I rather love that phrase.It's a lot easier to put on slippers than it is to carpet the world.
I rather love that phrase.It's a lot easier to put on slippers than it is to carpet the world.
The other reason is because women ask "why can't men commit to one woman?" Science helps them understand why that is.
"What do you think about the arguments against polyamory? Do you think they are valid or not?"
I think how people handle jealousy is also just as important. It's not like you're either jealous or you're not and there's nothing that can be done about it. Jealous people need to see their value in relationships and express jealousy in healthy manners. Once they do that, they can get rid of jealousy. The problem is many people don't want to be self aware and deal with their insecurities.Re (from Isaiah990):
Some of them have merit, and deserve consideration. Others of them are absurd, and don't deserve the time of day.
STD concerns always deserve consideration; however, it isn't necessarily true that polyamorists are more at risk for STD's than monogamists. The secretive nature of a monogamist having an affair may even make monogamy the more risky lovestyle, in that regard.
Jealousy concerns are understandable; however, it's just not true that jealousy unravels every polyamorous relationship. I've been in a polyamorous relationship for over 15 years, and have even experienced jealousy in the past, but it hasn't ruined the relationship, not even close. And there are many poly success stories similar to mine.
It is true that jealousy does undo some poly relationships. And it's true that some poly relationships result in the spread of STD's. The key word here is *some* -- and then the question becomes, how many. In the case of STD's I would say the answer is, "Very few." In the case of jealousy I would say, "More often than the spread of STD's, but still not that many. Maybe 10%?"
There's nothing wrong with monogamy, per se. The natural health of any relationship doesn't depend on whether it's monogamous. It depends on other things, such as honesty and kindness within the relationship. The problem arises when people are brainwashed into living monogamously even when that is not a good fit for them.
For me it's real simple. As long as everyone in a poly relationship consents to the arrangement, they're not really hurting anyone, and thus their poly arrangement is perfectly natural and okay. The magic word here is *consent.*
Regards,
Kevin T.
When I was monogamous, I wanted to prove non monogamous relationships were unnatural.
Really?
Why?
I don't think we've had a big influx of players. We have one troll who was banned, and is back under a new name, and is being watched. We have Isaiah, who has an agenda, but I think is fairly harmless. I don't see a huge trend that we need to question. We've had trolls, and people with agendas, and people who were just writing fiction before. We have a whole bunch of new mods now who are keeping track. I don't see people circling a prison yard. That metaphor seems rather dramatic and paranoid to me.I feel that way about this whole new influx of "players" this forum has attracted. Just... why? What good could possibly come from approaching a social interaction like we're all circling each other in the prison yard, waiting to see who is going to make a move first? Is the goal to have lots of one night stands filled with resentment and regret?
Regardless of the issues that got these people started down this path, I still say that the solution they are trying to apply is simply going to alienate more theoretical women.
Right, sexist men claim women are choosy and not as interested in sex as much as men. Scientists ran tests which showed this is not true. Women want sex as much as men do. People conducted surveys where female volunteers agreed to give honest answers on sex in exchange for anonymity. The results were that women wanted sex just as much as men. The issue is women are judged harshly for being promiscuous and men aren't. There's also other biological factors which I'll explain in another post.I'm going to say I don't judge Isaiah for bringing forward a little biological research that supports the idea that humans are just as promiscuous as the rest of the animal kingdom. I see no need to be afraid of the idea that promiscuity is natural, as is being gay or trans or asexual.
Patriarchal society quite recently put forward the idea that women do not have sex drives at all, so therefore are resistant to having sex with anyone! But women were told they must have sex with their husband to satisfy his carnal desires and produce children for him.
We were told that men have overwhelmingly strong, almost uncontrollable sex drives and would fuck anything that moves. Therefore, while men should get married and support a woman and the heirs she carries for him, it is excusable if he has premarital sex with "loose women," and then later cheats with "loose, slutty" women.
(If he cheats with other men, in our current culture this is more problematic. However, in ancient times, in many cultures, homosexuality was seen as normal, even superior to MF love, and it was highly encouraged. Times change! Societies promote what works best for their agendas.)
We have been moving beyond this idea of lifelong MF monogamy since about the 1890s, but it's still in our psyches. Why not counter it with the evidence that women do have sex drives, that women can and will desire not just one man, but many men?
I don't think Isaiah is "preaching to the choir" here. Maybe you regulars think non-monogamy is fine and dandy, so we shouldn't explain its roots here. Are you forgetting that many people who are just curious about poly, or on the fence, or even quite desperate for information, come here every day to read and learn about polyamory? Maybe they haven't heard about recent polls which reveal that most people desire multiple partners, that it is natural to do so, that it's not sick or wrong or sinful to find someone other than your legal spouse attractive.
My ex-husband certainly tried to tell me that I was bad and wrong for having a roving eye, for seeing other men as attractive. He also distrusted my sexual/romantic interest in other women. I would have welcomed more information about non-monogamy back in the 1970s, 80s, 90s and early 2000s.
I see nothing wrong with researching science and history to see the variety of ways humans have mated, created bonds and families. Not everyone is as confident about their polyamory choices as you regulars here.
Have you ever read the book Against Nature by Huysmans? It's a masterpiece of decadent literature. Feel free to look it up.As someone who used to have a lot of one night stands, I can confidently say there was no resentment or regret
I keep reminding myself that Isaiah is of a generation that has received lot of positive messages about consent, but also possibly to the loss of flirting culture since so much is done with a swipe, not in a bar with eye contact and the passing of a pool cue.
My big concern here is the natural/unnatural dichotomy.
I agree that there are political and social narratives around monogamy that require exposition, including and perhaps especially the historical ones (such as lineage and inheritance). But to call one state natural and the other unnatural...well, historically, that's been problematic in many ways and I'd prefer to learn from the past and not "other" anyone.
Let's not call anyone's love style unnatural. There's no need for it.
You regularly mention the idea of biologically natural polyamory and nobody blinks an eye. Nobody is afraid. Why do you think that your research and reports have gone largely unchallenged for years here while Isaiah is getting all this blow back?I see no need to be afraid of the idea that promiscuity is naturaI.....I see nothing wrong with researching science and history to see the variety of ways humans have mated, created bonds and families.
I'd happily accept anyone, natural or not, as long as they aren't doing harm to others. I see that monogamy imposed by the patriarchy to suppress women's personhood does harm. Therefore, I am against it.My issue with the describing one or the other as unnatural is that it is too easy to discriminate against or outright persecute what one deems unnatural.
You regularly mention the idea of biologically natural polyamory and nobody blinks an eye. Nobody is afraid. Why do you think that your research and reports have gone largely unchallenged for years here while Isaiah is getting all this blow back?
You regularly mention the idea of biologically natural polyamory and nobody blinks an eye. Nobody is afraid. Why do you think that your research and reports have gone largely unchallenged for years here while Isaiah is getting all this blow back?
You, um, clearly haven’t read far enough back in old posts to know people’s identities. @dingedheart is definitely a dude and had a rather… unfortunate introduction to polyamory, to say the least.The only people brave enough to argue with her are the newbies or other lesbians like dingedheart.
Someone who takes the initiative to learn a little something about social interaction, attraction, and dating so he can actually achieve multiple female sexual partners.
I mean, a hetero man that actually thinks and strategizes about sex?
You, um, clearly haven’t read far enough back in old posts to know people’s identities. @dingedheart is definitely a dude and had a rather… unfortunate introduction to polyamory, to say the least.