Opponents of Polyamory -- Present Your Arguments

[Straw Dog]

Not necessarily opposed, but content with one lover at the end of the day. Craving for 'more' only sets in whenever I fail to measure the limitations of pleasure and happiness according to reason. I'm definitely a hedonist, but try to be rational and simple about it.

 

[Riverwolf]

The .gd was supposed to read bff. My phone auto corrected.

And I think that your point is a good one. Allowing for some hierarchy is not necessarily wrong, as I have portrayed. I acknowledge that this is a personal bias of mine. For many years women were not seen or treated as equals in relationships and many people felt this was fine and dandy. I personally would not want my son or daughter to feel as though they did not have or merit equal value in a relationship, regardless of whether the relationship was monogamous or polyamorous.

Trust me: I'm 100% with you there.

 

[Riverwolf]

Being in any kind of romantic relationship is futile to me. I have otherworldly ambitions and I'm not going to bear the burden of some fellow human's life while here on Earth. Marriage is for those not gifted with continence.

That is to say, those who aren't asexual.

Perfectly fine to be asexual, but it's a mistake to regard it as somehow "better".

Therefore, I am diametrically opposed to all forms of romanticism - whether "mono" or "poly".

That doesn't mean I still don't have opinions on what is successful for the human species. When investigating "poly" behaviors, one should wonder why no civilization has ever been modeled after such relationships. Monogamy has been the model for successful relationships, families, and societies for thousands of years (let that sink in, thousands of years: hundreds of civilizations).

Not even "poly" people can deny the successes of monogamy, for they are essentially practicing monogamy, just in a dualistic or pluralistic setting. If they didn't have the opportunity to experiment with these boundaries, it seems to me they would probably be monogamists.

Actually, it can be denied, because polyamory was practiced a lot until Rome came to power, and even after that it was fairly common.

Besides, you know what has been, and in many cases continues to be, a model for successful living for thousands of years of civilization, and even before civilization? Slavery.

I've read plenty of testimonies on "poly" living and it does seem to me that it is essentially an egocentric lifestyle.

Egocentrics regard themselves and their own opinions or interests as being the most important or valid. Egocentrism.

Edit: I'm not really surprised by their responses. I actually find it amusing they continue to make threads on the topic asking for criticism. It's as if they have an agenda.

Of course there's an agenda. Everyone has an agenda.

In this case, that agenda is to be accepted.

Besides, I've never seen egocentrism in polyamory. If anything, monoamory has far more egocentrism.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Of course there's an agenda. Everyone has an agenda.

In this case, that agenda is to be accepted.

My grandmother once told me something very valuable:

You are not a 100 dollar bill, not everyone is going to like you.

Comprende?

 

[Riverwolf]

Why you would even feel inclined to listen to the opinions of others is beyond me. If you're so confident in yourself, why bother?

Because the experience of other people is different from mine, and even if I disagree, other peoples' opinions can provide even more detailed insights that I might never have thought of on my own.

I would be SO much more bigoted, narrow-minded, and hateful if I didn't ask others for opinions.

 

[Riverwolf]

Because you don't want him to make a choice you aren't in control of.

Tom

...so she doesn't want him to make a choice she isn't in control of, and so... she lets him make a choice she isn't in control of...

 

[Riverwolf]

My grandmother once told me something very valuable:

You are not a 100 dollar bill, not everyone is going to like you.

Comprende?

Very much so.

But there's a difference between being hated by a small but vocal minority, and being feared by the vast majority.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being active in changing the cultural status quo to something more inclusive, so that polyamory, homosexuality, female equality, ethnic difference, transgender, cross-dressing, all of it, can be regarded as perfectly normal, so long as everything's healthy, consensual, and between adults.

 

[kashmir]

Very much so.

But there's a difference between being hated by a small but vocal minority, and being feared by the vast majority.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being active in changing the cultural status quo to something more inclusive, so that polyamory, homosexuality, female equality, ethnic difference, transgender, cross-dressing, all of it, can be regarded as perfectly normal.

That is a dictatorship though, it goes both ways.
Even with gays, they dont all accept everything else as being normal, its insanity to want billions of people to except everything.

First off, who gets to decide what is normal for everyone else?

As for someone said that in ancient times, they were polyamorous.
Thats untrue.
Men controlled women for sex and those women were "whores" and slaves.
Women didn't have the same rights to "play" outside the marriage.

