Opponents of Polyamory -- Present Your Arguments

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

That's the narrative I'd choose to go with as well.

 

[Alceste]

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

It's religious polygamy specifically that gets my tits in a tangle. They strongly tend to be fraught with coercion, which takes them out of my general philosophy that what consenting adults get up to is their own business.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's religious polygamy specifically that gets my tits in a tangle. They strongly tend to be fraught with coercion, which takes them out of my general philosophy that what consenting adults get up to is their own business.

Oh, so I suppose you don't think 12 year old girls who are culturally and religiously indoctrinated to unquestioningly obey authority aren't adults who are capable of freely choosing to marry 50 year old men?

 

[Leftimies]

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

Preach? Pffft. I don't preach. I merely express my views strongly. But, I don't think anyone is forced to agree with that view.

I am sure that the husband who consistently cheats on her wife who cares for his children has his own definition of love. Still, it is a definition evidently flawed. I can define peanut as a "consumable object of brown colour". It is a vague definition and inherently flawed one, disregarding many of peanut's properties. For someone with peanut allergy, that definition could prove fatal.

A painfully poor metaphor, but it gets the job done.

 

[Curious George]

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.

Yeah, except most polyamorous units try to distinguish themselves from polygamy, because polygamy often focuses on men having multiple wives, whereas polyamorous individuals are free to pursue relationships with other individuals both within the unit and outside.

in essence polyamorous units have a more equality and needs focused approach whereas polygamy is not necessarily so. Consequently, not all polygamous relationships are considered polyamorous.

 

[Alceste]

Oh, so I suppose you don't think 12 year old girls who are culturally and religiously indoctrinated to unquestioningly obey authority aren't adults who are capable of freely choosing to marry 50 year old men?

Sounds crazy, but yes, that is my belief.

 

[Sunstone]

It's religious polygamy specifically that gets my tits in a tangle. They strongly tend to be fraught with coercion, which takes them out of my general philosophy that what consenting adults get up to is their own business.

I think religion in those cases is clearly used as a means of psychological coercion that justifies and supports the oppression of women and children.

But there were other points raised during the court case. For instance, the finding that children in polygamous relationships are often enough treated unequally. The father is more incenticized to have more children than he is incenticized to take care of the ones he already has.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There are on this board as many definitions of love as there are the number of members + 100.

A problem inherent in attempting to reduce a wide variety of complex human emotions, behaviors, actions, and dynamics to a single word.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sounds crazy, but yes, that is my belief.

Pure insanity.

 

[Sunstone]

Sounds crazy, but yes, that is my belief.

Communist!

 

[kashmir]

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

again, read the title, read what is said by those who are in polyamorous relationships, they are indirectly claiming polyamorous is the way to go and are incapable of the errors that one one one have.
It is them setting up strawman arguments.
They claim one on one all want to cheat and we should all just be open and accept polyamorous relationships when getting married.
Sort of like a safe fail, if you will.

That is what I am learning from all these threads the OP keeps creating.

 

[Alceste]

I think religion in those cases is clearly used as a means of psychological coercion that justifies and supports the oppression of women and children.

But there were other points raised during the court case. For instance, the finding that children in polygamous relationships are often enough treated unequally. The father is more incenticized to have more children than he is incenticized to take care of the ones he already has.

I apologize for not taking the time to read your links - I'm at work now - but I followed this story at the time. I thought this case specifically dealt with BC's FLDS community. Was any evidence relating to non-religious polygamy presented?

 

[Sunstone]

...they are indirectly claiming...

I suspect you might have a massive case of raging confirmation bias going on here.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Sometimes I wonder why some people appear to be so occupied with what others do in their own bedrooms. Furthermore, it seems like a waste for someone to spend time and effort criticizing other people's personal decisions when it comes to relationships when those decisions don't affect that person in the slightest.

Promoting entirely abstract ideals and insulting other people based on them strikes me as a pointless, if not infantile, exercise, but I suppose that such exercise helps some people feel superior to others. It's not like there's any shortage of self-righteousness in the world, after all.

 

[kashmir]

I suspect you might have a massive case of raging confirmation bias going on here.

seriously?
Am I the one who keeps creating threads and arguing with the opposition and claiming polyamorous is the best way to go?

Cant anyone here have an honest discussion?
round and round we go again. :run:

 

[Sunstone]

I apologize for not taking the time to read your links - I'm at work now - but I followed this story at the time. I thought this case specifically dealt with BC's FLDS community. Was any evidence relating to non-religious polygamy presented?

You're correct that the case dealt with the FLDS community. But much of the testimony addressed the history of monogamy and polygamy in the West and Middle East. Dr. Witte's paper is an interesting read. But not for the science -- which is lacking -- but for the history, which is what the court was interested in.

The reason I don't find the court's findings to be wholly compelling is because they are only the findings of one court, and because they are not as science-based as I would prefer. However, I do think they raise some legitimate questions about polygamy.

 

[Sunstone]

Here's a question that troubles me. It was raised by Dr. Witte somewhere -- either in his testimony to the Supreme Court or in an interview -- "If polygamy became widespread, what do you do with all those surplus young men who cannot find mates because older, more well established men have more or less monopolized the available women?"

 

[Alceste]

again, read the title, read what is said by those who are in polyamorous relationships, they are indirectly claiming polyamorous is the way to go and are incapable of the errors that one one one have.
It is them setting up strawman arguments.
They claim one on one all want to cheat and we should all just be open and accept polyamorous relationships when getting married.
Sort of like a safe fail, if you will.

That is what I am learning from all these threads the OP keeps creating.

Nope. We've all been saying "different strokes for different folks", although we personally prefer negotiable boundaries in our own relationships.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Here's a question that troubles me. It was raised by Dr. Witte somewhere -- either in his testimony to the Supreme Court or in an interview -- "If polygamy became widespread, what do you do with all those surplus young men who cannot find mates because older, more well established men have more or less monopolized the available women?"

You send them to religious schools to get indoctrinated, give them an enemy, then guide them into blowing themselves with suicide vests or jets in order to strike down their enemy for god and secure a place in eternal paradise.

 

[Alceste]

Here's a question that troubles me. It was raised by Dr. Witte somewhere -- either in his testimony to the Supreme Court or in an interview -- "If polygamy became widespread, what do you do with all those surplus young men who cannot find mates because older, more well established men have more or less monopolized the available women?"

FLDS exiles them from the community. The lost boys, they're called.
http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/t...ional-intimacy-in-polyamorous-relationships-1

Here's a first hand account I'm just about to read...
I am an ex-FLDS boy who was born in Warren Jeffs group. He ruined my health, my life, family, and education. AMA. : IAmA