Monogamy. [Archive]

Random Precision

20th June 2009, 13:54

I see no reason why monogamy would disappear nor do I think it is preferable. The only difference is that people will do it because they want to, not because of of any laws or monetary dependence on their spouse.

This.

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

hammer and sickle

20th June 2009, 19:05

Black Sheep

20th June 2009, 20:07

If you have trouble imagining 'how the hell could polygamy be common practice', think of a different human relationship.For example your friends.

You have / "socially allowed" to have more than one friends.But they are all your friends, maybe you have one or more that is special, with whom you get along better, but still, in general you do the same stuff with all of them.Your special friend doesnt mind you being friends with other people.

Now apply that example in analogy to sexual relationships. :)

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

20th June 2009, 20:25

Not so much doing away with monogamy as doing away with the notion one has to conform to the traditional, monogamous model to exist without noticeable discrimination.

AngelCity Neo-Stalinist

20th June 2009, 20:48

I'm sorry CaptainJack but more often than not it seems that those who try wish to do away with monogamy are really just horny and can't comit; granted, that's not always the case but monogamous relationships will never be obsolete(but I know most of you aren't saying that) if two people really have found a connection with one another. To deny someone the right to monogamy is tyranny and not truly communist- free love includes the right to whatever kind of relationship you wish to partake in. Family seems to be apart of human nature- it's even present in the most "primitive" of societies, tribes that live in a communial socialist manner. Under communism the definition of what exactly a family unit entails will be radically different yes, but it will still exist in some form or other none the less. Monogmay won't be absolutely necesary for child rearing- I agree that raising children will be by and large a communial effort- but it will continue never the less.

Il Medico

21st June 2009, 02:37

Open relationships are broken relationships. I dont see how any to partners can agree to "be together" but not be together at the same time! How can you say you love someone and then go with someone else at the same time!? Communism advocates the changing of the family structure not destroying it altogether!
Open relationships are by no means broken ones. Good relationships are based in two types of love. The first type is that obsessive love, 'you never want to leave' feeling. However this love is very temporary, look at any long term relationship. This love devolves into a best-friend type of love. Your spouse isn't your lover (although you do still have sex) but you companion. Sex is not the basis of love or relationships. If you won't stay someone because they had sex with a co-worker or such, then perhaps your love for them is not that strong. The sense of betrayal is, I believe a result of dependency. You feel threatened that you will lose the person that you need. In a communist society dependency (which is created by economic factors of capitalism) will be no more. Thus sex will be just another pass time, and recreation, like say drinking. People of course will be able to have monogamous relationships, but they will not need to. And because they don't need to, and many scientist have suggested that man is not naturally monogamous Because of this I doubt it will still be a wide spread practice after the revolution.

Il Medico

22nd June 2009, 07:59

I don't like it. I think we should have as many sex-partners as possible. Sometimes maybe ugly people can't do this?
I agree. Have sex with who you want to have sex with (within reason). People should not have to have sex with only one person, after it is just sex. And I am sure even unattractive people could have lots of sex if they didn't get so down on themselves.

Stranger Than Paradise

22nd June 2009, 14:00

Monogamy will be the right of the individual to paticipate in. The difference will be that there will not be the capitalist patriarchy of monogamy in todays society. Monogamy doesn't have to mean marriage either as I think marriage is an entierely patriarchal capitalist device also. The family will take on a completely new dynamic in communist society and I think previous norms of obedience and conformity within families will be rightfully done away with. I myself favour monogamy in an entierely anti-patirarchal form.

Killfacer

22nd June 2009, 14:19

Stranger Than Paradise

22nd June 2009, 15:59

This is basically what i was going to say.

The main point for me is that it is entirely the personel choice of those involved.

Exactly, monogamy is not the problem in todays society it is the freedom that is lacking in our decisions to pariticipate in the relations we want to. I see nothing wrong fundamentally with a relationship where there are two people whose only sexual partners are each other.

puke on cops

22nd June 2009, 16:27

Monogamy makes me want to punch babies with gunfire.

mel

22nd June 2009, 17:12

Monogamy makes me want to punch babies with gunfire.

Very important contribution there, shooting children is exactly what this thread needed.

Thus sex will be just another pass time, and recreation, like say drinking.

I agree with most here who say that monogamy should be a personal choice. Absolutely, people should be able to have sex with as many or as few people as they choose. That being said, I don't see how it is possible that sex would become as casual as drinking with your friends. The fact of the matter is that sex is an entirely different class of action than most other activities that people here have been trying to equate it with.

What makes sex different? For starters, all sex (not just sexual intercourse) outright requires a certain degree of mutual trust, closeness, comfort and physical intimacy that most other activities do not. There is no other activity which requires the complete invasion of personal boundaries (especially any type of sex which involves any type of penetration) to the extent which sex does. While it is possible that people will no longer have physical boundaries, or they will be monumentally lessened, I don't see that happening on a large scale. Even if it does, people who prefer monogamy should not be stigmatized post-revolution as non-monogamy is today. I think this is pretty clear, however a lot of people here are even now stigmatizing monogamy as worthless, meaningless, and saying that it will all but completely disappear.

The sense of betrayal is, I believe a result of dependency. You feel threatened that you will lose the person that you need. In a communist society dependency (which is created by economic factors of capitalism) will be no more.

I don't at all agree with the statement that dependency is created by economic factors of capitalism alone. Although economic dependency will no longer be necessary, there will be people who are dependent on one another emotionally. People who get along extremely well together, who complement one another, who help each other through hardships (and there will still be hardships. Social problems and health problems don't just go away because economic problems do) and who would have a much more difficult time coping with those things without one another. People with a high degree of mutual respect, trust, and interdependence will, I think, still exist despite that there is no longer an economic and social requirement for them to do so.

The sense of betrayal when a loved one has sex with someone else I think is less about dependence and more about trust (at least in most cases I've observed). There is a mutual agreement in place that the two people are in a monogamous relationship (now this agreement in itself may have been coerced, or entered into out of economic dependency in some, many or even most cases, but most certainly not all and so we can assume for the sake of argument that this agreement was entered into willingly) and one party in that agreement has sex with someone else. The sense of betrayal comes from the breakdown of trust in the relationship. Hopefully the problem of "cheating" goes away if most people who "cheat" were, in fact, coerced into a monogamous arrangement due to economic dependency of one party on the other, as they would no longer need to enter that arrangement to begin with...but to reduce the sense of betrayal that one gets when a significant other engages in an intimate relationship with a third party to a function of economic dependency is, I think, a stretch.

I agree that the structure of the family now should not be forced on anyone, people should be free to structure their families however they like, including a family which resembles the types of families that exist today. Who are you to say that two people in a monogamous relationship, and who have publicly declared and celebrated their devotion to one another in front of all of their closest friends and family (aka gotten married), should not be allowed to live in a house with their children and a dog? Would it even be so bad, if one of those two people enjoyed caring for children, enjoyed cleaning and wanted to work in the house while the other worked outside the home? Absolutely this should not be necessary, by any stretch of the imagination. If at any point one of those two people found the situation abhorrent or not what they were expecting, or unpleasant it would be, post-revolution, the easiest thing in the world to pack up and walk away and move somewhere else, get a different job, or the same job in a different house, or in an apartment, or in some sort of yet-to-be-designed communal dwelling.

The name of the game is freedom of movement, and total individual control. A person should be no more tied to their situation as they are now to the clothes that they are wearing on any given day, or the color of their hair. As long as the character of necessity is removed from the structures mandated by the current society I see no reason that people who wanted to should not be allowed to structure their lives and relationships however they best see fit, including exactly the way that they are now.

the last donut of the night

23rd June 2009, 00:46

The Ungovernable Farce

23rd June 2009, 11:40

Open relationships are broken relationships. I dont see how any to partners can agree to "be together" but not be together at the same time! How can you say you love someone and then go with someone else at the same time!?
Lolreactionary. How can you say you love someone and then put restrictions on their behaviour, preventing them from doing things that make them happy?

I'm sorry CaptainJack but more often than not it seems that those who try wish to do away with monogamy are really just horny and can't comit; granted, that's not always the case but monogamous relationships will never be obsolete(but I know most of you aren't saying that) if two people really have found a connection with one another. To deny someone the right to monogamy is tyranny and not truly communist- free love includes the right to whatever kind of relationship you wish to partake in.
I don't think anyone's talking about denying anyone else the right to monogamy. I just don't see why many people would continue to opt for it when more compassionate, humane, mature relationship models were easily available instead.

The problem with that hypothesis is that you assume sexual/private bonds are the equivalent of friendships. They are much different.
Yes, there are differences. But I don't think those differences change the fundamental point of the analogy. Siblings are not equivalent to friends, but you can still have more than one sibling as well.

mel

23rd June 2009, 16:09

How can you say you love someone and then put restrictions on their behaviour, preventing them from doing things that make them happy?

If two people agree to enter into a monogamous relationship, that person put a restriction on their own behavior because remaining in the monogamous relationship makes them happier than frequent sex with many partners. Things that are pleasurable do not always make a person truly happy, and there are people who do experience a certain type of love that they feel would be cheapened if there were extra people added into the mix. While adults who love one another don't outright forbid actions on one another, they do often have certain conditions for their social arrangements which, if breached, act as a sort of termination of their "relationship contract". I may love one of my friends dearly, but restrict them from doing something that would make them happy, such as spreading things I told them in confidence around our social circle, or it would function as a breach of our "relationship contract" and I would feel betrayed and have difficulty remaining friends with them. All relationships are built on a certain degree of trust. The more intimate the relationship, the higher level of trust involved in it. Your relationship with your neighbor requires less trust than your relationship with your best friend. Your relationship with a sexual partner requires even more trust, because a violation of sexual boundaries is more traumatizing than if a best friend betrayed a secret.

I don't think anyone's talking about denying anyone else the right to monogamy. I just don't see why many people would continue to opt for it when more compassionate, humane, mature relationship models were easily available instead.

What makes polyamory inherently more compassionate, humane, and mature than monogamy? The only reason that monogamy is potentially inhumane and incompassionate now is because many people enter into that agreement unwillingly out of necessity because the social relations of capitalism create that dependency. However, there are people even in capitalism who are not economically dependent on one another who enter into that arrangement willingly. Who is to say that two people in a post revolutionary society are in an "inhumane, in-compassionate, and immature" relationship model because they feel that monogamy is best for them. On this forum, people talk so much about the terrible stigma attached to polyamory (and I agree, it should not be stigmatized) but then go right on ahead and call another perfectly valid relationship model "inhumane, in-compassionate, and immature". Free love should mean that people can enter into any sort of relationship which they choose, without fear of their relationship being stigmatized by society at large. Maintaining a monogamous relationship can be a fulfilling experience for people who wish to do so, and is not inherently less compassionate, mature, or humane than any other relationship model. It only takes on that character now because of its economic and social necessity, causing people who would not otherwise agree to enter into such an arrangement to do so.

Yes, there are differences. But I don't think those differences change the fundamental point of the analogy. Siblings are not equivalent to friends, but you can still have more than one sibling as well.

And a person CAN have more than one sexual partner if they wish to, they can have them at the same time, or in a series of one-night stands or a series of committed monogamous relationships, or any other number of types of sexual arrangements. However, you cannot say that there are not major differences between any sexual relationship and a friendship or sibling relationship. A sexual relationship outright REQUIRES a certain level of mutual trust because sexual acts necessarily require the parties involved to allow another person physical access to their bodies. Most friendships and sibling relationships do not require this. Most people agree that control over one's own body is the most fundamental type of control one can have, including who can have access to it, when, and in what way. A sexual relationship requires trust that your partner will not access your body at a time, or in a way that you don't want them to, far more than a friendship or sibling relationship does.

The Ungovernable Farce

23rd June 2009, 18:05

If two people agree to enter into a monogamous relationship, that person put a restriction on their own behavior because remaining in the monogamous relationship makes them happier than frequent sex with many partners.
But why is it necessary to put that restriction there? Why can't they remain in that relationship and have frequent sex with many partners? (Or frequent or infrequent sex with one other partner they happen to be emotionally involved with, or any number of any other set-ups depending on the needs of the individuals involved?)

Things that are pleasurable do not always make a person truly happy, and there are people who do experience a certain type of love that they feel would be cheapened if there were extra people added into the mix. While adults who love one another don't outright forbid actions on one another, they do often have certain conditions for their social arrangements which, if breached, act as a sort of termination of their "relationship contract". I may love one of my friends dearly, but restrict them from doing something that would make them happy, such as spreading things I told them in confidence around our social circle, or it would function as a breach of our "relationship contract" and I would feel betrayed and have difficulty remaining friends with them.
Yes, but your analogy falls down. The example you give is things you told them in confidence - so, presumably information that concerns you directly, or at least originates with you. If they're sharing their emotions or genitals with other people, how does that concern you directly? A secret you tell to another person is not the same as that person's emotions. You can give other examples of betrayals of friendship, but I doubt any of them would match up particularly well.

All relationships are built on a certain degree of trust. The more intimate the relationship, the higher level of trust involved in it. Your relationship with your neighbor requires less trust than your relationship with your best friend. Your relationship with a sexual partner requires even more trust, because a violation of sexual boundaries is more traumatizing than if a best friend betrayed a secret.
I don't disagree with any of this. I just don't see how it's relevant to the argument at all. Saying that you won't sleep with anyone else and then doing so (as people in monogamous relationships often tend to do) is a betrayal of trust, and I don't deny that's a bad thing; if you say that you'll sleep with someone else, and then do so, as people in open and honest polyamorous relationships do, then no breach of trust is involved.

What makes polyamory inherently more compassionate, humane, and mature than monogamy?
Because it means understanding that people aren't perfect and that they have desires for more than one person, and working around that to ensure that they're able to fulfill as many of their needs as possible, rather than limiting them. Because it means accepting that sometimes you have to put someone else's happiness ahead of your own ego.

However, there are people even in capitalism who are not economically dependent on one another who enter into that arrangement willingly.
Yes. Now, show me two people in capitalism who are not conditioned by bourgeois morality, the stagnant influence of anti-humanist religious thought, the habits of mind associated with property ownership and capitalism, that've entered into that arrangement...oh, wait.

Who is to say that two people in a post revolutionary society are in an "inhumane, in-compassionate, and immature" relationship model because they feel that monogamy is best for them.
As I've said, I certainly wouldn't want to deny them their monogamy. I think that overall, poly is a more humane/compassionate/mature model than mono is, but that hardly means I'm going to sling insults at a hypothetical future communist couple if they've opted for it.

On this forum, people talk so much about the terrible stigma attached to polyamory (and I agree, it should not be stigmatized) but then go right on ahead and call another perfectly valid relationship model "inhumane, in-compassionate, and immature". Free love should mean that people can enter into any sort of relationship which they choose, without fear of their relationship being stigmatized by society at large. Maintaining a monogamous relationship can be a fulfilling experience for people who wish to do so, and is not inherently less compassionate, mature, or humane than any other relationship model. It only takes on that character now because of its economic and social necessity, causing people who would not otherwise agree to enter into such an arrangement to do so.
And here we enter into the realm of the unknowable. I don't think any of us can lay down any blueprints as to what future romantic relationships would look like; all I can say is that it certainly seems to me that monogamous relationships restrict the freedom of those involved more than poly ones do, so it seems unlikely that many people in a free society would choose to opt for them once the social pressures against poly were removed.

And a person CAN have more than one sexual partner if they wish to, they can have them at the same time, or in a series of one-night stands or a series of committed monogamous relationships, or any other number of types of sexual arrangements. However, you cannot say that there are not major differences between any sexual relationship and a friendship or sibling relationship. A sexual relationship outright REQUIRES a certain level of mutual trust because sexual acts necessarily require the parties involved to allow another person physical access to their bodies. Most friendships and sibling relationships do not require this.
Siblings relationships you can't really affect, because you don't really choose your siblings. However, I do think that mutual trust is pretty important to a friendship. I also think this is a completely irrelevant point.
Most people agree that control over one's own body is the most fundamental type of control one can have, including who can have access to it, when, and in what way. A sexual relationship requires trust that your partner will not access your body at a time, or in a way that you don't want them to, far more than a friendship or sibling relationship does.
Again, true but irrelevant. I'm not advocating entering into a supposedly monogamous relationship and then screwing around behind your partner's back; I'm talking about an open, honest relationship where both partners are free to pursue whatever other entaglements they see fit, with the mutual understanding that this does not affect the love between them in any way. Where's the breach of trust there?

mel

23rd June 2009, 19:15

But why is it necessary to put that restriction there? Why can't they remain in that relationship and have frequent sex with many partners? (Or frequent or infrequent sex with one other partner they happen to be emotionally involved with, or any number of any other set-ups depending on the needs of the individuals involved?)

Because then by definition that would no longer be monogamy? If two people decide they want to be only with each other (monogamy), then by definition in order to continue to be in a monogamous relationship they restrict themselves from seeing other people. If two people want to have an emotional and sexual relationship in which one or both parties also have frequent or infrequent sex with other parties that they are emotionally or not emotionally involved with, that is no longer a monogamous relationship, and whatever agreement they come to is absolutely fine as long as either party can terminate the relationship at any time, they can discuss a change in the nature of that agreement at any time if it no longer works for them, and they
have entered into it willingly.

Yes, but your analogy falls down. The example you give is things you told them in confidence - so, presumably information that concerns you directly, or at least originates with you. If they're sharing their emotions or genitals with other people, how does that concern you directly? A secret you tell to another person is not the same as that person's emotions. You can give other examples of betrayals of friendship, but I doubt any of them would match up particularly well.

You're right that my analogy falls down here. Other instances of people who love one another putting restrictions on behavior also fall down in the case of children, because they are incapable of giving informed consent and therefore need to have some sort of "guardian" (or a community of guardians) who gives informed consent (or fails to) in their place. I still feel that there will be situations where people who love one another will ask that their loved ones not engage in certain behaviors, but perhaps people who cannot accept absolutely every behavior their partner engages in regularly should not be together.

Since I can't find an example to support people in loving relationships asking that their loved ones restrict their behavior, I'd like to ask another question. Would you say that a person does not truly love someone if they ask their partner(s) to engage in a behavior that the partner(s) find unpleasant? If love is necessarily something which does not restrict a partner from engaging in activities which they find pleasant, is it also necessarily something which does not expect partners to engage in activities which they find unpleasant?

My best guess would be no, it does not. It is not unreasonable for partners in a loving relationship to ask or expect one another to do things which they may find unpleasant (like visiting in-laws, cleaning the house, or changing a diaper*). What makes an expectation of behavior action so different from an expectation of behavior restriction? I imagine that there is something, but even barring sex as an example, I can imagine a loving relationship in which one partner asks another to restrict behaviors such as excessive drinking or cigarette smoking which does not in any way mean that they do not truly love that person. I don't mean to equivocate frequent sex with alcoholism here, as obviously one behavior is extremely detrimental to the person's health while the other is probably not a cause for concern. However this brings me to my point: Is it reasonable for someone to ask their partner to engage in safe sex practices when they are having sex with other parties? If so, how safe? Disease transmission is a serious problem, and as of right now there is not a 100% effective way of preventing disease transmission during sex (although it has come closer). If having unsafe sex makes the person's partner happy, is the person still justified in asking them to engage in safe sex practices for the duration of their relationship to avoid disease transmission?

I don't disagree with any of this. I just don't see how it's relevant to the argument at all. Saying that you won't sleep with anyone else and then doing so (as people in monogamous relationships often tend to do) is a betrayal of trust, and I don't deny that's a bad thing; if you say that you'll sleep with someone else, and then do so, as people in open and honest polyamorous relationships do, then no breach of trust is involved.

I thought it was relevant as a possible reason why a people would want to enter into a monogamous sexual relationship. There are people who for a wide variety of reasons need to trust a sexual partner a great deal, and if two of those people find in one another a level of trust that they do not share with anyone else, they could conceivably wish to enter into a monogamous relationship. You can say that those people are unhealthy or have trust issues or that they won't exist in a post-revolutionary society, but that's all speculative and I am merely noting that it takes a lot more trust to allow somebody access to your body than to your thoughts or to your house or to your sense of humor. There will be people who for whatever reasons will only want to allow one person access to their body at a given time (not to be taken in a "group sex" sense, but 'time' as in 'a period of time', like the duration of a relationship) and no matter the reason for this desire, if two people feel the same way and are fine with this arrangement I don't see why it ought to be stigmatized, and I don't see why that people remaining monogamous seems to you to show that they do not truly love one another.

Because it means understanding that people aren't perfect and that they have desires for more than one person, and working around that to ensure that they're able to fulfill as many of their needs as possible, rather than limiting them. Because it means accepting that sometimes you have to put someone else's happiness ahead of your own ego.

