# Polyamory and Polygamy



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Nannerl said:


> I really think is healthier, sharing your partner(s) might be a bit more freeing since the relationship would be less self-centered, less individualistic and less possessive. I think you can learn how to love better, how to let things work on their own and be more unconditional. With that said, I couldn't, I'm too self-centered, individualistic and possessive, sadly - but I admire some people who are able to do that!


Maybe if it works.

But with my friends, that I gave the example of, I think it was fine for the friend who felt like the "third wheel" to feel unhappy because they wanted more--or even the intimacy that I had with the other friend.

There's nothing that should obligate them into that role, and I think it's better that they listened to their feelings if they were unhappy. Perhaps they would be happier in a different type of relationship, and imo there's nothing wrong with that.

But I admire people who are able to do it too--I think it must take a lot of maturity and emotional intelligence on everyone's part, to make it work.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I don't feel like I've treated this topic very well.

But I definitely see issues with monogamy that I didn't see before.

I should remember that everyone is different, and has different values. And avoid generalizing too much, but it's just startling to me to think of how many nice, good women are single when they would prefer not to be. But...that always happened. People died too--women were widowed. Men lost wives. It's not like some new thing that there are single people.

It still seems kind of weird to me though. 🤷‍♀️ I give up trying to understand human behavior. I don't even understand my own sometimes.


* *






I shouldn't get triggered so easily (like triggering myself--jeez).






I think I was generalizing--or just lazily accepting a generalization that men only want to have sex with women for reproduction. Which is ridiculous. There are many different reasons people want to have relationships with each other. And there are probably also plenty of women who want to have relationships with men mostly or only for children. So why did I get so hung up on this?

Maybe because I felt like my feelings weren't fitting--or valid, in that scheme of things, because I want to be in a relationship/have sex for reasons other than reproduction.

So that generalization I made conflicted with that--and I then concluded something I wouldn't normally conclude without having accepted that premise. Though eugenics is still kind of an overreaction...even so.

To try to "breed" objectifying behavior out of society? That is also ridiculous because most of this is probably learned behavior and has nothing to do with genetics.

It probably has more to do with how distant people are from each other in the community--and how they are isolated. Or just that maybe most people value things differently--that would also be fine. Not everyone has to be the same. It's just more lonely when you have different values.

Edit: Plus there might be a lot of single women who are nice and great people--not because they are being objectified or whatever, but because they are just introverted and never put themselves out there. I mean--so that's another premise that could have just been wrong. And totally unhelpful.


----------



## Rift (Mar 12, 2012)

WickerDeer said:


> Aw--well that doesn't sound very kind...treating people like a hood ornament.


if they are male... they usually are.

no great purpose of a hood ornament, just large knob awkwardly jutting up for no other purpose than to serve as a status symbol.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Rift said:


> if they are male... they usually are.
> 
> no great purpose of a hood ornament, just large knob awkwardly jutting up for no other purpose than to serve as a status symbol.


But people aren't ornaments. And they shouldn't be used for status symbols. They are more valuable than status.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

To start this off, I don't care what other people do because it's their lives so if polyamory or open appeals to them, it's up to them. I'm against legalizing polygyny and polyandry because of socioeconomic inequality and room for abuse.

As for myself, I'm presently revolted by the thought of any type of relationship, dating or hookups, in general. If the man of my dreams were to plunk himself down next to me, I'd likely salute him with my middle finger and tell him to piss off. 😄 With this in mind, I can't answer the question because of present mindset.

I have tried open in the past but it didn't appeal to me. But I'm not the same person now so who knows what might happen in the future. On the other hand, why bother with a relationship, instead, just date around.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

I'm a three's a crowd type of girl.


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

I currently see this non-monogamy thing in any format the following way for personally myself. This doesn't attend to become any general truth for anybody else of course 

Pros:
* experiencing "vibes" or energy of different people - this in my opinion is tbh the only real aspect which can't be experienced with only one person while everything else could be (assuming you've found right partner)

* chance to experience those initial "butterflies" in your stomach again

Cons:
* "butterflies" is an irrational state of mind which often leads people to make mistakes, lead to wrong conclusions and illogical actions. Also it's not a sustainable effect in longer term anyway. There are other ways to conciously induce similar states of mind without changing partners.

* It's not just skimming only positive aspects from every person involved - this usually won't work as I've heard from people involved in nonmonogamous forms of relationships. A LOT more communication between all partners is needed to prevent issues from arising and/or to relieve them. Ofc depending on particular persons, this aspect might even look like advantage if they're having a lot of energy to maintain communication with multiple persons at once - I don't find I have that energy and time for this by myself nor do I want to deal with issues of multiple people.

