# A Second Look At Polyamory



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

The purpose of this thread is to present an unbiased look at Polyamory.
I would like to examine what is promised by those promoting it , what living in that type of marriage actually involves, and compare it to what has existed in monogamy from since the dawn of civilization.
So in essence we would be examining ;
Love , Intimacy and sex in polyamorous marriages juxtaposing them against what exists in monogamy . You can state your personal preferences , observations , experiences , if and why you think it may or may not be a superior system to monogamy.
LOVE.
What makes you feel happy and secure in your marriage? Is it not the “ I’m the only one” feeling that exclusivity and commitment brings? 
The traditional concept of romantic love does not exist in polyamory because it is thought that traditional romantic love involves commitment to _one person_ . In polyamory the individual relinquishes his/her rights to certain emotions to the “ group ” because the collective happiness of the group is more important than how you feel. What happens after is a general acquiescing to the culture of the group, until the activities of the group defines you. You become “ Poly.” 


In a polyamorous marriage, an “ enlightened “ husband , would not get jealous when his wife is sexually attracted to another man . [ and vice versa] . 
_There are no solid boundaries,and the rules are flexible . The boundaries are shifted based on how you feel._
So, if he does feel jealous , he is encouraged by his wife to look deep inside himself to identify the source of his jealousy. She will then tell him that his insecurity and possessiveness over her is feeding his jealousy, and if he truly loves her , he would allow her to explore her sexuality with other lovers who can add to her spiritual experience and personal growth.
So whilst he is fighting with his * negative * feelings of jealousy, she is at her lover’s house , riding him to extacy , and fulfilling her * spiritual * need. After her sexual encounters she is expected to tell her primary partner , her husband [ or vice versa ] of the details of the sexual encounter with her lover and the feelings she felt during the act.
He is expected to understand her , and feel genuine happiness for her “ spiritual “ growth. Even though it means that she will eventually be having lots more sex and intimacy with her new lover than her husband , _* because she has needs only her new lover can fulfill._

_But do we human beings , males and females really need to go around having sex with random partners in an effort to achieve “ self enlightenment “ , “ liberation “ and some sort of spiritual nirvana?_

Have a look at the weblink below, it’s the blog of a polyamorous husband / man.

Paradoxical Polyamory | Reality Sandwich

Love in a polyamorous marriage involves a mental / emotional reset of your core value system and what you have always regarded as “ right .” There is no such thing as exclusivity or real commitment to one person, because they believe that human beings are not “ naturally “ monogamous. But the only thing that’s natural to humans is birth, life and death . Everything else is learned / acquired based on culture and other factors.

It is said that polyamory is progressive and superior to monogamy. Everyone has the right to their choice of lifestyles, no doubt , however I wonder why would someone choose to live in a marriage where there is no exclusivity nor commitment. I guess that psychologist , Barry Schwartz was correct in his book when he stated that more options actually means less happiness. He called it 
“ The Paradox Of Choice .” 
Here’s a link to his video on TED.com;

Barry Schwartz: The paradox of choice | Video on TED.com

Your Thoughts?

"..*Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions*..”
Niccolò Machiavelli


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

To sum up my feelings, if someone wants a Polyamory lifestyle, then don't get married or remove the legal commitment of marriage and then anyone can do what the hell they please. As long as all partners involved are aware for the circumstances, then who really cares.

Over thousands of years, marriage developed as monogamous commitments for a reason, and that reason it is the best way to procreate, build a family and establish the next generation. I believe that this still holds true today despite what many say, that it is an out modded institution.


----------



## Jane_Doe (Aug 9, 2012)

Polygyny (multiple wives) is the most common form of marriage in the world today, so you could argue that it is the 'natural' form of marriage. I believe all types of marriage are shaped by the culture (none of them are 'genetic' or 'human nature'), and each type of marriage fits the needs of that culture.

Polygynous marriage cultures allow women to pool childcare resources and those marriages are often only permitted if the man can show he can 'afford' multiple wives, so the women are 'taken care' of. They place more value on the women raising the children and looking after the home together, and in a lot of cases (I'm mixing cultures for these examples) the sister-wives get along well and consider themselves friends, or allies. The emphasis isn't on romantic love, but familial love and bonding with children.

But polygyny doesn't work as well in developed nations because it creates a pool of single men who end up competing - aggressively - for more resources and thus, for women. Breeding is the desire for most men, and if you shut off their access to women, they won't simply shrug and go back to their 9-5. They'll get aggressive, and at worst this can and does lead to criminal activity. Equally distributing women throughout society and letting Disney teach us that everyone has a soulmate, for richer and poorer, allows more men to breed and thus puts their focus on a 'paternal' role - i.e getting a job and providing for their child, instead of making them desperate to find a woman to mate with. It's economically sound.


----------



## anchorwatch (Mar 5, 2012)

Jane_Doe said:


> Polygyny (multiple wives) is the most common form of marriage in the world today


Really?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

The Middleman said:


> To sum up my feelings, if someone wants a Polyamory lifestyle, then don't get married or remove the legal commitment of marriage and then anyone can do what the hell they please. As long as all partners involved are aware for the circumstances, then who really cares.
> 
> *Over thousands of years, marriage developed as monogamous commitments for a reason, and that reason it is the best way to procreate, build a family and establish the next generation. I believe that this still holds true today despite what many say, that it is an out modded institution*.


:iagree:

In fact few people realize that there exist a nexus between developed societies , democracy and the practice of monogamy.

Some feel that monogamy was invented by the church, but nothing could be further from the truth. In very early civilizations [ Mesopotamia ] polyamory was rampant . STD like Syphilis and Gonorrhea was rampant and there was also the problem of children without fathers. 
Monogamy was then introduced to stabilize their populations. Land became a valuable asset due to agriculture, so those societies became more organized.

The problem with Polygamy was that it ensured that some men stayed single,whilst the higher status men had many wives. But legally their offspring were taken care of.
Polyamory had no such legal guarantee for the offsprings.

Monogamy became the best option.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Jane_Doe said:


> Polygynous marriage cultures allow women to pool childcare resources and those marriages are often only permitted if the man can show he can 'afford' multiple wives, so the women are 'taken care' of. They place more value on the women raising the children and looking after the home together, and in a lot of cases (I'm mixing cultures for these examples) the sister-wives get along well and consider themselves friends, or allies. The emphasis isn't on romantic love, but familial love and bonding with children.
> 
> But polygyny doesn't work as well in developed nations because it creates a pool of single men who end up competing - aggressively - for more resources and thus, for women. Breeding is the desire for most men, and if you shut off their access to women, they won't simply shrug and go back to their 9-5. They'll get aggressive, and at worst this can and does lead to criminal activity. Equally distributing women throughout society and letting Disney teach us that everyone has a soulmate, for richer and poorer, allows more men to breed and thus puts their focus on a 'paternal' role - i.e getting a job and providing for their child, instead of making them desperate to find a woman to mate with. It's economically sound.


 "......Research using decision models to investigate how polygamous vs. monogamous systems impact economic productivity come down in favor of monogamy. More specifically, if monogamy were to be enforced in polygamous societies, the analysis forecasts that saving rates rise, bride prices vanish and GDP per capita climbs. What's driving all of these positive outcomes? When men are diverted from obtaining additional wives or selling daughters, they have fewer children, invest in the workforce, and both save and consume more. Again, monogamy is advantageous for society as a whole......."

Source:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201206/why-get-married-these-answers-may-surprise-you


----------



## anony2 (Apr 28, 2012)

"Similarly—according to Betzig—the *Christian Church enforced monogamy because wealth passed to the closest living, legitimate male relative, often resulting in the wealthy oldest brother being without a male heir*.[58] Thus, the wealth and power of the family would pass to the “celibate” younger brother of the church.[58] In both of these instances, the rule-making elite used cultural processes to ensure greater reproductive fitness for themselves and their offspring, leading to a larger genetic influence in future generations."

Betzig's contention that monogamy evolved as a result of Christian socio-economic influence in the West is weakened by monogamy being widespread idea in the ancient Middle East much earlier. In Israel's pre-Christian era, an *essentially monogamous ethos underlay the Jewish creation story* (Gn 2) and the last *chapter of Proverbs*

Monogamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently, the people that wrote this had no idea that the 'Christian' bible has both the jewish creation story and the book of Proverbs in it. lol 

"His number-crunching found that these factors alone were not enough to move a species away from promiscuity. The models did work, though, with a few adjustments.

"First, he stopped assuming that all males would act the same. Instead, he tested what would happen if only the low-ranking males in the group offered food to females in return for mating opportunities. These *weaker males* had less to lose by switching strategies because they wouldn't get very far through fighting anyway.

*The other key change was realizing that these low-ranking males would select faithful females.*

"*When I factored those things in, then things start to happen with the formation of pair bonds*," Gavrilets said. Pair-bonding ultimately swept through almost the entire group."

Study looks at evolutionary origins of monogamous coupling - Los Angeles Times


----------



## Jane_Doe (Aug 9, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> "......Research using decision models to investigate how polygamous vs. monogamous systems impact economic productivity come down in favor of monogamy. More specifically, if monogamy were to be enforced in polygamous societies, the analysis forecasts that saving rates rise, bride prices vanish and GDP per capita climbs. What's driving all of these positive outcomes? When men are diverted from obtaining additional wives or selling daughters, they have fewer children, invest in the workforce, and both save and consume more. Again, monogamy is advantageous for society as a whole......."
> 
> Source:
> 
> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201206/why-get-married-these-answers-may-surprise-you


Monogamy is advantageous for the economic system, that's what I said too. But economic prosperity is something that not all groups of people care to/should strive for. Sure, as developed nations, that's how we 'categorise' countries (by richer, poorer, undeveloped, third world etc). Tribal communities, communists, egalitarians (if there are any left), and those living off the land might not engage in monogamy nor do they care about increasing the GDP of a country whose leaders care more about American politics than the fate of their own people.

And the fact that monogamy has to be 'legally enforced' says something to me about just how natural it is.


----------



## that_girl (Jul 6, 2011)

I'm sure I could love other people...which is why I don't push it or get close to men. Love is Love.

I'm human, not a robot. When I got married, I promised to "Love him and only him"...so I have to keep that promise and not put myself in situations where I could love someone else that way.


----------



## Coffee Amore (Dec 15, 2011)

Jane_Doe said:


> Polygyny (multiple wives) is the most common form of marriage in the world today, so you could argue that it is the 'natural' form of marriage.


I'd be interested in seeing your references for the statement above. I've actually read the opposite - that monogamy is the most common type of marriage, but among polygamists, it's polygyny that's the most common form of group marriage.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

anony2 said:


> "Similarly—according to Betzig—the *Christian Church enforced monogamy because wealth passed to the closest living, legitimate male relative, often resulting in the wealthy oldest brother being without a male heir*.[58] Thus, the wealth and power of the family would pass to the “celibate” younger brother of the church.[58] In both of these instances, the rule-making elite used cultural processes to ensure greater reproductive fitness for themselves and their offspring, leading to a larger genetic influence in future generations."
> 
> Betzig's contention that monogamy evolved as a result of Christian socio-economic influence in the West is weakened by monogamy being widespread idea in the ancient Middle East much earlier. In Israel's pre-Christian era, an *essentially monogamous ethos underlay the Jewish creation story* (Gn 2) and the last *chapter of Proverbs*
> 
> ...


TEDx — The surprising history of monogamy: Kyle Harper


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Jane_Doe said:


> Monogamy is advantageous for the economic system, that's what I said too. But economic prosperity is something that not all groups of people care to/should strive for. Sure, as developed nations, that's how we 'categorise' countries (by richer, poorer, undeveloped, third world etc). Tribal communities, communists, egalitarians (if there are any left), and those living off the land might not engage in monogamy nor do they care about increasing the GDP of a country whose leaders care more about American politics than the fate of their own people.
> 
> And the fact that monogamy has to be 'legally enforced' says something to me about just how natural it is.


Well we are both agreeing.
Monogamy is no more " natural" to human beings than being a " good citizen."
Left up to themselves, some men would rape and even rape their own offspring. 
The nature of man or what is " natural " to man is an entirely, different philosophical debate.
But,laws are designed for the proper functioning of a society.


----------



## Created2Write (Aug 25, 2011)

Caribbean Man said:


> Well we are both agreeing.
> Monogamy is no more " natural" to human beings than being a " good citizen."
> Left up to themselves, some men would rape and even rape their own offspring.
> The nature of man or what is " natural " to man is an entirely, different philosophical debate.
> But,laws are designed for the proper functioning of a society.


Yes. :iagree:


----------



## weightlifter (Dec 14, 2012)

Many men push this idea thinking that they will be getting "lots of extra poon". Be careful what you wish for you just might get it. Take a couple wanting no boundaries like that. Put them both in a singles bar. Both are same age say 28. Both have median "game". Both are median in physical attractiveness and median everything else.

She will have 5 offers of sex in one night. He will have one offer in 5 nights. I know a swinger couple. SHE is the one all hung ho about it. Unless he has excellent game or rich or famous etc it will not even be close.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

weightlifter said:


> Many men push this idea thinking that they will be getting "lots of extra poon". Be careful what you wish for you just might get it. Take a couple wanting no boundaries like that. Put them both in a singles bar. Both are same age say 28. Both have median "game". Both are median in physical attractiveness and median everything else.
> 
> She will have 5 offers of sex in one night. He will have one offer in 5 nights. I know a swinger couple. SHE is the one all hung ho about it. Unless he has excellent game or rich or famous etc it will not even be close.


:iagree:

You're absolutely correct.
Most times its the women getting laid by the same handful of guys.
Husband on the other hand has to settle for 
"sloppy seconds " either from his wife or any other woman who might not have immediate access to her desired partner.


Paradoxical Polyamory | Reality Sandwich

The primary husband most times is not Alpha , so he is
" plan B."


----------



## Machiavelli (Feb 25, 2012)

weightlifter said:


> Many men push this idea thinking that they will be getting "lots of extra poon". Be careful what you wish for you just might get it. Take a couple wanting no boundaries like that. Put them both in a singles bar. Both are same age say 28. Both have median "game". Both are median in physical attractiveness and median everything else.
> 
> She will have 5 offers of sex in one night. He will have one offer in 5 nights. I know a swinger couple. SHE is the one all hung ho about it. Unless he has excellent game or rich or famous etc it will not even be close.


No, if he's a well known musician or well known pro athlete, he can get the pick of the place. Every time. But those guys are basically 1 in 500,000. the other 499,000 are SOL.

I used to know a lot of swingers many years ago. None were stupid enough to let their wives play on their own. They knew that the wife was the coin that let them play with other men's wives. Crazy, huh?

Now, having said that, polygyny is the natural state of the human race.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

No!

However, perhaps strangely, I could see how a polyamorous marriage would work if the dynamics were handled correctly.

For instance if you had a wife with two husbands (I do know of a trio who live nearby). You could still pledge fidelity between the three of you.

This would probably work quite well if the wife was very high drive, allowing her two men to satisfy her sexual needs.

Not sure how the sleeping/living arrangements would work.

Also I have no information on frequency of infidelity in polyamorous marriages but from what I have read it does go on.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

WyshIknew said:


> No!
> 
> *However, perhaps strangely, I could see how a polyamorous marriage would work if the dynamics were handled correctly.*
> 
> ...


Wysh,
From what I've seen,
What you have written there happens quite a lot in Polyamory.

Two men cohabiting with one woman , in the same house.

But the " handling the dynamics " part means that one of the men usually gets laid more , and has her respect .The other 
[ usually her husband ] man is the " docile " type, so he 
" doth not protest too much."
The woman is usually the highly paid career type , earning much more than him.

It is a very emasculating dynamic.

I had a link to a particular story dealing with that, but i lost the link so I cannot post it.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

WyshIknew said:


> Also I have no information on frequency of infidelity in polyamorous marriages but from what I have read it does go on.


That's because there are really no solid boundaries in polyamorous marriages. The boundaries are shifted to suit the particular sexual desire of the primary couple involved. It may start off with one partner for both spouses and end up as a bisexual foursome later,down the road.

The only * _sane_ * version of polyamory I've ever heard about is polyfidelity , where two or three couples have sex ONLY among themselves , ONLY in front of each other, or a group of women or men
[ as in your example].
Not that I approve of the practice , but I think that type of arrangement would significantly lessen the risks of " infidelity " and STD's.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Wysh,
> From what I've seen,
> What you have written there happens quite a lot in Polyamory.
> 
> ...