Some people don't have desires for more than one person, for some people who do it is not necessarily a "need", and for some people not fulfilling those desires (if they are not at all strong) is not something which will be necessarily detrimental to their overall state of happiness. For people who do not have those desires, I think it is unfair for you to say that they love each other less simply because they have agreed to enter into an arrangement that precludes acting upon those nonexistent, or weak desires. You keep providing examples of times when two people have entered a monogamous relationship when one or more of those people clearly did not want to be in a monogamous relationship. There will be people who find monogamy personally fulfilling, there will be people who do not have a desire to have sex with other partners, and if there is an open and honest discussion of desires and needs in a monogamous relationship, it is not inherently less open, compassionate, or humane than any other relationship model assuming that it works for the people who have entered into it. You're stigmatizing monogamy based on examples where people are entering into monogamous relationships that do not meet their needs.

Yes. Now, show me two people in capitalism who are not conditioned by bourgeois morality, the stagnant influence of anti-humanist religious thought, the habits of mind associated with property ownership and capitalism, that've entered into that arrangement...oh, wait.

Point taken.

As I've said, I certainly wouldn't want to deny them their monogamy. I think that overall, poly is a more humane/compassionate/mature model than mono is, but that hardly means I'm going to sling insults at a hypothetical future communist couple if they've opted for it.

But stigmatizing monogamy across the board as inhumane/incompassionate/immature seems to be as bad as today stigmatizing polyamory as deviant/irresponsible/broken/etc. I am glad that you will not personally insult a hypothetical future communist couple who have decided to enter into a monogamous relationship, but I do not see why you still maintain that monogamy is INHERENTLY less compassionate, mature, or humane. The example you gave above was one in which monogamy would not work for one of the parties involved (who had an apparently strong desire to have sex with other partners).

And here we enter into the realm of the unknowable. I don't think any of us can lay down any blueprints as to what future romantic relationships would look like; all I can say is that it certainly seems to me that monogamous relationships restrict the freedom of those involved more than poly ones do, so it seems unlikely that many people in a free society would choose to opt for them once the social pressures against poly were removed.

All social agreements and arrangements restrict the freedom of those involved in some capacity, it's inherent in all forms of a "social contract". What is to be gained, for some people who want a monogamous relationship, is more important than what is to be lost if they do not have a desire (or have no strong desire) to have sex with other parties. Perhaps you are correct that most people would not want to be in a monogamous relationship, we really can't know, like you said, but I don't think that considering monogamy outright as "less free" is a really useful criticism. Of course it involves a restriction on action, but as I said, all social agreements do, and for some people what is to be gained from a monogamous relationship (and I honestly cannot speak directly to what all of those might be, it would depend a lot on the structure of society as a whole) outweighs what is to be lost.

Siblings relationships you can't really affect, because you don't really choose your siblings. However, I do think that mutual trust is pretty important to a friendship. I also think this is a completely irrelevant point.

Of course mutual trust is important to a friendship, but the level of trust required to share access to a secret or to details of your personal life is significantly lower for most people than the level of trust required to share access to your body. Perhaps that will no longer be true in a post-revolutionary society.

Again, true but irrelevant. I'm not advocating entering into a supposedly monogamous relationship and then screwing around behind your partner's back; I'm talking about an open, honest relationship where both partners are free to pursue whatever other entaglements they see fit, with the mutual understanding that this does not affect the love between them in any way. Where's the breach of trust there?

You are talking about a different sort of a breach of trust than I am. I am talking about within the confines of any sexual relationship, with all parties involved in the sexual encounter there is a greater degree of mutual trust involved because you are granting the parties involved access to your body, which (as you agree) is the most fundamental thing a person should have control over. I was, as above, just explaining the level of trust invovled when entering into a sexual relationship as a possible reason why some might prefer monogamy.

Manifesto

24th June 2009, 01:04

Killfacer

24th June 2009, 01:05

mel

24th June 2009, 01:25

I just don't see how people can be married to others and all of the marriages are equal. Although it would solve some problems like people would be more open to it and would not kill each other because their partner is sleeping with someone else.They would if they thought they had a monogomous relationship.

I don't at all understand what Manifesto was trying to say...but who said anything about marriage here? Monogamy has nothing to do with marriage.

While no one is suggesting this, even abolishing monogamy won't necessarily abolish jealousy and I think we'll still see crimes of passion happening when people who could not handle polyamorous relationships get jealous and go off the deep end. (People like this obviously can't handle any relationship, let alone a polyamorous one, but people like this won't just go away.) All that said, hopefully all crimes of this nature would be drastically reduced with free access to psychological help, no economic dependencies, increased community efforts in the raising of children (which will help to catch mental illnesses early) and no stigma attached to getting said freely available psychiatric help and relationship counseling. A post-revolutionary society would have a healthier outlook on relationships in general that should foster better attitudes towards social relationships in general.

AngelCity Neo-Stalinist

24th June 2009, 01:28

If monogamy started as a form of patriarchial control- why is that it's usualy guys who get dumped by their girlfriends for cheating? I know my wife would be absolutely devastated if I cheated on her- women seem to be strong proponents monogamy. There's no way that monogamy is inhumane or incompasionate;if two people love eachother and they don't want anyone else, then where's the harm? This thread is going downhill in the respect that we're not getting anywhere, most of us all seem to agree that polyamoury is not and shouldn't be considered wrong and that while the family will continue to exist after communism it will be very different from the way it is today; these points keep getting reiterated. Those who wish to suggest that monogamy is "bad" are nothing short of trolling rabble-rousers.

AngelCity Neo-Stalinist

24th June 2009, 01:32

Melbicimni's post above was brilliant! Let us not forget about materialism and how class and economy influence individuals,relationships, and culture.

Agrippa

24th June 2009, 05:45

As others have said before, any Marxian criticism of the "family" refers to a social institution that replaced the clan, tribe, or extended family, the "nuclear" family model that was violently imposed during the primitive accumulation of capital, which allowed for the more efficient exploitation of women and children's labor-power.

On a personal level, I have a pretty cynical attitude towards monogamy. I think only a minority of individuals' brains are hard-wired for long-term monogamy, just as only a minority of individuals are predominately homosexual, asexual, etc. I think adultury is only immoral insofar as it's an act of deception and dishonesty. I think a communist society necessitates free association, that means freedom to practice monogamy, polygamy, etc., but I think the vast majority of human beings would be much more psychologically well-adjusted if they accepted the fact that love and devotion towards one individual does not prevent the human brain from developing romantic feelings towards others. That's not to say I support frivilous "polyamorous" affairs, Mormon chattel-polygny, or the "serial monogamy" that is so popular today. These institutions are as artificial and unnatural as the nuclear family.

Then again, I don't believe in "true love", either. To me, love is about intellectual companionship, emotional support, and physical intimacy. There is no elusive, ethereal higher love than this...

AngelCity Neo-Stalinist

24th June 2009, 06:32

My friend-you have said it all with wonderous eloquence.

The Ungovernable Farce

24th June 2009, 12:46

My best guess would be no, it does not. It is not unreasonable for partners in a loving relationship to ask or expect one another to do things which they may find unpleasant (like visiting in-laws, cleaning the house, or changing a diaper*). What makes an expectation of behavior action so different from an expectation of behavior restriction?
I could argue that these actions are necessary, but the restrictions aren't, but then we'd get into trying to define necessary and unnecessary, which are pretty subjective categories.

However this brings me to my point: Is it reasonable for someone to ask their partner to engage in safe sex practices when they are having sex with other parties?
Yes.

If so, how safe? Disease transmission is a serious problem, and as of right now there is not a 100% effective way of preventing disease transmission during sex (although it has come closer). If having unsafe sex makes the person's partner happy, is the person still justified in asking them to engage in safe sex practices for the duration of their relationship to avoid disease transmission?
I'd say so, but there's a major difference between the risk of STDs and the so-far-undefined downside of a poly relationship where both partners practice safe sex.

I thought it was relevant as a possible reason why a people would want to enter into a monogamous sexual relationship. There are people who for a wide variety of reasons need to trust a sexual partner a great deal, and if two of those people find in one another a level of trust that they do not share with anyone else, they could conceivably wish to enter into a monogamous relationship. You can say that those people are unhealthy or have trust issues or that they won't exist in a post-revolutionary society, but that's all speculative and I am merely noting that it takes a lot more trust to allow somebody access to your body than to your thoughts or to your house or to your sense of humor. There will be people who for whatever reasons will only want to allow one person access to their body at a given time (not to be taken in a "group sex" sense, but 'time' as in 'a period of time', like the duration of a relationship) and no matter the reason for this desire, if two people feel the same way and are fine with this arrangement I don't see why it ought to be stigmatized, and I don't see why that people remaining monogamous seems to you to show that they do not truly love one another.
All fair enough, although I would draw a distinction between one person choosing to remain monogamous and that person expecting that their partner should do the same.

Some people don't have desires for more than one person, for some people who do it is not necessarily a "need", and for some people not fulfilling those desires (if they are not at all strong) is not something which will be necessarily detrimental to their overall state of happiness.
I'm very dubious of this. It certainly doesn't sound like anyone I know. Surely pretty much everyone experiences desires for more than one person (thankfully, otherwise the course of our entire lives would be determined by whether the first person we ever fell in love with loved us back or not), they just repress these desires for the sake of preserving their monogamous relationship? Which is absolutely fair enough, I just want to see a set-up where people can preserve their relationships and fulfill these desires.

For people who do not have those desires, I think it is unfair for you to say that they love each other less simply because they have agreed to enter into an arrangement that precludes acting upon those nonexistent, or weak desires.
Again, I doubt very much whether "people who do not have these desires" covers more than a very small minority of the population. Of course, that doesn't make their feelings any less valid, and of course there's nothing wrong with them staying in monogamous relationships if that's actually how they feel. I just don't think that most of the population would choose to follow this model.

You keep providing examples of times when two people have entered a monogamous relationship when one or more of those people clearly did not want to be in a monogamous relationship. There will be people who find monogamy personally fulfilling, there will be people who do not have a desire to have sex with other partners, and if there is an open and honest discussion of desires and needs in a monogamous relationship, it is not inherently less open, compassionate, or humane than any other relationship model assuming that it works for the people who have entered into it. You're stigmatizing monogamy based on examples where people are entering into monogamous relationships that do not meet their needs.
Because I suspect that, in existing society, that's what the vast majority of monogamous relationships are. If all the social pressures in favour of monogamy were removed, and some people still felt that monogamy suited them more, there would be nothing wrong with that; I just feel that, for the vast majority of the population, poly would work better.

But stigmatizing monogamy across the board as inhumane/incompassionate/immature seems to be as bad as today stigmatizing polyamory as deviant/irresponsible/broken/etc. I am glad that you will not personally insult a hypothetical future communist couple who have decided to enter into a monogamous relationship, but I do not see why you still maintain that monogamy is INHERENTLY less compassionate, mature, or humane. The example you gave above was one in which monogamy would not work for one of the parties involved (who had an apparently strong desire to have sex with other partners).
Two points: first, as we agree, there is no "right" or "wrong" beyond which meets or doesn't meet the needs of the individuals involved. For this reason, I feel that poly is "righter" in that it would work for more people, but for those people who do fit your description, then mono would certainly still be "right" for them. Happy now?
Secondly, I think it's reductionist to say it all comes down to sex. My example works just as well with people who have a strong emotional attachment to more than one person.

What is to be gained, for some people who want a monogamous relationship, is more important than what is to be lost if they do not have a desire (or have no strong desire) to have sex with other parties.
As above - sex or emotional entaglements.

Perhaps you are correct that most people would not want to be in a monogamous relationship, we really can't know, like you said, but I don't think that considering monogamy outright as "less free" is a really useful criticism. Of course it involves a restriction on action, but as I said, all social agreements do, and for some people what is to be gained from a monogamous relationship (and I honestly cannot speak directly to what all of those might be, it would depend a lot on the structure of society as a whole) outweighs what is to be lost.
I still genuinely don't see "what is to be gained" tho. Beyond the knowledge that you have power and control over your partner's behaviour, what is it about mono relationships that you can't get in loving, committed poly relationships?

Of course mutual trust is important to a friendship, but the level of trust required to share access to a secret or to details of your personal life is significantly lower for most people than the level of trust required to share access to your body. Perhaps that will no longer be true in a post-revolutionary society.
Perhaps, perhaps not. (Actually, I'm genuinely unconvinced as to your first point, I think the level of trust in a one-night stand is much lower than that involved in an intimate friendship. It's the "sharing access to secrets or to details of your personal life" that makes a real relationship different from having a one-night stand or a fuckbuddy.) I still think it's a totally irrelevant point, because you can have a high level of trust with a poly partner. Needing to trust someone =/= monogamy.

You are talking about a different sort of a breach of trust than I am. I am talking about within the confines of any sexual relationship, with all parties involved in the sexual encounter there is a greater degree of mutual trust involved because you are granting the parties involved access to your body, which (as you agree) is the most fundamental thing a person should have control over. I was, as above, just explaining the level of trust invovled when entering into a sexual relationship as a possible reason why some might prefer monogamy.
Once again, I have no idea what argument you're making (which is odd, because earlier in your post we seemed to be saying the same things). Yes, you need to trust your partner in a relationship. You can't trust someone in a poly relationship because...?

I just don't see how people can be married to others and all of the marriages are equal.
Hmm, I doubt I'm ever going to reach much agreement on sexual morality with a Catholic...but a) it's not that hard. Imagine a parent has more than one child, and they love their children with all their heart, but they don't love one of them more than the rest. Can you do that? Now, imagine the same set-up, but with partners instead of children.
b) even if they're not "all equal", why would that be a problem?

While no one is suggesting this, even abolishing monogamy won't necessarily abolish jealousy and I think we'll still see crimes of passion happening when people who could not handle polyamorous relationships get jealous and go off the deep end. (People like this obviously can't handle any relationship, let alone a polyamorous one, but people like this won't just go away.) All that said, hopefully all crimes of this nature would be drastically reduced with free access to psychological help, no economic dependencies, increased community efforts in the raising of children (which will help to catch mental illnesses early) and no stigma attached to getting said freely available psychiatric help and relationship counseling. A post-revolutionary society would have a healthier outlook on relationships in general that should foster better attitudes towards social relationships in general.
I completely agree with all of this.

If monogamy started as a form of patriarchial control- why is that it's usualy guys who get dumped by their girlfriends for cheating?
Maybe it's because guys have more confidence to break monogamous norms, because the system of control isn't aimed at them? I do not advocate cheating, it's a horrible thing to do, but saying "if this system is aimed at controlling women, then why do men break its laws more often" is not an argument.

I know my wife would be absolutely devastated if I cheated on her- women seem to be strong proponents monogamy.
Yes. There are many working-class people who are strongly religious. That in no way changes the fact that religion is used to control the working class. And again, polyamory=/=cheating.

There's no way that monogamy is inhumane or incompasionate;if two people love eachother and they don't want anyone else, then where's the harm?
If two people love each other, but one of them is also in love with someone else, but one of the people they love demands they have to choose between the two, then there is harm. No? Or do you think that this example - i.e., the plot of every romantic novel and film ever - sounds implausible?

Those who wish to suggest that monogamy is "bad" are nothing short of trolling rabble-rousers.
I may aspire to be a rabble-rouser, but I'm definitely not trolling.

On a personal level, I have a pretty cynical attitude towards monogamy. I think only a minority of individuals' brains are hard-wired for long-term monogamy, just as only a minority of individuals are predominately homosexual, asexual, etc. I think adultury is only immoral insofar as it's an act of deception and dishonesty. I think a communist society necessitates free association, that means freedom to practice monogamy, polygamy, etc., but I think the vast majority of human beings would be much more psychologically well-adjusted if they accepted the fact that love and devotion towards one individual does not prevent the human brain from developing romantic feelings towards others. That's not to say I support frivilous "polyamorous" affairs, Mormon chattel-polygny, or the "serial monogamy" that is so popular today. These institutions are as artificial and unnatural as the nuclear family.
I dunno about how brains are wired, and I'm agnostic on the subject of true love, but all this is spot on.

One last point, which I don't think anyone has addressed: I am happy to admit that I am not perfect. I do not have all the qualities that someone could desire in a partner. I don't think anyone does, at least most people don't. In a monogamous set-up, someone would have to either be monogamous with me - and so miss out on all the good sides that I lack - or not be with me, and so miss out on all that is unique and special with me. Polyamory means that my partner(s) can be with be, enjoy the unique benefits of being with me that no-one else can offer, and still have a partner whose personality includes all the good traits I lack. Why would anyone be against that?

mel

24th June 2009, 16:08

All fair enough, although I would draw a distinction between one person choosing to remain monogamous and that person expecting that their partner should do the same.

Of course. But what about two such people who both choose to remain monogamous and with one another? Anything that I've posted that had to do with trust levels was basically just a way of me attempting to explain why a person (or two people, or 1000 people) may wish to enter into a monogamous relationship with one of those other people based on trust. I did a bad job of this, and any other portions of your post that directly address this I'm just gonna leave out in this reply.

I'm very dubious of this. It certainly doesn't sound like anyone I know. Surely pretty much everyone experiences desires for more than one person (thankfully, otherwise the course of our entire lives would be determined by whether the first person we ever fell in love with loved us back or not)

It's not about whether a person experiences a desire for more than one person, but for more than one person at a time. There are people who only ever develop romantic feelings for one person at any given time, and usually for the long term. These people would not be served by a polyamorous relationship.

Again, I doubt very much whether "people who do not have these desires" covers more than a very small minority of the population. Of course, that doesn't make their feelings any less valid, and of course there's nothing wrong with them staying in monogamous relationships if that's actually how they feel. I just don't think that most of the population would choose to follow this model.

Which is a much better way of saying what you believe than that monogamy is "inhumane, incompassionate, and immature" compared to polyamory. I can agree that most people probably would not be served by monogamy, I just don't want people who feel that they are to be looked down on as following an outdated and inhumane relationship model just because they happen to feel that it works better for them.

Two points: first, as we agree, there is no "right" or "wrong" beyond which meets or doesn't meet the needs of the individuals involved. For this reason, I feel that poly is "righter" in that it would work for more people, but for those people who do fit your description, then mono would certainly still be "right" for them. Happy now?

Yes. What you said here was much much much better than what you had been saying earlier, that monogamy was "incompassionate, inhumane, and immature" because it is only those things if people enter into it that would not be served by a monogamous relationship.

Secondly, I think it's reductionist to say it all comes down to sex. My example works just as well with people who have a strong emotional attachment to more than one person.

I did not mean to mention that this all comes down to sex, but you can have a strong emotional attatchment to a best friend and that does not count as polyamory. The attachment must have either a romantic or sexual component or else what is the difference between a monogamous relationship where one or both parties have other very close friends who they are emotionally attatched to and a polyamorous relationship where two of the members only have a sexual or romantic attraction for each other?

I still genuinely don't see "what is to be gained" tho. Beyond the knowledge that you have power and control over your partner's behaviour, what is it about mono relationships that you can't get in loving, committed poly relationships?

It's not that you can't get them in a poly relationship, just that some people would feel better served by monogamy. It is difficult to describe what one might gain because it depends greatly on an individual and some people will get more out of a loving committed poly relationship than a loving, committed monogamous one. Some people will not, especially if they only ever develop romantic attractions to one person at a given time. Such a person would probably be better attempting to find somebody else who only ever developed romantic attractions to one person at a given time, or else they would likely be hurt or have difficulty understanding how their partner could also be romantically attracted to multiple people when they have not experienced that themselves. If two such people found each other, they ought not be made to feel that their love is wrong simply because it is uncommon or "less open" than more common relationships.

Perhaps, perhaps not. (Actually, I'm genuinely unconvinced as to your first point, I think the level of trust in a one-night stand is much lower than that involved in an intimate friendship. It's the "sharing access to secrets or to details of your personal life" that makes a real relationship different from having a one-night stand or a fuckbuddy.) I still think it's a totally irrelevant point, because you can have a high level of trust with a poly partner. Needing to trust someone =/= monogamy.

I know I said I wouldn't address any other trust posts directly, but this one is important for just one reason. The irrelevancy issue has been addressed already, but I just want to point out that many one-night stands are the result of drunken sexual encounters in which either only one or neither party is capable of giving informed consent to that encounter. It is my belief that the alcohol aids in lowering the level of trust required to engage in that encounter (and if that is the person's intention when getting drunk, that is absolutely within their rights) but a person who is drunk is also more likely to share secrets or details of their personal life. I think people who have one night stands while completely sober are rare (but I might be happily proven wrong) and probably have extraordinarily low barriers to trust (just as many people who would be served by monogamy might have extraordinarily high barriers to trust). However, the point about trust levels in generally was poorly made and on second thought, isn't really the most important distinction.

If two people love each other, but one of them is also in love with someone else, but one of the people they love demands they have to choose between the two, then there is harm. No? Or do you think that this example - i.e., the plot of every romantic novel and film ever - sounds implausible?

This is another example of a person entering a monogamous relationship that wouldn't be served by one. We both agree that there are probably few of these people, but that they exist and that their desires are valid we have already agreed on, and now that you have backed down from your characterization of monogamous relationships as inherently immature, incompassionate, and inhumane (although forcing somebody into one who experiences polyamorous desires would be all those things) we have no further disagreements.

I dunno about how brains are wired, and I'm agnostic on the subject of true love, but all this is spot on.

