This is exactly right. It’s not that childhood trauma necessarily leads specifically to polyamorous relationships, but that it leads (almost always) to relationships which will be in some way chaotic, abusive or lack intimacy. Polyamory is just one possible example of that.
“Fifty”? I didn’t get that impression from Lilairen’s post. If we are actually talking about that order of magnitude in the number of multiple partners, could somebody please say so unambiguously?
And if we’re not, Dio, could you please refrain from introducing confusing hyperbole? It doesn’t strengthen your argument.
But this reasoning is also logically fallacious. Just because childhood trauma tends to lead to unhealthy adult relationships, some of which may be polyamorous, doesn’t imply that all polyamorous relationships are the unhealthy result of childhood trauma.
I absolutely understand that you don’t want to talk about it but “everybody has trauma” is one of the classic mantras from trauma survivors.
It doesn’t happen to everybody, and it’s not a freaking moral judgement on YOU. It happened to me too. I’m not judging you.
I hate the way that, in these pile-on situations, collective use of logic flies right out the window.
I do not agree that Diogenes is right.
However, the way to refute him is to either show an example of a woman choosing a poly marriage despite an unremarkable childhood. Or – you may refute the underlying inference by showing that most childhoods have enough trauma to qualify, and that since poly relationships are so rare, the correlation of damaging childhood to poly marriage is not itself unusual.
You cannot refute his argumeny by calling him Grand High Poobah Of Jerks, insenstive to people’s feelings, sexist, or anything else.
Polygamy is like prostitution, or to a lesser extent pornography in that there’s no inherent reason why it would be oppressive to women. Indeed, from a libertarian perspective, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t allow people to freely choose to do it.
Historically however, polygamy (like prostitution) has almost universally been oppressive to women, and the relationships severely imbalanced to favor the male in terms of power. The recent Western plyandry subcluture has very much been the exception , and if polygamy were suddenly leaglized, they’d almost certainly be the minority of polygamous relationships, after Mormons and African and Middle Eastern immigrants.
However, just because something is often harmful, doesn’t mean that criminalization is the best course. Polygamy happens, just like prostitution and drug use happens. There’s been some discussion on these boards that legalization would ameliorate the problems associated with prostitution and drug use, so why not polygamy? Instead of banning it outright, and forcing the victimized women into hiding, why don’t we accept the inevitability of its occurrance and provide legal remedies to the women involved?
Does the number really matter?
I didn’t say all, but there is a statistically high chance of it.
Notice that she hasn’t denied it?
Then you should really kick the twerp who’s been typing under your username off your computer.
In response to your latest bit of spectacular jerkery, I have had six partners lifetime, and my shortest-duration sexual relationship lasted over a year. This is including my teenaged years, for the record; I became sexually active at the average age for my generation. Please be less hyperbolic in your slanders.
Now, for those people who are actually interested in dispelling their ignorance rather than diagnosing strangers over the internet in order to justify their bigotry, here’s a paper overviewing the research about the mental health of polyfolks. It was written by someone with a personal interest in the subject, which of course leaves it open to discussion of bias; however, it does give references to the papers it quotes, which can be read if anyone wishes to actually come up with some facts.
I am sure Diogenes is already familiar with all this research, though, since he is so confident that the only reason someone might want multiple relationships is because they’re broken or defective and need to have their families destroyed so they can be “fixed”.
No, Bricker…he said:
He was saying ANYONE with childhood trauma or a shitty family life is acting out this way out of some emotional deficit rather than the possibility that this kind of relationship might actually appeal to a woman. There are a million reasons for her to find this attractive, and he’s playing armchair shrink when he has no business second-guessing her motivation.
Jesus. That got mangled.
The bolded word should read “polyamorous”.
Big whoop. I don’t want to talk about my childhood to an asshole whose only interest in knowing about it is to attack me. I am aware that you are going to claim this as victory for your side, but I don’t really care to sit down and have a heart-to-heart about my mother with an armchair Freud with a chip on his shoulder.
No, you just think that my family is a vile thing that is evidence of my intrinsic defectiveness and should be destroyed so that I can give over title to my genitalia to one person and vigorously curtail my intimacies with others so that they don’t cross over the forbidden line that threatens holy monogamy.
No, that’s incorrect. What DtC came out saying is that polygamy is unhealthy and damaging. Then he tried to support this contention by implying people become polyamorous due to childhood trauma or some kind of low self-respect. That’s fallacious enough in itself, but then he went fishing for personal details to support the fallacious argument.
In essence, if he isn’t going to support his own position logically, he doesn’t really rate any kind of reasoned response, and people are being overly indulgent to him as it is.
I’m saying there is little to no chance that this would appeal to a woman who has not suffered some kind of childhood trauma, that’s correct. There are, in fact, NOT “a million reasons” for this to appeal to women without trauma histories.
And that’s not a moral judgement.
It is, however, unsupported so far by any cites of actual evidence.
Says who? You? A man? Where do you get your information?
Given that Diogenes the Cynic (I can’t help but think the real Diogenes wants his name back) said people are very predictable, I think it is fair to infer that he means an abusive childhood leads to polygamy. Otherwise what’s he predicting?
I think polygamy should be legal, if only because if a bunch of unmarried people lived in that way, most people would think it should be legal. The only difference is the marriage - a religious blessing of the situation.
I think it would be about as widespread as it is now.
I didn’t say “damaging” (except maybe to any children). I see it as a result of damage, not a cause of it.
To be more specific, I said that women who do not feel that they have a right to exclusivity in a relationship (or who do not get jealous) are almost always trauma survivors.
How so?
,
No I didn’t. I merely stated a statistical probablility.
I
Prove me wrong. Show me a woman in a polygamous marriage who didn’t have a fucked up childhood.
I would really like to see you back this up, Diogenes. Given the Lilairen actually was able to link to a paper that references specific psychological studies, surely you can do the same?
Well he did say “there is a statistically high chance of it.” I presume he’s taking a break to dig up the relevant academic papers to demonstrate the overwhelming correctness of his position.
Then again, he could be just cooking up the next stupid thing to say. There’s no way to tell until he posts again.
No, what’s predictable is that trauma in childhood leads to chaotic relationships in adulthood. Polyamory is only one example of that.
You’re the one who made the claim first. Throw down.