Polyamory

[Thylacine]

Hi what are your views on polyamory?

Polyamory (from Greek πολύ [poly, meaning many or several] and Latin amor [love]) is the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved.

Personally I believe in this and kind of wish it was more acceptable within our society. I have in the past been in a relationship and been in love with another at the same time while still loving my partner. The western idea of monogamy is depressing. Humans are wired to have more than one partner and I don't see how this cannot be done within the context of a loving relationship. I have had possessive boyfriends who would have shuddered at the idea of me loving another. I hated those relationships, it was suffocating. I don't like being that tied down. I'm not talking about promiscuity here just more open relationships.

[Angel Androgynous]

I love polyamory. It's natural, it's awesome, and I am into it. :P I really hate people who think that you need to stick yourself to one person and stay that way forever and ever. Animals are naturally promiscuous. I almost always can never bear just being with one person and staying committed to them. I think group relationships are awesome, whether they are open (you can be with people outside of the group) or closed (only be with people in the group) Polyamorous relationships are also based on trust, obviously, however, they are better to experiment with different people, and be more free. There are many ways to be in a polyamorous relationship, while monogamous relationships are kind of limited. :p

[kenoloor]

I love polyamory. It's natural, it's awesome, and I am into it. :P I really hate people who think that you need to stick yourself to one person and stay that way forever and ever. Animals are naturally promiscuous. I almost always can never bear just being with one person and staying committed to them. I think group relationships are awesome, whether they are open (you can be with people outside of the group) or closed (only be with people in the group) Polyamorous relationships are also based on trust, obviously, however, they are better to experiment with different people, and be more free. There are many ways to be in a polyamorous relationship, while monogamous relationships are kind of limited. :p

Ida put this really well. I never really understood why there's such a stigma on polyamory. It's a perfectly natural thing, yet people see it as disgusting and distasteful. I have never been personally involved in a polyamorous relationship, but I certainly don't see why people have a issue with it. Obviously it's not for everyone, but just because you don't go that way doesn't mean you should think it disgusting.

[AppealToReason]

I wouldn't want to be in one, but have no problem with those who do. It really is sad how it's frowned upon, but that's just close-mindedness.

[screamtobeheard]

I've never really thought about this before. I personally stay committed to one person, but I think it's just because I was raised in a Christian household (and they happen to be close-minded about things of this manner).

But now that you bring it up, it's completely natural to be attracted to more than one person, and I know from experience that you can love more than one person at a time, so why should we be restricted to only having one person?

Yes, I think polyamory is completely normal and acceptable, and society should not frown upon it as much as it does.

[Spook]

Though in the relationship I had been in I had only really liked him, I do admit I thought of other guys; though I'd never act on it.

Somehow when I heard polyamory I thought of the Twilight Triangle. xD lol.

Ooooh BTW fun fact time with Nyra: Polyamory- Poly-amor-y

Poly- more than one
amor-love
y- ending of the word? o.O


So basically it means more than one love-y

[screamtobeheard]

Poly- more than one
amor-love
y- ending of the word?
Haha I think the y is added because it's the noun form of the word, so it's the practice of having more than one lover.

[embers]

ITT: Horny teens want fuck buddies

[Ambrosia]

In all honesty, I have no opinion towards it. If someone wants to do it, let them.

But I really do enjoy the song about it, Polyamorous by Breaking Benjamin. Lol

[aperson444]

Yea there's a difference between blatant promiscuity and polyamory. The former being quite bad of a thing while the latter can be alright or even beneficial. Either way, I wouldn't want to get in the way of others' decisions.

[scottnesss]

i can understand this completely.

as i see it, there is more than one type of love. you can love your friends and love your family and love your partner all are love, yet nobody bats an eyelid. however as soon as you say you love two people the same and would love to be able to be with both, people flip out. isnt it still love?

the way i see it, is that i can love 2 or 3 people but one will always be loved more and that person would be my boyfriend, but i wouldnt stop loving the other 2 simply because of that. a kiss is a kiss, sex is sex. regardless of what i would do with the other two, i will still love that one special person most.

[UnknownError]

I wouldnt feel comfortable being in a relationship like that but it is really a natural thing. It's just one of many things that is looked down upon in society.

[Sugaree]

ITT: Horny teens want fuck buddies

My thoughts exactly. It's easier work just to stay single forever than to be in one relationship with multiple people.

[antiabort]

"hurrr durrr I can't be faithful to somebody because I am horny and childish, it's okay because animals do it too!" This is the logic I see ITT.

[Angel Androgynous]

"hurrr durrr I can't be faithful to somebody because I am horny and childish, it's okay because animals do it too!" This is the logic I see ITT.
Hurr durr I don't know shit but I am gonna say dumb shit anyway because I am stupid and childish.

Polyamorous relationships aren't just about sex. ._. It is literally loving more than one person in a romantic way. There is a difference between promiscuity (and there isn't anything wrong with that either) and polyamory. How about you, instead of posting dumb comments that do not contribute in any way in debates, actually research the subject a little more and make a valid argument?
Polyamory requires faith and trust as well, depending on which type of polyamory is being practiced. The partners are knowledgeable on who their partners are with, and in some cases, the sex and the love stays in the polyamorous group.

[Jupiter]

In all honesty, I have no opinion towards it. If someone wants to do it, let them.

This is what I'm gonna have to go with here.

and lord almighty, what does ITT mean?

[Jean Poutine]

I really hate people who think that you need to stick yourself to one person and stay that way forever and ever.

It's society's ideal. Whether or not you agree with it is up to you, but at least have the decency of not hating on people who still believe in monogamy, total fidelity, and so on and so forth.

I happen to be a big believer in it. I might even be termed a hopeless romantic.


Animals are naturally promiscuous.

No, that's not true. Many, many animals actually form monogamous relationships that are stronger than anything man could ever hope to build. Many species of parrots have only one mate in their whole life. Parrots live fucking long.

It might not be the norm because passing on genes to as many individuals as possible in the hope of having more offspring and survive that way is more popular, but "all animals are naturally promiscuous" is false.

I almost always can never bear just being with one person and staying committed to them.

That's your problem. I would never be caught dead in that kind of relationship.

I think group relationships are awesome, whether they are open (you can be with people outside of the group) or closed (only be with people in the group).

I think they are diluted farces of what a committed relationship should be, but that's just me.

Polyamorous relationships are also based on trust, obviously, however, they are better to experiment with different people, and be more free. There are many ways to be in a polyamorous relationship, while monogamous relationships are kind of limited. :p

Okay, I guess this is the part where I explain myself rather than taking shots.

What happened to "for better or for worse"? Jesus H. Christ. Now people bail out at the slightest hint of a problem. Apparently the newest thing is to have multiple disposable rebounds in case something with a partner does not go well.

You really can't trust more than one person the way "loving" requires you to. People lie and cheat and scumbag their way through life. 95% of people are assholes. Doing so is asking to get hurt. The more people you love, the more diluted "love" gets, unless you want to get broken over and over.

What is love, anyway? The word lost so much of its meaning that it's now meaningless. 13 year olds "love" people they barely know, teens throw "I love you" around, to everyone, so much that the phrase now really means "You are a semi-important person to me and if you text me, I will text you back some time within the day".

"to experiment with different people"? Feel free to do that if you want but for the love of God don't call it a relationship. "to be more free"? That's what commitment means. To lose freedom. I think that since freedom is the most important thing we as individuals have, to give it to a single person is the greatest gift anybody can offer. It should be the greatest honor.

But no, now we have kids that want both butter and the butter's money. No wonder everybody makes a mockery of marriage. People don't want to give themselves away anymore. People don't believe in real commitment anymore. Too much effort. Goes right in line with our society.


as i see it, there is more than one type of love. you can love your friends and love your family and love your partner all are love, yet nobody bats an eyelid. however as soon as you say you love two people the same and would love to be able to be with both, people flip out. isnt it still love?

