[Antares]

Originally Posted by wgf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I am not "speaking for all human beings".. I am speaking universally.. it's a better lifestyle. Pregnancy and STD aside (not realistic, but let's go with it) I would still advocate a monogamous lifestyle. There are not enough stats on well managed polygamy to confirm if it makes people "happier" in the long term or not... But thinking it through I can't imagine it does no. And of course you are going to throw out the "christian" insult. (it's an ad hominem attack, not a sound refutation at all...) I find it ridiculous how many people attack Christians on monogamy when Judaism and Islam both endorse the same thing. I am neither of which anyway, just someone with some good sense to see pandoras box and not open it.

You're not speaking for "all human beings", yet you're speaking universally. Unless by "universally" you mean everything in the universe, thus animals and other living creatures that can have sex as well, then what's the difference? You ARE attempting to say that for all human beings monogamy is a better lifestyle and those who have a different experience will be less inclined to find your claims credible, but then of course you also say these people just don't know what's good for themselves because that's what you seem to be saying. If monogamy is a universally better lifestyle, then the rest must be deluded, ignorant or masochistic. Either way, you're not showing much respect for other peoples ability to make the right decisions for themselves.

As for attacking Christianity, you're mistaken. I'm merely citing that Christianity is a huge influence in western culture, which promotes monogamy. You can be atheist, but you still live under the Christian mindset because culture is what you're raised in and Christian mindset is not limited to religious people. One could argue that charity and welfare are very Christian ideas, yet Christians are not the only good samaritans who might have been influenced by the emphasis on charity in the Christianity-dominated society. I invoked Christianity to demonstrate that the Western lifestyle is by no means the only right way to live, and historically, it was not even the most dominant lifestyle and other cultures do just fine. Again, I refer you to "Sex at Dawn", and for heavens sake, read some anthropology. Better yet, go read some Greco-Roman sexual mores and you'll find many strange things you can't even imagine. But of course if you have already learned these things and just think they're merely deviant and wrong and not a different culture, then I can say nothing more. There are many, many ways to live.

Of course I could cite Islam (multiple wives?). I could even cite monogamous swans but then it's easy to see that's not the only way for an animal to live either. I cited Christianity because I assumed you're from a Western country of Christian heritage. Sorry if I got it wrong. If you were a Jew I can change it to Judaism. If you were Chinese I could cite the effect of Confucianism on culture and how Confucianist teachings are not the only way to live. As a Chinese, you could be Confucianist or not, but you're still deeply influenced by that man, and that religion's ideas. My point stands. I have nothing against Christians in particular, just in the assumption that something is the only functional way to live just because the prevalent culture promotes it.

As for happiness, that's none of your business. I'm not poly myself and have not lived the lifestyle to give you any data, but they're not harming you and you have no right to judge and even if it makes them unhappy, you still have no right to judge. You can't "imagine". Well, I'm sorry your failure of imagination leads you to assume just because you can't fathom how someone can be as happy as you in a poly relationship, they must not be. I can't imagine it either but I don't presume because there's really no way you can know how it feels until you do it and there are no data against it. What is wrong with withholding judgment until you have data? What are these people doing to you that you feel you ought to judge their lifestyle and say what's "better"? Until you provide some data that polys are more dysfunctional, I reject your inability to imagine as credible support for your arguments.

[wgf]

Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You're not speaking for "all human beings", yet you're speaking universally. Unless by "universally" you mean everything in the universe, thus animals and other living creatures that can have sex as well, then what's the difference? You ARE attempting to say that for all human beings monogamy is a better lifestyle and those who have a different experience will be less inclined to find your claims credible, but then of course you also say these people just don't know what's good for themselves because that's what you seem to be saying. If monogamy is a universally better lifestyle, then the rest must be deluded, ignorant or masochistic. Either way, you're not showing much respect for other peoples ability to make the right decisions for themselves.

Woah so many assertions... no evidence to support any of these claims.. my head is spinning. lol

Let me catch a few of these bullets :

a. I am speaking universally, there's no harm in speaking.. it's a free country.
b. Why some people that think monogamy is a lesser quality lifestyle than polygamy varies. I am not going to conjecture there right now... That's a long discussion
c. The rest of the world may be a variety of things, but for the most part in my opinion it's lack of education
d. Suggesting to someone that a monogamous lifestyle is better than a polygamous one isn't disrespectful, sorry, it's a free country

Disrespect is reserved for sacred ground. I am not addressing religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, I am addressing the quantity of sexual/romantic partners a person may be maintaining - it's not sacred ground - if someone wants to do drugs I would tell them the same damn thing without reservation - not a good idea. We should be able to discuss lifestyle choices as reasonable adults without people throwing down the "he's hurting me, he's intolerant" card.

There has to be some give and take or no one would talk about anyone for fear of "disrespecting" someone.

I can and will discuss lifestyle choices and their merit unless it's against the rules of this forum, and to my understanding it's not, so long as I dont' start name calling and mud slinging. But that would go for any debate now wouldn't it?

So, lets stay calm and talk like adults without getting feathers all ruffled.

Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As for attacking Christianity, you're mistaken. I'm merely citing that Christianity is a huge influence in western culture, which promotes monogamy. You can be atheist, but you still live under the Christian mindset because culture is what you're raised in and Christian mindset is not limited to religious people. One could argue that charity and welfare are very Christian ideas, yet Christians are not the only good samaritans who might have been influenced by the emphasis on charity in the Christianity-dominated society. I invoked Christianity to demonstrate that the Western lifestyle is by no means the only right way to live, and historically, it was not even the most dominant lifestyle and other cultures do just fine. Again, I refer you to "Sex at Dawn", and for heavens sake, read some anthropology. Better yet, go read some Greco-Roman sexual mores and you'll find many strange things you can't even imagine. But of course if you have already learned these things and just think they're merely deviant and wrong and not a different culture, then I can say nothing more. There are many, many ways to live.

You are suggesting that because people have lived polygamously, that it's a better way to live. Romans also assassinated one another, hardly a civilized culture to refer to now is it?

Just because a culture can and does function in a given way does not mean it's "the best" way to function.

I have experience with many cultures and religions. One of my best friends is muslim for goodness sakes. You really need to keep your bullets in the chamber before you start firing away.

I never at any point suggested there aren't many ways to live. But from that premise it does not necessarily follow that they are all equal in quality.

I am talking about the best way to live. In my opinion, that I do have a right to voice.

Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Of course I could cite Islam (multiple wives?). I could even cite monogamous swans but then it's easy to see that's not the only way for an animal to live either. I cited Christianity because I assumed you're from a Western country of Christian heritage. Sorry if I got it wrong. If you were a Jew I can change it to Judaism. If you were Chinese I could cite the effect of Confucianism on culture and how Confucianist teachings are not the only way to live. As a Chinese, you could be Confucianist or not, but you're still deeply influenced by that man, and that religion's ideas. My point stands. I have nothing against Christians in particular, just in the assumption that something is the only functional way to live just because the prevalent culture promotes it.

Islam has indeed a four wife rule, but finds that today this is difficult to manage. So, many choose to limit themselves to just one.

The four wife rule is in the Koran itself, and that was devised at a time of war when there were many many women without a home or provider (and in that time women living independently was nearly unheard of), so it made perfect sense at that time to take additional women into your home as equals so everyone is better cared for.

We don't need to do that now silly. There are lots of eligible men around... We aren't slaughtering each other here by the thousands in North America.

Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As for happiness, that's none of your business. I'm not poly myself and have not lived the lifestyle to give you any data, but they're not harming you and you have no right to judge and even if it makes them unhappy, you still have no right to judge. You can't "imagine". Well, I'm sorry your failure of imagination leads you to assume just because you can't fathom how someone can be as happy as you in a poly relationship, they must not be. I can't imagine it either but I don't presume because there's really no way you can know how it feels until you do it and there are no data against it. What is wrong with withholding judgment until you have data? What are these people doing to you that you feel you ought to judge their lifestyle and say what's "better"? Until you provide some data that polys are more dysfunctional, I reject your inability to imagine as credible support for your arguments.

Oi veih

I do have a right to make judgements actually. I make judgements all day long as does everyone. This "I don't judge" addage everyone throws around is ridiculous, but that's for another thread.

Everyone makes judgements about people and their lifestyles all day long every day of the darn week - live with it.

Everyone has a right to think, heck they even have a right to speak out loud what they are thinking, despite what kind of fit you or anyone else might have to throw about it.

We all have a right to think, and speak. Live with it.

I DO have data, you are the one who claims you have zero. lol

And as for what these people "are doing to me", they are doing nothing, nor is that at all relevant. If someone is doing drugs and not affecting me in the slightest, I will still tell them to knock it off, that it's a bad idea.

Don't do drugs kids.

Yes, I am "judging".. I am even speaking my mind.. Even suggesting what's best : dont' do drugs kids.

And as for you "reject[ing my] inability to imagine as credible support for [my] arguments", I really don't care what you reject, again it's a free country.

When I think, I speak up... I don't cower in some hole worried someone might take offense.

As long as I treat people with dignity and respect I don't think there's any reason not to speak up.

To my mind speaking up is how we learn.

You can hide away until you have collected your data, I am going to speak up and learn.

[Mari]

	Originally Posted by wgf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I DO have data, you are the one who claims you have zero. lol...You can hide away until you have collected your data, I am going to speak up and learn.

There is actually plenty of people who have perfectly healthy poly relationships.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Plotthickens, on our very own forum, is in an open marriage and from what I can tell, she's very happy with the arrangement.

There's your data.

[zeroemission]

that's what the gorgeous gal who wanted to bear my children and maintain an open bi-sexual marriage tried to argue anyways, even calling monogamy un-natural

[wgf]

	Originally Posted by zeroemission To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	that's what the gorgeous gal who wanted to bear my children and maintain an open bi-sexual marriage tried to argue anyways, even calling monogamy un-natural

Monogamy is not natural for humans... we've proven that over and over for centuries...

But driving isn't natural either, and we do that every day...

The "natural argument" really doesn't offer support for either case... it's irrelevant.

Something being natural does not make it any better to do or worse... It just means it's something animals do and something we are instinctively driven to do...

It does NOT follow from something being natural that we ought to do this or that...

[zeroemission]

monogamy is totally natural to me. i don't like being in more than one relationship at a time. i find it really stressful. i want to get rid of the fun buddy and marry the one i'm actually attracted to.

i share the INTJ trait of finding that one special person and eff everyone else. not finding said gal though

[wgf]

	Originally Posted by zeroemission To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	monogamy is totally natural to me. i don't like being in more than one relationship at a time. i find it really stressful. i want to get rid of the fun buddy and marry the one i'm actually attracted to. i share the INTJ trait of finding that one special person and eff everyone else. not finding said gal though

Yes, there are some that can manage monogamy easily and for others is a lifelong struggle...

