Polyfidelity

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Oniw17, Feb 20, 2007.

  1. Meanwhile Banned Banned

    Messages:
    480
    I suppose for the sensuously stubby, complete and wholehearted possession between two single souls is something too sophisticatedly responsible and free flowing.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    That's arguable. One of the unique things about Homo sapiens is that it takes many, many years to raise our young. I think the second-longest childrearing period for a mammal is only about two years, for elephants and whales. If there's anything "serial" about human family life, it's parenthood! Before contraception was available it was the norm for a couple to have at least one really immature child in the home for more than twenty years. That lifestyle requires two parents.

    I'm not aware of any paleontological research into the mating habits of our distant ancestors, which would tell us what our instincts "designed" us for. Jean Auel, who did a lot of research for her books, hypothesizes that Mesolithic humans:

    1. Did not understand sexuality and reproduction, did not know of the connection between intercourse and pregnancy, and therefore did not realize that children have "fathers";
    2. Were sexually promiscuous;
    3. Raised children in a highly communal manner because the men were often away on hunting excursions and the women had plenty of work to do besides child care;
    4. Yet... nonetheless organized themselves into couples who lived as family units with the mother's children, to the extent possible for a people who were nomads for half the year and lived in caves the other half.

    I don't know how much of this is based on knowledge and how much on guesswork.

    Our closest cousins are the chimpanzees, who do not live as couples and are rather violent. Our second-closest cousins are the bonobos who are as peaceful and promiscuous as hippies. Our third-closest cousins are the gorillas, in which only the patriarch of the tribe mates with the females, but the females initiate it, and younger males drift away when they reach puberty.

    Nonetheless there are other monogamous species of warm-blooded animals out there, particularly birds. Many parrots mate for life, as do bald eagles.

    My analysis is that humans have a monogamous instinct, which shows up in the marriage rituals that evolve in almost all societies. Yet men have a competing instinct to spread their seed widely. In women the instinct for monogamy is much stronger, especially after childbirth. Yet our uniquely huge forebrains give us the ability to override our instincts with reasoned and learned behavior, or with sheer curiosity. If we reason or learn that a lifestyle other than monogamy can be practiced successfully, many of us will try it out. We might even do it out of curiosity.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    "In the open marriage style relationships in which the members who consider themselves committed life partners nonetheless permit outside, sexual, romantic and loving relationships outside the marriage in a way that is agreed upon by the marital partners."

    There's nothing wring with that as long as you are married to only ONE person. The purpose of marriage is to create a lasting unit for a single purpose, for the sharing of dreams. Marrying more then one person is just... well, too much. And it would probably feel really awkard.

    The reason why an open marriage is healthier then a regular traditional one is because the couple becomes increasingly more secure and trusting, and the relationship is kept fresh.

    The key is to not have a serious relationship with more then one person. Having sex with other people? Who cares!? Sex is overrated.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Oh, and of course, you can't just have sex for the sake of sex. There has to be some friendship. Otherwise its just... well, useless...
     
  8. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    You are assuming all adults are good parents, or that all adults want children and will have children, or that all adults even care about children at all. That whole arguement is based on ideals and not so much on reality. Statistics do not match anything you just wrote. The divorce rate outnumbers the success rate, and we as humans do a horrible job taking care of our children, and the result is, look at all the children suffering, and look at the way we current treat children. Do you really think we are doing the best job we can?

    Some couples never had children. There was always birth control, even going back to ancient times. Children also suffer due to divorce. Monogamy is not the problem, divorce is the problem. Serial monogamy is worse for a child than for a child to have multiple mothers and fathers. I think you can do the math and see that.

    Many people had multiple wives. Multiple partners were actually the norm. Monogamy is not the norm and it's proven by the fact that most people cheat. If most people cheat, and most people divorce, then something is wrong with monogamy. It's hard to say that almost 60%, the majority, are all wrong and that monogamy is natural when the majority can't handle it. If the majority are not designed for one lifetime partner, and it's expressed due to their inability to stay with a partner for a lifetime, thats proof that the instinct to be with multiple partners is stronger than the instinct to commit to one partner.

    Most people do not support monogamy, most people promote serial monogamy, which in my opinion is worse than polyamory. In polyamory the children always have a mother and father, because the other mothers or other fathers will step in. In serial monogamy, as is the case with divorce, you had situations where the father is just gone, and becomes a financial person who makes payments, or where the mother is gone and paying child support. The situation is pointless, it's painful for the children, and it does not benefit anyone. A polyamory relationship would reduce the excuses for divorce, cheating would no longer be an excuse for divorce. It would be like forcing people to keep everyone they ever married, instead of letting a guy run away from his responsbiility by divorcing and finding a replacement wife, that guy would have to pay for both wives, essentially forever. It would also means she'd have to keep both of her husbands if she has more than one.

    You show no evidence for this. In ancient times it was legal to have multiple wives. In fact most kings, princes, and people of importance did have multiple wives. Polyamory would allow for both genders to have multiple marriages at the same time. Since most people marry more than once, why not have all your marriages at once? it's more time efficient. It's rational.

    If your hypothesis were true, divorce would not be as common. Humans would marry only once in their lifetime and would mate literally for life. I don't see that happening. Most people marry more than once. So to me, you are just pulling stuff out of a hat. When divorce is outlawed, then you can say humans are monogamous, but until divorce is illegal, humans will remain serially monogamous, which is just another way of having polyamory.

    So if you are going to live the polyamorous lifestyle, and love more than one person in your lifetime, if you do it properly there is no such thing as cheating, you can love as many people at the same time as you want, so you wont have a reason to give up your current partner for a "better" partner because you can have both at the same time. It's time efficient. It decreases divorces, which benefits the children. For some people, who simply are not capable of doing monogamy, this option might a actually be their best option.