Because romantic love is completely different. Romantic love is to give fully and recieve fully, it's to support somebody without asking any question when that person is in trouble, it's to endeavor to share everything, for the rest of your life with that one person. It is (well, should be) exemplified by the institution of marriage and all it means (um, should mean).

Loving your friends and even your family asks nothing of the sort. They're 100% completely different.

[huginnmuninn]

i think that to truely love someone in a "soul mate" sense is a rare thing so to truely love more than one person in that way is probably extremely rare. to have more than one lovers is a lot simpler and should be accepted if people want it

[Angel Androgynous]

It's society's ideal. Whether or not you agree with it is up to you, but at least have the decency of not hating on people who still believe in monogamy, total fidelity, and so on and so forth.
Sorry for the incorrect sentence that I said. I meant I hate people that hate people for being polyamorous. I don't hate monogamous people.


No, that's not true. Many, many animals actually form monogamous relationships that are stronger than anything man could ever hope to build. Many species of parrots have only one mate in their whole life. Parrots live fucking long.

It might not be the norm because passing on genes to as many individuals as possible in the hope of having more offspring and survive that way is more popular, but "all animals are naturally promiscuous" is false.
Once again, I didn't mean promiscuous, however, I never said ALL. There are monogamous animals and polyamorous animals, there are monogamous humans and polyamorous humans.


That's your problem. I would never be caught dead in that kind of relationship.
Once again, I was rushing and mis-worded. I didn't mean I would cheat on someone. If I was in a relationship where my partner was not okay with polyamory, fine, let it last as long as it has to if I am happy with them, however, if both of us are okay with polyamory and we like some other people, I really do not see the "problem."


I think they are diluted farces of what a committed relationship should be, but that's just me.
Yeah, that's just you. :)


Okay, I guess this is the part where I explain myself rather than taking shots.

What happened to "for better or for worse"? Jesus H. Christ. Now people bail out at the slightest hint of a problem. Apparently the newest thing is to have multiple disposable rebounds in case something with a partner does not go well.

You really can't trust more than one person the way "loving" requires you to. People lie and cheat and scumbag their way through life. 95% of people are assholes. Doing so is asking to get hurt. The more people you love, the more diluted "love" gets, unless you want to get broken over and over.

What is love, anyway? The word lost so much of its meaning that it's now meaningless. 13 year olds "love" people they barely know, teens throw "I love you" around, to everyone, so much that the phrase now really means "You are a semi-important person to me and if you text me, I will text you back some time within the day".

"to experiment with different people"? Feel free to do that if you want but for the love of God don't call it a relationship. "to be more free"? That's what commitment means. To lose freedom. I think that since freedom is the most important thing we as individuals have, to give it to a single person is the greatest gift anybody can offer. It should be the greatest honor.

But no, now we have kids that want both butter and the butter's money. No wonder everybody makes a mockery of marriage. People don't want to give themselves away anymore. People don't believe in real commitment anymore. Too much effort. Goes right in line with our society.
Polyamory is not about a back-up fuck buddy. Romantic love is not always limited to one person for everyone. Polyamory, arguably, relies even on more trust and faith than monogamy does.

"What is love, anyway? The word lost so much of its meaning that it's now meaningless. 13 year olds "love" people they barely know, teens throw "I love you" around, to everyone, so much that the phrase now really means "You are a semi-important person to me and if you text me, I will text you back some time within the day"."

I agree with this. :P

By experimenting with different people, I do not mean only sexually, but also having the consent and permission from your partner(s) to meet more people that you and they might like into the group relationship.

I said it once, and I will say it again: Polyamory is not based solely on sexual relationships. You cannot say that a person can't love more than one person romantically because you are not that person. You cannot speak for everyone and call someone's relationship not a relationship, when it is a romantic binding between more than two people based on love, trust, and faith. I don't see how that is not a relationship just because some people morally and emotionally cannot bear to be in them, and just because they are not considered normal. That being said, I apologize for my first, rushed, post, for it had a lot of errors and I hope that I explained myself clearly. :P

[Jean Poutine]

Once again, I didn't mean promiscuous, however, I never said ALL. There are monogamous animals and polyamorous animals, there are monogamous humans and polyamorous humans.

Leaving off a qualifier in front of a noun implies that everything is x.

Your analogy is shaky : there are many species of animals but humanity is a species. Some animal species are "programmed" to be polygamous, others monogamous. Modern humans are "programmed" to be monogamous. When your baby is weak, slow, and not all that smart or instinctual, when mothers generally have one child at a time and when a human's gestation period is one of the longest in the animal reign, it makes sense to forge a bond with your partner and defend your only offspring until it's able to take care of itself.

I can't say I agree with polyamory and I never will, but ultimately my place isn't in the bedroom of other people.

Once again, I was rushing and mis-worded. I didn't mean I would cheat on someone. If I was in a relationship where my partner was not okay with polyamory, fine, let it last as long as it has to if I am happy with them, however, if both of us are okay with polyamory and we like some other people, I really do not see the "problem."

The "problem" lays in society's weakening grasp on morals and values. Some might find them backwards and old-fashioned. I don't.

Yeah, that's just you. :)

And 99% of other people.

Polyamory is not about a back-up fuck buddy. Romantic love is not always limited to one person for everyone. Polyamory, arguably, relies even on more trust and faith than monogamy does.

More people, more people to trust and have faith in?

Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I agree with this. :P

I'm glad because it's true. I'm the one who wrote it, after all.

By experimenting with different people, I do not mean only sexually, but also having the consent and permission from your partner(s) to meet more people that you and they might like into the group relationship.

Usually, such a thing is called "dating".

I said it once, and I will say it again: Polyamory is not based solely on sexual relationships. You cannot say that a person can't love more than one person romantically because you are not that person. You cannot speak for everyone and call someone's relationship not a relationship, when it is a romantic binding between more than two people based on love, trust, and faith. I don't see how that is not a relationship just because some people morally and emotionally cannot bear to be in them, and just because they are not considered normal. That being said, I apologize for my first, rushed, post, for it had a lot of errors and I hope that I explained myself clearly. :P

It's not a question of being able to bear or not. It's a question of dilution.

The way I see it, romantic love is total devotion. From both parts, not just one.

Let's face it, devotion is impossible when you've got 3 other people to devote yourself to. It's a little like watching TV. If you really like a show you're going to be able to catch it every day no problem, but if you like 50, there's no way you're going to be able to watch them all. An union of two people is unstable enough.

[MysticalBurrito]

I in all honesty think it's wrong. Animals do it because they don't know it's wrong. What's going to happen to love if people say they can love four people at the same time? Isn't a relationship about being with one person and staying with them? Not saying, "Oh, these are my girlfriends. There's Martha, Trisha, Margret, Alice, Nicki,..." It's pointless to have more then one partner at once. It destroys the whole idea of a soul mate and love. I'm sorry but I think love is supposed to be shared between two people and two people only. But if someone is chill with it, it's their thing. I'm not okay with it but it's their life.

[Angel Androgynous]

Leaving off a qualifier in front of a noun implies that everything is x.
Interesting, I have never actually heard that before. :P


Your analogy is shaky : there are many species of animals but humanity is a species. Some animal species are "programmed" to be polygamous, others monogamous. Modern humans are "programmed" to be monogamous. When your baby is weak, slow, and not all that smart or instinctual, when mothers generally have one child at a time and when a human's gestation period is one of the longest in the animal reign, it makes sense to forge a bond with your partner and defend your only offspring until it's able to take care of itself.

