Opinion of Polyamory

[DavidB.]

Laughably stupid and ruining all that is good (normal)

[Vosem]

I think I'm in agreement with Anthony here in that, while I don't think it's inherently unacceptable, in practice it seems very difficult to ensure an equitable division of power in such a relationship, and to ensure that no one is abused. But as long as abuse isn't happening, well, I'm a stalwart believer that two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.

[Person Man]

Do we really need to discuss this again?

Sigh... If someone is for some reason interested in my take and missed my previous posts, I think it's not inherently unacceptable, but (from what I've heard of it) is often practiced in ways that entail other morally unacceptable attitudes.

A lot of things are like that.

I think I'm in agreement with Anthony here in that, while I don't think it's inherently unacceptable, in practice it seems very difficult to ensure an equitable division of power in such a relationship, and to ensure that no one is abused. But as long as abuse isn't happening, well, I'm a stalwart believer that two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.

The highest ethical principle here is each person's entitlement to their space.
 My take on it is that it might be good to experiment with but I don't think it is a way to live your entire life like. Then again, I was pretty homophobic when I was like 16 and this is where I evolved to when I was like 17 or 18 on homosexuality and by the time I was 19, I was totally fine with it so who knows? But this has been my view on polyamoury for the last 5 years so maybe I won't evolve on the issue.

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

Awful. But I guess the point of humanity is to have sex with anyone you can.

What a compelling argument about why people having multiple consentual, loving, kind relationships is evil.

It should be obvious.

Thats BS. You just can't name a reason to justify what your gut says.

Looking at history, and present examples, even hippie kind it should be obvious.

That never stopped you.

huh?

Left wing economic policy

I'll show myself out now.

The thing is neither left-wing economic policy, nor socialism has failed in history.

Neo-liberals should really join the Republicans, but I'm a democrat, because I want to smoke pot, and have sex.

So being skeptical of the practicality of full-blown socialism makes you a republican now?

Of course not, you can be skeptical of full-blown socialism, but you rolled your eyes at left-wing economic policy, therein socialist policies, or at least policies of social democratic natures, as having failed around Europe, Australia, and Canada. Conturies that had, historically been socialistic-orientated economics, with social democracies, have been one of the most-functioning and most equal conturies. Take New Zealand (which even verged towards a planned socialist economy in many ways), pre-Lange, and Scandinavian Nordic Centuries, UK pre thatcher even in Latin America and Asia, social democratic policies, derived from socialist morals/ideals, or socialist policies in them implemented left-wing, socialist parties have uprooted people from poverty, and exploitation. I would go far to say, that has been the cases even in many communist states of Africa, Cuba, and Asia, though that's is only a fragment and portion of socialism is.

Rolling your eyes against left-wing economic policy, and rolling your eyes at any aspect of socialism, would make you a right-winger, neoliberal and a republican.

You missed my point. You tend to do that.

polyamory: the practice of engaging in multiple sexual relationships with the consent of all the people involved.

polygamy:the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time. Literally the same thing in marriage.

The same thing, with polyamory happens in the west, the key purpose of a relationship between different partners not for love or dedication but based upon sex, which promotes emotional hurt on both parties, particularly women.

...Those are very different things. For one thing, Polygamy isn't open, and is codified in marriage. The abuse happens in a few crazy rural mormon towns out west where religion, creepy gender roles, etc. are common. Modern polyamory is more of a city/suburb thing, based on a bunch of people deciding that they want relationships with multiple people. It turns out the creepy abuse is a reflection of a regressive culture that views women as completely devoid of rights.(Monogamous relationships were once full of quite similar abuse, but the society's that practiced it were the ones that happened to progress as a society.

The thing is, polyamory in many a cases, does often result in like a cult-like status for one person, while others feel left out, in many cases, increases chances of abuse towards, but not exclusively women.

Many a cases, causes negative experiences towards those participating, and disregards a relationship for love and commitment, but from what I understand polyamory are sexual relationships, and for sex?, disregarding relationships for one's commitment, and fellowship towards each other. Monogamous relationships or should be based upon commitment, are much more stable, causes lot less problems, and are inherently better.