I'm not sure how brains are wired either, but I particularly liked Agrippa's post as well, and agreed with pretty much all of it. I don't necessarily think that "true love" does not exist, but I do not think it is some sort of ethereal otherworldly thing...it just describes the condition of people who are particularly well suited to one another re: attraction, companionship, etc.

One last point, which I don't think anyone has addressed: I am happy to admit that I am not perfect. I do not have all the qualities that someone could desire in a partner. I don't think anyone does, at least most people don't. In a monogamous set-up, someone would have to either be monogamous with me - and so miss out on all the good sides that I lack - or not be with me, and so miss out on all that is unique and special with me. Polyamory means that my partner(s) can be with be, enjoy the unique benefits of being with me that no-one else can offer, and still have a partner whose personality includes all the good traits I lack. Why would anyone be against that?

I'm not against that, but I'm not entirely sure it's relevant. Your friends also get to experience many of those traits, and your family. In a monogamous setup, the only traits which your friends do no really get to experience (and your partner would miss out on if you did not have them) are romantic and sexual traits. It seems unlikely to me that many romantic and sexual attractions would develop if they found their partners too lacking in these particular traits, although if they do I am not against people going to others to fill in those gaps (so long as that is the understanding when the people in question entered into their relationship)

The Ungovernable Farce

24th June 2009, 16:28

Well, it seems that we've now reached pretty much total agreement, and virtually all the differences between our positions were just the fault of bad wording.

I did not mean to mention that this all comes down to sex, but you can have a strong emotional attatchment to a best friend and that does not count as polyamory. The attachment must have either a romantic or sexual component or else what is the difference between a monogamous relationship where one or both parties have other very close friends who they are emotionally attatched to and a polyamorous relationship where two of the members only have a sexual or romantic attraction for each other?
Yeah. Trying to define where an "emotional attachment" becomes a "romantic attachment" is pretty tricky.

Some people will not, especially if they only ever develop romantic attractions to one person at a given time. Such a person would probably be better attempting to find somebody else who only ever developed romantic attractions to one person at a given time, or else they would likely be hurt or have difficulty understanding how their partner could also be romantically attracted to multiple people when they have not experienced that themselves. If two such people found each other, they ought not be made to feel that their love is wrong simply because it is uncommon or "less open" than more common relationships.
Yeah. I do think that a (naturally monogamous) person who can "understand how their partner could also be romantically attracted to multiple people when they have not experienced that themselves" is more mature than someone in the same position who can't, but it's a pretty minor point.

I'm not against that, but I'm not entirely sure it's relevant. Your friends also get to experience many of those traits, and your family. In a monogamous setup, the only traits which your friends do no really get to experience (and your partner would miss out on if you did not have them) are romantic and sexual traits. It seems unlikely to me that many romantic and sexual attractions would develop if they found their partners too lacking in these particular traits, although if they do I am not against people going to others to fill in those gaps (so long as that is the understanding when the people in question entered into their relationship)
Ah, I'd disagree with this as well. Sadly, there's more to relationships than romance and sex; obviously, under communism you wouldn't get things like people having to marry for money or social position, but it is still possible to imagine, say, someone who was a wonderful lover but a terrible person to live with, in which case it'd be perfectly reasonable to carry on a relationship with them but move in with another partner (of course, you could also do this platonically with a housemate and remain monogamous if you wanted). The example I wanted to give here is someone who is incredibly romantic but would probably be a terrible parent, and choosing to have children with someone else instead, but I suppose in a society where childraising was socialised it's not as relevant. Still, I think that in existing society it's quite a legitimate thing to want to do.

mel

24th June 2009, 17:08

Well, it seems that we've now reached pretty much total agreement, and virtually all the differences between our positions were just the fault of bad wording.

Sounds it.

Yeah. Trying to define where an "emotional attachment" becomes a "romantic attachment" is pretty tricky.

I agree, it's entirely subjective and probably varies from person to person.

Yeah. I do think that a (naturally monogamous) person who can "understand how their partner could also be romantically attracted to multiple people when they have not experienced that themselves" is more mature than someone in the same position who can't, but it's a pretty minor point.

I agree that they might be more mature. I don't think that changes that a naturally monogamous person, no matter their maturity level, would be better suited in a relationship with another naturally monogamous person. Just as a heterosexual person can understand how a person could be attracted to somebody who is of the same sex despite having never experienced it themself is better suited to be in a relationship with a heterosexual person of the opposite sex.

Ah, I'd disagree with this as well. Sadly, there's more to relationships than romance and sex; obviously, under communism you wouldn't get things like people having to marry for money or social position, but it is still possible to imagine, say, someone who was a wonderful lover but a terrible person to live with, in which case it'd be perfectly reasonable to carry on a relationship with them but move in with another partner (of course, you could also do this platonically with a housemate and remain monogamous if you wanted).

I guess this makes sense, the examples make it a little clearer what you mean. I can't imagine loving somebody that I could not live with, as that's part of the companionship, etc. that defines love for me...so I guess this example sounds to me like you have two people who are essentially "fuck buddies" (which you mentioned in your other post) and don't really have any compatibility insofar as companionship. This is fine if that arrangement works for them, and people should by no means be precluded from doing so, but I don't think this is a great example of polyamory.

I do have a question regarding this example (and I realize I may be making too big a deal over the sexual component of this and that there is probably more to being a "lover" than sex and romance, but for now I am equating "wonderful lover" with somebody who is good at these two components of a relationship) but if you were a person who was great to live with and absolutely terrible at romance, can you honestly say that you would not be in the least bit hurt if somebody who you were attracted to and loved very dearly left two or three nights a week (I hear that this is about average?) and went to have sex with somebody else because you weren't good enough at it for them? I don't know if the average person is secure enough to handle that sort of an arrangement, but perhaps they are.

In retrospect, it appears that I am doing here what you did earlier and putting a person into a polyamorous relationship example who should not have been in one to begin with because they had an unrequited romantic/sexual attraction to the person with whom they are living. This explains why the situation seems so unfair to the party that is good to live with, because they have a romantic attraction which is not reciprocal. However, if there is no romantic/sexual component to the relationship, what makes it different from a friendship? I don't see how it is possible to have a romantic attraction to a person who you find to be unsatisfactory romantically. If there isn't romantic attraction, then while it can still be "love" it seems to me that it is friendship love and not polyamorous love, because polyamorous love requires a romantic attraction to multiple parties, which implies a romantic relationship with multiple parties, which is not the case in an example where somebody is living with somebody and having the romantic component of their relationship fulfilled by another party

The most fair examples of the above situation (where somebody is great to live with, but you are not sexually or romantically attracted to them and the opposite is also true so that the arrangment works for both parties) essentially equates to living with your best friend while having a romantic relationship (purely sexual or otherwise) with somebody else.

The example I wanted to give here is someone who is incredibly romantic but would probably be a terrible parent, and choosing to have children with someone else instead, but I suppose in a society where childraising was socialised it's not as relevant. Still, I think that in existing society it's quite a legitimate thing to want to do.

In existing society a lot of things are quite legitimate to want to do. I think in a post-revolutionary society this sort of arrangement would be perfectly legitimate to want to do. I don't think child-raising can or should be completely socialized, but the community will likely have a greater role (though it is impossible to tell exactly what sort of structure this will take) than they do in existing society. I would just argue that this situation you describe is similar to the above. There's a movie with bruce willis about just this sort of thing that I remember seeing a while back called Bandits (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0219965/) which provides a pretty good example of a case in which polyamory is legitimate (a romantic attraction to multiple parties), but I'd hazard a guess that most situations like the ones you mentioned above are difficult to classify as "polyamory" in the sense that it is ordinarily meant.

The Ungovernable Farce

24th June 2009, 20:22

I agree that they might be more mature. I don't think that changes that a naturally monogamous person, no matter their maturity level, would be better suited in a relationship with another naturally monogamous person. Just as a heterosexual person can understand how a person could be attracted to somebody who is of the same sex despite having never experienced it themself is better suited to be in a relationship with a heterosexual person of the opposite sex.
Perhaps, but I think that example's a little sketchy. The odds might not be that brilliant, but I think a naturally monogamous person in a relationship with a poly person would have a better chance than a heterosexual in a relationship with someone of the same sex.

I guess this makes sense, the examples make it a little clearer what you mean. I can't imagine loving somebody that I could not live with, as that's part of the companionship, etc. that defines love for me...so I guess this example sounds to me like you have two people who are essentially "fuck buddies" (which you mentioned in your other post) and don't really have any compatibility insofar as companionship. This is fine if that arrangement works for them, and people should by no means be precluded from doing so, but I don't think this is a great example of polyamory.
I think it's possible to have a lot of compatibility as far as companionship goes, but still not want to live together. I can certainly imagine falling in love with someone who never did housework, paid their share of rent and bills really late, etc etc. None of that would affect my feelings for them, but it would mean that living with them might not be that good an idea.

I do have a question regarding this example (and I realize I may be making too big a deal over the sexual component of this and that there is probably more to being a "lover" than sex and romance, but for now I am equating "wonderful lover" with somebody who is good at these two components of a relationship) but if you were a person who was great to live with and absolutely terrible at romance, can you honestly say that you would not be in the least bit hurt if somebody who you were attracted to and loved very dearly left two or three nights a week (I hear that this is about average?) and went to have sex with somebody else because you weren't good enough at it for them?
If they put it in those terms, then no, I would be hurt (although I'd also be quite hurt if somebody I was attracted to and loved dearly was in a monogamous relationship with someone else). OTOH, if they were into some kind of bizarre fetish that I definitely wasn't into, and they left a few nights a week to get their fetishist urges taken care of, and stayed with me the rest of the time, I could probably live with that.

I don't know if the average person is secure enough to handle that sort of an arrangement, but perhaps they are.
Yeah...as with a lot of revolutionary theory, I'm kind of hoping the "average person" in post-revolutionary society will be a bit healthier than beforehand. How much so is impossible to predict, of course.

In retrospect, it appears that I am doing here what you did earlier and putting a person into a polyamorous relationship example who should not have been in one to begin with because they had an unrequited romantic/sexual attraction to the person with whom they are living. This explains why the situation seems so unfair to the party that is good to live with, because they have a romantic attraction which is not reciprocal. However, if there is no romantic/sexual component to the relationship, what makes it different from a friendship? I don't see how it is possible to have a romantic attraction to a person who you find to be unsatisfactory romantically.
See, I think it is. Everyone has attractive features about them, everyone has their problems. You can have enough attractive features for someone to be romantically attracted to you, and have enough problems to be unsatisfactory at the same time.
If there isn't romantic attraction, then while it can still be "love" it seems to me that it is friendship love and not polyamorous love, because polyamorous love requires a romantic attraction to multiple parties, which implies a romantic relationship with multiple parties, which is not the case in an example where somebody is living with somebody and having the romantic component of their relationship fulfilled by another party
Yeah...again, the boundary between friendship + sex and romance is a hard one to draw. But there are numerous different aspects to romance, so I think that you can have different romatic components of your life fulfilled by different people.

In existing society a lot of things are quite legitimate to want to do. I think in a post-revolutionary society this sort of arrangement would be perfectly legitimate to want to do. I don't think child-raising can or should be completely socialized, but the community will likely have a greater role (though it is impossible to tell exactly what sort of structure this will take) than they do in existing society. I would just argue that this situation you describe is similar to the above. There's a movie with bruce willis about just this sort of thing that I remember seeing a while back called Bandits (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0219965/) which provides a pretty good example of a case in which polyamory is legitimate (a romantic attraction to multiple parties), but I'd hazard a guess that most situations like the ones you mentioned above are difficult to classify as "polyamory" in the sense that it is ordinarily meant.Well, we seem to have reached pretty much full agreement by this point.

mel

24th June 2009, 20:26

Perhaps, but I think that example's a little sketchy. The odds might not be that brilliant, but I think a naturally monogamous person in a relationship with a poly person would have a better chance than a heterosexual in a relationship with someone of the same sex.

I realized as soon as I finished posting that was an awful example for a variety of reasons. I think we pretty much agree on most of this stuff now save for semantic issues and imperfect analogies that make expressing that agreement difficult.

Kwisatz Haderach

24th June 2009, 20:53

I feel that most of this discussion is pointless, because we all agree that people should be able to enter into whatever kind of relationships they want after the revolution, and the only thing we're doing here is guessing which kind might be more popular.

So I'm not going to join the main discussion, but I do want to make a point about people's wants and desires. Often, someone said some version of the following:

"people who do not have these desires"
But the thing is, all people have contradictory desires. And I don't mean just sexual desires, I mean desires about everything. It's possible - in fact, almost inevitable - for a person to want two things that are mutually exclusive. In that case, they will have to choose one of the two desires and carry it out. That doesn't mean they don't want the other thing too. It means they suppressed one desire in order to fulfill another.

Applying those general observations to the particular case of sexual relationships, people choose monogamy not because they don't feel a desire to have sex with multiple partners, but because their desire for monogamous loyalty is stronger than their desire for multiple partners.

We are all attracted to multiple people. But some of us also have other desires which conflict with this sexual attraction.

mel

24th June 2009, 22:27

I agree with you except for this relatively minor point:

We are all attracted to multiple people.

There are people who do not experience attraction, there are people who only ever develop attraction to one person at any given time, and there are people who can develop attraction to multiple people at any given time. The last category is probably by far the largest, but that does not mean it is the only category.

Everything else you said is spot on. People have conflicting desires, and sometimes those desires are mutually exclusive and requires they make a decision based on which desire is more important to them.

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

24th June 2009, 22:51

Well I think everyone should decide for him-or herself wether he/she wants one or more wifes or husbands.

mel

24th June 2009, 22:57

Well I think everyone should decide for him-or herself wether he/she wants one or more wifes or husbands.

How profound!

We aren't talking about marriage here, as that is an entirely different institution for an entirely different thread, but about monogamy.

fiddlesticks

25th June 2009, 06:35

Communism is close friends with freedom therefore I feel that whether an individual in a communist society prefers polygamy over monogamy is entirely up to said individual and should be of no concern to anyone else.

With that being said I feel that in a communist society or otherwise things are changing. Divorce rates have been spiking at an alarming rate in America, I'm not sure about other countries but I can only guess it is no different where divorce is allowed. A single mother births octuplets, a sheman gives birth, gay couples are starting families, with all of these things happening it makes perfect sense to me that broken homes become more accepted in society, and that communities will have a larger part in the upbringing of children.

I don't see the traditional family ever completely disappearing though, the future I see holds families of all different types. A melting pot of families, some with two fathers, two mothers,some with one father and several mothers, a family of several fathers, even some just groups of kids with no parents at all, just fending for themselves in a world where anything is acceptable, because that is what communism means..to me.

mel

25th June 2009, 14:39

Communism is close friends with freedom therefore I feel that whether an individual in a communist society prefers polygamy over monogamy is entirely up to said individual and should be of no concern to anyone else.

Be careful not to equate polyamory with the sort of polygamy people hear about on the news and is outlawed today, which is usually nothing more than a very scary form of patriarchal control which considers women to be property, nothing more than maids and sex toys to be used on hubby's demand. This is not the sort of relationship that anyone should be made to live in, and luckily without economic dependence issues we should see far less of this sort of thing happening.

A single mother births octuplets, a sheman gives birth, gay couples are starting families, with all of these things happening it makes perfect sense to me that broken homes become more accepted in society, and that communities will have a larger part in the upbringing of children.

Did you seriously just say that a gay couple starting a family is a broken home?

I don't see the traditional family ever completely disappearing though, the future I see holds families of all different types. A melting pot of families, some with two fathers, two mothers,some with one father and several mothers, a family of several fathers, even some just groups of kids with no parents at all, just fending for themselves in a world where anything is acceptable, because that is what communism means..to me.

Kids need guardians, because kids are not capable of giving informed consent to their more dangerous activities, and are largely dependent on their parents for reasons that are not just social. While of course people should be able to form any sorts of families they want, as we've all already said here, kids living in a house by themselves is certainly not going to fly.

fiddlesticks

25th June 2009, 15:25

Did you seriously just say that a gay couple starting a family is a broken home?

I just realized that it sounded that way, but no that is not what I meant. I was trying to say that with all of that stuff happening it is not a far stretch that different kinds of families exist and become acceptable in the public eye, like a traditional family with a mother and father that have an open relationship or anything like that. As far as I am concerned a family is any group of people that look out for eachother and grow together, regardless of orientation or anything like that.

mel

25th June 2009, 15:48

fiddlesticks

25th June 2009, 17:44

Be more careful with your wording next time. :cool: A comment like that one can get you restricted

Thank you, i'm a n00b here and hopefully after a while I can write as good as everyone else :)

mel

25th June 2009, 19:25

Thank you, i'm a n00b here and hopefully after a while I can write as good as everyone else :)

It's not your writing, you write fine. Welcome to revleft.

Il Medico

26th June 2009, 02:36

A single mother births octuplets, a sheman gives birth, gay couples are starting families, with all of these things happening it makes perfect sense to me that broken homes become more accepted in society, and that communities will have a larger part in the upbringing of children.

Alright, I know what you meant Camille, but that is only because I know you. Non-traditional families would have been a better terminology. Saying that these families are "broken" suggest disapproval and intolerance. Watch carefully what you say, some people here are not as understanding. Your new so you don't know the ins and outs yet, so don't worry, you'll get better at communicating your views fast.

Love,
Captain Jack

thinkerOFthoughts

27th June 2009, 05:54

ummm its not wrong for me to be more in preference to the traditional Monogamy is it? I know there is lots of "let them do what they want" I guess I feel more traditional in the matter...as long as they are BOTH consenting to....more open relationships..then I don't see any harm to a relationship..but I view a relationship as something close....it would seem to me I would rather it one person...with one person :lol: I hope I'm not in the wrong for some reason for believing this. I guess I would feel rather un-attached....and sad...if it wasn't a more monogamis relationship. My two cents.

fiddlesticks

27th June 2009, 06:24

The Ungovernable Farce

27th June 2009, 18:33

ummm its not wrong for me to be more in preference to the traditional Monogamy is it?
Of course it's not wrong. As long as you're not hurting anyone else, I don't think you can call anything wrong.

I know there is lots of "let them do what they want" I guess I feel more traditional in the matter...as long as they are BOTH consenting to....more open relationships..then I don't see any harm to a relationship..but I view a relationship as something close....it would seem to me I would rather it one person...with one person :lol: I hope I'm not in the wrong for some reason for believing this. I guess I would feel rather un-attached....and sad...if it wasn't a more monogamis relationship. My two cents.
All fair enough, but you can have polyamory and attachment. It's not an either/or thing.

I agree with you..seems like jealousy issues would arise in an open relationship..but i could be wrong.
Yes, of course jealousy issues arise in open relationships. But it seems to me that jealousy issues arise in monogamous relationships, so it cuts both ways.

A_Ciarra

29th June 2009, 12:23

I dislike it when I get long winded, but this one is another one. My pardons.

As a monogamist that derives nothing; “nadda, zip, nothing,” from a poly lifestyle, it’s very nice to see many people here understanding that monogamy is healthy rather than perverse. Much of the time monogamy is sold as perversion which is beyond ridiculous and terribly offensive.

And thanks Melbicimnui for having such a suburb understanding of the issues at play, and taking the time (with great social skills I might add) to go over each element of the issue so that people can take with them a pretty good understanding with them if they wish. This sort of thing really helps nurture the community as a whole.

I just want to add a couple of things. I’ve heard a few people say that they think most people really are polyamorous, which I must disagree with greatly (and I talk with many women about this all the time).

Most women of all political stripes are NOT poly. I can't state that strongly enough even though this point is a matter of controversy. This has nothing to do with upbringing, or politics, or finances, but rather exactly what Melbicimni covered. It being a matter of them/us NOT DESIRING multiple partners. This is entirely different than jealousy and other myths – it comes from not driving pleasure, or the experience of building a close and core stimulating union via multiple partners. Most women feel a very deep and cutting pain from feeling like a consumer object. They hope to been deeply valued in their fullness and appreciated for their value as way more than and object of sexual release. To us life is an experience that entails far more.

It’s also interesting to hear CaptainJack correlating concepts of sex to as little more than a casual drink. To me this is reducing sex to little more than a heavy consumer mindset and that is rather disturbing. I honestly feel that the capitalist consumer mindset has sunk deeply into the arena of the way we relate to people all together... ...It’s NOT that males tend to be heavily interested in detached sex at times (there is that element in ALL of us at the point of orgasm and excitement), but rather (and this is brutal I know) what is disturbing is that he/you seems to miss understanding how to construct something that is protective, rather than momentary.

To the wise ass’s around please refrain from enjoying that brutal comment. I give CaptainJack massive kudos’s for even sticking his neck on the line and bringing this topic up.

BUT, this is depressing because it means that many males are still not grasping an understanding of how to nurture the elements that make most women deeply thrive on this planet. Most women seek to build unions that signify at every point that they are protected. Protected meaning not at all just financial by any means, but protected from "consumerism." They/we don’t want to feel like commodities – ever!

