Polyamory, open relationships and swinging?

[(A)(_|]

Polyamory is basically the acceptance of engaging -with consent- in multiple intimate relationships.

I personally hold a detest for closed relationships. Their possessive nature and the way people have superficially viewed and modernly projected them is quite despicable. Relationships should be shared voluntarily and with no burden. As with my best friend, who is of the sex I am not attracted to, I should also be able to engage in intimate and meaningful relationships, that might include sexual activity and not be burdened or dictated a life of sexual exclusivity. To me, it is simply meaningless and I can't find any grounds on why someone would support such a redundant and unsatisfying way of life. But loyalty? But that' just sick? If these thoughts instinctively obscure your logic, then I believe you've been marred by social conundrums to no reverse. Sex should be like eating and drinking. Engaging in sexual exclusivity does not constitute loyalty.

Sex is a naturally driven desire. Humans shouldn't be too ashamed as to having it. Intimate relationships mean befriending someone and sticking by their side, even if so for a life-time. Discuss if you will, I want to know how you guys view such relationships, and I'd also like to imagine a world where relationships meant more than sexual exclusivity. If such relationships were widely exercised, how would this change our social perceptions? Do you accept the idea? I for one believe that we should, as advocates of social liberty and human independence promote it?

[Agnapostate]

To each their own. Frankly, however, I wouldn't be surprised if insistence on eventual entry into lifelong monogamy (a behavior pattern at odds with human biological tendencies), is a cause of the increase of divorce rates ever since they became less socially unacceptable.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Many species seem to participate in monogamous relationships. The argument might be made that "many" or "most" humans are biologically monogamous. Loyalty isn't bad, necessarily. Consider this polyamorous situation:

1. I am dating a wonderful women. A month later, I find a women I prefer. I keep dating both. I keep finding "new" women until my original women, who I loved, is not still interesting but, by comparison, not maximizing my happiness. So I toss her aside. This seems like a classic case of using people, to me. I know this rarely happens on polyamorous situations, but it is a potential issue. Most polyamorous people tend to still have commitment, in my experience. I don't have enough relationship experience to have a personal view on it. By default, I'm not inclined towards it. I'm open-minded, however.

2. It's my experience that regardless of what many will tell you, a lot of polyamorous people are motivated by getting "high." It's established that that the period a person first falls in love produces chemical reactions that dissipate over time. Many of these people are just rationalizing an addiction. I prefer the people who are upfront of it. If you are doing drugs, don't pretend you're not in my book. Again, this is not the majority. It's kind of like taking poor examples of monogamy and claiming they are the majority.

3. There is a degree of security in a committed relationship, I suspect. I think an ideal world would be polyamorous, but I'm not sure people aren't biologically or socially "too conditioned" for this to occur right now. And I worry about STDs. Of course, the actual problem is safe sex. But pragmatically speaking, the more partners someone has - monogamous or not - is somewhat worrying given STD rates. This is from a macro perspective not an individual level.

4. I don't think monogamous people are ashamed of having sex drives, in many cases. They want to channel their sexual energy towards each other, so to speak.

I'm not sure we should actively promote polyamory. If I am mistaken and monogamous people are just being irrational or selfish, then we probably should. But I'm skeptical that such is the case.

Sex should not be like eating and drinking. Sex involves providing another person pleasure. If you care more about the person you are having sex with, all other things the same, you will enjoy it more. It feels better to help someone you like than someone you don't, so to speak.

There are arguments for biological things happening after sex, if I remember correctly. It's perfectly acceptable to speak of ideals, but we have to make sure our biological and social circumstances make those ideals realistic.

[Agnapostate]

Many species seem to participate in monogamous relationships. The argument might be made that "many" or "most" humans are biologically monogamous.

Most species practice serial monogamy. Most humans effectively practice serial monogamy in earlier life too, but intend to seek lifetime monogamy eventually.

[AmericanRed]

Different strokes for different folks, as Sly said. I'm all for polyamory. Hell, I'd be engaging in it if I could be. My natural inclinations simply aren't monogamous, even though that's all my relationships have ever been.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Live and let live.

[StalinFanboy]

Some people like being in monogamous relationships. I know I do. I have friends who are polyamorous, and there's never been conflict. I think the OP holds a quasi-religious view on polyamory, and that is more unhealthy that any one person's choice pertaining to romance, friendship, etc.

