Opinion of the "Polyamorous community"

[Mopsus]

So, if all consensual sexual relations are unimpeachable, then all consensual economic relations...?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

So, if all consensual sexual relations are unimpeachable, then all consensual economic relations...?

No, but you see those can affect people outside the relationship/people don't know what's good for them!

[DavidB.]

So, if all consensual sexual relations are unimpeachable, then all consensual economic relations...?

What makes you think sexual relations are similar to economic relations?

[Virginiá]

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.

And I can list a number of anecdotes about people I knew to varying degrees in middle/high school who suffered from disintegrating monogamous relationships where the separating parents used the kid(s) as pawns.

So, if all consensual sexual relations are unimpeachable, then all consensual economic relations...?

What, like say, drug deals? I'd have to say yes, but it gets trickier with hard drugs, which very often cause harm and general crime outside of those 2 people. You have to gauge how much these 'consensus economic relations' are going to affect those outside the transactions. People engaged in polyamorous relationships are not very likely to cause many more issues than a monogamous relationship.

[Tartarus Sauce]

I'd never do it myself, but as long as it's all consensual, I don't see what the problem is.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Tininess

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

ROFL

No, it's an odd quirk of my phone's auto-correct after a typo.

Corrected. Now what about the rest of the post?

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.

You are terrible, seriously. If you knew anything about her, her previous experiences and why she's been trending to polyamory you would know why are being so terrible. So much disgusting judgment in this thread.

[Mopsus]

So, if all consensual sexual relations are unimpeachable, then all consensual economic relations...?

What makes you think sexual relations are similar to economic relations?

That, apparently, the same logic underlies both.

So, if all consensual sexual relations are unimpeachable, then all consensual economic relations...?

What, like say, drug deals?

More like, people agreeing to work for eighty hours a week, in unsafe working conditions, for five dollars an hour. By what right does the government pass moral judgement on such an arrangement?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Corrected. Now what about the rest of the post?

Actually, insider trading and fraud against the State could examples (although in most cases of insider trading there is a number of specific individuals who are harmed).

For an example closer to the topic at hand, I think producing/selling porn fits pretty well. Assuming the actors aren't being exploited in any way (which they often are, and which is the most serious problem), porn still contributes to degrading social norms about women and sexuality, and, as such, causes harm to society as a whole.

(Note that I never said polyamory causes harm to society. If it's genuine polyamory, I said I have no objection to it. If it doesn't really involve love, it's at worst moral self-harm.)

[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.

You are terrible, seriously. If you knew anything about her, her previous experiences and why she's been trending to polyamory you would know why are being so terrible. So much disgusting judgment in this thread.

Set off by a Toy Story reference. Take a damn Xanax.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I really don't see why people feel the need to use some contrived aberration of morality to legitimize their lifestyles. Pretensions to morality have resulted in some of the most horrific experiments in human slaughter. Just admit that what you're doing debases yourself and move on, people. God knows, we've all made regrettable decisions.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

Upon rereading, I'm actually not sure what you mean by your mirrors analogy. When you're saying that the reflection becomes distorted, do you mean that, in such relationships, people tend to lose sight of the others and fail to care for them as they need? If so, you are arguing that it's impossible to (truly) love more than one person at a time, since I'm sure you agree that caring for someone is a fundamental aspect of love. Or did you mean something else?

[Virginiá]

More like, people agreeing to work for eighty hours a week, in unsafe working conditions, for five dollars an hour. By what right does the government pass moral judgement on such an arrangement?

Because no doubt many people would find themselves with no other option but to enter into such poor work conditions/compensation. Sort of like how selling your organs is illegal - If it were allowed, poor people would be taken advantage of, just like they are in countries where this behavior is rampant.

Then you have to think, if economic matters are deregulated like that, exactly how long before companies begin colluding and lowering wages across the board, giving no one any better options? The "free market" is not going to solve this any more than it did in the Gilded Age. No one is forced into a multi-member relationship, but that kind of economic freedom would inevitably ruin the livelihoods of many, many people. We've been through this before - it didn't work out.

[Anna Komnene]

What's wrong with using anecdotes to make a point?  We all make judgments based on the sum of our life experience (ie: a whole big ton of anecdotes).  Even if someone operates under some kind of categorical imperative, they did so based on their life experience... most likely someone they met that convinced them to follow that code.  

If you've met or befriended someone from a community (or if you're a member yourself), you're going to have a better understanding of that community.  You're experiences could be outliers, but it would take a strong substantive argument to ignore them because to ignore them would be to ignore everything you've observed to be true.  That's quite a leap!  It's also the reason why most people tend to be more accepting of communities once they've met someone.  Note, for example, that various politicians have stated that they changed their position on lgbt rights due to finding out that friends or loved ones were lgbt - or that friends or loved ones were passionate about lgbt rights.  I think the main problem here is a lot of people have clearly never met a person in a polyamorous relationship.

[Virginiá]

What's wrong with using anecdotes to make a point?

