fornicaition healthy? Is fornication "Hallelujah"?

Please whoever said ADULT conversation. Where is the adultness in this? it's about love. Love is not rational. If I love my partner I will not go sharing my body with someone else.

What "we" are talking about here is FORNICATION. Whores, Hookers. One-night-stands. Such lust is the sign of lack of sensibility and modestness, self-control. We ought to use our sensibility, not let lust conquere it.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Thallium
What "we" are talking about here is FORNICATION. Whores, Hookers. One-night-stands.

Actually that seems to be what "you" are talking about. To my knowledge, your use of those words was the first in this thread.

You may rationalize your insecurity all you like, as it belongs to you.

- Warren

 

[Zantra]

Yes you are entitled to your opinion, but you're also making leaps of logic, assumptions and belittling us for simply have a discussion. We're just trying to present the topic, and follow the dicussion along it's natural course.

Fornication - as in the act of coitus, IS perfectly natural to virtually everyone on the planet- So I'm sorry if the discussion of this topic embarasses you, but since it's been done in a non-sexual context, and presented scientifically, your abhorration of it is overreactionary.

No one has mentioned hookers or one night stands in this thread-that is not the act of having multiple partners. Your view of it may conjur such images, but in the context we're discuessing here, we're looking at the REAL practice of it, which is about a social system, not sexual deviance.

As far as your first comment about you being a woman- You're generalizing and speaking on behalf of ALL women, which I'm sure some would have objection to. Your attitude is your own, and it has nothing to do with you being a woman.

P.S. Science is not a place for close minded people

 

[Dissident Dan]

Thallium, obviously, such a relationship is not for you, but why does that mean you have to label it as "sick"? You use all these words with negative connotations, but you have not described a reason why polyamorousness is a bad thing, only labelling it as or comparing to this or that (often when there isn't much of a relation). Merely describing it with a negative connotation or comparing it to something else in a negative way is not an argument.

BTW, your abhorrence of polyamorousness is not merely a factor of your being female. Read Evo's post.

 

[Thallium]

Forget about me, ignore what I have said and continue your adult discussion.

 

[Be Happy!]

ReEvaluating Who We Are

When we love someone, how can you possibly constrict them?

Why should I stop someone from loving someone else?

 

[Hurkyl]

They're "constricted" anyways; I can't imagine how it would be better to let your loved one do something that will deeply hurt/offend you before you let them know it will.

 

[physicsisphirst]

the word "amorous" has deeply embedded within its letteral lexicology profound nonmonoamorous conceptualizations such as:

amoro the merrier

or

amo R ous




it would seem to me that the whole idea of loving someone is to love that person for who they are - not what they can provide for oneself. all jealousy seems to imply, to me, is that we want things for ourselves more than we care for the person we supposedly love.

if someone you love, loves and is loved by another, shouldn't that be something to rejoice in? is your love's happiness not worth much?

all this will probably seem reasonable till sex rears its head and screws everything up, right? so may be sex has nothing to do with love or may be sex should not be ones' pathway to love or may be sex ought not to be that which determines whether one is loved or not. i once read "that while people may become irate with the idea that sex has nothing to do with love even those have to acknowledge that love has nothing to do with sex".

if two people choose monoamorousity that's up to them - if they don't that's fine too and they should not be condemned because most of society religiously maintain a one to one ratio (supposedly at any rate).

personally, i find sex messy and lovey dovey stuff mushy - so i don't even know how i wandered into this thread [?]

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by physicsisphirst
it would seem to me that the whole idea of loving someone is to love that person for who they are - not what they can provide for oneself. all jealousy seems to imply, to me, is that we want things for ourselves more than we care for the person we supposedly love.

Sex is not love. Sex is lust and desire.

 

[elibol]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
In this society, monoamorous relationships are what pretty much everybody expects/demands. When someone's partner has sexual relations with someone else, it is considered "cheating", and it is taboo. If you ask your partner if you can have a polyamorous relationship, you are liable to be slapped or dismissed. Monoamorous relationships are the social norm, and deviation from that is usually thought to be bad and immoral.

However, humans have a strong sexual desire and desire variety. Perhaps it is just looking for trouble when people try to force each other into monoamorous relationships. Perhaps we should re-evaluate whether monoamorous relationships have to be the norm and whether we should make people feel that it is necessary that a relationship be such. Perhaps society should not create this overwhelming pressure to be monoamorous and let people decide how their relationships are formed (monoamorously or polyamorously) without this prime directive of monoamoursness.

