Opponents of Polyamory -- Present Your Arguments

[Curious George]

Every polyamorous person I know with children is quite careful about how new partners are brought into their children's lives. Even the not-really-poly couple I dated was clear about keeping our relationship a friendship in the eyes of her daughter until such a point as things became more serious. Similarly my BF's son doesn't know the details of my polyamorousness at this time. When he asks we'll handle it. Are there people who handle this aspect of poly poorly - certainly - however there are far more single parents in the world than there are poly people and for the most part, parents handle this OK.

You started off about bringing "untested" people home and I'm still not sure how someone's STI status is related to a relationship.

That same poly couple did engage in sexual activity outside of just relationships, but they also never brought it home to their child - but did so at conventions they attended or other times when their child wasn't at home but staying with grandma.


It can be. I've been subject to that. But it isn't necessarily so. Hierarchal polyamory is not my personal ideal, but it is the current status of my relationships. I assure you that my other boyfriend isn't my plaything.




Agreed. The complexity level is increased, but that doesn't necessarily make it unstable. The poly people I know have made very conscious decisions when it comes to raising children and the extra support is pretty helpful.


Ok, open vs. closed poly: If I'm in an open poly relationship, that just means I'm open to adding additional relationships, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm open to no string's attached (NSA) sex. I MIGHT be, but it is still within the fidelity of the relationship if so.

Closed means that I'm not seeking any additional relationships and am also not interested in NSA sex. ( or perhaps I have 1 NSA sex partner and things are remaining the same with that person.) Basically open vs. closed is dynamic vs. static.

Just trying to clarify that.



It CAN be an abusive situation, but I'd argue that it's not really polyamory if so, as it isn't really a relationship. It's why I dislike unicorn hunters strongly.


Open ones do, closed ones don't.

That is one form of poly but not every form of poly. Say there are two couples who form a quad. Often those two initial couples will form two "primary" partnerships." That doesn't mean that the each couple is being used by the other one, but simply that this is how they solve conflicts of priorities.

Some people want to be a "secondary" in a relationship - they don't want the responsibilities of the "primary" relationship for example, or they don't have the emotional time to be that level of support for the other person. None of this changes the fact that they're in love with each other. If monogamy were the only answer, it's likely those relationships would have broken up, with poly those relationships can remain and maintain each other.

Explain the rationale behind a truly closed polyamorous relationship. If I am with you and another person and I feel that a new relationship that is beginning with another person fulfills a need that is not currently being met by you or the other person, how can you rationalize not allowing me to pursue such a relationship. That is just as territorial and jealousy ridden as any monogamous relationship.

Further, I agree that most polyamorous couples are cautious when introducing new people to their children, however if I go out and have unsafe sex I am taking risks that affect my children. Were I to contract HIV for instance, my children would be affected.

I agree that there are precautionary measures which can be taken, such as testing and protection, but I am suggesting many parents fail to take these precautionary measures, and polyamorous people are not an exception to this.

While I agree that there are somewhat closed polyamorous relationships, all polyamorous relationships, if they are truly polyamorous, are open to negotiation.

 

[Curious George]

Yeah, I don't think you understand the depth of the different type of polyamorous relationships if you haven't been in one.

I am not so sure you are capable of assessing what I can and cannot understand.

 

[Riverwolf]

sorry to not break up you quote.

It's fine. ^_^ And just so you're aware, when I call your argument narrow, I don't mean to imply that YOU'RE narrow-minded. I'd like to think I'm open-minded, but I can make, and have made in the past, arguments that proved quite narrow. Even the most open-minded people can make narrow arguments.

To your first point, I was not suggesting that polyamorous groupings are not intact. I was suggesting that a monogamous relationship that is not intact allows for the introduction of new relationships. While a polyamorous relationship even though intact still allows for a new relationship.

No, that's not necessarily true.

Polyamorous relationships are EXTREMELY difficult to maintain. Any committed relationship already requires each person to give up about half of their lives and identities to the other person. Introduce just one more person, and now you're giving even more.

If anything, it allows for new relationships even less than monoamorous relationships for that reason.

To your second point, we will have to agree to disagree. coupling off in .gd manner is tacky, rude, inconsiderate, juvenile, and begging to hurt someone. Yeah sure your my friend still, but I am by definition less than your bff. intimate relationships need equality. There is no reason anyone should be a second class party to a relationship. Different relationships bring forth different qualities, and fulfill different needs. Each relationship should be appreciated and celebrated for that not rated on a hierarchy.

We can make that agreement, but first I do want to clarify. You don't have to respond or argue to my clarification, and we can just drop that particular worm can. (Though I don't know what you mean when you say "coupling off in .gd manner". Could you clarify that?)

I never said anything about anyone being "second class". Everyone still loves each other equally and provides for each other as equally as possible. Nobody is "outside" or "second class". The only inequalities that exist are the same kinds that naturally exist in any multi-person family.

