Yes, they can. It’s called “The American Ideal Nuclear Family,” and is not THAT common, when you consider the divorce rate and the number of monogamously married couples who are not happy and/or thriving.
Yes, they can. It’s called “cheating,” and if you do it you’re an asshole whether you’re monogamous or polyamorous.
Either you’re being deliberately obtuse or you’re unable to think clearly at this time. Kalhoun was basically comparing having a family in which one of the parents is sleeping with someone else and cheating, with a family in which one of the parents is sleeping with someone else and NOT cheating. Kalhoun is not saying these are the only two options available, as that would be ridiculous and stupid. Kalhoun is merely saying that if a parent is going to sleep/have a relationship with someone who is not part of the American Ideal Nuclear Family, it’s probably LESS harmful to the family unit as a whole for the parent to do so with the knowledge and consent of the other parent.
Boy. You guys are way keen on those false dichotomies. Why bother to engage me if you believe the above to be true? I suspect you just felt like needling me. No, actually, either you believe that subtle insults are a valid form of debating, or you are not confident that your position is valid on its merits. There. How’s that?
We have established that cheating and other bad behavior is not exclusive to either type of relationship. Therefore, it canot be used as an argument in favor of, or against, either type of relationship. Therefore, it is not on point. I mean, does this question really need to be asked? --* Don’t you think a child would much rather see happy, thriving parents than watch one of them living a life of tears, despair and deceit?* Of course she would. So what? How is that pertinent?
Are you saying that it is impossible for Kalhoun to be ridiculous or stupid? Seriously? No offense to Kalhoun, but that would make her a rare individual indeed.
A fine bit of question begging there, milad. You are asuming the consequent (i.e., that the adulturous relationship is a given.) If causing LESS harm is the goal, it is better not to sleep around at all.
It’s pertinent because the subject is the “happiness” of the children. The children might be much happier in a poly family than in a traditional family. That IS what we’re talking about, right?
Are you saying that it is impossible for Kalhoun to be ridiculous or stupid? Seriously? No offense to Kalhoun, but that would make her a rare individual indeed.
A fine bit of question begging there, milad. You are asuming the consequent (i.e., that the adulturous relationship is a given.) If causing LESS harm is the goal, it is better not to sleep around at all.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not “sleeping around” if its an agreed-to lifestyle. If causing LESS harm is the goal, “sleeping around” as you so simplistically describe it, is quite possibly the SOLUTION.
You did not ask a question. You made a statement. You then responded to a question with an insult. You can do better. Can’t you?
Offer another interpretation of “Kalhoun did not do X because X is stupid and ridiculous.”
I assume the “genius” to be ironic. Your quiver, I take it , is empty? My apologies for confusing your gender. It is not the most obvious thing on an anonymous message board. That you find it appropriate to insult someone who gets it wrong is illuminative of your character. Or your ego.
And they might be happier in a monogamous family, right? Any assertion that has the same truth value as its negative is useless in a debate.
Here we go again. It is quite possible that fidelity and honoring the marriage contract is the SOLUTION. There. What have we just proved? Nothing.
You called it being a fuck buddy behind the spouse’s back. I call it sleeping around. Are you really less simplistic than I?
While it is no doubt true that one or the other options might be better for the child, that has nothing whatsoevr to do with whether Madame Hamadryad used circular logic. You can’t prove the premise A by asserting A.
Great! Everyone here is opposed to being a cheating, betraying asshole! And probably we’re agreed that breaking commitments and disrupting agreements is likely to create a bad environment for children, too.
Relevance to circumstances in which no agreements, promises, contacts, or good faith are being broken: nil.
It is if you pick a classical mythological term for an all-female variety of nature spirit. I don’t expect everybody to know what a cathode is, but on a thread filled with gaming and mythology geeks most posters will know what a dryad is.
Define fidelity. Not everybody’s definition will match yours. In a polyamorous relationship, sex with other people is not necessarily infidelity. Nor does it violate the marriage contract the spouses agreed to.
On Preview
Crap, as posted what I said was open for interpretation. Allow me to clarify
“The odds of convincing you on this issue are poor. You have strongly stated your position and do not seem open to considering arguments for other viewpoints.”
I did NOT mean to make a statement about you in general.
People in this thread have also referred to polyamory as sleeping around. The two are very different and should not be confused.
