Polyamorous Relationships

Nevyn

I would be of the opinion that the more people children have in thier lives that love them that have a positive infulence on them and they can turn to the better.
We should not expect one person to be the be all and end of everything for us in our lives.
Our friends are there for us and we for them and comfort can come in many forums.
If two people are happy to just have each other in a lovign reltionship great if it works for them, different people have different needs and different ways of living thier lives.

There was an lj disscusion on this topic a while back that was intresting.
http://saoili.livejournal.com/81225.html

Zombrex

Kell wrote:

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

Do you actually know what "creationism" means ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Kell wrote:

We are not all creationists.

I would hope not, as neither am I.

Kell wrote:

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".

You believe it was something else? God perhaps? Are you sure you are not a creationist?

Kell wrote:

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

Ok, as I pointed out my points have very little to do with morality.

I would wonder what you are comparing humanity to to believe we are morality, cerebrally and emotionally retarded

Kell wrote:

IF we were emotionally strong adults, the idea of partners having sex with others would not daunt us.

What does "emotionally strong" mean?

Why do you believe emotions exist in the first place. You seem to be equating a highly developed emotional system as the same as not having an emotional system.

Kell wrote:

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?

Because evolution, a process that works over hundreds of thousands of years, has yet to be made aware of the fact that population has been declining for the last 10 years.

Our emotional system, our inbuild urge/reward system develped over hundreds of thousands of years, imprinted all over our human brains. It doesn't suddenly turn off because we develop something like contraception.

Kell wrote:

You balked at my suggestion that you should have sex with friends?

No, I think sex with friends is a great idea. I balked at the "jilted emotions if your feelings of love arent returned" part. Are you sure you are coming to this discussion with a level head, or are your views shaped by a resentment to a previous emtional encounter.

Kell wrote:

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.

Please please please look up the definition of "creationists" .. then pop over to this thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=316566&page=130

Kell wrote:

You repeatedly attempt to justify your own morality

I'm not attempting to justify any morality. Did you miss the part where I said evolution has no reflection on morality.

Kell wrote:

I cant help thinking that you deprive yourself of a live and let live lifestyle that could open up so much potential.

Er .. ok ...

Kell wrote:

And just who the fúck made you the authority?

Er ... biology .. ?

Kell wrote:

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.

If you want to bring in "why are we here" new age spirituality or what ever into this discussion thats fine. If you think humanity has some higher purpose to fufill in the universe thats fine too. But I'm just sticking to the biology.

Kell wrote:

You throw out "FACT" on evolution while most of it still remains in the realm of theory. Just how exactly does that work?

Evolution is a well observed well studied and well accepted FACT. If you don't believe in evolution thats fine, but I would wonder what natural process you believe developed life on Earth over approx 4 billion years.

Kell wrote:

I did? Where?

That was sarcasim :rolleyes:

You claimed - "it should be one of those things you do with your friends"

What you think sex should or should not be is largely irrelivent to the biological processes of an adult homo-sepian.

metrovelvet

LadyJ wrote:

Although I've said that I think maybe this kind of thing might not be so terrible for the children involved,.

Im not so sure about that myself. I did read a statisitic that American men spend an average of 11 minutes a day with their children, which is not too reassuring. If this were divided up among three or four sets of children, I cant imagine what kind of support he could offer the mother or what kind of attention he could give the children.

LadyJ wrote:

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.,.

Yes, I think so too. Its a small society in itself and with that arrives all the politics of being in a small society. Its all very fine in theory but the reality seems lousy.

LadyJ wrote:

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.

Well it depends on what you want for your children also.

Alot of this depends also on your perspective on love. Samos believes you can love more than one person, and yes I suppose you can. But imo it is a choice, a verb and not just a feeling. So you can choose to be loving to several people or two one. I suppose its a question of breadth vs. depth and how thin you want to spread yourself and how nourishing or aneomic the recipient of that will find it.

We are after all not talking about sex here, but complex domestic and family situations and relationships.

Zombrex

Samos wrote:

Wicknight, I think you require some clarification on the theory of evolution: Evolution does not dictate anything, our actions or views or morality.

Depends on what you mean by "dictate".

Through our evolved system of emotions evolution has shaped, at a base level, how we as societal creatures, interact with each other. Our morality is based (most of the time, though not always) on this ground work.