What do you think?

i think this has been stated too general, and should be a lot more circumstantial. more so based on each individual in the world, and that persons pre-existing relationships...

there are obvious reasons you have overlooked that monoamorous relationships are desired-> the simple fact that someone would rather have someone elses company as opposed to your exclusive company sort of makes you feel like ****.

and that's my point exactly, feel, emotion, things that separate us from animals.

i know animals have emotions, but not nearly as powerful as human emotion. which further backs my opinion.

so you know, i favor neither, and stand by the fact that it is very circumstantial.

and i feel you favor polyamorously relationships because of the circumstances you happen to live under right now...

i could be wrong.

 

[elibol]

Originally posted by physicsisphirst
the word "amorous" has deeply embedded within its letteral lexicology profound nonmonoamorous conceptualizations such as:

amoro the merrier

or

amo R ous




it would seem to me that the whole idea of loving someone is to love that person for who they are - not what they can provide for oneself. all jealousy seems to imply, to me, is that we want things for ourselves more than we care for the person we supposedly love.

if someone you love, loves and is loved by another, shouldn't that be something to rejoice in? is your love's happiness not worth much?

all this will probably seem reasonable till sex rears its head and screws everything up, right? so may be sex has nothing to do with love or may be sex should not be ones' pathway to love or may be sex ought not to be that which determines whether one is loved or not. i once read "that while people may become irate with the idea that sex has nothing to do with love even those have to acknowledge that love has nothing to do with sex".

if two people choose monoamorousity that's up to them - if they don't that's fine too and they should not be condemned because most of society religiously maintain a one to one ratio (supposedly at any rate).

personally, i find sex messy and lovey dovey stuff mushy - so i don't even know how i wandered into this thread [?]

good point maeng, jealousy won't get you anywhere...

Thallium, it seems everyone is responding to your reaction to this topic the most because, in my opinion, it seems easy to analyze your approach on the topic based on the way you tumbled in and started writing impulse reactions without giving it any rational thought (a very unsound and unpersuasive way to try to prove your point might i add) on the matter like some past victim of some sort of relational/emotional abuse, or it may just be the way you were brought up, but i guess this really isn't relative to what i will be trying to get across to you.

i am assuming you are married, so i will use your relationship as an example, and let's say your husband tells you he is happy, but he also loves someone else, and the only way he feels he would truly be happy is to be with the both of you (and there is no reason why one person is not entitled to loving more than one person. consider your parents, relatives, pets, brothers, sisters)->

in a situation like this, you should take into account your partners happiness as you do your own. feeling jealous would just be the first natural reaction, but if you are not rational and approach it with the impulse and gut reaction you had with this topic, i am almost positive it will bring unhappiness to your life. would it be right that your partner was unhappy in a relationship so long as you were happy? don't you think that would come around and bite u in the arse eventually and cause you to be unhappy? would you feel that you deserve to be happier than your partner does? as if your partner does not posses the right to pursue his (and in other cases, her) own happiness? that is what this is ultimately about, being happy. any unrational approach to your partners needs would eventually cause you to be unhappy, you are human, humans posses the ability to adapt... take advantage of it...

i don't mean go and have a threesome and dike it out with some broad, your obviously not down with that, but i feel doing whatever will help everyone out the most is right...

i hate to be the one to judge, but if you feel that your happiness matters more than anything, i would consider you as an incompassionate selfish human being. compassion is truly believing that every human/animal has the right to be as happy as you.

hate to judge again, but your very incompatable with rational people, which i think is a terrible position to take in any discussion. you are powerless in arguments if you are not rational, and if you want your voice to be heard, i think you should definitely atleast try to analyze and build a sound and valid argument before attempting to argue with rational people. you will just get frustrated...

if i have offended you I am truly sorry, my intentions are pure. i just thought i would try to change your opinion on the matter...

if i have gone too far off topic here I am sorry, i tend to sidewind into other matters that i feel like i need to express...

also, (this has nothing to do with what i wrote before) might i add, that polyamorously is still accepted in some islamic culture. there are villages that i know of in which the head of the village is allowed to have several wives... as for the dwellers of the village, i am unsure, but i don't see why there should be a problem if the head is allowed...

 

[elibol]

Originally posted by Thallium
Sex is not love. Sex is lust and desire.

what u quoted didnt have anything to do with lust and desire, nor sex. what are you implying?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by elibol
i think this has been stated too general, and should be a lot more circumstantial. more so based on each individual in the world, and that persons pre-existing relationships...

there are obvious reasons you have overlooked that monoamorous relationships are desired-> the simple fact that someone would rather have someone elses company as opposed to your exclusive company sort of makes you feel like ****.