Besides, if the relationship is healthy, then all members are communicating: voicing any concerns, expressing any doubts, etc. If a secondary finds that he or she is not okay with a specific situation, then everyone can talk and come to an agreement. Any feelings of jealousy, competition, etc. are addressed and dealt with by communicating them to all parties, making sure there are no secrets whatsoever, and not letting those feelings fester for any length of time: they're addressed in some kind of family meeting as soon as they come up. It's just like any healthy relationship in that regard.

I, personally, have a very passive and submissive personality. Even though I'm in a very committed monoamorous relationship with Moonwater, hypothetically if I were in a polyamorous relationship that didn't involve Moonwater, I'd be perfectly happy as a secondary, as long as my needs were getting met. On the other hand, if another woman were brought into our relationship (MW and I have talked about this, and it's not at all likely to actually happen), MW would still be my primary. All that means is that in the case of some kind of relationship fracture (which would mean nobody's communicating, anyway), by default I'd stay with MW and the other woman would have to go. (For the record, I did ask her beforehand if I could bring this up, and she said it was fine.)

It's the same inequality that would exist in the case of child custody during a divorce. Sharing the child equally might not be practically or physically possible, so one parent has to get primary custody. (The issue of fathers getting custody less than mothers is irrelevant to this debate.) When my parents divorced, my mother got primary custody. Doesn't mean either of my parents love me less, or that I love my mother more than my father. Nor does the inequality that now exists with my father remarried to a woman who has children (two of whom have moved out) mean either of us are second-class. He's now my step-brother's father, too. But I still take some level of priority.

My point is, you don't always need perfect equality to have perfect balance. As for those who only ever shoot for absolute perfect equality in any relationship, polyamory might not be for them.

But allowing for equality also means allowing other healthy relationships to act as all parties have agreed upon, even if that means some kind of hierarchy being established. If a family can make that work, all parties having agreed to it and everyone being happy with it, who are we to judge them as somehow "lesser" than non-hierarchical relationships? Wouldn't such a judgment mean that there isn't equality, since only certain types of relationships are judged as worthy of acknowledgement, while others, even while perfectly healthy and happy, are judged as terrible?

After all, except for the three socio-political parameters set by a certain famous document, people aren't, in fact, created equal.

 

[Riverwolf]

Oh, I have been there too, but when someone tells me that isn't the way it is, or no, you do have it wrong, I tend to ask some more questions so I can understand where they are coming from and expand my understanding of the situation.

I try to, as well, but I still have some weak spots of my own, and I might develop more in the future.

Either way, even though I have taken sides on certain issues, I don't want to regard those on the other "side" as my enemies.

 

[Riverwolf]

While I agree that there are somewhat closed polyamorous relationships, all polyamorous relationships, if they are truly polyamorous, are open to negotiation.

That's simply not true, any more than any "truly" monoamorous relationship being open to negotiations.

 

[columbus]

I'm old. I've watched a lot of people live their lives.

Monogamy has lead to the highest quality life more often than the other choices. Nothing absolute, just my observation. But I have seen a lot.

People who think that they are the exception to the rule usually find out that they aren't, eventually.

Tom

 

[Nymphs]

I am not so sure you are capable of assessing what I can and cannot understand.

Perhaps not fully, but if you've never been in a polyamorous relationship, you can't really speak for those in ones -- now can you?

 

[Nymphs]

I'm old. I've watched a lot of people live their lives.

Monogamy has lead to the highest quality life more often than the other choices. Nothing absolute, just my observation. But I have seen a lot.

People who think that they are the exception to the rule usually find out that they aren't, eventually.

Tom

That is what I thought for 10 years -- 10 years of monogamy. As hard as the transition from religious monogamy to polyamory has been for me, my quality of life has gotten much, much better. I've experienced things that I thought I would never be able to and I feel much freer to express myself and my love.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm old. I've watched a lot of people live their lives.

Monogamy has lead to the highest quality life more often than the other choices. Nothing absolute, just my observation. But I have seen a lot.

People who think that they are the exception to the rule usually find out that they aren't, eventually.

Tom

I wonder how much of that is cultural pressure, though.

My experience and research has demonstrated that the only "rules" are those which are culturally enforced. The question becomes which of such rules are good to enforce, and which ones should be discarded.

 

[Nymphs]

I wonder how much of that is cultural pressure, though.

My experience and research has demonstrated that the only "rules" are those which are culturally enforced. The question becomes which of such rules are good to enforce, and which ones should be discarded.

I'm finding myself agreeing with you on pretty much everything you've posted so far.

 

[columbus]

That is what I thought for 10 years -- 10 years of monogamy. As hard as the transition from religious monogamy to polyamory has been for me, my quality of life has gotten much, much better. I've experienced things that I thought I would never be able to and I feel much freer to express myself and my love.