Hmm yes, I was thinking more along the lines of equal emotional and physical interaction.

Perhaps one larger bed or some sort of rotational system. The version you describe is veering into cuckoldry.

But even in a supposedly equal tri relationship it would be very difficult for the wife to not favour one husband over another and surely jealousy must raise it's head sometimes.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Machiavelli said:


> I used to know a lot of swingers many years ago. None were stupid enough to let their wives play on their own.* They knew that the wife was the coin that let them play with other men's wives. Crazy, huh?*


Nope,
Not crazy at all!

"...Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions..”
Niccolò Machiavelli


Haven't you been doing your reading?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

WyshIknew said:


> Hmm yes, I was thinking more along the lines of equal emotional and physical interaction.
> 
> Perhaps one larger bed or some sort of rotational system. The version you describe is veering into cuckoldry.
> 
> *But even in a supposedly equal tri relationship it would be very difficult for the wife to not favour one husband over another and surely jealousy must raise it's head sometimes*.


The basis of those supporting polyamory is that,
a person needs the freedom to grow personally and spiritually .This often occurs most intensely in intimate relationships. Therefore, a person needs to be free to be emotionally and physically intimate with whoever they so please, so that they may exercise their freedom to get the most satisfaction and growth out of life.

The problem with this argument is;

1] Intimate relationships are intense opportunities for personal and spiritual growth, but they are not necessary. A person can grow from virtually any experience or relationship, depending on their own commitment to growth.* Growth is a personal choice that comes from within; it is not created by an external event or another person. Furthermore, intimacy with more than one partner does not ensure “greater” or “deeper” intimacy, and may be used as a codependent excuse to avoid intimacy with a primary partner.*

2]Sexual variety is an abstract concept; it is possible for a monogamous couple to experience sexual variety to a greater extent than a polyamorous couple. In turn, a person by nature embodies variety, because they are inherently multi-dimensional with perhaps unlimited potential to explore different aspects of their self. So then, what is actually meant is that 
"_a person needs to have sex with multiple partners, perhaps simultaneously, in order to experience sexual variety_," is a " logic fail."

3] A person is free to make their own choice about how many partners they want to be involved with. *But respecting your partner’s choice to pursue other relationships is a separate issue from respecting your own core needs and choices* which may be monogamous. 

*You can respect a partner’s needs without disrespecting your own needs in the process.*

In the end, it all comes down to SELF RESPECT.
The type of relationship a person chooses is based on their individual life experiences and how they were raised. Right and wrong is in their own perception.


----------



## Jane_Doe (Aug 9, 2012)

Coffee Amore said:


> I'd be interested in seeing your references for the statement above. I've actually read the opposite - that monogamy is the most common type of marriage, but among polygamists, it's polygyny that's the most common form of group marriage.


I lost access to all the journals I had to read regarding kinship and marriage for my degree, but I found on wikipedia that about 78% of societies are polygynous, and only 22% are strictly monogamous. Though some polygynous societies have people in who are 'accidentally' monogamous, due to only having the resources for one wife, etc.

And another article says that polygyny is legally recognised in 50 countries, where about only 12 enforce monogamy.


----------



## anchorwatch (Mar 5, 2012)

Jane_Doe said:


> I lost access to all the journals I had to read regarding kinship and marriage for my degree, but I found on wikipedia that about 78% of societies are polygynous, and only 22% are strictly monogamous. Though some polygynous societies have people in who are 'accidentally' monogamous, due to only having the resources for one wife, etc.
> 
> And another article says that polygyny is legally recognised in 50 countries, where about only 12 enforce monogamy.


What's the populations of these societies?


----------



## N_chanted (Nov 11, 2012)

weightlifter said:


> Many men push this idea thinking that they will be getting "lots of extra poon". Be careful what you wish for you just might get it. Take a couple wanting no boundaries like that. Put them both in a singles bar. Both are same age say 28. Both have median "game". Both are median in physical attractiveness and median everything else.
> 
> She will have 5 offers of sex in one night. He will have one offer in 5 nights. I know a swinger couple. SHE is the one all hung ho about it. Unless he has excellent game or rich or famous etc it will not even be close.


i dont see this as true all the time. i do know lots of couples who are poly, and honestly the MAN gets way more offers. like 10x as much as she does. 

and it's not only that one couple, infact most of the couples that i know that practice poly, or are "swingers" the guy is getting way more offers than she does. 

the only time i see that a woman is getting more offers, is when she looks like barbie, and even then, it's only talking about it, because what i see, is when it comes down to talking about it, the spouse isnt comfortable with her hubby getting it on with barbie, when she doesnt look like barbie. 

make sense?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Jane_Doe said:


> I lost access to all the journals I had to read regarding kinship and marriage for my degree, but I found on wikipedia that about 78% of societies are polygynous, and only 22% are strictly monogamous. Though some polygynous societies have people in who are 'accidentally' monogamous, due to only having the resources for one wife, etc.
> 
> And another article says that polygyny is legally recognised in 50 countries, where about only 12 enforce monogamy.


I think you may be correct there.
I do remember reading those stats before and it did shock me.
However , some extrapolation shows that monogamy is the norm is Western societies. In those where polygamy was the norm, the human development index was very low.

Monogamy gave the West an advantage in development. 
[ Industrial revolution , French Revolution etc.]

Pre Maoist China was mostly polygamous , but communism changed it to monogamy for developmental reasons. Before Mao, China was in chaos , divided and run by dynasties and despots . Polygamy was one of the culprits.
Today they are reaping the benefits from that and its other radical reforms.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

When life is easy or manageable monogamy prevails as the normal or majority.

However when survival become difficult then polyamory becomes more prevalent.

I think this is because most prefer manogamy however our need to procreate and ensure survival of our offspring superseeds that.


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

BrokenHearted_kitten said:


> i dont see this as true all the time. i do know lots of couples who are poly, and honestly the MAN gets way more offers. like 10x as much as she does.
> 
> and it's not only that one couple, infact most of the couples that i know that practice poly, or are "swingers" the guy is getting way more offers than she does.
> 
> ...


No


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

BjornFree said:


> No


What took you so long my brother?


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> What took you so long my brother?


I can't understand polyamory no matter how many times I look at it in any number of ways. The only thing I can understand, if in the event I do indulge in swinging, is that once I've shagged the other guy's wife silly, the drive back home will be spent going over all the different positions that the OM was banging my wife in. So , no. She's mine, she stays mine.

Back in the 70's those silly key parties were all the rage, but mostly in the upper circles.

The scales are tipped in favor of the females, be it swinging or whatever else in non monogamous relationships. And I wouldn't want that.


----------



## Machiavelli (Feb 25, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Nope,
> Not crazy at all!
> 
> "...Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions..”
> ...


Sure, but the "crazy" comment was for those who are not fellow members of the _Illuminati._


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> When life is easy or manageable monogamy prevails as the normal or majority.
> 
> *However when survival become difficult then polyamory becomes more prevalent.*
> 
> I think this is because most prefer manogamy however our need to procreate and ensure survival of our offspring superseeds that.


Do you mean polygamy or polyamory?

My reason for asking is that in a survival scenario , one man would want to mate / breed multiple women.
A woman could only get pregnant for one man whereas, one man can impregnate multiple women.

My thoughts are that polygamy was linked resources and power, in societies where women were viewed as a commodity. [ Hence the practice of dowry , selling brides etc.]

Monogamy is linked mostly to law and order and the" proper" functioning of any society.

I tried figuring out polyamory but I couldn't.


----------



## N_chanted (Nov 11, 2012)

BjornFree said:


> No


ok, i know sometimes i tend to talk in a circle. which part didnt make sense? or are you just saying you arent in agreement? lol


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Do you mean polygamy or polyamory?
> 
> My reason for asking is that in a survival scenario , one man would want to mate / breed multiple women.
> A woman could only get pregnant for one man whereas, one man can impregnate multiple women.
> ...


You are quite right. polygamy was actually what was spinning around in my head when I stated that.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

BjornFree said:


> I can't understand polyamory no matter how many times I look at it in any number of ways. The only thing I can understand, if in the event I do indulge in swinging, is that once I've shagged the other guy's wife silly, the drive back home will be spent going over all the different positions that the OM was banging my wife in. So , no. She's mine, she stays mine.
> 
> *Back in the 70's those silly key parties were all the rage, but mostly in the upper circles.*
> 
> The scales are tipped in favor of the females, be it swinging or whatever else in non monogamous relationships. And I wouldn't want that.


I remember those times.
But back then in those circles, sex was like a type of 
" social currency."
Then came herpes....


Yes definitely, in non monogamous relationships, the scales are tipped way in favour of the females and just a handful of males.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Machiavelli said:


> Sure, but the "crazy" comment was for those who are not fellow members of the _Illuminati._



Ha ha!:rofl:
My goodness!


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

BrokenHearted_kitten said:


> ok, i know sometimes i tend to talk in a circle. which part didnt make sense? or are you just saying you arent in agreement? lol


Both. 

Having had a colorful sex life in my youth, I can tell you that if I was a woman I would have had 10x sex with 100x number of partners and that's a fact. This, of course, assuming that I was a head turner.

Also because it really doesn't take much effort for a man to become aroused. Show me a naked chick and you will see a stiff d!ck. Think about it, if a hot female walks into a pub full of men and takes her clothes off, what do you think is going to happen? Do you think all of these guys are going to reject her because she doesn't look like barbie? That's exactly what's happening in all of them swinger parties. Its a big display case for women and the guy who's on top is going to fvck the hottest one, while the bottom feeder is going to have his fist for company.


----------



## N_chanted (Nov 11, 2012)

well maybe that's the problem then BjornFree. By and large, the vast majority of women that i have seen in this lifestyle, are not head turners. far from it. 

most are obese, and in their (late) 30's to 40's. The men on the other hand, generally are in decent shape. 

what i've seen is that the men get a lot more offers. If there are single unattached women around (usually no single men allowed) many times they are younger than the couples are, and they are also usually NOT overweight. 

So, they (the single barbie type women) may get initial offers from men, but when the man goes back to talk to his spouse, and the spouse see's the single woman, a flag goes up, and generally the man is told NO WAY. 

so in saying that, the men are ultimately getting way more valid "offers". 

Now if you include some of the fetish scene, then it goes up significantly towards the men getting more "action".


----------



## *LittleDeer* (Apr 19, 2012)

Polygamy IMO is usually practiced by cultures that do not value women. 
Polyamory is not something I would ever practice either. Any one I've ever k own to have multiple part nerd had a weakened bond with their original partner.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## weightlifter (Dec 14, 2012)

"Game" and looks do factor beyond being a rock star or athlete. Used to work with a guy so good looking even i could tell he was good looking. I saw him turn down 9s on the 10 scale. I had a college roommate who had the bad boy game down pat. He could get a different girl every night. That is 10 percent of the population not a fraction of 1 percent. Nonetheless these cases are well above the stated medians i alluded to.


----------



## Sigma Uber Alles (Oct 15, 2012)

My observation of monogomy is that it is generally a Western cultural development that originated in Roman culture and law primarily for reasons of wealth conservation and control. It was later maintained in feudal times by the ruling elite, and has persisted in the modern West for the same reasons. In order for an orderly transfer of wealth from one generation to the next, one must be able to define relatives and how they relate in order to determine property rights. For this to be possible, heads of household in Western culture (predominately men) must be able to certify and possess exclusive genetic rights of access to procreating females so their offspring may be certified. 

The emotional aspects of monogomy did not enter the cultural equation until more recent times, which is why "arranged marriages" have fallen out of favor. In earlier times, it would have been thought outrageous for anyone other than the head of household to decide who a woman would be betrothed to. Modern sensibilities have relented in deference to feminist demands in recent times, which has led to ambiguously grey areas of definition, where once concrete rules applied. This evolution from "clearly defined" to "clearly confused" roles in marriage has been the source of much discontent and ambivalence for both men and women.

The wealth controlling aspect underlying the origins of marriage probably explains the hypergamous nature of women in the West, as marriage has historically been primarily a tool of acquisition for them. This has become increasingly true as the culture has reduced the barriers to divorce and has been the root cause of much of the so-called "War of the Sexes".

Regarding the question of whether Polyamory would be "better" than Monogamy, I doubt it for several reasons:

First is the property problems referred to above, when offspring of doubtful origins enter the picture. If men are adverse to supporting children not their own, are women any less adverse to supporting children not their own? I doubt it and the forums are filled with women complaining about child support paid by their husbands to former exes.

Second is the psychosexual nature of men and women that is not, in my humble opinion, amenable to sustainable relations in "Poly-Anything" relationships. For men or women, what reason do they have to continue to emotionally or economically support any particular mate in their "retinue" once their needs are filled? What happens to mate #5 when needs are met by #1 through #4? Indeed, if mates "progress" as needs "progress" ( I love how "they" use that word.), what happens to any particular mate when they drop off the list? In short, there simply is no commitment and thus no real "relationship".

Third is emotional desire of men to "possess" and women to "be possessed". Ideally, men who stay married do so because they believe that they have conquered a woman that is slightly out of their league and women who stay married do so because they believe that they have "surrendered" to a man that was so attactive they could not resist. Absent any religious or contractual oath and obligation to remain faithfully committed, the instant this dynamic is lost, the marriage is potentially in jeopardy. Polyamory intentionally and by design destroys this "possessiveness" which is an essential hook that binds. I fail to see anything about Polyamory that lends itself to anything faintly permanent, unless your consider an unending ride on a Merry-Go-Round of multiple partners your life's goal.

Finally is the question of which results in a "deeper" relationship. Two committed people who have sworn to faithfully support and honor the needs, goals, and aspirations of each other, to face the challenges of life together, and to work jointly to maintain understanding and happiness.... or two people who have agreed to allow each other Plan "B"' through Plan "Z" ??


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> I remember those times.
> But back then in those circles, sex was like a type of
> " social currency."
> Then came herpes....
> ...


and there in is the cause of your hostility to the idea of non monogamy.


----------



## Machiavelli (Feb 25, 2012)

anonim said:


> and there in is the cause of your hostility to the idea of non monogamy.


I have no problem with non-monogamy, just so long as it is polygyny. In case you don't know, that's where I monopolize all the women.


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

Machiavelli said:


> I have no problem with non-monogamy, just so long as it is polygyny. In case you don't know, that's where I monopolize all the women.


Where do I sign up for this lol?


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

I vote - it depends on the couple. The option isn't there 

Oh well lol
Personally I know it won't work for my marriage nor many others. However there have been some (very few though) success stories with swinger couples - but those stories always reflect on how important it is to have a strong relationship prior to it; complete trust, honesty, transparency, two-way communication etc etc.

Too many people get involved with this trying to fix their marital/relationship problems (me included with one of my ex gfs) and that just ruins any chance of it working let alone fixing the relationship.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

anonim said:


> and there in is the cause of your hostility to the idea of non monogamy.


Have a " second look " at the poll results.
It speaks for itself.
Then have a good read of Sigma Über Alles post again. 
The FACTS Speak for themselves.

So,
I know that your next move most likely would be to try baiting me with nonsensical , illogical , arguments or start calling me names like misogynistic in a effort to pick up support from across the gender divide.
But the FACTS speak for themselves.
Then in a last ditch effort you might probably report this post as offensive hoping the mods ban me again.
But even if I get banned again,
The thread has already been started and,
The FACTS speak for themselves.


----------



## anony2 (Apr 28, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Have a " second look " at the poll results.
> It speaks for itself.
> Then have a good read of Sigma Über Alles post again.
> The FACTS Speak for themselves.
> ...


Classical projection...


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Surely most polyamoryist have failing relationships beforehand and feel like they've settled for their partner (at least one of them does). Polyamory is a way for them to remain married and still get their sexual and emotional needs met. I have a hard time believing both parties are usually excited about this arrangement. To the contrary, in many cases I suspect one partner pulls the marriage in this direction while the other partner is just clinging to stay married.