What, I can't hear you over all those unsubstantiated assertions and overgeneralizations you made up as you were typing. There is zero evidence for your claims, and I'm not debating with you anymore. You are annoying, unable to make good points, etc.

Laughably stupid and ruining all that is good (normal)

Such a thought-out and well-defended position.

[Ban my account ffs!]

If that's your thing, that's fine.  Personally I won't ever be in such a relationship.

[White Trash]

Being born a bastard to a single mother, the idea of monogamy and the nuclear family was always something I romanticized and yearned for. My entire life I have desired the stability and the structure of the traditional marriage, because growing up in a stable, loving and whole family was something that was denied to me. As a result, I find people who have the opportunity to be a part of that sacred institution but then proceed to disgrace it and tarnish it to be terribly disturbing. That sort of thing is personally unfathomable to me given my experiences, but I don't let it effect my political position.

I will freely admit that my stance is a little irrational and based mostly on emotion and anger, but I just felt it necessary to get it off my chest.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I will freely admit that my stance is a little irrational and based mostly on emotion and anger, but I just felt it necessary to get it off my chest.

I don't think it's irrational. The idea that a stable household made of two loving parents is best conducive to child development is far from absurd.

The only thing is only to keep in mind that it's very hard to force certain social outcomes through policy, and that doing so might sometimes make matter worse.

[Intell]

Awful. But I guess the point of humanity is to have sex with anyone you can.

What a compelling argument about why people having multiple consentual, loving, kind relationships is evil.

It should be obvious.

Thats BS. You just can't name a reason to justify what your gut says.

Looking at history, and present examples, even hippie kind it should be obvious.

That never stopped you.

huh?

Left wing economic policy

I'll show myself out now.

The thing is neither left-wing economic policy, nor socialism has failed in history.

Neo-liberals should really join the Republicans, but I'm a democrat, because I want to smoke pot, and have sex.

So being skeptical of the practicality of full-blown socialism makes you a republican now?

Of course not, you can be skeptical of full-blown socialism, but you rolled your eyes at left-wing economic policy, therein socialist policies, or at least policies of social democratic natures, as having failed around Europe, Australia, and Canada. Conturies that had, historically been socialistic-orientated economics, with social democracies, have been one of the most-functioning and most equal conturies. Take New Zealand (which even verged towards a planned socialist economy in many ways), pre-Lange, and Scandinavian Nordic Centuries, UK pre thatcher even in Latin America and Asia, social democratic policies, derived from socialist morals/ideals, or socialist policies in them implemented left-wing, socialist parties have uprooted people from poverty, and exploitation. I would go far to say, that has been the cases even in many communist states of Africa, Cuba, and Asia, though that's is only a fragment and portion of socialism is.

Rolling your eyes against left-wing economic policy, and rolling your eyes at any aspect of socialism, would make you a right-winger, neoliberal and a republican.

You missed my point. You tend to do that.

You rolled your eyes, at left-wing economic policy and any aspect of socialism has failed in history. That would make you a right-winger and a republican, yes.

I did not miss your point, you can be skeptical of full-blown socialism. However, i said socialism in general has not failed in history, and you rolled your eyes at that and left-wing economics generally failing in history, which would make you a right-winger yes. I did not in any way miss your "point".

[Intell]

Awful. But I guess the point of humanity is to have sex with anyone you can.

What a compelling argument about why people having multiple consentual, loving, kind relationships is evil.

It should be obvious.

Thats BS. You just can't name a reason to justify what your gut says.

Looking at history, and present examples, even hippie kind it should be obvious.

That never stopped you.

huh?

Left wing economic policy

I'll show myself out now.

The thing is neither left-wing economic policy, nor socialism has failed in history.

Neo-liberals should really join the Republicans, but I'm a democrat, because I want to smoke pot, and have sex.

So being skeptical of the practicality of full-blown socialism makes you a republican now?

