Nope. I’m not one of those people. I just think people should be monogomous.
It really amazes me sometimes how someone as liberal as Diogenes can be so closed-minded and reactionary about certain subjects. I mean, he’s not just saying “I wouldn’t associate with them”. He’s expressing actual revulsion about the relationship and, like you said, sounding exactly like those rightwing reactionaries who insist that homosexuals can’t feel love for each other.
Well, if you’re prescribing monogamy as a universal ideal, you’re wrong. Sorry!
Every religion out there would like to disagree with you.
Religion has no say in the matter.
I’m feeling pretty relaxed about the situation, I might be skeptical about the long term, but that’s true of many relationships, it may not be the common human behaviour, but who am I to shun the outliers.
A friend of mine I had a long while back was in one of these. Seemed to work out for him. It had happened by sheer chance… Guy and Girl A split, as did Guy B and Girl B, and somehow, through mutual friends, or whatever, ended up AB and AB, then they all realized that hey, they all still loved the other one too, and the guys liked each other, and the girls liked each other, and it just sorta worked itself out.
Well, I can’t say it worked perfectly, and they may have imploded in the intervening years, but hell… they did better and lasted longer than a great many standard, monogamous relationships do.
It was odd at first, but they were happy, and lucky enough to fall into something that worked well for them.
And the law has no say in human bonding. People living together as man and wife may lack legal certification, but no piece of paper is needed to tell them how they feel about each other. The paper is just a formality, and useful for some legal rights.
It may be true that most people can’t hack it, that jealousies or dominance issues end up poisoning the relationship.
Its also true that most dudes like chicks, and most chicks like dudes.
There are always exceptions.
But ‘Thats not the way its supposed to be!’ is not a very viable argument.
What.
Well, that’s kinda what I said, isn’t it?
polyamory is loving more than one person, sex doesn’t have to be involved.
polyamory would be viewed as nonmonogamous behavior especially if romantic love expressed through sexuality is involved.
polyfidelity is a closed committed polyamorous relationship. people have done this is stable loving and life-giving relationships for years and decades.
polyamorous people accept the large umbrella that polyamory is. while there are some methods or ethics usually involved where it is successful long term, how it is actually done is customized to each relationship. polyfidelity is a subset of polyamory.
swinging is nonmonogamous casual sex. emotions aren’t involved and often not allowed. swingers may have such rules of behavior as not allowing nonsexual activities during encounters (no getting to know the person) and prohibited actions like no kissing (too intimate).
Most humans are “wired” so as to find persons of the opposite gender sexually attractive. Nonetheless, a small but significant minority is wired differently: they find persons of their own gender attractive but not the other, or find both genders attractive.
Might not a similar situation obtain for monogamy? Is it not possibel that a small but significant minority of persons are capable of bonding numbers other than two? Even prefer it?
Admittedly people like me, who like one person at a time, find that difficult to conceptualize. But I find it hard to understand why one guy would want to blow another too. (I don’t find the idea immoral or repellent: I just don’t see the attraction of having a dick in my mouth.) But it’s not clear to my why polyamourists are necessarily childish.
I agree that it’s probably a much dicier situation than a simple pair bond, for the same reason that gaining consensus is harder the larger a group is. But childish? Delusional?
Why, exactly?
I have asked the monkeys to deliver you a new keyboard with a functional shift key. You’re welcome!
I would be willing to look at empirical evidence for it. I do not take their word for it.
Suppose we take Reid and Reyes out of the equation; it’s just Dorian & Chris, a gay male couple. Are you willing to take their word when they say they have a committed relationship which they intend to continue indefinitely, though neither has a womb?
http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/worldcul/Codebook4EthnoAtlas.pdf
Regardless of what your stance on polygamy is, as a species we appear to be quite capable of engaging in it. Whether it’s a choice or cultural doesn’t matter. It’s cultural to wear pants. Shall you refuse to befriend people wearing pants, too?
I wouldn’t have to take their word for it that it’s possible. We already have abundant empirical evidence for same sex pair-bonding. I don’t believe for a second that group-bonding is possible (maybe very rarely in triads, but quads or larger - no fucking way).
We also have (anecdotal) evidence from persons in this thread who have attested to knowing polyamorous couples, not to mention Peeta’s cite. Why are you so certain those persons are wrong?
Could you please cite the marriage vows these couples/this foursome used, so we know what provisions were being violated?
This is exactly like me asking for “empirical” evidence that you love and are pair-bonded to your wife and aren’t running some kind of multi-decade sex-for-security scam.
Wrong about what? I believe they have known couples who don’t practice fidelity. So what?
The OP said that at least one of the couples was legally married.
No it isn’t. It’s like asking for empirical evedence that human beings, as a species are capable of pair-bonding. I’m not asking for proof regarding specific individuals, only that an alleged phenomeon (mutually reciprocal group-bonding in humans) is biologically possible. I’m calling bullshit that it is. I think these are just people with emotional dysfunctions.
I am legally married, and my vows contained no content regarding fidelity, obedience, or whatever. In point of fact, in my state ¶, the marriage license has no suggested vows and merely requires that neither participant is currently legally married to another–nothing is stated or implied about any behavior other than the one which affects tax payments. In point of fact, my marriage certificate is the one (also specified in law in PA) by which my wife and I were the solemnizers of our own marriage. (Title 23, Chapter II, § 1502 if you’re interested).
I’d, in turn, be interested in a cite for the existence of meaningful long-term pair bonding in humans–I was under the impression that, like most primates, human “pair bonding” is relatively short in duration and requires constant maintenance. That is, beyond the initial 12-28 month period (typical, anyway, in the neurological references I found), a couple stays together for non-biological reasons or chooses to partake in activities that renew the bond. I am not aware of any research that indicates such bonds are self-starting–they are, as far as I can tell, formed by voluntary actions on the part of the partners (sharing food is a major trigger in most primates, hence, dating) following an initial attraction phase that’s unrelated to the bond itself. I am also unaware of any research that finds that the specific neurochemistry involved prohibits or inhibits the formation of multiple simultaneous bonds.