Can it make their marriage stronger? Sure if they were headed for divorce before and are not now.
Does it take a strong marriage to become polyamory? No way. It takes a failing one.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Sigma Uber Alles said:


> My observation of monogomy is that it is generally a Western cultural development that originated in Roman culture and law primarily for reasons of wealth conservation and control. It was later maintained in feudal times by the ruling elite, and has persisted in the modern West for the same reasons. In order for an orderly transfer of wealth from one generation to the next, one must be able to define relatives and how they relate in order to determine property rights. For this to be possible, heads of household in Western culture (predominately men) must be able to certify and possess exclusive genetic rights of access to procreating females so their offspring may be certified.
> 
> The emotional aspects of monogomy did not enter the cultural equation until more recent times, which is why "arranged marriages" have fallen out of favor. In earlier times, it would have been thought outrageous for anyone other than the head of household to decide who a woman would be betrothed to. Modern sensibilities have relented in deference to feminist demands in recent times, which has led to ambiguously grey areas of definition, where once concrete rules applied. This evolution from "clearly defined" to "clearly confused" roles in marriage has been the source of much discontent and ambivalence for both men and women.
> 
> ...


:iagree:

Thanks for doing the research and for a well articulated response.
The name polyamorus marriage is actually a re branding and complete degredation of an old concept started by religious [ cults ] fanatics in the early 18th century. One example is the Oneida community started by an eccentric called John H. Noyes. The initial version was called "free love " and it involved people living in communes sharing all their resources including wives and daughters. 
What is being practised now however is a perversion of the original concept . Its anything but " free love."
Polyamorus marriages are now used as a gateway to a life of endless casual sex encounters of every imaginable nature and kink , The spiritual aspect is now tied to the amount of people you have sex with and the level of kink determines how " liberated " you are.

How could any responsible adult could even consider bring children into a marriage with that type of lifestyle?

Everyone has the right to choose their lifestyle , but polyamorus marriages in today's context requires a total recalibration of your moral values and once you enter, there's no way of knowing how far down the rabbit hole you will go.
Those who promote this version as being superior to monogamy, are nothing more than charlatans and conmen IMO.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> Surely most polyamoryist have failing relationships beforehand and feel like they've settled for their partner (at least one of them does). * Polyamory is a way for them to remain married and still get their sexual and emotional needs met. I have a hard time believing both parties are usually excited about this arrangement. To the contrary, in many cases I suspect one partner pulls the marriage in this direction while the other partner is just clinging to stay married.*


My point exactly.
Polyamorus relationships are for SINGLE people , looking for fun.
Not for married couples.

And I doubt that in any polyamorus arrangement emotional needs are really met. I find it hard to believe that one man needs four or five women and a gay lover, to meet his emotional needs.
So what heppens when the gay man decides_ his_ needs are not being met?
Does teh primary lover now have to seek another person? Human relationships are not static, they evolve, emotional needs changes in every person over time. 
The dynamics of this type of relationship are so complex , people's emotional needs change daily. How can one man emotionally fulfil five lovers?
So it all comes down to sex.


----------



## lilith23 (Sep 6, 2012)

Once, in another forum, there were 3 people (1 man 2 women) that are in a polyamory relationship and they were all in love with each other. I don't think that they are open to other people outside them, and it seemed that it worked well for them, even thought they can't marry each other.

My personal feelings towards polyamory, as in a few people sharing some sort of commitment and love together and not with outsiders can work. My feelings towards polygamy, even if I'm familiar with it as part of past of the culture I lived with, is that it's unfair for women, or in other cases, for the gender that is being monopolized.
My own preference is monogamy, it's what I'm looking for and what's work for me.

As for open marriage, swings and so on... IMO, it might work for some couples, but there is one thing I can't understand... If it is really fine and human's nature to want to have sex with many others and so on, then why the need to control over your partner? They talk about jealousy as a bad thing and you might even find magazines implying that only open minded people would try swings... But the thing is, there's a reason for humans to feel jealousy - deep inside, they know that attention is mostly, if not always exclusive. Loving 2 people equally is very rare if not impossible, and it would also not really be love in the same way too. So humans get jealous coz they are afraid that their partner's attention goes to the other people or even lose it completely to the other person. And that is not unreasonable. And that is why swingers have to take full control of their partners.

Also, I disagree whenever someone (not necessarily in this thread but rather in anywhere) says that monogamy is unnatural. Some people just feels the need to bond and be intimate with one person at time; and besides, just as others stated already, monogamy has more advantages when it comes to survival and taking care of off springs.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

lilith23 said:


> As for open marriage, swings and so on... IMO, it might work for some couples, but there is one thing I can't understand... If it is really fine and human's nature to want to have sex with many others and so on, then why the need to control over your partner? *They talk about jealousy as a bad thing and you might even find magazines implying that only open minded people would try swings... But the thing is, there's a reason for humans to feel jealousy - deep inside, they know that attention is mostly, if not always exclusive. Loving 2 people equally is very rare if not impossible, and it would also not really be love in the same way too. So humans get jealous coz they are afraid that their partner's attention goes to the other people or even lose it completely to the other person. And that is not unreasonable. And that is why swingers have to take full control of their partners.*
> 
> .


:iagree: ......this is called " conventional wisdom " or 
" common sense "


I know of a case down here where a man was involved in a
" free love " arrangement with a woman and her daughter. The mother being the primary and the daughter secondary. He also had other lovers.
The mother and daughter lived in the same house with the man. 
One night ,the mother got into an argument with the daughter and in a jealous fit of rage ,stabbed her multiple times with a kitchen knife.

When the case hit the media people were flabbergasted.

Apparently the daughter was getting more attention [ sex ] from the husband than her.

A polyamorous marriage requires a complete reset or overhaul of one's moral value system. One has to recondition their mind ,[ conditional emotional response ] in order to accept what passes for " love."


----------



## Sigma Uber Alles (Oct 15, 2012)

Machiavelli said:


> I have no problem with non-monogamy, just so long as it is polygyny. In case you don't know, that's where I monopolize all the women.


:smthumbup:

Agreed... the basal instinct of the male to conquer and control as many "ass-ets" as possible is genetically wired IMO. All the more reason that civilization has found it beneficial and necessary to reinforce the more emotionally and economically utilitarian boundaries of monogomous matrimony.


----------



## Sigma Uber Alles (Oct 15, 2012)

RandomDude said:


> I vote - it depends on the couple. The option isn't there
> 
> Oh well lol
> Personally I know it won't work for my marriage nor many others. However there have been some (very few though) success stories with swinger couples - but those stories always reflect on how important it is to have a strong relationship prior to it; complete trust, honesty, transparency, two-way communication etc etc.
> ...


I wonder how many of those "successful" stories you heard were anecdotal justification and not reflecting the true measure of longevity or weakness of the relationships.


----------



## Chris Taylor (Jul 22, 2010)

Caribbean Man said:


> A polyamorous marriage requires a complete reset or overhaul of one's moral value system. One has to recondition their mind ,[ conditional emotional response ] in order to accept what passes for " love."


I guess if we could do that for gays and lesbians, we can do it for those interested in polyamorous/polygamist relationships, too.


----------



## Shaggy (Jul 17, 2011)

It comes down to who your priority. Poly folk's have as their #1 priority - themselves. 

why would you be with someone who had someone else as their priority? 

This double talk about jealousy etc is just double talk. Jealously in this case, is your brain pointing out to you that your so called partner is not treating you as their priority. As the person who they always will have the back of. As the person they value most in this world. They are showing you, but leaving you at home, while they go out and seek this "ecstasy" sex in anther person's bed. Your gut is telling you that you are being short changed by this person and that you should do something about it. including stopping being a doormat and letting them waltz back home and using you more.

Instead being double talked into ignoring your gut, what you should take the opportunity the person who has left you to pursue this ecstasy sex to cut this false friend out of your life forever. To gain a spine and to move on.

It's a lot like if your wife announces, dear I've hear about this great island in the sun. It's warm, the weather and food is great. There is surf and beaches and very nice people. It's perfect. I've booked myself tickets to go and I'll see you when I'm home in a month,you aren't invited btw.

A doormat would help pack then, and to drive then to the airport. A major doormat would through them a welcome home party. 

A person with self respect would cancel the credit cards and the door locks.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Chris Taylor said:


> I guess if we could do that for gays and lesbians, we can do it for those interested in polyamorous/polygamist relationships, too.


It is not for society to do the mental reset.,but for the participant in the poly marriage arrangement itself to do a mental reset of their moral values to accept that what " love ' actually meany in a polyamorous relationship and not be jealous of their husband's / wife's other lovers.
Its a type of emotional abuse/ reconditioning.
With gays and lesbians they are still monogamous ie: one partner in a marriage.
with the poly folk its an infinite amount of partners.
Therin lied the need to "reset"one's values.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Shaggy said:


> s.
> 
> *why would you be with someone who had someone else as their priority? *
> 
> .


^^^^^^^
THIS is what I mean by a " mental reset." Even in gay marriages , one partner loves the other and is faithful to that ONE partner.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Shaggy said:


> It's a lot like if your wife announces, *dear I've hear about this great island in the sun. It's warm, the weather and food is great. There is surf and beaches and very nice people. It's perfect.*



Haha!

Sounds a lot like my country!


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> My point exactly.
> Polyamorus relationships are for SINGLE people , looking for fun.
> Not for married couples.


You cant be single and in a relationship at the same time. poly, mono or otherwise. 



Caribbean Man said:


> I know of a case down here where a man was involved in a
> " free love " arrangement with a woman and her daughter. The mother being the primary and the daughter secondary. He also had other lovers.
> The mother and daughter lived in the same house with the man.
> One night ,the mother got into an argument with the daughter and in a jealous fit of rage ,stabbed her multiple times with a kitchen knife.


Do you attribute the mother stabbing the daughter to their sharing the same partner (which by the way is highly questionable in both monogamous and polygamous circles) or due to personal mental instabilities? This is not the norm for any kind of relationship, IMO.



Caribbean Man said:


> A polyamorous marriage requires a complete reset or overhaul of one's moral value system. One has to recondition their mind ,[ conditional emotional response ] in order to accept what passes for " love."


citation needed. But i suspect everything you said applies to any relationship system.






Caribbean Man said:


> Have a " second look " at the poll results.
> It speaks for itself.


No, it only speaks for those who chose to let it speak for them

you asked,* "Do you think married couples should have other lovers?"*

My answer is more complicated than the options you give.

If you think it would benefit of all the people you have relationships with then yes, if it would be to the detriment of any of those people then no.



Caribbean Man said:


> Then have a good read of Sigma Über Alles post again.
> The FACTS Speak for themselves.


an interesting look as western history regarding monogamy.
however western culture is not all culture.
and cultural development doesnt necessarily include moral, spiritual or critical thinking development.



Caribbean Man said:


> So,
> I know that your next move most likely would be to try baiting me with nonsensical , illogical , arguments or start calling me names like misogynistic in a effort to pick up support from across the gender divide.
> But the FACTS speak for themselves.
> Then in a last ditch effort you might probably report this post as offensive hoping the mods ban me again.
> ...


Nothing ive said here is nonsensical or illogical IMO.
If you dont understand something I am saying, or why im saying it, it is ok to ask or even send a pm .

You havent said anything objectively offensive or insulting that I would report this post for, I think you have a right to your opinion if you arent trying to use it to harm, condemn, belittle or offend someone else.
If a mod saw fit to ban you because of the content of what you posted in another thread, then maybe you should moderate your self or avoid that which is inflammatory to you.

Thats all from me, carry on!


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Sigma Uber Alles said:


> I wonder how many of those "successful" stories you heard were anecdotal justification and not reflecting the true measure of longevity or weakness of the relationships.


sometimes i wonder the same thing...about traditional relationships.


----------



## Sigma Uber Alles (Oct 15, 2012)

lilith23 said:


> Also, I disagree whenever someone (not necessarily in this thread but rather in anywhere) says that monogamy is unnatural. Some people just feels the need to bond and be intimate with one person at time; and besides, just as others stated already, monogamy has more advantages when it comes to survival and taking care of off springs.


PAIR BONDING in the human species is the natural state of things. It is motivated by some of the most basic biochemical processes within the human mind and is the outcome of millions of years of evolutionary survival gambits. These forums are replete with both positive and negative social examples demonstrating the effects and limitations of human behavior driven by seratonin, dopamine, oxytocin, and vasopressin.

In the final analysis, however, what elevates us and seperates us from the animal kingdom is our ability to use our intellect to force our animal instinct to serve us instead of the other way around. Apparently a few of us seem incapable of this and, being slaves to their instincts, they resort to "Poly-Something-or-Other" to palliate their weakness.


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Chris Taylor said:


> I guess if we could do that for gays and lesbians, we can do it for those interested in polyamorous/polygamist relationships, too.


what are we doing for gays and lesbians? last I heard they were getting picked on, beat up and bullied in schools, harassed at work and told they are going to hell for being gay, even though 'god' made them that way.


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Shaggy said:


> It comes down to who your priority. Poly folk's have as their #1 priority - themselves.
> 
> why would you be with someone who had someone else as their priority?
> 
> This double talk about jealousy etc is just double talk. Jealously in this case, is your brain pointing out to you that your so called partner is not treating you as their priority. As the person who they always will have the back of. As the person they value most in this world. They are showing you, but leaving you at home, while they go out and seek this "ecstasy" sex in anther person's bed. /*snip... *


You are looking at polyamory and seeing cheating. not the same thing.


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Sigma Uber Alles said:


> PAIR BONDING in the human species is the natural state of things. Citation needed. If this is true, then why the prevalence of cheating? It is motivated by some of the most basic biochemical processes within the human mind and is the outcome of millions of years of evolutionary survival gambits. These forums are replete with both positive and negative social examples demonstrating the effects and limitations of human behavior driven by seratonin, dopamine, oxytocin, and vasopressin.
> 
> In the final analysis, however, what elevates us and seperates us from the animal kingdom is our ability to use our intellect to force our animal instinct to serve us instead of the other way around. Apparently a few of us seem incapable of this and, being slaves to their instincts, they resort to "Poly-Something-or-Other" to palliate their weakness.


While others present feelings and socially endowed moral values framed as facts to palliate their weak arguments.


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

lilith23 said:


> monogamy has more advantages when it comes to survival and taking care of off springs.


I would say different advantages. but i think the rest of your post is well said, and contributes a lot


----------



## theroad (Feb 20, 2012)

lilith23 said:


> As for open marriage, swings and so on... IMO, it might work for some couples, but there is one thing I can't understand... If it is really fine and human's nature to want to have sex with many others and so on, then why the need to control over your partner?



Why the need for control?

No man wants to raise and OC.

Man goes to work, puts in the time and effort because it is HIS son.

WW has an affair for 2 years it's over. Two bads years out of 50 is not that bad.

WW has an affair for two years then gets pregnant at the end. Then 18 years to raise OC, then 4 years college, then if OC is a girl pay for the marriage. Then OC has grand kids, the pain and injustice never ends.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Sigma Uber Alles said:


> PAIR BONDING in the human species is the natural state of things. It is motivated by some of the most basic biochemical processes within the human mind and is the outcome of millions of years of evolutionary survival gambits. These forums are replete with both positive and negative social examples demonstrating the effects and limitations of human behavior driven by seratonin, dopamine, oxytocin, and vasopressin.
> 
> *In the final analysis, however, what elevates us and seperates us from the animal kingdom is our ability to use our intellect to force our animal instinct to serve us instead of the other way around. Apparently a few of us seem incapable of this and, being slaves to their instincts, they resort to "Poly-Something-or-Other" to palliate their weakness.*


Humans are a unique primate because of culture and individual differences.

Humans are especially dependent upon extended child-care, learning, and culture. And we are especially diverse. *So it doesn’t make sense to apply animal mating studies to humans—without taking into full account the role that culture and individual experience play.*

If we look at the primate order, to which humans belong, we see extreme variety in terms of mating style. Titi monkeys mate for life. Bonobos are rather promiscuous for life. They use sex as a social currency, as well as for group cohesion. Bonobos form matriarchal societies, and sex with anyone goes—including sex with the same gender and even sex with children (with some exceptions). So there’s quite a range in our primate relatives. And monogamy seems to be the minority.

But when considering animal studies, we need to be mindful of the role ecology and culture play. 
The more a species depends on extended child-care and thus learning, the more that experience will shape each individual—and the more that individual differences will abound.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

*ANONIM*

A simple question to you.

*Would you have a problem if your wife had an extramarital relationship with another man ?*

A simple Yes or No response will do please .

Thank You.


----------



## that_girl (Jul 6, 2011)

Wouldn't that be cheating? Hm.

If a couple decides to allow this, this what does it matter to anyone outside that relationship?


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

I would never want to take away someone's right to be polyamory and would defend their right but I don't understand it.

