Polyamorous Relationships

LadyJ

Was watching a programme on channel 4 about this last night. For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would want to be in one!

There was a particular group who were interviewed; a guy,his wife and his two girlfriends. They all lived together and shared a bed but the two girfriends had to go and sleep on the couch from around 6am,as the couple's two children weren't aware that their Daddy liked to spread himself around.

Now,the women weren't allowed to have other partners and the guy seemed like a complete psycho. He kept saying things like

"If anyone starts to cause problems then they're out."

To me,it seems that these women must have very low self-esteem to consider entering into a relationship like this and the guy seemed to have some real issues too.

So I'm just wondering,what do people here think about such relationships? Would you ever do it? Do you think it's perfectly normal? Should these people be allowed to bring up children in an environment like this?

Personally,I just don't know. I like to think of myself as being quite liberal but I can't seem to work out my feelings on this issue.

Kell

Its a win win for the bloke. What about the ladies? Were they, including the wife, all OK about it?

Maybe he has some stupidly large cóck and they just love it or something. As for the GF's sleeping on the sofa, then in a way they are all showing some modicom, albeit a tincy one, towards the kids in trying to ensure that the environment is along the social norms.

Leaving out the kids, as long as everyone is grown up and this guy isnt verbally or physically abusing anyone, then hey, who are we to comment?

K-

LadyJ

Kell wrote:

Its a win win for the bloke. What about the ladies? Were they, including the wife, all OK about it?

Yeah I mean the wife was ok with it and the girlfriends understood tha the wife was the main feature so to speak,but they sometimes got jealous of each other.

The guy had to keep a schedule book. It was weird. And when the women were asked why they thought that it was ok for him to have so many partners they all said something along the lines of

"He just has so much love to give..." etc.

Maybe he has some stupidly large cóck and they just love it or something.

It was pretty clear that the two girlfriends had been in some abusive relationships in the past and it seemed like they were just so happy to have a part of someone who (they think) treats them well,rather than all of someone who's an asshole.

Leaving out the kids, as long as everyone is grown up and this guy isnt verbally or physically abusing anyone, then hey, who are we to comment?

K-

I guess it's less of a big deal when there aren't kids involved. I dunno. Maybe in years to come this will be the norm,like homosexuality.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Living the dream...:rolleyes: :rolleyes:


No it sounds a bit dodgy tbh, i wouldn't go for it myself, but hey live and let live, if all parties involved are happy then i'm no-one to judge

metrovelvet

I cant ever understand this.

Isn't one person a pain in the ass enough for you?

So I'm just wondering,what do people here think about such relationships? Would you ever do it? Do you think it's perfectly normal? Should these people be allowed to bring up children in an environment like this?

No. No. No. No.

lostexpectation

what the difference between polygamy and polyamrous, I like to see a pro with one women and many men.

Kell

LadyJ wrote:

It was pretty clear that the two girlfriends had been in some abusive relationships in the past and it seemed like they were just so happy to have a part of someone who (they think) treats them well,rather than all of someone who's an asshole.

Changes the goal posts a bit alright. As per the norm, when you find a "normal" person having come out of an abusive relationship, you cling on to them for dear life. The fact that they are in effect "damaged goods" kinda implies he is taking advantage of and thereby subjecting them to another form of abuse.

Without seeing the programme though its difficult to comment.

Re more than one love in your relationship- personally I cant do it. I like my cake to be mine, not to be nibbled on by others.

K-

Sleepy

If no-one's getting hurt, I don't see any problem with it. Not so sure I'd be that happy for my sister/ a good friend to be in that situation if it was stemming from past abusive relationships though...

Wouldn't get involved in something like that myself either. Short-term fun in a polygamous arrangement, maybe, settling down to raise a family, hell no.

Samos

Before commenting on polyamory, I have a few problems concerning monogamous relationships. They tend to be dominated by things like jealousy, exclusivity, feelings or 'ownership' over the other partner, insecurity and constraint. I think that these aspects are very negative and unbecoming of a relationship thatis considered a 'social norm'. Theoretically, polyamory should not suffer these (at least not to the same extent). In such a relationship the participants should be free to love more than one person simultanesly. (Why must we have feelings for only one person at a time?) They should not feel restricted or coerced into remaining with this person if their love wanes. Are we so insecure that we seek to thwart the feelings of our lover for anyone else? Why is it so difficult for us to share our emotions? In many ways, it seems to me that monogamy is an inferior state, dominated by base emotions like anger, greed and envy.

