Polyamory

[Bob Dole]

First, a definition: Polyamory (from poly=multiple + amor=love) is the desire, practice, or acceptance of having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved. ...

Literally, "many loves". A generic term for non-monogamy, with a heavy emphasis on honesty and responsibility. (2)

Both ripped from Google. Now, what are your opinions on it?

I think that many people are naturally polyamorous, but due to the monogamistic society we've lived in for so long and its emphasis on control and possession most people have come to abhor polyamory as something wrong. Judeo-Christian values haven't helped it along either. Personally, I find monogamous relationships usually soul-crushingly painful to be in. I feel the need to have many people to love as one person usually only has one or two aspects in them that I like. I wish to be able to fulfill all of my intellectual, spiritual, and physical needs.

[Puchiko]

I'm not currently in a relation ship, and haven't been in that many before either (and none were exactly serious). But I basically agree with: "Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill, An it harm none do what ye will." So if you treat all your partners correctly, if you don't lie to them about your other relationships, I can't see the harm.

[Darthmat]

I think, if all members are OK with it, then its fine.
But I wouldn't be, I am too greedy.

[SoulRiser]

I can find only one problem with the concept of polyamory... having enough quality time to spend with everyone. Especially if you're like me and you like to spend a lot of time alone as well

But I'd never "own" anyone. I have no right... I'd let them do whatever (and whoever ) they want.

[Bob Dole]

Lol. It's fairly easy to spend time with everyone. Not daily, of course, but it works well enough.

[SoulRiser]

Quote:I feel the need to have many people to love as one person usually only has one or two aspects in them that I like.

What if you actually found one person (or more than one) that you liked everything about? Is it about liking aspects of people, or liking people, and then liking their aspects because you like the person?

[youvebeenthunderstruck]

A person is already an aspect. A person is comprised of aspects, because an aspect isn't a concrete thing, it's not a solid thing, nor is it an abstract thing, but it is both. Anything you can possibly like about a person, a positive, is an aspect.

[SoulRiser]

Interesting way of putting it... I wouldn't say a person is an aspect though, but that they do have many of them, and that they are ever changing.

What if the aspect you liked most about the person changed... would you stop liking that person? Would you give up on them, or would you still be there for them even if you disagreed with absolutely everything they were doing?

... I'm not trying to make this go offtopic, just trying to annoy everyone point out a very vague idea I have that liking people based on certain things about them isn't very deep compared to liking them no matter what (more unconditional).

[youvebeenthunderstruck]

I'm just basically saying that an aspect is anything, a synonymn of aspect is essentially 'thing', you can say this is an aspect of that etc, and so everybody, no matter how good or how evil they are, is made of aspects.

[Suicidal-kun]

I believe there's nothing wrong with it, as long as all the participants are willing to live a life of polygamy. Basically, I believe that if anything's consensual, then it ain't wrong, no matter what other people think.

[Bob Dole]

SoulRiser Wrote:Interesting way of putting it... I wouldn't say a person is an aspect though, but that they do have many of them, and that they are ever changing.

What if the aspect you liked most about the person changed... would you stop liking that person? Would you give up on them, or would you still be there for them even if you disagreed with absolutely everything they were doing?

... I'm not trying to make this go offtopic, just trying to annoy everyone point out a very vague idea I have that liking people based on certain things about them isn't very deep compared to liking them no matter what (more unconditional).

Well, if that changed, I'd still try and make the relationship work, as there is usually more than one thing in a person I like. However, if someone went from say atheist to fundamentalist Christian and started preaching at me that I was going to hell unless I converted, I'd just put a stop to that relationship. Liking somebody no matter what is admirable, in a way, but I also find it foolish. Staying in a relationship that's just going to bring misery to both parties is bad for both. It's kinda just leading yourself and somebody else along.

[cooltoonist]

I don't really mind it however if its for lusty reasons... I'm concerned.

[deathrape]

so its essentially like mormanism

[Bob Dole]

*facepalm*

Not really. Polygamy and polyamory are different. Polyamory has closer ties to the free love movement.

[Cory]

Anonymous1.0 Wrote:*facepalm*

Not really. Polygamy and polyamory are different. Polyamory has closer ties to the free love movement.

This, and Polygamy is not really part of the Mormon religion anymore...Dum d-dum dum dum

[SoulRiser]

Quote:Liking somebody no matter what is admirable, in a way, but I also find it foolish. Staying in a relationship that's just going to bring misery to both parties is bad for both. It's kinda just leading yourself and somebody else along.

Well.... yeah, it makes sense that the "relationship" (whatever that means) would not work anymore, at least not in the same way. But there's a difference between a relationship and a ... "relationship"... lol. I mean, I'd go to ridiculous lengths to (at least) stay friends with people. Maybe that's just me though

I mean, the whole concept of a "relationship" as opposed to friendship is kind of restrictive, whether there's just one of them or multiple. I prefer to think of things like that on a scale of closeness... some people are closer than others, but I don't see why it needs to be called something different and then treated differently all of a sudden. And you get people in "relationships" that act close but aren't even remotely near close, they don't know jacksquat about each other, really.

I'm rambling

[Trekkie_Aspie]

Yeh, you know that I'm constantly telling you about doorknobs?

Yeh, I don't care if people want to live with, in a state that is for all intents and purposes, married, 50 doorknobs so long as there's doorknobs for the rest of us that want them, I don't have to watch, and all doorknobs involved consent.

Unless it develops into domestic abuse, (not consensual Machoist stuff) it's none of my fucking business!

[Bob Dole]

SoulRiser Wrote:

Quote:Liking somebody no matter what is admirable, in a way, but I also find it foolish. Staying in a relationship that's just going to bring misery to both parties is bad for both. It's kinda just leading yourself and somebody else along.