Either way, we aren't biologically designed to pair up with one person for the rest of our lives... For some it's easy, for many it's difficult to keep the straight and narrow...

Education and maturity play a big role in the struggle too...

Human history offers an overabundance of evidence to prove that monogamy isn't something that comes easy to most humans on average... infidelity exists in every culture on earth... No culture escapes it...

But monogamy being natural or not does not in any way offer a strong case that we ought to live monogamously or not...

Something being natural does not make it any better an idea to pursue or worse...

[sunitaishot]

	Originally Posted by zeroemission To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	that's what the gorgeous gal who wanted to bear my children and maintain an open bi-sexual marriage tried to argue anyways, even calling monogamy un-natural

Yet there is little anthropological evidence to support this. We don't know how people lived, bar basic human universals (culture, art, language, etc.) prior to the beginning of recorded history.

If somebody can travel back in time, meet and observe a group of humans 40,000 years ago and see how they expressed relationships, this PC/liberal ideal can at leas be corroborated.

---------- Post added 06-12-2012 at 10:41 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by wgf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, there are some that can manage monogamy easily and for others is a lifelong struggle... Either way, we aren't biologically designed to pair up with one person for the rest of our lives... For some it's easy, for many it's difficult to keep the straight and narrow... Education and maturity play a big role in the struggle too...

Did you ever meet a homo erectus? A modern human living 50,000 years ago? There is no way to test if humans are indeed non-monogamous, or if it's in our nature not to be. I'm not saying monogamy is inherently good (nothing in life truly is) but how we evolved relationships is conjecture and at best loose inference.

[wgf]

	Originally Posted by sunitaishot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Did you ever meet a homo erectus? A modern human living 50,000 years ago? There is no way to test if humans are indeed non-monogamous, or if it's in our nature not to be. I'm not saying monogamy is inherently good (nothing in life truly is) but how we evolved relationships is conjecture and at best loose inference.

Helen Fisher's done some brilliant work in the last decade with MRI brain scans...

But human history offers ample evidence to prove it's not easy for humans to walk the straight and narrow...

I am not suggesting how we evolved, I am arguing that the amount of infidelity that is rife on this planet is a strong case to prove monogamy is not something we are biologically designed to do...

Dont' misunderstand.. I am not arguing a case for polygamy... This natural argument is actually a tangent...

Monogamy isn't something that comes naturally to humans... But in my opinion it's something we ought to pursue nonetheless...

[sunitaishot]

Originally Posted by wgf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Helen Fisher's done some brilliant work in the last decade with MRI brain scans... But human history offers ample evidence to prove it's not easy for humans to walk the straight and narrow... I am not suggesting how we evolved, I am arguing that the amount of infidelity that is rife on this planet is a strong case to prove monogamy is not something we are biologically designed to do... Dont' misunderstand.. I am not arguing a case for polygamy... This natural argument is actually a tangent... Monogamy isn't something that comes naturally to humans... But in my opinion it's something we ought to pursue nonetheless...

I'm not a paleoanthropologist, but the exact social behaviour of hominids is inference. We cannot say with total certainty how they behaved, or what their structures were. To cite then that monogamy is unnatural is a baseless argument, since we don't truly know what natural is. also, people don't always follow laws (I'd vouch most don't consistently, if most only break minor laws) but we are social by nature.

I don't personally care either way, since neither behaviour IMO is inherently bad or good. I think personally the modern furore over cheating means we should re-examine the nature of our romantic dealings. If this means reducing monogamy, then why not?

[wolfyx]

I didn’t expect this thread to create such a controversy. I have started threads on this forum that are a lot more important and more “intellectual” to me but that did not “take off”, like the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
for example.

Anyway, as a “fire-starter” I don’t mind creating controversy with unconventional ideas, especially when protected by the internet anonymity. I don’t mint placing “myself in the line of fire” either because I can take the beating without blinking and come back with some hard to crack “rationalization” or even a real logically coherent argument if I choose to put some effort into it.

My arguments and my motivation for this thread kind of dried out because we are turning in circles at this point. All smart INTJ seem to have the same thinking pattern. I put the effort to answer to MWNN already, mieu and the others can just get the “logically coherent arguments” or “hard to crack rationalizations” from there.

Anyway who the hell cares? Nobody was “hurt” in the process of me being a “cheater” because my relationship was let’s say “superficial”. So no feelings of guilt either, sorry. I would do it all over again, I continue to do it and have fun with it. It is not so hard to justify “lying” for “protection” either as we all lie every day to protect other people’s feelings.

I would certainly lie about wgf’s “ugliness” even if I don’t like her. To be honest, I was outraged by wgf’s comments about “female exploitation” and didn’t even want to go there. I did ask her some aiding questions, though, that she didn’t bother to answer.

[zeroemission]

i think monogamy IS more natural than not for women. if you want to talk biological imperatives and all, they need to put all of their effort into rearing healthy children so they're naturally inclined to want a reliable partner even if they look for the exact opposite in alpha males.

it's the male's prerogative to impregnate every female he can because we're ready to repopulate the planet 24/7.

if anything, a relationship where the male is devout monogamous and the woman not is un-natural.

i can see how it works with other humans, but unlike them, i'm not ruled by every stupid impulse my reptilian brain has. i go against the laws of nature more often than not where it involves socializing with other primates. for me, there's no "effort" in monagamy. it's my preferred natural state... that whole "you and me against the world" ideal

[Mari]

	Originally Posted by wgf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Monogamy isn't something that comes naturally to humans... But in my opinion it's something we ought to pursue nonetheless...