For example, if you shouted at your mother until she started crying you most likely would feel a twinge of guilt, even if you have rationalisted in your own mind that you were right and won the argument.

This is how evolution can attempt to dictate behaviour. How strong that dictation is depends on the person, along with cultural and societal factors.

Samos wrote:

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.

That is evolution.

Evolution is the adaptation of a self-replicating form to an specifica enviornment, facilitated by errors in the reproduction cycle (mutation) and controlled by fitness of said errors to increase the forms ability to tackle environmental challanges (natural selection)

Samos wrote:

But overall, there is no guiding force, and no natural state of reference.

Very true. Which is why evolution is largely irrelivent to morality and vice veras. Evolution does what is best to allow the genes inside you to reproduce and survive. That is all.

But (unfortunately) that doesn't mean it doesn't effect our lives on a daily basis. You may think that that is unfair, or sucks, but it is the way things are.

Samos wrote:

Evolution does not 'want' us to do anything; it does not programme anything.

Well, without getting to metphorical, the only thing evolution "wants" (requires is a better term) is that your genes reproduce. Otherwise life on Earth would never have got passed the starting post.

Samos wrote:

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.

That is very true.

Samos wrote:

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.

Again that is true, and that is another in built evolutionary system. We are tribal creatures, we function in societial structures.

I'm still not sure that that constitutes coercion, but your point is valid.

Samos wrote:

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.

Good for you

My only advice would be to be sure that everyone feels the same way you do, and more importantly be open to the possibility that they don't.

There seems to be a thread running through Kell's and your posts that if human just stopped being hung up over monogamy it would be fine for everyone to have a wide range of partners and things like jealousy would just turn off. That isn't true, as my two posts have tried to explain. We have inbuild emotional systems that attempt to dictate certain behaviour. Some people find it easy to ignore this, others don't. If you do that doesn't mean everyone does.

In my experience willingness to do something is often confused with wanting to do something Someone shouldn't be hurt is not going to mean they won't be hurt. People will go along with something they are not happy about to get some link to a person. I'm sure we all have heard of the guy who thinks he has a fu*k buddy, while the girl thinks she is in a relationship. I knew plenty of people in college who went along with the fu*k buddy thing waiting for the day when the relationship would turn into a proper relationship (which most of the time it never did)

While there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with the way you live your life, it is still unusual in this day and age, so the obvious question would be what are the odds that your friends would all feel exactly the same way as you.

They most likely probably do, but it is something to bear in mind (as I'm sure you do).

LadyJ

metrovelvet wrote:

Im not so sure about that myself. I did read a statisitic that American men spend an average of 11 minutes a day with their children, which is not too reassuring. If this were divided up among three or four sets of children, I cant imagine what kind of support he could offer the mother or what kind of attention he could give the children.

Yes,I mean,in this particular relationship,the man seemed to be running around,pencilling in all of the women in his diary but the children didn't seem to be given much time or consideration.

Of course,if a threesome were to bring up one child,for example,then there would be less of a problem,imo.

Alot of this depends also on your perspective on love. Samos believes you can love more than one person, and yes I suppose you can. But imo it is a choice, a verb and not just a feeling. So you can choose to be loving to several people or two one. I suppose its a question of breadth vs. depth and how thin you want to spread yourself and how nourishing or aneomic the recipient of that will find it.

As much as I am aware that I am capable of loving more than one person,I think I would find it hard to actually be with more than one person at a time.

Personally,I just prefer the intimacy of a monogomous relationship. I like sharing myself with my partner and getting to know all about him in return. For me,if I started to share everything about myself with a number of people,then I think it would become less special.

Zombrex

Kell wrote:

I cant for the life of me figure out why every discussion topic with him results in a debate on evolution.

Because evolution made us into the life forms were are today. It has shaped everything from our phsycial structure to our emotional structure, to our societal structure.

To ignore evolution is to ignore who we are as a species.

Kell

Kell wrote:

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.

Perhaps you should read all the posts. So, why do a lot of your responses to questions such as the one the OP posted wind up in a debate on evolution?

Wicknight wrote:

I balked at the "jilted emotions if your feelings of love arent returned" part. Are you sure you are coming to this discussion with a level head, or are your views shaped by a resentment to a previous emtional encounter.