I can't say I agree with polyamory and I never will, but ultimately my place isn't in the bedroom of other people.
But if a mother has a bond with more than one partner, she might get even more help with her offspring, though, a partner isn't always needed. Also, are you implying that single mothers can't take care of their offspring on their own, or am I misinterpreting?

I can't say I agree with polyamory and I never will, but ultimately my place isn't in the bedroom of other people.
Yep.


The "problem" lays in society's weakening grasp on morals and values. Some might find them backwards and old-fashioned. I don't.
Or perhaps society's evolution to newer morals and values? :P


And 99% of other people.
As of July 2009, it was estimated that more than 500,000 polyamorous relationships existed in the United States. (And that's just in the states alone)



More people, more people to trust and have faith in?

Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Not all people have trouble with that.



I'm glad because it's true. I'm the one who wrote it, after all.
All praise the mighty Forseti. :D


Usually, such a thing is called "dating".
Polyamorous dating. :D


It's not a question of being able to bear or not. It's a question of dilution.

The way I see it, romantic love is total devotion. From both parts, not just one.

Let's face it, devotion is impossible when you've got 3 other people to devote yourself to. It's a little like watching TV. If you really like a show you're going to be able to catch it every day no problem, but if you like 50, there's no way you're going to be able to watch them all. An union of two people is unstable enough.
I don't think that one can define human emotion so simply. Some people can devote themselves to more than one person, who's to say that they can't? And once again, the total devotion thing is the way you see it, but some people perceive it differently. (For example, not being able to be with your loved one every minute of every day, doing them favors and cuddling them and kissing them because you have other shit to do as well) Other than being what some people think is morally wrong, and what some people may find as challenging, there are no problems with polyamory, so I see little reason to debate an idea that is a victimless crime, for all the participants are consenting individuals, who would like to experience a relationship with more than one person and have a chance to be happy that way.

[Jean Poutine]

Interesting, I have never actually heard that before. :P

Tonys are extremely smart.
Janitors have mops.
Bottles have labels.

And so on and so forth.

But if a mother has a bond with more than one partner, she might get even more help with her offspring, though, a partner isn't always needed. Also, are you implying that single mothers can't take care of their offspring on their own, or am I misinterpreting?

Being a male raised by a single mother, yes, I do imply so. I am incredibly unprepared to face certain life events, especially when it comes to being a man. I needed a father and I had none.

When you see a mob helping with rearing offspring, it's a community thing, not a love thing. More akin to our babysitters. Males have no real advantage to take care of others' offsprings. Why do you think men bail out when they find out a child isn't theirs?

Or perhaps society's evolution to newer morals and values? :P


New doesn't imply better.

As of July 2009, it was estimated that more than 500,000 polyamorous relationships existed in the United States. (And that's just in the states alone)

Out of nearly 400,000,000 people. And I'm willing to bet 3/4 of these are Mormons.

Not all people have trouble with that.

Until one realises that one person is apt enough to stab one in the back without having another (or more others).

All praise the mighty Forseti. :D

You may be spared the gulag when I dominate the world.

I don't think that one can define human emotion so simply. Some people can devote themselves to more than one person, who's to say that they can't?

Logic. 100% devotion/1 is 100%. 100%/2 is 50%.

People always say feelings can't be quantified.

They're wrong. They're as quantifiable as the chemical in the brain causing them.

And once again, the total devotion thing is the way you see it, but some people perceive it differently. (For example, not being able to be with your loved one every minute of every day, doing them favors and cuddling them and kissing them because you have other shit to do as well)

Don't mistake total devotion for being completely overbearing, though I do like being massively overbearing too.

Other than being what some people think is morally wrong, and what some people may find as challenging, there are no problems with polyamory, so I see little reason to debate an idea that is a victimless crime, for all the participants are consenting individuals, who would like to experience a relationship with more than one person and have a chance to be happy that way.

The ends don't justify the means. Polygamy might be a victimless crime, but the law must safeguard more than just our rights and our property. It has to safeguard public policy as well.

If I want to try my luck and be happy with my 15 year old consenting girlfriend? Statutory rape.
If I want to try my luck and be happy by smoking weed? Drug charges.

You get the idea.

[RedInkLies]

I agree. It's entirely possible to love more than one individual at a time, and for certain types of people to have successful relationships, a touch of polyarmoury is definitely needed(an asexual and a nympho perhaps?). However, I do understand the points levied against it. I find that most human beings are jealous, vengeful creatures. Some thrive on the commitment for insecurity and stability.

[RedInkLies]

*for reasons of

[Angel Androgynous]

Tonys are extremely smart.
Janitors have mops.
Bottles have labels.

And so on and so forth.
I get it. :P



Being a male raised by a single mother, yes, I do imply so. I am incredibly unprepared to face certain life events, especially when it comes to being a man. I needed a father and I had none.

When you see a mob helping with rearing offspring, it's a community thing, not a love thing. More akin to our babysitters. Males have no real advantage to take care of others' offsprings. Why do you think men bail out when they find out a child isn't theirs?

I am raised by a single parent, and I wouldn't trade it for the world. I was taught that I can be strong and independent, and as hard as it is to raise a kid as a single parent, one can do it, and it does not always mean that the child is under-privileged. I'd rather be with my single mother than live with her and my dad, whom I do not want to see again, let alone live with him and have him raise me.

Also, I am pretty sure that people in polyamorous relationships know what they are getting into.



New doesn't imply better.
I'll take a page from Sachal's (embers') book and say:
Opinions > opinions. :P
Besides, polyamory isn't even that popular, and even if it was, so what? We are adaptable. :P


Out of nearly 400,000,000 people. And I'm willing to bet 3/4 of these are Mormons.
I wouldn't really care about that... :P Besides, I am pretty sure that Mormons declared that they are quitting with the polygamy shit in 1890.
"Today, over 14 million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) are strictly monogamist, and members who are known to practice polygamy are excommunicated."


Until one realises that one person is apt enough to stab one in the back without having another (or more others).
Or if one stabs in the back, and you have others for moral support and a something to fall back on and heal together. And learn how to cope with heartbreak.



You may be spared the gulag when I dominate the world.
Yo, thanks, Joseph.


Logic. 100% devotion/1 is 100%. 100%/2 is 50%.

People always say feelings can't be quantified.

They're wrong. They're as quantifiable as the chemical in the brain causing them.
Or you can look at it this way: Devotion x 2. (Because people are capable of doing that, believe me.) Especially, if this is a group relationship, all the people in the relationship are devoted to each other. All of them.


Don't mistake total devotion for being completely overbearing, though I do like being massively overbearing too.
:eek:
It's all cute and cuddly at the beginning and turns into a nightmare later on...


The ends don't justify the means. Polygamy might be a victimless crime, but the law must safeguard more than just our rights and our property. It has to safeguard public policy as well.

If I want to try my luck and be happy with my 15 year old consenting girlfriend? Statutory rape.
If I want to try my luck and be happy by smoking weed? Drug charges.

You get the idea.
Those laws might now stay in place forever. Laws change all the time, people change. Besides, polyAMORY isn't even a crime. It's when they get married...
And I don't see why someone should be able to tell someone else how many people to love when the person is happy with their partners and their partners are okay with it, and no one is forcing them to join in. :P
(I already see the Poly-Pride Parades [ooo alliteration])

[kenoloor]

I in all honesty think it's wrong. Animals do it because they don't know it's wrong.

If it occurs in nature, it's considered "natural."

What's going to happen to love if people say they can love four people at the same time? Isn't a relationship about being with one person and staying with them?

Nothing's "going to happen to love." This is love. What gives you the authoritative voice on what isn't love?

Not saying, "Oh, these are my girlfriends. There's Martha, Trisha, Margret, Alice, Nicki,..." It's pointless to have more then one partner at once. It destroys the whole idea of a soul mate and love.