Why?

Originally Posted by zeroemission To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

i think monogamy IS more natural than not for women. if you want to talk biological imperatives and all, they need to put all of their effort into rearing healthy children so they're naturally inclined to want a reliable partner even if they look for the exact opposite in alpha males. it's the male's prerogative to impregnate every female he can because we're ready to repopulate the planet 24/7. if anything, a relationship where the male is devout monogamous and the woman not is un-natural. i can see how it works with other humans, but unlike them, i'm not ruled by every stupid impulse my reptilian brain has. i go against the laws of nature more often than not where it involves socializing with other primates. for me, there's no "effort" in monagamy. it's my preferred natural state... that whole "you and me against the world" ideal

You just gotta remember that every human is different. Ever person has their own wants and needs. So while for you, monogamy may be fun and all, but for others it kills their relationships. Not everybody's needs are identical to your own.

[wgf]

Originally Posted by sunitaishot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not a paleoanthropologist, but the exact social behaviour of hominids is inference. We cannot say with total certainty how they behaved, or what their structures were. To cite then that monogamy is unnatural is a baseless argument, since we don't truly know what natural is. also, people don't always follow laws (I'd vouch most don't consistently, if most only break minor laws) but we are social by nature. I don't personally care either way, since neither behaviour IMO is inherently bad or good. I think personally the modern furore over cheating means we should re-examine the nature of our romantic dealings. If this means reducing monogamy, then why not?

There is a ridiculous amount of evidence out there to prove monogamy isn't something we are biologically designed to do.

I don't need to know what people did millions of years ago... There isn't a single culture that doesn't have infidelity in it... that's conclusive evidence enough for me.

Cheating is a whole other story.

People living openly and honestly with multiple partners isn't the same thing as cheating at all..

This thread has argued that for over a dozen pages...

People cheat for a variety of reasons, not simply because it's a struggle against instincts...

And simply because people cheat, it does not follow that monogamy is bad or something to be done away with or reduced.

---------- Post added 06-13-2012 at 12:28 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by wolfyx To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Anyway, as a “fire-starter” I don’t mind creating controversy with unconventional ideas,

You aren't a fire starter and you haven't created any controversy...

The current discussion is just a meta discussion, i actually suggested to the admins to move it elsewhere since it's not related to your initial post at all.

You haven't created any controversy, topics create controversy, not people...

[Antares]

Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But otherwise, yes, monogamy is overrated and is clearly seen in our more and more prevalent pattern of serial monogamy whereby people change partners so fast they might as well be polyamorists, and of course, cheating. Society really holds on to some ridiculous notions, and monogamy is not the norm in human history, not by a long shot. It is a fairly recent invention. Truly monogamous animals do not cheat and mate unto death. Swans do not cheat, for instance, and they don't have to fight the urge to cheat because it can be argued that humans are one of the best in terms of self-restraint and the controlling of "animalistic urges" because we can reflect upon ourselves. That alone says to me we are not meant to only be with one person, and many scholars agree with me, having done research on our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos.

I invite you to actually read my post before putting words in my mouth. I never said polyamory is necessarily better, re your strawman. I said polyamory is not necessarily worse (that it is natural to us might be ONE possible indication, by no means conclusive, but mea sententia, a compelling one ) and human society has demonstrated that there are many ways to live, and it's presumptuous to say they are worse because that isn't how your Christianized society works.

I said I have no "data" to mean I have no hands on experience. Apologies for confusing wording. Since you have "data", here are some that might contest yours. Feel free to produce them whenever you feel like actually providing support for your judgments. There aren't a lot of studies done on polys in the modern sense of the word so I'd be interested to see what you have found that I haven't already.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


What I'm advocating is withholding judgment and being tolerant (which means leaving poly people to be free from your judgment, and tendency to view people with different lifestyles as teenagers doing illicit drugs and calling other lifestyles "uneducated", until your points are proven valid) until we have data and acknowledging the possibility that this lifestyle might not be worse because it is more in line with our natures. I will never stop you from calling a lunatic a lunatic, and a polyamorist as masochistic or grievously mistaken, if you can demonstrate they are indeed so.

You did say "in [your] opinion". Your opinion sounds exactly like just your opinion. Right on. It's one thing to "speak up" when you provide data, it's another when you're just claiming knowledge and passing judgments without doing any of that. It's one thing to offend people with the truth, and another with baseless judgments, and the latter is what you have been doing up to now (hint hint. An invitation to present your data) Until you produce relevant data, your position is rejected. I'm not mad at you; I actually want to see all the data you claim to have.

Originally Posted by wgf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There is a ridiculous amount of evidence out there to prove monogamy isn't something we are biologically designed to do. I don't need to know what people did millions of years ago... There isn't a single culture that doesn't have infidelity in it... that's conclusive evidence enough for me. Cheating is a whole other story. People living openly and honestly with multiple partners isn't the same thing as cheating at all.. This thread has argued that for over a dozen pages... People cheat for a variety of reasons, not simply because it's a struggle against instincts... And simply because people cheat, it does not follow that monogamy is bad or something to be done away with or reduced.

