Opinion of the "Polyamorous community"

[Antonio the Sixth]

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 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.

That makes sense, thanks for clarifying. Personally I choose to be agnostic as to whether it's possible to love more than one person with all the devotion that they deserve (and as to whether loving devotion necessarily require exclusivity), but if I were forced to take a stance I'd probably agree with you.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I don't particularly care one way or the other as it does not affect me, though it intrigues me how every possible persuasion can be segmented into its own "community".

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think there's a lot of merit to this, in that it's evident from this and other threads that liberals, at least on this forum, literally can't comprehend why non-liberals disagree with them, whereas conservatives (or, in my case, socialists with what Haidt would classify as conservative moral foundations) have at least some capacity to understand where the forum's strong and in many respects admirable social liberal contingent is coming from.

I don't particularly wish to discuss this further.

[Anna Komnene]

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.

I agree that it's important to make the distinction between polyamorous and polygamist (but to be fair, your anecdote was a polygamous one afaik ).  Probably one of the reasons why it can be difficult to assess is it's not entirely clear what a polyamorous relationship means.  I think it can vary from couple to couple based on what they are comfortable with.  Like all relationships, some work out, and some don't.  Of course it's entirely possible for a marriage to be polyamorous without being polygamous if a married couple decide to carry on having a sexual relationship with another partner without actually marrying them.  If that's the case, it's not likely to pose the same sort of challenges as a poly-marriage because people aren't living in the same house and don't share the same obligations.

I also think it's very important to point out that a polyamorous relationship does not have to be permanent.  A lot of people seem to be getting hung up on this issue.  The relationship can be ended at any time, and ending it doesn't necessarily mean ending the relationship between two of the partners.  The hallmark of polyamorous relationships is truly one of communication between all of the partners.  If someone is really as emotionally distraught or torn up about it as people are suggesting, they can always work out their feelings with their partner and decide not to do it anymore.  If they truly love one another, they'll be able to get through it.

Poly-marriage, on the other hand, poses a unique set of issues, both legal and emotional, like you point out.  It also can't be ended as easily because it would have to go through divorce and possibly child custody disputes, if applicable.  It definitely opens up a whole new kettle of fish.  Despite that, it can also have it's benefits in that expands the number of people in the family.  It's not like there aren't already non-traditional households.  For example, there might be a married couple with an aunt, uncle, or grandparent also living there longterm.  That's not really so different from having 3 "parents" - it's just that people have different titles.  More people contributing to the family can have a lot of benefits.  If anyone's watched "Full House," that's a good example of what I mean.

Anyway, I'm not in a poly-relationship myself, but I have some friends that are.  I guess my main point as it relates to this thread is they are not horrible people.  Quite the opposite, but the reason has nothing to do with their relationship status.  They're human beings just like anyone else, and you wouldn't even know they're polyamorous if they didn't tell you.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think there's a lot of merit to this, in that it's evident from this and other threads that liberals, at least on this forum, literally can't comprehend why non-liberals disagree with them, whereas conservatives (or, in my case, socialists with what Haidt would classify as conservative moral foundations) have at least some capacity to understand where the forum's strong and in many respects admirable social liberal contingent is coming from.

I don't particularly wish to discuss this further.

You're right. The reasons some people consider polyamory morally wrong are bizarre and alien to me. However, someone considering wearing orange shirts morally wrong would be bizarre in the same way. Not understanding the other side's point of view does not necessarily make one wrong.

[Pyro]

If it's between consenting adults, who care

[Antonio the Sixth]

If it's between consenting adults, who care

...

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think there's a lot of merit to this, in that it's evident from this and other threads that liberals, at least on this forum, literally can't comprehend why non-liberals disagree with them, whereas conservatives (or, in my case, socialists with what Haidt would classify as conservative moral foundations) have at least some capacity to understand where the forum's strong and in many respects admirable social liberal contingent is coming from.

I don't particularly wish to discuss this further.

You're right. The reasons some people consider polyamory morally wrong are bizarre and alien to me. However, someone considering wearing orange shirts morally wrong would be bizarre in the same way. Not understanding the other side's point of view does not necessarily make one wrong.

I wasn't trying to say that it did, merely that I find this sort of conversation frustrating and unproductive after a while.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I think everyone has a right to live their lives in whatever way they please if they don't harm others. I also think that I have a right to disagree with that lifestyle. I have nothing against casual sexual relations outside of a relationship, but once two partners enter into a committed relationship, sexual monogamy is the only moral choice.

