|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted March 26, 2014 08:43 PM |
|
|
It may all be hot air to you, but why are you condensing?
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted March 26, 2014 08:48 PM |
|
|
Condensing or condescending Forfy????
If I am coming across condescending, its because Mvass is condescending in his belief's. He believes he is right, I know I am right. 
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 26, 2014 09:02 PM |
|
|
|
no, you may be right, but you know you aren't wrong
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 26, 2014 09:07 PM |
|
|
Speaking about manipulation, I don't like it when someone does some stuff and suddenly expect me to behave in a certain way in response. Like here the other day, someone set me on fire and expected me to jump in the water, I wonder why.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted March 26, 2014 09:09 PM |
|
|
The fact that around 30-40% of families have kids that are not certainly both of the parents biological children doesn't seem to stop the US people though.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 26, 2014 09:40 PM |
|
|
meroe said:
LOL Fred, you are played more than you will ever know. And when I talk about this manipulation, I'm not talking about the obvious, whiny, stupid snow that most girls get up to. I am talking about the incredibly delicate way that women play their men.
lol, how cute.
i had written a few things here, to better explain how you would bend to my will, but there is really no point. we would never meet, and it would seem like internet bravado to you, and likely to others, regardless of how true it was.
i'll just finish this with: you have no idea. you really, have no idea. maybe you could whip all the limp-dicks out there, but not me. i would have you wrapped around my pinky toes. 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 26, 2014 09:41 PM |
|
|
Meroe, I never said that polyamory was more advanced, the only thing I said that could be interpreted that way is that polyamory is easier to talk about if you communicate well.
As for children, I plan to raise them in a part of the country and in a community where polyamory isn't stigmatized. There are places like that even now, and I expect it to become even more accepted in 10 years or so. The same argument applies to same-sex couples, by the way - should gay or lesbian couples not have children in case they're made fun of at school? Not that I expect anyone who knows my children (other than my and my girlfriend's other partners) to know that we're polyamorous. I know that when I was at school, if someone's parents were polyamorous, I'd never have known - it's not like it's public knowledge. You also needn't worry about the partners we'd choose - my girlfriend and I are both very selective.
As for how I'd know that my children are mine, there are several points. First, it's entirely possible that they won't be genetically mine, or any of my girlfriends' partners, for that matter. Before having children, I plan to be genetically tested, and if my genes aren't good, we'll get a sperm donor with better genes. My girlfriend and I have already talked about this. Second, if it turns out that my genes are good, I know the child would be mine because if she were to conceive a child with someone else, she'd get an abortion, and besides she'd have safe sex with other people. The only situation in which I can imagine in which she wouldn't would be if she were accidentally impregnated by somebody else around the time we'd be trying to conceive, so she'd think it was mine. If that happens, it's no big deal, which brings me to my third and most important point: The child I raise is mine, regardless of who its genetic parents are.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 26, 2014 10:03 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 05:25, 28 Jun 2014.
|
@artu:
artu said:
Corribus said:
Women AND men both are just bags of hormones and they do what they do in large part to satisfy natural urges. Claiming to be otherwise is just willful ignorance of physiology.
You've said before that you think we follow our chemistry and that's the major force behind our motives and this post also fits to that point of view. I don't disagree completely, however, take yourself as an example, you are a monogamous (unless you're cheating on your wife) male, while your "chemistry" leads you in the opposite direction all the time. Your biological programming is to impregnate as many females as possible. How about that?
That's a rather inaccurate summary - or, rather, extrapolation - of my viewpoint. It completely ignores statistics and the complexity of human behavior. That said, it's a rather indisputable fact that the majority of humans are unsatisfied by monogamy/monoamory. Beyond direct extramarital affairs and sexual experimentation and promiscuity especially prevalent among 20-somethings and early 30-somethings (and let's be honest, polyamory is just a fresh coat of paint, an attempt at intellectually legitimizing what is fundamentally just sleeping around with the exception that both participants in the contract are aware of it), you have the high divorce rate of... what is it now, around 60%? And this in spite of religious and cultural pressure against it. The true rate of dissatisfaction with monogamy is probably much higher. So clearly, biological and/or psychological pressure against monogamy is strong. This obviously doesn't mean that every human must eventually screw his neighbor's wife. There are plenty of successful monogamous relationships, and these success stories are the result of competing sociological (and yes, biological) pressures. The phrase "traditional relationship" or "traditional marriage" has something of a pejorative ring to it now because conservatives have hijacked it as a euphemism to use in political discourse against homosexual partnerships, but there are numerous examples of monogamy outside of the human sphere that arose for biological, evolutionary reasons. "Traditional relationships" may have evolved in humans for a biological reason. That doesn't mean we must have traditional relationships to survive as a species, particularly in an age of technology. And of course I would never throw the word morality around in a discussion of the pros and cons of mono- vs. poly-amorous relationships. Still, we weren't designed to eat lots of sugar either, and yet we do because of biological need even though our cognitive sense tells us its not good for us.