I'm all for people "sharing" lovers if they choose to. Just remember that you may also be sharing other things.


Like crabs :/

[(A)(_|]

I can understand sexually monogamous folks, I know people need security. However, I think the idea is absurd and self-obsessive. I'm probably going to stay friends with my best friend for probably the life-time I live on this earth. I have many "girl" friends, however, there's this one I'm really sexually and socially attracted to. I want to have sex with her, I have sex with her.. Now, we're intimate, what's next? I want to have her as a friend, but I also want to have sex with other women. Am I unfaithful? No. Because I truly also love her and want to be friends with her for a lifetime. I just fail to see how being monogamous constitutes in any manner being loyal. I think people that want others exclusively to themselves are self-obsessed. I'm not going to force it unto anyone, but I think it odds with individual liberty and autonomy.



Some people like being in monogamous relationships. I know I do. I have friends who are polyamorous, and there's never been conflict. I think the OP holds a quasi-religious view on polyamory, and that is more unhealthy that any one person's choice pertaining to romance, friendship, etc.

I'm all for people "sharing" lovers if they choose to. Just remember that you may also be sharing other things.


Like crabs :/

Aye, I was afraid I was being too assertive. I don't want to force it on anyone. The thought's just hot in my head. A weak ago, if you would've asked me, I would've thought the idea was absurd.

[Dean]

I can understand sexually monogamous folks, I know people need security. However, I think the idea is absurd and self-obsessive. I'm probably going to stay friends with my best friend for probably the life-time I live on this earth. I have many "girl" friends, however, there's this one I'm really sexually and socially attracted to. I want to have sex with her, I have sex with her.. Now, we're intimate, what's next? I want to have her as a friend, but I also want to have sex with other women. Am I unfaithful? No. Because I truly also love her and want to be friends with her for a lifetime. I just fail to see how being monogamous constitutes in any manner being loyal. I think people that want others exclusively to themselves are self-obsessed. I'm not going to force it unto anyone, but I think it odds with individual liberty and autonomy.

I think that a degree of honesty musty be achieved with sexuality. That is to say, that the notion that men and women only find one person attractive or desirable is absurd and we need to be comfortable with the fact that people are sexually diverse and curious.

But monogamy provides a very clear service for sexual reproduction, and that is the added security of having two dedicated parents to raise and provide for children. Clearly, the function of sexuality in society has changed. However, I think that the underlying developmental habits of humans has remained consistently monogamous, probably partially as a result of biological characteristics.

Just the presence of the phenomenon of romantic love is a very clear indication that special, exclusive relationships have a basic human function. That is not to say that 'love' needs to be negative towards other humans, however, and I think that's a common, fundamental problem with love as it exists in society today.

[Decommissioner]

I don't view monogamous relationships as going against human nature, however I do view the institutionalization of monogamy to be socially constructed. There is nothing wrong with polygamy, and it should be normal to experience both forms of relationships in ones lifetime. It depends on the person and the situation, I am open to both sexually exclusive and open relationships, while naturally leaning to closed. Call it social conditioning if you must, it is what I prefer and feel most comfort in.

[Luisrah]

The OP is exagerating. One thing is defending the discriminated, another thing is what you are saying.
We don't have to turn into those that are discriminated in order to defend them.
We are accepting them as normal humans just like everyone else, but we don't have to become the way they are to do that.

And no, sex shouldn't be done ''as a natural thing like eating and sleeping''
I agree that it should be natural, but we are humans aren't we?
We cook our food, and we sleep in beds, so why shouldn't we ''humanize'' sex too?

If you want to have sex with everyone, and the same way as an animal as you are saying, then you should sleep on the ground, run around naked, and eat roe food too right? :)

[(A)(_|]

The OP is exagerating. One thing is defending the discriminated, another thing is what you are saying.
We don't have to turn into those that are discriminated in order to defend them.
We are accepting them as normal humans just like everyone else, but we don't have to become the way they are to do that.

And no, sex shouldn't be done ''as a natural thing like eating and sleeping''
I agree that it should be natural, but we are humans aren't we?
We cook our food, and we sleep in beds, so why shouldn't we ''humanize'' sex too?

