You’re also clearly not a scientist, or else you would understand why your insta-Googled study is so pathetically irrelevant.
Sure it was. By “sitting around”, you mean “quickly Googled an abstract,” otherwise I would have expected you to have posted some relevant portions of it which were not in the Googled abstract.
No, I read the study, unlike you. You see, in the Big Girls and Big Boys world, we actually download and read these things. I’m sorry if I embarrassed you for calling you on your shit. I wouldn’t worry, however - no one here gives a shit that I did the research, they only want to flog me over a side-issue so they can score some more points on me; apparently they’re not wiling to invest any effort in the argument at hand either.
I don’t have to. You made your initial assertion, it’s up to you to back it up. This concept has been repeated about a trillion times on this message board and throughout life itself. If this is unclear, ask your mom to come downstairs and explain it to you.
So by deliberately posting a phony citation, you’re admitting to trolling. Gotcha. Of course, I’m the only one who thinks that, so I wouldn’t worry if I were you.
Perhaps, in the case of a single study. Of enlisted naval personnel. Who were all male. And not in a sexual or loving relationship. Who were all confined to small rooms. In a completely non-real life situation. Other than that, it perfectly mirrors a polyamourous relationship! :rolleyes: Hey, maybe I should post a link to a paper I found about potato bug infestations to prove how their colonial interactions have an immediate bearing on the Large Hadron Collider.
Quibble. Just like his other trolling posts (black people and their natural rhythm, the idea of the guy as the head of the house means that the woman must have been abused, his glee over the suffering of the family members who were related to a political cancer victim, the one about the guy who had a friend who turned out to be a pedophile so the guy (per Dio) was a douche about feeling weird about the fact that he felt bad that his buddy was going to jail, he had one about hand-washing after peeing make a guy a sissy…), what his MO is, is to back off juuuuuuuuust enough that he doesn’t get warned for trolling. You’ll get a sort of weasel-worded “Yeah, ok, I didn’t phrase that as well as I could have. I meant…(same thing with less inflammatory words”.)
It’s actually kind of interesting to watch. He’s the longest running troll that’s ever been around on the SDMB because he knows exactly where the line is drawn. I keep expecting his member location or title to change to “2830 trolling posts…and no convictions!”
No, asshole, what makes you an asshole is the repeated assertion that those who do enjoy it enjoy “degrading” and being “mean” to their loved ones. Let’s just all take the train to **DiogenesLand **where everything but lights-off, shirt-on, missionary sex is degrading.
It would make you a sexist if you said that any woman involved in a polyamorous relationship is “willing to be submissive to a single male authority and treated like property” and therefore, obviously, a victim of abuse.
If you were a constant troll and general asshole like Dio, then you’d be a douchebag, too.
I’m not sure what Dio’s posting history has to do with what he’s said in the thread referenced in the OP. He’s entitled to his opinion that it’s an immature lifestyle choice not deserving of his approbation or respect.
Polyamory isn’t a biological imperative. It’s not an innate characteristic like heterosexuality or homosexuality. To choose to engage in polyamorous relationships is a choice, and like it or not, that choice, if flaunted, will probably expose you to other people’s disapproval. No one is required to approve of or respect your choice, just like no one is required to approve of or respect any other choice, like the choice to be a militant vegetarian, or to hunt, or do any number of other things that may be controversial.
Not approving of polyamory doesn’t make him a bigot, or an asshole, or a troll (although he may be any or all of those things for other reasons - I don’t know).
Do you people know anything at all about human sexuality beyond your own personal experiences?
Polyamory (or, more appropriately, polygamy) is not in the same category as homosexuality/heterosexuality. Bisexuality is in that category.
Homosexuality/heterosexuality/bisexuality = terms defining who you desire to fuck.
Polyamory/polygamy/monogamy = terms describing the dynamics of your sexual relationships.
Talk about how homosexuality or bisexuality being “unnatural” is absolutely meaningless. It occurs in nature; therefore it is natural. The same applies to polyamorous relationships. People do it, so it is within the realm of human experience.
You can make the same argument for women who stay with batterers, therefore men beating the shit out of women is a lifestyle choice that should be respected, and it would be sexist to judge it, right?
More than likely it is. Monogamy is rare among mammals, and nonexistent in our closest relatives, the great apes. Our sexual dimorphism is a strong indicator that we are not “naturally” monogamous.
But claiming that only immature people would practice it does.