Getting back to the fundamental question you ask: yes I am monogamous. It's an interesting question to ask why that might be, and I'd probably be able to give you a complicated answer if I cared to do so. But fundamentally, like any decision anyone makes, the choice of what to do or not to do is based on complex and not-always-conscious process of weighing the potential risks and rewards of all possible alternatives. A cognitive appraisal of those risks and rewards would use a lot of arguments related to bringing up a child in a society that has certain expectations, a financial and legal system that provides infrastructure which makes monogamy sensible and practical, and so on. A more emotional appraisal would be that I love my wife and can't at the present time imagine myself with someone else. Even so, that doesn't stop me from glancing at a beautiful woman walking by me on a sidewalk. That's biology. So yes, there is always a biological pressure toward polyamory... well, I think polyamory is a rather silly word. Biological pressure toward maximum dispersion of genetic material would be a more apt description of it.
When you're young, a lot of the factors weighed in the cognitive appraisal of the value of being in a relationship with a single person don't really matter. It's not a stereotype to say that a large portion of 20-something males (and females) are promiscuous. It's a fact. Without religion holding them back, why wouldn't they be? Your values and needs change as you get older, of course, and that promiscuity starts to make less sense - for both biological (particularly among women) and sociological (expectations of family members, the desire to have a stable job, home-life, etc.) reasons. As Meroe has correctly stated, polyamory isn't new. It's just a new name for something that has gone on for eons.
Maybe I'm a skeptic, but I see no way for polyamory to be a tenable solution in the long run except in a few rare cases. Especially so in today's world. Social pressure against what is viewed as the norm is too great, and children of such relationships especially will suffer. Maybe as social expectations relax such lifestyles will become more commonplace, but then - people thought this was going to be the case in the 1960s and nothing ever really came of it. Frankly, I see monogamous homosexual relationships as being far more likely to be successful in the long run than heterosexual polygamous ones*, because at least there's a long-standing model that society already accepts and has been proven to be successful. I have known a few people in "open marriages" and all of them have failed within a few years. I don't really care to ruminate upon why and I do realize that I can't generalize from that observation, but on the other hand I do know why they fell apart and the reasons do seem to be highly generalizable.
*An interesting case which underscores the sociological aspect of success is Mormonism, in which polygamy succeeds despite enormous legal and political pressure against it. Whether such relationships are superior to monogamous ones is certainly open for discussion, and there may be merit to arguments which center around how such relationships oppress women (arguments which may not be salient to a society which accepts polygamy in a social rather than religious sense). Still, it's unlikely our society will embrace polyamory anytime soon, so I maintain it's still just a passing fad which is neither original or likely to lead to many long-lasting success stories. The proponents of it are mostly young and naive, and a majority will likely outgrow it once they start to feel a real (versus an abstract 'yeah we want to have kids some day') desire to have children. I'd also be willing to bet the women come around to reality quicker than the men.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 26, 2014 10:05 PM |
|
|
Corribus, what would it take to change your mind? How much evidence would it take?
And I'll also ask you the same question I asked Meroe: if it's bad for polyamorous people to have children because of the stigma, is it bad for same-sex couples to have children as well?
Also, to correct one thing: polyamory isn't about sleeping around. If I wanted to sleep around, I'd be single and go to bars/clubs, not be polyamorous. Polyamory is about emotional connections and romantic relationships with multiple people. There ware different styles of polyamory, but I think the most common one is having one primary partner that's the same as a monogamous partner (minus the monogamy), and another person or other people as secondaries, which are something more than friends (there's romantic interest - and sex) but not quite a primary relationship.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 26, 2014 10:30 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 22:32, 26 Mar 2014.
|
mvassilev said:
Corribus, what would it take to change your mind? How much evidence would it take?