* I'm not jealous in overall and can take things in calm and logical manner but some of the other participants could become jealous and at some point, claim "more rights" than they actually are allowed to have - additional hassle to be dealt with.

* Increased risk of STDs and/or possible unwanted pregnancy issues

Since I have partner besides me whom together we can fullfill all aspects of romantic and sex life we need, it's easy to see currently there'd be no rational reason to give a try to other forms of relationships


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

Polyamory is fine as long as one is open about it in the beginning of a relationship and doesnt expect from their partner to just accept being brought new terms in it that they never agreed with upon entering it. Its a concept often used as an excuse in monogamous relationships for cheating as if that makes the cause of the cheating justified. 

Nevertheless Polyamory is fine overall if the nature of the relationship is clear and each party accepts the terms willingly from the beginning. I havent tried it personally, im not sure if i ever am going to, but i have no moral qualms against it, i dont care what other people do in their bed either. But polygamy is a different story. As @Meliodas mentioned, such relationships are really unstable to build families on and a likely unhealthy environment for spawns to grow old in good mental health. It takes away the closeness and unity monogamous relationships can provide in family settings. There is also the supply issue as mentioned again, in polyamory maybe that wouldnt be too much of an issue because the terms are more flexible but in polygamy those married - lose their freedom and inbefore their availability. 

Overall there is not a strong interest for polyamory yet so i dont think any of those issues have manifested in non muslim cultures atleast. 










There is also the imbalance that polyandry is not allowed so only men get dem multiple chicks. In a possible setting where both are allowed atleast the balance wouldnt be that bad and women wouldnt "be out of stock" if they also got the option to have their own harem and dig into the man supply. But yeah i guess the dating market has always been a competition to an extent so this is a complicated problem if we choose to see it as one.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

SirCanSir said:


> is also the imbalance that polyandry is not allowed so only men get dem multiple chicks. In a possible setting where both are allowed atleast the balance wouldnt be that bad and women wouldnt "be out of stock" if they also got the option to have their own harem and dig into the man supply. But yeah i guess the dating market has always been a competition to an extent so this is a complicated problem if we choose to see it as one.


That was kind of what I was thinking with my dystopian, poly eugenics social structure--like if there are a lot of men who do not really have much interest in women outside of just wanting sex from them (as to me it seems like incel ideology is like that--these angry men who just want sex and think of women as bodies that they should be entitled to).

And then there are also women who are single because they don't want to be with men who think that way.

That then you could just get all the angry incel types to go into polyandrist harems with a dominatrix to keep them in check, and they could be happy and out of the gene pool (b/c only one woman to impregnate...can't have too many kids). 

But...I think the whole reforming society sounds like too much effort and there probably wouldn't be a great gain--I also realized that there are probably other influences than objectification-- like perhaps some introverts just don't bother meeting people and that is why they are single.

Probably better to just do the easy things first like join a club or something, rather than transform society into a dystopia of feuding harems, I guess. 

In some ways it is sort of like that dystopia anywa--if you replace the dominatrix harem leaders with porn and sexist ideologies. There are probably "harems" of men following that already. But not as many as it seems sometimes, on the internet.


----------



## Ronney (Jul 17, 2016)

I'd have no problem shagging more than one woman. The problem is I would not have enough time to have a worthwhile relationship with them. There's also the complexity of humans that makes relationships difficult enough that I just think it's best to try and get it right with one person.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

I find pseudo appeals to nature in this discussion to be pretty disingenuous, as "moral behavior" is usually in direct opposition to "natural behavior", often on purpose. We like to decide which instincts are good and which are bad. In the case of reproductive questions with human societies, it is also heavily subject to political controls that have little to do with feasibility and more to do with establishing and maintaining overarching power structures. So, just because we've grown up entrenched in a particular dogma, doesn't mean we are forever bound by it as a _biological reality. _I thought that was the dream of being a "high cognitive functioning" species or whatever.

At an individual level, it boils down to the level of jealousy and possessiveness over a person's mind/body/relationships. I'd be curious to know how prevalent sexual jealousy really is... how that varies over different societies and different people, and how influenced it is by environment compared to universal "neurological wiring" that is often assumed to be the default regardless of cultural factors when these questions are studied scientifically. For instance, it is funny to me that jealousy in other areas of experience is regarded as a problem or undesirable, along with other negative emotions like wrath or hate (which also exist for an evolutionary 'advantage'), but when concerned with sex, jealousy gets a pass, despite the often terrible consequences.