The whole idea of a "soul mate" is completely unrealistic in the first place. And I fail to see what's "pointless" about having multiple partners. To what "point" are you referring?

I'm sorry but I think love is supposed to be shared between two people and two people only. But if someone is chill with it, it's their thing. I'm not okay with it but it's their life.

"I'm sorry, but I think love is supposed to be shared between a man and a woman only."

[Jess]

I wouldn't want to be in one, but have no problem with those who do. It really is sad how it's frowned upon, but that's just close-mindedness.

this. I see nothing wrong with it. example, if a man has two wives and the two women get along with each other, that's great, there's nothing wrong with that.

[RedInkLies]

I don't actually see any situation where being polyamorus is "wrong". Different things suit different types of people. It's a state of mind that the individuals making the agreement have to possess to submit to that relationship. And it isn't easy, eiher. But, it's rewarding in more ways than 2.

[Jean Poutine]

I am raised by a single parent, and I wouldn't trade it for the world. I was taught that I can be strong and independent, and as hard as it is to raise a kid as a single parent, one can do it, and it does not always mean that the child is under-privileged. I'd rather be with my single mother than live with her and my dad, whom I do not want to see again, let alone live with him and have him raise me.

You're a girl. At the risk of sounding sexist, things are much different when you're a boy like yours truly.

There are plenty of "men" things that I can't do that my mom can't teach me. Courting is one of these things. I'm in a relationship now; it only took 21 years and a very open minded individual.

If I could go back in time I'd have a father. Not having one saved me some shit but it's not worth being emasculated in the long run.


Also, I am pretty sure that people in polyamorous relationships know what they are getting into.

You have too much faith in humankind.

I'll take a page from Sachal's (embers') book and say:
Opinions > opinions. :P
Besides, polyamory isn't even that popular, and even if it was, so what? We are adaptable. :P


My rulebook says my opinions are worth double.

Thank God it's not popular.


I wouldn't really care about that... :P Besides, I am pretty sure that Mormons declared that they are quitting with the polygamy shit in 1890.
"Today, over 14 million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) are strictly monogamist, and members who are known to practice polygamy are excommunicated."

That's what they say. As with every other Christianity branch, what they do is different.

Or if one stabs in the back, and you have others for moral support and a something to fall back on and heal together. And learn how to cope with heartbreak.

Yeah. That's called a rebound.

Yo, thanks, Joseph.

Don't thank me ; my mind isn't set in stone yet.

Or you can look at it this way: Devotion x 2. (Because people are capable of doing that, believe me.) Especially, if this is a group relationship, all the people in the relationship are devoted to each other. All of them.


Not completely. Simple mathematics. A person has only so much to give. When one splits it, every participant receives less.

:eek:
It's all cute and cuddly at the beginning and turns into a nightmare later on...

I tend to be more trouble than I'm worth. I guess this is why I got my first girlfriend at the age of 21.

Those laws might now stay in place forever. Laws change all the time, people change. Besides, polyAMORY isn't even a crime. It's when they get married...
And I don't see why someone should be able to tell someone else how many people to love when the person is happy with their partners and their partners are okay with it, and no one is forcing them to join in. :P
(I already see the Poly-Pride Parades [ooo alliteration])

The government has been regulating feelings for a long time and it won't stop.

Polygamy is not only objectionable on a moral ground, but on a logistical ground as well. My books are convoluted enough without regulating another kind of union. The world is chaotic enough, we need to draw a line somewhere when it stops making any sense. 3-split custody? How do you separate alimony?

[RoseyCadaver]

It's society's ideal. Whether or not you agree with it is up to you, but at least have the decency of not hating on people who still believe in monogamy, total fidelity, and so on and so forth.

I happen to be a big believer in it. I might even be termed a hopeless romantic. She wasn't saying she hated people who were monogamous, she said she hated people who think it's wrong to love more than one person.

That's your problem. I would never be caught dead in that kind of relationship.
We aren't speaking of you, now are we? Just because you won't be caught dead in that relationship doesn't mean someone else won't.

I think they are diluted farces of what a committed relationship should be, but that's just me.
I could also say a monogamous relationship is practiced just so you can feel a tighter sense of security with your partner.
You really can't trust more than one person the way "loving" requires you to. People lie and cheat and scumbag their way through life. 95% of people are assholes. Doing so is asking to get hurt. The more people you love, the more diluted "love" gets, unless you want to get broken over and over.

Where'd you get this at? Have you became one of the world's most trusted philosophers and made a judgement on most of the human race? I mean seriously if you did man I wasn't ever told.



I'm personally happy single, and by the looks of it I will remain that way(I'm15lol), so I shouldn't say much on the polymorous. A person's view of love, is their view of love. Be it I've never seriously dated or been in long relationship with someone, I can say on my behalf that love isn't all shared the same way. For someone to tell someone else how to love, or tells them that there way of living is stupid, should reconsider some things. They aren't that person, and of course they aren't going to love the same way.

[Angel Androgynous]

You're a girl. At the risk of sounding sexist, things are much different when you're a boy like yours truly.

There are plenty of "men" things that I can't do that my mom can't teach me. Courting is one of these things. I'm in a relationship now; it only took 21 years and a very open minded individual.

If I could go back in time I'd have a father. Not having one saved me some shit but it's not worth being emasculated in the long run.
Different people, different results. I know girls who can't live without their dad, and guys who want to punch their dad in the balls. I don't think courting can really be taught, it depends on the individual and how polite they are and how much experience they have, but that's a whole other debate.


You have too much faith in humankind.
Maybe, I mean, I am a little 14 year old girl who likes rainbows and ponycorns.



My rulebook says my opinions are worth double.

Thank God it's not popular.
"Napoleon is always right."



That's what they say. As with every other Christianity branch, what they do is different.
Maybe, but I don't see the problem with polyamorous relationships including Mormons. :P I don't see why this was even brought up. xD


Yeah. That's called a rebound.
Except in Polyamory, you are already in a relationship with your "rebound."


Don't thank me ; my mind isn't set in stone yet.
Oh. :(


Not completely. Simple mathematics. A person has only so much to give. When one splits it, every participant receives less.
Well, I believe that love multiplies. ;P


I tend to be more trouble than I'm worth. I guess this is why I got my first girlfriend at the age of 21.
So? You had time to grow, to think, to develop. I don't see why this is a problem. But that may be because I am not too big on the whole dependency on relationships thing...


The government has been regulating feelings for a long time and it won't stop.

Polygamy is not only objectionable on a moral ground, but on a logistical ground as well. My books are convoluted enough without regulating another kind of union. The world is chaotic enough, we need to draw a line somewhere when it stops making any sense. 3-split custody? How do you separate alimony?
I believe that over time, things can be regulated, and that can be figured out. Besides, we are not debating polygamy here, but polyamory. >.> Marriage vs. Relationship. :P

[Jean Poutine]

She wasn't saying she hated people who were monogamous, she said she hated people who think it's wrong to love more than one person.

She said exactly that. Notice how she retracted.

We aren't speaking of you, now are we? Just because you won't be caught dead in that relationship doesn't mean someone else won't.

Just because I'll never be caught killing somebody doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to voice my dissent for murder. What is this, a dictatorship of like minds?

Oh, yes yes yes, I spy with my little eye...

I could also say a monogamous relationship is practiced just so you can feel a tighter sense of security with your partner.

Except that would fly in the face of any semblance of logic since relationships are not a very good place to draw security from.

Where'd you get this at? Have you became one of the world's most trusted philosophers and made a judgement on most of the human race? I mean seriously if you did man I wasn't ever told.

That shows how much experience of life you have, ie 0 (ageism card, take that).

Read some Albert Camus. If you don't trust me, you should trust him.

Like I pull these things out of my ass. Try harder, people.