[Mr. Smith]

Until there's marriage, my opinion remains low.

[Blue3]

Personally, I don't like it, I would prefer monogamy. But my personal opinion should mean zilch. If they're happy, if they're consenting, let them do it, I strongly support their right to exercise their freedom. So I voted other.

[Ebowed]

I prefer monogamy personally, but I don't have a problem with other people in polyamorous relationships at all.  Why should I?

[Lief 🗽]

I've always been curious as to why Atlas is so chock full of prudes.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I've always been curious as to why Atlas is so chock full of prudes.

Prudes are people who've never had sex before. Otherwise, they wouldn't be prudes.

Anyways, after reading this thread, I disavow anyone who condemns the "polyamorous community". If I'm being honest, the idea of it is very cringeworthy to me but, what's far worse, is the idea that someone finds moral fault with polyamory. Enjoying consensual sex doesn't make you a degenerate, it makes you a normal human being and it seems to me that "polyamory" is a great way to have more consensual sex with different people in a way that's honest and that expresses fidelity. It's an abomination like diet soda is an abomination: it's about having your cake and eating it too. That's why prudes on this forum are against it imo.

[Person Man]

Unless kids are getting hurt, people should mind their own business.

[Boris]

How exactly does an mfm relationship, where all individuals are straight and interested in pursuing a long term, romantic relationship even work? What's the relationship between the two males? Do they interact with one another? Are they friends? What happens if they're not? Then how does the woman decide who to spend time with? Splitting it 50-50 sounds terrible, haha. What if all three want sex at the same time? Do the guys introduce her to their friends and family and then lie about her whereabouts when she's spending time with the other guy? Or do you 'come out' as poly; presumably the woman has to if she wants to introduce both guys to her social circles? What do you do about long term living situations and finances? Or is what I'm describing essentially non-existent and there's only one meaningful, romantic relationship occurring with some sex (with consent of the other partner) on the side?

[Antonio the Sixth]

It amazes me that anyone could think that what people like BRTD's girlfriend apparently believe is more harmful than the absurd romantic ideals that most of us were raised to hold that have contributed to countless abusive relationships, suicides, physical violence, mental health problems, and other forms of human suffering.

I think that anyone who wants to take polyamorists to task convincingly needs to explain what kind of alternative they believe more thoroughly, and defend why it is the single best way to live, rather than just expounding on why polyamory is bad.

What is that makes being married to and sexually monogamous with a single person for life special when it's not clear that it's less harmful than the alternative? It's pretty obvious that stable families are a good setting in which can children can grow to adulthood, but what is it that makes marriage more than that?

As I said before, I don't want to assert as a fact that monogamy is the only True and Pure form of love. I freely admit there are things I simply don't know.

What I do know is that love, in any reasonable definition of it, is something fundamental to human happiness and moral growth. While I don't believe that any single act of casual sex is inherently immoral, I do believe that casual sex as a lifestyle is degrading because it leads people to lose sight of love. If that makes me a prude, I'll gladly accept the label.

Now, you'll have to explain me how exactly "romantic ideals" are responsible for any of the things you describe, because to me they're all the product of human instincts that are the opposite of love.

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

It amazes me that anyone could think that what people like BRTD's girlfriend apparently believe is more harmful than the absurd romantic ideals that most of us were raised to hold that have contributed to countless abusive relationships, suicides, physical violence, mental health problems, and other forms of human suffering.

I think that anyone who wants to take polyamorists to task convincingly needs to explain what kind of alternative they believe more thoroughly, and defend why it is the single best way to live, rather than just expounding on why polyamory is bad.

What is that makes being married to and sexually monogamous with a single person for life special when it's not clear that it's less harmful than the alternative? It's pretty obvious that stable families are a good setting in which can children can grow to adulthood, but what is it that makes marriage more than that?

As I said before, I don't want to assert as a fact that monogamy is the only True and Pure form of love. I freely admit there are things I simply don't know.

What I do know is that love, in any reasonable definition of it, is something fundamental to human happiness and moral growth. While I don't believe that any single act of casual sex is inherently immoral, I do believe that casual sex as a lifestyle is degrading because it leads people to lose sight of love. If that makes me a prude, I'll gladly accept the label.

