Do you wrestle with this question? Polyamory the solution?

[Denisemomof4]

oh, and by the way, I know my husband can't meet all my needs. It takes a realistic and mature person to realize that.

[Pajama Mama]

Just FYI, polygamy and polyamory are completely different.

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I did look at the article but my burnt out brain didn't notice the polygamy/polyamory difference. I am so not with it. I've never heard of polyamory before. I guess I'll climb back under my rock now. Just like polygamy, I don't understand it but who am I to judge. I guess if it was a stable relationship(s) it might be ok if they are single folks. But when people start having kids I would think it could be confusing. At least with polygamy, they stay committed to the wife and children. With polyamory parents, it would be more confusing for kids. Wow- now I'm looking at polygamy like it makes sense. I need to go to bed.

[Marylou]

What a great board, with so many divergent opinions. Where else could you find Quiver Full followers and polyamorists sharing discussion space?

 

 

Yes, this is a very interesting forum. And one thing I've learned since joining . . . it is more acceptable to have the attitude YMMV, live and let live, as long as no one gets hurt, whatever floats your boat, just my .02, who am I to judge, just NIMBY!

 

As soon as a poster makes a comment about something being right or wrong the sparks/sarcasm fly!

Edited August 13, 2009 by dmmosher

[Denisemomof4]

We're all sad really. Any of us can find sad things in other people's relationships. I personally find it sad when I see a wife be totally subservient to her husband just because she was brought up that way and/or that her religion commands her to be that way. I find it so demeaning, probably a word that describes how some of you think about polyamory. :)

 

I understand your thinking. As a Christian woman who strives to please her husband, I can tell you that in the PROPER godly marriage the partners submit TO EACH OTHER. Ideally things can be worked out together, as they are 99.9% of the timed in our home.

 

Being a wife who's a doormat, servant and has no voice? I can't support that. Dh doesn't want that. I can't be that.

[fivetails]

I didn't read the whole article, but of course one person can't meet *all* of the needs that someone else has. My husband is a very special person - my "other half", so to speak, and while I may say that "he's everything to me", the truth is - he isn't. He can't be! How is my husband also going to be my bestest closest female friend? How is he going to be my bestest closest 'big brother'? How is he going to be my _____? You get the idea. He's not - because that's not the kind of relationship we have. He's my husband - that's his role, our relationship is that of husband & wife. Not friend/friend or brother/sister or whatever/whatever.

 

Now, when you're talking polyamory - in the sense of "practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one loving intimate relationsip at a time" and are meaning it in regards to husbands/sig others/etc - that's not for me. It might work for other people, but it doesn't work for me. I only want one 'husband' relationship - so that's what I have. One dh, hopefully for life. :)

[Night Elf]

And I will not try to persuade you, either. I would like to learn from you. Is adultery wrong?

 

Thank you. I like discussions as they give me food for thought. But I am learning to avoid people that are so set in their beliefs that they look down on me for having a different opinion. Despite my recent involvement in a hot topic thread, I am very uncomfortable in a confrontation even if it's online.

 

But yes, my personal belief is that it is wrong, though I don't understand it being wrong because it is a sin listed in the Bible. I see adultery as one spouse going outside the marriage to have a physical relationship with someone else, but keeping it a secret not only from the spouse but also hiding the affair from family and friends. If that were to happen in a poly relationship, the partners would likely feel as hurt and betrayed as a monogamous married person who finds out about an affair in their own marriage.

[Marylou]

Thank you. I like discussions as they give me food for thought. But I am learning to avoid people that are so set in their beliefs that they look down on me for having a different opinion. Despite my recent involvement in a hot topic thread, I am very uncomfortable in a confrontation even if it's online.

 

 

 

And then there is that huge number of people who are set in their beliefs and do not "look down" on others ;) Contrary to popular opinion they do exist!

[Night Elf]

And then there is that huge number of people who are set in their beliefs and do not "look down" on others ;) Contrary to popular opinion they do exist!

 

Yes, they do. It's the other ones I avoid.

[KarenNC]

Just FYI, polygamy and polyamory are completely different.