Different people, different results. I know girls who can't live without their dad, and guys who want to punch their dad in the balls. I don't think courting can really be taught, it depends on the individual and how polite they are and how much experience they have, but that's a whole other debate.

So what if they want to punch their dad in any body part? Like it or not, their fathers still taught them valuables things. I don't have to like my family law teacher to acknowledge she taught me stuff.

Maybe, I mean, I am a little 14 year old girl who likes rainbows and ponycorns.

Listen to your elders. Though at this point I'm just fucking around.

Maybe, but I don't see the problem with polyamorous relationships including Mormons. :P I don't see why this was even brought up. xD

Because its religiously enforced for Mormons. They don't do it out of freedom, they do it because of brainwashing.

Except in Polyamory, you are already in a relationship with your "rebound."

It's still a rebound. It's not an advantage of polyamory. Rebounds are often trusted friends.

Well, I believe that love multiplies. ;P

I believe 2 and 2 are 5. Does it make me right?

It's simply impossible to feel love for more than one person as love should be lived and felt. Time would never allow it. I can't speak for emotional capacity.

There aren't 500 definitions of love. It's not fuckung negotiable. There are different degrees, but not different types. I'm actually somewhat offended because this kind of clownassery just contributes to diluting the word.

So? You had time to grow, to think, to develop. I don't see why this is a problem. But that may be because I am not too big on the whole dependency on relationships thing...

I'm just making a mockery of things considering that I don't really give a shit about the subject.

I believe that over time, things can be regulated, and that can be figured out. Besides, we are not debating polygamy here, but polyamory. >.> Marriage vs. Relationship. :P

One thing logically leads to the next.

There's a reason why these unioms aren't institutionalized yet. I know there is an extremely dumb liberal bias on VT but it's going too far when the noblest, purest of feelings is utterly trivialized. Why choose either butter or the butter's money? Fuck it I want both. Typical Western society.

[Amaryllis]

In terms of having several sexual partners, I think it's alright, as long as you're not -committed-. Personally, I think titles like "girlfriend" and "boyfriend" are just silly and unnecessary. It ties you down to that one person and few romantic relationships actually last till both parties die without having -ever- cheated on their partner.

However, if you mean polygamy which is when, typically, a man has multiple wives, I think that's pretty horrible. It takes a huge toll on the lives of the people involved and often, members of polygamous families fall victim to sexual abuse and young girls are made to marry men much older than they are.

At times, polygamy is linked with religion and that can lead to a horrible combination. As seen in this documentary that I strongly recommend to all:

ITzchbdSvzA

However, the polygamous documentaries I've seen cannot speak for all, because some polyamorous families -do- work. It all depends on the person, I suppose. If they -all- feel polyamorous relationships work, well, perhaps it will work out fine. It -is- possible to love more than one person at the same time.

[Peace God]

Read some Albert Camus. If you don't trust me, you should trust him.
LOLOLOL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_polyamorists)

Why would you choose Camus of all people? He loved many people. Like a lot of the french thinkers at the time.

[Efflorescence]

Logic. 100% devotion/1 is 100%. 100%/2 is 50%.

People always say feelings can't be quantified.

They're wrong. They're as quantifiable as the chemical in the brain causing them.

But love is not quantified.

My mother had me first. Then, she had my brother. Some couples have three, four, five children.

I hope that by your logic, you're not saying that a couple who has five children gives 20% love and devotion to each one of them.

And I also hope that you're not saying that because my parents decided to have my brother, than that must mean that I was not enough for them.

Logic cannot be so simply applied to something such as abstract and complicated as love as my example is trying to illustrate.

[Jean Poutine]

LOLOLOL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_polyamorists)

Why would you choose Camus of all people? He loved many people. Like a lot of the french thinkers at the time.

Because I liked The Stranger, a novel where 95% of people were asshats.

But love is not quantified.

Oh yes yes yes it is. More than you can imagine.

Our justice system quantifies love in $$$$. Our brain quantifies it in chemicals. We even subconsciously quantify it when we decide to act against the feeling in a multitude of ways.

I hope that by your logic, you're not saying that a couple who has five children gives 20% love and devotion to each one of them.

They certainly can't give them as much as if they had one children. It's not even a constraint of emotion, it's a constraint of time and effort. Emotion might settle in when they all begin using drugs and knocking up girls at the same time.

Besides, as much as they want to deny it, parents have favorites. Fact. I should know because I'm the favorite. Everyone loves me.

And I also hope that you're not saying that because my parents decided to have my brother, than that must mean that I was not enough for them.

Yup.

My mother had me after a complicated and possibly very very deadly brain surgery. She decided to have me at 44 years of age because until then my older sister sufficed. After she nearly died she felt like she was missing one more baby.

There I am.

Parents have babies for plenty of reasons. Tax returns, religion, for fun, etc. Why can't "I want one more because my current baby situation doesn't suffice anymore" be an option?

[Efflorescence]

Oh yes yes yes it is. More than you can imagine.

Our justice system quantifies love in $$$$. Our brain quantifies it in chemicals. We even subconsciously quantify it when we decide to act against the feeling in a multitude of ways.

The fact that society sometimes quantifies it doesn't mean that it can be quantified. Our system feels the need to quantify everything in order to be able to 'control' everything.

They certainly can't give them as much as if they had one children. It's not even a constraint of emotion, it's a constraint of time and effort. Emotion might settle in when they all begin using drugs and knocking up girls at the same time.

Besides, as much as they want to deny it, parents have favorites. Fact. I should know because I'm the favorite. Everyone loves me.

Okkkkkk...... but in my case, for example, if my parents have favourites they certainly don't show it.

And although they might not give the children as much attention (and maybe that is even a good thing), love is not split- 50% to one, and 50% to the other. Money perhaps yes, attention maybe, but love no.

Yup.

Gee, thanks man....:P but I asked for it.:)

My mother had me after a complicated and possibly very very deadly brain surgery. She decided to have me at 44 years of age because until then my older sister sufficed. After she nearly died she felt like she was missing one more baby.

There I am.

Parents have babies for plenty of reasons. Tax returns, religion, for fun, etc. Why can't "I want one more because my current baby situation doesn't suffice anymore" be an option?

It can be an option but it can also not be the reason.

Apart from the fact that, as far as I know, people don't look down on couples for having more than one child because they might have done it for the reason that "their current baby situation doesn't suffice anymore". But they look down on polyamory.

Society congratulates a couple when they have their second child for example. People don't say 'Poor first child, he wasn't enough' and blame the parents. So why should society look down on a woman or a man if he/she decides to have more than one relationship at the same time with the consent of everyone involved?

[Jean Poutine]

The fact that society sometimes quantifies it doesn't mean that it can be quantified. Our system feels the need to quantify everything in order to be able to 'control' everything.

There is nothing that is not quantifiable, especially in today's society.

Uncountable nouns are just archaic grammar.


Okkkkkk...... but in my case, for example, if my parents have favourites they certainly don't show it.

And although they might not give the children as much attention (and maybe that is even a good thing), love is not split- 50% to one, and 50% to the other. Money perhaps yes, attention maybe, but love no.

I love you more, I love you less. Perhaps percentages are too clinical and rigid, but love splits. I know for a fact my mother loves me more than my sister. Contrary to my sister, I haven't dedicated my life to ruining the person that gave it to me.

Or hell, let's take it more personal. I have no father. I hold no resentment on him because he didn't chicken out and gtfo. I'm a test tube baby. A sperm bank withdrawal. My existence owes itself to the fact some jerkwad fapped into a cup for 50$.

Having a single parent, I am extremely close to my mother. I love her. If I had a father, I would love her less if only because I wouldn't have spent 21 years alone with her to forge that bond.

I'm in a relationship. I love the other person to death. I'm always there for her, no matter what she needs. We literally spend most of our day with each other. If I had another girlfriend that I also loved to death my time would be split. Time develops bonding develops love. Less time, less bonding, less love.