Well.... yeah, it makes sense that the "relationship" (whatever that means) would not work anymore, at least not in the same way. But there's a difference between a relationship and a ... "relationship"... lol. I mean, I'd go to ridiculous lengths to (at least) stay friends with people. Maybe that's just me though

I mean, the whole concept of a "relationship" as opposed to friendship is kind of restrictive, whether there's just one of them or multiple. I prefer to think of things like that on a scale of closeness... some people are closer than others, but I don't see why it needs to be called something different and then treated differently all of a sudden. And you get people in "relationships" that act close but aren't even remotely near close, they don't know jacksquat about each other, really.

I'm rambling

Oh, of course you'd want to stay friends with them. That's what I always try to do. I too don't really get the whole friendship vs. relationship deal. I kinda have a sliding scale on how much a like people.

[SH☮TGUNHEⒶRT]

Polyamory has been used in liberal's and subculture's attempts to liberate themselves from dominant culture.

I don't agree with polyamory, because people who tend to use it in movements, disallow monogamous relationships because they think it draws away from the group..

I can't honestly, love a group of people the same I love another. I mean, why use each other. Monogamy is great.

[returnal]

(01-30-2012 05:16 AM)SH☮TGUNHEⒶRT Wrote:  Polyamory has been used in liberal's and subculture's attempts to liberate themselves from dominant culture.

I don't agree with polyamory, because people who tend to use it in movements, disallow monogamous relationships because they think it draws away from the group..

I can't honestly, love a group of people the same I love another. I mean, why use each other. Monogamy is great.

it's fallacious to form your opinion on an abstract concept based on how it is used (and i really, really doubt your stereotypical assumption that polyamory is mostly used to be like "lol im diffrant" when it is actually mostly used as the way somebody is romantically, not something chosen for the lols) as is your close-minded assumption that polyamory is akin to being "used". you can be used in a monogamous relationship as much as you can in a polyamorous one.

polyamory is totally, completely fine w/ me. if somebody loves that way, then more power to them.

[UnschoolShqiponjë]

(01-30-2012 03:49 PM)returnal Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 05:16 AM)SH☮TGUNHEⒶRT Wrote:  Polyamory has been used in liberal's and subculture's attempts to liberate themselves from dominant culture.

I don't agree with polyamory, because people who tend to use it in movements, disallow monogamous relationships because they think it draws away from the group..

I can't honestly, love a group of people the same I love another. I mean, why use each other. Monogamy is great.

it's fallacious to form your opinion on an abstract concept based on how it is used (and i really, really doubt your stereotypical assumption that polyamory is mostly used to be like "lol im diffrant" when it is actually mostly used as the way somebody is romantically, not something chosen for the lols) as is your close-minded assumption that polyamory is akin to being "used". you can be used in a monogamous relationship as much as you can in a polyamorous one.

polyamory is totally, completely fine w/ me. if somebody loves that way, then more power to them.

This.

[magikarp]

Eh, I have no problem with polyamoury itself.

Do I have problems with its emphasis in certain subcultures though? Yeah, definitely, and those two things aren't mutually exclusive. There tends to be this thing in certain subcultures where it's like "Monogamy is the state! Everyone (women) should be sexually available to everyone else or they're not radical enough." Which is weird and borderline coercive. Also how some straight (or straight-ish) polyamorous people think they're somehow an authority on gay issues because "Hey we're all queer man."

[NightThoughts]

(03-25-2008 01:34 PM)Cory Wrote:  

Anonymous1.0 Wrote:*facepalm*

Not really. Polygamy and polyamory are different. Polyamory has closer ties to the free love movement.

This, and Polygamy is not really part of the Mormon religion anymore...Dum d-dum dum dum

I really don't care if someone already responded to this, I'm adding in my two cents. Technically, polygamy is still part of the Mormon religion, though it has been moved to the afterlife in accordance with US laws. Some Mormon fundamentalists do, however, still believe in it. I doubt that they could pull it off now, though.

I'm not a fan of intimate premarital relationships, but this is an interesting topic. I think that polyamoury could be damaging at some point to the people involved. At first it could work, but eventually human nature would probably win out. Most people want someone devoted to them exclusively, but I guess if you're in that relationship in the first place...

Sorry for the long post.

[Aya]

Quote:Some Mormon fundamentalists do, however, still believe in it. I doubt that they could pull it off now, though.

They can. The law bans polygamy on a legal level, not a religious one. So there is nothing stopping a Mormon in Utah from marrying a second or third woman, so long as the preacher doesn't say "by the power invested with me by God & the state of Utah..."

[thewake]

I'm not against people polyamorous if that's what floats their many boats, but I don't think it's for me. I will be happy to just get one person.

[HeartofShadows]

Nothing against it.
Funny how shows made it out to be completely evil..

[Efs]

Some girl at school today was preparing her presentation on Polyamory. I was fascinated that she chose it, and I was happy for her - until I realised she was speaking how she's AGAINST it and it's evil. lol blackwomen herrrr durrr

[HeartofShadows]

(06-04-2012 11:13 PM)Efs Wrote:  Some girl at school today was preparing her presentation on Polyamory. I was fascinated that she chose it, and I was happy for her - until I realised she was speaking how she's AGAINST it and it's evil. lol blackwomen herrrr durrr

Most women(in before Aya) love to have a monopoly on sex and do what they can to protect it. Learn this about women and you'll understand a lot of what they do.

[4r4b7]

i think that its fine if everyone agrees.

[MonkeyDerp]

interesting. i think i would be worried. but i do agree with it in theory. i just think its going to be hard to put in practice.