 

How so?

[Plucky]

I'd like to know this, too. I know that some poly people want the legalization of polygamy.

[kalanamak]

T

 

"Everyone in a relationship wrestles at some point with an eternal question: can one person really satisfy every need?"

 

 

Yup, and that person is me.

 

I find it tiresome and childish that people yarp on about their needs, and look for a mate/friend etc that fits the bill. I take people as they come, and one of the deepest pleasures of aging, for me, is finding I have fewer and fewer wants, let alone needs, when it comes to expectations in regards to others.

[jewellsmommy]

Wow, where to start...First, this "meeting all my needs" thing: I didn't know that having all of one's needs met was ever an option outside of my relationship with Christ. Seriously, most people can't tell the difference between their needs and their wants. I can honestly say that I must not of ever thought about my needs in relation to people. I don't care how many people you try to put in your life, you would still find new needs to be filled as you grew and changed. Maybe, I'm too simple a person, but this is a really strange concept to me.

 

As far as other people and what they do, I won't "look down" on any body and I will show as much Christlike love to anyone as I can. That being said, I believe that the concept of polyamory as presented in the article is outside of God's will for people. I know, people will debate rather He even exists etc. I am just stating the facts as I know them to be. I don't mean to flare anyone up, but I can't in good conscience take credit for this as my opinion, seeing as how it's God's opinion. If you know differently, so be it. I just happen to think that God's plan is better and you don't have to inform me that not all people believe this and so on. I am well aware of that already. Yes, this does make me closeminded in certain areas.

 

We would all be happier people if we stopped trying to get our self generated needs list filled and focused on being less needy in general. This I will claim as my opinion.:001_smile: Although, I do need someone to buy me a house, and then keep it clean for me. And perhaps a pony would be nice too.

[jewellsmommy]

And, by the way, I am totally suffering from insomnia and you people aren't helping.:001_smile:

[buddhabelly]

The only person responsible for either meeting my needs or dealing with them when they are unmet (and there is no one whose every need/want/desire is always met) is me, whether as a single person, monogamously married, whatever. I don't imagine that is any different in practice regardless of the type of relationship. I think it comes down to a maturity level of understanding that we are responsible for ourselves, that nothing is ever perfect, that it is not the responsibility of others to make us happy or fulfilled or somehow "intuit" what we want or need, especially when we don't communicate that.

 

 

:hurray: (that's me applauding you). I totally agree with this. I always say that an unhappy single person will make an unhappily married person (and vice versa). But so many people blame their unhappiness on their spouse! It is up to us to "complete" ourselves, with close relationships as part of that. If they are sexual relationships, that is the sugar on top. If not, they will still be satisfying friendships. (And this last paragraph does not necessarily represent the views of KarenNC!)

 

Julie

[Reya]

"Everyone in a relationship wrestles at some point with an eternal question: can one person really satisfy every need?"

 

Yeah, because that's the SMART reason to get in a relationship--to have someone satisfy your every need.

 

Hmmm. I don't get it. How could so many marriages possibly fail with that attitude going in?

 

;-)

 

I've met some polyamorous types. Not one was anything approximating stable.

[dragons in the flower bed]

 

So, maybe I should invite a plumber who has a tailor as a wife to join my family. Maybe they'll have a teenaged son who enjoys yardwork.

 

 

We joke about this too. Stretching and hearing his back crack, my partner often says, "When is one of us going to fall in love with a chiropractor?" :D

[dragons in the flower bed]

I've met some polyamorous types. Not one was anything approximating stable.

 

Aside from being a judgment based on your limited experiences, this is unfair because folks tend to define monogamy as stability. Of course someone acting on a different sense of right and wrong seems unstable to you. Their moral rock is a totally different shape, and you can't accurately see it. But their feet may be very solidly upon it, indeed.

[dragons in the flower bed]

I will say it. In the sense of the traditional family they are freaks and they make a point that I was trying to make on another thread.

 

Yeah. We are non-traditional, and a common slur for the non-traditional is freak. But penicillin was a freak accident. Lots of good things were. I think we're better adapted to survival this way, so I don't think we'll be the freaks for long.