In any case, I believe that there is definitely more than one way to successfully organize sexual relationships, even if some setups are more commonly practiced than others. As for myself, because I live in a society that prizes monogamy (most preferably taking one sexual partner over the entire lifespan) and _loses its shit _over anything else, I would not want to put the energy in to overcome the barriers to explore anything different, as romance is not a major concern or focus in my life.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

WickerDeer said:


> That was kind of what I was thinking with my dystopian, poly eugenics social structure--like if there are a lot of men who do not really have much interest in women outside of just wanting sex from them (as to me it seems like incel ideology is like that--these angry men who just want sex and think of women as bodies that they should be entitled to).
> 
> And then there are also women who are single because they don't want to be with men who think that way.
> 
> ...


Maybe I just need to pick up creative writing again for my own mental health.

But...also...sexbots could become a tool in this polyandrist incel harem--because the dominatrix could be like a 10/10 and so that would appeal to the type of guy who really just sees women as objects.

Because then she could perhaps give each one a sexbot of her--the perfect woman who never ages or says anything wrong, she can't get some kind of illness and become some other number out of 10 (just teasing a little here--I get that it's supposed to be subjective attraction).

But so that could help--then maybe they could have tamagotchi children with the sexbots, which would probably be better for everyone.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Squirt said:


> For instance, it is funny to me that jealousy in other areas of experience is regarded as a problem or undesirable, along with other negative emotions like wrath or hate (which also exist for an evolutionary 'advantage'), but when concerned with sex, jealousy gets a pass, despite the often terrible consequences.


I appreciate your comment and all the things you brought up (which I am kind of ignorant of).

But I disagree with the idea that we give jealousy a free pass--at least where I live it's mostly only given a free pass in more conservative/traditional circles.

But to me, more than any emotion--it's also demonized. There are people who would never say sadness or crying shouldn't happen, or anger is unnatural, and yet "jealousy is wrong."

I also sort of disagree with some of the things the article argues--such as jealousy is responsible for homicides. I actually think it's moreso objectification and entitlement that is causing that. Because it's entitlement that says "if I can't have something, no one can." And it's objectification that says "this person's value depends on me and how I value them, and I don't value them as an individual who should be free to live their life--I value them as a commodity that I should be able to consume or extinguish if it pleases me." (Sorry--that is kind of messy sounding, but hopefully my point is clear enough.)

Jealousy is an emotion and imo it's really very complex. Probably one of the most difficult emotions to untangle...maybe because it often features some kind of projection? Where sometimes, I've noticed, partners will actually become jealous when they are doing something they find unethical?

I feel like jealousy is linked to repression a lot more too. Like in an unhealthy relationship someone might set up this oppressive system of behavior as a "solution" for jealousy--but it's inhibitive of both their partner and also themselves if they were to live by it. Sort of like a race to build a stronger cage for one's partner and relationship.

Jealousy and envy aren't the same--but I think they are connected. Like you may become jealous of someone who you fear is attractive to your partner, but you may also envy that person because they exhibit qualities you refuse to allow yourself to (such as they are more flirtatious or they wear some item of clothing you wouldn't wear out of propriety).

I like the ending of the article though, when it suggests jealousy may not be destructive. It's my philosophy that we need to understand emotions and analyze them and then decide a rational course of action after understanding our emotions and what they say about what we want and why.

And I feel like a lot of time jealousy gets thrown in this camp of "always bad" when I think it's better to understand it--especially if it's already dealing with complex repressions.

But at the same time, I can see why you'd say it's given a pass because often times people also feel like it has a place in relationships.

To me it seems "normal" to get jealous--it's a fear of losing something valuable to you--the relationship and interaction you need. Young children even get jealous when they are afraid their parents might be taken from them...that kind of insecurity has to be excruciating for a young child but it also makes sense. But in adults, it seems like jealousy then packs on all these other layers and involves other people and perhaps also repressions. So I really do think it's one of the most difficult and laborious emotions to understand and untangle.

Though ideally, in any relationship there is no need for jealousy--because both parties are assured that their relationship is secure. And they are emotionally fulfilled. But that doesn't always happen, and I think that it's good to be able to pay attention to those misunderstandings and to resolve them, rather than assume any feeling of jealousy in a relationship is bad. Just like with other emotions, analysis is important--of course it would be bad to just do whatever you feel like when you are being motivated by a negative emotion like jealousy (or wrath or hate or fear). But it still seems like a "normal" emotion for all the hate it gets.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

WickerDeer said:


> Maybe I just need to pick up creative writing again for my own mental health.
> 
> But...also...sexbots could become a tool in this polyandrist incel harem--because the dominatrix could be like a 10/10 and so that would appeal to the type of guy who really just sees women as objects.
> 
> ...


Until the sexbot suddenly becomes sentient.  