If you want to have sex with everyone, and the same way as an animal as you are saying, then you should sleep on the ground, run around naked, and eat roe food too right? :)

Yes, I did point out that I was slightly exaggerating, however my point is that with the elimination of certain social constraints, especially in parts of the world where sexual intercourse outside of marriage is socially unacceptable and forbidden by society, it will mean a great deal if people decided to stop conditioning themselves to fallacies that only lead to sexual repression and the desocialisation of human beings, which I believe goes fully against human nature.

When I say, it should be like water, I mean to convey that it should not be given the same social importance or caliber as it stands now. It don't think that it should constitute any form of "love" -of which the meaning of also must be discussed- that might cast more social burdens on the two partners involved. But rather, we should "accept" that it is, as food and water, a matter of instinct and human nature. Its reach should be more feasible, and with such, humans will not put it in high regards, but rather pair it with normality and nature.

I just don't think matters of relationship should be complex or "exaggerated" but rather that they be normalized so that certain "anomalies" within the human race -as viewed by regressive societies- such as open relationships will no longer be viewed as anomalous.

[9]

I tend to agree with most of the points in the OP in essence, although I think the way some of them are expressed is incorrect. In any case, I think in a classless society where the institutions of marriage and the family have been done away with, there would no longer be any practical use for monogamous relationships, so they'd fade out and perhaps completely die. It seems to me that the concept of sexual loyalty and exclusivity as a defining feature of 'love' (as the word is presently understood) has actually far more to do with the rise of class society and the corresponding oppression of women than anything else. The point I would make to the thread starter, though, is that as long as the institutions of marriage and the family exist - which is to say, as long as capitalism and class society exist - monogamous relationships are going to also exist and be dominant because they serve a concrete function in that framework. So this sort of liberal tendency to put it down to a question of individual will or a flaw of character ("monogamy is sick and self-obsessive" etc.) is incorrect and demonstrative of a failure to understand the relationship of marriage and the family (and thus monogamy in general) to class society and their function within it.

[(A)(_|]

I tend to agree with most of the points in the OP in essence, although I think the way some of them are expressed is incorrect. In any case, I think in a classless society where the institutions of marriage and the family have been done away with, there would no longer be any practical use for monogamous relationships, so they'd fade out and perhaps completely die. It seems to me that the concept of sexual loyalty and exclusivity as a defining feature of 'love' (as the word is presently understood) has actually far more to do with the rise of class society and the corresponding oppression of women than anything else. The point I would make to the thread starter, though, is that as long as the institutions of marriage and the family exist - which is to say, as long as capitalism and class society exist - monogamous relationships are going to also exist and be dominant because they serve a concrete function in that framework. So this sort of liberal tendency to put it down to a question of individual will or a flaw of character ("monogamy is sick and self-obsessive" etc.) is incorrect and demonstrative of a failure to understand the relationship of marriage and the family (and thus monogamy in general) to class society and their function within it.

I was meaning to ask the question on what effect class relations and patriarchy in today's society had to do with the normalization of monogamy and "marriage", however, I couldn't really get to that thought as I would suppose not all the members thought the "institute of marriage" should be done away with.

I wanted to see if people thought monogamy was a symptom of today's material world. This is what I was meaning to say with monogamy's possessive nature; whether today's material-orientated society had anything to do with it. It was also consequently a question on how relationships could change if a more communal society, not held back by capitalism, were to be realized. I apologize, I'm not the most elaborate of guys.

I get it you try to imply sexual monogamy is some sort of discrimination? In a stateless society, would this still mean people would not want partners exclusively to themselves?

[9]

I get it you try to imply sexual monogamy is some sort of discrimination?

No, not at all; I should have been clearer. I'm saying that the association between sexual exclusivity as a defining feature of 'love' as its presently understood is more of a reflection of material conditions arising from class society (and the resulting oppression of women - the demand of sexual exclusivity historically often did not extend to the man, for example) than some sort of biological feature of "human nature" or whatever, as some here seem to be suggesting. I'm not saying at all that it's a form of discrimination; I'm talking about where the concept is rooted.