However the scenario descibed in the original post clearly does not conform to this ideal: the man has exclusivity and a sense of ownership, and there is a lack of freedom on the part of the female participants, and some jealousy seems evident. I didn't see the TV program mentioned, but I know of many more that expose the failings of purely monogamous relationships: affairs, divorce, boredom, prostitution etc.

Kell

Samos wrote:

In many ways, it seems to me that monogamy is an inferior state, dominated by base emotions like anger, greed and envy.

What happens were said monogamous state is devoid of those traits you outline? Where both parties have just made a conscious commitment to eachother forgoing others?

On one hand you are correct- on the other, is polygamy, polyamory, whatever, just being lazy about commitment?

K-

Samos

Kell wrote:

What happens were said monogamous state is devoid of those traits you outline? Where both parties have just made a conscious commitment to eachother forgoing others?

I see nothing wrong with that. However, most relationships seem to be predicated on the basis of an unstated exclusivity. It is rarely discussed from the onset of a relationship, but rather, only when things become 'serious'. Most of us are capable of loving more than one person. It is to be expected. Why is thwarting our emotions and commiting to one person considered more normal, when having feelings for more than one person is natural?

On one hand you are correct- on the other, is polygamy, polyamory, whatever, just being lazy about commitment?

Why is commitment to the exclusion of all other things considered such a boon? It is one thing to choose this voluntarily, but to be coerced into it by social norms does not give good results; hence the prevalence of divorce. It is surely possible to commit to more than one thing anyway, without any injustice to the others.

Zombrex

LadyJ wrote:

To me,it seems that these women must have very low self-esteem to consider entering into a relationship like this and the guy seemed to have some real issues too.

Its amazing what people will do or put up with if they are scared of being alone.

Having said that it doesn't seem that much weirder than a girlfriend constantly forgiving her boyfriend for cheating on her, or a boyfriend putting up with constant belittlement from his girlfriend.

Some people just get very worked up about being in a relationship, any relationship. Just look at half the posts on Personal Issues.

Zombrex

Samos wrote:

Before commenting on polyamory, I have a few problems concerning monogamous relationships. They tend to be dominated by things like jealousy, exclusivity, feelings or 'ownership' over the other partner, insecurity and constraint.

Er, ok ... maybe you just haven't met the right girl yet ..

Samos wrote:

Theoretically, polyamory should not suffer these (at least not to the same extent).

How would it be any different?

You make it sound like jealousy and other such emotions are a by product of monogamy. They aren't, monogamy is a by product of emotions such as jealousy.

They will still exist in a polygamus relationship, and will probably be highlighted ever more by the fact that your partner is constantly with other people.

Samos wrote:

Why is it so difficult for us to share our emotions?

Its the way we are build. The main evolutionary reason is to protect the family structure (sex in a biological sense is after all for reproduction).

Emotions like jealous and love exist for a evolutionary reason. That isn't a comment on the morality, morality is a seperate issue, but it would be wrong to assume most people can just ignore their inbuilt emotions.

Samos wrote:

purely monogamous relationships: affairs, divorce, boredom, prostitution etc.

There is a difference between monogamous relationships and monogamous relationships that go on far to long (ie marriage)

Your main issues with monogamous relationships could easliy be solved by simply breaking up with the person.

Zombrex

Samos wrote:

Why is commitment to the exclusion of all other things considered such a boon?

On a base evolutionary level because it reassures your partner you aren't having children with another mate, and therefore you are able to provide 100% of attention to the family of this mate.

Of course that doesn't really apply much in a modern sense, but then just because we have advanced to things like condoms, the birth control, etc doesn't mean our emotional level has caught up. We still have the same emtional structures that we evolved with.

Which is why you more often that not see a person in a relationship viewing multiple partners only one way. How many guys (or girls) who cheat on their partners would also be happy if they cheated on them.