    If a person is known to cheat, and known to marry a lot of times, why shouldnt they just go with polyamory? They are doing it anyway by cheating or by having multiple marriages so why not just have them keep everyone they've ever loved and then you actually do have lifetime relationships, how is it better than polyamory if it's the same thing yet called another word? The behavior is the same.

    Monogamy does not include "divorce" or "cheating". So explain divorcing and cheating if you think humans are so monogamous. If this instinct is so popular, why is divorce and cheating more popular than monogamy? why is serial monogamy [polyamory] so popular?

    These are ignorant stereotypes. Women cheat just as much as men cheat. Women actually intiate most divorces, not men. You think men are the only people who are serially monogamous? women are serially monogamous too. Serial monogamy is the same behavior as polyamory. Basically if you cheat on all your partners you are no better off than if you just had sex with them all properly in a polyamorous relationship. Maybe you'd actually be able to keep them all that way. So it's actually in the cheaters advantage to be polyamorous and not try to pretend to be for monogamy.

    If a person cannot do monogamy they should not try and force themselves into being something they are not designed to be, just to make society happy. If a person cannot be with one woman or one man, why try? Why bother with the lying, and cheating?
    Why waste the energy of covering up your actions, why feel the shame and the guilt, when you can just be up front and tell the individual "I'm not a monogamous person, I require an open relationship." Case closed. If you are this kind of person, just be real and be yourself, find a woman who wants polyamory, and enjoy having multiple girlfriends or multiple boyfriends. Why bother cheating when you can have multiple partners SAFELY? Cheating spreads STDs, not polyamory.

    I support polyamory not because I think it's best for me. I support polyamory because it's actually safer. When people are honest with each other, and open, and true about themselves, relationships are stronger, last longer, and more stable. This is better for the children. when people don't have to feel guilt or shame, and don't have to cheat, they can be much safer and protect each other from STDs. Most STDs come from cheating, someone you are with cheats on you and brings home an STD and suddenly you get sick. This does not have to occur.

    If you follow the rules of polyamory, each new girlfriend or boyfriend should be thoroughly checked. What's wrong with this? it's safer, it's more rational, it's time efficient, and it allows people to be honest about who they really are.

    All I can say is monogamy is not for everyone. Some people just are not designed for it. Instead of trying to force them to do something they are not designed for, we need to design something for these people who cheat and who cannot have just one partner.

    I'm not endorsing polyamory for myself. I'm endorsing polyamory for people who cannot do monogamy. I can do monogamy, but I also recognize that I'm not most people. I think most people cannot do monogamy, most people DO cheat, and why should a person rather cheat and feel shame and guilt, when they can simply be upfront and honest with the person they love and tell that person that they need an open relationship.

    If someone is honest with me, and is a polyamorist, and wants that sort of relationship, I could still be with them, because that shows EMOTIONAL commitment, and LOYALTY, which is more valueable than superficial concepts like "monogamy". Monogamy is only real until the person cheats on you, then it's automatically polyamory.Monogamy exists only until the divorce is filed, then it's over.

    Polyamory is just the more advanced and proper form of serial monogamy. I say people should choose, based on their own internal design, what is best for them. Myself, while monogamy would be preferable, I'd just as easily accept polyamory. What I will not accept is serial monogamy, in the improper forms. Cheating is not the proper form. Cheating puts my life at risk, and it's unsafe, it destroys trust, it destroys loyalty, which kills the bond. Cheating is BAD for any relationship.

    However if I have a girlfriend who wants an open relationship, and we both agree ot the rules on how to go about doing it, suddenly I have more freedom, suddenly I can have sex with whoever I want as long as I follow the rules and processes we agree to, as security for ourselves. When done in this way, we will still have trust, we will still have loyalty, and the relationship can hold up.

    Do you see how open relationships are more advanced for people because they adapt to people?
    You have to be flexible enough to adapt to your man or your woman, if your woman WANTS to cheat on you but is honest enough to ASK for an open relationship, thats a very good thing. It's something we should promote. If your man wants to cheat on you, but instead comes to you and tells you he wants to discuss it with you first, you should have that discussion.

    The main point I'm trying to make is monogamy is not for everyone. If you think it's for you, fine, but it might not be for everyone, and you should make sure the person you are with can handle it. If you get cheated on, then monogamy was not for that person who cheated on you, and you'd have been better off just having an open relationship from the start. It's too late to go back, so you should have the polyamory discussion early on, and if they are truly for monogamy, and they cheat, they should know that the consequences for cheating are x100 more severe. You should put it out on the table and just tell them, they can have an open and honest relationship, and you should offer it to them, and if they demand monogamy, but then they will have done it because they WANTED to cheat on you. You will have given them other options which they'd have refused to take and they'd have consciously chose the worst option.
     
  9. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023

    What if you get bored with your wife, or your wife gets bored with you? If you can only get married to one person why get married at all?

    You can raise kids without being married, and your children can have two mothers, or three mothers and it won't hurt them, in fact the bigger family might help them and help with raising them.
     
  10. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Yes, that might work.

    But do you know why lesbians and gays want the right to get married? Cause there are a lot of legal benefits for married people....!
     
  11. Carl HZ Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    How does one marry two women and not break the laws
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,762
    It's not illegal everywhere.
     
  13. Carl HZ Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    I have been asked by two wealthy Chinese sisters to live together in a polyfidelity relationship. I have
    a lot of thought on this arrangement and need to talk to others who live in a polyfidelity family.
    Can three record one marriage and marry another without government restrictions in the US?
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,762
    It is illegal in all 50 states.

    Try these places:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page