* *


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Squirt said:


> Until the sexbot suddenly becomes sentient.
> 
> 
> * *


Honestly, that whole thing is probably the worst "solution" I have ever come up with.

Like not only could the sexbots become sentient and decide to take over--but there is an army of angry incel type men who have now learned to objectify women absolutely...and have also become totally isolated from real human interactions with women outside of some questionable dominatrix alpha who collects them...

It's a recipe for disaster all around! lol

Yeah and we can just throw in homicidal robots reacting to mass trauma for the first time too. LOL


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

WickerDeer said:


> I appreciate your comment and all the things you brought up (which I am kind of ignorant of).
> 
> But I disagree with the idea that we give jealousy a free pass--at least where I live it's mostly only given a free pass in more conservative/traditional circles.
> 
> ...


You are adding nuance and extending the point I was trying to make, haha. I also see jealousy as signaling complex underlying expectations that are culturally influenced and mediated, not a de facto expression of the biological superiority of monogamy. However, sexual jealousy is often treated as if it is as basic as air and water in these evolutionary arguments.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Squirt said:


> You are adding nuance and extending the point I was trying to make, haha. I also see jealousy as signaling complex underlying expectations that are culturally influenced and mediated, not a de facto expression of the biological superiority of monogamy. However, sexual jealousy is often treated as if it is as basic as air and water in these evolutionary arguments.


Ooohh yeah. I can't say I've never gotten ridiculously upset about evolutionary arguments about human nature. I used to get very triggered by them, especially as a teen, because I felt they really ignored individualism. (judging by this thread--I probably still am)

That makes sense that it would be culturally influenced and mediated--when I was thinking about the fears around jealousy, they are selfish and perhaps even border on objectification...

Like a child who is jealous that a parent is interacting more with another child, might only be viewing the parent as the supply of resources and love. They are not necessarily taking the point of view of the parent at all--or perhaps it can be even hurtful to take that point of view.

So maybe, in some ways, jealousy can be inhibitive of empathy. Because if it's based on feelings of insecurity or assumptions of how you are less than this rival, then trying to imagine yourself in the place of the partner who's attracted to someone else is hurtful, because you are assuming that they lack attraction or regard for you or prefer someone else.

I agree--it seems way more than a "de facto expression of monogamy."

I think monogamy can be preferred for reasons that have nothing to do with jealousy as well. Like I said about my friend groups who were trios--I usually had very little problem in them because I was usually "best friends" with one of them--I rarely felt left out, myself. But the other person did, and they were right that I didn't feel the same way about them that I did my "best friend." I can't fault them for wanting a "best friend" of their own, because I really enjoy having that really close relationship and just being able to engage one on one.

I dislike groups in general, and so a relationship that takes the form of a group might be more challenging and harder to maintain for some people than others. Not even out of jealousy. And I think you can have monogamous relationships that are very fulfilling, without a lot of jealousy. Same thing with poly too, probably--though maybe it'd take more interpersonal intelligence or skill. idk But I don't want to make too many assumptions because it is complex, like you said.

Perhaps the emphasis on individualism that we promote (at least here in the US) makes it even harder to gain the skills for maintaining a polyamorous relationship. I do feel like we have a problem with maintaining larger communities in the US, because we've focused so much on the individual and the nuclear family. And I feel like that's a problem--but I don't think poly relationships are the necessary solution though maybe they could be for some.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

But mate guarding is a fact of life, whether mammalian or non-mammalian animals. Look into vassopressin and oxytocin for the former and vasotocin in the latter. That said, it's not limited to monogamy.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

But I thought you are supposed to respect the mate's decision. If they want to be with you then good--but no reason to guard them against their own mind.

It's only when there's a misunderstanding or they are not aware someone is trying to threaten them (or more likely--the relationship) that they might need assistance.

I do think this can happen sometimes because men and women are socialized differently--some men might not read women's behavior accurately as other women might. Or vice versa.

It makes sense to "guard the relationship" in a way--to try to protect it as you would protect a baby animal. But only if both people want to care for the baby animal. 

If one person wants to leave--what is the point of guarding them? It takes two to tango.

It seems better that you just try to encourage them not to want to leave by treating them with respect or kindness, being considerate of them, and considering their needs and trying to help them get those needs or wants met. That way they will choose to stay because it works with their life. These are all difficult enough without also trying to guard them. Though some might be better at being vigilant and guarding.

If you both chose to honor the relationship--then you are both guarding it and working together as a team--not as one person guarding the other, imo. I have only understood it this way.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

WickerDeer said:


> What are your thoughts about polyamory and polygamy, whether it be a "throuple" (a word I recently learned) or another number?
> 
> I started thinking about this recently, just considering how many unhappy women are probably out there, and certainly, there are also many unhappy men as well.
> 
> ...