Now, you'll have to explain me how exactly "romantic ideals" are responsible for any of the things you describe, because to me they're all the product of human instincts that are the opposite of love.

Love and sex are different things. Having casual sex with lots of people does not diminish your love for the select few you care deeply about.

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

Love and sex are different things.

True but (in this sense) not a good thing.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How exactly does an mfm relationship, where all individuals are straight and interested in pursuing a long term, romantic relationship even work? What's the relationship between the two males? Do they interact with one another? Are they friends? What happens if they're not? Then how does the woman decide who to spend time with? Splitting it 50-50 sounds terrible, haha. What if all three want sex at the same time? Do the guys introduce her to their friends and family and then lie about her whereabouts when she's spending time with the other guy? Or do you 'come out' as poly; presumably the woman has to if she wants to introduce both guys to her social circles? What do you do about long term living situations and finances? Or is what I'm describing essentially non-existent and there's only one meaningful, romantic relationship occurring with some sex (with consent of the other partner) on the side?

Me and the other guy are friends. Most of this isn't much of an issue because she lives with him and I don't and we live in different states. And we have a shared inter-state social circle thanks to Ingress. But we hang out together. I shared a hotel with them last time, the plan was for her to be in the middle of the bed, but he found it awkward so he slept on a cot. Based on her Facebook she is already very "out" as poly but I have not met any of her family yet.

[Simfan34]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think there's a lot of merit to this, in that it's evident from this and other threads that liberals, at least on this forum, literally can't comprehend why non-liberals disagree with them, whereas conservatives (or, in my case, socialists with what Haidt would classify as conservative moral foundations) have at least some capacity to understand where the forum's strong and in many respects admirable social liberal contingent is coming from.

I don't particularly wish to discuss this further.

I like this, a lot, not only for the obvious reasons, but as it works to answer why the phenomenon you observe exists, which I've always wondered about.

[Kingpoleon]

How exactly does an mfm relationship, where all individuals are straight and interested in pursuing a long term, romantic relationship even work? What's the relationship between the two males? Do they interact with one another? Are they friends? What happens if they're not? Then how does the woman decide who to spend time with? Splitting it 50-50 sounds terrible, haha. What if all three want sex at the same time? Do the guys introduce her to their friends and family and then lie about her whereabouts when she's spending time with the other guy? Or do you 'come out' as poly; presumably the woman has to if she wants to introduce both guys to her social circles? What do you do about long term living situations and finances? Or is what I'm describing essentially non-existent and there's only one meaningful, romantic relationship occurring with some sex (with consent of the other partner) on the side?

I would think that most polyamorous people probably are bisexual, at least to some extent.

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

Love and sex are different things.

True but (in this sense) not a good thing.

How is that "not a good thing". It's a simple fact.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It amazes me that anyone could think that what people like BRTD's girlfriend apparently believe is more harmful than the absurd romantic ideals that most of us were raised to hold that have contributed to countless abusive relationships, suicides, physical violence, mental health problems, and other forms of human suffering.

I think that anyone who wants to take polyamorists to task convincingly needs to explain what kind of alternative they believe more thoroughly, and defend why it is the single best way to live, rather than just expounding on why polyamory is bad.

What is that makes being married to and sexually monogamous with a single person for life special when it's not clear that it's less harmful than the alternative? It's pretty obvious that stable families are a good setting in which can children can grow to adulthood, but what is it that makes marriage more than that?

As I said before, I don't want to assert as a fact that monogamy is the only True and Pure form of love. I freely admit there are things I simply don't know.

What I do know is that love, in any reasonable definition of it, is something fundamental to human happiness and moral growth. While I don't believe that any single act of casual sex is inherently immoral, I do believe that casual sex as a lifestyle is degrading because it leads people to lose sight of love. If that makes me a prude, I'll gladly accept the label.

Now, you'll have to explain me how exactly "romantic ideals" are responsible for any of the things you describe, because to me they're all the product of human instincts that are the opposite of love.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean when you say that "casual sex causes people to lose sight of love."

I believe that someone who spent a good part of their life having sex without emotional connection would eventually develop a purely utilitarian vision of it, a vision incompatible with the idea of sex as one of the (many) manifestations of love. Do you dispute this assumption?

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

Love and sex are different things.

True but (in this sense) not a good thing.

How is that "not a good thing". It's a simple fact.

And as we all know states of fact are never desirable or undesirable. Don't be obtuse.