Samos wrote:

It is one thing to choose this voluntarily, but to be coerced into it by social norms does not give good results;

Not quite sure what you mean by this? How is "coercing" you to having a monogamous relationship?

Samos wrote:

It is surely possible to commit to more than one thing anyway, without any injustice to the others.

Depends on what your partner truely expects. I have known a few couples where one person has multiple partners, and this might be accepted by the other, but I've known none where this was genuinely accepted as ok.

As I said above, people will put up with a lot of crap to hold on to a partner they value. This is not the same as happily accepting their partner having multiple partners

Samos

Wicknight wrote:

On a base evolutionary level because it reassures your partner you aren't having children with another mate, and therefore you are able to provide 100% of attention to the family of this mate.

Of course that doesn't really apply much in a modern sense, but then just because we have advanced to things like condoms, the birth control, etc doesn't mean our emotional level has caught up. We still have the same emtional structures that we evolved with.

Which is why you more often that not see a person in a relationship viewing multiple partners only one way. How many guys (or girls) who cheat on their partners would also be happy if they cheated on them.

I agree and it would be quite wrong to say that evolution dictates it and therefore it is right. It deosn't quite work that way. The important thing in any relationship is not the numbers involved, or the gender of each, or their age. All that matters is that each expresses love and respect to the other(s).

Not quite sure what you mean by this? How is "coercing" you to having a monogamous relationship?

I mean that if I start a relationship with someone, it is simply assumed by me that if I get involved with someone else, then that is out of line. And I also assume that my partner feels the same way unless we express the intention of an open relationship from the onset. This may not be the case, however, but it is the norm. I feel that this is restrictive, but we see a similar thing when people are assumed to be heterosexual unless they overtly express that they are homosexual, i.e. a gay (wo)man in a "straight" bar will also be assumed to be straight. This is the norm, but it does not mean that anything else is deviant or wrong or unwarranted.

Depends on what your partner truely expects. I have known a few couples where one person has multiple partners, and this might be accepted by the other, but I've known none where this was genuinely accepted as ok. As I said above, people will put up with a lot of crap to hold on to a partner they value. This is not the same as happily accepting their partner having multiple partners.

I know what you mean, but just because something is rare or uncommon does not indicate that it cannot work or is otherwise unnnacceptable. I guess that communication is the key, and any injuries caused are often due to its breakdown. I wish there were a misery-free option, but that's life...

Nevyn

Well you have to consider that it is a tv program and they will pick the most sensational people possible.

takola

As long as everyone is happy I don't see a problem with it. Though I know I would never be happy like that.

As for raising kids in a situation like that, I'm really not sure. Were they open about the relationship? I'm not sure if hiding it from the kids is the best idea as it's going to come out eventually, And it might be easier for them to hear it from their parents?

Nevyn

It is more common to be in such a family in parts of america and yes the children should know and hiding it in such a fashion makes it less then right in the eyes of the children and the adults.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote:

It is more common to be in such a family in parts of america and yes the children should know and hiding it in such a fashion makes it less then right in the eyes of the children and the adults.

Yes but the rest of the country thinks they are freaks/Mormons.

LadyJ

Thaedydal wrote:

It is more common to be in such a family in parts of america and yes the children should know and hiding it in such a fashion makes it less then right in the eyes of the children and the adults.

I agree. I think that if you bring a child up to believe that something is acceptable and "normal" then they can learn to be more tolerant as they get older.

The more I think about it,I wasn't brought up by a mother and father,I was brought up by a mother,a grandmother and a grandaunt. Obviously this is somewhat different to being raised by a threesome,for example,but it was a little alternative I suppose.

I think maybe if everyone in the relationship is being treated properly and they're in it because they wouldn't have things any other way then perhaps that wouldn't be too bad an environment for the children.

I don't think I could have been any more loved than I was growing up the way I did and I suppose that's all that matters at the end of the day.

Although it always took me about half an hour to explain my family situation, as a child,I now feel that I had an advantage growing up,as I was more open-minded to other types of "alternative" families and people.

Nevyn

If the adults in the relationship all have and show respect, love and affection for each other then the children won't have issues.
by affection I mean hugs and cuddles ect not orgys infrount of the kids

Zombrex

Samos wrote:

I mean that if I start a relationship with someone, it is simply assumed by me that if I get involved with someone else, then that is out of line.