It does not follow indeed, but no one is suggesting we should all be polyamorists. The amount of misery caused by cheating, in my opinion, is unnecessary because some people are so obviously poly even if society wants them to be mono, while others are sincerely monogamous. Due to our culture, however, many are not even aware they have that option. I don't know what other people think, but I feel that they should at least be made aware of the existence of a lifestyle that might be more suitable for their nature. I don't want to see monogamy abolished or forcibly reduced; people should make informed decisions. Yes, that might lead some current monogamists to choose polyamory; to be free is to know you have a choice.

[sunitaishot]

Originally Posted by wgf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There is a ridiculous amount of evidence out there to prove monogamy isn't something we are biologically designed to do. I don't need to know what people did millions of years ago... There isn't a single culture that doesn't have infidelity in it... that's conclusive evidence enough for me. Cheating is a whole other story. People living openly and honestly with multiple partners isn't the same thing as cheating at all.. This thread has argued that for over a dozen pages... People cheat for a variety of reasons, not simply because it's a struggle against instincts... And simply because people cheat, it does not follow that monogamy is bad or something to be done away with or reduced. ---------- Post added 06-13-2012 at 12:28 AM ---------- You aren't a fire starter and you haven't created any controversy... The current discussion is just a meta discussion, i actually suggested to the admins to move it elsewhere since it's not related to your initial post at all. You haven't created any controversy, topics create controversy, not people...

You're making an inference again. Can you prove we're neurologically geared not to have monogamy?

[wgf]

Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I invite you to actually read my post before putting words in my mouth. I never said polyamory is necessarily better, re your strawman. I said polyamory is not necessarily worse (that it is natural to us might be ONE possible indication, by no means conclusive, but mea sententia, a compelling one ) and human society has demonstrated that there are many ways to live, and it's presumptuous to say they are worse because that isn't how your Christianized society works.

Ah another shot at the christians... classy.

Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I said I have no "data" to mean I have no hands on experience. Apologies for confusing wording. Since you have "data", here are some that might contest yours. Feel free to produce them whenever you feel like actually providing support for your judgments. There aren't a lot of studies done on polys in the modern sense of the word so I'd be interested to see what you have found that I haven't already. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have worked in social services for a number of years and have direct experience with couples counsellors and family law attorneys... NONE of them had any confidence that human beings could manage multiple partners well... ZERO

MOST of the time it just makes a big mess in the long term... just like infidelity... it's fun for a while but eventually peter pan has to go back to neverland and wendy has to fly back home...

Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What I'm advocating is withholding judgment and being tolerant (which means leaving poly people to be free from your judgment, and tendency to view people with different lifestyles as teenagers doing illicit drugs and calling other lifestyles "uneducated", until your points are proven valid) until we have data and acknowledging the possibility that this lifestyle might not be worse because it is more in line with our natures. I will never stop you from calling a lunatic a lunatic, and a polyamorist as masochistic or grievously mistaken, if you can demonstrate they are indeed so.

You really need to get a grip. Sorry to be so blunt, but I do have a right to express my opinion... I AM tolerant. I tolerate behavior all the time...

Simply expressing your opinion about someone's lifestyle that's contrary to what they are doing does not make me intolerant... I am taking no action to restrict their activities at all... I have a right to speak up... If anyone here is intolerant it's you posting over and over trying to tell me to shut up. lol

Dont' do drugs kids.. dont' do drugs...

Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You did say "in [your] opinion". Your opinion sounds exactly like just your opinion. Right on. It's one thing to "speak up" when you provide data, it's another when you're just claiming knowledge and passing judgments without doing any of that. It's one thing to offend people with the truth, and another with baseless judgments, and the latter is what you have been doing up to now (hint hint. An invitation to present your data) Until you produce relevant data, your position is rejected. I'm not mad at you; I actually want to see all the data you claim to have.

Everyone here is stating opinion unless they are presenting a 100% conclusive and concrete FACT.

That's all you have is proven 100% facts, and anything less is just that.. opinion.. INCLUDING YOURS...

I never claimed knowledge, I expressed my thoughts... which I do have a right to do no matter how little "tolerance" for that you may have...

Baseless judgements now? Sorry, but everything YOU are throwing at ME is a baseless judgement and i tolerate you. lol

I am not here to make presentations to you, sorry, this isn't a board meeting...

I expressed my thoughts, which I have a right to do, even to those as intolerant to constitutional rights as yourself. lol

Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It does not follow indeed, but no one is suggesting we should all be polyamorists. The amount of misery caused by cheating, in my opinion, is unnecessary because some people are so obviously poly even if society wants them to be mono, while others are sincerely monogamous. Due to our culture, however, many are not even aware they have that option. I don't know what other people think, but I feel that they should at least be made aware of the existence of a lifestyle that might be more suitable for their nature. I don't want to see monogamy abolished or forcibly reduced; people should make informed decisions. Yes, that might lead some current monogamists to choose polyamory; to be free is to know you have a choice.

You FEEL? Really? That's your approach to arguing a case now? lol

To be free is to know you have a choice?

Uh no... TO be free means to HAVE a choice. lol

And people in North America do have a choice... respect civil rights of others or leave. lol

Some people just aren't "tolerant" enough and get their feathers in a ruffle when people express their civil rights... god forbid.