 

And I certainly don't think the emotional quality itself is freakish. Y'all love all of your kids, right? You have noticed how the heart expands for each one, how the love multiplies. Nobody thinks you're a freak for not loving one child more than the others. Polyamorous people have within themselves, and are attracted to in a person, that expanding heart quality.

[dragons in the flower bed]

How so?

 

Polygamy is a historical type of marriage often handed down by ancestral figures or gods. It is usually bound up with sexist notions of the role of men and women, is part of traditional religions, and is used as a breeding technique. Polygamy is either the marriage of one man to many women, or one woman to many men. The relationships always form a triangle shape with one person at the top.

 

Polyamory is a modern word and relationship concept developed by humanists in the twentieth century. It is bound up in egalitarianism, is independent of religion, and is used as a radical honesty technique. It can involve any arrangement of more than two partners of any gender, and need not involve marriage at all. The relationships form in infinite constellations.

[dragons in the flower bed]

I mean you can't REALLY do, DO, it with more than one person.

 

 

So you think Bill Clinton was innocent, then?

[JWSJ]

Even without the moral question, I (as a man) can not imagine happy concurrent relationships with two (or more) women (and their own posses).

 

Just sounds like too much trouble for me.

 

IMO, trying to explain the complex mix of relationships to a child involved (while still holding up the special relationship of mother/father) would be very confusing for the child.

 

And, no, the question (from the article) has never come up for me either.

Edited August 13, 2009 by JWSJ

[Reya]

Aside from being a judgment based on your limited experiences, this is unfair because folks tend to define monogamy as stability. Of course someone acting on a different sense of right and wrong seems unstable to you. Their moral rock is a totally different shape, and you can't accurately see it. But their feet may be very solidly upon it, indeed.

 

By stability I mean "not engaged in consistently self-destructive patterns of behavior" and also "not eaten up by waves of hatred directed toward their parents and themselves."

 

I've observed the same patterns among the aggressively promiscuous, as well. There's a veneer of "I do this because it makes be happy"--and then, once they've decided I'm not going to scold them or whatever and they get comfortable with me and decide I'm an "understanding person", out comes the horrors locked away in the closet.

 

I haven't ever known one polyamorous person OR one aggressively promiscuous person who is really happy on the inside.

 

It's not that I mind being a shoulder to cry on, even to people who are mostly strangers. But there's still that moment of, "oh, no..." when I realize that I'm going to hear another really terrible, awful, horrendous story that will, more than likely, make me want to wash my brain with bleach when I'm done. And I'm not fainting lily, here. Not in the least. Those who don't have the really awful stories still talk about an internal void and a dissatisfaction and anger about their past that is really out of proportion with what most people feel. There's the "oh, my folks were just normal people"--followed shortly by all the stories that reveal that the speaker has no idea what a normal, healthy parent is.

 

To them, yes, their current life probably looks "stable"--particularly compared to what came before. Yet it is almost always such a far cry from healthy that it's not even on the same horizon. There is, always in people who engage in such behaviors, a fundamental need to *take* from other people--to *get* something to replace an internal emptiness or, more often than not, brokenness.

 

So I guess people are wrong when they make their confessions to me. I do judge. I judge choices as poor and lifestyles as dead-ends. That doesn't mean, though, that I hate them as people or think they're worthless. It doesn't mean that, as unpleasant as such confessions are, that I don't hurt for them. (If I didn't, confessions wouldn't bother me.) It does mean, though, that standing where I am, I can see the precariousness of what they call stability.

 

I am, of course, speaking of people who choose these as "alternative lifestyles." Women in polygamous cultures, for instance, have a very different motivation for going into such a relationship--if it is even a choice at all.