Don't know what "religious monogamy" is exactly. I've seen people stay in ugly relationships due to religious beliefs and watched it come down to smoking ash. There aren't any guarantees in this world.

I've been around a while. I was in my thirties before I started to realize what sexual freedom cost. ****buddies don't count in the great scheme of life. I found that out for myself.

YMMV. But it usually doesn't in my experience. Learning that the hard way isn't fun.

Tom

 

[Nymphs]

Don't know what "religious monogamy" is exactly.

I meant to say that I was religious as well as monogamous.

I am neither now.

****buddies don't count in the great scheme of life. I found that out for myself.

You do realize that polyamorous people don't consider their partners to be "****buddies," right? My husband's girlfriend is not just someone he engages sexually with, she is a woman in who he is in love with, just as he is in love with me.

Where are people getting this idea that polyamorous relationships are just ****buddies?

 

[Curious George]

Perhaps not fully, but if you've never been in a polyamorous relationship, you can't really speak for those in ones -- now can you?

And if you are not me, you cannot know for whom I can or cannot speak. The problem with your method of attack here is that this argument of yours begs the question.

 

[Nymphs]

And if you are not me, you cannot know for whom I can or cannot speak. The problem with your method of attack here is that this argument of yours begs the question.

Are you polyamorous?

If the answer is no, you cannot speak for polyamorous people.

 

[Curious George]

Are you polyamorous?

If the answer is no, you cannot speak for polyamorous people.

I am sorry if you do not understand.

You are using a bad argument. While it is appealing to your ego I am sure, it is just removed from logic.

 

[brokensymmetry]

What I find bizarre is that anyone cares that much if someone else wants to have a polyamorous relationship. So what? The facts about human sexuality seem to demonstrate that humans come in a spectra of flavors when it comes to their sexuality. This is how we can have heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals and many other things besides. I would hardly be surprised if people came in different flavors in terms of what level of monogamy they find fulfilling also. When people are actually free to live in a way that fulfills them more fully, shouldn't this be celebrated as a positive development?

 

[Alceste]

That is what I thought for 10 years -- 10 years of monogamy. As hard as the transition from religious monogamy to polyamory has been for me, my quality of life has gotten much, much better. I've experienced things that I thought I would never be able to and I feel much freer to express myself and my love.

Me too. I can't tell you how many monogamous relationships I ended specifically because they detracted from my quality of life. I always asked myself, is being single better than being in this relationship? The answer was always yes until I met my poly husband. He has no desire whatsoever to keep me from doing anything I enjoy, or to guilt trip me into changing into something that is not true to my nature.

It's been a long road learning to offer that same kind of unconditional love, but definitely worth it.

 

[Riverwolf]

I've been around a while. I was in my thirties before I started to realize what sexual freedom cost.

Polyamory is not the same thing as open polygamy.

Polyamorous relationships aren't necessarily any more sexually free than monoamorous ones.

 

[Riverwolf]

Are you polyamorous?

If the answer is no, you cannot speak for polyamorous people.

Actually, I think this might be a place where we disagree.

I'm not polyamorous, either, but if a non-polyamorous person who thinks it's problematic can't speak for polyamorous people, can we non-polys who think it's fine call our opinions any more informed?

I don't think you have to be something in order to have an informed opinion on it. (Key word being: informed.) I'm not a woman, but I do relate very strongly to women(not to the point of being transgender, but close enough that I pretty much call myself a male lesbian). Am I not allowed to speak for people I strongly relate to?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

What I find bizarre is that anyone cares that much if someone else wants to have a polyamorous relationship. So what? The facts about human sexuality seem to demonstrate that humans come in a spectra of flavors when it comes to their sexuality. This is how we can have heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals and many other things besides. I would hardly be surprised if people came in different flavors in terms of what level of monogamy they find fulfilling also. When people are actually free to live in a way that fulfills them more fully, shouldn't this be celebrated as a positive development?

I agree with you.

I think the obstacles here are that we're still suffering from the cultural baggage of thinking of our partners as "ours", or that our partner has some sort of ownership of us. We don't specifically outright say that we have ownership save for the emotional attachments to the phrases "I'm his" or "He's mine." But we do attribute a sense of property, in a way, in our relationships and think that if we don't do that or think that, we don't care enough about our partners.

My husband and I once went to a Greek Orthodox wedding, where the vows specifically stated that the wife's body belonged to the husband, and the husband's body belonged to the wife. Hubbie and I glanced at each other and quietly mimicked the gag reflex at the same time. Owning each other? Or even a part of each other? Thankfully we both agree that perspective does not belong in our relationship and that we'd rather stick our hands in a blender than feel as if we owned each other in any meaningful way.

But relationships are funny, and I think are highly influenced by cultural indoctrination of what marriage and fidelity are supposed to look like. Love, and commitment, and fidelity, and property are all intimately woven together to create a picture that people imagine quite a bit.

I dunno. As has been said before, YMMV.