Of course not, you can be skeptical of full-blown socialism, but you rolled your eyes at left-wing economic policy, therein socialist policies, or at least policies of social democratic natures, as having failed around Europe, Australia, and Canada. Conturies that had, historically been socialistic-orientated economics, with social democracies, have been one of the most-functioning and most equal conturies. Take New Zealand (which even verged towards a planned socialist economy in many ways), pre-Lange, and Scandinavian Nordic Centuries, UK pre thatcher even in Latin America and Asia, social democratic policies, derived from socialist morals/ideals, or socialist policies in them implemented left-wing, socialist parties have uprooted people from poverty, and exploitation. I would go far to say, that has been the cases even in many communist states of Africa, Cuba, and Asia, though that's is only a fragment and portion of socialism is.

Rolling your eyes against left-wing economic policy, and rolling your eyes at any aspect of socialism, would make you a right-winger, neoliberal and a republican.

You missed my point. You tend to do that.

polyamory: the practice of engaging in multiple sexual relationships with the consent of all the people involved.

polygamy:the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time. Literally the same thing in marriage.

The same thing, with polyamory happens in the west, the key purpose of a relationship between different partners not for love or dedication but based upon sex, which promotes emotional hurt on both parties, particularly women.

...Those are very different things. For one thing, Polygamy isn't open, and is codified in marriage. The abuse happens in a few crazy rural mormon towns out west where religion, creepy gender roles, etc. are common. Modern polyamory is more of a city/suburb thing, based on a bunch of people deciding that they want relationships with multiple people. It turns out the creepy abuse is a reflection of a regressive culture that views women as completely devoid of rights.(Monogamous relationships were once full of quite similar abuse, but the society's that practiced it were the ones that happened to progress as a society.

The thing is, polyamory in many a cases, does often result in like a cult-like status for one person, while others feel left out, in many cases, increases chances of abuse towards, but not exclusively women.

Many a cases, causes negative experiences towards those participating, and disregards a relationship for love and commitment, but from what I understand polyamory are sexual relationships, and for sex?, disregarding relationships for one's commitment, and fellowship towards each other. Monogamous relationships or should be based upon commitment, are much more stable, causes lot less problems, and are inherently better.

What, I can't hear you over all those unsubstantiated assertions and overgeneralizations you made up as you were typing. There is zero evidence for your claims, and I'm not debating with you anymore. You are annoying, unable to make good points, etc.

Laughably stupid and ruining all that is good (normal)

Such a thought-out and well-defended position.

So you don't care to refute, nice.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Laughably stupid and ruining all that is good (normal)

Such a thought-out and well-defended position.

I refuse to legitimize the position by giving it a debate. Treat it like the gold standard nuts.

[Virginiá]

I am kind of curious what percentage of polyamorous relationships vs monogamous relationships work out long-term. It really seems rather complex to me. I've seen many people struggle with one partner, so it is hard for me to imagine a whole other component to such a relationship.

That being said, if the consenting adults can make it work, then good luck to them. It's really none of my (or anyone else's really) business what consenting adults decide to do in terms of relationships, so long as it is legal.

[The Mikado]

I have a whole host of concerns about joint property ownership and income tax filings when more than two people are joined, and especially the nature of divorce law when, say, one person leaves a four-person marriage. It would be frighteningly complex and, unlike same sex marriage, would require rewriting marriage laws from top to bottom to account for all of the scenarios.

[Bacon King]

I have a whole host of concerns about joint property ownership and income tax filings when more than two people are joined, and especially the nature of divorce law when, say, one person leaves a four-person marriage. It would be frighteningly complex and, unlike same sex marriage, would require rewriting marriage laws from top to bottom to account for all of the scenarios.

I feel this is the only reasonable justification for opposing (legal recognition of) polyamorous relationships. There is no reason why anyone should be concerned with what other reasonable consenting adults are doing together if that's what they want

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Being born a bastard to a single mother, the idea of monogamy and the nuclear family was always something I romanticized and yearned for. My entire life I have desired the stability and the structure of the traditional marriage, because growing up in a stable, loving and whole family was something that was denied to me. As a result, I find people who have the opportunity to be a part of that sacred institution but then proceed to disgrace it and tarnish it to be terribly disturbing.

Dude, I could have written all but one word of this myself.