I would be too confused by the whole "sharing" thing. I want a partner who is mine and I'm hers. I also want a partner who also has her own life and I have mine, but I just think adding additional partners is a recipe for trouble. Maybe it works for a while, maybe it doesn't. It would likely be expensive to set up legal protections so everyone comes out the other side okay if it doesn't. If you can do it, my hat's off to you. I just think it complicates things that weren't meant to be that complicated. I prefer a one-on-one relationship. It's just how I am built.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Squirt said:


> It is a pdf and not sketch. Links these days... bluh. I got it from Google Scholar.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks but unfortunately, I'm being stalked on this site so any link to anything that isn't high traffic, is out of the question. But I appreciate the effort.


----------



## 8080 (Oct 6, 2020)

The sexual object of my dreams is a young god or goddess who is incredibly versatile and transformable and therefore always allows for maximum stimulation in every dimension, as required for ENTP certification. I doubt that it satisfies such a god to care for only one mortal. Perhaps he cares for 8 billion people? By the way, how many customers does the Christian God have, does he also care a little about Muslims and Buddhists? Does my God care about other mammals? It would be desirable. Anyway, he will have amazing multitasking abilities. Modest as I am, I do not demand exclusivity, I just want maximum quality. I am grateful for every minute with my God. What he does in his spare time is his business. I hope that my God will not bring any mortals when we meet. But if he manifests himself as several gods at the same time and thus orchestrates delightful interactions, I look forward to that with impatience. From his point of view it would be a 1 : n relationship, from my point of view a 1 : 1 relationship.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

ENFPathetic said:


> Why is it ok for a man to have romantic relations with multiple women but not ok to marry them?


Its not ok for a man to have relationships with multiple woman at once in our culture.
Having several partners during a whole lifespan is different, it is acceptable, but not all at the same time. However, if you have done so and regret it, I recon you should be forgiven.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

8080 said:


> The sexual object of my dreams is a young god or goddess who is incredibly versatile and transformable and therefore always allows for maximum stimulation in every dimension, as required for ENTP certification. I doubt that it satisfies such a god to care for only one mortal. Perhaps he cares for 8 billion people? By the way, how many customers does the Christian God have, does he also care a little about Muslims and Buddhists? Does my God care about other mammals? It would be desirable. Anyway, he will have amazing multitasking abilities. Modest as I am, I do not demand exclusivity, I just want maximum quality. I am grateful for every minute with my God. What he does in his spare time is his business. I hope that my God will not bring any mortals when we meet. But if he manifests himself as several gods at the same time and thus orchestrates delightful interactions, I look forward to that with impatience. From his point of view it would be a 1 : n relationship, from my point of view a 1 : 1 relationship.


----------



## bigstupidgrin (Sep 26, 2014)

I know somebody in a polyamorous relationship. I think if everybody is digging it then go for it. Life is short.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Is consent to an act the only thing that matters when we judge it? I am not convinced about that.

If a man consented to be thrown out of a plane without a parachute, we'd have little sympathy for him should he fall to his death. Why? Because his choice doesn't stand up to a cost/benefit analysis. The cost for him (death) greatly exceeds the benefit (a momentary feeling of pleasure).

While this is obviously an extreme example of hedonism, the same argument could be made to critique any choice someone makes against their own self-interest.

That being said, there are interesting arguments in favour of hedonism as well. For example, a heroin addict provides employment opportunities for drug cartels, who then spend the money they earn through selling heroin on fine food and wine, which further stimulates the economy.



https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/mandeville1732_1.pdf


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Meliodas said:


> Is consent to an act the only thing that matters when we judge it? I am not convinced about that.
> 
> If a man consented to be thrown out of a plane without a parachute, we'd have little sympathy for him should he fall to his death. Why? Because his choice doesn't stand up to a cost/benefit analysis. The cost for him (death) greatly exceeds the benefit (a momentary feeling of pleasure).
> 
> ...


I suppose that having multiple partners might be a little like falling out of a plane to your death, but I am not sure it's that comparable. 

"Cost-benefit analysis" is going to depend on your individual needs and values. What might seem like trash to one person is another person's treasure. So I do think consent is probably one of the strongest indicators of what someone really values and wants, though it's not always and that is problematic when it isn't.