 

The associated lifestyles and their destructiveness are also telling. Recreational drug use and frequent alcohol-to-drunkenness use is common (usually not drug use to any sort of immediate life-endangering levels--usually, it's just another form of escape). Pain-seeking activities are very common, as well, often crossing the line into body modification. Too-deep involvement in a fantasy world is frequent--more escapism. This can mean excessive fan devotion, role playing playing a significant part of their lives, excessive cosplay, excessive RPGs, excessive SCA. It is also very common for them to plunge into an "alternative" lifestyle that instantly marks them as outcasts AND MEMBERS at the same time (emo, goth, punk, hippie, whatever). Getting into recently invented or re-invented pseudo-cults or religions is also common, particularly anything that claims to have some deep connection to the past but was made up after 1850 and that creates a false insta-community for an individual or tells an individual that he or she has special powers not normally accessible--the ability to read minds, see the future, do magic, etc.

 

Many of these things aren't harmful in themselves, but they show a pattern of a desperate need for escaping themselves and a need to "get" something out of life to fill an inner emptiness--a need to feel more special, to feel like someone different, to feel a sense of belonging at the expense of one's identity and and integrity of self. This isn't stability, though it undoubtedly feels more stable than what they came from.

 

The funny thing is that those who are less into drugs (and usually also less into promiscuity and more into polyamory, etc.) and more into fantasy are usually quite intelligent, and yet their professional lives rarely reflect that intelligence. They usually have some bluster about what other people thinking and other people's standards for wealth and success not mattering to them, but that's rarely it. There's a fundamental inability to "fit in"--one that's as much in their heads as it is in reality, but one that nevertheless can be quite crippling. Impostor syndrome is exceedingly common, and with it often comes paranoia. So is the inability to play by the rules--an internal rebellion against rules because they are rules. There's the need to feel special because they can't manage in the "regular" world, and they need a reason for that. It's because they're different. They're more insightful. They're more sensitive. They have special powers. In extreme cases--they're an otherkin whose dragon does not allow them to regard mortals with patience.

 

I've made lots of decisions in my own life that are neither good nor stable, even if they made me "feel good" at the moment. I've made a lot of decisions that I regret, deeply. They're still bad choices, no matter who makes them or what excuses anyone comes up with, if the prescription doesn't address the underlying problem. I'm still paying through the nose for choices that I made many years ago, but in some ways, weirdly, I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

Yeah, all of that's a judgment. It is impossible to be a thinking person and to NOT judge--constantly! If you want to condemn me for it, you can, but you see, that's the irony--you'd be judging me for judging. Because you can't live without it. A moral stance on "nonjudgmentalism" cannot be anything but judgmental.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Reya

[Rosie_0801]

Is adultery wrong?

Is "cheating" wrong? And if so, why :confused: and who decides?

 

When I was a teen I would argue until I was blue in the face that issues were black or white. My mother told me I'd eventually learn to see shades of grey. Naturally I argued a bit more blue into my face over that. Funnily enough she was right. It seems to me that you're asking the wrong questions. A more productive question (to me) would be:

 

Is cheating/adultery hurtful?

 

 

Asking who gets to decide is a very interesting thought, though, isn't it?

 

I imagine adultery is going to be hurtful to a lot of people. The person beign cheated on would be hurt, since that's a breach of trust and most people feel hurt when someone breaks trust. The person who cheats is probably going to be hurt too, since breaking up of relationships is an uncomfortable business. Children would be hurt because that's a breach of trust for them as well. Friends and family will be hurt because they will hurt to see their loved ones hurting, and incidents that upset the apple cart like that cause fear, and fear is not a very comfortable thing.

 

Who gets to decide is a bit tricky. At first thought, a relationship between two people is the business of those two people only and no one else should have the right to say how they conduct it. However, the implications of the way they conduct it affect other people too. Obviously it is much better if everyone in society is adhering to the same rule, in this case, that it is very bad to cheat on your partner. We can't really go running our marriages according to what the average view in society is, if that doesn't work for us personally.

If we apply these ideas to polyamory, we could say that is very bad because it is breaking the rule that everyone else is adhering to, which is that you ought to stick to one partner at a time. Or we could say that it is not very bad or naughty, because polyamory isn't cheating and it's the deception that causes the hurt in the case of cheating, not the introduction of a third person. Or we could say that the only hurt involved in polyamoury is felt by people who don't approve, and that's their issue not the polyamorous people's responsibility.