I have opinions of why various people want to be polyamory.
- They are not meeting each other's needs and aren't happy with each other. Their solution is to stay together for convenience but detach from each other. Their marriage is more like a business agreement.
- They have de valued sex. This is frequent a out come of sexual abuse. Sex is just not a big deal to them. In truth though I think this is more likely in swinging than it is with polyamory.
- They are pulled into it by the partner. It must be rare for both partners to think this is the best way. I think one will usually be more adament and the other just can't deal with losing the other. They think having part of him/her is better than not having him/her at all.
- They were just born this way. I don't know what it's like to prefer sharing each other sexually and mentally. It's not in my DNA. Then again there's a lot of things not in my DNA and a lot of things I think poorly of others for because they don't make sense to me.


I think it would be damaging to society as a whole if it were mainstream so I'm glad it's considered extreme. I would never vote for anything like it to be a legally recognized union.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> I think it would be damaging to society as a whole if it were mainstream so I'm glad it's considered extreme.


^^^^^^
And this is the sole purpose of this thread. Claiming that Polyamory is superior to monogamy and that monogamy is outdated is disingenuous and ludicrous .I am wondering why would one make these type of claims on a forum dedicated to helping desperate people with troubled marriages.

If a man has no problem sharing his wife then that none of my business. But when he claims to have " evidence " that marriages can " heal" if both partners open the marriage boundaries to allow other partners in then I have to respond.

"..*Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions.*.”
Niccolò Machiavelli


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> If a man has no problem sharing his wife then that none of my business. But when he claims to have " evidence " that marriages can " heal" if both partners open the marriage boundaries to allow other partners in then I have to respond.


Agreed. Many on TAM who have recovered after infidelity say their marriage is stronger now than it was before. I don't think any of them say infidelity is a good thing though. They would prefer to have learned lessons without the betrayal being the spark.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

> If a man has no problem sharing his wife then that none of my business. But when he claims to have " evidence " that marriages can " heal" if both partners open the marriage boundaries to allow other partners in then I have to respond.


I agree - that's the problem with most swinging couples, they get into it trying to fix sh-t when it just has a 100% of failure unless the couples are ALREADY strong to begin with - which still comes with a 50% chance of failure.


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

RandomDude said:


> I agree - that's the problem with most swinging couples, they get into it trying to fix sh-t when it just has a 100% of failure unless the couples are ALREADY strong to begin with - which still comes with a 50% chance of failure.


I saw this and had to stop in to say something. Polyamory is not the same as swinging.

Swinging is for the sex, poly is for the relationship.

That said I agree that poly or swinging to fix a broken relationship will most likely end in failure.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

A salesman wants to sell you a product.
You ask him a simple question .
"..Would you be ok if _your_ wife used this product?"
He refuses to answer.

_A real man is able to give his word and stand by it._
Jus sayin'.


----------



## Chris Taylor (Jul 22, 2010)

Caribbean Man said:


> It is not for society to do the mental reset.,but for the participant in the poly marriage arrangement itself to do a mental reset of their moral values to accept that what " love ' actually meany in a polyamorous relationship and not be jealous of their husband's / wife's other lovers.
> Its a type of emotional abuse/ reconditioning.
> With gays and lesbians they are still monogamous ie: one partner in a marriage.
> with the poly folk its an infinite amount of partners.
> Therin lied the need to "reset"one's values.


I guess what I was trying to say was that we have generally come to accept that being gay/lesbian is "acceptable" in society and the arguments about procreation, who you love/have sex with, etc... no longer matter in this case. The same should be held for poly relationships. 

It's not for you or I to say a poly relationship is wrong, or will lead to overpopulation of the world or marital issues.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Chris Taylor said:


> I guess what I was trying to say was that we have generally come to accept that being gay/lesbian is "acceptable" in society and the arguments about procreation, who you love/have sex with, etc... no longer matter in this case. The same should be held for poly relationships.
> 
> It's not for you or I to say a poly relationship is wrong, or will lead to overpopulation of the world or marital issues.


I also see a few similarities. Freedom to be polyamory if someone chooses is something I would fight for. So in this context, I agree completely the moral reset required to accept the gay lifestyle can be applied to polyamory lifestyle.

Where I separate the two is purely from a civil rights aspect. I don't think peoples rights are being infringed upon by not alloying legally recognized polyamory unions.


----------



## Chris Taylor (Jul 22, 2010)

Thundarr said:


> I also see a few similarities. Freedom to be polyamory if someone chooses is something I would fight for. So in this context, I agree completely the moral reset required to accept the gay lifestyle can be applied to polyamory lifestyle.
> 
> Where I separate the two is purely from a civil rights aspect. I don't think peoples rights are being infringed upon by not alloying legally recognized polyamory unions.


I have to disagree. If you (society) argues that you can't legislate who someone loves and allows homosexual unions, how can you legislate against poly unions? Why is not allowing a man to marry another man infringing on his rights while not allowing a man to marry two women not infringing on his?

Remember... the argument was that marriage was the union between one man and one woman. Then it was a union between two people. If the man/woman argument was wrong, shouldn't the "two people" also be wrong?

Just arguing for argument's sake


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Chris Taylor said:


> I have to disagree. If you (society) argues that you can't legislate who someone loves and allows homosexual unions, how can you legislate against poly unions? Why is not allowing a man to marry another man infringing on his rights while not allowing a man to marry two women not infringing on his?
> 
> Remember... the argument was that marriage was the union between one man and one woman. Then it was a union between two people. If the man/woman argument was wrong, shouldn't the "two people" also be wrong?
> 
> Just arguing for argument's sake


Well then using that logic,
We could take it a little further and say why can't a man marry an 11 year old girl who just had her first period , because biologically she can procreate. And if biologically she can procreate, and has sexual urges,then who are we to try and legislate against her natural urges?

My point is that the rules made for the society is for the protection of everybody . Sometimes the laws are there to protect us, even from ourselves.

There is a history behind the laws against polyamory and polygamy. Society where polygamy is practised are generally regressive and women have very little rights.
We give polyamory legal status , then we cannot discriminate against polygamist which number much more than polyamorist.

So then where do we draw the line?
Or should there even be a line?

NB: There is a reason why after six decades , polyamory is still only practised by a fringe part of the society.
That' because there is no clear definition to what constitute a polyamorous marriage.

A same sex mono marriage = Two persons of the same sex.
A hetero sex mono marriage = Two persons different sex.
A polygamous marriage = One man multiple women. Most societies hava a limit of 5 women.

What exactly constitute a polyamorus marriage?


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Chris Taylor said:


> I have to disagree. If you (society) argues that you can't legislate who someone loves and allows homosexual unions, how can you legislate against poly unions? Why is not allowing a man to marry another man infringing on his rights while not allowing a man to marry two women not infringing on his?
> 
> Remember... the argument was that marriage was the union between one man and one woman. Then it was a union between two people. If the man/woman argument was wrong, shouldn't the "two people" also be wrong?
> 
> Just arguing for argument's sake


It's not that I can't see your argument in theory. Case in point mormons who wish to have multiple wives. I think it's a different kind of union at some point (I think at three).

In short though, I'd like gay marriage to fall within a civil union between two people just like marriage would (from the state's POV).

The the church define marriage however they wish though.


----------



## Chris Taylor (Jul 22, 2010)

Caribbean Man said:


> Well then using that logic,
> We could take it a little further and say why can't a man marry an 11 year old girl who just had her first period , because biologically she can procreate. And if biologically she can procreate, and has sexual urges,then who are we to try and legislate against her natural urges?
> 
> My point is that the rules made for the society is for the protection of everybody . Sometimes the laws are there to protect us, even from ourselves.
> ...


I still fail to see your argument. The strawman argument about marrying an 11 year old fails immediately because an 11 year old does not have the maturity to make the decision. That's why we have things like "age of consent".

Yes, rules are made for the protection of everybody. But when there were rules against homosexual marriage, those were wrong. Yet rules against poly marriages are "right"? By whose standard?

And homosexual marriages, even if legal, would still be a miniscule minority of all marriages because until recently "marriage" was interpreted as being between two people, regardless of sex.

So why does a poly marriage need to be defined? Why shouldn't "marriage" be defined as the joining of two or more people, regardless of sex?

And are you saying that allowing poly marriages in the US will then cause the US to become regressive towards women? I think you need to separate age-old cultures out of the argument. And why would it be regressive to women and not to men? It's because your view is that it's a one man/many women arrangement. That may be the majority of the relationships, but not all.

And why limit it to 5? Previous laws limited marriage to a man and woman, but I guess that didn't hold up.


----------



## Chris Taylor (Jul 22, 2010)

Thundarr said:


> In short though, I'd like gay marriage to fall within a civil union between two people just like marriage would (from the state's POV).


But didn't we redefine civil unions... or at least the "marriage" from a governmental view? Wasn't the traditional view of one man/one woman the "right" view? So why limit it to two people? Why is that the rule? If you use the argument that the homosexual community used and said that marriage should between people who love each other and want to share the legal benefits of their union and it's none of our business what they do in their bedroom, shouldn't the same be held for poly marriages... that they should be able to share the legal benefits of their union and it's none of our business what they do in their bedroom (or bedrooms I guess )


----------



## Chris Taylor (Jul 22, 2010)

^ point conceded


----------



## StoneAngel (Oct 10, 2012)

Jane_Doe said:


> Monogamy is advantageous for the economic system, that's what I said too. But economic prosperity is something that not all groups of people care to/should strive for. Sure, as developed nations, that's how we 'categorise' countries (by richer, poorer, undeveloped, third world etc). Tribal communities, communists, egalitarians (if there are any left), and those living off the land might not engage in monogamy nor do they care about increasing the GDP of a country whose leaders care more about American politics than the fate of their own people.
> 
> And the fact that monogamy has to be 'legally enforced' says something to me about just how natural it is.


So Polygamy isn't "legally forced" in the communities you speak of? Forgive me for my ignorance but when historically has Polygamy been about natural choice?
If we look at Ancient and Modern Middle Eastern Cultures for example, most women are not given the right to choose who or when she marries. Most often this decision is made by her family. Her marriage is an arrangement made for her family's community position and status. It is a legal arrangement that all to frequently is seeled by way of a financial deal. Further to this most Laws in these communities are strictly tied to religious doctrine. These Religiously motivated laws express bringing shame to the Father and Family is punishable by Public Stoning. Refusing to accept the husband chosen for her brings shame upon the family and fear of physical injury..... so I refuse to believe that these Polygamous Marriages are about natural desire and choice.

I would also add that when one uses these Marriages as a way to provide proof of some "progressive social culture" I would point out that the women in these arrangements are not given the choice to explore their "natural" desires for men other than their husbands.....to do so means death in many cases. Legally Sanctioned death I might add.....there is nothing NATURAL about that!


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Chris Taylor said:


> I still fail to see your argument. The strawman argument about marrying an 11 year old fails immediately because an 11 year old does not have the maturity to make the decision. That's why we have things like "age of consent".
> 
> A straw man's argument is one that is based on a fallacy or mis interpretation.
> Who determines that an 11 yr old cannot make a decision to marry? In Pakistan and Afghanistan, girls are sold as brides as young as EIGHT YEARS OLD. That's the LAW across there.
> ...


ETA. I just saw Stone Angel's post above. Have a good read, she is basically saying the same thing about " progressive societies " and polygamy as I did.
The point is anything can be made into a law in any country. In progressive societies an entire spectrum of arguments and positions are usually taken into consideration before laws are even considered. Power also determines how laws are made. If the majority of people are against it, or if powerful people are against it then it would never be made law.

That's why the whole gun control argument in the USA will never be resolved. Arms manufacturing is a billion dollar legal business, and a significant portion of people [ power ] are against gun control.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Chris Taylor said:


> So why does a poly marriage need to be defined? Why shouldn't "marriage" be defined as the joining of two or more people, regardless of sex?


In a monogamous marriage , boundaries are clearly defined, and are designed to keep other people outside of the marriage,
OUTSIDE.
The reason clear boundaries work is because a monogamous marriage has a CLEAR definition, along with SPECIFIC , legally binding vows.

So how then, does one establish boundaries in a polyamorus marriage if there is no clear definition of what constitutes a polyamorus marriage?

Lets see is we can put a method to the madness.
The stated decides to redefine marriages to include polyamorus marriages. So marriages are now defined as 
"...the joining of two or more people, regardless of sex.."
In order for this to work we would have to leave out the clause 
" forsaking all others " in the original vows because a polyamorus marriage does not " forsake all others." If that clause is left out then adultery & cheating no longer exist.

If there is no longer an exclusivity clause in marriage, then what is the purpose of getting married?
If people no longer get married then what happens to the family units legally?
Who gets what when relationships go awry? What would prevent one man from fathering 100 children with 100 women ? 
Who would take care of these children?
How would the state cope, and how could the state plan for things like healthcare , education, food & agriculture , jobs when birth rates are no longer under control.

That is what constitute a " regressive " society.
The inability of the state to plan, and deliver basic services to its population because its population is out of control.

What about the most obvious thing, Sexually Transmitted Diseases?
Isn't it a fact that the more sexual partners increases the chances of STD's?
Please don't give me that hogwash about condoms, because condoms don't prevent Herpes Simplex .
Under a monogamous system there are over 19 million new infections every year.
STD's cost the health care system over $17 Billion every year and rising.
Do the math, extrapolate and see what happens if instead of enforced boundaries in monogamy, there was the " free love" ,lifestyle of polyamory , without any boundaries.

These are just a few " issues " arising out of simply changing the definition of what constitutes a marriage.

This;
"..._Why shouldn't "marriage" be defined as the joining of two or more people, regardless of sex_?"

Is definitely a strawman argument.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Additionally,
I would like to ask if those arguing for polyamory would stop trying to obfuscate the issue with the same sex marriage issue.
I have absolutely no issue with same sex marriages.
So It's a useless diversionary tactic.

There is no difference in marriage vows between same sex and hetrosexual marriages. Both are based on MONOGAMY.

The issue being discussed is MONOGAMY vs POLYAMORY.

As far as I can see, same sex marriages fall squarely within the monogamy camp. Being in a same sex marriage does not automatically mean that your marriage is polyamorus. Even same sex marriages have boundaries.
In fact many do suffer from the exact, same vagaries as monogamous , hetrosexual marriages.


----------



## anony2 (Apr 28, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> In a monogamous marriage , boundaries are clearly defined, and are designed to keep other people outside of the marriage,
> OUTSIDE.
> The reason clear boundaries work is because a monogamous marriage has a CLEAR definition, along with SPECIFIC , legally binding vows.


Except this doesn't work...here is the proof-http://talkaboutmarriage.com/coping-infidelity/

These 'boundaries' do not keep other people outside of the marriage any more than an imaginary rope does, what the boundaries are for is to tell your spouse what you will allow INSIDE of your marriage. If you do not want other people INSIDE of your marriage, then you will leave...which is no different than an open marriage that has these same boundaries.


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

theroad said:


> Why the need for control?
> 
> No man wants to raise and OC.
> 
> ...


If one has to justify controlling their 'partner' they have no business in a relationship, mono poly or otherwise.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

anony2 said:


> Except this doesn't work...here is the proof-http://talkaboutmarriage.com/coping-infidelity/
> 
> These 'boundaries' do not keep other people outside of the marriage any more than an imaginary rope does, what the boundaries are for is to tell your spouse what you will allow INSIDE of your marriage. If you do not want other people INSIDE of your marriage, then you will leave...which is no different than an open marriage that has these same boundaries.


Its either you are not understanding the basis of the boundary argument or you are purposely trying to obfuscate it with peripherals , which amount to tangential thinking .

The purpose of the boundaries argument is to establish the connection between a clear definition of marriage and boundaries. If there is no clear definition of marriage, then there can be no boundaries in a marriage and hence 
" marriage "in the organic sense cannot exist, because it lacks exclusivity .

So then how can an " open marriage" have the same boundaries and an exclusive monogamous marriage?

In any event , using your logic, how does having a boundary that tells your spouse *WHAT* [ your words ] you would allow in a marriage translate to *WHO* [ my word ] meaning opening your marriage to other people ?

So does having a boundary which says we would have sex at least 3 times per week [ what I would allow in my marriage ]equate, on the other 4 days we are not having sex , I would have sex with Tom? [ who I would allow in my marriage ]

This seems to be your line of argument regarding boundaries.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

anonim said:


> If one has to justify controlling their 'partner' they have no business in a relationship, mono poly or otherwise.


Poly is about controlling your partner based on their insecurities.

Plain and simple.


