Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution?

[SpiritAlight 1]

Thanks for the encouragement Mawilson.

And Danno et al, I'm truly not wanting to insult anyone here.

'This is a marriage forum after all.

And to many people this is a sacred way of being: one to one (partners).

I love that for some people this is a beautiful and harmonious arrangement.

For me, things are never black and white.

I am a free spirit.

I can also be conservative at times.

Oh well, that is the fun of being human...keep updating one's ways of being and just go for it...full on without remorse and guilt.

What's the point?

It eats you alive and everybody loses.

If there are children created from open-door type relationships, would they be any less fulfilled and and less happy if they were loved by all that they come into contact with?

This includes: parents, friends, aunties & uncles, teachers, friends (of all ages 0-100 and beyond), etc etc....it does take a community to raise a child.

The more the merrier.

And the more conscious and open the community, the less this child will have racist/sexist/classist (sp?)/homophobic/etc tendencies.

Hence the less this child will need to damage someone because of inbred (taught!!!) fears (from being around phobic peops).

Ah more love.

Doesn't that sound ideal?

Do you and anyone reading this realize:

you cannot possess anything.

Not a child, not a wife/husband, not a material thing....it is not for you to keep.

It (life/things/people) is for you to enjoy and share.

What you came into this world with is what ylou will leave with and maybe less: for example, one's integrity.

Know what I mean, jelly bean?

Yes, I dream....and I do!

[Danno 1,228]

Sounds like a wonderful life, but facts are what they are and they indicate ... while you are "enjoying" your freedom of different women, the kids from those relationships are much more likely to pay and pay and pay.

Those are not "facts" - it's your closed mind talking.

MAWilson you have got to be kidding.

I think it is obvious whose mind is closed.

Kids from single mothers have a much higher rate of problems (in nearly all areas), it's laughable that you pretend it's not so.

If you believe kids sired in revolving-door... multiple person affairs are going to "be just fine"... well, you really are clinging to fantasy.

Hint: ask anyone who works in a prison.... what is the greatest common denominator among inmates.

Thanks for the encouragement Mawilson.

And Danno et al, I'm truly not wanting to insult anyone here.

'This is a marriage forum after all.

And to many people this is a sacred way of being: one to one (partners).

I love that for some people this is a beautiful and harmonious arrangement.

For me, things are never black and white.

I am a free spirit.

I can also be conservative at times.

Oh well, that is the fun of being human...keep updating one's ways of being and just go for it...full on without remorse and guilt.

What's the point?

It eats you alive and everybody loses.

If there are children created from open-door type relationships, would they be any less fulfilled and and less happy if they were loved by all that they come into contact with?

This includes: parents, friends, aunties & uncles, teachers, friends (of all ages 0-100 and beyond), etc etc....it does take a community to raise a child.

The more the merrier.

And the more conscious and open the community, the less this child will have racist/sexist/classist (sp?)/homophobic/etc tendencies.

Hence the less this child will need to damage someone because of inbred (taught!!!) fears (from being around phobic peops).

Ah more love.

Doesn't that sound ideal?

Do you and anyone reading this realize:

you cannot possess anything.

Not a child, not a wife/husband, not a material thing....it is not for you to keep.

It (life/things/people) is for you to enjoy and share.

What you came into this world with is what ylou will leave with and maybe less: for example, one's integrity.

Know what I mean, jelly bean?

Yes, I dream....and I do!

Oh jeez, Free-Spirit, that drivel is so silly, I need not comment.

[HAL 9000 96]

Never as silly as having a closed mind.

[mawilson 2,133]

MAWilson you have got to be kidding.

I think it is obvious whose mind is closed.

Kids from single mothers have a much higher rate of problems (in nearly all areas), it's laughable that you pretend it's not so.

If you believe kids sired in revolving-door... multiple person affairs are going to "be just fine"... well, you really are clinging to fantasy.

Why do you equate polyamory with revolving-door relationships or affairs?

The two essential ingredients of the concept of "polyamory" are "more than one" and "loving."

That is, it is expected that the people in such relationships have a loving emotional bond, are

involved in each other's lives multi-dimensionally, and care for each other. This term is not

intended to apply to merely casual recreational sex, anonymous orgies, one-night stands,

pick-ups, prostitution, "cheating," serial monogamy, or the popular definition of swinging as

"mate-swapping" parties.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Clearly its difficult to imagine a stable group relationship.

To be honest, I don't buy it either.

[HAL 9000 96]

Clearly its difficult to imagine a stable group relationship.

To be honest, I don't buy it either.

I'm not into it either but its none of my business to think I have a right to impose my limitations onto other willing adults.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Clearly its difficult to imagine a stable group relationship.

To be honest, I don't buy it either.

I'm not into it either but its none of my business to think I have a right to impose my limitations onto other willing adults.

WORD.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Clearly its difficult to imagine a stable group relationship.

To be honest, I don't buy it either.

I'm not into it either but its none of my business to think I have a right to impose my limitations onto other willing adults.

The only problem I have with it is how such a relationship could be recognised in law - far from easy.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Brother: using the same logic you and I apply to endorse gay marriage; answer me this: How would legalizing multiple marriage affect you, personally?

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Brother: using the same logic you and I apply to endorse gay marriage; answer me this: How would legalizing multiple marriage affect you, personally?

Doesn't affect me at all. My question is a purely practical one - when multiple partners are involved it becomes very difficult to define the rights of the participants as pertains to taxation, inheritance, child custody etc etc etc.

Protracted divorce cases are difficult, expensive and drawn out enough with just two people's interests to consider. When you're essentially dealing with an entire community (which is what this amounts to)... well... it certainly wouldn't be easier.

As far as precedent goes - there is surely some cause for concern given that the folks who would likely benefit directly from this kind of thing would be cultish religions like the Mormons - where grey areas exist about things like "mutual" consent.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Private Pike

[*Robert* 2]

I can barely afford one wife, and deal with all the BS... why in gods name would I want more than one?!!!

[Peikko 1,575]

Brother: using the same logic you and I apply to endorse gay marriage; answer me this: How would legalizing multiple marriage affect you, personally?

Doesn't affect me at all. My question is a purely practical one - when multiple partners are involved it becomes very difficult to define the rights of the participants as pertains to taxation, inheritance, child custody etc etc etc.

Protracted divorce cases are difficult, expensive and drawn out enough with just two people's interests to consider. When you're essentially dealing with an entire community (which is what this amounts to)... well... it certainly wouldn't be easier.

As far as precedent goes - there is surely some cause for concern given that the folks who would likely benefit directly from this kind of thing would be cultish religions like the Mormons - where grey areas exist about things like "mutual" consent.

I simply don't think it's possible to define 'marriage' in terms of an open(and open ended) plurality - the point of marriage is to exclude everyone but the partners.

Without that, it's a pointless exercise.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[*Robert* 2]

Agreed.

[mawilson 2,133]

I simply don't think it's possible to define 'marriage' in terms of an open(and open ended) plurality - the point of marriage is to exclude everyone but the partners.

Without that, it's a pointless exercise.

Again, polyamory does not imply open-endedness, only multiplicity.