Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
"Open" relationships come and go as a fad of sorts and it seems we are in one of those phases. My concise answer is that "Polyamory" (LMAO at that title!!) is rubbish. Open relationships don't work except in the Playboy mansion (and that can only be [I]loosely[/I] described as a relationship). I also think the underlying reasoning is completely ridiculous and insulting to both men and women. Monogamy has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with maturity.
I'm pretty firm on this one.
Brigid
Personally, I agree with you entirely that these womens' reasons for why they choose to be polyamorous seem very poorly thought out, and think that rigid scientific explanations are insufficient in explaining something as complex as human sexuality. However, different people choose to adopt unconventional lifestyles for DIFFERENT reasons. Just because the premises of an argument is flawed doesn't mean the proposition is. I was kind of offended at your comment which equated polyamory to a lack of maturity. One of common arguments in favour of polyamory is that forces them to consciously deal with their personal insecurities and (arguably inevitable) feelings of jealousy in an emotionally and spiritually healthy and sustainable way, in that they must address them at the source (themselves) before cutting off the triggers of their jealousy, allowing their own insecurities and understanding of them to sink back somewhere into their subconscious to be forgotten. And isn't this type of possessive jealousy often selfishly driven (although I understand a degree of selfishness is necessary in certain situations), something we have to teach children not to do (i.e. that they must share their toys, not snatch things off others etc.) because they are naturally egocentric? In other words, can't the possessiveness and jealousy which often drive the moralising arguments for monogamy be considered immature traits? And from what I've read/heard/understood, the most common argument for polyamory is not some patriarchal biological model invented by socially retarded research scientists (*jks*), but the philosophical standpoint that love is not a finite commodity - however I would take this further and propose that real love is not even a 'commodity' at all, but a selfless and nurturing emotion which exists within an individual, rather than something which can be measurably 'exchanged'.
I've included some links below which address the issue with a little bit more complexity, and yes, while I agree that some of the arguments are a little bit flawed and perhaps biased in some areas (hey, I didn't write them, but I'm considering writing an essay on the subject) they do provide a fair amount of brain food:
I am not suggesting that Polyamory is a cure for jealousy and possessiveness, nor that feelings of jealousy are not warranted in some polyamorous relationships if a persons needs aren't being met (within reason). And yes, the lines between what is okay and what isn't are vague - as they are in any monogamous relationship. But I understand, if it's not for you, it's not for you, just like I can't understand why some women like women, because I don't feel that way. I'm sure you don't criticise their lifestyle choice by branding it as 'immature' just because it is supposedly less practical than a traditional cis-gendered heterosexual relationships in which property can easily be acquired and families easily be raised. In a perfect world. My conclusion is that neither one (monogamy or polyamory) is inherently superior to the other, provided that the individuals involved possess the inner qualities to make them work. They are just different, just like heterosexuality and homosexuality. It's all about individual preference.
((And just a comment on the argument of divorce rates (just to prove I'm not as much of a moron as you might like to think). I don't think divorce rates are entirely linked to a greater sense of relationship dissatisfaction in traditional marriages today than in the past. I think this is probably related to the fact that legally, divorce is easier to obtain, and economically one party isn't necessarily favoured over the other, women are working as professionals and earning incomes similar to, if not equal to men, therefore aren't necessarily dependent upon them to earn a decent living, and finally, family models outside the traditional 1950s 'nuclear' family are more socially acceptable, as are views which deviate from the traditional (often religious) views of the sanctity of marriage, making divorce more economically and socially viable option for many people.))
[[I]B]Polyamory[/B]: the practice/lifestyle of being open to having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved[/I]
I went to a Buddhist study group last night that was held by a local Unitarian Universalist Church. Two women said they were involved in a polyamorous relationship with the same man, and they hoped that becoming part of a UU congregation would offer them spiritual support.
They certainly seemed happy and well adjusted, and of course I was at a loss. One woman identifies herself as a "spiritual seeker" (like me) and finds that Buddhist teachings enhance her lifestyle perfectly -- releasing attachments and desires, freeing oneself from possessiveness, etc.
WOW! That's what Mormon women in the FLDS church say; if they feel a pang of jealousy toward their 5 or 6 co-wives, they work to overcome the jealousy.
If those 2 women are so keen on polyamory, why don't they take extra guys?
tibetan buddhist society condones polygamy for the wealthy and polyandry for the poor, however as a muslim friend once said to me "if youre really in love with your wife you only have one wife" so monogamy is perhaps an ideal???
Comments
http://www.nyingma.com/artman/publish/ngakpa_root_commitments.shtml
They also maintain the pancashila.
I've included some links below which address the issue with a little bit more complexity, and yes, while I agree that some of the arguments are a little bit flawed and perhaps biased in some areas (hey, I didn't write them, but I'm considering writing an essay on the subject) they do provide a fair amount of brain food:
Polyamory: What it is and what it isn't
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/1356&page=3
Polyamory? The Theory of Jealously Management
http://www.xeromag.com/fvpolyjealousy.html
I am not suggesting that Polyamory is a cure for jealousy and possessiveness, nor that feelings of jealousy are not warranted in some polyamorous relationships if a persons needs aren't being met (within reason). And yes, the lines between what is okay and what isn't are vague - as they are in any monogamous relationship. But I understand, if it's not for you, it's not for you, just like I can't understand why some women like women, because I don't feel that way. I'm sure you don't criticise their lifestyle choice by branding it as 'immature' just because it is supposedly less practical than a traditional cis-gendered heterosexual relationships in which property can easily be acquired and families easily be raised. In a perfect world. My conclusion is that neither one (monogamy or polyamory) is inherently superior to the other, provided that the individuals involved possess the inner qualities to make them work. They are just different, just like heterosexuality and homosexuality. It's all about individual preference.
((And just a comment on the argument of divorce rates (just to prove I'm not as much of a moron as you might like to think). I don't think divorce rates are entirely linked to a greater sense of relationship dissatisfaction in traditional marriages today than in the past. I think this is probably related to the fact that legally, divorce is easier to obtain, and economically one party isn't necessarily favoured over the other, women are working as professionals and earning incomes similar to, if not equal to men, therefore aren't necessarily dependent upon them to earn a decent living, and finally, family models outside the traditional 1950s 'nuclear' family are more socially acceptable, as are views which deviate from the traditional (often religious) views of the sanctity of marriage, making divorce more economically and socially viable option for many people.))
If those 2 women are so keen on polyamory, why don't they take extra guys?
1st Man : Jeez, she is so beautiful! What I wouldn't do...
2nd Man: Yea, but somebody is tired of effing her.