[OldMoney]

"Many species seem to participate in monogamous relationships"

The statement is untrue. There are different types of monogomy. Social monogamy refers to a male and female's social living arrangement (e.g., shared use of a territory, behaviour indicative of a social pair, and/or proximity between a male and female) without inferring any sexual interactions or reproductive patterns. In humans, social monogamy equals monogamous marriage. Sexual monogamy is defined as an exclusive sexual relationship between a female and a male based on observations of sexual interactions. Finally, the term genetic monogamy is used when DNA analyses can confirm that a female-male pair reproduce exclusively with each other. A combination of terms indicates examples where levels of relationships coincide, e.g., sociosexual and sociogenetic monogamy describe corresponding social and sexual, and social and genetic monogamous relationships, respectively.

Social monogamy is relatively rare in the animal kingdom. The actual incidence of social monogamy varies greatly across different branches of the evolutionary tree. Over 90 percent of avian species are socially monogamous.This stands in contrast to mammals. Only 3 percent of mammalian species are socially monogamous, although up to 15 percent of primate species are socially monogamous.

Sexual monogamy is very rare among animals. The great majority of socially monogamous species engage in extra-pair copulations, making them sexually non-monogamous. For example, while over 90% of birds are socially monogamous, "on average, 30 percent or more of the baby birds in any nest are sired by someone other than the resident male.

Sexualy liberty is our right, but has been pushed down with the rise of christianity. Humans breaking free from these trends is evidence of the declining interest in christian values. Do who you want aslong as your honest about it with the other person. Enjoy yourselves in sexual exploration cause Lenin knows these imperialists are making the rest of life alot harder than it has to be.

[Dimentio]

The main problem with polyamory that I could see is that its main raison d'etre today seems to be promiscuity. While there is nothing inherently bad or good about promiscuity, I think it could be dangerous for society to emphasise that at the expense of love, devotion or similar things. In order to establish a solidaric and prosperous community, I believe it is essential that young children are learnt by example that they are responsible towards one another and towards the community as a whole. Lasting relationships, whether friendly or romantic, is a quintessential foundation point for any successful civilisation.

Having said that, I'm not against polyamorous solutions. But some sort of model must ensure that children are allowed specific upbringing with two or more responsible adults, so they are reared towards forming lasting friendships.

The dangers of the kindergarten solution in our time is that children are actually socially crippled by being brought up at public kindergartens. If the children were like bird chicks, such institutions would be perfect. But human children crave more than food and a place to sleep. They crave love and specific attention from their parents, for the first four to five years of their lives.

[pranabjyoti]

In my opinion, society shouldn't interfere into personnel matters until and unless it has been asked for that by anyone adversely affected by some kind of act. Morality is upto the fact that "you can do anything without harming anyone".

[red cat]

The main problem with polyamory that I could see is that its main raison d'etre today seems to be promiscuity. While there is nothing inherently bad or good about promiscuity, I think it could be dangerous for society to emphasise that at the expense of love, devotion or similar things. In order to establish a solidaric and prosperous community, I believe it is essential that young children are learnt by example that they are responsible towards one another and towards the community as a whole. Lasting relationships, whether friendly or romantic, is a quintessential foundation point for any successful civilisation.

Having said that, I'm not against polyamorous solutions. But some sort of model must ensure that children are allowed specific upbringing with two or more responsible adults, so they are reared towards forming lasting friendships.

The dangers of the kindergarten solution in our time is that children are actually socially crippled by being brought up at public kindergartens. If the children were like bird chicks, such institutions would be perfect. But human children crave more than food and a place to sleep. They crave love and specific attention from their parents, for the first four to five years of their lives.

The present form of raising children is based on the need to protect private property. When private property vanishes, children are most likely to be raised by the society as a whole.

[Meridian]

No, not at all; I should have been clearer. I'm saying that the association between sexual exclusivity as a defining feature of 'love' as its presently understood is more of a reflection of material conditions arising from class society (and the resulting oppression of women - the demand of sexual exclusivity historically often did not extend to the man, for example) than some sort of biological feature of "human nature" or whatever, as some here seem to be suggesting. I'm not saying at all that it's a form of discrimination; I'm talking about where the concept is rooted.
That is weird, today my general notion is that most men feel discriminated into adapting to monogamy.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I think there may be a difference between having multiple sexual partners and multiple relationships. I have two dogs. It comforts me knowing they are there when I get home ready to give me what I interpret as love. These kind of relationships affirm that my life has some sort of purpose and that I am not existentially isolated. I've never been in love, but I imagine I'd be rather distraught if coming home every day, I never knew if my loved one would be there. If there was a 33% chance they are staying at another lovers house, what kind of consistency do I really have? Some people might like that. Go for it. I eat the same thing for lunch almost every day. Maybe I need to let loose, though.

