Opponents of Polyamory -- Present Your Arguments

[Curious George]

I posted scientific evidence of safer sex practices among consensually non-monogamous people. Do you want to address it or ignore it?

I have been discussing the topic of polyamory, I just refuse to get sidelined down your STI train.

I didn't say you were playing victim, I just find your claims ironic.

Can you give me the post link.

Polyamorous people, like all people, vary on risk aversion. Like all people who are open to new intimate relationships polyamorous people can accept the risks involved. This alone means nothing, because people choose to take on risks. My point was that when kids are involved parents should consider the kids in the equation. This is often not done. By both polyamorous and monogamous people alike. But the fact remains that a truly polyamorous couple is statistically at a higher risk than a truly monogamous relationship when sex is involved. This in no way makes polyamorous relationships immoral on a stand alone basis. It does however add another factor which complicates polyamorous relationships.

though there is much defensive posting in these threads, the simple truth is that polyamorous relationships are often more complicated and people in polyamorous relationships need to take extra care in order to have successful relationships. Again nothing necessarily immoral, but these complications ultimately mean that without extra care polyamorous relationships can fall into morally questionable territory pretty easily.

I don't think anyone has argued that it is not possible to have a moral polyamorous relationship. Given that, I am wondering why there is so much defensiveness and frustration within this thread. if the only opposition polyamorous people faced in RL was people saying "oh, I can't fathom trying that juggling act, but it's not wrong; It's not for me but it's not wrong; and, it's not wrong but given the pitfalls of people, such relationships would require extra care."

There was that whole "hedonistic behavior undermines the plight of the working class" but I am pretty sure that was addressed. Really, I am thinking people are trying to invent arguments where few exist.

 

[Riverwolf]

Can you give me the post link.

Polyamorous people, like all people, vary on risk aversion. Like all people who are open to new intimate relationships polyamorous people can accept the risks involved. This alone means nothing, because people choose to take on risks. My point was that when kids are involved parents should consider the kids in the equation. This is often not done. By both polyamorous and monogamous people alike. But the fact remains that a truly polyamorous couple is statistically at a higher risk than a truly monogamous relationship when sex is involved. This in no way makes polyamorous relationships immoral on a stand alone basis. It does however add another factor which complicates polyamorous relationships.

though there is much defensive posting in these threads, the simple truth is that polyamorous relationships are often more complicated and people in polyamorous relationships need to take extra care in order to have successful relationships. Again nothing necessarily immoral, but these complications ultimately mean that without extra care polyamorous relationships can fall into morally questionable territory pretty easily.

I don't think anyone has argued that it is not possible to have a moral polyamorous relationship. Given that, I am wondering why there is so much defensiveness and frustration within this thread. if the only opposition polyamorous people faced in RL was people saying "oh, I can't fathom trying that juggling act, but it's not wrong; It's not for me but it's not wrong; and, it's not wrong but given the pitfalls of people, such relationships would require extra care."

There was that whole "hedonistic behavior undermines the plight of the working class" but I am pretty sure that was addressed. Really, I am thinking people are trying to invent arguments where few exist.

It's sadly a touchy subject, and so well-meaning words of caution for perfectly natural reasons can easily be misread as an attack.

Part of the reason for the activism is to remove that touchy-ness from it.

I think any kind of extra care is required any time there's a multi-person relationship, whether family or friendship. I think all I've been trying to say is that healthy polyamorous relationships are already taking that extra care by virtue of being healthy. It's why I was careful to use the word "healthy" when referring to them.

 

[Alceste]

Can you give me the post link.

Polyamorous people, like all people, vary on risk aversion. Like all people who are open to new intimate relationships polyamorous people can accept the risks involved. This alone means nothing, because people choose to take on risks. My point was that when kids are involved parents should consider the kids in the equation. This is often not done. By both polyamorous and monogamous people alike. But the fact remains that a truly polyamorous couple is statistically at a higher risk than a truly monogamous relationship when sex is involved. This in no way makes polyamorous relationships immoral on a stand alone basis. It does however add another factor which complicates polyamorous relationships.

though there is much defensive posting in these threads, the simple truth is that polyamorous relationships are often more complicated and people in polyamorous relationships need to take extra care in order to have successful relationships. Again nothing necessarily immoral, but these complications ultimately mean that without extra care polyamorous relationships can fall into morally questionable territory pretty easily.

I don't think anyone has argued that it is not possible to have a moral polyamorous relationship. Given that, I am wondering why there is so much defensiveness and frustration within this thread. if the only opposition polyamorous people faced in RL was people saying "oh, I can't fathom trying that juggling act, but it's not wrong; It's not for me but it's not wrong; and, it's not wrong but given the pitfalls of people, such relationships would require extra care."

There was that whole "hedonistic behavior undermines the plight of the working class" but I am pretty sure that was addressed. Really, I am thinking people are trying to invent arguments where few exist.