I think that this falls into the category of jealousness. However, I'm sure that there are reasons that people can think of to support monoamorousness or actual reasons that cause people to support it, but I was not trying to make a list of such reasons.

and that's my point exactly, feel, emotion, things that separate us from animals.

i know animals have emotions, but not nearly as powerful as human emotion. which further backs my opinion.

I'm sorry to take the conversation off the course for a moment, but I always address this when it comes up. Animals have emotions just as powerful as ours. They may not has the capacity for as much complexity, but I can assure you that their intensity can be just as strong as ours. An good, objective analysis cannot come to the conclusion that you have just stated.

so you know, i favor neither, and stand by the fact that it is very circumstantial.

I think that we are rather on the same page here. I do not say that people should have their relationships one way or another, but that a certain type of relationship should be be forced or pressured onto people--let them choose without intimidation or peer pressure.

and i feel you favor polyamorously relationships because of the circumstances you happen to live under right now...

i could be wrong.

Right now, I'm not in any relationship, FYI (although I the prowl), although there will be times when such openness by others would benefit me. I did not bring this topic up because of any recent personal frustrations, but just because I thought it to be a potent topic. Either way, my motives are not important--if it is an interesting or important topic, then people should be happy that I brought it up.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
It would be nice if either side could make an argument that doesn't essentially start with the assumtion that their side is right.

If either side did that, neither side would have anything to argue about. At bottom, all ethical values are just that-- subjective, personal values. Discussing ethics requires that we makes such assumptions. There is really nothing to say that one emotional valuation is inherently superior to another. At most we can judge values based on the impact that they might have on the health and proliferation of an individual/family/society (and we have seen several arguments along these lines). But even that requires some basic assumptions of "goodness."

 

[Hurkyl]

But one can try to establish a common ground, and then sketch a path from said common ground to the position one holds.

Or at the very least, try to at least sketch a path from some basic ideas that the other side might not agree with, but can understand.

 

[elibol]

we b clear dissidant dan, just puting out things to discuss =]

there is one thing however i will reply to-> yes, i suppose the confliction i mentioned that one may run into when one desires to transist from a monoamorous relationship to a polyamorous one does describe jealousy directly... but jealousy seems so unavoidable for a person that is not interested in polyamorousity with a partner that is... i still think it is an important point to consider for anyone that is interested in polyamorousity with a pre-existing monoamorous relationship (which is the case for most people i believe).

tnx 4 pointing that out 4 me tho =]

 

[Be Happy!]

Originally posted by elibol
there is one thing however i will reply to-> yes, i suppose the confliction i mentioned that one may run into when one desires to transist from a monoamorous relationship to a polyamorous one does describe jealousy directly... but jealousy seems so unavoidable for a person that is not interested in polyamorousity with a partner that is... i still think it is an important point to consider for anyone that is interested in polyamorousity with a pre-existing monoamorous relationship (which is the case for most people i believe).

It is really interesting how the theme of jealousy keeps coming up- especially for those folks who don't like the thought of polyamorousness...

Having a relationship guided by jealousy seems counter to the idea of being with someone in the spirit of true friendship.

Wouldn't it make more sense to be in a monoamorous relationship without jealousy, as opposed to being in it because of jealousy?

 

[elibol]

Originally posted by Be Happy!
It is really interesting how the theme of jealousy keeps coming up- especially for those folks who don't like the thought of polyamorousness...

Having a relationship guided by jealousy seems counter to the idea of being with someone in the spirit of true friendship.

Wouldn't it make more sense to be in a monoamorous relationship without jealousy, as opposed to being in it because of jealousy?

definitely, so we can easily say we know something that most people don't =]

but jealousy is such that it will cloud judgement and rational thought...

so revealing this sort of logic to your partner could result in her/him reacting in a number of different ways depending on her/his opinion on what jealousy is, and whether it is purposely used for control over their partner...

what makes me sick is that people will use jealousy to mess with their partners. sort of try to keep them attached with jealousy inducing techniques...

very messed up...

 

[NUKEELT]

Originally posted by physicsisphirst

if someone you love, loves and is loved by another, shouldn't that be something to rejoice in? is your love's happiness not worth much?
[?]

Very very well stated. I think the true qualm is not jealousy but selfishness. People put their own happiness over that of those they claim to love. I personally believe that if you truly love someone you will consider their feelings and happiness before your own.