I am worried about STDs as a growing problem. Although unsafe sex causes them, polyamory likely increases the frequency of unsafe sex. No reason to ban it. I just think society is failing on the STD front. It's sad that people can spread diseases to one another, and there is on tracking mechanism. It's invasive, but I almost wish some sort of chip system existed. Women gets raped. It seems the chip of John Smith produced frequency 123 in proximity to this women. Put him in prison. "Hello, is this Jennifer? Client 73B is safe. Continue with the transaction." Ignoring the huge totalitarian potential and human rights infringement, I think the idea is neat from a sci-fi angle.

[9]

That is weird, today my general notion is that most men feel discriminated into adapting to monogamy.

I am not sure what you mean by “discriminated into [it]“.
In some places where capitalism is less developed, the expectation of sexual exclusivity is often still placed exclusively upon women, and in a number of places, execution is still a standard penalty for women who don’t comply. Nowhere is this true of men, nor has it ever been at any time, to my knowledge.
Perhaps you are referring to the fact that, generally in the advanced capitalist nations, the social expectation of sexual exclusivity in intimate relationships now extends to men as well. And in that case, it is still entirely inaccurate to imply that it means men are being discriminated against. To use an analogy (albeit a very far-fetched one): if the same degree of violence that street cops in the US use against working class people of color was extended in exactly equal measure to working class whites, would that mean cops were discriminating against whites? No; it would simply mean that, in this one aspect of the US legal system, both parties would be getting an equally shitty deal.


I think there may be a difference between having multiple sexual partners and multiple relationships. I have two dogs. It comforts me knowing they are there when I get home ready to give me what I interpret as love. These kind of relationships affirm that my life has some sort of purpose and that I am not existentially isolated. I've never been in love, but I imagine I'd be rather distraught if coming home every day, I never knew if my loved one would be there.

I think this is a common sentiment and I think it is very much indicative of what I was referring to in my earlier posts in this thread about monogamy and sexual exclusivity (basically the present view of 'love') actually being intimately bound up with class society and specifically with the oppression of women. What you are describing as 'love' (i.e. monogamy) is basically someone who has no independence - no purpose or interests of their own; someone who is homebound, whose life literally revolves around caring for you, tending to your physical and emotional needs and nothing more. This is not 'love', it is the role of a domesticated pet or, more accurately, a domestic servant. Except that a domestic servant is actually paid for their work and is not generally expected to bare your children and have sex with you (let alone exclusively).
I am not faulting you personally for having this view, BTW; it is the dominant view, it is a product of class society, and it is impressed upon all of us in some form or another starting as soon as we're born. But I think it is a very mistaken idea that there is anything inherently positive, healthy, or natural about it or that there is anything desirable about seeing a continuation - in a classless society - of this very oppressive relationship which the ruling class pushes as 'love'.



I am worried about STDs as a growing problem. Although unsafe sex causes them, polyamory likely increases the frequency of unsafe sex. How would that be?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I think this is a common sentiment and I think it is very much indicative of what I was referring to in my earlier posts in this thread about monogamy and sexual exclusivity (basically the present view of 'love') actually being intimately bound up with class society and specifically with the oppression of women. What you are describing as 'love' (i.e. monogamy) is basically someone who has no independence - no purpose or interests of their own; someone who is homebound, whose life literally revolves around caring for you, tending to your physical and emotional needs and nothing more. This is not 'love', it is the role of a domesticated pet or, more accurately, a domestic servant. Except that a domestic servant is actually paid for their work and is not generally expected to bare your children and have sex with you (let alone exclusively).
I am not faulting you personally for having this view, BTW; it is the dominant view, it is a product of class society, and it is impressed upon all of us in some form or another starting as soon as we're born. But I think it is a very mistaken idea that there is anything inherently positive, healthy, or natural about it or that there is anything desirable about seeing a continuation - in a classless society - of this very oppressive relationship which the ruling class pushes as 'love'.