I don't know. What evidence would you provide? And besides you may have missed the point. At least part of my contention is that the scales are weighted against success of polygamous relationships under the yoke of current social pressures. If the environment changes, so does the likelihood of success of a nontraditional relationship. Consider: homosexual relationships could never have survived openly even thirty years ago. The environment has now changed, and homosexual relationships are now at least on the road to being accepted by the community at large. Maybe the social landscape will change to be more accepting of other types of nontraditional relationships as well, in which case they may very well have a correspondingly higher likelihood of success. However, I think the road is much longer for polygamy (even heterosexual polygamy) for both social and legal reasons. You also have the fact that there simply aren't as many numbers (at least openly) to generate momentum AND you have the fact that most people, rightly or wrongly (and I suspect rightly in a great deal of cases) don't take it seriously. Show me trend of 40- and 50-something polygamous relationships WITH children AND being successful, and then maybe that will begin to change. Legally, well, it's a real uphill slog. For homosexual relationships you pretty much had to rewrite a few words. For polygamy, you'll have to rewrite a lot of stuff from scratch. Until there's political pressure to do so, it ain't gonna happen.
Quote:
And I'll also ask you the same question I asked Meroe: if it's bad for polyamorous people to have children because of the stigma, is it bad for same-sex couples to have children as well?
Not at the current time, no. For three reasons. First, society is already more accepting of homosexual relationships, so children of such relationships aren't as stigmatized. Second, there is an abundance of evidence now that progeny of homosexual relationships can thrive. I am unaware of such evidence for polygamous or polyamorous relationships in a broad sense (the evidence from Mormonism can be interpreted in a lot of different ways). And third, and possibly most important, there is also now some legal structure to provide for offspring of homosexual relationships. Children of polygamous relationships and polyamorous relationships become very messy from a legal standpoint (even messier than children from a two-person relationship, and that can be messy enough both for parents and children), and I think even you with your rose-colored blinders on should be able to see why.
Quote:
Also, to correct one thing: polyamory isn't about sleeping around. If I wanted to sleep around, I'd be single and go to bars/clubs, not be polyamorous. Polyamory is about emotional connections and romantic relationships with multiple people. There ware different styles of polyamory, but I think the most common one is having one primary partner that's the same as a monogamous partner (minus the monogamy), and another person or other people as secondaries, which are something more than friends (there's romantic interest - and sex) but not quite a primary relationship.
Sure mvass, whatever helps you sleep at night.
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted March 26, 2014 10:39 PM |
|
|
|
I read about one word was money.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 26, 2014 10:45 PM |
|
|
Polyamory doesn't necessarily involve polygamy, and usually doesn't. I'm still only going to marry one person, though other polyamorous people may be interested in polygamy, depending on their relationship style. It's true that there's some stigma against polyamory, but in some parts of the country (such as rural Oklahoma, where I grew up), there's a strong stigma against homosexuality as well. Should sames-sex couples in Oklahoma not have children?
If your skepticism about polyamory is due to social stigma, I would assume that you'd expect that those who care less about what people (i.e. strangers and acquaintances) think of them would be more likely to have successful polyamorous relationships. Happily, as most OSMers know, I am such a person. If someone doesn't like me being polyamorous, that's their problem, not mine. Also, unlike homosexuality, polyamory is much easier to conceal - if you're living with someone of the same sex, people will wonder even if you deny it, but if you're living with someone of the opposite sex, the vast majority of people will never know what kinds of relationships you may or may not be having on the side. They'll assume you're monogamous, because most people are, and unless I have a reason to tell them otherwise, they can go on believing that.
As for the older polyamorous couples with children, they exist - and if you're comparing it to homosexuality, there aren't that many gay couples in their 50s who have children, either.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 27, 2014 02:17 AM |
|
|
Corribus said:
Even so, that doesn't stop me from glancing at a beautiful woman walking by me on a sidewalk. That's biology. So yes, there is always a biological pressure toward polyamory... well, I think polyamory is a rather silly word. Biological pressure toward maximum dispersion of genetic material would be a more apt description of it.
Well, that was kind of my point, there is a biological pressure but there is also something that contradicts with it, so not everybody acts on it all the time. Whether this contradiction is sociological or biological (socio-biological at least) is a matter of debate, if you ask me. The ratios of divorce rates or cheating, changing from society to society and decade to decade indicates it's sociological rather than biological, since the biological background is the same. Anyway, although I don't completely disregard it, I have been quite skeptical about sociobiology in the classical sense, it's usually an overestimation misrepresentation of our urges and their direct results in social norms.
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted March 27, 2014 04:40 PM |
|
Edited by meroe at 17:01, 27 Mar 2014.
|
Thank the Lord Corribus weighed in. I was beginning to lose my marbles
Oh and to add fuel to the fire (again - Meroe, really!?), I have worked in Child Protection, mainly within a social work arena - and I can assure you that children being raised within homosexual families are having issues. There is nothing magical about alternative lifestyles and raising children. Normally just another set of hurdles and problems for the children to face.