:wub: We don’t want our relationships to be reduced to anything like that. We want to be shown protection --- that males can firstly clearly see beyond the biological and financial, and understand how to be there during daily struggles and perform the actions that comfort us and will be there for us. How can males be protecting us in that fashion (on a reasonable level) and performing comforting acts if they are busy nurturing their penis’s as priority and elsewhere? Fact of the matter is they can’t, they end up spread to thin and not in the mindset to be there. That’s what protection means here, it’s more along the lines of committing to a sufficient level of companionship and the emergencies that come up during struggles in life. A close partnership ideally is there to sometimes hold you each night, talk with you etc. These things are not completed in absence - or by a community in which some matters are just not appropriate etc. I don't look to my labor union leader for hugs and such... I look to a partner.

Trust for women most often then is: can I trust you to be there for me? Communist and/or anarchist community and such alone does not meet this call - nor should it. Nature designed other means for this. Men need to understand that this is a call to them individually.

In reality most women do not bond with a wide variety of people on an intimate level. We get close to many yes, but not in the way we deeply hope to with a select partner that can be there throughout the years. We tend to seek males we feel we can build something ongoing and solid with, and not jus for the sole reasons that is commonly thought (financial security). But yes, this also brings up another point, men being financial providers is deeply valued too. Anyway, most of us love becoming sexual with the man we feel can be counted on to show use their understanding of daily affections. Sex for women tends to instantly build bonds that just are not built any other way. We look to that fuller bond to be there for us each day. Community is all secondary. It’s excellent to be building leftist communities, but for most women that is going to be an extra security thing, not the primary by any means. Community then for us serves the function of assisting “our” men, or in the case of same sex relationships “our” men or women and family unites. Please, don't entertain to many ideals of how community can substitute for what is actually is individual duties in reality.

When I say “our men” I am not signifying possession or commodity, but rather our mate and “protector.”

Anyway, I feel awfully exposed here revealing such personal thoughts, so I’ll leave it at this. CaptainJack, I apologize for being rather rough on you. It’s honestly not a personal stab at you and I don’t think poorly of you, I’m really just trying to open Pandora’s box a little and pull out a few underlying issues on this subject all together.

The Ungovernable Farce

29th June 2009, 12:44

As a monogamist that derives nothing; “nadda, zip, nothing,” from a poly lifestyle, it’s very nice to see many people here understanding that monogamy is healthy rather than perverse. Much of the time monogamy is sold as perversion which is beyond ridiculous and terribly offensive.
I don't think you can really claim monogamous people are a persecuted minority. You shouldn't let the fact that one tiny sub-sub-culture has a pro-poly bias obscure the massive pro-mono bias of, um, all of society, pretty much.

I just want to add a couple of things. I’ve heard a few people say that they think most people really are polyamorous, which I must disagree with greatly (and I talk with many women about this all the time).

Most women of all political stripes are NOT poly. I can't state that strongly enough even though this point is a matter of controversy. This has nothing to do with upbringing... It being a matter of them/us NOT DESIRING multiple partners.
How can you say it has nothing to do with upbringing, tho? We're products of the society in which we're formed. And gender essentialism makes me really uncomfortable.

This is entirely different than jealousy and other myths – it comes from not driving pleasure, or the experience of building a close and core stimulating union via multiple partners. Most women feel a very deep and cutting pain from feeling like a consumer object.

I wouldn't argue with this. But I can't see what it has to do with poly. Nothing poly's ever come up with compares to the thoroughly monogamous institution of marriage, where the father gives the bride to her husband.

They hope to been deeply valued in their fullness and appreciated for their value as way more than and object of sexual release. To us life is an experience that entails far more.
Because obviously poly people can't relate to that, because we have no feelings or emotions, right? Do you realise how offensive you're being here?

It’s also interesting to hear CaptainJack correlating concepts of sex to as little more than a casual drink. To me this is reducing sex to little more than a heavy consumer mindset and that is rather disturbing. I honestly feel that the capitalist consumer mindset has sunk deeply into the arena of the way we relate to people all together... ...It’s NOT that males tend to be heavily interested in detached sex at times (there is that element in ALL of us at the point of orgasm and excitement), but rather (and this is brutal I know) what is disturbing is that he/you seems to miss understanding how to construct something that is protective, rather than momentary.
This isn't a discussion of relationships vs. casual sex. This is a discussion of polyamory and monogamy, so please try and make points that are relevant to polyamorous relationships, not just to casual sex.

BUT, this is depressing because it means that many males are still not grasping an understanding of how to nurture the elements that make most women deeply thrive on this planet. Most women seek to build unions that signify at every point that they are protected. Protected meaning not at all just financial by any means, but protected from "consumerism." They/we don’t want to feel like commodities – ever!

:wub: We don’t want our relationships to be reduced to anything like that. We want to be shown protection --- that males can firstly clearly see beyond the biological and financial, and understand how to be there during daily struggles and perform the actions that comfort us and will be there for us. How can males be protecting us in that fashion (on a reasonable level) and performing comforting acts if they are busy nurturing their penis’s as priority and elsewhere? Fact of the matter is they can’t, they end up spread to thin and not in the mindset to be there. That’s what protection means here, it’s more along the lines of committing to a sufficient level of companionship and the emergencies that come up during struggles in life. A close partnership ideally is there to sometimes hold you each night, talk with you etc. These things are not completed in absence - or by a community in which some matters are just not appropriate etc. I don't look to my labor union leader for hugs and such... I look to a partner.

Trust for women most often then is: can I trust you to be there for me? Communist and/or anarchist community and such alone does not meet this call - nor should it. Nature designed other means for this. Men need to understand that this is a call to them individually.
Ok, your gender essentialism is really getting to me here. I like how there doesn't seem to be any such thing as lesbians or bisexuals here. I still see no proof of the assertion that mono = commitment, poly = lack of commitment. Anyone care to provide it?

In reality most women do not bond with a wide variety of people on an intimate level. We get close to many yes, but not in the way we deeply hope to with a select partner that can be there throughout the years. We tend to seek males we feel we can build something ongoing and solid with, and not jus for the sole reasons that is commonly thought (financial security). But yes, this also brings up another point, men being financial providers is deeply valued too.
Just like women being good in the kitchen is deeply valued? I'm really concerned by how you seem to take the gender roles that men and women are socialised into in early 21st-century Western capitalist societies as being Great Eternal Truths.

When I say “our men” I am not signifying possession or commodity, but rather our mate and “protector.”
This is coming across as more and more anti-feminist. If I started going on about how women needed men as protectors, I'd expect to be slated for blatant misogyny, and rightly so.

punisa

29th June 2009, 15:49

Yeah, I completely agree. The family as it's seen nowadays will be abolished. What we have now parallels the bourgeois domination of society.

When it comes to question of family structure I see no need to abolish anything. Communism must provide all choices and let people choose.
If a woman desires to be faitful to a single man, she may do so.
If she wants to pursue a more "basic" natural instinct, she should be able.

In a communist society everyone should structure their lives according to what they feel is right with them.
As long as they keep in mind that the utmost happiness in their earthly lives is - work ! :lol:

Actually that sounds quite ok, doesn't it ? Be a productive and responsible member of a society and as a reward you get to have whichever lifestyle you want. Much better then "material" gains.
On the other hand if you refuse to support the society and decide to be a lazy bastard.. well, unfortunately then it's off to gulag with you mate :laugh: ( joke ! )

Lamanov

29th June 2009, 17:43

I have heard that in a communist society that the family will be replaced as the main social group.

The thing is, Family is the main economic unit. Sexual preferences will remain a thing of personal decision, but marriage will not be considered as a legal bind. In the economic sphere, society as a whole would take care of children. Their caretakers (parents, most likely, if they chose to live together as a "classic" family) would receive "child-bonuses" until they grow to be adult students or/and workers.

A_Ciarra

30th June 2009, 00:01

Hi The Ungovernable Farce,

You read way to many things into what I shared. Though you may think I said such things, I did not.

I never claimed we were a persecuted minority.

I don't at all by into the abuse's of bias, nor promote them.

There is zero "gender essentialism" being noted by me (that is a most definite rash conclusion on your part), rather male and female TERMS are being used here strictly to replace excessive comment on every last variance on the human personality (length of post is an issue here to). They are glimps into overall essences people contain within them only. On the other hand if catch what I'm getting at you will better understand the drives within us that create monogamous and poly beliefs. No need to get "uncomfortable" at things I'm not saying.

"Nothing compares to where the father gives the bride to her husband."
This act is ment as symbolic not litteral. Though yes, many people get a little obtuse and miss that this symbolic gesture is ment to convey a transfernce of duty to show affections and protection rather than ownership over her. No doubt this obtuseness is a problem in comprehension within society. I might note that I myself was not speaking of marriage anywhere in my post though so there is a little jumping of the gun here. Let's avoid that.

"Poly people can't relate to that, because we have no feelings or emotions, right? Do you realise how offensive you're being here?"
I am willing to ofend a few people if it helps them better understand some some of the things going on in society. Some truth does hurt, thats not an issue with me, other than being outspoken on my part. Frankly I do believe sexual consumerism IS one part in the eqation with some poly ideals. It's rather blatent in some cases if we are to be fully honest. This is not always the case however, there are many polys that trancend this aspect and are making decisions based on full respect towards anyone they relate to at any given time. Melbi somewhat got into this brilliantly, no need for me to reiterate. The point being people must be darn sure of where others are coming from and thier expectations from another. Again most women, or female energies ARE mono, and to mix a poly with a mono, issue's of consumerism will stike to break trust issue's. The pool of poly "women" just are not as prevelent as poly "men" want to believe - and poly people do need to realize what they are expecting in that light. Consumerism IS a word that goes directly to the issue here.
And did I actually say that poly people have no feelings or emotions? No, neither did I convey any such notion. What IS at issue here is that while all people are human and encompass the full spectrum of emotions and need for respect, certain actions such as betrayal of trust will be trigger deep pain when that occures. That it is the monogamous persons trust being violated at the point of departure from monogamy is entirely incidental. This is common sense and stands to reason, not some declaration that polys have "no feelings." It's just logical to look at who is feeling what at any given moment, and since broken trust cuts deep, yes that feeling will be most profound for the mono person.

"This is a discussion of polyamory and monogamy, so please try and make points that are relevant to polyamorous relationships, not just to casual sex."
Sorry but monogamy and polymoury is very much about sex, so this is exactly on target. To imply that it isn't about sex is absurd! And as much as polys sometimes wish to breeze right over the issue of casual sex, this is a core element of polymourism. It is more to be sure, but to leave this out really avoids the issue of consumerism doesn't it.

"I like how there doesn't seem to be any such thing as lesbians or bisexuals here." Why do you like that? You have not found a fallacy in my post. You have found a reduction in post to save screen space. LGBT's have choices in monogamy and polymoury too, though to detail them here would go beyond the scoop of this thread, they deserve a more room if I were to speak on their behalf. That I haven't means nothing you seem to eager to believe, and they are here speak on their accord as well.

"I still see no proof of the assertion that mono = commitment, poly = lack of commitment."
I do. But it's who wants commitment to what. Mono's want commitment to monagamy, poly's to polymoury. Some fall in between. It's healthy for each party to know who wants what.

"Just like women being good in the kitchen is deeply valued? I'm really concerned by how you seem to take the gender roles that men and women are socialised into in early 21st-century Western capitalist societies as being Great Eternal Truths."
I do? Where did I say anything you assert here. At best you're jumping the gun again, and I have to ask why? I'd love it if would take the time to slow down and take appearances as just that. Note your use of the words "you seem". Slooooow down!

"This is coming across as more and more anti-feminist. If I started going on about how women needed men as protectors, I'd expect to be slated for blatant misogyny, and rightly so."
Yeah, we could use a lot less slanting and a lot more slowing down before we believe people are saying things they are not. On the other hand if I truely were fighting a non-progressive fight I would put the gun to my own head. But you won't catch me fighting the backwards fight. Cheap ploy. You will however see me opening up taboo subjects at the risk of appearing one way or another if it means going back to key issues to address topics. Hopefully you will choose to move beyond appearances, and not mistake issues that have been around since the dawn of time to read as being a backwards fight. That's sorta cheap to be sure. Can we be adults here ---- even though I indeed stepped on your toes?

Fact of the matter is polymory is not as healthy to a great number of people, as poly's dearly hope to be believe. It has "gifted" a great number of the population with more pain than benifit to try and wish it upon those who are not poly (and may still be enable to voice that view under pressure from peers). After all who wants to appear backwards, let alone have it implied? I don't mind, but some do. I'm 41, I seldom really care about appearances and accusations any longer. I'm driven to speak - pretty "feminist" of me I might add. ;)

BabylonHoruv

30th June 2009, 04:15

I think that monogamy will be the dominant model because we are biologically predisposed toward serial monogamy with some cheating. That's what we have done for thousands of years, it is done among tribal hunter gather groups, was done in ancient cultures, the middle ages, and modern society. Some societies have been, and are, polygamous, either one male several females or (more rarely) one female several males, however these are the exception.

The replacement of the family as the dominant social group is more about the extended family, which has already been largely replaced in any case, with the affinity group. Currently in many places the extended family has withered away without being replaced by anything, and i think a lot of people are feeling that lack.

I do think that an Anarchist or Communist society will be more supportive of polygamous relationships than our current one is, but I do not think they will ever be the dominant social model.

(also, for the record, I am in a polygamous relationship, just to make my biases clear)

A_Ciarra

30th June 2009, 08:01

I often forget that some subjects can provoke difficult feelings to experience, and process quick enough not to ruin peoples day. My apologies for any insensitivity to anyone.

For polyamorous people; I hope (in the solidarity sense) for fulfilling and available situations for you all, secured social liberty, and a sense of peace at all times now and in the future.

Peace

The Ungovernable Farce

30th June 2009, 12:52

There is zero "gender essentialism" being noted by me (that is a most definite rash conclusion on your part), rather male and female TERMS are being used here strictly to replace excessive comment on every last variance on the human personality (length of post is an issue here to).
So when you said "women", you didn't actually mean women? That makes things a little clearer, but I think you can see why I was confused. Melbi was talking about "naturally monogamous" people, I think that's a much clearer term to use.

"Nothing compares to where the father gives the bride to her husband."
This act is ment as symbolic not litteral. Though yes, many people get a little obtuse and miss that this symbolic gesture is ment to convey a transfernce of duty to show affections and protection rather than ownership over her. No doubt this obtuseness is a problem in comprehension within society.
See, I'd disagree with that. Marriage is a patriarchal ritual, rooted in incredibly sexist traditions that view women as a commodity, and so it does represent a symbolic handing-over of property from the father to the groom.

I might note that I myself was not speaking of marriage anywhere in my post though so there is a little jumping of the gun here. Let's avoid that.
I know, I was just making the point that some aspects of monogamy can be far worse than polyamory when it comes to treating women as commodities.

Frankly I do believe sexual consumerism IS one part in the eqation with some poly ideals. It's rather blatent in some cases if we are to be fully honest. This is not always the case however, there are many polys that trancend this aspect and are making decisions based on full respect towards anyone they relate to at any given time.
Thank you. I don't see why you assume that the worst aspects of poly, rather than this side, would predominate.

Again most women, or female energies ARE mono, and to mix a poly with a mono, issue's of consumerism will stike to break trust issue's.
I still don't see exactly what you're saying. Are you actually making grand claims about women here, or are you just using "woman" as shorthand for "mono"? In which case, why not just say mono?

And did I actually say that poly people have no feelings or emotions? No, neither did I convey any such notion.
You said "Most women feel a very deep and cutting pain from feeling like a consumer object. They hope to been deeply valued in their fullness and appreciated for their value as way more than and object of sexual release. To us life is an experience that entails far more. " That clearly implies that men/poly people are fine with being treated as a consumer object, don't hope to be deeply valued in their fullness, and don't hope for anything more after life. If that isn't the case, and men/poly people feel exactly the same way, then what's the point of bringing it up?

What IS at issue here is that while all people are human and encompass the full spectrum of emotions and need for respect, certain actions such as betrayal of trust will be trigger deep pain when that occures. That it is the monogamous persons trust being violated at the point of departure from monogamy is entirely incidental. This is common sense and stands to reason, not some declaration that polys have "no feelings." It's just logical to look at who is feeling what at any given moment, and since broken trust cuts deep, yes that feeling will be most profound for the mono person.
But no-one's talking about broken trust! I'm talking about free and open poly relationships, not entering into a mono relationship and then fucking around behind your partner's back. Since, in an honest and mature poly relationship, there is no issue of trust being violated, I genuinely cannot see why you think this would be relevant.

Sorry but monogamy and polymoury is very much about sex, so this is exactly on target. To imply that it isn't about sex is absurd!
I said "casual sex", not sex. So if monogamy is about sex, then all that stuff you were saying about feelings earlier is irrelevant, cos monogamous people just want someone to have sex with on a regular basis, right?

And as much as polys sometimes wish to breeze right over the issue of casual sex, this is a core element of polymourism. It is more to be sure, but to leave this out really avoids the issue of consumerism doesn't it.
There's nothing wrong with casual sex, but it's ridiculous to try and talk about it as if it's the defining element of polyamory. Poly means building fulfilling, nurturing relationships with multiple people, and to try and reduce that to casual sex is every bit as absurd as reducing mono to "just fucking one person for a long period of time".

"I still see no proof of the assertion that mono = commitment, poly = lack of commitment."
I do. But it's who wants commitment to what. Mono's want commitment to monagamy, poly's to polymoury. Some fall in between. It's healthy for each party to know who wants what.
Personally, I want commitment to/from my partner/s. So, I would think, would most people. You were talking as though being poly means you cannot be committed to your partners, which is nonsense.

I do? Where did I say anything you assert here.
Throughout your entire post. You kept on using the term "women" as if all women act the same way, and will always act the same way, and want the same things. In my experience, what most women want is to be treated as individuals, and not as though the fact of having a vagina defines their entire personality.

Fact of the matter is polymory is not as healthy to a great number of people, as poly's dearly hope to be believe. It has "gifted" a great number of the population with more pain than benifit to try and wish it upon those who are not poly (and may still be enable to voice that view under pressure from peers).
See, this is where I'd fundamentally disagree. I do not see monogamy as being as healthy to a great number of people as monos hope to believe, and mono has given a great number of people a great deal of pain. But when monogamous relationships fail, people tend to see it as an isolated incident, when poly relationships fail people see it as a reflection on poly.

I often forget that some subjects can provoke difficult feelings to experience, and process quick enough not to ruin peoples day. My apologies for any insensitivity to anyone.

For polyamorous people; I hope (in the solidarity sense) for fulfilling and available situations for you all, secured social liberty, and a sense of peace at all times now and in the future.

Peace
Thanks. Same to you. :)

A_Ciarra

30th June 2009, 15:41

Hi Ungovernable,

Since this topic strikes a bit heavy on deeply felt beliefs and sensitivities I'm going to take the de escalation rought and skip stirring anything else up by replying. It's not important in that repect.

You're cool, I didn't mean to be offensive or what not in the first place. I really only ment to comment on some things that through my conversations with monogamous women over the years know make us tick overall. But it's almost like there is to many non-overlapping issues when you mix what I began discussing, and what you are disscussing, and mixing the conversations muddies up the integrity of each others comments to much. Something like unitentional chaos happened here. :w00t:

Mecha_Shiva

30th June 2009, 18:46

The Ungovernable Farce

30th June 2009, 23:58

I don't understand why putting restrictions on a relationship is harmful. You have to make it clear what you want and make sure you do not compromise that. If you love your partner, but your partner also loves another person, I see nothing wrong or harmful with making them choose between you or the other person. I see something wrong with you having to suck it up, and deal with your partner being in love with someone else while their with you, even though it is hurting you. And the fact that they see it is hurting you, but they care more about their own needs and continue on doing what they are doing regardless of your feelings.
Because obviously there are only two people whose feelings matter here. And making two people who love each other break up is far less bad than being mature about the situation. Since we've established that two people who love each other should break up because a third person doesn't like what they're doing, do you think that fundamentalist Christians should be able to make gay couples break up, because "it hurts the Christians, but the gays care more about their own needs and continue on doing what they're doing regardless of the Christians' feelings"? Immaturity is human and forgiveable, but it takes a special kind of arrogance to try and pass your immaturity off as some kind of virtue.

Also, if a particularly jealous person objects to their partner having friends of the opposite sex (or even the same sex, for that matter), would you say that "I see nothing wrong or harmful with making them choose between you or their friends. I see something wrong with you having to suck it up, and deal with your partner having other friends, even though it is hurting you. And the fact that they see it is hurting you, but they care more about their own needs and continue on doing what they are doing regardless of your feelings"? Because it's exactly the same logic.

I think that even a polygamous relationship would have some sort of boundaries, some sort of restrictions, because they are not many people who are comfortable or OK with absolutely everything in the world. Like maybe you can sleep with whoever you want, just not my sister or mother please. Or you have to use a condom every time, no exceptions. Regardless of if the person is using the pill or a diaphragm, always a condom.
I think any type of relationship will have a certain degree of restrictions, whether it is poly or mono. And I don't think that restrictions in relationships are a bad thing. It's not all about the one person, there will always be at least two people in a relationship, so there will always be compromise.Yes, any relationship will always have some kind of restrictions. But I don't see why you should stop your partner from doing things that makes them happy if it doesn't directly affect you. Asking your partner to try not to catch STDs is a long way from just being immature for the sake of it.

