Do we overzealously push monoamorousness?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dissident Dan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Push
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
68 replies · 8K views
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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 [?]
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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...
 
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?
 


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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
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 =]
 
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?
 
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...
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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'.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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
 
the obvious plight of spot deeply affects the enemies bob and bill as well as the unstandables alice and cindy who recognize immediately that the dog's life is worth far more than their petty soap operatics. they all pour healing energy towards spot who recovers possibly with the assistance of a holistic veterinarian.

and they all (bob, alice, cindy, bill, dawn, eddie, angry franky, pensive gina, officer huey, his brothers louey and duey as well as uncle donald, auntie irene, jane, kyle, warren, evo, prad, paul fix, and of course spot) live happily ever after at least to the end of this thread.
 
Last edited:
Thanks physicsisphirst for bringing a happy ending to this tragedy!

I think that monoamorous relationships are difficult enough.
 
Originally posted by Evo
Thanks physicsisphirst for bringing a happy ending to this tragedy!

I think that monoamorous relationships are difficult enough.

and thank you evo - spot's fate was worrying me considerably!

you are right though, monoamorous relationships can be difficult and polyamorous ones don't have any inborn claim to being any easier.

perhaps the real issue lies with this concept of 'relationship'.
 
Last edited:
basically, the more the people, the more complex the emotions/relationships are to be...

though this would not have been apparent to me without the example of the little story you've created, i still think that DRAMA IS NOT THE ANSWER.

props to warren ;)
 
Originally posted by physicsisphirst
and thank you evo - spot's fate was worrying me considerably!
I'm a sucker for animals.

perhaps the real issue lies with this concept of 'relationship'.
You have hit the nail on the head. I believe that most people enter a relationship assuming that it will be monoamorous. I think it is safe to say that the majority of people would not be readily "open" to the idea of their "loved one" suddenly deciding that he/she wanted to include someone else.
 
Originally posted by Evo
You have hit the nail on the head. I believe that most people enter a relationship assuming that it will be monoamorous. I think it is safe to say that the majority of people would not be readily "open" to the idea of their "loved one" suddenly deciding that he/she wanted to include someone else.

Which is probably where a lot of the problems in monoamorous relationships come from.
 
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Which is probably where a lot of the problems in monoamorous relationships come from.
Yep.
 
Originally posted by elibol
basically, the more the people, the more complex the emotions/relationships are to be...

not necessarily, eli.
nor is the complexity you speak of a detriment.

there is an african saying that i like very much:

"it takes a whole village to raise a child"

it is really a wonderful idea in theory and in practice despite the apparent added complexity. it is by no means exclusive to the african continent either.

for it to be successful, however, it does require the relinquishment of possessiveness towards your children and of course, the curses of jealousy, hatred and fear. such actions are good for the children, the parents and the village.

there is no reason why the same cannot be applied to other 'relationships' (if that is what you want to call them). this by no means suggests that everyone has to jump into each and every bed in the entire village, but it does mean that you are required to view yourself and your mono/poly partner(s) in a somewhat different way.

again, the concept of 'relationship' and what it entails, perhaps should be carefully re-examined.
 
Also, there is a difference in having sex with multiple partners and being in a "relationship" such as a marriage with multiple partners.

I cannot imagine having to put up with two husbands. (ok, I don't even have one)

Casual sex is something totally different.