Funnily enough, I haven't gotten the impression that any of us who are polyamorous have been all that defensive. We've challenged assertions that have no evidentiary basis and done our best to communicate what being polyamorous means to us in the hope that we can dispel common misconceptions that it's all about compulsive sex, or disrespect for our partners, or neediness, or carelessness, or wanton-ness, or herpes, or orgies, or bla bla blabbity bla.

To put us on the defensive, I expect someone would first need to launch a more effective attack. Nothing that has so far been brought to the table as an objection to Polyamory in this thread remotely resembles any of our IRL poly relationships in any way, so there's just no sting to any of it. Nothing to defend against. Just various misconceptions and misrepresentations that we hope to remedy.

If not, so be it. Different strokes for different folks is my motto.

 

[Curious George]

Funnily enough, I haven't gotten the impression that any of us who are polyamorous have been all that defensive. We've challenged assertions that have no evidentiary basis and done our best to communicate what being polyamorous means to us in the hope that we can dispel common misconceptions that it's all about compulsive sex, or disrespect for our partners, or neediness, or carelessness, or wanton-ness, or herpes, or orgies, or bla bla blabbity bla.

To put us on the defensive, I expect someone would first need to launch a more effective attack. Nothing that has so far been brought to the table as an objection to Polyamory in this thread remotely resembles any of our IRL poly relationships in any way, so there's just no sting to any of it. Nothing to defend against. Just various misconceptions and misrepresentations that we hope to remedy.

If not, so be it. Different strokes for different folks is my motto.

Perhaps, I am misreading, but I have read through the thread several times and reached the same conclusion.

I like you, would love to do away with misconceptions and misrepresentations though.

 

[Leftimies]

I think this thread is rather interesting. It has mostly been on the good side of things, although with people getting defensive on both sides. But also there have been those who have been understanding on both sides. I think the latter is still a good foundation :3

 

[Riverwolf]

Funnily enough, I haven't gotten the impression that any of us who are polyamorous have been all that defensive.

I think I've been incredibly defensive of the polyamorous lifestyle, and I'm very much mono. ^_^

 

[Drolefille]

Can you give me the post link.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3762808-post51.html
It was another thread but it was something that kashmir had seen and apparently ignored.

Polyamorous people, like all people, vary on risk aversion. Like all people who are open to new intimate relationships polyamorous people can accept the risks involved. This alone means nothing, because people choose to take on risks. My point was that when kids are involved parents should consider the kids in the equation. This is often not done. By both polyamorous and monogamous people alike. But the fact remains that a truly polyamorous couple is statistically at a higher risk than a truly monogamous relationship when sex is involved. This in no way makes polyamorous relationships immoral on a stand alone basis. It does however add another factor which complicates polyamorous relationships.

I'd agree that all of this varies by individual (although most parents I see put their kids first regardless, so I'd disagree about how frequently that isn't done.) But when we're talking about populations we're speaking in the aggregate and have to discuss in the aggregate.

though there is much defensive posting in these threads, the simple truth is that polyamorous relationships are often more complicated and people in polyamorous relationships need to take extra care in order to have successful relationships. Again nothing necessarily immoral, but these complications ultimately mean that without extra care polyamorous relationships can fall into morally questionable territory pretty easily.

I personally only get defensive - and really it's more frustration or irritation - when the answers are nothing but repetition of opinion as fact. I do try to be careful to state when things are my opinion or not.

I disagree that poly hits questionable territory faster than anything else as I've been in mono relationships that were pretty bad pretty quickly. There is the whole idea of a "drop out" rate in poly too - if you can't cut it, you probably quit and revert to mono relationships

I don't think anyone has argued that it is not possible to have a moral polyamorous relationship. Given that, I am wondering why there is so much defensiveness and frustration within this thread. if the only opposition polyamorous people faced in RL was people saying "oh, I can't fathom trying that juggling act, but it's not wrong; It's not for me but it's not wrong; and, it's not wrong but given the pitfalls of people, such relationships would require extra care."

Gehennaite wishes violence upon poly people (and then righteous judgment from God, I'm pretty sure he's trolling.)
Kashmir only appears to care about STIs and therefore repeats that over and over
Cynthia considers all poly to be "hedonistic" and "decadent" and ignores anyone who disagrees with her.

That's where the frustration comes from. If all the posts here were "I can't do it for me" then I'd throw a party with confetti and everything

There was that whole "hedonistic behavior undermines the plight of the working class" but I am pretty sure that was addressed. Really, I am thinking people are trying to invent arguments where few exist.

I'd agree that the some people here are inventing arguments, but would disagree that these are the people supporting polyamory. I'd love to never bring STIs up again in this thread but I doubt this will be the case.

Funnily enough, I haven't gotten the impression that any of us who are polyamorous have been all that defensive. We've challenged assertions that have no evidentiary basis and done our best to communicate what being polyamorous means to us in the hope that we can dispel common misconceptions that it's all about compulsive sex, or disrespect for our partners, or neediness, or carelessness, or wanton-ness, or herpes, or orgies, or bla bla blabbity bla.