[White Trash]

Being born a bastard to a single mother, the idea of monogamy and the nuclear family was always something I romanticized and yearned for. My entire life I have desired the stability and the structure of the traditional marriage, because growing up in a stable, loving and whole family was something that was denied to me. As a result, I find people who have the opportunity to be a part of that sacred institution but then proceed to disgrace it and tarnish it to be terribly disturbing.

Dude, I could have written all but one word of this myself.

Ain't it funny how the bastard sons of con men and naive young girls are so often left out of the social justice conversation these days?

[LLR]

The moral implication from accepting polyamory is that cheating is okay. Indeed, polyamory can often be an excuse for cheating. It's a bad practice, especially when it comes to raising children and stuff. The fewer children having to live with a complicated family situation, the better. And polyamory can create damn complicated situations. I just don't see why it's necessary, either. It also seems difficult to organize.

I mean, I'm cool with other people doing it, but once they actually have to raise a family, it starts to get messier and less good. I know personally, I'd never engage in it (but it's not like anyone would ever want to be in a relationship with me, much less two people!)

Voted Unacceptable because it seems unnecessary, pointless, and slightly morally wrong. Also SG and mikado's concerns, of course.

[Green Line]

Neither good nor bad.  I don't care what other consenting adults do in their own bedroom.  But I voted unacceptable because I would never.

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

Awful. But I guess the point of humanity is to have sex with anyone you can.

What a compelling argument about why people having multiple consentual, loving, kind relationships is evil.

It should be obvious.

Thats BS. You just can't name a reason to justify what your gut says.

Looking at history, and present examples, even hippie kind it should be obvious.

That never stopped you.

huh?

Left wing economic policy

I'll show myself out now.

The thing is neither left-wing economic policy, nor socialism has failed in history.

Neo-liberals should really join the Republicans, but I'm a democrat, because I want to smoke pot, and have sex.

So being skeptical of the practicality of full-blown socialism makes you a republican now?

Of course not, you can be skeptical of full-blown socialism, but you rolled your eyes at left-wing economic policy, therein socialist policies, or at least policies of social democratic natures, as having failed around Europe, Australia, and Canada. Conturies that had, historically been socialistic-orientated economics, with social democracies, have been one of the most-functioning and most equal conturies. Take New Zealand (which even verged towards a planned socialist economy in many ways), pre-Lange, and Scandinavian Nordic Centuries, UK pre thatcher even in Latin America and Asia, social democratic policies, derived from socialist morals/ideals, or socialist policies in them implemented left-wing, socialist parties have uprooted people from poverty, and exploitation. I would go far to say, that has been the cases even in many communist states of Africa, Cuba, and Asia, though that's is only a fragment and portion of socialism is.

Rolling your eyes against left-wing economic policy, and rolling your eyes at any aspect of socialism, would make you a right-winger, neoliberal and a republican.

You missed my point. You tend to do that.

You rolled your eyes, at left-wing economic policy and any aspect of socialism has failed in history. That would make you a right-winger and a republican, yes.

I did not miss your point, you can be skeptical of full-blown socialism. However, i said socialism in general has not failed in history, and you rolled your eyes at that and left-wing economics generally failing in history, which would make you a right-winger yes. I did not in any way miss your "point".

Saying that none of the many economic strategies that failed was on the left is laughable. The effectiveness of a policy isn't purely dependent on its position on a political compass.

I rolled my eyes at "left wing economics and socialism have never failed."

And with that I'm putting you on ignore.

Laughably stupid and ruining all that is good (normal)

Such a thought-out and well-defended position.

I refuse to legitimize the position by giving it a debate. Treat it like the gold standard nuts.

Cute. What a good way to avoid the fact that you have no legs to stand on.

[LLR]

Scarlet, I'd like you to respond to the much better points made by SG, Mikado, and I. Don't waste your time on Intell's nonsense.

[Intell]

Awful. But I guess the point of humanity is to have sex with anyone you can.

What a compelling argument about why people having multiple consentual, loving, kind relationships is evil.

It should be obvious.

Thats BS. You just can't name a reason to justify what your gut says.

Looking at history, and present examples, even hippie kind it should be obvious.

That never stopped you.

huh?

Left wing economic policy

I'll show myself out now.

