How has my story changed? I’ve been saying the exact same things and pounding the exact same points for the entire thread.
My position: Polyamory is not a clinically recognized orientation.
Your position: That doesn’t mean it’s not real.
My position" That’s true but I’ll still wait for the science before I call it an orientation.
For whatever reason, you guys think I’m being unreasonable in that regard and that I should have to call it an orientation without clinical confirmation. Why should I?
I’m not asking you to agree with me, you’re asking me to agree with YOU. You guys are trying to change MY mind, I’m not trying to change yours. I don’t care if YOU want to call polyamory an orientation, but I’m not going to until I see proof. Yiu guys seem to think that’s unreasonable on my part.
“Act like” in terms of ME using the word “orientation” before there’s any clinical recognition.
All I object to is using the word “orientation” until it’s clinically recognized as such. Since I don’t think such recognition is legally relevant, I don’t understand why you care that I prefer to wait for the science when it come to my choice of terminology.
It DOESN’T exist as a clinically recognized orientation. That’s a fact. What other criteria should I use for the word “exist?” Your say so?
This is a distortion and you know it. I haven’t said ANYTHING about “poly people” because I’m still waiting for evidence that they exist. My rhetorical comment about “banging everyone you’re attracted to” was part of a larger question about how we’re supposed to DISTINGUISH between poly and mono oriented people.
So quit making claims you can’t back, then,’
The only one doing that is you. You are the one who wants to assert the existence of a heretofore unrecognized sexual orientation. You’re the one who needs to back it up.
A fact you’ve been asserting but haven’t provided any evidence for.
Dio, why are you doing this? I can see what you said earlier. I can see exactly where you suggested that polyamorous people don’t need to “bang everyone they’re attracted to”.
Funny that I saw a lot more assertions than questions.
We’ve already done that. Ensign Edison posted evidence that plenty of other people claim the same thing. You have tried to discount that evidence in two ways: (1) by coming up with hypotheticals that maybe they’re all confused or lying, and (2) by making the ridiculous assertion that it’s reasonable to ignore any piece of evidence that’s not in scientific journals.
Meanwhile, I find I’m still waiting on all that scientific literature you claims confirms your assertions about homosexuality.
Huh? Are you now trying to argue that polyamory IS a clinically recognized orientation? Cite? Even Ensign has already conceded that it isn’t.
I didn’t single out polyamorous people, I said “you” (as in the generic “you” as in people in general) don’t have to bang everyone you’re attracted to. Do you disagree with that? Is it your position that poly people DO have to bang everyone they’re attracted to. What the hell is your point?
Yeah, I’ve noticed that you have a tendancy not to see the questions.
Untrue. I came up with hypotheticals for neither. Maybe you’re confusing me with Miller. I’ve said that I take Ensign’s testimony completely at face value and have agreed for the sake of argument to assume that everybody is telling the truth. What I’ve been saying is that even if they’re all telling the truth, it still is not proof that polyamory is a sexual orientation because your single criteron for that orientation (self-reported unhappiness with previous monogamous relationships) could hypothetically have OTHER explanations, Until you eliminate alternative explanations (and who’s to say there’s only one) you don’t have evidence for a new orientation, what you have is ONE HYPOTHETICAL EXPLANATION for why people would self-report unhappiness with prior relationships but it’s not the only one and you can’t use a phenomenon itself to prove a hypothetical EXPLANATION for that phenomenon.
It’s reasonable to avoid pronouncing something is a scientific certainty without scientific evidence. It’s also reasonable to avoid applying clinical designations like “sexual orientation” to characteristics which are not yet clinically recognized as such.
There is plenty of scientific work that supports the idea that some form of polygamy is the “natural” state for all humans. I don’t see why you need to insist that there be some clinical psychological designation of a polyamorous sexual orientation for certain individuals.
I don’t know that there is such a thing as a “poly” other than people who are more inclined to act contrary to the norms of our society. We’re all probably “poly” to some degree or another. And it’s not at all clear that sexual orientation (gay vs stragiht) is a binary state either. Most likely there is a sliding scale. Binary states for behavior, especially in complex species like H. sapiens, are pretty unusual. Actually, I’d be hard pressed to think of any. Are people either violent or peaceful? Are they kind or cruel? Are they good parents or bad parents? Are they smart or stupid? Are they honest or decetiful?
I agree, but others in this thread are claiming that there is some sort of binary distinction between polys and non-polys, and that polys are an identifiable group which can be discriminated against in a manner similar to homosexuals. I see no reason to assume that without some kind of genuine clinical evidence or recognition.