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> A salesman wants to sell you a product.
> You ask him a simple question .
> "..Would you be ok if _your_ wife used this product?"
> He refuses to answer.
> ...


1. No one is trying to sell a product.

2. Even if there was a product, it would be for the use of any and all people in a relationship, not just the woman.


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Poly is about controlling your partner based on their insecurities.
> 
> Plain and simple.


I think you confuse that with monogamy


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

anonim said:


> I think you confuse that with monogamy


I think you need to start being honest and speak the truth.

1]Why does this polyamorus lifestyle attract your attention so much?

2]What do you hope to achieve through it ?

3]How can it enrich *YOUR* marriage ?


----------



## anony2 (Apr 28, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> I think you need to start being honest and speak the truth.
> 
> 1]Why does this polyamorus lifestyle attract your attention so much?
> 
> ...


You are the person that made the thread, how many threads have you posted about this and other topics concerning it like threesomes? Not only that, you then posted a video that specifically said that polygamy is NATURAL for humans and basically made every one of my points that I made in the other thread...

I think it is time that YOU be honest and speak the truth, tell us, why does the polyamorus lifestyle attract YOUR attention so much?

What do you hope to achieve through it and how can it enrich YOUR marriage. 


What are you trying to sell here CM?


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

StoneAngel said:


> So Polygamy isn't "legally forced" in the communities you speak of? Forgive me for my ignorance but when historically has Polygamy been about natural choice? good question, but you should apply it to monogamy also. Women have been forced into marriages for a long time. No vote for a long time. not allowed to legally possess property for a long time.
> 
> If we look at Ancient and Modern Middle Eastern Cultures for example, most women are not given the right to choose who or when she marries. same thing historically in western cultures, see my note above. Most often this decision is made by her family. Her marriage is an arrangement made for her family's community position and status. It is a legal arrangement that all to frequently is seeled by way of a financial deal. Further to this most Laws in these communities are strictly tied to religious doctrine. These Religiously motivated laws express bringing shame to the Father and Family is punishable by Public Stoning. Refusing to accept the husband chosen for her brings shame upon the family and fear of physical injury..... so I refuse to believe that these Polygamous Marriages are about natural desire and choice. Then monogamous marriage are not about natural desire or choice, because all the things you have said happen(ed) in western cultures too. But you dont want to look at that apparently.
> 
> I would also add that when one uses these Marriages as a way to provide proof of some "progressive social culture" I would point out that the women in these arrangements are not given the choice to explore their "natural" desires for men other than their husbands.....to do so means death in many cases. Legally Sanctioned death I might add.....there is nothing NATURAL about that!


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> The purpose of the boundaries argument is to establish the connection between a clear definition of marriage and boundaries. If there is no clear definition of marriage, then there can be no boundaries in a marriage and hence
> " marriage "in the organic sense cannot exist, because it lacks exclusivity .


The purpose of boundaries is to separate what is you, from what isnt, and what is yours, from what isnt.




Caribbean Man said:


> So then how can an " open marriage" have the same boundaries and an exclusive monogamous marriage?


It probably wouldn't. But at the same time many marriages, open or otherwise, dont have the same boundaries and 'exclusivities' as each other, for example, some people have problems with flirting behaviour, some dont, some people have problems with opposite sex friends, others dont.

Ultimately, it comes down to the people involved.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

anony2 said:


> You are the person that made the thread, how many threads have you posted about this and other topics concerning it like threesomes? Not only that, you then posted a video that specifically said that polygamy is NATURAL for humans and basically made every one of my points that I made in the other thread...
> 
> I think it is time that YOU be honest and speak the truth, tell us, why does the polyamorus lifestyle attract YOUR attention so much?
> 
> ...



What I'm selling is called COMMON SENSE.
A marriage is defined as a union between TWO people not three or four or five or multiple partners.

People who want to have sex with other people outside of their marriage need not come on a HEALTHY MARRIAGE SUPPORT forum trying to justify their desires against all the advice to the contrary.
If they want to have sex with other partners then that;s their business.
I started this with along with a poll because I wanted to get a view of how many people actually felt that polyamory made sense in their marriage.
So far , not many.
3 out of 36 is lesser than one tenth,and an abysmal result for poly by any standard.

I started that Threesomes thread for the exact , same reasons , and got the exact , same results. Everyone on that thread, even those involved in it has cautioned against it.
They were all honest.

So what I'm selling again is COMMON SENSE.

If you and your husband feel to have sex with people outside of your marriage then there's absolutely nothing else anyone here on TAM can do to convince you all not to.

In the meantime I will continue discussing the benefits of monogamy over polyamory or vice vesa , as I clearly stated THREE times, was the purpose this thread.
^^^^
There.

I have been honest , and stated exactly what I'm selling.

What are you guys selling?
are you trying to convince yourselves?
Are you trying to convince us?

Lets be honest.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

anonim said:


> T
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again you are trying the same tactic as your wife.
Dealing in tangentals.
I never said that all marriages have the same boundaries.
The argument is that boundaries are derived from a clear definition of a monogamous marriage , based on exclusivity.

Hence my argument is that without exclusivity, there can be no 
" marriage" nor " marital boundaries." Polyamorus marriage does not have a clear definition so from where are these boundaries drawn?


----------



## anony2 (Apr 28, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> What I'm selling is called COMMON SENSE.
> A marriage is defined as a union between TWO people not three or four or five or multiple partners.
> 
> People who want to have sex with other people outside of their marriage need not come on a HEALTHY MARRIAGE SUPPORT forum trying to justify their desires against all the advice to the contrary.
> ...


If it was COMMON sense, then the majority of the world would be monogamists...but since they aren't, your argument is null and void. 

But going by your own premise or the premise that you have applied to me and my husband- if you discuss something, you are therefore SELLING it...since you started the thread about threesomes, you were SELLING threesomes and now you started this thread, so now you are selling polygamous relationships. See how that works?
If you do not like it done to you, then do not do it to others. SOUND FAMILIAR? 

We both have repeatedly told you that we are NOT polyamorous. What part of that do you not understand?


Or were you meaning this type of common sense?
"Common sense is the collection of *prejudices* acquired by age eighteen."
Albert Einstein


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> I think you need to start being honest and speak the truth.


And pray, whose truth would that be? Your truth or my truth?



Caribbean Man said:


> 1]Why does this polyamorus lifestyle attract your attention so much?


You presume it attracts my attention.
I have made one thread on non traditional romantic/sexual relationships. You have made two. 

I havent disputed any opinion that wasnt hostile.
You have gotten banned from my said thread because you couldnt refrain from harassing, name calling, throwing insults to myself and my wife and trolling in an attempt to get the thread closed.

So I ask _*YOU *_ why does talking about polyamory attract _your _attention so much?



Caribbean Man said:


> 2]What do you hope to achieve through it ?


The knowing that what I see is not all there is.
The liberty to choose or not choose them, based on what i want, not what other people think i should have.



Caribbean Man said:


> 3]How can it enrich *YOUR* marriage ?


'It' cant, 'I' can.


----------



## that_girl (Jul 6, 2011)

"I think he doth protests too much."

Whenever I see people saying what is RIGHT and WRONG...I can't help but disagree. 

What is right or wrong in someone's marriage is UP TO THEM. Not me. Not you.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

anony2 said:


> If it was COMMON sense, then the majority of the world would be monogamists...but since they aren't, your argument is null and void.
> 
> We both have repeatedly told you that we are NOT polyamorous. What part of that do you not understand?


In case you didn't observe it,
Your first paragraph is incongruous with the definitive statement in your second paragraph.

I sense that you are confused and contemplating something.
My humble advice to you is to stop before you go too far.
The grass is not always greener on the other side.

If the dynamics in your marriage is great , and you tow have mastered monogamy, then there is no need to try or even contemplate polyamory. It would be better to use your experience to try help build on the institution you two have mastered instead of tearing it down.

Just a little common sense.



BTW,
You have not answered the question.
So here they are again:

What are you guys selling?
are you trying to convince yourselves?
Are you trying to convince us?

Lets be honest.


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> What I'm selling is called COMMON SENSE.


What your selling is your opinion, framed as common sense.



Caribbean Man said:


> A marriage is defined as a union between TWO people not three or four or five or multiple partners.


And did you read that out of a dictionary from a culture where monogamy is the only legal form of marriage? Yes? Very well, carry on.



Caribbean Man said:


> People who want to have sex with other people outside of their marriage need not come on a HEALTHY MARRIAGE SUPPORT forum trying to justify their desires against all the advice to the contrary.
> If they want to have sex with other partners then that;s their business.
> I started this with along with a poll because I wanted to get a view of how many people actually felt that polyamory made sense in their marriage.
> So far , not many.
> 3 out of 36 is lesser than one tenth,and an abysmal result for poly by any standard.


EDIT: Firstly, you are not an authority on what is, or is not, a healthy marriage outside of your own. Secondly, show me where anyone has expressed a desire to to have sex outside of their marriage. Even if they had, they still have the same right to post on this forum as you do. They dont have to hide or not make themselves known because you dont like what they say or do, they might need marriage advice too!

And are you polling members from cultures where monogamy is the only legal form of marriage? Yes? Very well, carry on.



Caribbean Man said:


> I started that Threesomes thread for the exact , same reasons , and got the exact , same results. Everyone on that thread, even those involved in it has cautioned against it.
> They were all honest.
> 
> So what I'm selling again is opinion framed asCOMMON SENSE.
> ...


Here's, the tell though; convincing is the only means of power you have that could possibly affect us. So if me and anony2 chose to have romantic relationships with people in addition to each other and talked about it on the forums, what would you do? If you had the power to stop us from either doing that or stopping us from talking about it here, would you use it?


----------



## anony2 (Apr 28, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> In case you didn't observe it,
> Your first paragraph is incongruous with the definitive statement in your second paragraph.
> 
> I sense that you are confused and contemplating something.
> ...


No it isn't. Yours is though, if you looked it up common in the dictionary...

What do you think is wrong with polygamy, polyandry and polyamoury? 

You are right, we are selling the ideology that people should be able to decide for themselves and SHOULD decide for themselves instead of being forced into it by an outdated religious belief system that most likely they do not even follow or believe in. 

What bothers you about this ideology?

Do you think that people should be forced to be monogamous if they aren't?

Do you not like your beliefs to be challenged?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

that_girl said:


> "I think he doth protests too much."
> 
> Whenever I see people saying what is RIGHT and WRONG...I can't help but disagree.
> 
> What is right or wrong in someone's marriage is UP TO THEM. Not me. Not you.


:lol:

So,
You want in ?
I'll give you a hearing.

What's your take on polyamory vs monogamy?

Please observe I am not talking about polyamorus people but the practice.

Which do you prefer and why?


----------



## that_girl (Jul 6, 2011)

You'll give me a hearing?



You just hound people until they submit or go away.

ETA: I said what I meant: Another person's marriage is not my business.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

anony2 said:


> No it isn't. Yours is though, if you looked it up common in the dictionary...
> 
> What do you think is wrong with polyandry and polyamoury?
> 
> ...


Ahhhh!
Therin lies the basis of your confusion.

Nobody's forcing anybody to be monogamous.
People are free to choose to accept the terms and conditions of monogamy, or live a polyamorus lifestyle if they please.

the problem comes when they make their vows and then one of them decide they no longer want to be monogamous.

So they open their marriage and then they end up right here on TAM.

Monogamy was NEVER the problem. The desire to have sex outside of their marriage is the culprit.
The inability to honour their marriage vows.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

that_girl said:


> You'll give me a hearing?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok then,
I promise I wont ask any question whatsoever after you answer my questions.

1]What's your take on polyamory vs monogamy?

Please observe I am not talking about polyamorus people but the practice.

2]Which do you prefer and why?

Simple enough
That's the purpose of the thread.
yes?.


----------



## anony2 (Apr 28, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Ahhhh!
> Therin lies the basis of your confusion.
> 
> Nobody's forcing anybody to be monogamous.
> ...


You didn't answer my questions...

What do you think is wrong with polygamy, polyandry and polyamoury? 

You are right, we are selling the ideology that people should be able to decide for themselves and SHOULD decide for themselves instead of being forced into it by an outdated religious belief system that most likely they do not even follow or believe in. 

They are being forced into it because polygamy is *against* the law. Ever watch the TV series called Sister Wives? They had to run out of their home state because they were polygamists. 

What bothers you about this ideology of having a CHOICE?

Do you think that people *should be* forced to be monogamous if they aren't?

What would happen if people had OPTIONS?


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Ahhhh!
> Therin lies the basis of your confusion.
> 
> Nobody's forcing anybody to be monogamous.
> ...


The actions you are describing is cheating/affair, not poly/open.

And the desire to have sex outside of the marriage isnt the problem either, its acting on it.


----------



## that_girl (Jul 6, 2011)

Polyamory vs monogamy:

I think it takes certain people to be able to pull it off. I am not one of those people who can NOT be monogamous, however, I was raised to believe that Love in marriage IS monogamous. Had I been raised differently, who knows what I'd be comfortable with. 

I do think some people can pull it off, I have known a few. I am too possessive  Although, I could see how some people could find it appealing.

I need to be monogamous in my marriage. But other people's marriages are not my problem. Simple enough.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

anony2 said:


> You didn't answer my questions...
> 
> What do you think is wrong with polygamy, polyandry and polyamoury?
> 
> ...


Who's forcing anybody to be monogamous?
Who's forcing you to vote?
Who's forcing you to work ?
Who's forcing you to live under the laws of the USA?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

that_girl said:


> Polyamory vs monogamy:
> 
> I think it takes certain people to be able to pull it off. I am not one of those people who can NOT be monogamous, however, I was raised to believe that Love in marriage IS monogamous. Had I been raised differently, who knows what I'd be comfortable with.
> 
> ...


Thank you ,goodbye and , 
Have a great day!


----------



## that_girl (Jul 6, 2011)

Good bye? LOL I can keep posting. It's ok. I won't post to you.


----------



## anony2 (Apr 28, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Who's forcing anybody to be monogamous?
> Who's forcing you to vote?
> Who's forcing you to work ?
> Who's forcing you to live under the laws of the USA?


You still did not answer my questions...

What do you think is wrong with polygamy, polyandry and polyamoury? 



People are being forced into monogamy because it is the ONLY option besides being single and because polygamy is against the law. Ever watch the TV series called Sister Wives? They had to run out of their home state because they were polygamists. 


What bothers you about this ideology of having a CHOICE?

Do you think that people should be forced to be monogamous if they aren't?

What would happen if people had OPTIONS?

Would having an option effect your marriage?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

anony2 said:


> You still did not answer my questions...
> 
> What do you think is wrong with polygamy, polyandry and polyamoury?
> 
> ...


1]Polygamy - Polygamy devalues women because she becomes expendable. It lessens her bargaining power in the relationship. Added to that it ensures that only rich men have wives.

2] polyandry - Does the idea of a group of 4 male siblings marrying the same woman and living with her in the same house actually sound good to you? How will these men determine exactly who is the father of their " wife " child?
Why should a man maintain a child that is not his? Suppose each man wants two children and she had six husbands?
There are virtually NO polyandrous societies today. [ neither polyamorus.]
Need i continue?

3] Polyamory - I clearly stated my objections to polyamory throughout this thread and even today. I is just an excuse to have lots of sex outside of a monogamous marriage. 

Like I have also stated throughout this thread none of the above are superior to monogamy in term of its stabilizing effect on progressive Western societies.


----------



## hookares (Dec 7, 2011)

I'm of the opinion that marriage isn't really a wise choice for some of us. When one removes the desire to procreate, why should anybody wish to involve another person's input on how they wish to lead their life? I prefer to spend the rest of my life with an occasional date with a lady I feel is attractive and do it on my dime. She may feel free to do anything she wishes just as long as it isn't up to me to finance her extra activities.
My understanding of the the choices in OP's poll would only complicate matters.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

anony2 said:


> Y
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## that_girl (Jul 6, 2011)

We're already footin' the bill for many people here in the US.

Women and children are left all the time or women get pregnant and the man leaves, etc. Things wouldn't be too different if polygamy was legal.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

hookares said:


> I'm of the opinion that marriage isn't really a wise choice for some of us. When one removes the desire to procreate, why should anybody wish to involve another person's input on how they wish to lead their life? I prefer to spend the rest of my life with an occasional date with a lady I feel is attractive and do it on my dime. She may feel free to do anything she wishes just as long as it isn't up to me to finance her extra activities.
> My understanding of the the choices in OP's poll would only complicate matters.