Gee, thanks man....:P but I asked for it.:)

I said 95% of people were assholes.

I'm a 95 percenter. Bring it on.


Apart from the fact that, as far as I know, people don't look down on couples for having more than one child because they might have done it for the reason that "their current baby situation doesn't suffice anymore". But they look down on polyamory.

People look down on others for that reason all the time.

"Why did they have a second child? Their first wasn't enough for them? Gee whiz they can barely feed themselves."

Society congratulates a couple when they have their second child for example. People don't say 'Poor first child, he wasn't enough' and blame the parents. So why should society look down on a woman or a man if he/she decides to have more than one relationship at the same time with the consent of everyone involved?

Because (IN MY OPINION LOL) it makes a mockery of what you people try so hard to invoke and defend.

What a conundrum.

[Angel Androgynous]

So what if they want to punch their dad in any body part? Like it or not, their fathers still taught them valuables things. I don't have to like my family law teacher to acknowledge she taught me stuff.
Or their fathers beat the shit out of them and made their lives miserable by draining money from the family on alcohol.
Not everyone's family is fucking perfect and not every male learns something from their father, because sometimes, their father is a fucking asshole, and they'd rather shoot him in the head than live and learn from him.


Listen to your elders. Though at this point I'm just fucking around.
Hurr I'm a little socialist teenager who doesn't know shit like the rest of them. :D


Because its religiously enforced for Mormons. They don't do it out of freedom, they do it because of brainwashing.
Polygamy?
No, it's not.
Polyamory?
Also, not.


It's still a rebound. It's not an advantage of polyamory. Rebounds are often trusted friends.
How is it a rebound if you still have a girlfriend/boyfriend... just that one of them left... and now you can give the rest (using your logic) even MOAR love! :D

SeriousFaceTime.
In Polyamory, if one of the partners leaves, you have the remaining partners, and who says that they don't also hurt? If together they heal and bond even more, I really do not see the problem with that. They are in a relationship already anyway!


I believe 2 and 2 are 5. Does it make me right?

It's simply impossible to feel love for more than one person as love should be lived and felt. Time would never allow it. I can't speak for emotional capacity.

There aren't 500 definitions of love. It's not fuckung negotiable. There are different degrees, but not different types. I'm actually somewhat offended because this kind of clownassery just contributes to diluting the word.

Well, for one thing, who are you to tell people how they should love? What if they are content with their what you call "split" love? What if everyone in that group is content? What are we even debating here? The RIGHT for people to LOVE as much as they please with consenting partners? Really? Are you suggesting the government regulates the number of partners people have?

What do you mean that there are not different types of love? Are you saying that the type of love you feel for your mother is going to be the same that you feel for your boyfriend? Good job. C:
What each person feels is what THEY feel. You can't speak for everyone. Human emotion and psychology isn't something that one person can define from their prism of experience, and then slap people with their so-called facts.


I'm just making a mockery of things considering that I don't really give a shit about the subject.
What mockery?


One thing logically leads to the next.

There's a reason why these unioms aren't institutionalized yet. I know there is an extremely dumb liberal bias on VT but it's going too far when the noblest, purest of feelings is utterly trivialized. Why choose either butter or the butter's money? Fuck it I want both. Typical Western society.

Not always. Not everyone wants to get married. Plenty of people I know don't want to get married! Me, included. How is love being trivialized? Who are you to say that love is less important to polyamorous people? Are you saying that a 12 year old girl who is in love with her 12 year old boyfriend who claims to love her when they have been going out for 3 days is good love because you know, it is monogamous, while three adult people who love each other and want to make each other happy is trivialized love, and that people like that should be burned at stake? Correct me if I misinterpreted.

[Jean Poutine]

Or their fathers beat the shit out of them and made their lives miserable by draining money from the family on alcohol.
Not everyone's family is fucking perfect and not every male learns something from their father, because sometimes, their father is a fucking asshole, and they'd rather shoot him in the head than live and learn from him.

I've had a teacher that spent most of her time teaching generative grammar. She would teach us one thing then say the contrary in the next class, if not the exact same class.

I fucking hated her. To the point where I wanted to throw my burning textbook at her in the middle of the class (I also hated the textbook).

I still learned some shit from her. It's the same thing. I could give other examples but they're from my family and that's not something I want to get into. Suffice to say everybody learns something from everybody, no matter the hate.

Hurr I'm a little socialist teenager who doesn't know shit like the rest of them. :D

You said it. Not me.

Polygamy?
No, it's not.
Polyamory?
Also, not.

Yes it is.

There are many more denominations to Mormonism than the LDS Church.

How is it a rebound if you still have a girlfriend/boyfriend... just that one of them left... and now you can give the rest (using your logic) even MOAR love! :D

Wow. Seriously?

SeriousFaceTime.
In Polyamory, if one of the partners leaves, you have the remaining partners, and who says that they don't also hurt? If together they heal and bond even more, I really do not see the problem with that. They are in a relationship already anyway!

Yeah, seriously, apparently.

A rebound is a rebound no matter how you try to sweet-coat it.

Well, for one thing, who are you to tell people how they should love? What if they are content with their what you call "split" love? What if everyone in that group is content? What are we even debating here? The RIGHT for people to LOVE as much as they please with consenting partners? Really? Are you suggesting the government regulates the number of partners people have?


It already does.

The "who are you" game. I love it.

Who are you to spit on centuries if not millenias of acquired wisdom?

If you want your right to be "in love" (lulz) with 50 partners then you also have to accept my right to cast a judgement on your behavior.

What do you mean that there are not different types of love? Are you saying that the type of love you feel for your mother is going to be the same that you feel for your boyfriend? Good job. C:

Wow. I was saying there's no different classification in romantic love. Read between the lines. If you'll notice I said that love could take on multiple forms.

What each person feels is what THEY feel. You can't speak for everyone. Human emotion and psychology isn't something that one person can define from their prism of experience, and then slap people with their so-called facts.

Yeah, I wonder why there's even a social stigma attached to having multiple partners.

Gee whiz it might be because centuries of experience from millions of people decided that this is not a viable route to take.

Not always. Not everyone wants to get married. Plenty of people I know don't want to get married! Me, included. How is love being trivialized? Who are you to say that love is less important to polyamorous people? Are you saying that a 12 year old girl who is in love with her 12 year old boyfriend who claims to love her when they have been going out for 3 days is good love because you know, it is monogamous, while three adult people who love each other and want to make each other happy is trivialized love, and that people like that should be burned at stake? Correct me if I misinterpreted.

Again the "who are you" game. I love that phrase.

Who am I? A person. I have every right to challenge, criticize and castigate. I didn't know that I had to be a particular person to offer my opinion on a topic inside a location made specifically for debate.

You trivialize it by diluting the ideal of love. Why is this so complicated? Time builds bonds builds love. Love is complicity and friendship, sacrifice and devotion. You can't spend as much time with 5 people that you can with 1. That's a fact. Weaker bonds, weaker love. If that's for you, you go girl! Great for you!

Didn't I say that I thought love is already trivialized by teens being "in love" after two days?

You can even compare it to religion. Even in polytheistic religions, people devote themselves principally to one deity in the pantheon. Monotheistic religions are popular for a reason : because you feel especially close and have a personal relationship with a single deity. Why do you think Romans converted to Christianity in droves?

There are some things that should still be sacrosanct. I happen to draw the line here. Screw this liberal nonsense. Once it starts, where does it end? Why sacrifice oneself when I can have it all?

I'm done, anyway. Morals can't be debated.

[Sugaree]

My edgy meter is going off the charts in this thread. Seriously, I've read every single post from people who are supporting polyamory, but I've yet to see a good reason why anyone would do it. Simply put, it's people wanting fuck buddies. That's all it is. People do it all the time. Besides, this is technically a very VERY loose form of commitment.