 

I dont' suppose I've been very concise, and I've read over it to make sure, but I think I'll see what I think I've written. So I hope I got the point I was trying to express across...

 

Polygamy is either the marriage of one man to many women, or one woman to many men. The relationships always form a triangle shape with one person at the top.

 

Interesting way of putting it. I'm thinking about the Tibetan form of polyandry. At first I thought that might be one person at the bottom, but further reflection has me thinking that's too simplistic. Hmm.

 

Rosie

[Donna]

Gah. My husband is not expected to meet my every need. I am an adult, I can learn to meet my own needs or I can learn to live with some unmet needs. Does anyone really go through life with all their needs met? And are they really needs or wants, anyway? Maybe we should define needs and wants first.

 

:iagree:

[Night Elf]

I haven't ever known one polyamorous person OR one aggressively promiscuous person who is really happy on the inside.

 

Have you talked with all poly people in the world? Surely not. So you're forming your opinion based on the people you know. I guess that's fair, considering I have formed an opinion about Christianity based on the many hypocritical Christians I have met. I wasn't always a nonbeliever, as Christians like to label non-Christians. I've learned through my interactions with Christians that Christianity seems like a horrible way to live.

 

I have the opposite experience as you. I know more happy poly people than monagomouse people. I'm not saying there aren't happily married people out there. I happen to be one. I'm just saying that polyamory isn't always a bad thing as you believe. I also am smart enough to know that not all Christians are hypocrites despite the interactions I have personally experienced. I am very happy being open-minding and accepting, and don't really care that some people think I'm a heathen. God loves me and that is all that matters. And no, I don't have to believe the Bible is the infallible word of God to have a relationship with Him. Probably another "fault" of mine. :tongue_smilie:

[KingM]

Aside from being a judgment based on your limited experiences, this is unfair because folks tend to define monogamy as stability. Of course someone acting on a different sense of right and wrong seems unstable to you. Their moral rock is a totally different shape, and you can't accurately see it. But their feet may be very solidly upon it, indeed.

 

A couple of thoughts. First, a lot of what we call monogamy is really serial monogamy. A guy gets married, has kids, then gets bored and divorces and starts a whole new family. Meanwhile, his first wife/wives are left to raise his first set of children as a single parent. I'm not sure the monogamy model is superior for people like this.

 

Second, with regards to polyamorists, the handful I've known haven't had long-term stable relationships. This doesn't surprise me, particularly. Relationships are tough by definition and if you add people to the mix you multiply the number of connections that need to be maintained.

 

Also, most poly folk haven't grown up in polyamorous households. They're still trying to figure it out. With fewer role models, it seems like it would be tough to identify a pattern of behavior that would work for you. You'd be groping your way along for awhile.

 

Or so it would seem to this particular outsider.

[KarenNC]

Polygamy is a historical type of marriage often handed down by ancestral figures or gods. It is usually bound up with sexist notions of the role of men and women, is part of traditional religions, and is used as a breeding technique. Polygamy is either the marriage of one man to many women, or one woman to many men. The relationships always form a triangle shape with one person at the top.

 

Polyamory is a modern word and relationship concept developed by humanists in the twentieth century. It is bound up in egalitarianism, is independent of religion, and is used as a radical honesty technique. It can involve any arrangement of more than two partners of any gender, and need not involve marriage at all. The relationships form in infinite constellations.

 

So you do not see polygamy (in its basic definition of "1 : marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time"---Merriam Webster online) as a possible subset or expression of polyamory? That such an arrangement is not one of the "infinite constellations" of relationship?

[dragons in the flower bed]

So you do not see polygamy (in its basic definition of "1 : marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time"---Merriam Webster online) as a possible subset or expression of polyamory? That such an arrangement is not one of the "infinite constellations" of relationship?

 

 

I think it can be a subset of polyamory, but is not always.

[dragons in the flower bed]

I have the opposite experience as you. I know more happy poly people than monagomouse people. I'm not saying there aren't happily married people out there. I happen to be one.

