Opponents of Polyamory -- Present Your Arguments

[Kilgore Trout]

I really think that there should be a section wherein one could see who has them on ignore, but this would probably cause more trouble than it's worth.

Are you kidding? It would be awesome to see all the people I've defeated so soundly, that their only recourse was to scurry away and hide from my scathing retorts and airtight reasoning.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

why would anyone be happy if they caused others to put them on ignore?
The victim card is completely out of hand, once again.

Just letting others know that I am done here.
If you want our opinions, ok, but if you want to argue and cant accept what we have to say, stop creating threads about it, to lure in discussion from both sides of the table.
Its that simple.

I know. First they invite the "opponents" of polyamory to present their arguments then they get all chicken **** and huffy when some actually do.

Seriously. My God.

Look kids, if you guys want to eat all the candy in the candy store, please feel free to do so, but if you get fat and get diabetes don't look to us for sympathy because you will get none.

 

[kashmir]

Are you kidding? It would be awesome to see all the people I've defeated so soundly, that their only recourse was to scurry away and hide from my scathing retorts and airtight reasoning.

Being put on ignore is far from meaning one defeated the others argument.
Only a child would find logic in that twisted reasoning.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Being put on ignore is far from meaning one defeated the others argument.

I suppose it could also mean that the other person is an overly-sensitive toddler who can't handle the emotional turmoil of somebody having a different perspective.

Only a child would find logic in that twisted reasoning.

The same type of child who puts people on ignore?

 

[Drolefille]

why would anyone be happy if they caused others to put them on ignore?
The victim card is completely out of hand, once again.

Just letting others know that I am done here.
If you want our opinions, ok, but if you want to argue and cant accept what we have to say, stop creating threads about it, to lure in discussion from both sides of the table.
Its that simple.

You have contributed very little other than your assertions about STL infection rates and ignored evidence stating otherwise. If you want to have a discussion and can do so without calling other people victims while complaining about how you're being treated, then go for it. Otherwise you really aren't adding much.

My sarcasm towards Cynthia is because she made an empty threat and I believe she's quite guilty of just ignoring what she disagrees with regardless of whether she's using the ignore function or not.

I am willing to accept LGBT community into the framework as long as no cheating takes place. Naturally same applies to heterosexual couples as well. I will say that my preference is on heterosexual relationships, where I perceive to be the purest dynamic. Then again, its what I perceive.

Then again, seeing all the dysfunctional couples waste each other sometimes makes me question. But, in the end, its not the framework that is flawed - just the people.

About more people than two, no. I follow the philosophy of "less is more". I do not see it feasible, that a couple of more than two could keep it together for more than 20 years, seeing how difficult it is for monogamous couples.

Trust, loyalty, mutual admiration and intimacy are basis for successful love. All of them are compromised at the advent of more people entering.

Would evidence of long term non-monogamous relationships that are stable and happy have any affect on your opinion? Similarly what would influence your opinion if that would not? I could tell you about the trust, intimacy, love and loyalty in my relationships but I suspect you wouldn't take my word as evidence.

I've been in mono and poly relationships. I dated my first boyfriend for 7 years and had far more damage done to me by the lack of trust, loyalty, love and inclusion of abuse in that relationship than I ever have in my polyamorous ones. Even the ones that ended badly.

So perhaps the only other question or counter is that a poly relationship might not meet your ideal but if it falls just short it still may rose above many dysfunctional monogamous relationships. Would you agree with that?

 

[kashmir]

I suppose it could also mean that the other person is an overly-sensitive toddler who can't handle the emotional turmoil of somebody having a different perspective.

In all fairness, no one has really discussed what I said in my last few posts here, other than to over think what I have said, as if I am trying to deny others livestyles.
I am simply saying that in my world view I find the OP is against my idea of family values.

The same type of child who puts people on ignore?

I only put people on ignore when they are completely disrespectable.
But usually, they will have been banned by the admins by then.

 

[kashmir]

You have contributed very little other than your assertions about STL infection rates and ignored evidence stating otherwise. If you want to have a discussion and can do so without calling other people victims while complaining about how you're being treated, then go for it. Otherwise you really aren't adding much.

Sorry but more=more risks.
It is that simple.

That is my stance and until the few here can provide evidence that all those in multiple relationships wear condoms all the time and 110% trust has never been broken, they have not proved a thing in this thread.