In the context you put it, it's different. The way the previous poster(s) were using it was trying to imply that because they witnessed 1 bad polyamorous relationship/family, that they must be worse overall, which is not logical at all. For all he knows, every single other polyamorous relationship is better, but he just happened to see the one bad one (not to say this is true obv, just making a point). You can say using anecdotes is similar to polling - Would you trust a poll with a sample size of only 1 or 2 people?

[Mopsus]

More like, people agreeing to work for eighty hours a week, in unsafe working conditions, for five dollars an hour. By what right does the government pass moral judgement on such an arrangement?

Because no doubt many people would find themselves with no other option but to enter into such poor work conditions/compensation.

And don't people sometimes submit themselves to relationships for reasons other than romantic attraction? I mean, let's be honest here: we don't think that Brigham Young could have procured 55 wives if he were just a blacksmith, do we?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Amusingly, I think that the opponents of polyamory would say the same thing about that peculiar institution.

[Virginiá]

And don't people sometimes submit themselves to relationships for reasons other than romantic attraction? I mean, let's be honest here: we don't think that Brigham Young could have procured 55 wives if he were just a blacksmith, do we?

They do, but not often to the detriment of their long-term well-being. Yes, you can pluck some examples from history or even recent history, but virtually every situation has outliers that are troublesome. What you're saying is basically the wholesale deregulation of the economy and to be honest I don't feel the need to say why that would be a terrible idea. It's not really even a proper equivalency here. You can't compare the crushing poverty the 99% would face in such conditions to a few people who want to engage in a polyamorous relationship...

Amusingly, I think that the opponents of polyamory would say the same thing about that peculiar institution.

I'm not really advocating for it, I'm just saying people should have the option and shouldn't be judged so harshly for it. Obviously I am not a fan of Warren Jeff-type situations where there is rampant abuse or what have you. It wouldn't be fair to compare all polyamorous relationships to that or other prolific cases of abuse.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Seems from Nathan's response to my post that everything comes down to individual presuppositions that are based on nothing but gut feeling or religious dogma. That is how people like him and Antonio are able to allege that polyamory "degrades society"—they cannot prove it hurts anyone, so they say it degrades society based only on their presuppositions. How does it degrade society? It perpetuates something they don't like... and that's all.

You can point out the logical and intellectual flaws of that, sure. But you can't really argue with it, because they are the same mechanisms that others use to defend bigotry, discrimination, etc. I'm not saying being against polyamory is tantamount to being a bigot, but it does certainly seem like it's a position that involves the same sort of wilful close-mindedness.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Did you actually read any of my posts?

[Anna Komnene]

What's wrong with using anecdotes to make a point?

In the context you put it, it's different. The way the previous poster(s) were using it was trying to imply that because they witnessed 1 bad polyamorous relationship/family, that they must be worse overall, which is not logical at all. For all he knows, every single other polyamorous relationship is better, but he just happened to see the one bad one (not to say this is true obv, just making a point). You can say using anecdotes is similar to polling - Would you trust a poll with a sample size of only 1 or 2 people?

Good point.  I definitely wouldn't trust that poll if it was claiming to predict the outcome of an election.    I think the difference in this context is it would matter to me who the one or two people are.  If they are close friends that I know pretty well, then I feel like I could make a positive judgment about them.  If they are some random person in the neighborhood that I don't really know anything about apart from gossip, then I wouldn't trust myself to make that judgment without more information.  I think the main problem with DC's anecdote is that the real issue there is poverty.  A family that doesn't believe in contraception and has 10 children will have similar problems, but not many people are advocating for limits on the amount of children a family can have, despite the apparent detrimental effects it might have.

[Mopsus]

And don't people sometimes submit themselves to relationships for reasons other than romantic attraction? I mean, let's be honest here: we don't think that Brigham Young could have procured 55 wives if he were just a blacksmith, do we?

They do, but not often to the detriment of their long-term well-being. Yes, you can pluck some examples from history or even recent history, but virtually every situation has outliers that are troublesome. What you're saying is basically the wholesale deregulation of the economy and to be honest I don't feel the need to say why that would be a terrible idea. It's not really even a proper equivalency here. You can't compare the crushing poverty the 99% would face in such conditions to a few people who want to engage in a polyamorous relationship...

Amusingly, I think that the opponents of polyamory would say the same thing about that peculiar institution.

I'm not really advocating for it, I'm just saying people should have the option and shouldn't be judged so harshly for it. Obviously I am not a fan of Warren Jeff-type situations where there is rampant abuse or what have you. It wouldn't be fair to compare all polyamorous relationships to that or other prolific cases of abuse.

So, the argument isn't one of principle, but one of consequentialism. In that case, you may very well be in the right: as long as polyamory remains a fringe of a fringe, it probably does harm than good to discriminate against it.

I just wish that people would refrain from invoking moral principles when they aren't willing to follow them to their logical conclusion.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I just wish that people would refrain from invoking moral principles when they aren't willing to follow them to their logical conclusion.