I don't see how polyamory has to be considered hedonistic--perhaps someone could do it because they believe that it's right--like a religious person who is married to God (in some previous example above). That's not necessarily hedonistic.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

WickerDeer said:


> I suppose that having multiple partners might be a little like falling out of a plane to your death, but I am not sure it's that comparable.
> 
> "Cost-benefit analysis" is going to depend on your individual needs and values. What might seem like trash to one person is another person's treasure. So I do think consent is probably one of the strongest indicators of what someone really values and wants, though it's not always and that is problematic when it isn't.
> 
> I don't see how polyamory has to be considered hedonistic--perhaps someone could do it because they believe that it's right--like a religious person who is married to God (in some previous example above). That's not necessarily hedonistic.


If everyone was a drug addict, there would be nobody to care for and provide for the addicted. Hence, an action that benefits you as an individual (at least in the short term) can become a disadvantage if enough people around you make the same choice. So one of the strongest arguments against consent as morality is that it's ultimately hypocritical.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Meliodas said:


> If everyone was a drug addict, there would be nobody to care for and provide for the addicted. Hence, an action that benefits you as an individual (at least in the short term) can become a disadvantage if enough people around you make the same choice. So one of the strongest arguments against consent as morality is that it's ultimately hypocritical.


I don't think consent defines what is moral (what I mean is, consenting to something doesn't make it moral), but it is moral for people to have the right to consent.

I think taking people's consent away infringes on their individuality and freedom.

That includes taking people's freedom to have relationships that harm no one, consensually.

Drug addiction is not the same thing as a relationship, even if people sometimes act like they are on drugs when they're in one. 

And if everyone got into an open polyamorous relationship, there wouldn't necessarily be a shortage of relationships, but perhaps more opportunities for them, so it wouldn't disadvantage anyone.

And usually with love, if people are "addicted" then both of them can consent (or however many)--it's not some one-sided thing like a drug addict and a caregiver, imo. If romance or sex is the drug, then it is something people can get from each other without one having to become responsible and the other dependent. It is a win-win situation.

Sure, marrying God might make it a little more difficult for everyone, if everyone did it--because then there wouldn't be any children and the species would end, unless there was some kind of spontaneous pregnancy like with the Virgin Mary, but I think that's kind of uncommon in reality.

But I doubt that everyone would choose to "marry God" if they had the right to consent to other types of relationships--so in that way giving people the freedom to choose their relationships by consent is less problematic than trying to force everyone to do the same thing.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

A society where individual freedom is the highest value places a great deal of responsibility upon its citizens to exercise reason and act prudently. Also, the absence of any legal restrictions creates a power vacuum, one in which non-state actors like media outlets, NGOs and corporations can start to police our personal behaviour. This form of censorship is ubiquitous in America and it is also a good deal less consistent and more biased than the law would be.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

That is why in a civilized society, every individual should have access to higher education should they want to improve their reasoning skills or knowledge, and it should be egalitarian so that the greatest amount of people can have a good quality of life that allows them to exercise reason and act prudently to their best abilities.

The media outlets, ngos, and corporations can police our personal behavior even with legal restrictions on relationships--limiting their power with regulations can reduce that--having laws against consensual relationships does not. I do not see how they are related.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

It’s not my cup of tea.

Need to be super clear. I don’t care what other consenting adults do. Let live, let be. 

I do get sorta annoyed with couples who go on just normal dating sites (not fetish and couple ones), and bother miscellaneous singles. It’s often patronizing, and sometimes just cringe. 

I usually have: “fuck off don’t wanna be your unicorn” on my header. But still. I just cringe even passing them. Again I don’t care what they do. I just don’t know why the fuck they are fishing in the pond they are. 

Anyways I don’t mind chatting with poly people. Like literally just chatting to talk to as human. I had considered the idea and entertained it.

It’s just not who I am. Not a lifestyle I’m interested in. 

While I’m able to be more chill about casual sex. 

I’m absolutely conservative about love. I rarely love. And I’m not sharing. And I don’t feel bad about that. Anyone who wants more than me isn’t a love for me. And if I want others to love than I’m not in love with them. How do I know this? Because I’ve actually been In love. 

I’m not saying some of these throples don’t love each other. I’m sure some do.

That’s just not what is right for me. As I said I’m romantically conservative. Even if more chill about sex. 

But getting past that... uh fuck no. Geez the work involved. Either you’re sharing or you’re managing between multiple parties. Bleh why would I want more work than a normal relationship. 🤣 No thanks.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

WickerDeer said:


> What are your thoughts about polyamory and polygamy, whether it be a "throuple" (a word I recently learned) or another number?
> 
> I started thinking about this recently, just considering how many unhappy women are probably out there, and certainly, there are also many unhappy men as well.
> 
> ...


Not a big fan of polygamy, but I have no issue and don't judge people that are into polygamy, as long as their partners are also into polygamy and aware of it.