---------- Post added 06-13-2012 at 11:58 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by sunitaishot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You're making an inference again. Can you prove we're neurologically geared not to have monogamy?

Read Helen Fisher's work... There is no point in my typing out over three large books here in a forum.. research her work, it's all fully tested using MRI brain scans...

She's studied many different human cultures and animal behaviour as well.. we aren't biologically designed to be monogamous...

Sorry to burst the bubble.

[Mari]

wgf, why do you think polyamory is so wrong? Antares is right, you have provided no evidence that proves monogamy is superior to polyamory.

---------- Post added 06-13-2012 at 01:03 PM ----------

Originally Posted by wgf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have worked in social services for a number of years and have direct experience with couples counsellors and family law attorneys... NONE of them had any confidence that human beings could manage multiple partners well... ZERO MOST of the time it just makes a big mess in the long term... just like infidelity... it's fun for a while but eventually peter pan has to go back to neverland and wendy has to fly back home...

This is all anecdotal evidence. It proves nothing.

[wgf]

	Originally Posted by Mari To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	wgf, why do you think polyamory is so wrong? Antares is right, you have provided no evidence that proves monogamy is superior to polyamory. ---------- Post added 06-13-2012 at 01:03 PM ---------- This is all anecdotal evidence. It proves nothing.

lol

Who said it was "wrong?" Guys, you need to read what I write and stop making crap up... lol

I said monogamy is a better lifestyle, that's all I said... you guys need to calm the hell down and read the post. lol

And no, i have yet to argue my case, everyone started yammering about monogamy being natural or unnatural...

The unnatural argument is useless and gets you nowhere...

And then another poster gets on the "how dare you judge" crapola and I have to refute that nonsense as well lol

Then onto the "you are intolerant" accusation...

Of COURSE I haven't argued the case yet, it's one damn ridiculous tangent after another... lol

And I really don't even need to argue my case, according to most of the forum members here everything is relative anyways... I dont' agree, but... if you accept relativism there isn't any point in arguing after that.. relativism silences discussion.

[Mari]

	Originally Posted by wgf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Who said it was "wrong?" Guys, you need to read what I write and stop making crap up... lol I said monogamy is a better lifestyle, that's all I said... you guys need to calm the hell down and read the post. lol

Okay, I will.

Originally Posted by wgf

This entirely misses the point. Monogamy is a better lifestyle than polygamy.. it's healthier for everyone if everyone selects one mate and keeps to that. No, it's not "natural", but neither are automobiles and people certainly love using those... Monogamy is hardly "ridiculous." You have yet to prove that. And it is hardly a recent "invention" either. I would call it more of a lifestyle than an invention...

Nope, no proof there, just you claiming it is "better" and "healthier."

	Originally Posted by wgf
	There are not enough stats on well managed polygamy to confirm if it makes people "happier" in the long term or not... But thinking it through I can't imagine it does no.

So you completely ignore the facts Antares and I provided because you "thought it through." Without stats.

Okay.

[wgf]

	Originally Posted by Mari To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nope, no proof there, just you claiming it is "better" and "healthier."

CALM DOWN and READ my damn posts.

Did you READ this?

I will post it AGAIN

And no, i have yet to argue my case, everyone started yammering about monogamy being natural or unnatural... The unnatural argument is useless and gets you nowhere... And then another poster gets on the "how dare you judge" crapola and I have to refute that nonsense as well lol Then onto the "you are intolerant" accusation... Of COURSE I haven't argued the case yet, it's one damn ridiculous tangent after another... lol

SO I REPEAT.. YOU need to CALM the HELL DOWN.

	So you completely ignore the facts Antares and I provided because you "thought it through." Without stats. Okay.

CALM DOWN. Holy fuck.

if you want to have an intelligent discussion I am all for it...

But if you are just going to charge like a bull in a china shop through post after post and only read what you feel like, and then get feathers ruffled i am out.

You just create one damn tangent after another because you are NOT READING what's POSTED.

[ManWithNoName]

	Originally Posted by wolfyx To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The people that do not value "happiness" as a foundation for the relationship function outside of my system of values. The phrase "infidelity will lead to happiness" (in the context I explained in my previous answer) only makes sense inside my system of values.

Okay this is fine. I don't dissagree with you here. I really don't actually have a problem with your system of values. The thing I have a problem is, is that you present no authority nor reasoning in towards your right to apply your system of values to other people.

Like many times you talk about how you lie or withold information in order to 'protect' them from emotional harm or pain as telling them might hurt them.

Sure this is all fine but what you are doing is essentially withholding information about your system of values. You are assuming they will accept it, and lie and withold information as long as you can about it. Because if you were being truthful about your system of values they may not agree with it as thier system of values is different and leave you and you wouldn't get what you want.

For someone who is accusing everyone else of being absolutist in their ethics and morality and whom views such a thing as being in error you are taking quite an absolutist position yourself. Through assuming that everyone agree's with your system of morality, going along as if they do and witholding information to that end, or that when they don't agree with it claiming that everyone should agree with it and follow it. Case in point:

	Wrong. The system may be universally applicable because it has logical consistency.

	It is not universally applied at the moment because people do not "understand and accept the logic behind it"! It’s something like the Darwin's Evolution Theory. Is logically coherent and universally applicable but it is not universally applied because religious bigots refuse to think logically.

How are you not being absolutist in your morality and ethics?