 

I also have known only lasting marriages that involved either openness or a sense of being stuck. There are people who stayed together because financially they couldn't make it apart, and there are people who stayed together out of enjoyment of each other. People in the last category were or are poly. Everyone else seems to have gotten divorced. I suppose I come at polyamory from that background, and that may very likely be why I prefer it, just as Reya prefers monogamy because of what her experiences have taught her. I hope not, because that's a very limited and illogical way to make a decision.

[JWSJ]

I think it can be a subset of polyamory, but is not always.

 

How is it not?

 

I'm not being critical, I'm trying to think of an example of polygamy that isn't polyamory.

[KingM]

Originally Posted by dragons in the flower bed

I think it can be a subset of polyamory, but is not always.

 

How is it not?

 

I'm not being critical, I'm trying to think of an example of polygamy that isn't polyamory.

 

It's a subset. That is, not all polamory is polygamy, but all polygamy is a type of polyamory.

[JWSJ]

Why would polyamorists get legally married?

 

With multipule relationships it seems being married (legally) to one person would not be ideal.

[KarenNC]

Why would polyamorists get legally married?

 

With multipule relationships it seems being married (legally) to one person would not be ideal.

 

I would hazard a guess that it might be to have access to some of those 1000+ legal benefits to which a married couple automatically has access, as well as a form of legal protection benefit for the children. Also could be they just want to.;)

[Night Elf]

[/i]It's a subset. That is, not all polamory is polygamy, but all polygamy is a type of polyamory.

 

Yeah I agree with this using legal definitions, i.e. Websters. I like what I heard about the differences between the two: polyamory and polygamy are usually defined by the kinds of people who are involved in them. Naturally you are going to find different opinions.

 

This reminds me of the old discussions on defining homeschooling. Some people only want the word homeschooling associated with independence from any school affiliation, while others want homeschooling to also include people who use charter or virtual schools overseen by local school officials.

[phathui5]

I can't imagine thinking one person would be my everything. That's why I have friends, church, hobbies, etc.

[homeschool68]

Gah. My husband is not expected to meet my every need. I am an adult, I can learn to meet my own needs or I can learn to live with some unmet needs. Does anyone really go through life with all their needs met? And are they really needs or wants, anyway? Maybe we should define needs and wants first.

I agree. I don't see a need to have more than one man in my life nor would my DH want another woman other than me to be his wife. We take care of one another in various ways and we are very happy. I'm thinking sex is the real reason a lot of people want this type of lifestyle. The woman can't give it as much as the man wants it so he has the right to several wives for that reason. DH and I have sex in our marriage but it's definitely not a big deal compared to the other real life situations going on for us. We get more enjoyment out of just sitting and talking together than we do sex. But maybe that's because we've been together for so long. He knows me better than anyone, even my own parents, and I couldn't imagine sharing my biggest fears, joys and secrets with another man.

 

Life has it's obstacles and sure one or both of us is unhappy at times but that's life. My parents couldn't meet all my needs growing up either, but I lived with them until I moved out and started to do things for myself. I would never need several men just to get all my needs satisfied. Just doesn't make sense to me at all. I don't think every single need can be met at one time anyway. My life is full with my children, family, hobbies, work, etc.

Edited August 14, 2009 by homeschool68

[dragons in the flower bed]

Why would polyamorists get legally married?

 

With multipule relationships it seems being married (legally) to one person would not be ideal.

 

 

Poly people get legally married for the same reasons monogamous people get legally married instead of just saying vows in front of an altar: health insurance, hospital visitation, next of kin status, in case of immigration issues, etc.

 

It's also very common in my poly circle (college-educated Unitarian Universalist neohippies) to make vows to each other in front of your community, especially before embarking upon the grand journey of parenthood. Poly folks also do that for the same reasons you do, I think: to add religious power and binding to a commitment, to clarify the shape of our family to our community, to celebrate the start of a life together.

[JWSJ]

Poly people get legally married for the same reasons monogamous people get legally married instead of just saying vows in front of an altar: health insurance, hospital visitation, next of kin status, in case of immigration issues, etc.

 

So, would Poly people also want to legally marry many persons concurrently instead of just one?

 

If they're after benefits, this would be the logical course.