I would imagine it is assumed by the girl (or guy, not sure of your gender or sexual orientation). That isn't coertion.

Samos wrote:

And I also assume that my partner feels the same way unless we express the intention of an open relationship from the onset.

Neither is that coertion.

Samos wrote:

I feel that this is restrictive

I'm sorry, but that isn't really making any sense. You are coercing yourself into "restrictive" relationship? How does that work?

Samos wrote:

I know what you mean, but just because something is rare or uncommon does not indicate that it cannot work or is otherwise unnnacceptable.

True, but I think a lot of people kid themselves into thinking it that it is working, either with themselves or working for their partners.

But then again people do this about everything, not just sex. A guy/girl could kid themselves into thinking their partner is fine with him forgetting her birthday for the 5th time in a row etc etc

I would just be a little skeptical of people who sing the praises of polgomy. I'm not saying they all aren't happy, but "thou does protest to much" springs to mind.

metrovelvet

Samos-

Having a relationship and setting up house and a family are two different things.

So if you were to set up home, youd want several wives is that what your saying? Thats what you think freedom is?

The thing I dont get about this is, how do they organise Christmas' with in-laws, etc etc, meetings with teachers, valentines day, wedding anniversaries, etc etc. It just seems ridiculous. Do they all have one bank account? One mortgage? How does this work?

And like in any other family, there are the favourites, and those who enjoy higher status, etc etc. Seems like a nightmare.

LadyJ

metrovelvet wrote:

The thing I dont get about this is, how do they organise Christmas' with in-laws, etc etc, meetings with teachers, valentines day, wedding anniversaries, etc etc. It just seems ridiculous. Do they all have one bank account? One mortgage? How does this work?

And like in any other family, there are the favourites, and those who enjoy higher status, etc etc. Seems like a nightmare.

Although I've said that I think maybe this kind of thing might not be so terrible for the children involved,I still think that,for me anyway,it would be my worst nightmare.

It all just seems too complicated and somewhat emotionally draining,I'd imagine. I think that,without even realising that they are doing it,people within the relationship would surely start competing with each other or feeling threatened.

The particular people on the show that I watched all seemed to have quite low self-esteem and I immediately thought that they would,of course,have to have low self-esteem to enter into something like this but am I wrong?
It seems more likely to me now that anyone who decides to be part of a polyamorous relationship would need to be very secure and have extremely high self-esteem,otherwise they just couldn't hack it.

Kell

Samos wrote:

Why is thwarting our emotions and commiting to one person considered more normal, when having feelings for more than one person is natural?

Because it is! Hundreds of years of programming, bible bashers and a diet of high moral fibre. Ye cant just undo social norms overnight and expect everyone to "get it". Its a slow process.

Samos wrote:

Why is commitment to the exclusion of all other things considered such a boon? It is one thing to choose this voluntarily, but to be coerced into it by social norms

You are assuming coersion. I mentioned earlier about the relationship being devoid of the negativity you referred to and that each partner had made conscious choice to be monogamous. Lets assume, neither party were coerced either.

Social norms, until they become outdated over time, in a way hold society together. Think of the en masse madness that would ensure if everyone just decided "ah fúck this, I am into polygamy now". Social norms, whether you like it or not, provide a level of security that the masses need to function as human beings. Everyone is secure in the knowledge that "he's doing it too so it must be ok".

I am all for changing norms, but to suggest that humanity pull up its socks and broaden its horizons overnight is a tad short sighted.

K-

Kell

Wicknight wrote:

(sex in a biological sense is after all for reproduction).

I love your staunchly creationist points of view.

Why is sex for reproduction in a biological sense? If we accept that sex makes us feel good, ponder then that we may have been programmed to seek sex for exactly that reason and not just to reproduce. Our bodies seek out certain foods for sustenance etc and I am beginning to think we need sex, not just for reproduction, in order to function properly.