Its not how I am being treated, it's the fact that some here have tried to completely turn this around instead of actually discussing it openly and honestly.

As you are attempting to do with me now.
I am not playing victim by calling out those who are playing victim.

 

[Leftimies]

Would evidence of long term non-monogamous relationships that are stable and happy have any affect on your opinion? Similarly what would influence your opinion if that would not? I could tell you about the trust, intimacy, love and loyalty in my relationships but I suspect you wouldn't take my word as evidence.

I've been in mono and poly relationships. I dated my first boyfriend for 7 years and had far more damage done to me by the lack of trust, loyalty, love and inclusion of abuse in that relationship than I ever have in my polyamorous ones. Even the ones that ended badly.

So perhaps the only other question or counter is that a poly relationship might not meet your ideal but if it falls just short it still may rose above many dysfunctional monogamous relationships. Would you agree with that?

I would like to establish that monogamous relationships aren't perfect: in fact, one could argue that since their payoff is higher, so is the pain if they go awry. The higher the investment the higher the fall. But also I would take the chance to say that since monogamous relationships have their issues, there is no reason to assume that polyamorous ones would fare any better. Furthermore, there are the cases where relationships starts off as polyamorous, but then two of the three grow closer and eventually break away leaving the third alone.

Can it work for a certain type of a person? Perhaps. But it will never work for me. It lacks the essence of romantic love, for me. The union of corresponding elements, manifestation of the Reality's way within the human realm.

That being said, I am not going to go all bombastic on you and condemn you. Just saying that my current relationship to my soon-to-be-wife is the best thing that ever happened to me, and even before it, I held firm belief that a human being realises his purpose in interdependent dual relationship.

 

[Sunstone]

Anyone who is genuinely interested in arguments against polyamorous relationships needs to take a look at the findings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Basically, it found that at least one form of polyamory, polygamy, typically disadvantaged children and women.

What makes the case interesting is the testimony of one of the expert witnesses, Dr. John Witte jr., a scholar and scientist who allegedly had no preconceptions about polygamy before investigating it at the request of the court.

Witte's report can be found here.

As for myself, I do not necessarily agree with the court, but I think any really serious discussion of this issue would need to take the court's findings into consideration.

Of course, the court does not address the broader issue of polyamorous relationships in general -- just polygamy.

 

[Alceste]

You know if you don't like the things I say, you don't have to respond to them. I mean just because you think I have posted something outrageous and mean-spirited in every other thread does not mean they are worthy of your rebuttal and outrage.

You can simply just ignore them or put me on ignore. Problem solved.

Why would I ignore you if I find you funny? Laughter is good for the soul.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Anyone who is genuinely interested in arguments against polyamorous relationships needs to take a look at the findings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Basically, it found that at least one form of polyamory, polygamy, typically disadvantaged children and women.

What makes the case interesting is the testimony of one of the expert witnesses, Dr. John Witte jr., a scholar and scientist who allegedly had no preconceptions about polygamy before investigating it at the request of the court.

Witte's report can be found here.

As for myself, I'm not sure I agree with the court, but I think any really serious discussion of this issue would need to take the court's findings into consideration.

Of course, the court does not address the broader issue of polyamorous relationships in general -- just polygamy.

Good point. I also find that these discussions often seem to conflate and confuse polyamory with open relationships, swinging, and other alternative lifestyle behaviors.

Polygamy, which is a bonafide form of polyamory, seems to get ignored in these discussions, while something like open marriages seems to get equated with polyamory, even though it's really a different behavior and dynamic.

 

[factseeker88]

Clearly, succinctly, without personal attack and if you are going to claim something, please back it up with evidence.

Go.

The best relationship is to live together and not get married. That way both men and women can have affairs with no backlash.

“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) [/FONT]

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The best relationship is to live together and not get married. That way both men and women can have affairs with no backlash.

So, in your experience, you find that women are fine with you cheating as long as you're not married yet?

 

[Leftimies]

The best relationship is to live together and not get married. That way both men and women can have affairs with no backlash.

“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) [/FONT]

That is a very odd claim, with little basis in reality. For that to work out would require the absence of love.

Love is not lust, love is not what you want to do, love is not pleasure, even.
Love is this near magical caring about someone to such extent that you voluntarily and naturally go against something you like otherwise for the sake of that someone. It transcends the condition that would require affair to take place, the two may not coexist.