Yeah, that's really my problem with the "pro" side in this thread. Even if I happen to more or less agree with them, I really can't stand the sort of arguments they use.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I just wish that people would refrain from invoking moral principles when they aren't willing to follow them to their logical conclusion.

Yeah, that's really my problem with the "pro" side in this thread. Even if I happen to more or less agree with them, I really can't stand the sort of arguments they use.

Well, I think the point Mopsus raises actually crystallizes the key differences between polygamy and polyamory.

"Regulation" would seem to more affect the practitioners of polygamy than polyamory, and that may well be justified when we are talking about the legal institution of marriage. But when we're talking about polyamory and private relationships between consenting people, the need for "regulation" seems weak.

I hope this isn't an insulting comparison, but it's kind of like the difference between the state applying regulations to a registered business and the state applying regulations to a garage sale. There's not really any reason to intervene in the garage sale unless stolen goods or toxins are being distributed. There's not really any reason to intervene in a polyamorous, non-marriage arrangement unless someone is being harmed.

[Virginiá]

I just wish that people would refrain from invoking moral principles when they aren't willing to follow them to their logical conclusion.

I don't understand. Are you saying I should not invoke any principles because I refuse to apply them entirely to other things, such as economic matters? If so, you're missing what I have been saying. I don't see these types of relationships as really hurting anyone more than a monogamous relationship, but the economic views you are saying I should follow based on the "not hurting anyone" clearly would hurt many people, even against their will (imo), thus going against my overall principle on this matter.

If that's not what you meant / was not directed at me, then disregard this post.

[DC Al Fine]

What's wrong with using anecdotes to make a point?

In the context you put it, it's different. The way the previous poster(s) were using it was trying to imply that because they witnessed 1 bad polyamorous relationship/family, that they must be worse overall, which is not logical at all. For all he knows, every single other polyamorous relationship is better, but he just happened to see the one bad one (not to say this is true obv, just making a point). You can say using anecdotes is similar to polling - Would you trust a poll with a sample size of only 1 or 2 people?

Good point.  I definitely wouldn't trust that poll if it was claiming to predict the outcome of an election.    I think the difference in this context is it would matter to me who the one or two people are.  If they are close friends that I know pretty well, then I feel like I could make a positive judgment about them.  If they are some random person in the neighborhood that I don't really know anything about apart from gossip, then I wouldn't trust myself to make that judgment without more information.  I think the main problem with DC's anecdote is that the real issue there is poverty.  A family that doesn't believe in contraception and has 10 children will have similar problems, but not many people are advocating for limits on the amount of children a family can have, despite the apparent detrimental effects it might have.

Let's back up here for a second.

The title of the OP is "Opinion of the Polyamorous community", not "should polygamy be banned". Plenty of people think poorly of people who have three spouses or ten kids. There's no inconsistency there. The level of 'proof' needed to support your case is a sliding scale. Thinking something is a bad idea requires significantly less support than putting your preferences into law.

Secondly, I want to bring up part of my anecdote that keeps being ignored. My primary issue with my acquaintance's polygamist parents wasn't financial, it was emotional. Recall, that I noted that the children were used as pawns in the wives' bickering.

Plenty of us have lived in households with financial strain. I doubt any of us have gotten punished because their mother was ten years younger and was having more sex with Dad than the other wives.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

Upon rereading, I'm actually not sure what you mean by your mirrors analogy. When you're saying that the reflection becomes distorted, do you mean that, in such relationships, people tend to lose sight of the others and fail to care for them as they need? If so, you are arguing that it's impossible to (truly) love more than one person at a time, since I'm sure you agree that caring for someone is a fundamental aspect of love. Or did you mean something else?

It's very possible to feel love for more than one person at once, but not with as ardent and singleminded devotion as a partner in a romantic or marital relationship (as opposed to other types of loving relationship) deserves.

Say a man (or woman) is married but falls deeply in love with a woman other than his (or her) wife. This may mean that he, emotionally, 'loves' his wife less than he did before (or it may not!), but if so he can still communicate practical love to both women by being faithful to the obligations both that marriage means that he incurs to his wife and that whatever relationship he has with the other woman means that he incurs to her. In the case of his wife, this means that he doesn't become sexually intimate with the other woman and possibly emotionally distances himself from her somewhat. In the case of the other woman, it means that he continues to treat her solicitously and doesn't blame her for his own emotional conundrum.

Seems from Nathan's response to my post that everything comes down to individual presuppositions that are based on nothing but gut feeling or religious dogma. That is how people like him and Antonio are able to allege that polyamory "degrades society"—they cannot prove it hurts anyone, so they say it degrades society based only on their presuppositions. How does it degrade society? It perpetuates something they don't like... and that's all.

Well...yes, it makes society less the sort of society I want to live in and more the sort of society I don't want to live in. I hardly see how this reasoning is so wildly illegitimate as to make moral opposition to it and the desire to argue against it--not to ban it, merely to argue against it--incomprehensible to you.