Take this example- dolphins are the only mammal that fúck for fun besides humans (I think). They are also very intelligent. They have also been reported to attempt to fúck humans on a number of occasions. Now are these intelligent animals trying to reproduce with another species (I doubt it) or are they just having fun? (More likely)

Sex doesnt have to be about reproduction. It should be about fun. In fact, it should be one of those things you do with your friends, have a great time and go away with fond memories rather than jilted emotions if your feelings of love arent returned. Many of us cant separate sex from relationships because most of us are emotionally very needy (also social programming, albeit from negative re-enforcement prevalent in this particular country) though few would actually admit it. Most folk dont like being alone, panic when their mates dont call them for a week, panic if a stranger doesnt return a text and then they spill their guts over on PI's so I can have a good laugh at their insecurities. Samos pointed out that if we as a race abandoned our insecurities we could "get" the polygamy thing no problem.

I agree with Samos in many ways (without the coersion bit)- I dont think our brains are evolved enough to see things as they are without expectation of what we want them to be.

K-

Zombrex

Kell wrote:

I love your staunchly creationist points of view.

Is that supposed to be sarcastic

Kell wrote:

Why is sex for reproduction in a biological sense?

Because it is a fundamental characteristic of life forms that they need to repoduce.

If they didn't we would not have got much based year dot in the primeval soup.

Kell wrote:

If we accept that sex makes us feel good, ponder then that we may have been programmed to seek sex for exactly that reason and not just to reproduce.

You have it the wrong way around.

We have been programmed by evolution for sex to feel good because we need to do it, because evolution wants us to do it. Sex feels good because our genes want us to have it to allow for their continued distribution.

Kell wrote:

Our bodies seek out certain foods for sustenance etc and I am beginning to think we need sex, not just for reproduction, in order to function properly.

Evolution has build in a large number of urge/reward structures in us to get us to do things that are evolutionarial necessary, such as having sex, eating, breathing etc.

If you ignore these inbuild systems, or try to supress them, you can make yourself go a little haywire.

Kell wrote:

Now are these intelligent animals trying to reproduce with another species (I doubt it) or are they just having fun? (More likely)

No, they are following their inbuild urge/reward system, just as humans do.

Evolution has placed a "have sex and I will make you feel great" system inside them, just as it has with us.

This is probably more common in higher intelligence animals, such as dolphins, apes and humans, as we are far less slaves to our instincts, due to are higher brain functions. So evolution has had to evolve different systems to actually reign in our "free will". This is what your emotions are. It is also applies to the principle of "sex for fun". Evolution has made sex fun to get us to do it

(btw, when I say evolution "wants", or evolution "has made" I hope everyone realises I am not really applying design or intelligence to evolution. It is just a metphorical way of speaking, evolution is in fact a natural process, and the structure comes out of natural selection and millions of years)

Kell wrote:

Sex doesnt have to be about reproduction. It should be about fun.

There is no morality in the biological aspects of sexual reproduction, there is no right or wrong. It just is the way it is.

This is an important point, because when ever myself or others attempt to explain evolutionary theories on Boards.ie it is always invietably met with "how dare you say one way of living is correct and nother is not". I'm not saying that, at all. Morality doesn't enter into evolution, and if it did evolution would be entirely selfish. To repeat there is no right or wrong here.

You can claim sex "should" be about seeing how many different places you can do it in Disney Land without getting caught, it doesn't really matter. From a biological sense the purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction.

Kell wrote:

In fact, it should be one of those things you do with your friends, have a great time and go away with fond memories rather than jilted emotions if your feelings of love arent returned.

Er .. ok ..

Kell wrote:

Many of us cant separate sex from relationships because most of us are emotionally very needy (also social programming, albeit from negative re-enforcement prevalent in this particular country) though few would actually admit it.

The flip side of that of course is that those who are happy in emotionally connected relationships could claim that those who have sex simply to satisty their temporary evolutionary urge/reward system are emtionally retarded, and possibly incapable of establishing proper emtional connections.

Personally I think both could apply to a situation or person. Attempting to make generalisations for entire population groups doesn't really work. It is simply a method to make one feel better about their choice. So monogamous people look down on polyogmous people and vice versa, each believing that the other is in fact not really happy and wishing they could be doing the reverse

Kell wrote:

Samos pointed out that if we as a race abandoned our insecurities we could "get" the polygamy thing no problem.