 

[kashmir]

Anyone who is genuinely interested in arguments against polyamorous relationships needs to take a look at the findings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Basically, it found that at least one form of polyamory, polygamy, typically disadvantaged children and women.

What makes the case interesting is the testimony of one of the expert witnesses, Dr. John Witte jr., a scholar and scientist who allegedly had no preconceptions about polygamy before investigating it at the request of the court.

Witte's report can be found here.

As for myself, I do not necessarily agree with the court, but I think any really serious discussion of this issue would need to take the court's findings into consideration.

Of course, the court does not address the broader issue of polyamorous relationships in general -- just polygamy.

This hits home with me.
How can we discuss this area without offending others?

Those here are trying to claim that polyamorous relationships are some sort of superheros, incapable of lying,catching STD's, failing and want us to prove them wrong, if you will.
Insanity to twist this like they are doing.
The title of this thread speaks for itself and shows I am right to what is going on.

 

[Alceste]

Anyone who is genuinely interested in arguments against polyamorous relationships needs to take a look at the findings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Basically, it found that at least one form of polyamory, polygamy, typically disadvantaged children and women.

What makes the case interesting is the testimony of one of the expert witnesses, Dr. John Witte jr., a scholar and scientist who allegedly had no preconceptions about polygamy before investigating it at the request of the court.

Witte's report can be found here.

As for myself, I do not necessarily agree with the court, but I think any really serious discussion of this issue would need to take the court's findings into consideration.

Of course, the court does not address the broader issue of polyamorous relationships in general -- just polygamy.

I do agree with this judgment, but I wouldn't personally characterize FLDS as "polyamorous". Those relationships have little to do with "amorousness" and everything to do with extreme patriarchal entitlement, particularly to female sexuality and fidelity.

At the heart of the poly relationships we've been talking about is a commitment to establishing egalitarian (IOW gender neutral) boundaries and honoring one another's autonomy.

FLDS men don't negotiate and renegotiate their boundaries with their wives. They rule the household as dictators, enforcing their will with both physical and emotional violence. Wives often bitterly compete with one another for status and have no little or no say in the patriarch's decisions regarding who he brings into the household. They are expected to be available for sex at his discretion alone, with no reciprocity whatsoever, and they are not allowed to wank, sleep with each other or see anybody else.

All of which is to say religion is poison. Take a basic fact of nature, being that few of us are attracted to only one person for life, sprinkle it with some patriarchal monotheism, and the result is the twisted hell on earth for women and children that FLDS embodies.

 

[Sunstone]

Those here are trying to claim that polyamorous relationships are some sort of superheros, incapable of lying,catching STD's, failing...

I haven't noticed anyone claiming that. Are you sure you are not -- either unconsciously or purposely -- creating a straw man?

 

[Sunstone]

I do agree with this judgment, but I wouldn't personally characterize FLDS as "polyamorous". Those relationships have little to do with "amorousness" and everything to do with extreme patriarchal entitlement, particularly to female sexuality and fidelity.

At the heart of the poly relationships we've been talking about is a commitment to establishing egalitarian (IOW gender neutral) boundaries and honoring one another's autonomy.

FLDS men don't negotiate and renegotiate their boundaries with their wives. They rule the household as dictators, enforcing their will with both physical and emotional violence. Wives often bitterly compete with one another for status and have no little or no say in the patriarch's decisions regarding who he brings into the household. They are expected to be available for sex at his discretion alone, with no reciprocity whatsoever, and they are not allowed to wank, sleep with each other or see anybody else.

Good points. Although to be honest, I still have ambivalent feelings towards polygamy.

 

[Sunstone]

That is a very odd claim, with little basis in reality. For that to work out would require the absence of love.

Love is not lust, love is not what you want to do, love is not pleasure, even.
Love is this near magical caring about someone to such extent that you voluntarily and naturally go against something you like otherwise for the sake of that someone. It transcends the condition that would require affair to take place, the two may not coexist.

Do you preach often? There are on this board as many definitions of love as there are the number of members + 100.

 

[Sunstone]

So, in your experience, you find that women are fine with you cheating as long as you're not married yet?

Strangely enough, all the women I'm interested in encourage me to cheat --- "Why don't you find someone else?", they ask. I suppose it's just because I have a fondness for sexually open-minded women, of course.