^^^^^
Which is my point.
You don't want to be monogamous,
Then stay single and enjoy as many partners as you like.
Marriage means responsibility to each other and to any offspring that may come out of the union.
In case of divorce, there are laws that actually dictate who gets what.
How can polyamory exist in a legal framework?
Who gets what?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

that_girl said:


> We're already footin' the bill for many people here in the US.
> 
> Women and children are left all the time or women get pregnant and the man leaves, etc. Things wouldn't be too different if polygamy was legal.


So then think, extrapolate 15 years into the future if polyamory is legalized today.

The rate of dead beat dads would increase exponentially.

That's what's plaguing countries like Africa , India, Pakistan, Afghanistan , Yemen , and other extremely poor countries.

China escaped because Communism dictated monogamy and then a one child policy. China is now the economic powerhouse of the world.
Before Communism, China was mostly Polygamous, severely divided and dirt poor.

The state cannot cope .


----------



## that_girl (Jul 6, 2011)

Well, we needn't worry because of all the conservatives in the US...if they won't even allow gay monogamous marriage, lord knows they won't allow this. So we're good.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> In a monogamous marriage , boundaries are clearly defined, and are designed to keep other people outside of the marriage,
> OUTSIDE.
> The reason clear boundaries work is because a monogamous marriage has a CLEAR definition, along with SPECIFIC , legally binding vows.
> 
> ...


anony2, you pointed out proof that people don't follow the defined rules of marriage often times. While it's a valid question to ask, why so many cheat on spouses. It doesn't actually discount the point CM was making.

*In a monogamous marriage , boundaries are clearly defined, and are designed to keep other people outside of the marriage,
OUTSIDE.*

Being able to define a legal contract in a way that less complicated is important if we want to enforce the contract. It's already difficult to manage marriage laws like taxes, assets, custody, etc. In my opinion it would be *unmanageable* in polyamory unions from a legal standpoint. That I think was CM's point but he can correct me if I'm mistaken.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

anonim said:


> The purpose of boundaries is to separate what is you, from what isnt, and what is yours, from what isnt.


I'm not a anti polyamory guy for others but we do have to realize that these boundaries become exponentially more difficult to manage as the number of people gets larger. I'm sure a particular group of people can do it well but many would not. 




anonim said:


> It probably wouldn't. But at the same time many marriages, open or otherwise, dont have the same boundaries and 'exclusivities' as each other, for example, some people have problems with flirting behaviour, some dont, some people have problems with opposite sex friends, others dont.
> 
> Ultimately, it comes down to the people involved.


Again I find myself agreeing so much with parts of your comments anonim. From a personal boundary standpoint this comment was spot on. From a legal boundary however it's not so easy when variables(people) are added to the equation.


----------



## Chris Taylor (Jul 22, 2010)

CM-

While I usually agree with you, I think you're wrong on this one. Let me restate that... I just disagree with you. You seem to be forcing YOUR opinion on everyone while I think everyone else has valid points.

And, despite my postings, I don't think poly arrangements are a good idea. All I tried to say from the beginning is that "marriage" has changed, "relationships" have changed and maybe, just maybe, once you let that cat out of the bag, how can you justify any restrictions (other than age of consent restrictions)?

Just think of the possibilities... I can marry my father so he can get under my health insurance. My wife and I can marry the widow next door so she and her kids can get health insurance.

Although I must say this discussion has been a good one and have enjoyed reading everyone's opinions.

Happy 2013 to all.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Chris Taylor said:


> CM-
> 
> While I usually agree with you, I think you're wrong on this one. Let me restate that... I just disagree with you. You seem to be forcing YOUR opinion on everyone while I think everyone else has valid points.


Original poll question ;

*"...Do you think married couples should have other lovers?.."*


Results so far ;

1] Yes it is good to have it, humans are not naturally monogamous......................................................0 votes - o%

2] Yes, but its very difficult to manage................2 votes - 5%

3] No marriage represents exclusivity and commitment.................................................37 votes- 92.5%

4]Not sure, but I'm willing to try.....................1 vote - 2.50%

Total votes - 40.



I deliberately skewed the questions in favour of polyamory and against monogamy by a 3 : 1 ratio . Three questions in favour of polyampry and just ONE question in favour of polyamory.

People voted in overwhelming in favour monogamy, more than 10 : 1.
And yet you say that I'm forcing my opinion on others.
Are you saying that I forced those who voted anonymously to vote like they did?
Can you explain how you arrive at that conclusion?

Which leads me to the last point I made regarding your last post. You cannot force or demand that the majority of people accept poly as a new form of marriage , and that the old definition of marriage be revised, if they are opposed to it. Just like the majority of people cannot force you not to live a poly lifestyle in your marriage.

Whatever choices we make, we should be responsible enough to accept both the benefits and the consequences of it.
That's how democracy works.


----------



## caladan (Nov 2, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> 2] polyandry - Does the idea of a group of 4 male siblings marrying the same woman and living with her in the same house actually sound good to you? How will these men determine exactly who is the father of their " wife " child?
> Why should a man maintain a child that is not his? Suppose each man wants two children and she had six husbands?
> There are virtually NO polyandrous societies today. [ neither polyamorus.]
> Need i continue?


My grandfather was born into something similar - a compound family - a group of brothers and their wives (most were polygamous) living in the same compound.

Kids belonged to all. Anybody's mom could administer discipline if you acted up
Some possessions were public, some were private. There were meetings to decide how things (money, food) was shared from time to time, y'know, like all other families do.

Dude, you're over-thinking, and trying to judge others based on your own views. Not good.

Polyamoury works for some people. It doesn't work for others. Hell, marriage doesn't work for some people, otherwise we wouldn't be here.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> Again I find myself agreeing so much with parts of your comments anonim. From a personal boundary standpoint this comment was spot on. * From a legal boundary however it's not so easy when variables(people) are added to the equation.*


^^^^^^^^
THIS RIGHT THERE,
Is one of the basis of my objection , not the right to be polyamorus. 
I have asked them to show me how poly fits into a legal framework,
And they have steadfastly refused to do so.
They cannot show how it fits .
But they expect thinking people to " open their minds " and accept that a marriage needs to be redefine to include any amount of partners.
So who's forcing who now?

Why should people who overwhelming support monogamy agree to change the marriage vows and the legal framework to accept poly?
People who support mono are citizens just like those who support poly. Citizens make up families ,which make communities , which make up societies.
what exactly are the pros and cons of changing the laws in favour of poly to society at large?

This is what this thread is about as I expressly stated in the original post.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

caladan said:


> My grandfather was born into something similar - a compound family - a group of brothers and their wives (most were polygamous) living in the same compound.
> 
> Kids belonged to all. Anybody's mom could administer discipline if you acted up
> Some possessions were public, some were private. There were meetings to decide how things (money, food) was shared from time to time, y'know, like all other families do.
> ...


Dude if you had read my earlier post, you would have read where I said that 

" ...THE ONLY SANE VERSION OF POLY IS POLYFIDELITY..."

Which is what you just described.

What these people are talking about is an infinite number of partners, OUTSIDE of the marriage , who are other people's husband and wives.
Are you saying that's ok?
If you want to understand more, go to this page;

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/62329-progressive-love-you.html

and look at the OP's video.


----------



## caladan (Nov 2, 2012)

It will fit in exactly the way monogamy fits in - with ammendments and refining over time.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

caladan said:


> It will fit in exactly the way monogamy fits in - with ammendments and refining over time.


Exactly what will fit in, polyfidelity or simply having sex with other people's wife without their husband knowing?

Have you looked at the video?


----------



## caladan (Nov 2, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Exactly what will fit in, polyfidelity or simply having sex with other people's wife without their husband knowing?
> 
> Have you looked at the video?


I was talking about the legal implications of polyamoury.

What video?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

caladan said:


> I was talking about the legal implications of polyamoury.
> 
> What video?


What _version_ of polyamory are you talking about?

How_ do you d_efine polyamory?

Here are the videos

Progressive Love, Is It For You.... - YouTube

DP - Open Marriages - YouTube

Enjoy and please, do comment after!


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

caladan said:


> It will fit in exactly the way monogamy fits in - with ammendments and refining over time.


Seems much more difficult. How are assets split if one of the group dies especially if he/she was married to one member longer than another member of the group. I presume you can only be in one of these so a married couple would have to dissolve their marriage to connect to another existing poly group? How do we prevent fraud like mentioned earlier.

I don't know. I'm sure ammendments and refining would take place but I think picturing it getting to a manageable place is not thought out. I can see problem areas quickly.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> Seems much more difficult. How are assets split if one of the group dies especially if he/she was married to one member longer than another member of the group. I presume you can only be in one of these so a married couple would have to dissolve their marriage to connect to another existing poly group? How do we prevent fraud like mentioned earlier.
> 
> I don't know. I'm sure ammendments and refining would take place but I think picturing it getting to a manageable place is not thought out. I can see problem areas quickly.


I believe what caladan is speaking of is polyfidelity.
In polyfidelity, lets say three couples come together and actually live/ have sex together in a " commune ."

Everything is shared equally amongst everybody, and the kids are well taken care of. 
It worked well because there is a certain order and structure to it and they all held the same religious beliefs. So in a sense they had " social order" amongst themselves. They had proper, FIXED boundaries.
Most of the early fundamentalist like Mormons practised a version of this, and it was successful. However they abandoned it along with polygamy when the church got recognition in society.
There is another version of it mentioned earlier in this thread. The poster Wysh, mentioned it. Two men cohabiting with one woman. That is also a " manageable " version, although it would present some legal challenges.

David Koresh , leader of that cult in Wako ,Texas tried something like it. But he was " the Alpha " having sex with 75 year old grandmothers and 13 year old girls. It was a sad perversion under the guise of religion.

What is being advocated in those two vids from that
" progressive love " thread is also a perversion of the original intent IMO. 
How can that fit into a legal framework?


----------



## Rags (Aug 2, 2010)

Caribbean Man said:


> I believe what caladan is speaking of is polyfidelity.
> ...
> Most of the early fundamentalist like Mormons practised a version of this, and it was successful. However they abandoned it along with polygamy when the church got recognition in society.


Not quite. I believe the LDS arrangements were strictly polygamous - 1 man, x wives, all properly supported and maintained, and absolute fidelity within that framework.


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> 1]_Polygyny _- _Polygyny _devalues women because she becomes expendable. It lessens her bargaining power in the relationship. Added to that it ensures that only rich men have wives.


It does not follow that a wife would become devalued or expendable in polygyny. Children do not become expendable because you have more than one. You would care for any and all wives, I imagine. 

As for _"It lessens her bargaining power in the relationship." _ the only thing a wife could possibly bargain her husband for that her cant get for himself would be her sex, and as far as that goes, if she was neglected she would have the same options as anyone else in a marriage.

I edited your 'polygamy'(non gender specific) to 'polygyny'(male specific) I suspect this was what you meant.



Caribbean Man said:


> 2] polyandry - Does the idea of a group of 4 male siblings marrying the same woman and living with her in the same house actually sound good to you? How will these men determine exactly who is the father of their " wife " child?
> Why should a man maintain a child that is not his? Suppose each man wants two children and she had six husbands?
> There are virtually NO polyandrous societies today. [ neither polyamorus.]
> Need i continue?


Even though polyandry and polygyny are the same exact thing, albeit with the male and female occupying opposite positions, you are not making the inverse argument here. I also haven't seen any definition of polyandry require a woman to marry multiple male siblings (the males being siblings to each other) so I wonder why you portray it as such.

Men can determine who the father of a child with the wonderful technology available to monogamous couples - dna testing. I think it would be more socially acceptable in a polyandry marriage system so, I dont see why this would be an issue.

I dont think any man would have to maintain a child that wasnt his, especially if paternity is established as a normality, but many men take on step children today - by choice - it isnt that the wife went out and cheated and got pregnant with OMs baby and then tried to pass it of as BHs baby. And if he decided he didnt want to stay in that marriage he has the option to leave it without having to pay support for a child that wasnt his.

I think its actually a discredit to claim that there are no societies that are polyandrous or polyamorous when governments actively and socially eradicate any beginnings of them. 



Caribbean Man said:


> 3] Polyamory - I clearly stated my objections to polyamory throughout this thread and even today. I is just an excuse to have lots of sex outside of a monogamous marriage.


The thing that you have stated an objection to is called 'swinging' (Swinging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) which is when a committed couple engage in recreational social sexual activities with other people.

polyamory (Polyamory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) however, is the practice of loving many (more than one) people. This may or may not lead to or involve sex, but sex is not the objective or the goal.



Caribbean Man said:


> Like I have also stated throughout this thread none of the above are superior to monogamy in term of its stabilizing effect on progressive Western societies.


That, my friend, depends of what you define as 'superior' and 'stabilizing'

Black slavery and genocide of the natives of the americas stabilized much of americas power - does that make them superior? I think not. What you call superior and stabilizing, I see as power for powers sake.


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> That's what's plaguing countries like Africa , India, Pakistan, Afghanistan , Yemen , and other extremely poor countries.


Funny you say that, because I thought what had plagued all those countries were 'superior' western nations coming in, subjugating the inhabitants and stealing all of their natural resources...


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

hookares said:


> I'm of the opinion that marriage isn't really a wise choice for some of us. When one removes the desire to procreate, why should anybody wish to involve another person's input on how they wish to lead their life? I prefer to spend the rest of my life with an occasional date with a lady I feel is attractive and do it on my dime. She may feel free to do anything she wishes just as long as it isn't up to me to finance her extra activities.
> My understanding of the the choices in OP's poll would only complicate matters.


I agree that marriage isnt a wise choice, I would expand and say that it isnt a wise choice for any of us until we know 'why' marriage exists and why we are getting married, who gains from us being married, who suffers from us being married and why.

much of the time we are taught that we are one day supposed to get married, and never look much further than that. or that we're supposed to find 'the one' and never think until after the divorce why you thought that 'the one' ever existed.

In essence we aren't taught _to think_ about what the hell we are doing.



Caribbean Man said:


> ^^^^^
> Which is my point.
> You don't want to be monogamous,
> Then stay single and enjoy as many partners as you like.
> ...


You're asking someone here to design a legal framework for poly-relationships?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

anonim said:


> You're asking someone here to design a legal framework for poly-relationships?


Nope.
I'm asking _you_ to define Polyamory.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

anonim said:


> In essence we aren't taught _to think_ about what the hell we are doing.



Speak for yourself.
*I KNEW EXACTLY* what I was doing when I got married.

And based on the results of the poll above, the majority of people are quite sure of what the marriage contract involves.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

anonim said:


> I agree that marriage isnt a wise choice,* I would expand and say that it isnt a wise choice for any of us until we know 'why' marriage exists and why we are getting married, who gains from us being married, who suffers from us being married and why.*


Does anyone on this thread or on the entire TAM website not know why marriage exist?

I have told you time and time again that the fundamentals of your anti mono arguments are firmly rooted in faulty logic.

A system can only function perfect if all the parts of that system carry out their specified functions 

A PVC pipe is a system designed as a conduit for liquids of a specified density and pressure under laminar flow. If water is pumped through it using the specified pressure,it works perfectly well. If a more viscous liquid is pumped through it, the system WILL FAIL and malfunction.

The fact that marriages are failing and infidelity is high at this time in our history doesn't automatically mean that something is wrong with monogamy.
Is democracy perfect?
Was democracy [ the right to bear arms] the cause of that gunman walking into that school and committing murder and mayhem?
As long as people are free agents, they will continue to do as they damn well please.
Why not take a quick poll in the CWI section of TAM, asking whether the betrayed spouses felt that monogamy was responsible for their spouses cheating.
The results again will defy _your logic._ They believe very strongly in monogamy,
That's why they are there in the CWI.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Rags said:


> Not quite. I believe the LDS arrangements were strictly polygamous - 1 man, x wives, all properly supported and maintained, and absolute fidelity within that framework.



Actually,
The earliest set of LDS along with John Humphreys Noyes were part of the Brooke Farms project and the Oneida Community 1848.

"....Polyamorous identity did not exist during the nineteenth century, but this initial expression of non-monogamy had a profound influence on later poly/non-mono thinking and communities. There were several groups of people who practiced a multiple partner relationship style in the United States in the mid-to-late 1800s, most influenced by the Nineteenth Century transcendental movement (Hutchins, 2001). Brook Farm was an “experimental free love community” (Hutchins, 2001:72) populated by “Quakers, Shakers, *Mormons*, and other charismatic leaders who roamed up and down the east coast preaching” a doctrine that “challenged conventional Christian doctrines of sin and human unworthiness....”

