Opinion of the "Polyamorous community"

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Now I know how LGBT felt a decade ago reading threads of hate toward them.

I really don't think you do.

While I, too, would much rather be cheated on with one person for whom my girlfriend or wife actually had feelings than with a bunch of random flings, I wouldn't think that accepting an agonizingly ethical (ethics, of course, being, as Al once said, 'morals for people who are too gutless to have them') 'lifestyle' framework for the experience--if I did accept such a framework, which I wouldn't--would give me meaningful insight into the experiences of people who are oppressed for who they are.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I wouldn't be surprised if some prudes also think that things like fetishes are "deviant behavior that destroys the fabric of society."

Now, now, we're not animals!

http://atlasafterdark.freeforums.net/thread/126/kinks

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Now I know how LGBT felt a decade ago reading threads of hate toward them.

I really don't think you do.

While I, too, would much rather be cheated on with one person for whom my girlfriend or wife actually had feelings than with a bunch of random flings, I wouldn't think that accepting an agonizingly ethical (ethics, of course, being, as Al once said, 'morals for people who are too gutless to have them') 'lifestyle' framework for the experience--if I did accept such a framework, which I wouldn't--would give me meaningful insight into the experiences of people who are oppressed for who they are.

Actually I'm referring to the rather hateful posts and empty quoting about "degenerates" in this case in reference to someone I really care about.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I wouldn't be surprised if some prudes also think that things like fetishes are "deviant behavior that destroys the fabric of society." Seriously, who cares what other people do in bed if no one is getting hurt?

Obviously, deviance does not "destroy" society; its occurrence and our subsequent condemnation of it allows us to draw lines by which others may live. Read your Durkheim.

Pointless lines drawn for BS reasons(deviation from the norm doesn't magically make something morally wrong).

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I wouldn't be surprised if some prudes also think that things like fetishes are "deviant behavior that destroys the fabric of society." Seriously, who cares what other people do in bed if no one is getting hurt?

Obviously, deviance does not "destroy" society; its occurrence and our subsequent condemnation of it allows us to draw lines by which others may live. Read your Durkheim.

Pointless lines drawn for BS reasons(deviation from the norm doesn't magically make something morally wrong).

Okay...?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Now I know how LGBT felt a decade ago reading threads of hate toward them.

I really don't think you do.

While I, too, would much rather be cheated on with one person for whom my girlfriend or wife actually had feelings than with a bunch of random flings, I wouldn't think that accepting an agonizingly ethical (ethics, of course, being, as Al once said, 'morals for people who are too gutless to have them') 'lifestyle' framework for the experience--if I did accept such a framework, which I wouldn't--would give me meaningful insight into the experiences of people who are oppressed for who they are.

Actually I'm referring to the rather hateful posts and empty quoting about "degenerates" in this case in reference to someone I really care about.

Yeah, 'degenerate' is a little...like I said in my first post in this thread, I don't think it's fair to use that word here. Or in many situations at all, really.

[Figueira]

I'm indifferent, but this thread (particularly the posts of Smilo, Santander, etc.) convinced me to vote FF.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I'm indifferent, but this thread (particularly the posts of Smilo, Santander, etc.) convinced me to vote FF.

You really got me!

[Anna Komnene]

Sexual degenerate is a hilarious term.  What is that even supposed to mean?  I don't know, but I'll give it a try.  Someone is a degenerate if they frequently have sex?  Someone is a degenerate if they've had sex with multiple people during the course of their life?  They're degenerate if they have sex with someone while in a relationship with someone else?  I guess the world must be full of degenerates then because all of those things are pretty common in monogamous relationships.  You just add in a caveat that someone is open and honest with their partner(s) about the possibility of loving another person(s) and suddenly that makes you a horrible degenerate.

It never ceases to amaze me how people just have to judge other consenting adults about what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Yes, the world is full of degenerates. A shame there won't be another flood coming.

When do we begin to consider that people acting like this (not just this subject but other deviances) do in fact have an effect on everyone else? It's why I don't care much more about living in this utterly immoral world.


And ftr, y'all are taking the word 'degeneracy' way too seriously. That's just more appropriate namecalling for me. The underlying point, however, is very serious.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Consent is not a magic spell that obviates every potential moral problem with a sexual act. It's a necessary but not sufficient aspect of sexual morality. I don't think anybody is arguing that it's somehow less objectionable to cheat on a partner you've ostensibly promised not to; rather, the principle on which people operate is that carrying on multiple sexual relationships concurrently is objectionable regardless of how the people involved feel about it.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Consent is not a magic spell that obviates every potential moral problem with a sexual act. It's a necessary but not sufficient aspect of sexual morality. I don't think anybody is arguing that it's somehow less objectionable to cheat on a partner you've ostensibly promised not to; rather, the principle on which people operate is that carrying on multiple sexual relationships concurrently is objectionable regardless of how the people involved feel about it.

And where exactly does this principle come from that makes it any more legitimate than the principle of accepting that 1) it is possible to love more than one person at a time and 2) that consenting adults can do what they wish in the privacy of the bedroom?

The morality you're talking about seems almost dogmatic. How can something be immoral if it's not hurting anyone? Isn't it lazy to denounce something as immoral "just because" (or, even worse, "just because [I don't like it]")?

[Antonio the Sixth]

How can something be immoral if it's not hurting anyone?

That's probably the most important question, on this issue as on many others. My answer would be that even an action that doesn't hurt any specific individual can have a harmful impact on society as a whole if it promotes norms and values that degrade it. Further, even when the action has no impact on society, it can still encourage those norms and value in the person who does it. Of course, direct harm is a more serious offense than diffuse societal harm, and diffuse societal harm a more serious offense than moral self-harm, but that doesn't mean the latter two should be ignored entirely.

For the record, I voted "other", because as I said I have no issue with genuine polyamory. It's just that I think it's often used as a convenient label by people who don't actually care much about love in and of itself.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Consent is not a magic spell that obviates every potential moral problem with a sexual act. It's a necessary but not sufficient aspect of sexual morality. I don't think anybody is arguing that it's somehow less objectionable to cheat on a partner you've ostensibly promised not to; rather, the principle on which people operate is that carrying on multiple sexual relationships concurrently is objectionable regardless of how the people involved feel about it.

And where exactly does this principle come from that makes it any more legitimate than the principle of accepting that 1) it is possible to love more than one person at a time and 2) that consenting adults can do what they wish in the privacy of the bedroom?

I mean, from (the easiest, most well-popularized version of) secular liberal first principles it's hard to come to this conclusion through any route that doesn't rely heavily on disgust reactions, but if one presupposes (as I do) that the purpose of human sexuality is expression in mutual reflection and mutual gift (bracketing out for a moment the question of to what extent we should feel bound by the other, more obvious biological 'purpose' of sexuality, a question on which I'm certainly less than impeccably ~traditional~ myself), then it strikes me as fairly reasonable to conclude from that presupposition that that reflection becomes distorted if more than two mirrors are facing each other.

I don't expect you (or most other posters, including many of the ones I like best) to agree with that, but I hope it makes some degree of sense anyway.

I don't think anybody is actually denying that it's possible to love more than one person at a time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't say!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're perfectly free to have an understanding of morality that starts and stops at not measurably harming third parties if you wish, but I'd suggest you make some effort to understand why many people don't consider that sufficient. Reducing any attempt to reintroduce aesthetic and (in the broadest sense) liturgical sensibilities into a type of conversation that too many people on what passes for 'the left' these days would rather have solely on the level of health, harm, and safety to 'just because' without going through even a pro forma step of asking what those sensibilities are is in unbelievably poor taste and is an unacceptably bloodless and frivolous way of conducting moral arguments.

Anyway, now that the argument over the morality of same-sex relationships qua same-sex relationships has (as an animating social issue) been more or less resolved for the better in the parts of country and types of online spaces I frequent, I get to settle into the self-satisfaction of being able to see the phrase 'consenting adults' and immediately know that it's being used as, essentially, the sexual morality equivalent of 'but it's my First Amendment right!'.

[Bacon King]

ITT: a motley crew of prudes, ignorants, and bigots

I have been in poly relationships in the past. They worked out great and none of us ever got smited by an angry god or suffered in any way because of our choices. It's hilarious to me that so many of you are so judgemental about something that doesn't concern or affect you in any way.

What gives you people the right to arbitrate the moral norms of our shared society? Can any of you even articulate precisely why and how a consensual relationship is so "DEGENERATE"?

...how many of you HP-voting guys have ever been with even one woman?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

...how many of you HP-voting guys have ever been with even one woman?

Define 'been with'.

[DC Al Fine]

How can something be immoral if it's not hurting anyone?

That's probably the most important question, on this issue as on many others. My answer would be that even an action that doesn't hurt any specific individual can have a harmful impact on society as a whole if it promotes norms and values that degrade it. Further, even when the action has no impact on society, it can still encourage those norms and value in the person who does it. Of course, direct harm is a more serious offense than diffuse societal harm, and diffuse societal harm a more serious offense than moral self-harm, but that doesn't mean the latter two should be ignored entirely.

This

ITT: a motley crew of prudes, ignorants, and bigots

I have been in poly relationships in the past. They worked out great and none of us ever got smited by an angry god or suffered in any way because of our choices. It's hilarious to me that so many of you are so judgemental about something that doesn't concern or affect you in any way.