You didnt clarify that. I was referring to other peoples jilted emotions having shagged a friend when in fact they had wanted more than sex i.e. one being deluded. I was asking a question, not making a statement.

Wicknight wrote:

Evolution is a well observed well studied and well accepted FACT

I never disputed it. While evolution is accepted, its exact mechanics are not written in stone. While a lot of people believe in the big bang etc, it has a large number of detractors. Lots of people believe in Darwinism, lots do not. Your FACT as far as I can see depends on whatever school of thought you belong to.


Apologies for incorrect use of the word creationism.

K-

Kell

Wicknight wrote:

Because evolution made us into the life forms were are today. It has shaped everything from our phsycial structure to our emotional structure, to our societal structure.

It could also be 6 times 7 though.

M-

Zombrex

Kell wrote:

Perhaps you should read all the posts. So, why do a lot of your responses to questions such as the one the OP posted wind up in a debate on evolution?

I'm not debating evolution.

I replied to this question

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

There is a very long evolutionary reason why monogamy is considered "such a boom". Which I explained.

Do you not accept that? If so why exactly? Is it just because you don't want it to be true?

Its funny that I'm being attacked for morality judgements when every post I make is meet with cries along the lines of how dare you suggest that!!

Kell wrote:

You didnt clarify that.

Did I need to?

Kell wrote:

I was asking a question, not making a statement.

Maybe you should have claified that. Normally questions don't start with

"In fact it should..."

Kell wrote:

I never disputed it. While evolution is accepted, its exact mechanics are not written in stone.

Well technically they are written in stone, us being the stone.

Kell if you think what I've posted is incorrect or factually wrong thats fine. I don't really care. But it would be helpful if you stated why exactly, rather than just saying other people have other ideas. That is hardly helpful.

Zombrex

Kell wrote:

It could also be 6 times 7 though.

M-

Is that some obscure Dogulas Adams quote?

I seen this program and watched it in complete and utter disbelief!

metrovelvet

LadyJ wrote:

As much as I am aware that I am capable of loving more than one person,I think I would find it hard to actually be with more than one person at a time.

Personally,I just prefer the intimacy of a monogomous relationship. I like sharing myself with my partner and getting to know all about him in return. For me,if I started to share everything about myself with a number of people,then I think it would become less special.

Do you think you could be emotionally monogamous, even domestically so but **** around?

Or vice versa, where your sexually monogamous but have intense emotional relationships with other men outside of that?

And what would bother you more, if your boyfriend ****ed around on you with meaningless bimbos or if he had an intense friendship with another woman?

LadyJ

metrovelvet wrote:

Do you think you could be emotionally monogamous, even domestically so but **** around?

When I was younger,I cheated on boyfriends in a purely sexual way but nowadays I couldn't bring myself to do that kind of thing at all. Doesn't interest me.

Or vice versa, where your sexually monogamous but have intense emotional relationships with other men outside of that?

I do have a few very close male friends but the intimacy within those relationships is certainly not on the same level as that within my relationship with my partner.

And what would bother you more, if your boyfriend ****ed around on you with meaningless bimbos or if he had an intense friendship with another woman?

I have read many times that,for women in general,it is more of a betrayal if their partner seeks emotional gratification elsewhere,rather than sexual. And that,for men in general,it is the opposite.

For me,I think I am like women in general. I would be more bothered if my partner had an intense friendship with another woman,but would be almost as bothered if he had meaningless sex.

It's a tough call really. I have never been cheated on by anyone but my ex did have a more intense emotional relationship with another person before we broke up and that hurt me a great deal. They went out for a while after we broke up so I guess my gut instinct was correct and maybe I was right to feel threatened.

aidan24326

LadyJ wrote:

I have read many times that,for women in general,it is more of a betrayal if their partner seeks emotional gratification elsewhere,rather than sexual. And that,for men in general,it is the opposite.

Maybe I'm atypical of men so but for me an emotional betrayal is worse.

Samos

Wicknight wrote:

...Which is why evolution is largely irrelivent to morality and vice veras. Evolution does what is best to allow the genes inside you to reproduce and survive.

I don't think evolution is irrelevant to morality or ethics. In fact, I would say that they are inextricably linked. I don't have time to illustrate this here but I found that this essay was particularly illuminating on the issue.

My only advice would be to be sure that everyone feels the same way you do, and more importantly be open to the possibility that they don't.