How would that be?

I could be wrong, but I would suspect polyamory to increase the frequency by which people have different sex partners. Since rates of unsafe sex, I suspect, remain fairly consistent, an increase in sexual partners would theoretically pose a problem of increasing STD rates. I don't think this is an argument against polyamory, and I'm not sure it's true. However, STDs are a growing worry regardless of polyamory. I was kind of going off topic.

I gave myself a terrible target by using the example of a dog.

1. I want someone with independence. I just would value their company so much so that I'd like to see them on a reliable basis. I'd like to share a common identity "in addition" to our individual ones.
2. I would never want someone without their own interests. I'm sure it would have its benefits, but that seems to be a rather dull person.
3. Someone who has a life revolving around me isn't what I'm looking for. I've seen people like that. They're usually boring.
4. I would greatly prefer not to have children at all.

It's probably just cultural bias, but something seems unusual with polyamory. There isn't a lot of information that I've found on the scientific aspects of it. It just seems like issues in human psychology would make polyamory rather unstable. Jealously, for instance. I suspect it would be evolutionary efficient for males to enter conflicts with others over women in order to ensure their genes continue. Perhaps this is an explanation for the differing attitudes towards open relationships with a women dating a women and a man - as opposed to a man and a man. And we live in a culture where every judges themselves based on other people and are self-critical of others.

Maybe if you worked at it, it would work. I just don't know if the work required to sustain polyamory would really be compensated for by the benefits of the lifestyle.

[FreeFocus]

Under capitalism, monogamy is institutionalized in the oppressive form of marriage, and social expectations fall behind monogamy. I think monogamy is a positive thing, although in many cultures polygamy/polyamory is promoted (in which case I don't have a problem with). Some people are just promiscuous for the hell of it, and I think that's stupid, although within their rights.

[bcbm]

However, STDs are a growing worry regardless of polyamory.

why? most of them can be cleared up with a quick visit to the doctor, most of the ones that can't aren't really that big of a deal.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

why? most of them can be cleared up with a quick visit to the doctor, most of the ones that can't aren't really that big of a deal.

Well, the huge social stigma attached to them is negative, but it's also illegitimate to say "person X got an STD, but they have no right to be upset because their emotions are irrational." A lot of completely rational people, even open-minded individuals, would almost instantly react to an STI in a negative and self-deprecating manner. This would also change their dating prospects.

You are right, though. The permanent cases usually aren't that bad, but some of them aren't only cosmetic. And the health care costs of having to treat many of these things likely isn't helping anyone.

[bcbm]

Well, the huge social stigma attached to them is negative, but it's also illegitimate to say "person X got an STD, but they have no right to be upset because their emotions are irrational." A lot of completely rational people, even open-minded individuals, would almost instantly react to an STI in a negative and self-deprecating manner. This would also change their dating prospects.

people react in a negative and self-deprecating way because of decades of anti-sex propaganda that used sti's to create the social stigma you mention. if sti's were presented as they actually are (not really much worse than, say, the flu in most cases), i think the social stigma would be significantly lessened.


You are right, though. The permanent cases usually aren't that bad, but some of them aren't only cosmetic. And the health care costs of having to treat many of these things likely isn't helping anyone.

obviously they aren't all cosmetic, but most lasting damage comes from not treating them, which happens more frequently when people don't get tested, often a result of social stigma or lack of accurate information.

as for the costs, i don't think they cost more to treat than something like the common cold or even overhyped shit like swine flu. most of the non-viral stis can be treated with a single antibiotic dose, probably cheaper than what you'd get for strep throat.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

It's probably just cultural bias, but something seems unusual with polyamory. There isn't a lot of information that I've found on the scientific aspects of it. It just seems like issues in human psychology would make polyamory rather unstable. Jealously, for instance.
I think that is cultural bias. It's been my experience that issues in human psychology tend to make a lot of monogamous relationships rather unstable as well, but I've never heard that given as an argument for scrapping it.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Fair enough. I suppose I'm being convinced. I just wonder sometimes. When I have friends, if I spread them out I have more friends, but if I have fewer, I tend to have closer relationships. Now the obvious response is the people are able to get both. I'm not sure that's true for everyone.