The Oneida community was a polyamorus commune consisting of free slaves and adherents of the "free love" or " complex marriage systems" doctrine.
You can research it at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community.:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brook_Farm


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

anonim said:


> Funny you say that, because I thought what had plagued all those countries were 'superior' western nations coming in, subjugating the inhabitants and stealing all of their natural resources...


^^^^^^^
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Really?
Then by YOUR logic, monogamy made the Western countries superior to those whom they plundered. They were able to subjugate them because they were more organized aka superior than those who were subjugated.

Again, their military ,legal and political systems made them superior.What contributed in a large part to that was social order. The basis of the Western civilization's social order is an organized society built on the family unit , based on monogamy.

PS:
Its the same system that made Rome conquer the world and rule it for centuries.
And we inherited their legal and monogamous system.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

anonim said:


> Funny you say that, because I thought what had plagued all those countries were 'superior' western nations coming in, subjugating the inhabitants and stealing all of their natural resources...


I know it's off topic but I get so tired of this victom dribble. Someone always has to be victomized. Nothing's ever consentual. Always a evil doer and an innocent victom.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> I know it's off topic but I get so tired of this victom dribble. Someone always has to be victomized. Nothing's ever consentual. Always a evil doer and an innocent victom.


:iagree:

Which is my point,Thundarr.
Blame somebody, something except ourselves.
Now we want to blame monogamy for the divorce rates and the high incidence of infidelity in the Western societies.

Humans are supposed to have evolved to a point where they can cognate and take responsibility for their actions.


----------



## diwali123 (Feb 17, 2012)

I don't have time to read this whole thread but I have known enough poly/swinger couples to say that it causes a lot of stress and issues. I think if it is worth it to the people involved then so be it. 
Most of the people I knew were a straight man married to a bi woman. It was in a smaller town and kind of an exclusive group for a couple of reasons. Anytime a new female popped into the group it was hilarious watching the couples trying to compete for her attention. Usually the woman was sent out as bait first. 
Kind of funny when the target realizes that the attractive woman hitting in her only wants her if older fatter hubby gets some too. Deer in headlights...
Another straight man in a ten year relationship with a bi woman ended up in a triad relationship with a female friend. It was clear to all that the additional woman had no interest in the husband. and guess what, the man is now out of the picture and the two of them are still
together. 
Many times the man has difficulty hooking up with partners because once the intended target knows they are married they lose interest. I know that sounds odd seeing as this site is full of cheating stories. But the people I knew were ethical. They wouldn't sleep with a married person unless they had full knowledge that they had an open marriage. So what is left are single women who usually can't handle being the piece of ass on the side. In fact I believe most women would rather be the other woman than the piece of ass. 
I've known women who didn't quite believe they had an open marriage who were introduced to the spouse. Once they met the spouse and knew this was an open situation they stopped seeing the guy. 

Love is complicated. Why make it more complicated?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

diwali123 said:


> *So what is left are single women who usually can't handle being the piece of ass on the side. In fact I believe most women would rather be the other woman than the piece of ass. *


Thank you for posting.
That was my question from the very start of the thread.
Why would a woman want to be in a relationship where she's not the primary lover?
How does that type of relationship really fulfil her emotional need?

Anyone who wants to live that lifestyle is free to do so, but I have a very difficult time accepting that it is better than monogamy for any reason except lots of outside sexual partners.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

diwali123 said:


> I don't have time to read this whole thread but I have known enough poly/swinger couples to say that it causes a lot of stress and issues. I think if it is worth it to the people involved then so be it.
> Most of the people I knew were a straight man married to a bi woman. It was in a smaller town and kind of an exclusive group for a couple of reasons. Anytime a new female popped into the group it was hilarious watching the couples trying to compete for her attention. Usually the woman was sent out as bait first.
> Kind of funny when the target realizes that the attractive woman hitting in her only wants her if older fatter hubby gets some too. Deer in headlights...
> Another straight man in a ten year relationship with a bi woman ended up in a triad relationship with a female friend. It was clear to all that the additional woman had no interest in the husband. and guess what, the man is now out of the picture and the two of them are still
> ...


I've never been close enough to swinger or poly couples to see the dynamics.

However I'm pretty good at predicting consequences to actions and seeing patterns. The dynamics and problems you mentioned above kept on popping up in my "what if" scenarios. I think most people in poly marriages are emotionally damaged and looking for something that will work because they can't make mono work. Problem is, there personal issues follow them into poly as well.


----------



## diwali123 (Feb 17, 2012)

I wouldn't say they are any more emotionally damaged than monogamous people. I think the bi thing is a big part of it. The woman wants to still be with chicks and the guy wants to be with two chicks. 
Truly the best scenario is swinging from what I have seen. All parties are married, everyone gets their rocks off, everyone is in the same room and there's not as many complications. 
But that is not really polyamory. That's just swinging. 
The men I knew who pursued other love interests tended to have issues with getting and keeping lovers. 
Most of these people lived the life styles because they were attracted to lots of unusual ways of living. They tended to be explorers and to have a high tolerance for variety in people and even a craving for it. They see humanity as evolving and like to be different and don't want to do what everyone has always done.
The only way I could see a woman want to be "the one on the side" is if she was married and he was the one on the side too.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> I've never been close enough to swinger or poly couples to see the dynamics.
> 
> However I'm pretty good at predicting consequences to actions and seeing patterns. The dynamics and problems you mentioned above kept on popping up in my "what if" scenarios. *I think most people in poly marriages are emotionally damaged *and looking for something that will work because they can't make mono work. Problem is, there personal issues follow them into poly as well.


How many people in poly marriages do you know?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

anonim said:


> How many people in poly marriages do you know?



You seem to paint this rosy picture of polyamory where everything is nice and dandy.
I have know all different version of poly marriages/ arrangements and the only thing that made some sense was polyfidelity.
Down here in the 70's , we used to have this group of nudist/naturalist whe lived in a secluded area in the forest.
They practised polyamory. They went around naked. Everyone basically had sex with everyone, husband with neighbour, wife with neighbour,mother with sons, father with daughter and so forth.
It lasted for about a decade, some of them lost their mind, but most merged back into society.

Quite a large section of our population follows Islam. There are many rich Muslims here that practice polygamy. I personally know a few. The general rule is that the husband must provide a house for each wife,and must not favour one wife over the others, else she could divorce him.

There are no polyandry type communes here, but there are exclusive swinger clubs where the filthy rich play. But even with those types of clubs, the rules are couples only.

What version of poly are you promoting?
What's your definition of polyamory?


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Nope.
> I'm asking _you_ to define Polyamory.


Google wiki and stop being lazy.



Caribbean Man said:


> Speak for yourself.
> *I KNEW EXACTLY* what I was doing when I got married.
> 
> And based on the results of the poll above, the majority of people are quite sure of what the marriage contract involves.


And yet you (and I) still ended up on TAM...

Your poll is a skewed line of questioning based on a narrow band of thought. It's less fair and balanced than fox news.



Caribbean Man said:


> Does anyone on this thread or on the entire TAM website not know why marriage exist?
> 
> I have told you time and time again that the fundamentals of your anti mono arguments are firmly rooted in faulty logic.


I am not anti-mono, but i am not anti-poly either, I think that both relationships forms are equally viable, maybe not for all people but viable nonetheless.



Caribbean Man said:


> A system can only function perfect if all the parts of that system carry out their specified functions


No system works perfectly.



Caribbean Man said:


> A PVC pipe is a system designed as a conduit for liquids of a specified density and pressure under laminar flow. If water is pumped through it using the specified pressure,it works perfectly well. If a more viscous liquid is pumped through it, the system WILL FAIL and malfunction.
> 
> The fact that marriages are failing and infidelity is high at this time in our history doesn't automatically mean that something is wrong with monogamy.


What you are saying is that everyone should be bundled up and pushed in to a system of marriage in order to keep everything running smoothly. Well it doesn't.



Caribbean Man said:


> Is democracy perfect?
> Was democracy [ the right to bear arms] the cause of that gunman walking into that school and committing murder and mayhem?


What you're doing here is not clever at all. I see through it. A kindergarten school shooting has NOTHING to do with marriages poly or otherwise. Its pretty nasty of you to even mention it here.



Caribbean Man said:


> As long as people are free agents, they will continue to do as they damn well please.


As they should as long as they arent bothering anyone else,
given the exception that 'what you _think _about what they are doing' is your own problem, not theirs.



Caribbean Man said:


> Why not take a quick poll in the CWI section of TAM, asking whether the betrayed spouses felt that monogamy was responsible for their spouses cheating.


Why dont _you_? you're the only one I see mentioning anything like that.



Caribbean Man said:


> The results again will defy _your logic._ They believe very strongly in monogamy,
> That's why they are there in the CWI.





Caribbean Man said:


> Really?
> Then by YOUR logic, monogamy made the Western countries superior to those whom they plundered. They were able to subjugate them because they were more organized aka superior than those who were subjugated.
> 
> Again, their military ,legal and political systems made them superior.What contributed in a large part to that was social order. The basis of the Western civilization's social order is an organized society built on the family unit , based on monogamy.
> ...


Then by _your _logic, rape is ok because might makes right? 

No i didnt think so.



Thundarr said:


> I know it's off topic but I get so tired of this victom dribble. Someone always has to be victomized. Nothing's ever consentual. Always a evil doer and an innocent victom.


And sometimes people (and societies) do ****ty stuff.
Ignoring it or saying 'you're just playing the victim' is a method of minimizing a wrongdoing of significance.



Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> Which is my point,Thundarr.
> Blame somebody, something except ourselves.
> Now we want to blame monogamy for the divorce rates and the high incidence of infidelity in the Western societies.


You have no hesitance on handing out blame. maybe you should practice what you preach.

Society _does _push people into getting married long before they have an idea what marriage entails and long before many individuals learn what they want from life. This is where the divorce rate and infidelity rate comes in.




Caribbean Man said:


> Humans are supposed to have evolved to a point where they can cognate and take responsibility for their actions.


supposed to? according to who?

People do what they are taught to do, or what they have to do to survive. physically, mentally and spiritually.


Caribbean Man said:


> You seem to paint this rosy picture of polyamory where everything is nice and dandy.
> I have know all different version of poly marriages/ arrangements and the only thing that made some sense was polyfidelity.
> Down here in the 70's , we used to have this group of nudist/naturalist whe lived in a secluded area in the forest.
> They practised polyamory. They went around naked. Everyone basically had sex with everyone, husband with neighbour, wife with neighbour,mother with sons, father with daughter and so forth.
> ...


since you seem to enjoy speaking for other people, Ill ask the same thing to you; How many people do you currently personally know that are in polyamorous relationships? Not swinging. not cheating. not cultism. not incest. 

but _polyamorous _relationships.

In fact i highly recomend you google -wiki, swinging, cheating, affairs and polyamory just so that you know there is a difference between each of these things and more importantly, What The Difference Is.

And I told you already, if you want to know what polyamory is then google wikipedia for it.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

^^^^Total cop out.

Pure tangential thinking.
Really pathetic. I expected some logical response, instead I got only smart a$$ answers.
I even went through the hassle of posting my sources.... 

By the way. 
The reason I asked for _your_ definition was because the general consensus on Google says 

*THERE IS NO CLEAR DEFINITION*

Also maybe you can help me here?
can you post any info you have on successful matriarchal societies that practised polyandry?


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^^^Total cop out.


No.



Caribbean Man said:


> By the way.
> The reason I asked for _your_ definition was because the results on Google says
> 
> THERE IS NO CLEAR DEFINITION


google polyamory top result; Polyamory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

pretty good definition if you ask me.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

anonim said:


> google polyamory top result; Polyamory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> pretty good definition if you ask me.


^^^FAIL
Yet again.
That's the first source I went to to get a CLEAR DEFINITION on what exact constituted polyamory, since last week.

This is what the article says:

Polyamory, often abbreviated as poly,* is often described as "consensual, ethical, and responsible non-monogamy." The word is sometimes used in a broader sense to refer to sexual or romantic relationships that are not sexually exclusive, though there is disagreement on how broadly it applies; *an emphasis on **ethics, *honesty*, and **transparency* all around is widely regarded as the crucial defining characteristic.

NB
* Yet in the youtube clip with that juju woman, she was romantically involved with men who were cheating on their wives.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

anonim said:


> How many people in poly marriages do you know?


My sister was good friends with some and I hung around them on occasion but I don't know if they were swinging or poly. Seemed like swinging but they were all friends.

Why does it matter? I mentioned already that it's scenarios that I've run through my head and not personal experience. That's the neat thing about being human. We don't have to learn everything the hard way.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> * That's the neat thing about being human. We don't have to learn everything the hard way.*


:iagree:
Of course!
We have evolved way beyond that.
But apparently some of us have not.


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^^FAIL
> Yet again.
> That's the first source I went to to get a CLEAR DEFINITION on what exact constituted polyamory, since last week.
> 
> ...


^^^^ FAIL
Once again.

So you are asking me to clearly define what EVERY polyamorous relationship is? I cant do that anymore than I can clearly define what every monogamous relationship is. Some may vary from one relationship to the next.

What you are asking is not reasonable because no definition I can give will apply to every poly relationship out there.



Thundarr said:


> My sister was good friends with some and I hung around them on occasion but I don't know if they were swinging or poly. Seemed like swinging but they were all friends.
> 
> Why does it matter? I mentioned already that it's scenarios that I've run through my head and not personal experience. That's the neat thing about being human. We don't have to learn everything the hard way.


Can you explain more about your sisters friends relationship or is that the extent of your knowledge? If so, then your answer is probably,_ 'No, I do not know any people in poly/open relationships/marriages,' _because if you didn't know them well enough to know their relationship status then you didn't really know them.

You ask why it matters if you actually know any people in poly relationships. 

Because you judged people in poly marriages as 'mentally damaged' and apparently you dont even know anyone in a poly marriage!

That's called prejudice, and I personally think prejudice is a mental illness.

As for 'learning the hard way,' there's a difference between knowing what you are doing and mimicking someone that does, between knowing something and understanding implications.



Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> Of course!
> We have evolved way beyond that.
> But apparently some of us have not.


You do know you can evolve into a dead end, right?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

anonim said:


> ^^^^ FAIL
> Once again.
> 
> So you are asking me to clearly define what EVERY polyamorous relationship is? I cant do that anymore than I can clearly define what every monogamous relationship is. Some may vary from one relationship to the next.
> ...


Again,
What is your definition of *a* polyamorus marriage?

This is mydefinition of* a* monogamous marriage.

A monogamous marriage is a marriage between *TWO* people who are sexually and romantically exclusive to each other. [ whether same sex or hetro sexual ]

See?
That's how simple it is for me to give a definition of what I believe in, live and promote.

What is your definition of *a* polyamorus marriage?


----------



## anony2 (Apr 28, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Again,
> What is your definition of *a* polyamorus marriage?
> 
> This is mydefinition of* a* monogamous marriage.
> ...


I would have given up on your attempt to bait me a long time ago, but apparently, my husband has a lot more patience than I do. 

BUT...He has told you SEVERAL TIMES NOW that each polyamorous relationship has to be defined by those involved, just like monogamous relationships. 

What part of that do you not understand?


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

anonim said:


> Can you explain more about your sisters friends relationship or is that the extent of your knowledge? If so, then your answer is probably,_ 'No, I do not know any people in poly/open relationships/marriages,' _because if you didn't know them well enough to know their relationship status then you didn't really know them.
> 
> You ask why it matters if you actually know any people in poly relationships.
> 
> ...


I could go into pages about sis but I'll make it shorthand.
- Married young and divorced. 
- Went through a lesbian phase.
- During which time she and her girlfriend and a guy I've known for years were a threesome couple. ( I think that's poly ).
- I don't know what went wrong but I do know she lost her twelve year old daughter during that time. She (daughter) went to live with her dad.
- Remarried and did partner swapping stuff. ( I think that's swinging).
- Her husband couldn't handle it even though he's the one who got them in it. They divorce because he couldn't get past seeing some guy behind his wife.

*Is my resume good enough to have an opinion?*

I would have a similar opinion even without that. Most people or at least most people I know would have the exact kinds of issues my sister had.

