Opponents of Polyamory -- Present Your Arguments

[MD]

You guys in this thread have wayyy too much time on your hands...

 

[Alceste]

Well it is the view of some polys in this forum that they are more ethical and more communicative with their partners than monogamous people. In other words, they are poly-supremacist who do have a problem with people having a different opinion and wish to censor those voices. That is what this is all about. They believe they are better and that us lowly monogamists need to shut up and accept their lifestyle as superior.

Empirical evidence that poly relationships involve much more communication than monogamous relationships was provided in that thread.

Were you thinking of presenting some counter-evidence, or you just feel like spouting some condescending nonsense and refusing to defend it?

 

[Drolefille]

You guys in this thread have wayyy too much time on your hands...

We're all posting on the same forum

 

[Alceste]

I think the idea of wanting to have exclusive possession of a person is... questionable. I feel that if we truly love someone unconditionally, it's... well... unconditional. We don't shackle them to us, and us alone. Doing that seems selfish to me. But again, it does depend on the specifics. I think what's most important is to be transparent with expectations in the relationship and honor those expectations which are uncompromisable.

There you go, you've just summed up my husband's feelings on the subject perfectly.

 

[dust1n]

Being anti-postmodern is the cool thing now. It'll pass.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I understand it, there are no laws against polyamory (and it would be unenforceable anyway if there were) - only against multiple marriages or civil unions.

I'm not sure what American law says about it, but here's the portion of the Canadian Criminal Code that's normally used against polyamorous couples:

172. (1) Every one who, in the home of a child, participates in adultery or sexual immorality or indulges in habitual drunkenness or any other form of vice, and thereby endangers the morals of the child or renders the home an unfit place for the child to be in, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

 

[dust1n]

Well, in Canada, you got get a babysitter, then take your infidelities out of the house!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, in Canada, you got get a babysitter, then take your infidelities out of the house!

Apparently.

Weekly orgies in a hotel room are okay, but a supportive household where Mommy, Daddy, and Mommy's boyfriend all help... that's right out.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Apparently.

Weekly orgies in a hotel room are okay, but a supportive household where Mommy, Daddy, and Mommy's boyfriend all help... that's right out.

It's because sex is dirty, shameful, and we all should feel bad about liking it, wanting it, and seeking it. Especially if it isn't focused on procreation within a marriage and without anybody else knowing about it, either.

 

[dust1n]

Apparently.

Weekly orgies in a hotel room are okay, but a supportive household where Mommy, Daddy, and Mommy's boyfriend all help... that's right out.

Hmm... well I guess there isn't really such a thing as an unconfused childhood anyway. Probably better than the notion of hiring a stranger or a neighborhood kid to watch your children while your away.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think people who are against polyamory confuse it with open polygamy.

Polyamory involves romantic relationships involving more than two people, and any sexual activity is generally restricted only to those in the agreed-upon relationship.

Open polygamy is all about engaging in sexual activity with anyone desired outside of any rules beyond one's own.

Even in a polyamorous relationship, I understand that there's typically an agreed-upon "main couple" who will take priority in the case of conflicting interest.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I think people who are against polyamory confuse it with open polygamy.

Polyamory involves romantic relationships involving more than two people, and any sexual activity is generally restricted only to those in the agreed-upon relationship.

Open polygamy is all about engaging in sexual activity with anyone desired outside of any rules beyond one's own.

Even in a polyamorous relationship, I understand that there's typically an agreed-upon "main couple" who will take priority in the case of conflicting interest.

Oh really? In another thread I did not do that all. I defined as it is. But I still think it is symptomatic of the decadence and hedonism of a class of people who I view as my political enemies...the leisure class and the bourgeoisie.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3758204-post193.html

I don't even confuse it with swinging let alone any sort of polygamy.

 

[Nymphs]

I think I'll let them speak for themselves, if that's all right. XD

Good idea.

I don't like people speaking for me either.

 

[Nymphs]

Well you should read some of the thread created by the poster of this one (there are quite a few), any criticism of the poly lifestyle is counter with "polys are more secure, communicative and ethical than the monogamous". That seems more than a little bigoted to me which is why I have personally asked some who are critical of the polys not post in these threads anymore. In other words, we will no longer feed the you-know-what, the term starts with a t.

Never said that actually. Nice try.

Monogamy is cool.

Polyamory is cool.

Choose for yourself. Just don't be an ******* when judging other people's personal lives.

 

[Nymphs]

Well, in Canada, you got get a babysitter, then take your infidelities out of the house!

Infidelities? If it's polyamory, it isn't infidelity.

 

[Nymphs]

Hmm... well I guess there isn't really such a thing as an unconfused childhood anyway. Probably better than the notion of hiring a stranger or a neighborhood kid to watch your children while your away.

 

[Riverwolf]

Oh really? In another thread I did not do that all. I defined as it is. But I still think it is symptomatic of the decadence and hedonism of a class of people who I view as my political enemies...the leisure class and the bourgeoisie.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3758204-post193.html

I don't even confuse it with swinging let alone any sort of polygamy.

Thank you for clarifying that you don't make that mistake, though I still suspect it's a common one.

However, you are mistaken that polyamory is inherently an aspect of your political enemies. To be honest, that doesn't even remotely make the slightest bit of sense.

Would you say that William Moulton Marston (creator of Wonder Woman and was in a polyamorous relationship) was a member of one of these classes? If so, why?

 

[oldbadger]

Oh really? In another thread I did not do that all. I defined as it is. But I still think it is symptomatic of the decadence and hedonism of a class of people who I view as my political enemies...the leisure class and the bourgeoisie.

Hi Cynthia...
In the UK the media often runs stories about 'blokes on benefits' who have half a dozen 'wives', 20 kids, and circulate freely amongst them all.
We could call this activity a number of 'things', and describe all the adults involved in a number of ways, but if the whole group decided to use the word 'polyamory' then few could gainsay them, and the bourgeoisie leisure class would have to think of another descriptive fairly quickly!

 

[Nymphs]

Thank you for clarifying that you don't make that mistake, though I still suspect it's a common one.

However, you are mistaken that polyamory is inherently an aspect of your political enemies. To be honest, that doesn't even remotely make the slightest bit of sense.

Would you say that William Moulton Marston (creator of Wonder Woman and was in a polyamorous relationship) was a member of one of these classes? If so, why?

To be honest, she has never made much sense when talking about polyamory. She assumes it is something it isn't, accuses polyamorists of acting certain ways, and she isn't actually polyamorous. Soo....

 

[Riverwolf]

To be honest, she has never made much sense when talking about polyamory. She assumes it is something it isn't, accuses polyamorists of acting certain ways, and she isn't actually polyamorous. Soo....

To be fair, that is a very easy psychological trap to fall into. I've fallen into it many, many times, myself, especially in regards to businessmen and politicians: that is to say, all businessmen are either Captain Planet villains or greedy psychopaths, and all politicians are power-mad tyrants trying to win a game with us as the pawns. Either of those might be true in some cases, but it's definitely a mistake to just assume every single businessman or politician is like that.

But it takes a great deal of effort to recognize the trap and climb out of it. It's an aspect of our inherent tribal nature to paint certain groups as "enemies", and to associate anything they may do as inherent to that enemy's identity, and so anyone who engages in the activity is automatically a member of that "enemy". (It's the same mindset that virtually eradicated maypole-dancing in the US when it somehow got associated with Socialism in the 20s, and Communism in the 50s.)