There seems to be a thread running through Kell's and your posts that if human just stopped being hung up over monogamy it would be fine for everyone to have a wide range of partners and things like jealousy would just turn off. That isn't true, as my two posts have tried to explain. We have inbuild emotional systems that attempt to dictate certain behaviour. Some people find it easy to ignore this, others don't. If you do that doesn't mean everyone does.

In my experience willingness to do something is often confused with wanting to do something Someone shouldn't be hurt is not going to mean they won't be hurt. People will go along with something they are not happy about to get some link to a person. I'm sure we all have heard of the guy who thinks he has a fu*k buddy, while the girl thinks she is in a relationship. I knew plenty of people in college who went along with the fu*k buddy thing waiting for the day when the relationship would turn into a proper relationship (which most of the time it never did)

While there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with the way you live your life, it is still unusual in this day and age, so the obvious question would be what are the odds that your friends would all feel exactly the same way as you.

They most likely probably do, but it is something to bear in mind (as I'm sure you do).

You are quite correct to say that not everyone will have the same opinion, but this certainly works both ways. I should not be vilified for my views, especially if they are not the majority's. I have already placed myself in the minority in this country by foregoing consumption of animal products and alcohol. But it often seems to me that those who stick with the status quo have not chosen it because they believe it to be the best from of living, but because they have not considered the alternatives. I am sure that many others would feel similarly, if only they opened their eyes to the gamut of possibilities, and ceased living on auto-pilot.

This is an interesting debate, and I might even return to this in a few weeks, after my holiday, with a different opinion. I will likely encouonter many people who are much more involved in this 'lifestyle' than I, and I will be intrigued to know of their experiences.

Zombrex

Samos wrote:

You are quite correct to say that not everyone will have the same opinion, but this certainly works both ways. I should not be vilified for my views, especially if they are not the majority's.

No, you shouldn't.

And I would argue with anyone who attempted to tell you that having more than one sexual partner at the same time is immoral. The only object I would have to such an arrangment is the increase chance of disease, but on to make sure everyone was aware of the risks.

I've had long conversations with Christians on the Atheist and Christian forum about the morality of sex.

Samos wrote:

But it often seems to me that those who stick with the status quo have not chosen it because they believe it to be the best from of living, but because they have not considered the alternatives. I am sure that many others would feel similarly, if only they opened their eyes to the gamut of possibilities, and ceased living on auto-pilot.

Possibly some would, but the point of my posts on this subject is that there is a natural tendency to move towards these types of relationships, which should not be ignored.

I think the issue is that you view monogamy as a form of oppressive (religous for example) towards society, and therefore the opposite of such oppression would be total freedom, which one would naturally think is a more desirable alternative to oppression, as freedom in all areas is considered the opposite of oppression.

There is some truth to that, but my point was that even in a completely free environment you will still have systems of evolutionary control that will draw
some (not all but some) to monogamous style relationships.

It reminds me of the sexual revolution (what i've read I mean, i obviously wasn't around), where women were suddenly "free" to have unconvential relationships. But one form of expected behaviour (women should be virgin nuns) was replaced with another form (women should shag anyone who wants to shag them), and what was interesting is that some women felt just as oppressed as they did before. The reality is that the option just not to have sex, or to choose to have a caring monogamous relationship, wasn't given to them.

This seems to be kinda happening again, monogamous relationships are being seen in media as the cool any more, and as you say a form of socieital oppression. I would be weary that the same problems in this line of things will immerage again, where one form of societial pressure is simply replaced with another. I knew a number of female friends in college who felt under a lot of pressure to lead a more promiscuious lifestyle as that was seen as what the cool free young people were doing. They often had to make up elabourate excuses as to why they didn't want to slept with the guy they brought home. Simply saying "I don't want to" was seen as an uncool, you are so oppressed and you don't even know it, response. And this is only a few years ago.

So I'm all for freedom, but freedom doesn't necessarily mean everyone should do the opposite of what they did when they were oppressed, just that people should be free to choose what they want to do either way. This is true freedom, and it is a freedom that we still (unforunately) seem to be a long way off from having.

Samos wrote:

I will likely encouonter many people who are much more involved in this 'lifestyle' than I, and I will be intrigued to know of their experiences.

Just use a condom, you lucky fella ..