Faust

2nd July 2009, 20:37

I'm a strictly monogamous person, I love one person. That's it. I barely even look at other girls ( Of course I see them... but you know what I mean ;) ) My girlfriend is the same way. She's got friends that are guys, and I've got friends that are girls. We both know that nothing goes on between them and us. And so we're comfortable with it. I'd never force her to choose between her friends and me.

But I don't really see why people can't be in love with more than one person, if, of course, they actually truly feel love. If they are in a relationship with someone who is monogamous, It's disrespectful. Then I think they need to make a choice.

Unregistered

2nd July 2009, 22:00

Because obviously there are only two people whose feelings matter here. And making two people who love each other break up is far less bad than being mature about the situation. Since we've established that two people who love each other should break up because a third person doesn't like what they're doing, do you think that fundamentalist Christians should be able to make gay couples break up, because "it hurts the Christians, but the gays care more about their own needs and continue on doing what they're doing regardless of the Christians' feelings"? Immaturity is human and forgiveable, but it takes a special kind of arrogance to try and pass your immaturity off as some kind of virtue.

Also, if a particularly jealous person objects to their partner having friends of the opposite sex (or even the same sex, for that matter), would you say that "I see nothing wrong or harmful with making them choose between you or their friends. I see something wrong with you having to suck it up, and deal with your partner having other friends, even though it is hurting you. And the fact that they see it is hurting you, but they care more about their own needs and continue on doing what they are doing regardless of your feelings"? Because it's exactly the same logic.

What would you do to be mature about the situation them? What would be the mature thing to do? I am in love with this person, I am dating them. But they are now interested in someone else. I am not ok with this, this is not what I want out of this relationship and I am not happy with it. So I will tell them we obviously want different things, and that it's not working. And that is that. Exactly how is that not the mature thing to do. Yea, if there is a person who is ok with their mate seeing another person, and it doesn't bother them, then fine. But if it does bother you and you are unhappy with them you are being mature if you let that person know, and leave if you want to. It would be imature to stay in a relationship you are not happy in, regardless of the reason you are not happy.
And I do not know what you talking about with the third party? I am talking about the PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE RELATIONSHIP. I do not care if any person outside the relationship has a problem with it. I am not talking about a third party at all. I don't know how you got that. I was just saying if person A and person B were in a relationship, and A fell in love with person C. If B does not like and is not comfortable with this, they can leave A. B does not have to stay and compromise their happiness because A thinks it is natural for A to love both B and C at the same time. If B is happy with it, then it's fine. But if B is not happy, then it is also fine for B to leave A over it. Then A is free to go find someone else who has the same views as them, and the same goes for B.
So I don't even understand how you talking about the church and gays has anything to do with this, unless the church is dating the gay community?

And no one is making the two people break up, they are deciding this on their own. If one person is not happy then why would they continue the relationship?

And as for the friend thing, that is again between the two people in question. It would be for the people who are dating to work out and if they can't work it out, then they shouldn't be dating. Why would you stay together if your miserable. The person who is jealous would be miserable, but so would the person who thinks they should be able to do what they want.

Yes, any relationship will always have some kind of restrictions. But I don't see why you should stop your partner from doing things that makes them happy if it doesn't directly affect you. Asking your partner to try not to catch STDs is a long way from just being immature for the sake of it.

Well if your partner being in love with or sleeping with other people is upsetting you, then it is directly affecting you. I'm not saying it upsets everyone, but for the people it does upset, they not are being selfish or immature if they break up with someone over it. How is knowing what you want or don't want in a relationship immature? Having a personal preference to monogamy is immature? I would think staying in a relationship you are not comfortable in would be more immature. There is nothing wrong with asking your partner to not have sex with other people while they are dating you. Just like there is nothing wrong with asking your partner if you can have sex with other people while your dating. I'm just saying one should not make the other compromise. If they don't both want the same things, they just should not date.

The Ungovernable Farce

3rd July 2009, 11:22

What would you do to be mature about the situation them? What would be the mature thing to do? I am in love with this person, I am dating them. But they are now interested in someone else...
And I do not know what you talking about with the third party? I am talking about the PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE RELATIONSHIP.
If your partner is interested in someone else, and the other person is interested in them, then those two people are the people involved in their relationship, and you are the third party.

I do not care if any person outside the relationship has a problem with it.
So why should your partner's partner care if any person outside their relationship has a problem with it?

I was just saying if person A and person B were in a relationship, and A fell in love with person C. If B does not like and is not comfortable with this, they can leave A. B does not have to stay and compromise their happiness because A thinks it is natural for A to love both B and C at the same time. If B is happy with it, then it's fine. But if B is not happy, then it is also fine for B to leave A over it. Then A is free to go find someone else who has the same views as them, and the same goes for B.
Because only A and B have feelings, right? It doesn't matter whether C's happy or not. It's fine to make A and C both miserable if it suits B. That's what you're saying.

So I don't even understand how you talking about the church and gays has anything to do with this, unless the church is dating the gay community?
If A and C fall in love, and B tells them they have to break up, that doesn't seem to different in principle from Jim and John falling in love and the Pope telling them they have to break up.

And no one is making the two people break up, they are deciding this on their own.
Right. So you think A and C should decide on their own whether they want to stay together, with no outside pressure from B? I agree.

And as for the friend thing, that is again between the two people in question... The person who is jealous would be miserable, but so would the person who thinks they should be able to do what they want.
And have you failed to notice that the person who is jealous in this situation is clearly a massive prick? I chose that example because it seemed obvious that no-one could defend behaviour that massively immature.

Well if your partner being in love with or sleeping with other people is upsetting you, then it is directly affecting you.
And if men being in love with or sleeping with other men upsets a Christian, then it is directly affecting them. So by your logic, Christians should have the right to demand gay couples break up.

I'm just saying one should not make the other compromise.
And I'm saying that sometimes compromise is an important part of being a healthy adult and that you shouldn't write off everything someone has to offer just because they sometimes do some things you don't like.

mel

3rd July 2009, 14:14

Let me make an example here really quickly:

A is a naturally monogamous person. B and C are naturally polyamorous.

A is in love with B, B is in love with both A and C, and C is in love with B and can't stand to be around A.

A does their best to be understanding of B's polyamory, but it is very likely that at some point A will be unfulfilled by the relationship, because while B can enjoy the love of two people, A cannot enjoy the love of B when B is with C, and being naturally monogamous cannot enjoy love and romantic affection from somebody else while B is away. If A becomes sufficiently unfulfilled in this relationship, I think it's reasonable for A to ask B to choose between A and C, and in this situation, refusing to choose is equivalent to choosing C, so A has a right to leave the unfulfilling relationship and attempt to find somebody with whom they are more compatible (perhaps another naturally monogamous person). I don't think that A should be made to remain in a relationship that they are uncomfortable with for the sake of B's polyamory. If having a relationship with A is more important to B than having a relationship with C, then B might choose to enter into a monogamous relationship with A. Most likely, A would have to leave the relationship and B would continue in their polyamorous relationship with C.

I agree that the situation sucks, but As feelings are no less legitimate than Bs or Cs feelings, and A should not be forced to remain in a deeply unfulfilling relationship in order to maintain the happiness of B, even if A loves B very much. B should also not be forced to break off a deeply fulfilling relationship with C just because A is uncomfortable with it. However, B cannot just expect that A will stick around despite being unfulfilled and at some point, a choice between them will have to be made. Since C is also polyamorous, it is probably a better person for B to stay with and choose as far as compatibility goes because if B falls in love again with a polyamorous D, all parties involved would be more comfortable with the relationship.

A_Ciarra

8th July 2009, 15:13

I’ll add something else I suppose. About referring to people as commodities that I think might help clarify an issue. Please remember that I can only speak from a female monogamous view, I’m especially not trying to speak for OR define what a polyamorous person feels and thinks.

When I say “most women feel a very deep and cutting pain from feeling like a consumer object,” I’m trying to get at one point alone. Pain itself was not really the point there, or denying that anyone feels it… Neither am I getting at the issue of manners here, how we approach people, politely or rudely. Most certainly there is a polite way of treating people within any type of relationship. I think the word “feel” threw my point off on that.

The point I’m trying to make is that the end goal of polyamory IS to increase supply of partners, or commodity/product if you will - the end goal of monogamy is keep it between two.

This is what monogamous women just can’t relate to here. By relate I mean that sexually wise our brains are hard wired on all levels not to become a object of “trade,” and I know people must hear this all the time but it really is true. There is something in monogamous women; that drive to “nest” that feels deeply violated when their partners don’t protect what is being built. So commodity here is going to the issue letting something move further than the biological, and not becoming destructive to home and family. To me it honestly seems like something is trying to evolve AWAY from poly instincts which are destructive on some level we that we still do not collectively understand. This is going to anger poly’s, and make me sound arrogant as ALL hell, but I’ll just say it though it’s not pc. I’m not trying to dictate here, but rather convey a concept that perhaps needs some asserting.

To me it honestly seems like the mono drive is something protective and the poly drive is something destructive (I mean on a grand scale). And I’m not going to address all the poly arguments. Monogamous people hear all the “transcend it” arguments all the time, the “free yourself from jealousy” arguments... Well my instincts tell me, NO - something is going down – don’t “transcend it” - OBEY it. My instincts suggest to me that it’s a good thing to ask for monogamy from partners, and not just because that’s my particular persuasion, or conceptual understanding, and all the rest, but because I feel monogamy is trying to show how to be constructive on a some huge yet unknown evolutionary scale (not just my own personal home). I think the monogamous drive of women (and men) , hold some instinctual seeds that are trying to show poly men how to transcend a destructive practice. To me, that poly men feel a biological desire to have a greater supply doesn’t quite pan out as a good enough reason to be "destructive" (that's not a convinction of them, but rather meant in the conceptual manner for the sake of argument). The mono women I think have something important to teach here. *Transcend the biological

Yes I have heard all the arguments that polyamory is not all about the biological – but those arguments don't pan out for me. Obviously the main goal of polyamory is biological when the goal is to increase the pool of sex partners.

Having said that I would NEVER apply this along the lines of discrimination for any reason, or even set about ridiculing poly’s on any social level – stigmatizing them as “bad boys” (who deserves a dose of ridicule or hostility over differences in opinion or lifestyle choices). I hold no animosity towards poly’s over their lifestyle beliefs and choices. I’m JUST commenting on my thoughts in case anyone wants to hear an uncensored view.

The Ungovernable Farce

8th July 2009, 15:46

When I say “most women feel a very deep and cutting pain from feeling like a consumer object,” I’m trying to get at one point alone. Pain itself was not really the point there, or denying that anyone feels it… Neither am I getting at the issue of manners here, how we approach people, politely or rudely. Most certainly there is a polite way of treating people within any type of relationship. I think the word “feel” threw my point off on that.

The point I’m trying to make is that the end goal of polyamory IS to increase supply of partners, or commodity/product if you will - the end goal of monogamy is keep it between two.
But why is that the end goal? If you look at the history of Western patriarchal society, it's traditionally preferred monogamy. Patriarchal institutions like the church still promote monogamy. That's not because they're lovely sensible people, that's because the man's property is more valuable if he has total control over it. Look at the way patriarchal society prizes virginity, or the sections in the Bible dealing with it.

This is what monogamous women just can’t relate to here. By relate I mean that sexually wise our brains are hard wired on all levels not to become a object of “trade,” and I know people must hear this all the time but it really is true.
Why does this argument sound so much like every sexist argument that's ever been made against feminism?

There is something in monogamous women; that drive to “nest” that feels deeply violated when their partners don’t protect what is being built. So commodity here is going to the issue letting something move further than the biological, and not becoming destructive to home and family. To me it honestly seems like something is trying to evolve AWAY from poly instincts which are destructive on some level we that we still do not collectively understand. This is going to anger poly’s, and make me sound arrogant as ALL hell, but I’ll just say it though it’s not pc. I’m not trying to dictate here, but rather convey a concept that perhaps needs some asserting.

To me it honestly seems like the mono drive is something protective and the poly drive is something destructive (I mean on a grand scale).
And to me it honestly seems like the mono drive is something destructive, in that it requires the suppression of all feelings and entaglements that don't fit into its incredibly rigid structure. If we're going to throw around careless assertions, then I'll mention that monogamy seems like a drive to control your partner, and that seems unhealthy to me.

And I’m not going to address all the poly arguments. Monogamous people hear all the “transcend it” arguments all the time, the “free yourself from jealousy” arguments...
No. The incredibly tiny proportion of mono people who hang out with poly people a lot may hear those arguments all the time. No-one else does. In contrast, you have the whole weight of society backing your prejudices up. When's the last time you read a book or saw a film that ended with a happy poly relationship? And when's the last time you read a book or saw a film that ended with a happy monogamous couple?

Well my instincts tell me, NO - something is going down – don’t “transcend it” - OBEY it. My instincts suggest to me that it’s a good thing to ask for monogamy from partners, and not just because that’s my particular persuasion, or conceptual understanding, and all the rest, but because I feel monogamy is trying to show how to be constructive on a some huge yet unknown evolutionary scale (not just my own personal home).
And I feel like huge evolutionary scales are utterly irrelevant to human happiness and needs, and that whatever brings joy in the here and now is a good in itself.

I think the monogamous women (and men) here, hold some instinctual seeds that are trying to show poly men how to transcend a destructive practice.
And I think that it's monogamous society's practices that are destructive and need to be transcended. What about poly women?

To me, that poly men feel a biological desire to have a greater supply doesn’t quite pan out as a good enough reason to be destructive.
What, so women's "biological needs" are more important than men's "biological needs"? What about the feelings and emotions of poly people? Or, once again, are we seeing champions of monogamy conveniently forget that anyone except them has emotions? And you still haven't explained what's being destroyed here. Except, of course, all the relationships and connections that're destroyed by the arbitrary restrictions of monogamy.

The mono women I think have something important to teach here. *Transcend the biological

Yes I have heard all the arguments that polyamory is not all about the biological – but those arguments do pan of for me. Obviously the main goal of polyamory is biological when the goal is to increase the pool of sex partners.

Could I politely request that you refrain from talking about subjects that you clearly don't know anything about? I don't suggest that your attachment to monogamy comes from the fact that you want a steady, reliable supply of cock, so why reduce all the love and emotion and romance of poly relationships to just being about sex?

I’m JUST commenting on my thoughts in case anyone wants to hear an uncensored view.

Uncensored and uniformed, it would seem.

Il Medico

8th July 2009, 16:49

*A Ciarra*
Hello. I think perhaps you misunderstood some of my comments so let me clarify. My views on relationships is not a polygamous or polygamy. I do not think that a person can have a meaningful relationship, which is based on love (Romantic love), with multiple people. However, humans have a very active sex drive. Which brings us to the second comment I think you misunderstood. My comment comparing sex to having a drink at a bar was not to say it is (or the people your are having it with) a consumer object. Rather like drinking sex outside of formal relationships (i.e single) is something that happens due to our natural lust. When relationships are strong and are based on what they should be, love. rather than on dependency or sex, the act of sex outside of that relationship should not be the game ender that it is. Open relationships are basically monogamous, except the restrictions on sex. In an open relationship you have one partner and you agree that sex will not come between you. When you put restrictions on thing people enjoy doing it causes a lot of ill effects. (Like say drinking during prohibition, hence my comparison) For example, why do you think that sexual monogamy is so highly valued in our society? It wasn't in Greco-Roman times, yet they still had many strong relationships. The culture we have been brought up in teaches us that cheating (sex with some one besides your spouse) is the ultimate betrayal. But is it? He/She is still coming back to you at the end of the day. That's why they are 'cheating' and no just leaving you. (Which is in my opinion much worse then just having sex with someone) Your relationship is not harmed by the other person having sex with someone else. The damage only comes when this revealed. This is because we do not look at thing rationally, just only how we were thought. The sexual monogamism in our society is based mainly on two things, 1. Christian morals and 2. Economic dependency (not necessarily in that order). In a communist society dependency will not be necessary and I think humanity will move away from sexual monogamy again. And on a side note, I have one question. If you don't want to feel like a consumer object, which is to acquired. Then why do you support sexual monogamy, which is basically one person (usally the guy) claiming this other person as their's? (i.e "That's so-and-so's girl" or Mrs. Joe Suchandsuch or So-and-so's guy, etcetra, etcetra)

A_Ciarra

8th July 2009, 19:49

And to me it honestly seems like the mono drive is something destructive, in that it requires the suppression of all feelings and entagelments that don't fit into its incredibly rigid structure.

That's not the mono drive - that's the exploitation drive. To mix the two will just confuse the issues. Monogamy is not the source of these things, nor does it seek to do those.

Monogamy might though be asking a poly to transcend and figure out why he/she is not happy unless he/she is being destructive, and consequently falling back on what may be justifications here. It might be trying to show poly's how to BE happy. My hunch is this is NOT at all like LGBT's who are indeed just and they are (not a choice), but about men/women just learning not to hurt themselves by missing what is right in front of them, and learning how to cultivate that instead of destroy it over what may very well be a mistake.

And I feel like huge evolutionary scales are utterly irrelevant to human happiness and needs, and that whatever brings joy in the here and now is a good in itself. The "here and now", or peoples lives and happiness is indeed important and needs to be safeguarded (think civil rights). But when were talking about evolutionary scales that very much does matter. It's going to do what it wants to do, and is going to undermine anything we try to place onto it if it's ultimately destructive. People will figure out what is ultimately destructive through trial and error (at least if they pay attention).

No. The incredibly tiny proportion of mono people who hang out with poly people a lot may hear those arguments all the time. No-one else does. Not true that only a tiny amount of monogamous poeple hear these things. The arguments have worked their way into popular culture for a good ten years now. This is common conversation in high schools and colleges every where.

What, so women's "biological needs" are more important than men's "biological needs"? For monogamous women their drives contain far more than the physical alone - that I why I'm inclined to think the poly men should pay attention to what the mono women are trying to convey and learn something about non-destructiveness here. No - I'm not speaking to any literal role of female authority and matriarchy and all that fascist bull crap. That goes back to the exploitation drive. The poly men seem to be letting the physical be the primary drive - when what nature might be trying to do is build MORE into them. No not feminization, but rather how to gain the full satisfaction within one partner. To have them learn to how to cultivate that OVER the sex drive alone AND gain a full sense of satisfaction. Not artificial satisfaction - but deep cutting satisfaction.

Can we please not make this about trying to deny anyone? That's why I used the word trancendance in here. The goal of nature would be to show people how to improve relationships and be satisfied at the core level at the same time. Not just that be truley protect and satisfy things on a very multi faceted level.

I'm not a "champion of monogamy". Though I will speak if I think I can add anything to the conversation.

Could I politely request that you refrain from talking about subjects that you clearly don't know anything about? I don't know anything about monogamy? I'm a monogamous female, have some experience under my belt, think over these issues over deeply before speaking, and have discussed it with many sorts of people, especially monogamous women.

I don't suggest that your attachment to monogamy comes from the fact that you want a steady, reliable supply of cock, so why reduce all the love and emotion and romance of poly relationships to just being about sex? For the men it largely is. That's a basic fact - they are tied to the act of sex in a very concrete physical manner removed from many aspects women are experiencing on multiple levels. No that does not indicate rank, but it's perhaps denotes a innate wisdom of a broader spectrum os things involved.

And this has nothing to do with topic of feelings (at least not how you are suggesting). But as I said above, increasing the number of sex partners IS about sex. Of course people have all sorts of emotions while they are having sexual relationships (and I'm not degrading or devaluing those), but polymory by it's definition IS asking for more sexual partners to be available. I'm not the one making this about sex, polymory is. You need to consider that you are the one making your choices, instead of making this about my looking at this in some demented fashion. I'm not, nor am I trying to upset you (I hope you will understand that).

A_Ciarra

8th July 2009, 20:14

It might seem like I'm using the term "destructive" carelessly, but this is correct word I want to use. I'm not trying to be use it in the negative sense though, but to go back to a point.

When I use it, I'm not indicating some personal flaw in poly's, or indicating even that I feel polys may be acting directly destructive to an ideal, or person ----------------- but rather themselves ultimately. That this might go even against thier own interest's (but have not discovered).

I know, who am I to say that, or speak for another....? I'm not speaking for others, I'm speaking about what might being going down overall.

The Ungovernable Farce

9th July 2009, 01:38

The "here and now", or peoples lives and happiness is indeed important and needs to be safeguarded (think civil rights). But when were talking about evolutionary scales that very much does matter. It's going to do what it wants to do, and is going to undermine anything we try to place onto it if it's ultimately destructive. People will figure out what is ultimately destructive through trial and error (at least if they pay attention).
I care about an evolutionary scale you've made up about as much as I care about gods that someone else has made up. Neither are in any way relevant.

Not true that only a tiny amount of monogamous poeple hear these things. The arguments have worked their way into popular culture for a good ten years now. This is common conversation in high schools and colleges every where. You're just making stuff up now.