Diogenes, the bottom line is that I’ve thoroughly demonstrated how often your argument has changed and the ways you’ve been moving the goalposts. I still have no idea why you’re so stuck on this issue. I’m not sure what your deal is, but it’s obviously not worth trying to discuss it with you.
There are a number of polyfolks who think so, and unfortunately a lot of them consider themselves activists and make life difficult for everyone else.
I consider that just as wrong as the “humans are all bisexual” position.
I know people who report a monogamous orientation; when they are in a partnership, they do not develop interests in developing other relationships. Some do not have attractions that run deeper than “Oh, that’s pretty” under these circumstances. Basically, no motivation to form relationship on whatever attractions exist, and frequently reduced intensity of attraction entirely.
I see no reason to disbelieve these people’s self-reportage, especially since I’m the same way – just with a different number before my attractions shut off.
You keep saying this but you must be basing it on somebody else’s posts. I haven’t changed a single argument or moved a single goal post. You couldn’t prove your assertions. I guess that was embarrassing for you. Whatever.
This reminds me a lot of that pit thread for lissener that Colibri started. lissener tried the same tricks - changing his mind about what he said earlier, making a bad argument and then trying to switch it for some super-technical interpretation under which he was right . . .
No, you haven’t. Not even once. You’ve tried to make a few things up, though.
[quote[Incidentally, I’m still waiting on the scientific literature - because I know you’re drowning in it! - to support a single one of your assertions.[/QUOTE]
I think it’s very hard to come to such either/or conclusions about aspects of human behavior. If there were lost of readily available examples of such behaviorial dichotomies, then I’d be willing to accept such a dichotomy for sexual orientation. Fact is, though, there aren’t. And everything we know about ourselves as a species suggest that things just don’t work that way. I’m sure there many people who think they never lie-- that doesn’t mean there are people who are, by nature, unable to lie. Scientists intersted in drawing conclusions about human nature will observe the way people act in the real world, they won’t rely on questionaires.
I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that I’m talking about some sort of dichotomy.
I’m just pointing out that there are people who actually exist who are orientationally monogamous, and that which exists is possible. I don’t know what proportion of people they are; I only know that they exist, and participate in communities in which discussion of things like relationship orientation happens. I suspect they are not a majority in my culture, because if they were there would be less cultural mythology encouraging behaviours that match orientational monogamy or, for that matter, portraying the development of attractions when one is in a relationship as a sign of relationship failure or essential incompatibility (because if it were The One it wouldn’t happen), but not being a majority does not mean nonexistence.
What I know about humans as a species is that they exhibit a wide range of values on the overwhelming majority of traits (which I would expect as selection pressures cannot exist without variation). Orientational questions are by no means simple ones with dichotomous answers, because these responses are both complex and visceral. Even the question of monogamy/switch/polyamory is utterly simplistic.
This is the clearest explanation I’ve seen for what polys are trying to get across. Framing it in terms of desires for relationships rather than merely sexual partners helps me understand a lot better where you’re coming from. Your characterization of monogamous people is pretty much dead on for me. I care about one relationship and have no desire to develop other sexual attractions beyond superficially noticing that somebody is “hot” or whatever. If your saying that some people don’t “shut off” like that until they develop a greater number of relationships, I believe you and it’s different from what I thought. My perception was that there was no "shut off’ for polys – that it was about a lack of desire for reducing relationships to one without a “ceiling” on the number which one found satisfying. I’ve probably also been unconsciously simplifying it into sexual partners without regard for the non-sexual aspects of relationships.
This helps me to understand a tangible experiential distinction between poly and mono so maybe there is something to this orientation thing after all.
Anyway, thanks for flipping the switch for me. That post really helped me get it in a way I hadn’t before.
I’m glad my perspective was useful/illuminating for you. I do wish to note that not all polyfolk appear to have that sort of shutdown switch – but on the other hand, I’m pretty sure not all monogamous folk do either, that some just prefer not to act on such things. I can’t speak for them with any serious authority, I’m just running on my observations here.
I’m pretty close to the end of the spectrum that’s subculturally termed “polyfi” or “polyfidelitous”, or whimsically “monogamy for people who can’t count” – I’m someone who just wants to settle down with two nice fellows and have a quiet, ordinary life. In a lot of ways, my perspective is very close to mainstream norms; there are polyfolks who do things very differently than I do.
I do wish to note that not all polyfolk appear to have that sort of shutdown switch – but on the other hand, I’m pretty sure not all monogamous folk do either, that some just prefer not to act on such things. I can’t speak for them with any serious authority, I’m just running on my observations here.