The thing is neither left-wing economic policy, nor socialism has failed in history.

Neo-liberals should really join the Republicans, but I'm a democrat, because I want to smoke pot, and have sex.

So being skeptical of the practicality of full-blown socialism makes you a republican now?

Of course not, you can be skeptical of full-blown socialism, but you rolled your eyes at left-wing economic policy, therein socialist policies, or at least policies of social democratic natures, as having failed around Europe, Australia, and Canada. Conturies that had, historically been socialistic-orientated economics, with social democracies, have been one of the most-functioning and most equal conturies. Take New Zealand (which even verged towards a planned socialist economy in many ways), pre-Lange, and Scandinavian Nordic Centuries, UK pre thatcher even in Latin America and Asia, social democratic policies, derived from socialist morals/ideals, or socialist policies in them implemented left-wing, socialist parties have uprooted people from poverty, and exploitation. I would go far to say, that has been the cases even in many communist states of Africa, Cuba, and Asia, though that's is only a fragment and portion of socialism is.

Rolling your eyes against left-wing economic policy, and rolling your eyes at any aspect of socialism, would make you a right-winger, neoliberal and a republican.

You missed my point. You tend to do that.

You rolled your eyes, at left-wing economic policy and any aspect of socialism has failed in history. That would make you a right-winger and a republican, yes.

I did not miss your point, you can be skeptical of full-blown socialism. However, i said socialism in general has not failed in history, and you rolled your eyes at that and left-wing economics generally failing in history, which would make you a right-winger yes. I did not in any way miss your "point".

Saying that none of the many economic strategies that failed was on the left is laughable. The effectiveness of a policy isn't purely dependent on its position on a political compass.

I rolled my eyes at "left wing economics and socialism have never failed."

And with that I'm putting you on ignore.

I said nor but ok.

[Intell]

I still haven't gotten a good response to why my opinion is nonsense.

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

Being born a bastard to a single mother, the idea of monogamy and the nuclear family was always something I romanticized and yearned for. My entire life I have desired the stability and the structure of the traditional marriage, because growing up in a stable, loving and whole family was something that was denied to me. As a result, I find people who have the opportunity to be a part of that sacred institution but then proceed to disgrace it and tarnish it to be terribly disturbing. That sort of thing is personally unfathomable to me given my experiences, but I don't let it effect my political position.

I will freely admit that my stance is a little irrational and based mostly on emotion and anger, but I just felt it necessary to get it off my chest.

I'd imagine that a lot of that is your mother had had specific trouble taking care of you alone without the resources to do it properly. The thing about polyamory is that it isn't being single. There are often three, four, or five people pretty directly involved in parenting a child.

The moral implication from accepting polyamory is that cheating is okay. Indeed, polyamory can often be an excuse for cheating.

The whole concept of cheating is derived from an assumption of monogamy being obligitory.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-without-limits/201103/polyamory-and-children

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mikado's point was about legal concerns being a nightmare. That is a problem with the law, not with the relationships. Its a point for why legal recognition is ... difficult, but not a point against the relationships being moral.

[White Trash]

I don't think that my mother being on her lonesome was really the central issue with my upbringing, nor do I think that polyamory is the answer as you've implied. Your link that you've provided to LLR from Psychology Today doesn't impress me. There is not a single piece of data or objectivity anywhere in it. These are simply the observations of a psychology professor from a third rate business school and should be taken as such.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I'd like to observe that "consenting adults" isn't actually a complete moral argument, appealing as it is to us denizens of "I'm okay, you're okay, all we need out of life is to Be True To Ourselves" post-modernity. Substantially it's the same as "it's my First Amendment right" or "it's a free country". All it means is that what you're doing isn't a felony.

My mother had a great deal of help raising me--from relatives, friends, my godparents, social workers, and so forth--but I still suffered a great deal from not having the stability and conceptual felicity of two clear-cut parental figures. Please don't armchair diagnose what the problems with other people's childhoods were.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I mean I don't think we should be throwing people in jail for this but It's not like I'm going to applaud those who do it as some poor courageous disadvantaged minority because of some nonsensical "omg same love who r u to judge" argument.