I think that is very unlikely. Possibly for some, but very unlikely for everyone.

As I explained above emtional systems are most likely evolutionary based. This includes jealousy and selfishness when it comes to relationships. There is an evolutionary reason we get jealous at the idea of our partners having multiple partners. We are family centered creatures (I don't mean in a ritual marriage sense, but in a tribal pack sense) and having a partner with multiple partners (and multiple children) causes strain of resources and ability to mind and protect the children. Human children take a long time develop to a point where they can function without adult supervision (especially in the wild) which has lead evolution to instill certain behaviour in humans.

It would be very foolish to believe that we in general can just turn off this evolutionary system that has developed for hundreds of thousands of years. Some people might be able to fine, but it would be silly to believe everyone can.

Kell wrote:

I dont think our brains are evolved enough to see things as they are without expectation of what we want them to be.

Excepting things to be the way we want to be (and putting measures in place to ensure they are) is how we have developed to the most advance creatures on the planet.

If your parents saw things simply as they are when you were a baby, rather than as they wanted them to be for you you probably would be dead now.

It is largely forgotten now in the age of contraceptives and birth control, but the evolutionary asspects instilled in us with relation to relationships and sex are actually to protect our most important aspect in our lives (from a biological sense) our children. A woman doesn't want her partner sleeping around because evolution is telling her that is a bad idea, he will have other kids with her and will not be able to provide for your kids. A man doesn't want his partner having sex with other men because that will produce children not his, will he be required to provide for them as well as his own, will he no longer be the alpha male in the family, will it restrict access to future breading.

Please bare in mind this is no comment on the morality of the situation, the right or wrongs of it. I am explaining this not to tell anyone the "correct" way to live. Evolution doesn't work based on the moral or right way to live, it works on the way that will ensure that the genetic structure reproduces in the best fashion. To evolution all we are is huge carriers of genetic information.

People have to decide what is the best way for they themselves to live. I point the above out only to show that evolution has designed us a certain way, and to believe this can simply be switched off is fool hardy

Kell

But Wicknight, you base all of your assumptions on your staunchly creationsit point of view.

We are not all creationists. You make huge assumptions on why we do things, that it is our "inbuilt programming, and urges and and and.... that stem from evolution and make us the greatest living race on the planet".

I happen to think humanity is morally, cerebrally and emotionally retarded.

IF we were emotionally strong adults, the idea of partners having sex with others would not daunt us. You forget that society has changed to such an extent that in the first world, populations are declining. How then is sexual habit/preference determined by the need to reproduce and keep ourselves in line for the sake of our children when the declining population rate indicates that children are no longer the reason people see as their purpose in life? I personally think this is true for declining breast sizes and reduced sperm counts. Anyways, I digress.

You balked at my suggestion that you should have sex with friends? Why? Are you too emotionally inept that you could not have sex with a friend and walk away with the relationship completely intact? Are you also telling us that you could not have a "fúck buddy" which essentially is a friend you fúck and then go home feeling satisfied?

I recall several debates regarding sexual habit/deviance from the norm in the past where you have clung to your creationist theory like a drowning man to a plank of wood. You repeatedly attempt to justify your own morality using such lines as "this is why we are here- to have kids, look after them and not spill our sperm on the dusty ground". While beliefs are nice and give you a warm cosy point of view that is also resonant of smug higher moral ground, I cant help thinking that you deprive yourself of a live and let live lifestyle that could open up so much potential. In the x number of years I have been here on boards, your posts show no dynamiscism in terms of your outlook on life yet you repeatedly claim that we are "the most advanced species on the planet". Erm......

Wicknight wrote:

You have it the wrong way around.

We have been programmed by evolution for sex to feel good because we need to do it, because evolution wants us to do it. Sex feels good because our genes want us to have it to allow for their continued distribution.

And just who the fúck made you the authority? This is exactly why I find your point of view so blinkered. I throw out thought and what ifs and theories because I accept that much of where we came from and where we are going remains largely theoretical and completely subjective. You throw out "FACT" on evolution while most of it still remains in the realm of theory. Just how exactly does that work?

Wicknight wrote:

You can claim sex "should" be about seeing how many different places you can do it in Disney Land without getting caught, it doesn't really matter.