And furthermore, this is not the hard sciences where there is only one explanation. Your analogy with Darwins theory of evolution is a false analogy regarding the presented argument.

The base of Darwins theroy of evolution and all scientific theory rests with axioms about nature and natural processes that can be observed and thus deemed true.

This is the humanities, ethics to be precise in which there is more than one correct answer becauseeveything is a human construct to begin with. There is no one objective reality to compre to as with Darwin's Theory of evolution. Where you can prove competing theories true for false by observing and measuring natural processes. Ethics, what you are trying to measure and define and organize logically is a human construct. It was built wholly by humans.

Like I can compe up with tons of coherent logical moral therories. Many great and famous philosophers who are way smarter than me or you have devoted their entire lives to coming up with vastly different moral theories and they are all logical coherent.

What makes yours more 'right', 'true', or 'universally acceptable' than any of theirs? How does your invalidate all of theirs and make it the one acceptable one to which everyone must convert or which you are right in procceding with and trying to convert others?

Being logically coherent is not a valid justification or 'truth' for it to be deemed the one true theory. Or universally applicable. Being logically coherent ensures that your argument is valid. It dosen't automatically invalidate all other arugments or moral theories. You have to actually prove the premises of all those other theories false and unsound in order to prove them false.

For example the following argument is a perfectly logically valid and coherent argument:

All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

However the premises aren't generally true and so it's not a very true or very sound argument despite being logically coherent.

The same thing goes with your argument regarding it's premises:

The answer is above. To resume it: The "infidelity makes sense in a happiness driven system" statement applies to the people who adhere to the system and understand its logical consistency. The "system is universally applicable because of its logical consistency" applies to the people who adhere to the system and understand its logical consistency. Both statements are true for a group defined by the same conditions; therefore they do not preclude each other.

Part of it's base premises by your own admission are that it has to be accepted and adhered to in order for it to be sound and it's conclusions to be true. Every moral theory is this way essentially because there is no logical reason or method to deem it's premises true or fase just like there is no logical reason or method to deem any base premise or axiom true or false. They are either found to be true or false and rejected or accepted based upon finding them true or false within the context granted. With science it's easy because you can just measure shit in the given context or expirment in order to find out if the inital premise or axiom is true or false. With ethics there is nothing to measure. As it's base axioms and premises aren't statments of measurment, they are statments of value. Subjective value cannot be measured. It can be defined. But it can't be measured. The only thing you can do is define the axiomic values of your system in a concise coherent way and so if a person dosen't accept the value the premise is rejected and false and while the argument may be logically coherent and valid it may not be logically true or sound.

You are failing pretty hard at understanding logic in this regard.


Your entire moral theroy (like every moral theory) hinges on people accepting and adhereing to it's base axioms. And the way you are praticing your own outlined moral theroy you assume people have just accepted it without actually telling them of your theory and go to great lengths such as withholding information from them about it.

In pratice you are actually contridicting your own moral theroy. As it states that it has to be accepted and understood for it's logically drawn conclusions to be valid and you pratice it in a manner which either assumes they allready have accpeted or understood it or actively seek to prevent them from learning about it and prevents them the chance of accepting or adhereing to it.

Judging you by your own moral theroy, you are acting immoral, and acting in a hypocrtical manner to it.

	The "end goal" concept is not equivalent with "conclusion". If the partner does not rationally accept my system, then I will have to either make them embrace my system or protect them from knowing what would be hurtful to them, according to their system. The system is "moral" for those who embrace it, for the insiders.

How is this not absolutist where if they don't accept your system you make them embrace it or hide it from them?

If your system is moral to those who accept and pratice it then logically it's not going to be moral to those who don't. And if it's not moral to those who don't how is forcing it upon them or hiding it from them and praticing it with the assumption that they accept it? Moral?

	Yes, but you want me to accept your axioms, which are inconsistent theorems in my system...

Yes, and I have no problem with you not accepting my axioms to my moral theory as if you don't accept them the conclusions drawn will be false.

And in the same manner in which you find it unacceptable for others to force their moral theories upon you I find it unacceptable for you to force it upon other people or hide it from them and still claim it to be moral.

I actually also find it incredibly ironic. As you whine about how other people and society seem to want to force your moral theory on you but then seem to think you have the right and are in the right to force yours upon them. You are once again being hypocritical and illogical.

	Human sacrifice was considered acceptable and moral to the Mayas. Is it universally moral? Was the Maya system moral?

No it's not universally moral. It was deemed moral to the Mayans in that they needed to pratice human sacrifice in order to appease the gods and stop bad things from happning. If one dosen't accept those base premises and values (that if we don't do this the gods will make bas stuff happen) than it's no it's not universally moral as the conclusions it draws from those premises are false. Their argument will be valid but not sound or true.

	Assumption is your specialty not mine. I am a lot more coherent then that. I didn't assume anything. I subtly try to make them embrace my system or I protect them from what will be harmful to them in case they do not embrace my system. I already answered above.

If your system postulates that infedility is valued and will lead to happiness, and you pratice it, how have you not assumed they have accepted your system?

You cannot take the conclusions of your system to be sound if in it's very premise it requires the person to accept it as then the premises haven't been proven sound. By definition that is an assumption. To go back to my earlier logic example:

All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

You can't assume that all tosters are time traveling devices until you have found the first two statments to be sound.

In this way you can't assume they will embrace your system of infedility until they accept it. And until they accept it you can't pratice it as to pratice it is to assume it's conclusions. Well you can't do this in a logically sound or ethically non self-centered way.