It was a phase I suppose. Sis has been remarried for 5-6 years now and is happy. I have never pressed her for why she did this or that because it doesn't change how I feel but she does on occasion talk about it. I don't know if she looks back with regret or not.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

anony2 said:


> I would have given up on your attempt to bait me a long time ago, but apparently, my husband has a lot more patience than I do.
> 
> BUT...He has told you SEVERAL TIMES NOW that each polyamorous relationship has to be defined by those involved, just like monogamous relationships.
> 
> What part of that do you not understand?


Oh,
But I do understand that.
What I'm trying to get at is based on _that_ definition,
Then how can it be legalized?
Why should the definition of a monogamous marriage be changed to incorporate polyamorus marriages when there's no clear definition of what constitutes such a marriage?

Both of you have just said that it _would_ and _could_ vary from couple[ ? ] to couple[ ?].

Therin lies another flaw in your arguments.
Therin lies your irrational hatred for monogamy. You can only define a polyamorous marriage from what it is _not _and not what it is.
You have no such hatred for polygamy.
Neither polyandry. They both have clear rules and definition like monogamy, and are basically outdated.
Your problem is an inability to conform to societal norms and rules. So you hate monogamy.
In reality, nobody is forcing you to be monogamous, polyamorus groups do exist and both of you are free to join the lifestyle if you like.
Just like you think that polyamory is the progressive way to go and that monogamy is outdated, there are those others that think polyamory is not the lifestyle for them and they prefer monogamy. Based on that little poll on top of this page, they outnumber you guys by almost 10:1

Ethics, Honesty and Transparency, the very foundation watchwords of polyamory, demands that you respect that.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> I could go into pages about sis but I'll make it shorthand.
> - Married young and divorced.
> - Went through a lesbian phase.
> - During which time she and her girlfriend and a guy I've known for years were a threesome couple. ( I think that's poly ).
> ...


When I ws banned from TAM for a week,I spent some time on polyamorus blogs and forums.
The most common problems with that lifestyle is the jealousy issues.
These two people are not being honest with us.
Many people go into it as a couple , come back out single and
complain that its nerve wrecking.
That's why I agreed when you say it attracts people who are emotionally damaged. 

There is some form of exploitation and emotional abuse.


----------



## StoneAngel (Oct 10, 2012)

anonim said:


> Funny you say that, because I thought what had plagued all those countries were 'superior' western nations coming in, subjugating the inhabitants and stealing all of their natural resources...


Your agruments diverge for arguments sake and this statement above is completely ignorant. Afghanistan...no natural resources unless you count heroin production from poppy crops. This is the reason the US went into Iraq instead of Afghanistan. Africa has no Oil and is of no real use to the US superpower and other "superior" nations are content to let many african country's flounder in their own corruption and dictatorships because they stand to gain nothing. It is the reason why for over 2 decades there was no supported AIDS program by the US to African countries in pandemic crisis. It is why the genicide occurred in Rowanda and UN forces were left unsupported with no military mandate. It is why Darfour exists today. It is why no external military force has entered Somalia to stop there Civil war since BlackHawk Down. It is why Tribal wars happen in the Congo without argument or comment. I can continue but won't. You need to do some more research and for a different opnion.

Back to the topic. I may not argee with everything that CM is saying and he may at times be stirring the pot, but atleast he is attempting to bring a lot of supporting facts to this discussion. He is attempting to be comprehensive. He has looked at this from a perspective of socio-economics, legalities, religion, human emotion, history, evolution to name a few. His arguments tend to start with foundations of society and how and why communities needed to grow and change.

Anonim...you started a thread and asked for discussion and all I saw then was a lot of argument. CM started his own thread and has asked you repeatedly for input and again all I see is argument for the sake of argument. You have been asked to shed light on what Poly can bring to a couple or many couples for that matter and you have never answered that and yet this is your topic of interest. The reference you have offerred any willing to listen is a video that talks more about "natural sexual gratification" than anything else. It seems a rather shortsighted argument to support Poly. If you ask me.
If anyone uses the current view of Poly and how it applies to the modern world, you use an argument that applies to the state of marriage 200 yrs ago negating the advances of modern society and the woman's movement etc. If someone uses the modern support for Poly under Islam (as one example) as a way disagree with Poly. You use religion as a argument to say moderm Western Religion is what makes bigots who denounce Poly lifestyles, but you forget that modern society separated marriage from the church. Modern Monogamous marriage is binding in Civil terms and requires no Religious sanctioning.....now that is progressive. If someone uses the argument about the emotional turmoil that exists in Poly when one partner is with someone else sexually, your argument is that this turmoil exists in Monogamy. There is a huge difference, but you won't discuss that difference. You just want to argue. In fact you haven't discussed much, enlightened or taken an approach to inform. You and your wife seem to have a chip on your shoulders. It appears that your motivations are not so much to inform your audience about Poly's importance or relevance it has just been a way to preach from the "Poly Pulpit" that your audience is a bunch backward bigots. 

You are just as reponsible for stirring the pot and having this discussion go nowhere. Infact more so....because if you review your posts there is not a lot of substance in them....just a lot of rhetoric.

It is obviously something you feel strongly about I just wish you could explain why, because I for one would like to have an argument put forward that alters my position and belief that Ploy is just about Selfish Sexual Freedom.


----------



## StoneAngel (Oct 10, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Thank you for posting.
> That was my question from the very start of the thread.
> Why would a woman want to be in a relationship where she's not the primary lover?
> How does that type of relationship really fulfil her emotional need?
> ...


My question is..... why when speaking in terms of sexual relationships in Poly does the conversation center around one man with his multiple women. 

Doesn't seem all that progressive to me. Maybe I'd consider it more progressive if it was a female matriarch with her harem of men.


----------



## StoneAngel (Oct 10, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> Could polyamory be more about the inability of the couple to share all of their innermost secret thoughts and experiences with only one person? Could it be due to a fear of acceptance and the resulting possible abandonment that drive the need for polyamory? I'm wondering since it seems the only difference between polyamory and single life is the fact that there is a sort of home base to go to with one partner. This is not generally the case when living the single life.
> 
> The marriage between two polyamorous individuals seems a sort of grounding for both. Although, with others in the relationship and defining what a relationship and love seem to require, there must be some level of intimacy which would not necessarily be included in the single life.
> 
> ...


I don't really have a comment other than to say that your point is so interesting.
Maybe Poly isn't about sex drive or sexual variety, maybe it has more to do with emotional health, psychology, abandoment etc etc

Bravo :smthumbup: Now this is discussion!


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

I have a close friend of the family that has been married for 23 years, she and her husband have sex buddies but not emotional relationships with other people, is that polyamory ?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

abitlost said:


> I have a close friend of the family that has been married for 23 years, she and her husband have sex buddies but not emotional relationships with other people, is that polyamory ?


I'm not sure.
But I think from what I've read, its called " polyfidelity " where a couple has sex with ONLY another couple, but I think emotional stuff is involved. 

So then maybe they're swinging.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> Could polyamory be more about the inability of the couple to share all of their innermost secret thoughts and experiences with only one person? Could it be due to a fear of acceptance and the resulting possible abandonment that drive the need for polyamory? I'm wondering since it seems the only difference between polyamory and single life is the fact that there is a sort of home base to go to with one partner. This is not generally the case when living the single life.
> 
> The marriage between two polyamorous individuals seems a sort of grounding for both. Although, with others in the relationship and defining what a relationship and love seem to require, there must be some level of intimacy which would not necessarily be included in the single life.
> 
> ...


:iagree:

No, 2ntnuf its not inappropriate,
You are spot on!
Thundaar and myself were having the same type of conversation earlier in the thread.
His point was that emotionally broken people would be more attracted to polyamorus marriages.
I agreed with him.

But I think your reasoning is sound!

I think an emotionally healthy couple who wants to experiment with sex may be more likely to go the way of threesomes , or the example given by " abitlost" above in post #173 , because it does not involve romantic feelings with the third party, and both man and woman are involved.
But something is off base with this " _polyamorous marriag_e " concept.:scratchhead:


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

They never have threesomes or sex with other couple's, or even meet who the other one is sleeping with (most of the time) , but I know they keep emotions out of it.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

StoneAngel said:


> * I for one would like to have an argument put forward that alters my position and belief that Ploy is just about Selfish Sexual Freedom.*


:iagree: 
This has been the base of my argument for this entire thread!
And I would really like to understand the reasoning behind poly marriages.
I feel that its just for people who cannot commit emotionally to one partner, and realize it halfway through the marriage.

Polyfidelity on the other hand, seems to have a little more order and structure to it.

I have known people who live in communes which practise polyfidelity, but it is usually based on some strict , religious beliefs.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

abitlost said:


> They never have threesomes or sex with other couple's, or even meet who the other one is sleeping with (most of the time) , but I know they keep emotions out of it.


There are quite a lot of different shades to this poly stuff.
I will post a weblink to a chart that attempts to explain the sexual variations in it.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> This is one of the sites I looked at: What Is Polyamory Really All About? | Psychology Today
> 
> and another: Google
> 
> ...


Sorry I took a while to respond.

All the links to articles you posted, I have read already.
As a matter of fact , the author of those articles is a well know advocate for the polyamory lifestyle.
Deborah Taj Anapol, Ph.D., is author of books on polyamory.

Polyamory in the 21st Century: Love and Intimacy with Multiple Partners: Deborah Anapol: 9781442200210: Amazon.com: Books

Amazon.com: Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits : Secrets of Sustainable Intimate Relationships (9781880789087): Deborah M. Anapol: Books

However ,
None of her arguments convince me.
In order to " enjoy " that type of lifestyle one has to first reset ingrained cultural notions about love and respect in a relationship.

Maybe you can have a look at this guy's blog , to understand.

http://www.realitysandwich.com/node/352


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> I read the article that came up. I agree that polyamory is very similar to a woman's relationship with a cuckhold. It has to be by definition.
> 
> Yes, you are correct. There are many similarities
> 
> ...


Me neither !


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> Later, she told me her XH was into this polyamorous lifestyle. I didn't know what it was called at the time. I tried to keep an open mind and thought, "That's his business and I have no right to judge him." I did not, however want to be married to a woman who was participating in such a lifestyle. It would have been another deal breaker and I addressed that issue as well with my XW.


Sorry about your wife , I can sense you are in deep confusion over what actually took place, and why.

Do you think that the lifestyle her husband lived [ the polyamorus lifestyle] indirectly affected her behaviour in your marriage ?

Do you think maybe the polyamory concept warped her perception of what you expected in a monogamous marriage?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> She was quite adventurous in the amount of partners she had. She admitted this. I think combining that with her experiences in life led her to how she perceived, made decisions and acted. I don't think that is abnormal. * I don't think I was ready for it. I wonder if better communication would have changed anything. I may never know.*


Some people are just broken 2ntnuf,
No matter how we try, we cannot understand , much less, fix them.
sometimes the best thing for ourselves is to let go of the past and truly move on.
She knew you didn't like that lifestyle, but it seems she persisted in spite of your objections.
She probably viewed you as a " safe " person to keep the marriage whilst she enjoyed her preference.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Yea some things I've learned over the years 2ntnuf; the only person we know is ourselves and.... we don't know ourselves all that well. After things like this, it leaves you wondering how you didn't read things better and unsure about your ability to spot red flags the next time around.

In the end though, you search for what happened, how to prevent it from happening again, and you move on knowing that you are better armed with wisdom next time around.

Well, some people make the same mistakes over and over but then again, they aren't the ones asking questions or trying to figure out what happened.


----------



## old_soldier (Jul 17, 2012)

Jane_Doe said:


> Polygyny (multiple wives) is the most common form of marriage in the world today, so you could argue that it is the 'natural' form of marriage. I believe all types of marriage are shaped by the culture (none of them are 'genetic' or 'human nature'), and each type of marriage fits the needs of that culture.
> 
> Polygynous marriage cultures allow women to pool childcare resources and those marriages are often only permitted if the man can show he can 'afford' multiple wives, so the women are 'taken care' of. They place more value on the women raising the children and looking after the home together, and in a lot of cases (I'm mixing cultures for these examples) the sister-wives get along well and consider themselves friends, or allies. The emphasis isn't on romantic love, but familial love and bonding with children.
> 
> But polygyny doesn't work as well in developed nations because it creates a pool of single men who end up competing - aggressively - for more resources and thus, for women. Breeding is the desire for most men, and if you shut off their access to women, they won't simply shrug and go back to their 9-5. They'll get aggressive, and at worst this can and does lead to criminal activity. Equally distributing women throughout society and letting Disney teach us that everyone has a soulmate, for richer and poorer, allows more men to breed and thus puts their focus on a 'paternal' role - i.e getting a job and providing for their child, instead of making them desperate to find a woman to mate with. It's economically sound.


In most countries where polygamy is legal and is readily practiced, women are reduced to nothing more than chattle. To be bought or traded at the whim of the husband. In these societies, women who are caught committing adultery are put to death, usually by stoning. In these societies women are used for breeding and raising children. If for some reason they argue with the man of the house, he is allowed to beat her at his will. I've been to a few countries outside of the western world and have seen it. And yes, stoning is still practiced in some parts of the world. Everyone seems to ignore that point though.

Also, polygamy can reduce the gene pool, sometimes reduce it to a gene puddle.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

old_soldier said:


> In most countries where polygamy is legal and is readily practiced, women are reduced to nothing more than chattle. To be bought or traded at the whim of the husband. In these societies, women who are caught committing adultery are put to death, usually by stoning. In these societies women are used for breeding and raising children. If for some reason they argue with the man of the house, he is allowed to beat her at his will. I've been to a few countries outside of the western world and have seen it. And yes, stoning is still practiced in some parts of the world. Everyone seems to ignore that point though.
> 
> Also, polygamy can reduce the gene pool, sometimes reduce it to a gene puddle.


:iagree:

But also in addition to reducing women to a commodity which could be brought and sold by men, polygamy is a guarantee prescription for social instability.
Technically it ensures that half or more of the male population remains single.
If one man has 5 wives , _then four men have none_.

Of course it depends on the male : female ratios, and birth rate.


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

TiggyBlue said:


> I have a close friend of the family that has been married for 23 years, she and her husband have sex buddies but not emotional relationships with other people, is that polyamory ?


no, that is swinging.


----------



## old_soldier (Jul 17, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> I said: I don't want to convince her to leave her new cuckhold relationship, if in fact, that is what she is participating in currently.
> 
> CM said: Would you like to elaborate?
> 
> ...


Brother, you do not have the problem. Do not that POS trollop tell you any different. What she did was wrong, plain and simple. What her BIL and sister do is wrong. Fick buddies for married people is wrong, IMHO. IMHO this whole polyamoury, swinging, what ever the he_l these people want to call it, to me its still infidelity and perverse, its disloyal and lacks any shred of integrity. 

These people IMHO are not to be trusted. Loyalty is not even a word in their vocabulary. To me, its all disgusting. IMHO


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

old_soldier said:


> Brother, you do not have the problem. Do not that POS trollop tell you any different. What she did was wrong, plain and simple. What her BIL and sister do is wrong. * Fick buddies for married people is wrong, IMHO. IMHO this whole polyamoury, swinging, what ever the he_l these people want to call it, to me its still infidelity and perverse, its disloyal and lacks any shred of integrity. *
> 
> These people IMHO are not to be trusted. Loyalty is not even a word in their vocabulary. To me, its all disgusting. IMHO


:iagree:

And nice to have you posting again!


----------



## old_soldier (Jul 17, 2012)

Thanks Caribbean Man. I left because I was angry enough that I was afraid I was going to post something stupid and get myself banned. I'm back, and even more angry than before. I just witnessed another friend of mine have his marriage go down the toilet because the wife wanted to try swinging. What the he-l is the matter with these people. Has loyalty to one's spouce and family become a thing of the past? Where have all the moral standards gone?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

old_soldier said:


> Thanks Caribbean Man. I left because I was angry enough that I was afraid I was going to post something stupid and get myself banned. I'm back, and even more angry than before. I just witnessed another friend of mine have his marriage go down the toilet because the wife wanted to try swinging. What the he-l is the matter with these people. Has loyalty to one's spouce and family become a thing of the past? Where have all the moral standards gone?


I understand how you feel about morals and so forth.
But it's just the way of the world.
Morality is no longer a " fixed asset " , its more like capital expenditure, you start off with a lumpsum and as things progress, it dwindles without being replaced.

Over time things are changing, and we who believe have to guard and protect the things we hold sacred. 
Try not to get angry to those who choose otherwise , let them destroy themselves.
In democratic societies , they too have that freedom.


----------