For monogamous women their drives contain far more than the physical alone
And for polyamorous women their drives contain far more than the physical alone, and for polyamorous men their drives contain far more than the physical alone, and for monogamous men their drives contain far more. Do you have a point?

The poly men seem to be letting the physical be the primary driveAnd you seem to be talking nonsense yet again.

Can we please not make this about trying to deny anyone? That's why I used the word trancendance in here.So you're going to work on transcending jealousy and not making your lovers deny their desires? Good for you.

I don't know anything about monogamy? I'm a monogamous female, have some experience under my belt, think over these issues over deeply before speaking, and have discussed it with many sorts of people, especially monogamous women.
Do you know anything about polyamory? Since you clearly don't, why do you feel qualified to keep on throwing offensive and clearly untrue generalisations around?

For the men it largely is. You are talking offensive nonsense. What the fuck makes you think that you can dictate what emotions I feel? Why do you think you can throw around the claim that I can't fall in love the way you do? You'd embarrass yourself so much less if you just shut up at this point.

That's a basic fact - they are tied to the act of sex in a very concrete physical manner removed from many aspects women are experiencing on multiple levels.Have you ever been a man? Since you clearly haven't, why do you think you can speak for us? For the record, I don't think you can speak for women either, but you seem to be insulting them slightly less openly.

And this has nothing to do with topic of feelings (at least not how you are suggesting).No. It does. You do not get to say what feelings someone else does or does not experience in their relationships.

But as I said above, increasing the number of sex partners IS about sex.You're talking shit yet again. Recognising the number of partners you're emotionally entangled with has increased is about emotions.

Of course people have all sorts of emotions while they are having sexual relationships (and I'm not degrading or devaluing those), but polymory by it's definition IS asking for more sexual partners to be available. I'm not the one making this about sex, polymory is.No, I checked, and it's still you.

You need to consider that you are the one making your choices, instead of making this about my looking at this in some demented fashion. I'm not, nor am I trying to upset you (I hope you will understand that). And I hope that in future you will learn to keep quiet about things you don't understand, rather than spitting out dated gender stereotypes and deeply hurtful generalisations about other people's relationships. Is that really so much to ask?

I'm not speaking for others
a poly...is not happy unless he/she is being destructive
poly men seem to be letting the physical be the primary drive
For the men it largely is. That's a basic fact - they are tied to the act of sex in a very concrete physical manner removed from many aspects women are experiencing on multiple levels.
polymory by it's definition IS asking for more sexual partners to be available. I'm not the one making this about sex, polymory is.If you're not speaking for others, then it'd be nice if you could stop, um, speaking for others.

A_Ciarra

9th July 2009, 03:03

OK, Well I guess these ideals may have messed with your sense of order, and consistency in the universe just a pinch too much.

Good night ~~~~ Just remember you're a STRAIT male, and in relationships, meant to learn a thing or two from women. It might be valuable for you to really understand what women bring to the table. You might find yourself in a fix sometime since most females are monogamous...., so to toss these concepts out the window over getting a little spooked, might be rash too.

The Ungovernable Farce

9th July 2009, 12:34

Good night ~~~~ Just remember you're a STRAIT male, and in relationships, meant to learn a thing or two from women. It might be valuable for you to really understand what women bring to the table. You might find yourself in a fix sometime since most females are monogamous...., so to toss these concepts out the window over getting a little spooked, might be rash too.
And it might be valuable for you to understand that people don't necessarily fit into neat reductionist boxes and that having a cock or a womb doesn't automatically define someone's entire personality. I didn't think it was that controversial an idea.

Il Medico

9th July 2009, 12:58

Just remember you're a STRAIT male, and in relationships, meant to learn a thing or two from women.
So women are all knowing when it come to relationships? What about women learning from men? Men and women are each unique, everyone is different, and every relationship is different. Both sides of a relationship need to learn from each other. And what does being a heterosexual male have to do with anything?

A_Ciarra

10th July 2009, 02:53

A_Ciarra

10th July 2009, 03:01

Hi CaptainJack.

I'm not AT ALL saying women are all knowing here, JUST knowing. Instituting authority in any way is not what I'm getting at here, even though I know what I'm trying to get at runs that risk. It's a subtle difference so I do understand giving that impression. I don’t mind that – I’d rather work on theory, than sort out anothers thought process’s, or take any rejection personally. I know what I’m getting at, and know it’s not in violation to ethics or leading towards oppressive tyranny. And I’m always checking myself closely for sound logic, seeing if my ideals match models that constitute oppression, my very liberal ethics and so on --- and what I’m getting at, just means none of those things, nor holds the implications. And I would never stand with ANY women if they felt they “knew it all” and took ANY stances that violate my own beliefs in co-operation and equality and then proceeded to into tyranny asserting their authority as some sort of dictitorial queen. I am entirely opposed to that poison.

But, I'll see if I can clarify better, I doubt if I will be able to state it in away that will be understood though. I’ll see what I can do. I’m fine with people that genuinely disagree with me, but here I haven’t been able express what I’m really getting at anyway… So it’s not even at the point of holding differences of opinion.

The thing is I believe polyamory is a destructive practice at this stage of the game. Poly's present their views as constructive. We often hear the poly side of the story, this is another. And my views are my own, they derive out of my own organic views not any propaganda machine. I don’t rely on those to do my thinking for me. And I’m not coming at the subject from the angle of judging whether it’s some sort of moral or immoral practice – I’m coming at it from a strictly metaphysical level as well. I’m trying to see what could be happening on an evolutionary scale only. Morality, public policy, the way we treat one another has zero to do with it. I realize that is going to confuse matter’s, and it’s a can of worms, but it’s not where I’m coming from, and sometimes don’t mind a few can of worms. I will have to ignore any people that wish to believe that I hate poly people, or that I’m unjust, and all that silly nonsense though. Also The only point I have time for right now concerns strait people, so bisexuality or homosexuality will not be touched on, though I think some of that is self explanatory. If anyone knows they are gay, bi, or lesbian, or transgendered that is who they are – and at that point they are relating to people along quirky evolutionary lines – there is nothing destructive about them – just quirky, which nature is full of and so they run along their own independent lines. Nature deviates from the norm at times and creates mutli – faceted people and that’s beautiful. And I realize you are bi too - I hope that didn’t sound impersonal there. Anyway, my focus at this point is to clarify what I was getting at above.

So if something more is going on an evolutionary scale, what is it? That’s the question I’m addressing. And since I’m convinced more is; I have to examine the differences between strait men and women. I will be referring to just strait people here instead of signifying that each time the word male of female is used.

Looking at women’s traits here is not going to the question of authority (I reject that belief – not part of the equation, premise or assertion)… I’m not looking at traits to define, or set up power lines. I hate power!

So to get back to what may be happening evolution wise, I’m looking at what traits a women holds, and what traits a man holds, and then watching how the metaphysical may be overlapping with the evolutionary to achieve something constructive rather than destructive. Obviously the default goal of nature would to improve upon safety and survival, and away from anything destructive (which is why this word is used - and it's going to evolution, not morality). I should include here that I don't think of polymory as immoral..

BUT -------- thinking in terms of how nature is always going to push each individual to its fullest potential --- then I have to ask if anything destructive may be happening along the lines of the relationship or family unit. What is or is not destructive? That’s a key question here. And I DO see something destructive in polymory along these lines.

The male trait /drive to seek sex with multiple females come from natures push to remain in existence. And yes, males have other drives too, so I’m not suggesting that males don’t have feelings along any other line than sexual relation... This actually a critical point here; if it’s true that men have MORE traits within them, more potential if you will, this means that nature will play on that to make the next move. And here is where the womens traits come in, but I’ll come back to that.

We are already at a near extinction point because of over population, natures next move (at least if we stay on this path) is going to focus on health and non destruction – NOT population growth. Along the lines of non-material protection of relationship, home, family and all that, it is the womens drives that need to be noticed here. I think the primary drives that are built into the female is what nature will play on to achieve the next step of safety -population not being the top priority any longer. This to me says; that nature will want the men to “take a lead” from the women – learn from the womens traits and proceed along these lines in order to protect each home or relationship. The stronger that unit, the less likely it will perish in a world were people can very possibly become violent towards others in order to survive in conditions of over population - and I’m sure other things too.. But that women were given the traits to protect and guard relationships as strongly they do says those are useful on an evolutionary scale (not just the individual scale)... That they are there for a purpose, and that we will have to look at them closer, validate them, and rely on them more than we ever have in order to evolve safely.

The fact that men also carry inside them some classically female traits, shows me that they can also adapt and come to that state where they feel fully satisfied within monogamous relationships. So I don’t see deprivation here, or nature wanting to hurt us but simply expand our traits (and then habits). I did not mean to sound arrogant in suggesting I knew what satisfied men there. I reject power play’s and rejecting the voices of others. Ugg, I hate that shit! Consensus, consensus, consensus.......:redstar2000:

But I AM convinced that monogamy is a drive to be constructive in terms of evolution and that we are going to have to follow those prompts to better care for and preserve ourselves. And quite honestly I see how - though it may feel unnatural to be a monogamous male at times – I can honestly see how poly men can come to feel deeply satisfied with one woman. *This is not the same argument homophobes use to oppress people by declaring they "can become healed". Ugg, ugg, ugg! I feel poly men simply truly hold the ability to adjust, and that that can be cultivated - though I don’t for one second claim that feeling of deprivation would be not be felt along the way. And I am opposed to any thinking that it’s probably to be achieved through any one persons lifetime, I think the adjustment will be passed along genetically... For that reason I am not of the opinion that poly men somehow must stop the practice instantly. I’m not suggesting that. Though if a poly man is at some junction where they feel they swing either poly or mono – I think they are doing something more productive to go with the monogamy and lay that down in the gene pool. When I say I feel men can “learn” or adapt, I’m getting at “flow,” and adaptation only. The only way I think of my views or wish to apply them; is to ask that the partner I AM with practice monogamy. I wouldn’t want to be with someone who didn’t know they were anyway. And of course I feel monogamous people have that right to. I do take issue with poly men when they pressure a female trying to be true to her instincts and resist polymory and exploit that. That does happen.

Let me clarify again here that when I speak towards adaptation or “learning” it most definitely is NOT along the same (or even similar) lines like many religious people do when and if their end goal is to REMOVE the civil rights of others. That is violence!

I think more adaptation will be asked of the men from here on out, than the women.

The Ungovernable Farce

10th July 2009, 15:55

Ungovernable, you would be better served by checking first to see if you understand what I’m saying than assuming you do.

I think you are panicking at the implications of what I’m saying rather than trying to get what I’m saying. I can understand that --- implications --- actual threats --- not knowing me --- am I a fascist.... And I did know the issue was likely upset you further, but you need to stop with the rhetoric and check if you even understand what I'm trying to get at. Ask me, rather than tell me what I think OK (and wait for me to get it out).

So do you think there's such a thing as a "women's role"? Do you agree that one is not born a woman, you become one?

Hi CaptainJack.

I'm not AT ALL saying women are all knowing here, JUST knowing.
But you do think that being a woman automatically means you know things?

The thing is I believe polyamory is a destructive practice at this stage of the game. Poly's present their views as constructive. We often hear the poly side of the story, this is another.
This is another point that you keep on saying, but is clearly untrue. For the first 20 years of my life, I never even considered the concept of poly because I'd never been introduced to it in any meaningful way. Until you accept that the mono side of the story is promoted much more often and poly voices are very rarely heard, we're not even describing the same reality.

And my views are my own, they derive out of my own organic views not any propaganda machine. I don’t rely on those to do my thinking for me.
My views are not my own, I'm a product of late 20th-century patriarchal capitalist society trying to unfuck my head as best I can and critically examine the bullshit I've been brought up with. The presumption that monogamy is best is one part of that bullshit.

And I’m not coming at the subject from the angle of judging whether it’s some sort of moral or immoral practice – I’m coming at it from a strictly metaphysical level as well. I’m trying to see what could be happening on an evolutionary scale only.
How do you see evolution as working? To me, evolution is a blind, amoral process where those genes that are best adapted for survival in a certain environment reproduce more. Do you see it as something else?

Morality, public policy, the way we treat one another has zero to do with it.
I'm pretty much only interested in the way we treat each other. Not much else matters.

Also The only point I have time for right now concerns strait people, so bisexuality or homosexuality will not be touched on, though I think some of that is self explanatory.
I don't see any reason why bi or homosexual relationships should necessarily be any different.

So if something more is going on an evolutionary scale, what is it? That’s the question I’m addressing. And since I’m convinced more is; I have to examine the differences between strait men and women. I will be referring to just strait people here instead of signifying that each time the word male of female is used.

Where do you think these differences come from?

So to get back to what may be happening evolution wise, I’m looking at what traits a women holds, and what traits a man holds, and then watching how the metaphysical may be overlapping with the evolutionary to achieve something constructive rather than destructive.
What metaphysical forces are you talking about here? Does God want me to be monogamous? The sun?

Obviously the default goal of nature would to improve upon safety and survival, and away from anything destructive (which is why this word is used - and it's going to evolution, not morality).
Nature is blind, and often horrible. Nature isn't intelligently designed.

The male trait /drive to seek sex with multiple females come from natures push to remain in existence. And yes, males have other drives too, so I’m not suggesting that males don’t have feelings along any other line than sexual relation... This actually a critical point here; if it’s true that men have MORE traits within them, more potential if you will, this means that nature will play on that to make the next move. And here is where the womens traits come in, but I’ll come back to that.

We are already at a near extinction point because of over population, natures next move (at least if we stay on this path) is going to focus on health and non destruction – NOT population growth.
What makes you think nature makes moves? Does nature do this deliberately?

Along the lines of non-material protection of relationship, home, family and all that, it is the womens drives that need to be noticed here. I think the primary drives that are built into the female is what nature will play on to achieve the next step of safety -population not being the top priority any longer. This to me says; that nature will want the men to “take a lead” from the women – learn from the womens traits and proceed along these lines in order to protect each home or relationship. The stronger that unit, the less likely it will perish in a world were people can very possibly become violent towards others in order to survive in conditions of over population - and I’m sure other things too.. But that women were given the traits to protect and guard relationships as strongly they do says those are useful on an evolutionary scale (not just the individual scale)... That they are there for a purpose, and that we will have to look at them closer, validate them, and rely on them more than we ever have in order to evolve safely.

The fact that men also carry inside them some classically female traits, shows me that they can also adapt and come to that state where they feel fully satisfied within monogamous relationships. So I don’t see deprivation here, or nature wanting to hurt us but simply expand our traits (and then habits). I did not mean to sound arrogant in suggesting I knew what satisfied men there. I reject power play’s and rejecting the voices of others. Ugg, I hate that shit! Consensus, consensus, consensus.......:redstar2000:

But I AM convinced that monogamy is a drive to be constructive in terms of evolution and that we are going to have to follow those prompts to better care for and preserve ourselves. And quite honestly I see how - though it may feel unnatural to be a monogamous male at times – I can honestly see how poly men can come to feel deeply satisfied with one woman. *This is not the same argument homophobes use to oppress people by declaring they "can become healed". Ugg, ugg, ugg! I feel poly men simply truly hold the ability to adjust, and that that can be cultivated - though I don’t for one second claim that feeling of deprivation would be not be felt along the way. And I am opposed to any thinking that it’s probably to be achieved through any one persons lifetime, I think the adjustment will be passed along genetically... For that reason I am not of the opinion that poly men somehow must stop the practice instantly. I’m not suggesting that. Though if a poly man is at some junction where they feel they swing either poly or mono – I think they are doing something more productive to go with the monogamy and lay that down in the gene pool. When I say I feel men can “learn” or adapt, I’m getting at “flow,” and adaptation only. The only way I think of my views or wish to apply them; is to ask that the partner I AM with practice monogamy. I wouldn’t want to be with someone who didn’t know they were anyway. And of course I feel monogamous people have that right to. I do take issue with poly men when they pressure a female trying to be true to her instincts and resist polymory and exploit that. That does happen.

Let me clarify again here that when I speak towards adaptation or “learning” it most definitely is NOT along the same (or even similar) lines like many religious people do when and if their end goal is to REMOVE the civil rights of others. That is violence!

I think more adaptation will be asked of the men from here on out, than the women.
We're having two entirely separate conversations here. I don't believe that women are naturally monogamous, or naturally that different from men, I just think that they're conditioned in certain ways. I'm interested in a) how people in existing societies, with the conditioning they have now, can make each other happy, and b ) how people in a future hypothetical free society, without being conditioned into gender roles, could make each other happy. I'm not interested in grand metaphysical evolutionary schemes, because I don't think they exist.

21st Century Kropotkinist

10th July 2009, 22:46

I have heard that in a communist society that the family will be replaced as the main social group. Now if this happens I have serious doubts on whether monogamy will still be necessary. As many sociologist have explained monogamy as a way to ensure the survival of the children to maturity, which has been developed in society for family units. So the question is: Will Monogamy no long be necessary in a communist society? Personally I am a supporter of open-relationships and don't really see the need for monogamy any more, especially if there was a communist society. Any thoughts?

(Also I apologize if this is in the wrong forum, but since it related to conditions brought on by the implementation of communism, I thought it appropriate)

Monogamy and the structure of a "nuclear family" should be a voluntary personal choice, as open relationships and other family structures. It should not be perceived as ethical or moral, as open relationships should not be perceived as unethical and immoral.

As for a communist society, I don't think there should be new standards, just no moral rigidity when concerning two cpmsenting adults and their sexual/familial relationship. Nothing should be encouraged but individual preference concerning consenting people and sexual/familial activity. A great deal of why we're more monogamous than other species, as primates, we tend to nurture our young for a long period of time. This encourages a nuclear family structure (if the man sticks around). But the nature of it being perceived as good for kids and being ethical as opposed to promiscuity is simply residual puritanical values; it's nonsense and societal. But if people choose it, there's no problem with it, and vice versa open relationships.

A_Ciarra

11th July 2009, 02:25

Hi Ungovernable, I'll have to come back later, probably a few days. I'm way behind on a lot of things now, and will be away from home. Thanks for the fresh approach of your last post. Good questions too.

Aeval

12th July 2009, 00:29

A Ciarra, seriously, can you stop making out like it's the inherently good 'mono women' versus the evil 'poly men'. Nature doesn't 'want the men to “take a lead” from the women' at all - 'nature' isn't some conscious thing with a plan and stuff, or do you believe in some god(dess) or something? - this whole 'the female energy will help take mankind to the promised land' bollocks smacks of yogurt-weaveriness, and if a bloke had said that the other way round I would imagine (hope?) that people would be calling them up on it. As I think you've been waving the 'I've got a vagina and can thus speak for all women' card around quite enough, let me tell you that I, as female in a monogamous relationship, still think you're talking shit and am in fact quite insulted by some of things you've said. I know poly men and women (inc. TUF) and their relationships are not destructive, they are just as capable of forming loving and trusting relationships as anyone else. And stop saying most women are naturally mono - where is your proof? Oh yea, I forgot, you have a vagina. Well done, that's convinced me then.

A_Ciarra

12th July 2009, 01:13

“Dearest Moderator,” want a project? There doesn’t seem to be a moderator for this thread but help is needed please (I’ll look for a moderator that can assist, but I’ll post this is in the meantime).

I derailed this thread and since my own topic is not truly political, I’d like to ask your assistance in removing my post’s, AND any direct replies to me (my conversations were with Ungovernable and Captain Jack). That my posts are not political (or that they derailed) isn’t the main issue of why I’d like my post’s deleted, but rather that politics are sort of being superimposed onto them when they are read. So I think this may pose a bit of a problem - not in my being understood, but rather in that it could suggest a mono/poly issue should even be figured into politics along the line of forming “public policy.” That’s really just not where, or what I’m getting at in my conversations; again this just shouldn’t have been here to trip anyone up, or tax anyone’s energies feeling they may need to watch over yet another person spamming the board with something that may strike as anti-civil rights or breeding intolerance.

As an anarchist and just as a person, that just is not what I’m about, but I think may be being wondered or worried about with my post (which is understandable). That is a little uncomfortable for me of course, but I just don’t want it questioned in any way shape or form that maybe intolerance and violating civil rights IS acceptable after in any way (like hell it is - at least in communities that hold certain civil rights as sacred)! As an anarchist this is already resolved issue for us - zero intolerance over the mono/poly choices of people are ever tolerated – ever! So anyway, I just think my post’s just cause stress and tax people and nobody needs this.

I have my posts backed up for later discussion in science, or philosophy with Ungovernable if I need them, so I am fine if you remove my conversations at any time. If you want to leave THIS ONE post here, I don’t think that will derail anything.

Captain & Ungovernable – I wanted to check with you guy’s here if you mind the deletions to our conversations??? I feel these deletions should have your approval’s too, can you guy’s post your go-heads it it’s cool with the both of you. And sorry about messing up your thread any CaptainJack.

Ungovernable, you have some cool questions here, but let’s start this up under probably science if we chat about them further. I don’t have too much time available these day’s, but I’ll try to devote a little more time on this conversation if you find it meaningful too, otherwise we can concentrate strictly on the political aspect.