[Genghis Khan]

My edgy meter is going off the charts in this thread. Seriously, I've read every single post from people who are supporting polyamory, but I've yet to see a good reason why anyone would do it. Simply put, it's people wanting fuck buddies. That's all it is. People do it all the time. Besides, this is technically a very VERY loose form of commitment.

Completely agree. I mean, this is going on as it is, since people have the right to do whatever they please in their private life. The act of polyamory is fine. If people like it, hey, whatever burps your worm, let me pat your back. But there is no reason why this should be put in the same league as marriage, i.e. Polygamy. The traditional sanctity of love between two people doesn't need to be torn apart because some people feel they can love more than one person. Call this conservative but I don't see the point in it at all.

Essentially since this is an extremely unpopular opinion and goes against society's ideals it won't even be considered for the next few hundreds of years.

I too have yet to hear a good argument from the side that wants polygamy implemented. 'We humans are also animals and it's only natural that we would want more than one partner' isn't an argument.

[Angel Androgynous]

My edgy meter is going off the charts in this thread. Seriously, I've read every single post from people who are supporting polyamory, but I've yet to see a good reason why anyone would do it. Simply put, it's people wanting fuck buddies. That's all it is. People do it all the time. Besides, this is technically a very VERY loose form of commitment.

Polyamory isn't about wanting fuck buddies. A good reason would be, gee, I dunno because is is possible to fall in love with more than one person, and if all participants are consenting, why not act out on it? Just because it doesn't work for everyone, doesn't mean that it doesn't work for some people. Really, it's just a lifestyle that hurts no one.


I've had a teacher that spent most of her time teaching generative grammar. She would teach us one thing then say the contrary in the next class, if not the exact same class.

I fucking hated her. To the point where I wanted to throw my burning textbook at her in the middle of the class (I also hated the textbook).

I still learned some shit from her. It's the same thing. I could give other examples but they're from my family and that's not something I want to get into. Suffice to say everybody learns something from everybody, no matter the hate.
I don't see what a child abuse victim can learn from their abusive father, but okay. I still don't think that a person needs two parents, but that's just me.


Yes it is.

There are many more denominations to Mormonism than the LDS Church.
Okay.


A rebound is a rebound no matter how you try to sweet-coat it.
Clue me in and tell me what's wrong with rebounds in the case where everyone is "rebounding" with everyone else in the group.


It already does.

The "who are you" game. I love it.

Who are you to spit on centuries if not millenias of acquired wisdom?

If you want your right to be "in love" (lulz) with 50 partners then you also have to accept my right to cast a judgement on your behavior.

The government only regulates marriage not actual dating... (And I am not talking about a 14 year old with a 24 year old, because if it is found out about, then well the 24 year old is screwed) but actual dating where say two consenting adult (or even two adolescent) people are in a relationship, the government can't say shit about that.
By "who are you to" thing, I meant, who are you to tell people that they can't be in a polyamorous relationship? I didn't mean: who are you to criticize polyamory? Criticize it all you want, but don't tell people that they can't perform it.



Wow. I was saying there's no different classification in romantic love. Read between the lines. If you'll notice I said that love could take on multiple forms.
Sorry, misread.


Yeah, I wonder why there's even a social stigma attached to having multiple partners.

Gee whiz it might be because centuries of experience from millions of people decided that this is not a viable route to take.
Just because it didn't work for certain people, doesn't mean that it won't for others.


Again the "who are you" game. I love that phrase.

Who am I? A person. I have every right to challenge, criticize and castigate. I didn't know that I had to be a particular person to offer my opinion on a topic inside a location made specifically for debate.

You trivialize it by diluting the ideal of love. Why is this so complicated? Time builds bonds builds love. Love is complicity and friendship, sacrifice and devotion. You can't spend as much time with 5 people that you can with 1. That's a fact. Weaker bonds, weaker love. If that's for you, you go girl! Great for you!

Didn't I say that I thought love is already trivialized by teens being "in love" after two days?

You can even compare it to religion. Even in polytheistic religions, people devote themselves principally to one deity in the pantheon. Monotheistic religions are popular for a reason : because you feel especially close and have a personal relationship with a single deity. Why do you think Romans converted to Christianity in droves?

There are some things that should still be sacrosanct. I happen to draw the line here. Screw this liberal nonsense. Once it starts, where does it end? Why sacrifice oneself when I can have it all?

I'm done, anyway. Morals can't be debated.

"You can't spend as much time with 5 people that you can with 1."
You can if all five people are with you.
Yeah we just have different fields of perception and different morals. I don't think that there is a right or wrong here. If you want to think that polyamorous people are dirty and horny sluts, then go ahead, but I see no reason to judge them for something that hurts no one and makes them happy. Live on.
Now let's hold hands and sing kumbaya.


Completely agree. I mean, this is going on as it is, since people have the right to do whatever they please in their private life. The act of polyamory is fine. If people like it, hey, whatever burps your worm, let me pat your back. But there is no reason why this should be put in the same league as marriage, i.e. Polygamy. The traditional sanctity of love between two people doesn't need to be torn apart because some people feel they can love more than one person. Call this conservative but I don't see the point in it at all.

Essentially since this is an extremely unpopular opinion and goes against society's ideals it won't even be considered for the next few hundreds of years.

I too have yet to hear a good argument from the side that wants polygamy implemented. 'We humans are also animals and it's only natural that we would want more than one partner' isn't an argument.
Where the fuck did anyone say anything about polygamy?

[Genghis Khan]

Where the fuck did anyone say anything about polygamy?

I just did. Right there.

[Sugaree]

Polyamory isn't about wanting fuck buddies. A good reason would be, gee, I dunno because is is possible to fall in love with more than one person, and if all participants are consenting, why not act out on it? Just because it doesn't work for everyone, doesn't mean that it doesn't work for some people. Really, it's just a lifestyle that hurts no one.

So what are the chances that one person is going to find two (as an example) people that they (the one) love and the parties don't consent? I'm sorry, I'm the type that thinks love is between two people. If you want multiple partners, you might as just well consider yourself single and move between people. The life style aspect would just be way too hard to keep up with. Really, unless you can handle such a thing, what's the point? It wouldn't last long because tensions would eventually rise between the parties who are participating.

I don't know, maybe it's because I've been in relationships before and always viewed "love" as something unconditional between just two people, be it a man and a man, or what have you. And maybe that's just ME being more "old fashioned". But using the argument that animals will have some type of sexual contact with multiple mates, and that humans are animals then we should do it too without any sort of condition added on, is just out right fucking dumb.

[Angel Androgynous]

So what are the chances that one person is going to find two (as an example) people that they (the one) love and the parties don't consent? I'm sorry, I'm the type that thinks love is between two people. If you want multiple partners, you might as just well consider yourself single and move between people. The life style aspect would just be way too hard to keep up with. Really, unless you can handle such a thing, what's the point? It wouldn't last long because tensions would eventually rise between the parties who are participating.
Can you explain that first part? xD You worded it weirdly.
Like I said over and over, maybe the lifestyle aspect may be hard to keep up with for you, but you are not everyone, are you? :P Also, why would someone who cannot handle such things participate in them? What exactly are you trying to argue here? Also, all of this depends on the type of polyamory practiced. If it is group polyamory, then all the participants love each other, therefore, there are is no tension. If it is open polyamory, then there also is no tension because, well, each partner can do whatever they want, and so on.


I don't know, maybe it's because I've been in relationships before and always viewed "love" as something unconditional between just two people, be it a man and a man, or what have you. And maybe that's just ME being more "old fashioned". But using the argument that animals will have some type of sexual contact with multiple mates, and that humans are animals then we should do it too without any sort of condition added on, is just out right fucking dumb.
Well, you can think what you want, and that's okay to think that. Also, I am sorry for using that argument in my first post. It was rushed, and I was just trying to imply that polyamory is natural. I mis-worded considerably, though.