It's weird, it's taboo for me and a bit repulsive, but just because I find it that way, it doesn't mean others can't enjoy it. There are a lot of things in this world I don't like and other people do, I see no issue with it. Not every different is bad.

There are people mad at polygamy or homosexuality, in my opinion, they're too angry all the time, they need to calm down and reasses the situation.

Hypothetically, if I ever was in a polygamous relationship, willingly, I imagine I would have a hard time developing and emotional connection through small talk and big talk. That would be my issue.

Of course, you can go throguh small talk: music, movies, weather, arts, entertainment, sports, family, food, work, school, travel, celebrity gossip, hobbies, hometown or look around and find things that you can use to make conversation. You can also transition from small talk to big talk and talk about the deeper concepts of life: money, poverty, justice, fairness, happiness, motivation, desire, knowledge, communication. And even transition from the deeper concepts of life to about personal issues with your life: struggles, failures, fears, doubts, insecurities, regrets, worries, and the other one responds with warmth and reassurance. Even if you could do that with all your polygamous partners, it doesn't feel so personal, it doesn't feel special, it doesn't feel unique.

Of coruse, I'm talking from the perspective on a non-polygamous who never wants to be into polygamy so I may be completely off the mark, but that's how I imagine it.

An issue with polygamy is: is that person really into polygamy? or were they influenced by someone out of naivety? I assume people don't just suddenly wake up one day and decide to be polygamous, and it's not like homosexuality where it's biolgoical. In monogamy, you got to find someone without experience and teach them if they don't know. In polygamy, I assume it's the same, but I find it very weird to find someone without experience and teach them to have multiple partners. Maybe it's weird to me by perfectly normal for you, I don't know.

There's also a social aspect of polygamy, in today's 21st century society is probably frowned upon. Sure, you can have the confidence that says "confidence that yes". Confidence that she will say yes. Which will probably help you in social situations when people look down on you. But how much is this going to help you? really?

You can have all the confidence in the world, all the self-assuredness in the world, people are still going to judge you for being polygamous. And yes _"don't care what other people think, but up to a point"_, don't care what other people think, but you should care what other people think when you walk naked on the street. You should care what other people think when you get stuck in a public toilet. People are going to laugh at you, it's going to be humiliating for you, and that is not good.

Obviously, if you are polygamous you are unconventional. You can be unconventional and own it. Own it. Own your unconventionality. But even this one has to be up to a point, because as stated above, people judge, and it's not nice to get people to laugh at you or point you with the finger. I agree that it's not you, society is wrong. But it is what it is and that won't change society.

Sure, you can talk it through like "I don't care" or make jokes about it, but deep down I think you know it's something that eats you inside, that you're being judged by society for being different, even if you are in the right, they have the numbers. Don't hide yourself behind jokes for so much time. Try to have an open discussion with whom you can. Especially the people that you are in a polygamous relationship with. Have an honest and simple discussion. Sometimes the overuse of jokes are a way to compensate.

But I'm not sure exactly what one would have to do if he were in such a situation. Clearly society is going to shunn you for being different, even if you are in the right. Probably be more discreet about it. Own your unconventionality but only up to a point. Don't care what other people think but only up to a point, so that people won't laugh at you, so that you won't have an humiliating experience, because it's not nice to get people to laugh at you or point you with the finger, and you may be in the right but they have the numbers.


----------



## Andy 8184 (May 24, 2021)

Polygyny could work and be efficient after a war, where the male population is significantly decreased and the country is in need of more babies. 

I can't think of any circumstance where polyandry would work or be needed. If anything, it would lower the birth rates even more, and that's a huge problem in Europe.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Andy 8184 said:


> Polygyny could work and be efficient after a war, where the male population is significantly decreased and the country is in need of more babies.
> 
> I can't think of any circumstance where polyandry would work or be needed. If anything, it would lower the birth rates even more, and that's a huge problem in Europe.


Polyandry works in environments where there are few resources. So having multiple fathers allows the children to have more resources than just having one. If there is still one woman to take care of the children, and yet two fathers to go out and get resources to support the family.

It would lower the birth rate, but in communities that lack resources, that's sometimes helpful for the survival of the children that are already born, since they may be in danger of starving etc. and so imo voluntary birth control makes sense.


* *





Imo, in Europe, they should make an effort to culturally become more friendly to families and less to industry and that might encourage people to have larger families. So obviously making having a family more affordable, but also even shifts in entertainment and stuff and work, so that people can work from home (so have a better work/family balance--which we see works fine since many businesses have been able to do it for pandemic but were somehow incapable when it was to prioritize families).