I did? Where? Or are you confusing this with another post where some poor bástard said it was ok to have multiple partners and I happened to support his obviously deviant and morally reprehensible point of view?

K-

Samos

Wicknight, I think you require some clarification on the theory of evolution: Evolution does not dictate anything, our actions or views or morality. To say something like, "humans evolved intelligence" is not strictly true. It is rather the case that those humans who had greater intelligence were able to survive better than those with this trait in lesser abundance, and so these people had more chances to procreate and pass on their genes. A random mutation in their offsprings' genes might then give them a competitve advantage, or it may not. But overall, there is no guiding force, and no natural state of reference. Evolution does not 'want' us to do anything; it does not programme anything. It is a desciptive device.

To clarify my point on 'coercion'. Perhaps I chose the wrong word for you. What I meant was that there are certain expectations prevalent in society by which we judge the behaviour of others. If they conform to these, we consider them good, upstanding individuals. If they choose a different mode of living, they might be classed as deviant or misguided. It is hard to ignore the prevailing attitudes in society, and they do tend to restrict one's behaviour due to a fear of being ostracized.

metrovelvet wrote:

Having a relationship and setting up house and a family are two different things. So if you were to set up home, youd want several wives is that what your saying? Thats what you think freedom is?

The thing I dont get about this is, how do they organise Christmas' with in-laws, etc etc, meetings with teachers, valentines day, wedding anniversaries, etc etc. It just seems ridiculous. Do they all have one bank account? One mortgage? How does this work?

And like in any other family, there are the favourites, and those who enjoy higher status, etc etc. Seems like a nightmare.

Well, I never said anything about marriage. As far as I am concerned, matrimony is a means to obtain tax exemptions and for other fiscal reasons. For most of history marriage was certainly not about love. Parents chose the spouse to elevate social status, to ensure progeny, and for money. The betrothed rarely had a say in the matter. In comtemporary society, genuine love tends to play a more major role, and in this case I consider marriage to have a symbolic representation of commitment (but it also comes with tax benefits). It seems strange to me that one particular relationship is granted state approval, with consequent financial advantages. Personally, I am not in favour of marriage, other than in the form of a symbolic gesture, so many of the scenarios you suggest don't need to be considered.

Currently, my situation is that I live with half a dozen of my friends, and that is the way I wish to keep it. Some people come and some go over time, but there is no sense of confinement or bitterness. I have no intention of taking on several wives (or husbands, for that matter!), I simply have friends, and if we choose to have sex with one another, then that is it and nobody should be hurt because they believe they have some sort of claim over the other.

Samos

Kell wrote:

Because it is! Hundreds of years of programming, bible bashers and a diet of high moral fibre. Ye cant just undo social norms overnight and expect everyone to "get it". Its a slow process.

You are assuming coersion. I mentioned earlier about the relationship being devoid of the negativity you referred to and that each partner had made conscious choice to be monogamous. Lets assume, neither party were coerced either.

Social norms, until they become outdated over time, in a way hold society together. Think of the en masse madness that would ensure if everyone just decided "ah fúck this, I am into polygamy now". Social norms, whether you like it or not, provide a level of security that the masses need to function as human beings. Everyone is secure in the knowledge that "he's doing it too so it must be ok".

I am all for changing norms, but to suggest that humanity pull up its socks and broaden its horizons overnight is a tad short sighted.

I may come across as a tad idealistic, but I am simply mooting the other possibilities to those who dismiss anything that they are not familiar with as "nonsense" or "unworkable" or "unnatural". I want to make people think. I do not expect much to change overnight, but that is no reason not to try to make small progress each day to improving the world.

Kell

Samos wrote:

Currently, my situation is that I live with half a dozen of my friends, and that is the way I wish to keep it. I simply have friends, and if we choose to have sex with one another, then that is it and nobody should be hurt because they believe they have some sort of claim over the other.

Nice one.

I re-read one of Wicknights posts earlier and, in fairness, he did point out that he was not attempting to suggest his morality was better than anyone elses. I cant for the life of me figure out why every discussion topic with him results in a debate on evolution.

We are here. Its up to us to do what we want with it.

K-