[CrossingtheCourtyard]

I suppose I'm a bit apathetic towards it. If the people engaged in the relationship are fine with it and whatnot, it's not my place to get in their way.

That said, I personally couldn't be in that kind of relationship, I think I'd be very jealous. I don't really like the idea of sharing my boyfriend or girlfriend with somebody else.

[embers]

So basically Ida, what you're suggesting is that unconditional romantic love exists on the level of "I unconditionally love you on the condition that I unconditionally love these other two dudes too". Doesn't work. Go for it, try it, but be ready to be disappointed because it is bound to be shallow.

[Genghis Khan]

So basically Ida, what you're suggesting is that unconditional romantic love exists on the level of "I unconditionally love you on the condition that I unconditionally love these other two dudes too". Doesn't work. Go for it, try it, but be ready to be disappointed because it is bound to be shallow.

Totally agreed. I can't love more than one horse, it's just not possible. Jessica Parker will always be the one for me.

[Efflorescence]

So basically Ida, what you're suggesting is that unconditional romantic love exists on the level of "I unconditionally love you on the condition that I unconditionally love these other two dudes too". Doesn't work. Go for it, try it, but be ready to be disappointed because it is bound to be shallow.

So what?? And anyway, this 'unconditional love' thing is almost non existant. There are so many 'ifs' and 'buts' and all. Hint: (50% divorce rate in the USA)

And anyway, yes, why not? Why shouldn't we accept that everything is not always about us, us and us? He loves me and he also happens to love another person in the same way.......

I'm not saying that it will definitely work in every case...but it depends on the persons involved just like everything else in life.

My edgy meter is going off the charts in this thread. Seriously, I've read every single post from people who are supporting polyamory, but I've yet to see a good reason why anyone would do it. Simply put, it's people wanting fuck buddies. That's all it is. People do it all the time. Besides, this is technically a very VERY loose form of commitment.

Loose? A loose form of commitment is being with someone for money or to gain power. We're talking about love here. I have had feelings for two persons at the same time. Just as someone can love four friends equally and just as parents can love their sons/daughters equally(as in my case) at the same time, and no one mutters a single word about it. On the contrary, we tend look at it from a positive perspective, except in polyamory that is. Because then, loving more than one person at the same time, in the same way and not behind anyone's back, is taboo.

Totally agreed. I can't love more than one horse, it's just not possible. Jessica Parker will always be the one for me.

Lol....you have excellent tastes when it comes to choosing horses.....not :P

[embers]

So what?? And anyway, this 'unconditional love' thing is almost non existant. There are so many 'ifs' and 'buts' and all. Hint: (50% divorce rate in the USA)

And anyway, yes, why not? Why shouldn't we accept that everything is not always about us, us and us? He loves me and he also happens to love another person in the same way.......

I'm not saying that it will definitely work in every case...but it depends on the persons involved just like everything else in life.

You can go ahead and try it, I'm not asking for that not to happen. What I am doing is questioning the existence of unconditional love (which, as you pointed out, is rare but still does exist) between more than just two people. I'm questioning the notion not the practise.

[Efflorescence]

You can go ahead and try it, I'm not asking for that not to happen. What I am doing is questioning the existence of unconditional love (which, as you pointed out, is rare but still does exist) between more than just two people. I'm questioning the notion not the practise.

The practise stems from the notion and I'm positive it exists.

Why?

It is wrong to assume that in this world, there is only ONE PARTNER whom we could love in a certain way. It's impossible. It is the notion that one can only feel unconditional romantic love ( and any other type of love for that matter) for one person only that is improbable and with all due respect, a bit like we see in fairytales. The one and only Prince Charming.

My mother married my father who was her neighbour What a coincidence! Her 'one and only soulmate' just happened to live a stone's throw away from her! Which shows that possibly there could be other 'soulmates' out there whom she never got to meet.

If you get my drift......

[embers]

The practise stems from the notion and I'm positive it exists.

Why?

It is wrong to assume that in this world, there is only ONE PARTNER whom we could love in a certain way. It's impossible. It is the notion that one can only feel unconditional romantic love ( and any other type of love for that matter) for one person only that is improbable and with all due respect, a bit like we see in fairytales.

My mother married my father who was her neighbour What a coincidence! Her 'one and only soulmate' just happened to live a stone's throw away from her! Which shows that possibly there could be other 'soulmates' out there whom she never got to meet.

If you get my drift......

I'm not advocating the idea of a predetermined soul mate because, well, that would be very silly not to mention untrue. Unconditional love is a feeling, and I think it's the truest form of the word in the romantic sense. While you feel it towards one person, you will not feel it towards any other because well, that's Tony / Forseti's idea of 'rebounds' and he's explained it already.

[Angel Androgynous]

So basically Ida, what you're suggesting is that unconditional romantic love exists on the level of "I unconditionally love you on the condition that I unconditionally love these other two dudes too". Doesn't work. Go for it, try it, but be ready to be disappointed because it is bound to be shallow.
How do you know that it is bound to be shallow? Also, like I said, there are many forms of polyamory, as in, She loves them, they love her, and each other; she loves them, they love her, and others not involved with her, however, she consents to, and agrees with their decisions. Different people feel love differently. Besides,
Unconditional love is a term that means to love someone regardless of one's actions or beliefs.
That means that you CAN unconditionally love more than one person.

[embers]

How do you know that it is bound to be shallow? Also, like I said, there are many forms of polyamory, as in, She loves them, they love her, and each other; she loves them, they love her, and others not involved with her, however, she consents to, and agrees with their decisions. Different people feel love differently. Besides,

That means that you CAN unconditionally love more than one person.

Maybe 'unconditional' wasn't the right term - I'm just a firm believer that romantic love cannot be shared, because if it is then it is not being lived up to its full extent, which kind of defeats the purpose of full romantic love anyway.

[Angel Androgynous]

Maybe 'unconditional' wasn't the right term - I'm just a firm believer that romantic love cannot be shared, because if it is then it is not being lived up to its full extent, which kind of defeats the purpose of full romantic love anyway.

Perhaps to you, but that's not true for everyone, and most definitely is not fact. Polyamorous people feel that their romantic love is the full extent to them, and monogamous people feel that their romantic love is the full extent to them. And? I don't see the problem. Unless someone put a gun to your head and said: GO OUT WITH FOUR PEOPLE, I don't see why you should give a shit.

[embers]

Perhaps to you, but that's not true for everyone, and most definitely is not fact. Polyamorous people feel that their romantic love is the full extent to them, and monogamous people feel that their romantic love is the full extent to them. And? I don't see the problem. Unless someone put a gun to your head and said: GO OUT WITH FOUR PEOPLE, I don't see why you should give a shit.

like I said, I'm just giving my opinion, which is that love cannot be shared and that those relationships are likely to be shallower than with fully loving couples. I'm only 'giving a shit' because replying to the thread requires me to. Go do what you want, for the second time I'm not advocating disallowing polyamory.

[Angel Androgynous]

like I said, I'm just giving my opinion, which is that love cannot be shared and that those relationships are likely to be shallower than with fully loving couples. I'm only 'giving a shit' because replying to the thread requires me to. Go do what you want, for the second time I'm not advocating disallowing polyamory.
Okay, okay. :P I suppose I just got used to the "everyone wants polyamory to go to hell and die, and polyamorous people are misguided sluts" vibe.

[Efflorescence]

Okay, okay. :P I suppose I just got used to the "everyone wants polyamory to go to hell and die, and polyamorous people are misguided sluts" vibe.

Lol even I.....:)