According to those who are polyamorous, they are stressing its 50/50 for everyone involved, no one was forced.

 

[Straw Dog]

Everybody is a little egocentric, including 'spiritual' masters. They just use ego-jitsu to get away with it. I don't think we can generalized about whether mono- or poly- people are more selfish. The most selfish people are those blaming everyone else for being selfish (aka not conforming to their views and wishes).

 

[Curious George]

Everybody is a little egocentric, including 'spiritual' masters. They just use ego-jitsu to get away with it. I don't think we can generalized about whether mono- or poly- people are more selfish. The most selfish people are those blaming everyone else for being selfish (aka not conforming to their views and wishes).

I agree. I have never-not seen an egocentric person, let alone a polyamorous, non-egocentric person. No one group owns a monopoly on egocentrism.

 

[Riverwolf]

That is a dictatorship though, it goes both ways.

Nonsense.

Dictatorship is telling people what to think and what to do.

That's the kind of society we're in now, with people being told that they can have only one partner, that the partner can only be of the opposite sex, that if they have a penis, the have to act strong and masculine, and if they have a vagina, they have to act soft and feminine.

Good activists don't tell anyone what to think. We provide information and education by dispelling commonly-held myths. Others are free to do with that information as they will, and they absolutely should feel safe in disagreement.

Even with gays, they dont all accept everything else as being normal, its insanity to want billions of people to except everything.

First off, who gets to decide what is normal?

I honestly struggled with the proper word to use, and normal is the best I could come up with.

In my experience, normality seems based on what the majority of people are comfortable with. I see nothing wrong with helping people become more comfortable with relationship and life styles that go against the 1950s US family model. But if they don't want to become more comfortable with them, that's their right and choice. I think they're mistaken, but I would fight any sort of movement that tried to forcefully change their minds, or enact any kind of violence, verbal or physical, against them.

As for someone said that in ancient times, they were polyamorous.
Thats untrue.
Men controlled women for sex and those women were "whores" and slaves.
Women didn't have the same rights to "play" outside the marriage.

According to those who are polyamorous, they are stressing its 50/50 for everyone involved, no one was forced.

True, in many cases, especially for the Greeks and Romans. But not in all cases. Mediterranean empires weren't the only places on Earth at the time, like history textbooks portray.

The Celtic world, for example, was more egalitarian than the Greco-Roman world.

 

[Gehennaite]

That is to say, those who aren't asexual.

Perfectly fine to be asexual, but it's a mistake to regard it as somehow "better".

I never said I was asexual. I still find a certain subset of sexual characteristics arousing and allow myself to engage in fantasy and pleasure. I simply do not desire the camaraderie that comes with relationships & intercourse.

I regard celibacy as superior for more than just psychological reasons, there are theistic motives as well.

Actually, it can be denied, because polyamory was practiced a lot until Rome came to power, and even after that it was fairly common.

Polyamory has never been the model of any civilization, though. Its practice is regarded as subculture, not mainstream, and a very small community dabbled in it.

You can't call it "very common" in the same way you'd refer to monogamy as "very common". One is clearly exercised far more than the other.

Besides, you know what has been, and in many cases continues to be, a model for successful living for thousands of years of civilization, and even before civilization? Slavery.

Let's keep this debate on topic.

Of course there's an agenda. Everyone has an agenda.

In this case, that agenda is to be accepted.

I don't respect hetero-poly models. It appears counter-productive to the wellbeing of the human species. There's no need for me to, especially since I cannot put myself into the shoes of such people.

And, who really needs the respect or permission of others in the first place? Nobody is entitled to anyone else's respect. Life is temporary and I don't believe in unconditional respect/love/agape/etc...

 

[kashmir]

Nonsense.

Dictatorship is telling people what to think and what to do.

Telling everyone they have to accept what lifestyle everyone else does is not dictatorship?
The other thread about having gender-less restrooms only is valid proof of what I am talking about.
"We dont mind, so you have to not mind too or your a "prude" w/e"

Who cares what ever lifestyle some view as normal to them, such as having multiple partners.
The rest of the world does not have to accept it as normal.

I don't see why this is a one sided argument.
Look around the world, there are tons and tons of things deemed normal to them and not us.

Again, who gets to decide what is normal for everyone else?
And what is so wrong with family values?
This is where it gets absurd.