 

I can see this being framed as a marriage rights movement, much like we're seeing the States decide on now.

[KingM]

I'm thinking sex is the real reason a lot of people want this type of lifestyle. The woman can't give it as much as the man wants it so he has the right to several wives for that reason.

 

Except that I know more women involved in polyamory than men.

[Crissy]

Except that I know more women involved in polyamory than men.

 

Same here. I think it is so much more about love than sex.

[Night Elf]

I agree. I don't see a need to have more than one man in my life nor would my DH want another woman other than me to be his wife.

 

Okay, but just to agree with others, polyamory isn't just about sex.

 

BTW, I see you joined the board only yesterday. Welcome to our diverse group! We represent all walks of life here.

 

The woman can't give it as much as the man wants it so he has the right to several wives for that reason.

 

Um, that is not always true and I believe it's a very sexist remark.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Night Elf

[Plucky]

Okay, but just to agree with others, polyamory isn't just about sex.

 

BTW, I see you joined the board only yesterday. Welcome to our diverse group! We represent all walks of life here.

 

 

 

Um, that is not always true and I believe it's a very sexist remark.

 

 

 

Are you polyamory? I know that others have come out here. I might have missed it. You don't have to share if you don't want to but you do have a lot of info. on it.

[Reya]

Have you talked with all poly people in the world? Surely not.

 

I believe I've known a statistically significant number when they are at their best, so to speak. I'd never generalize from a low point. We all have low points. We are all, at times, hypocrites.

 

The patterns I've cited are very, very common in the polyamorous community. Exceptions are possible, just like there are some prostitutes who have no history of any kind of abuse or father abandonment. That doesn't mean that the links aren't there.

 

I'm sure you think I'm full of judgment and sanctimoniousness. That's not it. I've been friends with all sorts. I don't have to agree with people to be their friends. Heck, I don't even have to believe that they'll be there for me if I need them. I'll support people with no expectation of reciprocation. That's fine. One of my friends as a kid ended up running away out of state and becoming a crack whore and dying before she turned 20. No kidding. I was there for her as much as she needed me until I couldn't be there anymore--I was there through unexpected rages, unsavory fascinations, and even physical attack. She was a reliable as a soap bubble! When I found out she was dead, it was very much a blow to me, even though I couldn't be surprised. But I did "judge" her--I judged her inclinations as a very, very bad idea, and I mostly kept her from them (without lecturing or manipulating) until she changed schools, just by being, well, stable. Once she left, well, I couldn't do anytihng at all.

 

You likely think that most people have the kinds of undercurrents you're accustomed to in their lives. They don't. Many, many people are just as happy as they appear, whatever annoyances they may feel at times. That doesn't make them shallow or overprotected, and innocence isn't always a bad thing. It isn't insincerity, but the most common and VERY unfortunate side effect is that many who have only known pleasantness, on the whole, are scared of anything they find "ugly" and so lash out against it--with the most vicious and ugly sides of their personalities.

 

SO often, for example, abused children are treated with hatred by children who are not abused because the non-abused children are terrified of the idea of abuse and want to punish the very idea that all parents are what they want theirs to be, for instance.

 

That is their own evil--the evil of those who feel threatened by others' unhappiness. Their inability to allow for the existence of anything they find ugly becomes their own ugliness. So the problem is compounded when one sees people who claim happiness at their ugliest, so to speak, and a person can come to believe that they are essentially hating, angry people, hypocrites who have no idea how the real world works and who are mired in a kind of delusional fantasyland that masks their own awfulness.

 

So then the whole world becomes a picture of different kinds of misery--insincere misery that imitates the status quo and those who are honest and find their own "happiness" away from the lies--happiness in destructiveness. And not knowing real happiness, they keep looking for something to fill that hole, and they mistake pleasure for happiness.

 

Truth is, people are complicated. :-/ And all too often, people who should be helping recoil instead.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Reya

[Reya]

Well, I don't have a hedonistic view of marriage, so right there's a difference. Love is a decision as well as an emotion. I'm not saying it isn't romantic--my DH is a die-hard romantic!--but marriage for me isn't about getting but finding something worthy of giving.