If I could switch off, say, from three women a week, it would have its benefits. However, I also enjoy my friends interacting together, but I suppose there isn't anything that could be against that. I'd be more inclined toward live-in polyamorous relationships. Well, normal relationships confuse me as it is so perhaps I'll have to take baby steps.

My worry is that I would like to believe that monogamy is acceptable for "some." I'd like to believe that polyamory isn't better "for everyone." I have heard arguments that anything else is selfish, which confuses me. I'm all for polyamory if someone wants that, but it seems like some people like monogamy and some don't.

[9]

Just to be clear in general, I’m not meaning to take a position on polyamorous relationships within the framework of capitalism; I am trying not to allow my personal preference to have any bearing on what I‘m saying, nor do I think it‘s really anyone‘s business. I think the form of relationship which people here prefer is going to have to be their own personal choice, but personal preference in this regard really isn’t a political issue, and turning questions of one’s personal lifestyle choices into political statements is the defining feature of lifestylism.

What is political, however, is the role of monogamy within - and its relationship to - class society, and I think it is important for this to be understood. The statements of biological determinism in this thread are absurd and frankly put themselves in complete opposition to history and to a materialist analysis. Obviously the relationship between biological factors and social factors (i.e. "nature versus nurture") is dialectical, but the fact of the matter is that monogamy has nothing to do with nature; it arose at a specific time as a specific response to material conditions arising from private property as a product of class society, and “romantic love” has been understood very differently in different places and times throughout human history, and has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of monogamy.

I think Engels put it best:


“This is the origin of monogamy as far as we can trace it back among the most civilized and highly developed people of antiquity. It was not in any way the fruit of individual sex-love, with which it had nothing whatever to do; marriages remained as before marriages of convenience. It was the first form of the family to be based, not on natural, but on economic conditions – on the victory of private property over primitive, natural communal property. The Greeks themselves put the matter quite frankly: the sole exclusive aims of monogamous marriage were to make the man supreme in the family, and to propagate, as the future heirs to his wealth, children indisputably his own. Otherwise, marriage was a burden, a duty which had to be performed, whether one liked it or not, to gods, state, and one’s ancestors. In Athens the law exacted from the man not only marriage but also the performance of a minimum of so-called conjugal duties.

Thus when monogamous marriage first makes its appearance in history, it is not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period. In an old unpublished manuscript, written by Marx and myself in 1846, I find the words: 'The first division of labor is that between man and woman for the propagation of children.' And today I can add: The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male. Monogamous marriage was a great historical step forward; nevertheless, together with slavery and private wealth, it opens the period that has lasted until today in which every step forward is also relatively a step backward, in which prosperity and development for some is won through the misery and frustration of others.”

[Robocommie]

All I can say is, I've been in a situation once where I was in love with a woman, who loved me, but she had to move far away, and each of us gave the other permission to move on and find happiness elsewhere, since we couldn't be with one another.

But, when she was with other men, sexually, or emotionally, it hurt, on a deep level, and I know she felt the same way about me being with other women. In a way, we just kept hurting one another, because we kept in touch, and even after years of this our feelings didn't die or change, but we kept trying to find happiness elsewhere because there was no practical way to be together. And yet, that desire to be together never went away. Frankly, it still hasn't, even after all these years.

I don't know if that's possessiveness or a biological tendency or a social protocol programmed into me by capitalist society, I just know how it felt to miss her so sorely, and just how bitter and painful it felt to think of her being with others, just as she felt about me and other women. I don't know if I could ever be happy in a polyamorous relationship, in part because I've found it hurts to have to share someone you love, and also because I truly hate inflicting that same hurt on someone else I care about.

I don't want anyone telling me my feelings are wrong, because I'm the one who feels them. But I also don't want to tell anyone else that how they choose to love and live is wrong either. Frankly, if everyone in a sexual relationship has full knowledge and understanding of what's going on, I don't think there's a problem. If two people have the understanding that they're in an exclusive monogamous relationship, they should respect that. If they have an understanding otherwise, then that's fine too, so long as everyone understands that's what's going on.