I don't have kids, but I am pretty sure my family values wouldn't include multiple sex partners.
Am I a prude, wrong, bias?
Who cares, they are my kids.
multiple partners=more risks
If one values themselves/others as a sex object, something is wrong.

Also, if one can not have a friendship with another, without involving sex, something is wrong.
When people have to fill in gaps, with people outside the marriage, something is wrong.
Seen too many docs about this stuff, and it makes perfect sense.

I am allowed to have my world view, just as everyone else.
Telling me that my moral views are invalid, is dictatorship.

 

[Nymphs]

Because you don't want him to make a choice you aren't in control of.

Tom

He would have made it without me -- we already discussed that. Him having a girlfriend wasn't my choice, it was his.

 

[Nymphs]

Almost all animals seem to behave in the same fashion.
One mate, one lover, and one life partner.

If others wish to behave in the complete opposite to how I feel, who cares really?

You do, by your obvious and vocal opposition to it.

 

[Nymphs]

Not necessarily opposed, but content with one lover at the end of the day. Craving for 'more' only sets in whenever I fail to measure the limitations of pleasure and happiness according to reason. I'm definitely a hedonist, but try to be rational and simple about it.

And that's awesome you know yourself like that.

 

[Nymphs]

...so she doesn't want him to make a choice she isn't in control of, and so... she lets him make a choice she isn't in control of...

I was also confused about it too. *shrugs shoulders*

Some people just aren't going to understand that polyamory isn't immoral, isn't crazy and is pretty normal at the end of the day.

 

[Nymphs]

.......... can you share or is it private? Can I ask questions? If any of these are 'not good' questions, please just ignore them, ok? I'm just interested to learn more.....

I'm absolutely open and don't have a problem talking about my polyamorous relationships.

.What went wrong with that relationship? ........ your ex-girlfriend?

Still trying to figure that one out. Honestly, from what I can understand is that she was under a whole lot of stress (moving) and I have an intense and passionate personality that was too much. She wanted to break up with me because she didn't see u staying together in the long run. I'll fully admit there were some things I did and said that didn't help.

How often do your relationships fail?

That was the first. My husband of ten years was my first relationship and it continues still.

When did your husband fall in love with her? .....or did he just fancy her?

A couple of weeks after we started dating, he fell in love with her, and she him.

You mention letting your ex-girlfriend date your husband...... Would your ex-girlfriend have listened if you had said 'no'? Would your husband have listened?

When I mean "let", I don't mean I controlled the relationship of either of them. They were free to do as they wished, but they so very kindly and compassionately asked me if I was okay with them continuing to date, and that they would only continue the relationship if gave the "all okay." I see how happy they both make each other (Side Note: Ex-girlfriend is now my best friend), and I wasn't going to take that away from them. And, I was fine with them dating. Mind you, it was hard after she broke up with me, but I have since come to terms with it.

What happens if your husband falls in love with somebody that you don't like, or don't approve of? Is he free to choose as and when he finds love?

We talk about who we are dating, falling for, etc. If he falls in love with someone I don't like, I'm sure there will be plenty of conversations, but in the end, like myself, he is free to choose to love who he wishes, as long as all parties are respected.

What if you meet someone that you fancy sexually, and they like you, but your husband is not happy about that particular person.... what then?

Same as above. In fact, there was a recent situation where my DH was okay with the man in question, but concerned about the situation, so we talked it over.

Communication, respect, love, compassion and patience is the key for us. It is the only way for it to work in either a polyamorous or monogamous relationship.

 

[kashmir]

You do, by your obvious and vocal opposition to it.

No, you are the one who created the thread, asking for our opinions on it.
Don't make me out to be the bad guy for being honest.
If people wish to have multiple partners, orgies, or even marry more than one person, if its ever legal, w/e.
I could care less.

You seem to not understand that it cant be forced on us to accept as normal to US.
As I said before, if you dont wish to here opposing views, dont keep creating threads and play victim to everyone who disagrees with you.

You have nothing to prove to a one of us.
And vice versa

 

[Nymphs]

No, you are the one who created the thread, asking for our opinions on it.

And you have been incredibly vocal in every polyamory thread so far...that speaks more of you than me. I already know I'm polyamorous...what are you?

You seem to not understand that it cant be forced on us to accept as normal to US.

I understand quite well. All I'm trying to do is erase misconceptions, stereotypes and false facts.