But here I will just leave it at what I think might be your primary question very very quickly (do I feel monogamy or polyamory is a CHOICE).

I think that the monogamy/polyamory spectrum of sexuality figures into choice above the base aspect of sexuality – base sexuality NOT being choice. Base sexuality is more the “animal” function and something absolutely fixed into position. In other words whatever one identifies as in regard to base sexuality that is fixed whether one is; transgendered, bi, lesbian, gay, strait, or a-sexual, those are inflexible. I think the mono/poly spectrum draws more from the higher aspects of the mind, not the primitive animal center of the brain alone where sexuality itself is based (I forget what center of the brain they attribute to the forming of base sexuality). Regardless of a person’s base sexuality, we all tend to shift between the mono/poly spectrum to one degree or another. This is not as concrete and driven into our genetics in the way the way base sexuality is, so the possibility for adjusting to change is more fluid in regards to the subject of monogamy and polyamory.

A_Ciarra

12th July 2009, 01:23

Aeval, I can't control how YOU make out my thoughts, what I'm saying, define them, or translate them - not my job. This here is your own rhetoric, not what I believe.

Have fun, and think what you please.

Il Medico

12th July 2009, 02:13

Captain & Ungovernable – I wanted to check with you guy’s here if you mind the deletions to our conversations??? I feel these deletions should have your approval’s too, can you guy’s post your go-heads it it’s cool with the both of you. And sorry about messing up your thread any CaptainJack.
I don't see a need to delete this. However, if a mod feels he/she should do so, then I am not against it. And don't worry about messing up any thread. Conversation on the said subject is good. Not all arguments have to be based on politics. Science, environment, or psychology are all a valid basis for an argument on the topic of monogamy.

bcbm

13th July 2009, 03:42

I'm not the one making this about sex, polymory is.

Are all of your romantic relationships only about sex?

You might find yourself in a fix sometime since most females are monogamous....

In what society and when? Historically human beings have had any number of different arrangements for sexual relationships with monogamy tending to be the outlier.

mel

13th July 2009, 14:19

Are all of your romantic relationships only about sex?

To be fair to A Ciarra, in this thread people talk exclusively about the sexual component of a relationship for a while, as if that is the only difference in polyamory and monogamy, like here:

... I do not think that a person can have a meaningful relationship, which is based on love (Romantic love), with multiple people. However, humans have a very active sex drive...When relationships are strong and are based on what they should be, love. rather than on dependency or sex, the act of sex outside of that relationship should not be the game ender that it is. Open relationships are basically monogamous, except the restrictions on sex. In an open relationship you have one partner and you agree that sex will not come between you. When you put restrictions on thing people enjoy doing it causes a lot of ill effects....

Then people change it around again and say that polyamory is about having multiple romantic love partners and sex is not (or at least not necessarily) a factor. Some have been more consistent than others, but I think it's important to understand why the focus is around sex when discussing these relationships.

A_Ciarra

14th July 2009, 07:04

The context in which I have been speaking in is strictly sexual, not emotional. We hadn't gotten to emotional. I kept it to sex, and I alluded to that quickly, when I said "since the primary end goal of polyamory is increasing the number of sex partners." I feel "emotional polyamory" is simply friendship and mutual support - I don't even consider friendship polyamory. If others do that's their opinion - please separate it from mine.

CaptainJack asked me to clarify if I was speaking about polyamory in a private message, so we had that clarified out between us two.

But this is another reason I'm thinking this belongs in a thread meant for more in depth study. I feel the need to cut things a little short here and that does not work to well.

I'd like to comment on reactionism for a moment. I feel like people need to some study before simply reacting to words alone.

In the right column, along with my name I note that I am a social anarchist. I’d pretty much expect people to know this is the context in which I’m speaking. It’s been my oversight to forget to mention it, but I do expect people to pretty much know this when it’s listed along my every post and when I’m speaking on a leftist site. Anyway I will clarify (though I shouldn't really have too).

You have social anarchist > anti-authority > co-operation & mutual aid > strict belief in consensus democracy.

When I use words like “take the lead, adjustment’s, wisdom,” and so on I am always speaking within anti-authoritarian consensus parameters – from this perspective alone. Some people are hearing my words alone, and reacting to them in isolation, outside of the context they are being used – which is really very pedantic and tiresome. I have very little patience for this. If people don’t know what a social anarchist believes in (or others at any time), I feel they really need to study before reacting and getting rather bent out of shape over things which are not being said.

To put the above words into a little more specific context within consensus democracy I’ll comment on it a sec. But please understand first that the branches of social and insurrectionary anarchism are also at rather extreme odds with each other over community structure and consensus democracy itself. An insurrectionary anarchist does NOT even believe in group structures, so they will flat out reject consensus as authoritarian – I do not believe this what so ever. As a social anarchist I believe we are all in this together, and so we have to have some form of organizing as people to perform the tasks of mutual aid, interdependence, and co-operation with each other. There are differing ways you can act out consensus democracy, but that’s not part of this discussion.

Anyway, so when you have groups working as teams to provide, and meet everyone’s needs in satisfactory manner, you first have issues that need to be addressed, sometimes difficult issues… This requires people speaking up and brainstorming to find the most optimal solutions so on, so on, and so on… Wisdom does come into play when brainstorming and so on - deferring to the others with “the wisest” options does come into play… Deferring here is very similar the way a Marxist may defer to Marx, or a anarchist to Bakunin and so on. It has nothing to do with making individuals authorities - they are just wise figures we "take the lead" from to one extent or another. Making adjustments within social anarchism does not refer to subjugating others, it refers to co-operation between individuals to meet mutually shared goals and create harmony. Within social anarchism women hold wisdom too, and it is called upon as much as a mans, it does not refer to matriarchy, or its reverse patriarchy from men. Though I could note that patriarchy is one thing we are still breaking free of. Taking the lead from women in the context of my words, refers to the issues of sexual polyamory overall (in a very broad context of the many many issues involved). But I refer to men here only to communicate one point – males hold the main drive to procreate with multiple partners in order to speed population growth. I could also mention a new point here; since we come form a highly patriarchal society over all, the males point of view has held quite a bit of privilege in society. So let’s cut through the bull shit here, we are talking about a pretty heavy need to get a much broader consensus from women than we ever have before - co-operating with the broader perspective, broader goals, and a broader intake of information as we make our choices. But I think that is enough about my use of certain words there.

Perhaps it’s coincidence, but there is also a direct parallel between social/insurrectionary anarchism - and monogamy/polyamory. Poly’s in a way view one relationship as authoritarian. Mono’s view monogamy with one partner as co-operation.

Anyway, can we cut the reactionary bull shit? A discussion (no matter if it’s here or in another forum) is almost pointless with hyper reactions to words read in isolation! It get's tedious when this is actually a big subject and does actually hold quite a bit of political content beyond the sole civil rights angle.

A_Ciarra

14th July 2009, 07:14

I should note that speech is imperfect to - especially mine. And my own vocabulary is not always good, so keep that in mind before nit picking at sentences to. Ask me is you don't understand something I said, I can respect that, but to rush off in petty nit picking and egotisitcal bullshit is tiresome too..

I mention that because technically insurrectionary anarchists may dip into consensus from time to time, but I'm speaking overall there. Overall they reject any formal practice of it as tyranny of the mass's.

A_Ciarra

14th July 2009, 07:20

In what society and when? Historically human beings have had any number of different arrangements for sexual relationships with monogamy tending to be the outlier.

I am speaking of the one we are in, I myself am in the USA.

Lynx

14th July 2009, 17:49

Relationships are supposed to be consensual in practice. That's all I know.

The Ungovernable Farce

14th July 2009, 18:04

I could also mention a new point here; since we come form a highly patriarchal society over all, the males point of view has held quite a bit of privilege in society.
I agree, and I think that's why we live in a society where monogamy is such a strongly enforced norm - it's a norm that comes out of patriarchal society, not human needs. We're still not having the same conversation unless we can agree that the idea of a "man's point of view" and a "woman's point of view" are harmful and limiting roles thrown up by this one particular society we happen to find ourselves in, and not grand natural truths.

I am speaking of the one we are in, I myself am in the USA.
And do you consider the society we're in now to be a healthy one, with social arrangements you'd want to see continued?

bcbm

14th July 2009, 20:52

Wow, a lot to respond to but I'll be brief.

The context in which I have been speaking in is strictly sexual, not emotional. We hadn't gotten to emotional. I kept it to sex, and I alluded to that quickly, when I said "since the primary end goal of polyamory is increasing the number of sex partners." I feel "emotional polyamory" is simply friendship and mutual support - I don't even consider friendship polyamory.

But this just brings us back to my initial question. Relationships of the type we're talking about are usually sexual and emotional and I think this what differentiates them from regular friendships. People in polyamorous relationships often have strong emotional and sexual connections to their partners; it isn't all about fucking more people.

But please understand first that the branches of social and insurrectionary anarchism are also at rather extreme odds with each other over community structure and consensus democracy itself. An insurrectionary anarchist does NOT even believe in group structures, so they will flat out reject consensus as authoritarian – I do not believe this what so ever.

I've never met an insurrectionary anarchist like that, especially not in the US. They almost all participate in groups, organizing and consensus. I think this idea of a rigid separation between the two is inaccurate. I've read and interacted with both and there is a great deal of overlap.

mel

15th July 2009, 01:35

But this just brings us back to my initial question. Relationships of the type we're talking about are usually sexual and emotional and I think this what differentiates them from regular friendships. People in polyamorous relationships often have strong emotional and sexual connections to their partners; it isn't all about fucking more people.

Would you agree that a relationship without a romantic/sexual component at all is just a normal friendship, however close the emotional attachment? The difference between polyamory and monogamy is simply that polyamorous relationships do not prohibit the inclusion of one or more romantic/sexual partners in the arrangement. I think it's fair for the discussion here to center around sex as attraction (sexual or romantic) is the only differing factor between a friendship and a polyamorous partner.

There will be people, whether they will be many or few (and we really can't know for sure), who do not feel that sex can be as casual as drinking with your friends. For some people sex is a very intimate, very private, and very exclusive expression of affection. Whether your version of polyamory is one which resembles CaptainJack's (one in which you have one romantic/emotional partner and multiple sexual partners, which relegates sex to one of many casual, entertaining activities one can engage in) or The Ungovernable Farce's (in which you have multiple romantic/emotional partners with or without a sexual component) there will be people who feel, I think rightly, that monogamy will suit them better.

Stranger Than Paradise

15th July 2009, 01:40

Would you agree that a relationship without a romantic/sexual component at all is just a normal friendship, however close the emotional attachment? The difference between polyamory and monogamy is simply that polyamorous relationships do not prohibit the inclusion of one or more romantic/sexual partners in the arrangement. I think it's fair for the discussion here to center around sex as attraction (sexual or romantic) is the only differing factor between a friendship and a polyamorous partner.

There will be people, whether they will be many or few (and we really can't know for sure), who do not feel that sex can be as casual as drinking with your friends. For some people sex is a very intimate, very private, and very exclusive expression of affection. Whether your version of polyamory is one which resembles CaptainJack's (one in which you have one romantic/emotional partner and multiple sexual partners, which relegates sex to one of many casual, entertaining activities one can engage in) or The Ungovernable Farce's (in which you have multiple romantic/emotional partners with or without a sexual component) there will be people who feel, I think rightly, that monogamy will suit them better.

I agree totally with your viewpoint. I fit into the category which sees Sex as intimate and special. Therefore I would continue to carry out a monogamous way of life post-revolution. Maybe I'm old fashioned that way but I feel this does not have to be oppressive in Communist society, I admit monogamous relationships are oppressive in Capitalist society.

bcbm

16th July 2009, 00:00

I think it's fair for the discussion here to center around sex as attraction (sexual or romantic) is the only differing factor between a friendship and a polyamorous partner.

How do you figure? Romantic attraction is not the same as sex.

For some people sex is a very intimate, very private, and very exclusive expression of affection.

Some of those people are polyamorous!

there will be people who feel, I think rightly, that monogamy will suit them better.

Where did I ever say there wouldn't or shouldn't be?

mel

16th July 2009, 02:33

How do you figure? Romantic attraction is not the same as sex.

As far as I can tell, and that's not very far admittedly, most people do not experience them separately

Some of those people are polyamorous!

And some of them are monogamous. I am speaking mostly against CaptainJack's assertion that sex will become as casual as drinking, his vision of polyamory as deep emotional connection with one person only, and casual sexual encounters as a form of entertainment. For people like this, that vision of polyamory will not suit them at all.

Where did I ever say there wouldn't or shouldn't be?

Nowhere, but a lot of people in this thread have been suggesting that monogamy would most likely, or should just die out. If you aren't one of those people, I apologize for projecting that position onto you.

Dimentio

16th July 2009, 02:55

I am a male and certainly quite monogamous. That does not mean I denounce polygamy as evil. Grown up people may live their lives as they want as long as they do not hurt anyone.

Killfacer

16th July 2009, 03:25

The Ungovernable Farce

16th July 2009, 13:29

As far as I can tell, and that's not very far admittedly, most people do not experience them separately

So why do you think that the discussion should center around sex, rather than around romance?

Nowhere, but a lot of people in this thread have been suggesting that monogamy would most likely, or should just die out. If you aren't one of those people, I apologize for projecting that position onto you.
I don't think anyone's suggested that. It's been suggested that it would become much rarer, but I can't remember anyone saying it would/should die out altogether. I may have made some hasty comments solely in reaction to A Ciarra's claiming that poly was unhealthy and needed to be transcended.

mel

16th July 2009, 14:57

So why do you think that the discussion should center around sex, rather than around romance?

This thread has followed a very particular pattern:

1. People talk about Polyamory solely in the context of sexual relationships
2. somebody comes up with an argument against that type of sexual relationship
3. People mention that polyamory is not solely about the sexual component
4. ???
5. Go to 1

Frankly, everyone agrees on the main point:

Both polyamory and monogamy should be allowed in a communist society.

That really should be the end of the discussion, but because of the way in which the conversation has been playing out, there has been a lot of disagreement on both sides. There have been claims that monogamy is purely the result of patriarchal society and should be abolished, that it's unnatural, that it's unhealthy. There have been claims that polyamory is unnatural, that it's unhealthy. The bickering on both sides have dragged this thread out well past the point at which anything new is being said, but I don't mind because that's what a discussion forum is for.

All of that said, I don't think that the discussion should center solely around sex, but I was simply pointing out that I think it's fair for it to be primarily centered around sex. This is because for most people there will not be a romantic component with multiple people without there also being a sexual component with multiple people. While it's a bit of a reduction to say that it is solely sexual, since the two often go hand in hand, I think it's fair to focus on the sexual side of the romantic component as it is a primary contributing factor to the difference between polyamory and monogamy. A person in a monogamous relationship with a romantic attraction to a third party with no sexual component has...what exactly? While such a person would most likely be suited better by a polyamorous relationship in which they could pursue a further relationship with that third party without jeopardizing the relationship they are currently in, they can't really be said to be in violation of the terms of their monogamous relationship until the sexual component arises or finds its expression. Without the sexual component, a close emotional relationship with a third party is merely a friendship, though one or both parties desires an elevation to physical intimacy. It is only at the expression of physical intimacy (or the mutual expression of desire for that physical intimacy) that the relationship transcends the boundaries of monogamy.

While I have no doubts that polaymory is entirely grounded not in the desire for more sexual partners, but in the kind of deep emotional connection and closeness that people in monogamous relationships also hope to find, it seems to me the only practical difference between polyamory and monogamy in execution is the number of people with which one is allowed to express that physical intimacy, as monogamy offers no restrictions on who you are able to forge emotional bonds with. With all of this in mind, I feel it's okay to keep the discussion in the realm of the sexual, as it is the primary differentiating factor.

I don't think anyone's suggested that. It's been suggested that it would become much rarer, but I can't remember anyone saying it would/should die out altogether. I may have made some hasty comments solely in reaction to A Ciarra's claiming that poly was unhealthy and needed to be transcended.

Earlier in the thread when you and I were talking you maintained the position that monogamy was immature and unhealthy, the implication being that eventually it SHOULD die out, though you never explicitly stated that you wished it to, and rightfully refused to make the prediction that it would do so. While I cannot speak for A Ciarra, I know that my largest objections to polyamory are not with polyamory in and of itself, with how you have described it, but with the brand of polyamory with which Captain Jack has advocated, so perhaps I will simply dredge up his post and post my objections to that rather than to continue to argue with people whose positions I have the utmost respect and agreement with.

mel

16th July 2009, 15:28

My views on relationships is not a polygamous or polygamy. I do not think that a person can have a meaningful relationship, which is based on love (Romantic love), with multiple people. However, humans have a very active sex drive.

Some humans have a very active sex drive.

My comment comparing sex to having a drink at a bar was not to say it is (or the people your are having it with) a consumer object. Rather like drinking sex outside of formal relationships (i.e single) is something that happens due to our natural lust.

Whose natural lust? Does everyone experience this natural lust? People also have a natural predisposition for revenge, and many a predisposition towards jealousy. "Natural" does not mean good, and while you may argue that unlike pursuing revenge or jealousy, pursuing feelings of lust has no negative consequences, that is only true in such a societal context where sex is not valued as an intimate expression, but is merely deemed a type of entertainment. I personally would not want to live in such a society. I think that a lot of the comments about people not wanting to feel like a "consumer object" is centered around exactly this: if sex is merely another form of entertainment, to be shared between any consenting adults at any given time, then rather than being an expression of shared intimacy and affection, it is what can only be described as an objectification. The body becomes little more than another consumer object to be enjoyed for a brief period and then tossed aside, like a drink at a bar, or a coke, or a milky way bar.

When relationships are strong and are based on what they should be, love. rather than on dependency or sex, the act of sex outside of that relationship should not be the game ender that it is.

Love finds its most intimate expression in the act of sex. There is physically no other act that can bring you as close (physically) to your partner as does the act of sex. Seeing as how this is the case, and valuing sex not for itself, or for the fullfillment of lustful instincts, but as an expression of affection, you can understand why sharing that with some third party outside of the confines of the monogamous relationship would be distressing. While it is true that if sex is merely another form of entertainment that there is no reason it should be the game ender that it is (and even monogamous relationships do sometimes continue after infidelity) if sex is understood by both parties to be an expression of love and affection, then much like a secret between friends (I feel as if I've used this analogy before) the act of sex is weakened and cheapened when shared with more people. A secret that 10 people know is very different from a secret that only one person knows. Similarly, when a person has regular sex with 10 people, it is very different from when a person has regular sex with only one person. It can be sure that the person who has shared the secret with 10 people does not value the secret remaining so as highly as the person who has only shared it with one. The person who has regular sex with 10 people can surely be shown to value sex as an expression of romantic affection less than the person who has sex with only one.

While valuing sex as an expression of romantic affection is not necessarily a good, and should not necessarily be regarded highly as such, there is on a theoretical level, evidence to suggest that regarding sex as entertainment will ultimately lead to the increased objectification of the human body as a commodity for consumption.

It seems that most polyamorists differ from you in that they still see sex as an expression of romantic love, but they believe that one can share romantic love with multiple people. I do understand that many people happen to also see sex as merely another form of entertainment, so perhaps ultimately your vision of open relationships may be the most common seen in the future, but people who value sex as an expression of romantic love will remain in committed monogamous or love-based polyamorous relationships, based not on dependency or on christian morality, but on romantic love for one another and the exclusive expression of that type of love with one another through the act of sex.

Open relationships are basically monogamous, except the restrictions on sex. In an open relationship you have one partner and you agree that sex will not come between you. When you put restrictions on thing people enjoy doing it causes a lot of ill effects. (Like say drinking during prohibition, hence my comparison) For example, why do you think that sexual monogamy is so highly valued in our society? It wasn't in Greco-Roman times, yet they still had many strong relationships. The culture we have been brought up in teaches us that cheating (sex with some one besides your spouse) is the ultimate betrayal. But is it? He/She is still coming back to you at the end of the day. That's why they are 'cheating' and no just leaving you. (Which is in my opinion much worse then just having sex with someone) Your relationship is not harmed by the other person having sex with someone else. The damage only comes when this revealed. This is because we do not look at thing rationally, just only how we were thought. The sexual monogamism in our society is based mainly on two things, 1. Christian morals and 2. Economic dependency (not necessarily in that order). In a communist society dependency will not be necessary and I think humanity will move away from sexual monogamy again. And on a side note, I have one question. If you don't want to feel like a consumer object, which is to acquired. Then why do you support sexual monogamy, which is basically one person (usally the guy) claiming this other person as their's? (i.e "That's so-and-so's girl" or Mrs. Joe Suchandsuch or So-and-so's guy, etcetra, etcetra)I think I addressed most of this up there somewhere, the point-by-point refutation style wasn't really working for me for this post. I look forward to seeing a response from you :thumbup1:

rosie

16th July 2009, 17:52

I think (and I may be wrong...I often am) that the use of the term "monogamy" is in reference to the nuclear family unit. In today's society, we are brought up to respect and love our family, no matter what, purely because of genetic relations to the household unit. In a communist society, we would respect (or even love) each other based on our merits, not based on our blood. As far as I have been led to believe, monogamy only enhances the effects of the current status-quo. This idea of monogamy may very well have had a distinct purpose in society in the past, although as today's society progresses (or degresses, whichever you like) it is not necessary. I think monogamy was used in a very sexist way historically and is continued to be used in the same fashion, often failing (due to the anti-sexism laws in place). It was law for a woman to be with the man she was married to, and only him. Men often times had "cheated" (for lack of a better term) and there were no consequenses. Women were not allowed to divorce without the man's consent. Even now, when a woman has sex outside of her normal partner, she is referred to as "slut" or "whore" or "hoe". A man can have many partners, and OFTEN (not always) it goes unnoticed. If a woman has many children a common question is "are they all from the same father". If a man has many children that question is not commonly asked. Monogamys use is (in my own opinion) highly sexist and quite ridiculous.
I personally believe we should all be honest with our partners, regardless of whether or not an open relationship is in effect.
I also do not believe that in a communist society any one of us would be forced to adhere to polygamy. I honestly believe it is a personal choice that all involved persons should decide on in privacy (as I believe the bedroom is no one elses business), when the relationship is either still premature or mature enough to handle the change.
I hope this helps.