 

I have one great-aunt whose marriage was annulled within a couple of weeks (not Catholic, the groom was "too much of a mama's boy," and I dare not interpret that for fear of injustice to the dead), and one great-great aunt who married four times. Other than that--no divorces in my family on any side, and only one unhappy marriage, and those were two people who loved each other deeply but just had so much anger that they just...fought.

 

If one looks for what you can get, one will end up dissatisfied. When two people are trying to take, take, take, the end is very rarely happy.

 

It's the same with people who have children so they can have "someone to love me."

[dragons in the flower bed]

So, would Poly people also want to legally marry many persons concurrently instead of just one?

 

If they're after benefits, this would be the logical course.

 

I can see this being framed as a marriage rights movement, much like we're seeing the States decide on now.

 

Some of them would, and would frame it as a marriage rights movement. Others would like to see the system deconstructed and such benefits disassociated with marriage and reassociated with personal election via a form of some sort. Others would want something else entirely, and some have never thought about it in depth, I'm sure.

[dragons in the flower bed]

Well, I don't have a hedonistic view of marriage, so right there's a difference. Love is a decision as well as an emotion. I'm not saying it isn't romantic--my DH is a die-hard romantic!--but marriage for me isn't about getting but finding something worthy of giving.

 

Although I admit to believing that hedonism has it's place in the decision-making process, my previous post wasn't based in that but in utilitarianism. I've seen polyamory work. I've seen it work better than serial monogamy to create a foundational social group upon which to build a life. I've seen it work better to manage the shifts and breaks in such a group without disrupting a life. And life disruption is a PITA, to everyone involved, so no hedonism there either.

 

But I submit again that my experiences are small. I'm trying not to make decisions based primarily on them.

[Jill- OK]

Same here. I think it is so much more about love than sex.

 

...why couldn't we just be talking about having a close circle of friends that spans various ages and genders? Or expanding the idea of "Love" to include relationships that don't involve sexual aspects?

 

I think the difference is sex. I know the word "amory" is involved, but they ain't talking brotherly love. ;)

[Joanne]

...why couldn't we just be talking about having a close circle of friends that spans various ages and genders? Or expanding the idea of "Love" to include relationships that don't involve sexual aspects?

 

I think the difference is sex. I know the word "amory" is involved, but they ain't talking brotherly love.

 

In poly relationships, sex and intimacy are *included* as they are with traditional marriage. But it's not *about* sex any more than your marriage is.

[Jill- OK]

In poly relationships, sex and intimacy are *included* as they are with traditional marriage. But it's not *about* sex any more than your marriage is.

 

...is the biggie that makes my marriage different from other relationships. As a monogamous person, I have sex with my husband, no one else. That's a distinction. A big one. (No pun, or revelation about my private life intended, lol.)

 

Someone made the comment that it's probably more about love than sex, in polyamory relationships, and I have to quibble, because sex is the distinction maker. (You're right, it may not be ALL about sex...but I am saying it is largely about it.)

 

You can have love relationships with others, and not be engaged in "polyamory". When you have sex with others, that's when the term "polyamory" applies.

 

Or...am I incorrect? Are there polyamorous relationships that don't involve sex? (This is a sincere question.)

[Joanne]

...is the biggie that makes my marriage different from other relationships. As a monogamous person, I have sex with my husband, no one else. That's a distinction. A big one. (No pun, or revelation about my private life intended, lol.)

 

Someone made the comment that it's probably more about love than sex, in polyamory relationships, and I have to quibble, because sex is the distinction maker. (You're right, it may not be ALL about sex...but I am saying it is largely about it.)

 

You can have love relationships with others, and not be engaged in "polyamory". When you have sex with others, that's when the term "polyamory" applies.

 

Or...am I incorrect? Are there polyamorous relationships that don't involve sex? (This is a sincere question.)

__________________

 

Jill, I'm not denying that sex is what makes it different than a variety of close friendships. I'm posting in response to the suggestion(s) that SEX is the focus, reason, main reason people chose poly. Is it the reason you chose your DH?