I mean, I'm not from Europe, I'm from the US, so Europe already has more family-friendly policies imo, but I don't really see significant acceptance of putting family and community above business and profits anywhere. And I think that since the industrial revolution, we've been basically treating humans like oxen and expecting them to breed--and after a while people will not want to anymore under those types of conditions. 

Instead of just forcing them to breed the way we would cattle (by denying birth control), seems like maybe respecting how they would want to assemble and what would make them want to choose to start families makes more sense.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Andy 8184 said:


> Polygyny could work and be efficient after a war, where the male population is significantly decreased and the country is in need of more babies.
> 
> I can't think of any circumstance where polyandry would work or be needed. If anything, it would lower the birth rates even more, and that's a huge problem in Europe.


Birthrates need to globally decline because of a shrinking job market. AI/robotics is here to stay and will only improve with time. This includes taking over many lucrative occupations, including the medical field, tech, law, etc.


----------



## Andy 8184 (May 24, 2021)

WickerDeer said:


> Polyandry works in environments where there are few resources. So having multiple fathers allows the children to have more resources than just having one. If there is still one woman to take care of the children, and yet two fathers to go out and get resources to support the family.
> 
> It would lower the birth rate, but in communities that lack resources, that's sometimes helpful for the survival of the children that are already born, since they may be in danger of starving etc. and so imo voluntary birth control makes sense.
> 
> ...


Polyandry might work in a society like the one you describe but I can't imagine it happening for some reason.

The problem in Europe is not mainly about family friendly policies(although they would help), because not even the rich are having children. It's about the hedonistic mindset and the ultra individualism that is constantly being pushed in the media and the whole career above family that you mentioned previously. And don't get me started on modern feminism or anti natalism and stuff like that. You have these things in USA too, so you know what I mean. 

Nobody wants to ban birth control (if by birth control you mean preventing pregnancies and not the other thing). I'm just saying that we need more children. I think the average age in our country is 67 or something. A society like this can't survive.


----------



## Andy 8184 (May 24, 2021)

mia-me said:


> Birthrates need to globally decline because of a shrinking job market. AI/robotics is here to stay and will only improve with time. This includes taking over many lucrative occupations, including the medical field, tech, law, etc.


No, they don't. But if you want to advocate for lower birthrates you should focus on Africa and Asia, not Europe. 

A society with such heavy automation will/would suck. People would lose all meaning. But even in such a society I can't imagine how a country full of old retired people would function.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Andy 8184 said:


> No, they don't. But if you want to advocate for lower birthrates you should focus on Africa and Asia, not Europe.
> 
> A society with such heavy automation will/would suck. People would lose all meaning. But even in such a society I can't imagine how a country full of old retired people would function.


All countries need to reduce birthrates since it's a global economy. As far as a country full of old people, AI can care for them too. Hong Kong has already started the process by signing a contract for simple medical care by AI/robots.


----------



## letsrunlikecrazy (Sep 21, 2015)

I don't care if other people do it, but for myself, I'd be deeply skeptical if a partner suggested a polyamorous arrangement. I prefer to invest in a single relationship with one person. I don't have the emotional bandwidth for seeing multiple guys or dealing with the other wife or whatever. Not to mention, I'm too proud to deal with being one of multiple. No. There can only be *one*.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Meliodas said:


> An idle woman is the devil's playground.


Damn, that sounds cool. When put like that I'm torn on what to do.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

As far as answering the OP: i don't really care what consenting adults do behind closed doors.

As far as myself, no, because relationships take time and emotional investment and such and I'm not willing to spend finate resources like time across multiple people in this way that sounds exhausting. 

I'd maybe be alright with a hypothetical partner being poly and dating me and others. It's hard to say. I wouldn't be okay with my partner suddenly wanting that because i know he isn't into that, so a drastic change would be weird and i don't think I'd go for that, no. If it was something a hypothetical relationship started with than maybe. I would not be okay with a hypothetical relationship in which some dude wanted to be poly and all the women to only be with him though, that seems a bit gross to me.


----------



## Whippit (Jun 15, 2012)

There was a time when I was young when I thought I'd be polyamorous. There's definitely a part of me that's built that way. But with a lot of life experience behind me, that shit would be too much work. Be it evolutionary, or cultural, romantic involvements take commitment and work. And I really haven't seen much evidence that generally speaking this is a case of "many hands make light work". I think poly might work best in certain places and times and with people with certain temperaments, they certainly aren't mine.

Maybe I'll feel differently when I'm like 60 or something, who knows? My romantic and sexual views have definitely shifted since I was in my 20's in surprising ways. But then again, I'm pretty content with what I have with my primary and no ancillaries, and I'm not particularly romantically/sexually voracious in a way that I could see could motivate me that direction.


----------