A_Ciarra

17th July 2009, 21:50

I may have made some hasty comments solely in reaction to A Ciarra's claiming that poly was unhealthy and needed to be transcended.

Ungovernable please don't put words in my mouth. This was not what I was saying what so ever. You missed (again) understanding that my questioning was being applied to non consensual situations, where people that don't fully understand what their views are yet, and more or less are experimenting and receiving some pressure. And I was also touching on the issue of infidelity in mono relationships slightly at the point you decided to read this into my post's. You have to stop rushing a discussion and thinking you get the jist.

You bring up the "ghost issue" that is getting no discussion in this thread though. But with you I'm done trying to speak with you.

A_Ciarra

18th July 2009, 00:00

This thread has followed a very particular pattern:

1. People talk about Polyamory solely in the context of sexual relationships
2. somebody comes up with an argument against that type of sexual relationship
3. People mention that polyamory is not solely about the sexual component
4. ???
5. Go to 1

Frankly, everyone agrees on the main point: ~Melbicimni

I’m going to skip the detour of # 3 because we all understand that polyamory is not just about sex. The dividing line between friendship and polyamory is that polyamory adds sex. This IS the main point. The end goal of polymory is to add the sex – have the sex – engage in sex…. If it was not, we would not be talking about polyamory, we would be talking about friendships (romantic or otherwise). There is no need to redefine the term polyamory here. Bare bones - end goal - it’s about sex – the main point is sex - otherwise we are having another discussion about # 3.

Aside from any evolutionary utopia and what not, I was getting at a very political issue, and question/s surrounding polyamory. It is a very uncomfortable aspect of it to discuss, but it seldom is. I don’t think that push’s us to question things as well as we could. I do think that if one has certain goals, something may WANT to “be transcended,” but it’s not polyamory itself at THIS point, rather it’s what may cause us to see things from one angle, and not another. I’m thinking that some people may really want to look at it from another angle other than maybe what they customarily have (at least more than in passing). This is about making informed choices. I should add again that I fully believe mono and poly lifestyles are choices, where as the base sexuality is not. So “yes,” I think we are conditioned by tons of intellectual factors, and so what I’m getting at IS about choices being made, not “obligatory polyamorism.” I don’t buy that this end of the sexual spectrum is obligatory (I’m not even going to argue that – and it’s a detour from the question I am on).

Anyway, so what other factors might there be, that might be being swept under the rug - issues that sex itself can easily fog from our otherwise rational view?

The first question I would put out is; WHY do we (leftist’s) oppose the Elites (and capitalism)?

Yes, this question is very much about polyamory.

bcbm

18th July 2009, 00:06

The dividing line between friendship and polyamory is that polyamory adds sex. This IS the main point. The end goal of polymory is to add the sex – have the sex – engage in sex…. If it was not, we would not be talking about polyamory, we would be talking about friendships (romantic or otherwise).

No, polyamory allows for the possibility of other "romantic friendships" or whatever you'd like to call it. Is there sex involved? Maybe, maybe not. There isn't always sex involved in monogamous relationships and polyamorous relationships really aren't that different.

As for the rest, could you restate it somehow? I really am not sure what you're talking about.

StalinFanboy

18th July 2009, 00:09

I’m going to skip the detour of # 3 because we all understand that polyamory is not just about sex. The dividing line between friendship and polyamory is that polyamory adds sex. This IS the main point. The end goal of polymory is to add the sex – have the sex – engage in sex…. If it was not, we would not be talking about polyamory, we would be talking about friendships (romantic or otherwise). There is no need to redefine the term polyamory here. Bare bones - end goal - it’s about sex – the main point is sex - otherwise we are having another discussion about # 3.

This implies that all romantic relationships, even monogamous ones, are about sex. Which is completely untrue.

And even if polyamory was entirely about sex, why do you care? Surely people should have sexual freedom...

A_Ciarra

18th July 2009, 03:46

This implies that all romantic relationships, even monogamous ones, are about sex. Which is completely untrue.

Bring, I'm focusing on a different subject. I don't care what it implies if that is not the subject at hand. We could talk all day about the different forms of relationships, that's not the point here - hence the use of the word detour.

And even if polyamory was entirely about sex, why do you care? Surely people should have sexual freedom...Obviously you have not been reading my post's. If one is anti-authority what does that mean? Whats does not for the purposes of deciding public policy mean? It means anti-authoritarians believe in the sexual freedom of others. It means we are not even on the subject of deciding what others do with their sex lives.

the last donut of the night

18th July 2009, 04:20

God it's depressing how there is an argument about this. Each to there own. Polyamorous relationships can be just as intimate and private and Monogamous relationships. Just because you are in a relationship with more than one person, it does not devalue the relationship as just being for sex.

Depressing.

Although I wouldn't like to be in a polyamorous relationships and don't really approve, let people do what they want. If you want to date 3 or 30 people at the same time, do it. And I'll do my thing.

A_Ciarra

18th July 2009, 04:25

WHY do we (leftist’s) oppose the Elites (and capitalism)?

It’s because capitalism has the mindset built into it that greed is normal, even the appropriate choice of options.

The almost automatic choices being made by the wealthy are to increase and exploit commodity at the expense of others. Satisfaction is not enough, more and more is sought out. Capitalism is also set on a pedestal as exploitation of others is rationalized. And in quid pro quo deals between the wealthy, one hand often does wax the other so there is a consensual component to capitalism as well.

Are leftist’s tyrants for being in opposition to capitalism? No, they/we are “right” to be in opposition of exploitation, and be bent on toppling the system. The Elites also happen to view the world at large as the tyranny of the mass’s… I don’t pay much heed to upsetting them.

But it should be easy enough in the above context to see what instincts the mono drive would be seeking to guard against here. EXPLOITATION. In this case I would even call monogamist’s revolutionaries... .

I think the issue perhaps being swept under the rug, or that we just aren’t talking about is; sexual commodity – and sexual commodity in a sense so unbelievably real that we just can’t look at it, and instead sometimes seek for detours and for rationalizations (just like the wealthy do in their exploits). I don’t think some of us want to think about how polyamory holds an exploitation belief - how exploitation is even an issue here, yet it is as real as the unequal distribution of wealth.

If we are honest about polyamory we know that the end goal is to increase sex partners - and often times with the least amount of emotional ties or “baggage” attached. Monogamy holds a level of “work” here that polyamory does not. I won’t argue that point either because that would be like arguing with a capitalist that he’s not exploiting others for his own comfort and ease at some level. I don’t feel the argument that polyamory is not about increasing sex partners CAN stand, OR that polyamory is not exploitative unless we are looking for lope holes to wiggle out of the issue with. I don’t argue with the capitalist because I feel he has blind spots that he WANTS to hold – same with poly’s here, I think this hits to close to home. Anyway, I believe the least amount of work IS often a factor in polyamory, it often times provides for keeping things at a level that is easier to deal with when kept at sex (not worry about existential problems a mono partnership might push us to work out). This point goes back to destructive energies and constructive – what we might we want to cultivate in ourselves above exploitation… Monogamy is very progressive along these lines – something to be desired. Polyamory by passes looking at the issue of exploitation of sex as a commodity in a way that monogamy does not… I think leftist’s should move slow here and check into the ramifications of polyamory a whole lot more than it is, IF we really want what we say we really want. Not in terms of civil rights, but what it terms of contradiction. Some aspects of polyamory are one in the same as greed by the wealthy Elites – just a different venue. I’m not going to type it all out, but greed is present to be sure.

Frankly I’m not sure if poly’s are actually leftist’s, since the exploitation of sexual commodity does not seem to be being addressed at all, but rather legitimized. Capitalist’s do the same with their ideals… To me it’s a push for the continuance of greed and not transformation along any revolutionary lines that move back from exploitation.

I think polys can be semi-leftist, anti-capitalist when it comes to economics, but not really leftist’s when it comes to viewing sex as much more than sexual commodity, even when it’s done with tact. Yes, that’s insulting, but I AM questioning it, and don’t care for censoring my speech when people deserve to think this stuff through from other angles.

T all has to do with male privilege as well. What do want to be ending if we are indeed about equality (not just economically)? What are the well known differences between the female and male sex drives? Specifically who holds the biological drive to seek sex with multiple partners? It is well known to be the male. The female drive is centered on monogamy (aside from cultural conditioning). Yes there are exceptions, but we are looking at known biology here, not exceptions. Throughout society men have been in charge by and large (just as the wealthy have). Privilege by both men, and the wealthy have been dominant forces – leftist’s seek to undue both forces of inequality. If we are to be honest polyamory descends in large part from males exuding their privileges (think affairs, harems and the rest here too) and women were to take a back seat and adjust. Obviously then polyamory does have a damaging effect on equality when we are honest about where it descends from…..

Just as leftist’s feel the wealthy must adapt and adjust to equal distribution of wealth, polys too may need to adapt to monogamy in order to learn how to deal with exploitation issues that come almost without any real reflection. Having impulses and looking for the pro’s over the con’s is not hard core reflection either. Monogamy again is progressive here, holding qualities we might wish to cultivate.

Monogamy holds the message that one partner is more than enough and cultivates anti exploitation – it cultivates a discipline that we are ultimately seeking for the wealthy to transcend in regards to their own mindset towards money. Here that is something very valuable. Something we wish capitalists could somehow do themselves rather than revolutions having to be fought. Monogamy if we pay attention push’s us past the mindset of more, more, more --- greed. If poly’s are more than about increasing sexual commodity – they owe it to everyone to think past the easy concepts to digest. They might want to deal with the emotional baggage of finding satisfaction with one partner and seek out co-operation, over legitimizing polyamory. So far biology and/or conditioning seems to just be fogging up the issues involved. I rarely see much thought go into how polyamory translates on this level. Though there is intimacy within polyamorous relationships, it can almost be like a token gesture of caring and attending to greater issues, something like when shop owners share some wages, but skip out on the main issue of exploitation and actually address the issues. Society may be going along with this token stuff too, but that might be because they see no other viable choice in their personal situations, or believe themselves that the exploitation is fine on some level. If we want equality, I think monogamy needs an honest look. As far as innate instincts go, I think “women” hold these drives for anti-exploitation for important reasons, and they deserve more respect than they have customarily been given ---- sometimes even railed against as the tyranny of women. Along these lines nature can be helping us come into an evolutionary “utopia.”

Having said that, people’s sexual fulfillment is a very important RIGHT, and people must have it safe guarded at all times for their very health. Of course I’m not talking about sexual slavery and child molestation there… I’m not talking about “public policies” here either – I’m talking about mono/poly ethics, things that people need to work out on their own (and have the liberties to do so). And “yes,” this is indeed a judgment on poly ethics, but I don’t feel any more hesitation about it just as I don’t in judging capitalist ethics. I won’t be offended if others don’t take this as far as I DO, I’m just putting some cards on the table and calling it as I see it.

I'm pretty much done discussing this as well too. To much time is being spent on just getting people to focus in on, and understand the basic points that provide premise to conversations. How is anything to be discussed this way? Melbicimni too, already clarified that for the purposes of much further discussion, that to move anywhere beyond what we already know, it comes back to sex as the main point. Right away someone is debating that polyamory is more, when nobody is contesting that. It's about focal point - it's sex that is getting ignored here, and so being brought up just as a need to clarify that - YES, this is the main point. Nobody is saying that polyamory is not about intimacy and such, just pointing out when it is sex being talked about. Anyway, to much time is being spent on basic points, which is fine if they were really moving things along, but that's getting a little difficult.

A_Ciarra

18th July 2009, 04:38

In no way am I suggesting that I and Melbicimni share the same views, I was just noting how people keep having to repeat themselves here not just me..

bcbm

18th July 2009, 04:43

I want to respond to that post but its really just too disgusting to even know where to begin.

SoupIsGoodFood

18th July 2009, 05:03

I want to respond to that post but its really just too disgusting to even know where to begin.

I agree, but as my good friend often says "Why be tied down to one girl when there are so many golden opportunities to get pussy?"
@ The Op, I figure in a communistic or anarchistic society there will be freedom of choice so people will just do whatever the hell the feel like when it comes to relationships. However, I read that in anarchist Spain there was a general atmosphere of sexual freedom and "Free love" was popular, so I guess thats the historical perspective.

bcbm

18th July 2009, 05:19

But it should be easy enough in the above context to see what instincts the mono drive would be seeking to guard against here. EXPLOITATION. In this case I would even call monogamist’s revolutionaries....

While the personal can certainly be political, I don't think the decision to only have one partner is generally revolutionary, especially if we consider that monogamy has been an extremely patriarchal institution when it has existed in the West and that is how it remains in many relationships today. You seem to be focused on the vaguest sense of what a relationship is (open/closed) instead of how that relationship looks in practice (oppressive/exploitative/loving/etc).

If we are honest about polyamory we know that the end goal is to increase sex partners - and often times with the least amount of emotional ties or “baggage” attached. Monogamy holds a level of “work” here that polyamory does not.

Once again you're starting from a detatched stance at odds with how people actually practice polyamorous relationships. Many invest a lot of time and energy into their relationships and having multiple partners is just as much work, beyond the unique challenges it presents for individuals in such a relationship. I might as well proclaim that if we're honest about monogamy, we know that the end goal is to control another person's life, ideally in a way to maximize the benefit for one's self and then refuse to argue (as you do) because it goes without saying. That's hardly any way to discuss.

I don’t argue with the capitalist because I feel he has blind spots that he WANTS to hold – same with poly’s here, I think this hits to close to home.

The person who refuses to even consider that they could be wrong is talking about other people having blind spots?

If we are to be honest polyamory descends in large part from males exuding their privileges (think affairs, harems and the rest here too) and women were to take a back seat and adjust. Obviously then polyamory does have a damaging effect on equality when we are honest about where it descends from…..

What exactly do consensual relationships between consenting adults have to do with affairs (not consensual to all parties) or harems (once again...) and what do those things have to do with people who are not straight? Certainly men have abused their position in regard to sex and continue to do so (in open or closed relationships; in gay or straight relationships). But a good polyamorous relationship is like a good monogamous one: all parties are respected and communicate their desires and try to make the relationship work well for everyone. I'm curious why you focus so much on how many people are getting fucked instead of how relationships actually function?

polys too may need to adapt to monogamy in order to learn how to deal with exploitation issues that come almost without any real reflection.

I would suspect most polyamorous people have been in monogamous relationships and have probably thought over their decision to try and engage in open relationships.

Monogamy holds the message that one partner is more than enough and cultivates anti exploitation

Many a housewife would probably disagree with you. Monogamous relationships can be just as exploitative as you imagine polyamory to be; there isn't anything innately good or bad in a type of relationship, it is how you carry it out.

Though there is intimacy within polyamorous relationships, it can almost be like a token gesture of caring and attending to greater issues, something like when shop owners share some wages, but skip out on the main issue of exploitation and actually address the issues.

Quit generalizing the experiences of millions of people in all sorts of relationships. You're just speaking from what appear to be your own prejudices, not the reality of how people actually interact in these relationships.

Anyway, to much time is being spent on basic points

Perhaps because you appear to lack even a basic idea of what polyamorous relationships actually look like?

bcbm

18th July 2009, 05:21

but as my good friend often says "Why be tied down to one girl when there are so many golden opportunities to get pussy?"

Your good friend sounds like a disgusting pig.

the last donut of the night

18th July 2009, 12:19

I agree, but as my good friend often says "Why be tied down to one girl when there are so many golden opportunities to get pussy?"

That is actually one of the most disgusting things I've seen on this site -- seems your friend has no problems with treating women like objects for sexual entertainment.

Stranger Than Paradise

18th July 2009, 12:36

I agree, but as my good friend often says "Why be tied down to one girl when there are so many golden opportunities to get pussy?"

And you have completely missed the point on what we were talking about. Polyamory has nothing to do with being a sexist patriarchal fuck.

SoupIsGoodFood

18th July 2009, 16:11

That is actually one of the most disgusting things I've seen on this site -- seems your friend has no problems with treating women like objects for sexual entertainment.

Well yeah he doesn't have any problems with treating women that way, but it works both ways. See, promiscous sex is consentual, so the woman is also treating him like an object for sexual entertainment. I'm not into that kinda thing though, I have a girlfriend, but it always strikes me as kind of funny when feminists make the argument that one night stands are bad, because the woman is treated like a sex object, even though the man is too. What is fucked is the double standard that exsists today, that a man who has a lot of promiscous sex will get patted on the back and a woman will be branded a slut.

The Ungovernable Farce

18th July 2009, 16:28

WHY do we (leftist’s) oppose the Elites (and capitalism)?

It’s because capitalism has the mindset built into it that greed is normal, even the appropriate choice of options.

There's a fundamental difference between satisfying your desires at someone else's expense (which is why we oppose capitalism), and trying to satisfy your desires without hurting other people (which is what polyamorous relationships are about). If you're opposed to pleasure per se, then fair enough, but that's pretty much a reactionary Christian position and nothing to do with anarchism or communism.

If we are honest about polyamory we know that the end goal is to increase sex partners - and often times with the least amount of emotional ties or “baggage” attached. Monogamy holds a level of “work” here that polyamory does not. I won’t argue that point either because that would be like arguing with a capitalist that he’s not exploiting others for his own comfort and ease at some level.
And because you don't have an argument, because you're talking gibberish again.

I don’t feel the argument that polyamory is not about increasing sex partners CAN stand
So you agree that you're only into monogamy because you want a reliable supply of cock, then?

Anyway, I believe the least amount of work IS often a factor in polyamory, it often times provides for keeping things at a level that is easier to deal with when kept at sex.Yep, one relationship is definitely more work than two relationships. Do you come from the other side of the looking glass or something?

Some aspects of polyamory are one in the same as greed by the wealthy Elites – just a different venue. I’m not going to type it all out, but greed is present to be sure.
I would ask you to type it out in the hope that you might finally start making some sense, but I fear that reading the results would probably make my head explode.

Yes, that’s insulting, but I AM questioning it, and don’t care for censoring my speech when people deserve to think this stuff through from other angles.
As a libertarian, I fully support your right to come up with bizarre offensive bullshit that bears no resemblance whatsoever to reality.

T all has to do with male privilege as well.
Yep, all the poly women I know are just making use of the massive amount of male privilege that they get from being female.

The female drive is centered on monogamy (aside from cultural conditioning).
Aside from cultural conditioning? So you know some women who've never had any cultural conditioning, and that's what you're basing this on? I'd like to meet these women who were raised outside of all culture, they sound interesting.

Throughout society men have been in charge by and large (just as the wealthy have).
And monogamy is the model promoted by this male-dominated patriarchy society. What does that tell you?

If we are to be honest polyamory descends in large part from males exuding their privileges (think affairs, harems and the rest here too) and women were to take a back seat and adjust.
Saying polyamory is the same as having a harem is pretty much equivalent to calling monogamy the same thing as arranged marriages. Argue against poly as it's actually practiced, not shit medieval practices that no polyamorous person today would defend.

Obviously then polyamory does have a damaging effect on equality when we are honest about where it descends from…..

Polyamory as I understand it "descends from" people acknowledging the fact that humans are complicated animals that tend to develop romantic/sexual/emotional attachments to more than one person at a time, and we should attempt to work around those attachments in an open, honest, and mature fashion, rather than repressing them in order to conform with outdated social norms. Your ludicrous strawman version of polyamory appears to "descend" solely from your own overheated imagination.

Monogamy again is progressive here, holding qualities we might wish to cultivate.
Yep, when the Pope preaches about the sanctity of traditional marriage it's actually because he's a hardline feminist.

Anyway, to much time is being spent on basic points, which is fine if they were really moving things along, but that's getting a little difficult.
I think the basic point we keep getting stuck on here is that your version of polyamory - where bad men tyrannise lots and lots of women, who naturally want nothing more than to be happily married housewives, into having lots of meaningless sex - bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to polyamory as it's practised in the real world, let alone as it might play out in a genuinely free society. I don't think we can get around that basic point. The fact that you constantly contradict yourself doesn't help much either.