Thanks for taking the time to read what I had to say.
Gabriel

 

[Hurkyl]

if someone you love, loves and is loved by another, shouldn't that be something to rejoice in? is your love's happiness not worth much?

I think the true qualm is not jealousy but selfishness. People put their own happiness over that of those they claim to love. I personally believe that if you truly love someone you will consider their feelings and happiness before your own.

Let's give people names to make it easier to discuss. Alice loves Bob. Bob loves, and is loved by Cindy.


You seem to imply that Alice, knowing that Bob loves Cindy, is selfishly requiring Bob to love only herself.

However, that isn't the only possibility. What (I think) is more likely is that when Bob asked Alice out, Alice trusted that Bob didn't love anyone else. The qualm, then, is that Bob betrayed Alice's trust, not that Alice was being selfish.

 

[NUKEELT]

But the situation never stipulated that there was an understanding of exclusivity on the part of the two. Say Bob and Cindy are really good friends. Bob goes over to visit Cindy on a regular basis, they have great indepth talks and over a period of time bob and cindy begin to develop strong feelings for one another. All the while bob has yet another good friend that he spends a lot of time with, Alice. Bob and alice both also begin to develop strong feelings for one another. I feel that unless bob actually chooses to comit himself to one of them then being in love with them both and being loved by them both is a beautiful thing. I completely agree that if bob and alice come to a mutual agreement of exclusivity then it would be morally reprehensible for bob to continue to see Cindy in any other capacity than a casual friend. Now that we're on the same page with the situation what are your feelings? Thanks for the imput and I appreciate you reading my post.

Gabriel

 

[physicsisphirst]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
You seem to imply that Alice, knowing that Bob loves Cindy, is selfishly requiring Bob to love only herself.

there was no implication intended. however, whether cindy is being selfish is certainly open to question depending on how you define selfish and may prove to be an interesting exercise.

pragmatically though, if bob and alice have mutually agreed to monoamorosity they should respect that condition. if one does and the other doesn't, possibly one, the other or both should consider an internet dating service

however, my personal view is that sangeeta put it very well in that 1:1 ratios make more sense when the participants aren't engaging in it in order to protect their 'real estate'.

 

[pocebokli]

well i don't understand why do we need to complicate this matter any further.

I am Bob. I love Alice, she loves me, we both love Cynd and she loves us both so wheres the problem?:-)

well certainly jealousy is one of our instincts that come out when your loved one shows affection for another and vice versa, but after all (this goes to thallia), isn't jealousy as "bad" as desire and sex?
Even worse if you ask me. Sex benefits both partners, while jeaoulsy benefits neither, rather the opposite.

One who sails into polygamous waters must explore and in a way surpress his instinctive jealousy just as a monk must surpress his sexual desires.

And i don't think anything is wrong with that if the involved charachters have all agreed that they would like to live together and i don't know why some of you think that it's not possible to love 2 or 3 persons and take care of them as they care of you? It's as simple as long as everyone involved has no problem with that.

Of course, to live with 2 women or 2 men (and maybe even 2 men who live with 2 women but they all live together:-)) you must like and love everyone and show them respect and then i figure everythin's fine, just fine...

Love is not a bond if it's a true love, jealousy is a bond.

And just as monk surpresses his sexual desire to gain energy for sacred way of life and to prove something to himself, polygamz must also sacrifice some of their selfishness, jealousy and posessivenes which all of us are born with. Nothing comes all by itself.

 

[Dissident Dan]

If it's bad to be polyamorous because it causes jealousy, then is it bad to have more than one child because it causes jealousy?

 

[Evo]

Ok, the scenario - Bob loves Alice and Cindy, and he tells them both about the other. Let's even assume that Alice & Cindy are open to a love triangle. What if Alice & Cindy can't stand each other?

What if Alice confesses to Bob that she is also in love with Bill? But Bob and Bill are enemies? And Cindy is Bill's daughter from a former marriage?

 

[chroot]

And then a teenaged girl named Dawn shows up and tells the unsuspecting Bill that she's his long-lost daughter. She moves in with Edward, the pool boy, angering the neighbor, Frank, whose wife Gina doesn't like hearing their loud music at night. Officer Hugh shows up one night and takes them both to jail for noise ordinance violations. While they're in jail, Aunt Irene comes to give them a pie that she baked for the church bake sale with her friend Jane. Finally, two days later Bill's bail-bondsman best friend Kyle helps Dawn and Edward get out of jail. They go home, only to find that the vindictive neighbors poisoned their dog, Spot.

- Warren