Homosexual couples may indeed by entitled to adopt nowadays - and rightly so. A loving homosexual couple are just as likely to provide a loving and stable home for children. But trying to label it as a better way is just childish.
However, as I have been saying as with the polyamory sect, it is early early days yet. Within the next two generation we are likely to see the outcomes of these upbringings a lot better. And I for one (from my experience so far), don't hold out for any miracles.
As for Mormonism, and polygamy well I think we can discount that very easily. All we have to do is refer to the highly publicised recent cases of how rampant polygamy within the Mormon Church and their heinous practices have been uncovered. Not to mention the wholesale brain washing, isolation, conditioning, grooming and abuse of the women/girls. Also worth a note here, that within the Mormon Church, those who practice polygamy are never poor. Women who claim to be happy to be sister/wives are always married a well off guy. And plus these extra 'marriages' are not marriages as we know them. They are not legal and they are not conducted legally. Most of the time they are verbal contracts expressed within a family set up.
Polygamy is simply two things. One, the opportunity for a woman (mostly either poor or arranged) to be married to a man who can financially look after her. And in some countries/cultures this is often a women's only option. Two, for a man to indulge in his fantasy/greed/libido. There is no real love involved, its a financial arrangement in which the women pay for financial security (of a sort) with their bodies.
Also there are a lot of emotional problems with children brought up within polygamous households. Neglect and emotional abuse are very real problems, as is child sexual abuse.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2014 05:11 PM |
|
|
Is that caused by polygamy, though, or is it caused by patriarchal conservative attitudes? Correlation is not causation.
Also, never have I said that polyamory or homosexuality is better than monogamy or heterosexuality!
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2014 07:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There is no real love involved, its a financial arrangement in which the women pay for financial security (of a sort) with their bodies.
because obviously women don't like sex?
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted March 27, 2014 07:12 PM |
|
|
For a bystander some of you seem awfully close-minded people.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted March 27, 2014 07:27 PM |
|
|
Fauch said:
Quote:
There is no real love involved, its a financial arrangement in which the women pay for financial security (of a sort) with their bodies.
because obviously women don't like sex?
Your damn right there Fauch, women don't like having to have sex when forced into an arranged marriage, often to a man 30 years older.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2014 07:29 PM |
|
|
meroe said:
Your damn right there Fauch, women don't like having to have sex when forced into an arranged marriage, often to a man 30 years older.
unless they were arranged with me. ...wait a minute... "30 years older"... nevermind. that's not gonna work. 
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 08, 2014 04:44 PM |
|
|
I'm sort of in the middle of a polyamorous love triangle now.
I'm approaching the end of high school. During these three years, I've been kinda interested in one of my classmates, who often acts outside of hetero norms. He has no problem walking around naked in front of everybody when drunk, I've kissed him more times than anyone else in my life lol. It's obvious that he's not really sure of his sexuality. Sometimes, he's claimed that he's bisexual, sometimes that he's heterosexual but relates to "individuals" and not gender (yeah, I'm sort of responsible for planting that liberal propaganda in his head). He's also obviously curious about a lot of "gay culture" things, especially in comparison to "straight culture" (like how it's probably easier to just casually sleep with a gay guy than a girl).
I care about him and have started to show that a whole lot more these last weeks. When he gets really, really drunk, I follow him home so that he gets there safely. He really appreciated that. Yesterday, we were at a home party at a rural household, and I, again, took care of him when he had drank to much. We ended up placing him on the floor in a sort of cottage, so he could sleep some. There was no heating though, and he was shaking a lot from the cold, so well, we ended up sort of spooning each other to keep ourselves warm. We had no pillows, no blankets, no heating, only each other. He ended up saying he'd tell his parents that he was bisexual, and that he thought I was sort of cute.
This guy knows my bf from when they were young, and we usually drink with each other when my bfs in town (he lives elsewhere). My classmate is fully supportive of our relationship. Now I'm sort of struggling with how to deal with the situation. You probably know by now that I don't find monogamy to be very appealing, but perhaps it's to optimistic of me to think that I can have both of them. I really don't want to in any way damage the relation between us three.
I'm also thinking about what I can do to make my classmate come to terms with his sexuality. I want to help him get out of the position where he's heterosexual to everybody else (even though people know and accept that he has bi tendencies), but bisexual to me. I want him to know that there's absolutely no need for him to identify as gay or part of that "culture", where he (and I) don't really approve of the feminine aspects. I think that might be what's holding him back. I want him to know that there's no need for him at all to live as, and be labelled as, a feminine gay stereotype or anything like that.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
