Let’s not get into necrophilia.
redtail, like I said, beef with Mormonism has nothing to do with this thread. Mormons who are members of the LDS church are not the Mormons who people associate with polygamy. If anyone wants to question the LDS Church start a thread. Enjoy yourselves.
I already apologized for my comment in my OP and several people have answered my questions so I have no idea what you are talking about, TYVM.
OK. So, if you genuinely want to understand how we feel and think, start by putting sex out of your mind. Think firstly about whether or not you could love (in the “romantic love” sense) more than one person at the same time. Maybe you could, maybe you couldn’t. But realise that some of us can and do, and work from there.
We poly folk might well have sex with the people we love, but polyamoury is no more “about” sex than one-man-one-woman marriage is “about” sex.
Ha, OOOH :eek:, OOps:smack:
(bolding mine)
That fits more into the “open relationship” category than it does into polyamory. A polyamorous person would prefer to retain the ability to form lasting, emotionally intimate relationships with those other than their primary partner.
Faithfulness involves sexual and emotional intimacy. How can one be faithful if you are spreading all that around? It is a choice to have sex, not a need or something you can’t control, so even if you thought you loved someone else, you don’t need to do anything physical about it. Why get into a relationship at all in that case? Do you just like the warm fuzzies you get from being attracted to and attractive to someone, so you seek it out from multiple people? It’s just hard for me to not see that as selfish or short sighted. Long term committed relationships are not all warm and fuzzy, and love requires more than sex and feeling good all the time. Even if my husband falls short in some way or another in fulfilling some need I think I have, isn’t that more my fault for not trying to resolve that and looking inward without going to someone else?
I can’t find a better cite than Wikipedia (which is to say I haven’t looked for one), but this link classifies open relationships as a subspecies of polyamory. To my mind that seems right. What you describe would be sub-relationships, I think, a different subspecies; and of course there’s polyfidelity, polygamy, and so forth.
Faithfulness may or may not involve sexual and emotional intimacy. I’m faithful to my boss but I’m not having sex with him. And sexuality does not require faithfulness.
You can, however, operate with honesty in a poly relationship. By being open about who else you are sleeping with, or at least that you are sleeping with others, is honest.
And yes, it is quite possible to be sexually and emotionally intimate with more than one person. I realize that that might be a hard concept for you to wrap your mind around right now, but that’s probably because it’s really new to you right now.
i would call them swingers and not polyamorous from that description.
there are people in 3,4,5 or 6 person poly fidelious marriages.
It would seem that polyamorous people do not feel that “faithfulness” (as defined by you as sexual and emotional exclusivity to one partner) is a necessary or even desirable component of a successful relationship. You and your husband feel differently, and I am sure that is fine with polyamorous people.
One thing that I am not sure you realize is that polyamory is not supposed to be a unilateral decision. Somewhat more so than in conventional relationships, successful polyamorous ones require that all persons involved make explicit the terms they agree to abide by. You can’t just suddenly decide to make love with the entire crew of Cirque de Soleil and then go home and tell your husband you’ve decided that you’re polyamorous. Well, I guess you could, but it would definitely be uncool.
I have no particular beef with Mormonism, I was simply pointing out your hypocrisy.
Yes, you apologized for that one comment, and then continue to ask slanted and offensive questions to try and force polyamory into a slot (i.e., bad, selfish, evil, and wrong) that you’re comfortable with.
Try actually listening to what the polyfolk are saying instead of just repeating your same points over and over.
While it may let you feel superior because you’re so much better than anyone else, telling us repeatedly about how bad and wrong and selfish we must be since we do things differently from you does little to inspire communication.
Muddy Wikipedia articles notwithstanding, I bet you that your friends would not, without prompting on your part, describe themselves as “polyamorous.”
It may not be to me, or it may not be to you, but to people for whom this works, spreading it around increases the love in their life. It’s like when my second child was born I could explain it to him that I could love the new baby without diminishing my love for him.
Polyamorous people feel that way (broad strokes here, I know) about adult, intimate relationships too. Adult, loving relationships often develop sexual intimacy, so polyamorous adults might include being sexually intimate with the additional persons they love.
As many have said, this requires playing fair with your current partner- a polyamorous adult can cheat, if they break the intimacy rules or boundaries for their relationship. Personally, its not for me. I like single relationships and the emotional connection of being with one peson and he with me. But just like I can “get” same sex relationships despite being solidly hetero, I can get this too. It just takes working out the expectations and being emotionally fair to your partner in a way that’s a bit muddier than in a single partner relationship. But that’s just work, it’s not so conceptually beyond my understanding.
Her CTR ring is her cite.
My comment was not about my “beef with Mormonism.” This would have been the wrong forum for such a discussion unless the thread gets moved to GD. You had said that Emma was okay with Joseph’s many partners and was allowed to veto who Joseph was having sex with. I hope it was kosher to ask for a cite on dubious claims in MPSIMS; if that is outside the board rules, I sincerely apologize.
My point was simply that different people will find different polyamorous relationships to be immoral or otherwise ogre-ish. Knowing what I do about your religious preferences, your peers are comfortable with #3, desperately want to cut ties with #4, and view #1 and #2 as immoral. I merely wanted to point out that most people on this board (Mormon-beef or not) would see #3 as immoral, #4 as tragic and immoral, and #1 and #2 as a relationship style that is moral if practiced by consenting adults.
This is a train wreck.
April R, if you wish to start a thread in IMHO saying “persuade me that even though you’re poly you’re not an ugly, skeevy, manipulative, selfish person,” feel free. You have been moving the goal posts all over the damn place in this thread.
If anyone wants to debate the theoretical issues about polyamorism, start a GD thread. Likewise, if anyone wants to debate the historical connection between plural marriage in the Mormon church and modern polyamorism, GD would be the appropriate place.
This is closed.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator