Polyamory

Honestly, I think people should take issues of sexuality with more of the objective, scientific idea over an emotional concept. That way there is a better chance of giving a more open and honest dialogue without bias.

One of the kids at my work was asking how I knew I was gay. I answered simply (he was 16 so I figured old enough to have a meaningful discussion) that I noticed while I could appreciate the beauty or attractive qualities of both genders, only women could arouse any sexual interest in me. He asked if I had anyone in my family who was gay. I answered no. But apparently my girlfriend's uncle had some unusual tendencies the family couldn't verify.

The boy responded something really profound. He said it's like being the child of an alcoholic. You may have that tendency, but we still have the choice to act on it. And just like alcohol, we have to use it in a responsible and trustworthy way or it can hurt us.

I immediately thought his correlation a bit extreme, but as I asked him for a minute to ponder, I realized he was more spot on than any relationship expert or psychologist I had ever met.

What do you guys think?

"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc

Well, it covers two out of three of the aspects: biological inherentness and psychological decision to act on an urge.

The third aspect is sociological pressure, or how society's treatment of things like homosexuality, polyamory, and other sexual concepts will dictate how people act, just like other aspects of society dictate how people respond to certain situations.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Social pressure for/against drink?... seems to qualify on all 3 criteria.

'Don't beg for anything, do it yourself, or else you won't get anything.'

Well, I like the fun argument of "lax laws on homosexuality make for more homosexuals!" As we decrease the laws against homosexuality—for example, all laws against sodomy (anal sex) were struck down in... '03, I want to say, by the Supreme Court—and society becomes more tolerant, it appears that the number of homosexuals actually increases.

Except, no, not really, what is happening is that more homosexuals who already existed but hid in well-armored closets are now coming out because society is more accepting of them. I'm fairly sure the percentage of the population that is homosexual holds constant somewhere around 5-15%, but we rarely see that out in the open because society is so repressive against them. As we ease up on things, however, it seems like there's more, when in reality nothing changed except the number of those who chose to act on their biological preference, as the message of society made it seem, at least to them, like this was now appropriate and acceptable.

I am now known as Flyboy.

"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc

I can't wrap my mind around the kid of an alcoholic analog. Can't all forms of sexuality (and perhaps a-sexuality) hurt us if we use them irresponsible, not just the non-heteronormative types?

I actually think I read somewhere that this is pretty common, at least in theoretically "monogamous" songbirds — basically, the birds are willing to cheat, but only if they think that their mate cannot see them. And there are "punished" by the mate if they are discovered.

Some links about this.

edited 6th Dec '11 3:39:40 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

@ Sveni, that was his point. Love and relationships in general need to be respected and moderated or it can consume and hurt the person.

"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc

Massive thread necro!

I saw an article on polyandry and thought this thread was a better place to put it. I know one polyandrist trio who've been together for somewhere over a decade, and the wife has one child from each husband*

.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Pretty interesting. Makes sense, in my mind. From my understanding of human cultures, things rarely pop up only once. It would be unusual for a concept like polyandry to only appear in one area of Tibet. Also, I think I remember reading about polyandry in India. Such as the story of Draupadi

boop

I have issues with polyandry. They're basically the same as my issues with polygyny. Polyandry and polygyny is too one-sided. In polyandry, the woman can have multiple partners, but the men can't. In polygyny, the man can have multiple partners, but the women can't. Both sides should be allowed to have multiple partners.

Unless it's polyandry/gyny because none of the people involved want to bring a fourth person into it.

edited 1st Feb '13 6:49:22 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Then it's not polyandry or polygyny. Polyandry is a form of polyamory/polygamy in which only the women are allowed to have multiple partners. Polygyny is a form of polyamory/polygamy in which only the men are allowed to have multiple partners. If the men/women are allowed to have multiple partners, but choose not to, then it isn't polyandry/polygyny.

Eh, I dunno. Some people might be happy with only having one partner, even if their partner has other partners.

I mean, obviously, if someone's in a polyandrist relationship, and they really want another girlfriend/wife, then that's different. But if they're perfectly happy with it, I don't see any reason to tell them they're wrong for being happy.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

And nor do I, but that doesn't make it polyandry/polygyny. Polyandry and polygyny require that the men/women are not allowed to date multiple people. If the men/women are allowed to, but CHOOSE not to, then it isn't polyandry/polygyny.

What if they're not allowed, but wouldn't choose even if given the choice? Heck, what if they get off on not being allowed?

edited 1st Feb '13 7:11:49 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Well, what name do you want to call it then?

"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc

Then that's polyandry/polygyny, and I oppose it.

I don't know?

Polyamory.

If they don't have a choice, then it's not voluntary, if that's what you're getting at.

Point is, even if you have a problem with polyandry/gyny, they don't, so I don't think they ought to be judged for it. Doing so isn't any better than people who oppose polyamory because they're monogamous.

edited 1st Feb '13 7:22:45 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

<Mod Hat ON>

Hold your horses here, people. This thread has been civil up to now. Mostly because it has been stated, several times, that it is NOT about "I like it it/I don't like it", "I think it's morally fine/I think it's morally wrong" or "I think it's hot/I think it's repulsive".

It is not going to be allowed to veer into that territory now.

Also, there is a difference between polyandry/polygyny and polyamory: the former are legal statuses that are also culturally accepted. The latter is not, it is a relationship dynamic that is extremely variable and fluid. There is another thread to talk about polyandry/polygyny here. Use that one for that topic.

<Mod Hat OFF>

edited 1st Feb '13 7:53:35 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

<Mod Hat ON>

Cassidy, what did I just say in the post directly above yours?

This thread is not about whether you oppose it or not, about whether you think it's right or not, about whether you think it should be allowed or not.

Stop, now.

<Mod Hat OFF>

edited 1st Feb '13 8:07:21 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Apologies for starting this argument. I was hoping to get a discussion on whether gender imbalances would encourage polyandry in the modern day the way it did in those rare societies where it was common.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Sorry. That post took a while to write and I was doing other things, so I didn't see anything until after I posted it.