What gives you people the right to arbitrate the moral norms of our shared society? Can any of you even articulate precisely why and how a consensual relationship is so "DEGENERATE"?

...how many of you HP-voting guys have ever been with even one woman?

If we're offering shoddy anecdata to support our positions, I know the child of a polygamist.

The kids suffered financially because Dad stretched his salary too thin on extra wives, and the wives fought with each other over their husband like high school girls, and used the kids as pawns in that fight, but hey all parties consented to the arrangement, so all is well.

[Bacon King]

Because of course, DC Al Fine, no monogamous couple has ever had family disputes or overstretched finances or ugly seperations!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Legitimizing actual cuckoldry and Mormonism doesn't bode well with me, sorry. (terrible bigot etc.)

[DC Al Fine]

Because of course, DC Al Fine, no monogamous couple has ever had family disputes or overstretched finances or ugly seperations!

The point is that your first argument in support of your position was an anecdote about how it worked out with you and your friends. As I mentioned in my post, two can play at the shoddy anecdata game. Given that you sandwiched the above between two ad hominems, your argument resembles a glossary of logical fallacies.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What exactly is meant by "diffuse societal harm" and "moral self-harm"?

I mean I can think of some crimes where "diffuse societal harm" is the result (some white collar crimes like insider trading and things like welfare fraud) but I don't think that's what Tony is referring to.

[White Trash]

Oh man this thread is disgusting. Now I know how LGBT felt a decade ago reading threads of hate toward them.

Just one thing I'll say is it does not necessarily mean just "sleeping around". My girlfriend is only with one other guy who lives much closer to her.

You are a sad, strange little man. And you have my pity.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tininess

...seriously? Is that supposed to be a Drumpf-like disparaging nickname or something?

ROFL

[Figueira]

Consent is not a magic spell that obviates every potential moral problem with a sexual act. It's a necessary but not sufficient aspect of sexual morality. I don't think anybody is arguing that it's somehow less objectionable to cheat on a partner you've ostensibly promised not to; rather, the principle on which people operate is that carrying on multiple sexual relationships concurrently is objectionable regardless of how the people involved feel about it.

And where exactly does this principle come from that makes it any more legitimate than the principle of accepting that 1) it is possible to love more than one person at a time and 2) that consenting adults can do what they wish in the privacy of the bedroom?

I mean, from (the easiest, most well-popularized version of) secular liberal first principles it's hard to come to this conclusion through any route that doesn't rely heavily on disgust reactions, but if one presupposes (as I do) that the purpose of human sexuality is expression in mutual reflection and mutual gift (bracketing out for a moment the question of to what extent we should feel bound by the other, more obvious biological 'purpose' of sexuality, a question on which I'm certainly less than impeccably ~traditional~ myself), then it strikes me as fairly reasonable to conclude from that presupposition that that reflection becomes distorted if more than two mirrors are facing each other.

I don't expect you (or most other posters, including many of the ones I like best) to agree with that, but I hope it makes some degree of sense anyway.

I don't think anybody is actually denying that it's possible to love more than one person at a time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't say!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're perfectly free to have an understanding of morality that starts and stops at not measurably harming third parties if you wish, but I'd suggest you make some effort to understand why many people don't consider that sufficient. Reducing any attempt to reintroduce aesthetic and (in the broadest sense) liturgical sensibilities into a type of conversation that too many people on what passes for 'the left' these days would rather have solely on the level of health, harm, and safety to 'just because' without going through even a pro forma step of asking what those sensibilities are is in unbelievably poor taste and is an unacceptably bloodless and frivolous way of conducting moral arguments.

Anyway, now that the argument over the morality of same-sex relationships qua same-sex relationships has (as an animating social issue) been more or less resolved for the better in the parts of country and types of online spaces I frequent, I get to settle into the self-satisfaction of being able to see the phrase 'consenting adults' and immediately know that it's being used as, essentially, the sexual morality equivalent of 'but it's my First Amendment right!'.

Yeah, sorry, but this makes no sense to me. I don't see any reason to call something "immoral" if it's not hurting anyone. You can make fun of that argument all you want, but I have yet to see a legitimate rebuttal to it.

As a side note, it's sad how Smilo has gone from a generic nice guy to one of the bottom five posters on this site. Trump really brings out the worst in people I guess.

[DavidB.]

If someone wants to engage in such a relationship, who am I to judge? It's not my cup of tea, I'm far too jealous and stuff for that, but I'm not about to cast judgement on people just because they have a different kind of legal, consensual relationship. If it makes them happy, then it's whatevs.

This comes closest to how I think about it. It's not only about being jealous for me, it's that I don't think polyamorous relationships are healthy relationships; I would certainly to want it for myself. However, that doesn't make people who engage in it HPs. If they feel that it works for them, I'm not going to judge them and I hope they're happy. Live and let live. Voted "other".