I think it said that both were, though I’m too lazy to scroll up and check. My thought was that Dorian & Reid were married, as were Chris and Reyes.
But so what? As others have observed, not everyone’s vows include fidelity. Since plural marriage is illegal in every state, the two pairs may have married legally for the sake of tax and other such purposes, but in a private ceremony promised fidelity only within the group.
I know any number of gay and lesbian couples. None of them have legal unions, as such is not allowed in Tennessee. In your view, Dio, is their bond any less valid for not being allowed.
The norm is serial monogamy. I don’t know how you define “short in duration,” but many humans pair bond for life (though serial monogamy is more typical). I also don’t know what you mean by “constant maintenance.” I’ve been with my wife for over 20 years, and it’s never been an effort to stay together.
Incidentally, this subtle sneering at monogamy is one of the things that really turns people off about people who claim to be polyamorous. If you really want respect and acceptance, you can start by by dropping this attitude (and I see it all the time from self-proclaimed polys) monogamous bonding isn’t real, or that you are somehow more advanced and clear-headed than they are. I’ve seen langauge (on this board) accusing monogomous people of “enslaving” or “trying to own” each other. Don’t expect to get respect if you aren’t willing to give it.
I didn’t say anything about “valid bonding” as it pertains to legal marriage. I was just saying the group wasn’t married. In states where same-sex unions are not legal, then those same-sex couples are not married. “Marriage” is purely a legal contract. bonding is beside the point.
The only sneering at someone else’s lifestyle choices I’ve seen in this thread is from you, directed toward polygamy.
I am not a poly person. Can’t handle it, doesn’t work for me, no desire to go there. It does work for other people, though, and it has been a common form of marriage throughout history. As far back as we can go there have been poly relationships. It’s a common mating strategy in other primates. Great apes are notoriously non-monogamous. Gorillas are the only great ape that isn’t flat out promiscuous, and they have one male servicing a large group of females. Incidentally, in gorillas mating is typically initiated by the female. No “exploitation” there.
History shows humans can and have engaged in polygamy on a broad scale. Primatology shows our closest relatives do not typically pair bond. There is little to indicate that there is anything “unnatural” or at odds with biology for this to occur, particularly when the remarkable adaptability of the primate brain is taken into account. Because of that adaptability, cultural influence can ingrain something so deeply that it appears to be hardwired. That does not mean that it’s so. If the culture swings the other way, suddenly all that “hardwiring” disappears.
We are an adaptable species, capable of changing our behavior nearly beyond recognition thanks to culture. To claim that an alternate mating strategy that has lengthy historical and biological roots is utterly invalid and impossible is silly. I think monogamy works quite well and it’s all I’m interested in, but that doesn’t mean what’s right for me is right for everyone.
How would one get empirical evidence of emotional bonding ? Do you propose to hook up electrodes to a poly group to check if their hearts *really *skip a beat when they see each other ? Because trust me on this, love doesn’t show up in vivisections.
That does not agree with my research. Are you saying that Woodie, Hamadryad, Ishtar, Galahad, Ira, Tamara, Hilda, Deety, Zeb, Jake, Maureen, Minerva, Mike, Athena, Laz, Lor, Castor, Pollux, Richard, and Justin all died in vain?
What? No it hasn’t. Ever. Polygamy, yes, but’s not the kind of mutually reciprocal paradigm that’s being discussed here. That’s just guys owning women as property.
Cite?
This is not the kind of thing we’re talking about. We’re talking about mutually reciprocal groups, not just one male with multiple females.
They can use the same methodology they use to investugate the brain chemistry in mongamous bonding. I don’t believe that there are groups (especially not groups of four or more) where every individual is mutually bonded to every other individual. I’m saying I think that’s a load of crap.
I am laughing at this. Honestly, you are cracking me the hell up. You make ridiculous claims which you cannot back up, ignore my citation of how common polygamy is, and then demand I give you further cites?