IF having another child makes the first child unhappy, THEN the parents should not have it, as they are only indulging their selfish desire to ass to their family.
IF drinking alcohol makes the children feel uncomfortable, THEN the parents should never drink, as drinking alcohol is a self-indulgent AND harmful behavior.
IF the parents going out of town for a week and leaving the child with grandparents makes the child unhappy, THEN the parents should not go, as vacations are self-indulgent luxuries and the child’s stability is more important than the parents’ leisure.
IF moving to another state for a job which is not more financially rewarding uproots the child and causes him anxiety, THEN the move should not be made, as changing jobs for purely aesthetic reasons is self-indulgent and the child’s emotional stability supercedes the relative happiness of the parents.
It’s funny that you keep throwing “false dichotomy!” “begging the question!” “greasing the weasel!” around, and yet you leave no room for activities which are self-indulgent, make the child unhappy, and don’t involve sex.
P.S. This isn’t GD, as much as you’d apparently like it to be. Your tone suggests far more disdain for me and my points of view than my lame, restrained backhands do you and yours.
A) I did not realize this thread was filles with gamers and mythology geeks. Certainly nothing about the topic was a clue. B) If I find myself in a thread about gaming or mythology, I generally flee. Not my cup of meat.
Doc, I really do not believe that you have read all my posts. Read Kalhoun#75, and my response#77, and follow from there. My definition of fidelity, or any definition, for that matter, is incidental to the argument.
In all seriousness, I have seen no arguments. I have seen anecdotes and opinions, but no arguments. I have also seen a systemic disregard for the application of logic to problem solving.
I will not quote your list here. I only comment that I have said none of the things you attribute to me. Read my words, which you quoted. I said ‘if it is bad for the child.’ Not ‘if the child is unhappy.’ Not ‘if the child is uncomfortable.’ Not ‘if the child is anxious.’
Do not put words in my mouth. I have no idea where your hands have been.
Cool! I get to use another one! Non Sequiter. What does my criticism of your logical shortcomings have to do with whether or not there might be *something else *that is bad for the child? If I had introduced a litany of other offenses I would have been accused of a hijack.
I don’t mean to sound “snarky” or anything, but can I ask about this? How can a person cheat in a polyamorous situation? And if they can’t, how does it become a poly situation to begin with? I guess “Honey, I nailed Mindy last night” is bad, but “Honey, I’d like to persue a loving relationship with Mindy” is OK?
Ok, that was a little snarky, but I really am curious.
How does one cheat? By lying (through word, deed, or omission), sneaking, and generally being dishonest. If “Honey” already knows “Mindy” and knows that bangage may ensue, it’s not cheating. If “Honey” does NOT know that bangage is an option, and MindyBanger hauls off and bangs Mindy anyhow, that is cheating.
I think you’re confusing “polyamory” with “fuck anything you want with no consequences.” That was more than “a little snarky,” that was assholery.
Okay, what is BAD for the child, if it is not unhappiness, uncomfortableness, anxiety, fear of familial instability, or any of the other outcomes I mentioned?
I didn’t attribute any of those to you. Believe me, I wouldn’t dream of giving you credit for thinking of examples.
Basically, all relationships have “rules.” Sometimes they’re stated, most often not. It’s pretty important when being in a non-mainstream relationship, to be very clear on The Rules. Anyone who breaks an implicitly or explicity agree-upon rule of a relationship is “cheating”.
Not all poly relationships have the same rules, and a few claim to have none, although I’ve found that deep down somewhere there are some. Here are some possible rules:
No sex eith exes. Exes are sometimes, for some people, evoke different emotional baggage, so some people don’t allow them.
No sex with a List of People I’m Going to Give you. That is, “my sister, my cousins, Sally at work and That Bitch Cathy are off limits.”
No sex unless I approve the person beforehand.
No sex unless I’m present.
No sex unless I’m not present.
No [insert specific sex act] with anyone but me. Vaginal and anal are the two most common to make off limits.
No staying out overnight without prior arrangements.
No sex without a condom with anyone. (Or “with anyone but me”.)
No relationships with someone who doesn’t know me/know about me.
Much as don’t want involved here I have to ask. {b]Contrapuntal**, you keep saying ‘if it is bad for the child.’. I may have missed it earlier but could you please define exactly what you mean by that?