To me, it's about mutual respect and consideration. That's the bottom line.

[Dr Mindbender]

Here is my 2 cents.

Now admittedly, this is more pertinent to straight and bisexual folk but If you're going to never 'settle down' and continue practicing polygamy or non-commiting sexual activities then rubber up, go on the pill, but don't have children under any circumstances. If a man gets a woman pregnant, then he owes that child and the woman 50% of the love, material care and attention that the child recieves (as well as a good role model and as unpopular this may sound being a serial womanising jack the lad isn't it). End of story. Also, children have a right to know who their fathers are IMO.

Also if you're going to drift from partner to partner theres a responsibility on yourself not to infect others with STI's but that should hardly need saying.

[Dimentio]

Here is my 2 cents.

Now admittedly, this is more pertinent to straight and bisexual folk but If you're going to never 'settle down' and continue practicing polygamy or non-commiting sexual activities then rubber up, go on the pill, but don't have children under any circumstances. If a man gets a woman pregnant, then he owes that child and the woman 50% of the love, material care and attention that the child recieves (as well as a good role model and as unpopular this may sound being a serial womanising jack the lad isn't it). End of story. Also, children have a right to know who their fathers are IMO.

Also if you're going to drift from partner to partner theres a responsibility on yourself not to infect others with STI's but that should hardly need saying.

I am in agreement that a man should commit himself, not only 50%, but 100%, to the woman which he has inseminated - during the course of her pregnancy and the infancy of the child. But if we assume that we have a society characterised by polyamorous relationships, the woman could have a network of relationships with different males who - on their own or in a concerted effort - could help to raise her children.

Often, polyamorous behaviour have been characteristic of males in some cultures and some communities, as women who have engaged in similar activities have been referred to as "sluts". If it wasn't seen as socially unacceptable, it would have been a lot easier for women to find adoptive fathers to sustain even a large household, and yet remain functionally single and available.

I am not claiming that such a lifestyle is optimal or even superior to the lifestyle which we'll see today. But I do claim that it isn't necessarily inferior either.

[bcbm]

If a man gets a woman pregnant, then he owes that child and the woman 50% of the love, material care and attention that the child recieves

i don't think love comes in percentages and that it is entirely possible to be polyamorous and raise children. i know poly parents, and they're great with their kids.


(as well as a good role model and as unpopular this may sound being a serial womanising jack the lad isn't it).

all polyamorous individuals are serial womanizers now? i think being open and honest about your feelings and sexuality is being a pretty good role model.


Also, children have a right to know who their fathers are IMO.

paternity test.

[Outinleftfield]

STDs can be avoided with polyfidelity, a practice where a group is formed and sex outside the group is forbidden without the group knowing and consenting to it or sometimes the outsider has to join the group before anyone has sex with him/her. There are usually rules about STD testing in the group especially for new members.

As for jealousy, its socially conditioned not inherent. A look at a certain Chinese minority (I forget the name I heard about this in a sociology class) shows this. Traditionally, men and women have sex freely. The mother raises the children along with her brothers, mother, and uncles. They do not experience jealousy over this.

Why have we come to experience sexual jealousy? It mirrors hierarchy and property rights. In ancient cultures and some remaining tribal cultures they didn't have a concept of "property". Everything belonged to everyone. Once the idea that something could be "exclusively" yours for nobody else to touch this idea easily carried over into people's love lives. Money would've also been a factor. Since the more money a person gives to one person the less they have to give to other people the same idea emerged in "love". People assumed if someone was giving love to someone else it meant they didn't love them as much as though love was a finite resource.

Considering communes would be more economical and uses less resources than 2-person houses everywhere and that polyamory is naturally a good basis for a commune(though a commune could include platonic relationships too) I think this will grow to become the norm. Higher divorce rates show people are dissatisfied with marriage. Birth rates have dropped to negative in some countries because people are too preoccupied with carriers to have kids. If there were more than 2 parents/earners that would help with having enough time for taking care of the kids and earning enough money and still having time for yourself. As moral taboos are already loosening people will start experimenting with these ways of living more and eventually it will catch on. Maybe by eroding the basis for jealousy in love this will overtime lead to less possessiveness in other areas of people's lives.

[AK]

You didn't seriously resurrect this thread, did you?