Let’s see a cite that says the women involved in poly relationships are incest survivors. And if you don’t want to hear me talking about one-man-many-women polygamy, then you can’t cite anything on that topic either. So find some studies on group marriages that show that a) the women are all incest survivors and b) as incest survivors they are now somehow incapable of consenting to a relationship, since that seems to be what you’re implying.
But you won’t do that, because there are no studies that say that because it’s not true, it’s silly, and it’s offensive to women in general and incest survivors specifically. I’m sure there are some women who are poly who have survived incest, just as there are lesbians, straight married women, nuns, asexuals, and school teachers who have survived incest. Abuse of women is very common in our society. You are not advocating for them by claiming they can’t make their own decisions. You’re just victimizing them a second time.
Yeah, my reading of Dio’s attitude toward this subject as it applies to women is that it’s inherently sexist. I’m sure he’ll blow up about that, but it’s true. He’s assuming that women would only ever enter into these types of relationships if they’re mentally or emotionally damaged, because obviously a woman would never want this type of relationship*.
It ignores the fact that a LOT of the poly/open women I know were the ones who initiated the whole thing. And they’re pretty awesome people who show no more evidence of emotional damage than the average human being (ain’t none of us get out of life unscarred).
*Which leads me to wondering how Dio feels about this sort of thing if it involves only gay men? If there are no women being “exploited” (according to Dio’s paradigm), is it less of a farce or the same?
We’re not talking about polygamy. Polygamy is a non-sequitur. It’s a cultural/legal practice (basically men owning women as property), not a love-bond. Show me a single bit of evidence that humans are capable of mutually reciprical group-bonding. I call bullshit.
I don’t know if they would be capable of mutually reciprical group bonding, but at least it wouldn’t involve the same exploitation of women, so I would not feel skeeved out by it like I do when it’s men passing women around like bongs.
Again, this is very sexist in that you seem to be insisting that women in a poly or group relationship can’t possibly be their own agents in participation. I’m seeing a worldview that assumes that the women involved in these things are no more than animated blow-up dolls, with no personal desire to be involved in the situation. While I’m sure there ARE women in relationships like this who are only in the relationship because their primary lover dragged them/browbeat them/threatened them into it, I seriously doubt that it’s even a plurality of the women involved in the poly world*.
*ETA: In the West (western Europe, North America) anyway.
Agreed. The rather horrific description of a woman as an object to be “passed around” doesn’t match what I’ve experienced of poly relationships. In fact, a bunch of them have been triads of lesbians. Women are sexual and romantic agents in their own right and can seek out a single partner or multiple partners without duress.
Is it always men using women? Are women capable of actually choosing to engage in swinger or poly relationships without you believing that they must be being exploited and either not aware of the fact or being threatened/intimidated/so desperate to retain their current primary lover that they will do anything for him, including being used for sex by people they don’t desire?
Do you not see how sexist this attitude appears to be, really?
I don’t see how it’s sexist to object to the sexual exploitation of women. I do believe that most, if not all of them would prefer monogamy (unless they are bisexual), and that they go along with it to please men.
Yep, can’t be too careful about those bisexuals. They pop up in the most unusual places.
Honestly, you really have no business indicating what most, if not all women would prefer. You’re free to pontificate all you want, but I do think you’re smart enough to cut it out.
I’m not going to engage with your opinion on poly relationships - I think we’ve done that before, and, well, you’re at least consistent. But I will point out that being bisexual and being monogamous are not at all mutually exclusive, and in fact, are pretty much unrelated concepts. You can be monogamous/poly and gay/straight/bi; being bisexual does not necessarily imply a lack of interest in monogamy.
So, if a woman is in a relationship with a man and another woman, she’s not being exploited. But if she breaks up with her girlfriend, and gets a second boyfriend, all of a sudden she’s being exploited? Or does the simple fact of her being bisexual make her immune to exploitation, in the same way that being homosexual makes people immune to exploitation?
I’m thinking the issue here isn’t simply sexism, but heterosexism.