To put us on the defensive, I expect someone would first need to launch a more effective attack. Nothing that has so far been brought to the table as an objection to Polyamory in this thread remotely resembles any of our IRL poly relationships in any way, so there's just no sting to any of it. Nothing to defend against. Just various misconceptions and misrepresentations that we hope to remedy.

If not, so be it. Different strokes for different folks is my motto.

Word. As I said, I'm more irritated than anything and that's at least 50% my boyfriend being in the hospital right now.

 

[Alceste]

Perhaps, I am misreading, but I have read through the thread several times and reached the same conclusion.

I like you, would love to do away with misconceptions and misrepresentations though.

I guess I don't get the same impression as you then. All I know is how I'm feeling about the subject, and "defensive" doesn't enter into it at all. I honestly don't give a tinker's tit if kashmir and Cynthia Cypher approve of my relationship with my husband.

But, as I'm sure you're noticed, I'll happily confront any kind of nonsense I find on RF.

 

[Drolefille]

I guess I don't get the same impression as you then. All I know is how I'm feeling about the subject, and "defensive" doesn't enter into it at all. I honestly don't give a tinker's tit if kashmir and Cynthia Cypher approve of my relationship with my husband.

But, as I'm sure you're noticed, I'll happily confront any kind of nonsense I find on RF.

Wait I should have saved my frubal for THIS one!

 

[Nymphs]

It's sadly a touchy subject, and so well-meaning words of caution for perfectly natural reasons can easily be misread as an attack.

Part of the reason for the activism is to remove that touchy-ness from it.

Amen!

 

[Nymphs]

Different strokes for different folks is my motto.

Is it bad that I just took that the wrong (naughty) way on purpose?

 

[Nymphs]

I think I've been incredibly defensive of the polyamorous lifestyle, and I'm very much mono. ^_^

Which we appreciate. Thank you! :yes:

 

[Nymphs]

I guess I don't get the same impression as you then. All I know is how I'm feeling about the subject, and "defensive" doesn't enter into it at all. I honestly don't give a tinker's tit if kashmir and Cynthia Cypher approve of my relationship with my husband.

But, as I'm sure you're noticed, I'll happily confront any kind of nonsense I find on RF.

This, this and this! :yes: My thoughts exactly.

 

[Curious George]

Wait I should have saved my frubal for THIS one!

I fruballed her for you.

 

[Curious George]

This, this and this! :yes: My thoughts exactly.

I can understand this from alceste, but didn't you try to use the argument "if you're not poly, you can't know"

That is near the epitome of defensive.

 

[Curious George]

I guess I don't get the same impression as you then. All I know is how I'm feeling about the subject, and "defensive" doesn't enter into it at all. I honestly don't give a tinker's tit if kashmir and Cynthia Cypher approve of my relationship with my husband.

But, as I'm sure you're noticed, I'll happily confront any kind of nonsense I find on RF.

yes, I have witnessed many of your confrontations. I rather look forward to reading your posts. But, I would not describe many of your confrontations as non-defensive. Though you may be rightly defending against illogical arguments, you are certainly not responding in an open and accepting manner. But, as drole pointed out, this could be for very good reason and the culmination of various threads.

 

[Nymphs]

I can understand this from alceste, but didn't you try to use the argument "if you're not poly, you can't know"

That is near the epitome of defensive.

Actually, I did.

You may be able to conceptualize, but unless your poly, black, gay, woman, etc. etc. there are just somethings you aren't going to fully understand.

 

[Nymphs]

yes, I have witnessed many of your confrontations. I rather look forward to reading your posts. But, I would not describe many of your confrontations as non-defensive. Though you may be rightly defending against illogical arguments, you are certainly not responding in an open and accepting manner. But, as drole pointed out, this could be for very good reason and the culmination of various threads.

Actually, I've found Alceste's posts to be witty, funny and very opening.

 

[Riverwolf]

Actually, I did.

You may be able to conceptualize, but unless your poly, black, gay, woman, etc. etc. there are just somethings you aren't going to fully understand.

I would actually propose that it's nowadays fully possible to understand people who are different from you, to be literally placed in someone else's shoes.

 

[Drolefille]

I would actually propose that it's nowadays fully possible to understand people who are different from you, to be literally placed in someone else's shoes.

It's tricky, but it depends a lot on education, empathy, and to an extent, imagination. I can empathize with my clients, many of whom are WOC with no income who have stolen, prostituted, etc. for drugs or money. They've left their children with family while addiction has taken them down another road, and yet they love them dearly and would do anything for them - and yet... addiction.

I can conceptualize all of this, but I don't know what it actually feels like. I can empathize and sympathize, but I will be the first to admit I don't KNOW what it is to be so desperate for a hit of a drug that I'll walk down the street looking for a John or that I'll put stuff in my purse at the store to barter for a baggie.