By your own admission, what you are doing is proceeding in reverse through your own logical system. You are essenitally assuming the logically drawn conclusion (that fedility is acceptable and wanted) is true and then trying to get them to accept the premise that makes it so:

I subtly try to make them embrace my system or I protect them from what will be harmful to them in case they do not embrace my system.

This is wholly unsound and false as the very thing which proves the conclusion about infedility is the soundness and acceptedness of the premises.

You can subtly get them to embrace your system. Talk about it, mention it, see what they think of it etc. But you can't pratice it while you are doing this as to pratice it is to assume the conclusion true before the premisis have been accepted and proven true.

	Wrong. You logically accept axioms, which may even become provable theorems if they are coherent and valid your system.

You really have a poor grasp on exactly what logic is. Axioms are not proven with logic. They are proven by observation. In science this generally comes in the case of measurment. In humanities and other things of human construct it comes through the acceptance of the values which form the basis of the system.

	Happy and moral was a logical conclusion for insiders. Outsiders must be "converted" or "protected".

How is the position that outsiders be converted not an absolutist position? And thus flawed and kind of unsound?

Also you are protecting them from actions you have commited. If you are the originator of what you are protecting them how is such protection moral? The action has already been commited the harm done. In that position you have knowingly acted immorally and in a way they find harmful as they don't accept your base values and so you really aren't trying to protect them from harm, just trying to minimize the impact of the harm that you have done on them by hiding it from them.

Also, what ground should 'outsiders' be convered or protected? On what authority or with what agument? As the only one's you have presented thus far is the whole thing about it being logically coherent (which is no proof of it's soundness). You are very self-centered in the fact that you think you have the right or auhtority to either make other people accept your theory or hide your theory from them if it seems like they will not.

	I was coherent to myself and with my system. I protected her from what was not coherent to hers.

If she was in acceptance of it then why need to protect her from it? If she is not in acceptance of it then she hasn't accpeted it and your theory is unsound insofar that it's logical conclusions about happiness in infedility are unture.

When the time was right I shared my system with her and apparently her reaction proved that she understood its logical coherence. You assume? Then why was she my lover for three more weeks after I told her? Why did she drive me to the airport passionately kissing me goodbye? Why are we still friends now? You are right. It makes me happy and it helps me keep my emotional frame. If she did not practice infidelity is either because her value system makes her think it is wrong or because she could not find a guy she really liked.

Her reaction still dosen't make your contridction of your own logical system any more sound. You assmed it's conclusion before it's premsies were true. You were acting illogically and in a self-centered manner. No matter what you do you are just rationalizing after the fact in this manner.

Ultimatly you praticed what you wanted because it made you happy and assumed the conclusions of your moral theroy to be true without first seeing if the premises it was founded on were true and then when you did she left you.

Your moral theory is only moral if you first establish it's premises to be true. Otherwise it's immoral and unsound.

I said it many times. Her emotional drifting away was completely independent of "fidelity". It was a consequence of the long distance relationship. It is tiring repeating it over and over. For the rest, see my answers above. I am sorry to say it but this subject is out of your league. Your EQ may not be on par to go toe to toe with me on this kind of subject. But you are at a clear disadvantage because we are discussing my personal experience.

Your only answer and justification to any of your actions have been:

-I did it because it made me happy.

-I hid my ethical system and the actions I had commited from her because letting her know would make her unhappy.

Both of these are wholly self-centered. While there is nothing wrong with pursuing ones happiness, generally if it comes at another expense it's self-centered. Hiding your ethical system or the actions commited out of it from someone is self-centered. Lying in this manner is generally bad because it treats those who are lied to as a means to achieve the liar's purpose, rather than as a valuable end in themselves.

This is essentially what you have done for the most part. You eventually tell them and reveal but in the meantime you act how you want and then hide it from them for a while as to reveal to her your ethical system and reasoning and actions is to chance not having them.

You hide your actions from them to protect them allright, to protect them from yourself. Protecting them in this way is still immoral, harmful, and self-cented. As you are the originator of the harmful actions. The very fact that you hide this shows that you know it is unacceptable to them as if you didn't know this or thought it to be acceptable to them why would you hide it for a while?

The only thing you have done so far is place your own happiness above theirs as you hide information from people so that you can use them to your own ends (happiness). You do not seem to treat them much as a their own end or own person.

[Mari]

Originally Posted by wgf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

CALM DOWN and READ my damn posts. Did you READ this? I will post it AGAIN SO I REPEAT.. YOU need to CALM the HELL DOWN. CALM DOWN. Holy fuck. if you want to have an intelligent discussion I am all for it... But if you are just going to charge like a bull in a china shop through post after post and only read what you feel like, and then get feathers ruffled i am out. You just create one damn tangent after another because you are NOT READING what's POSTED.

xDDD I'm super calm! I just want you to back up your argument with actual, legitimate proof. You're the one using caps. And cursing.

I've read everything you've posted. I'm not talking about whether or not monogamy is natural or not here. I'm talking about your as-of-yet-unsubstantiated claim that monogamy is "better" than polyamory.

[zeroemission]

hey, if someone doesn't want to be in a committed relationship, that's there business, but i want nothing to do with a gal who isn't as totally into me as i am her. i'm a bit more in touch with my feminine side here than many of the other INTJ males. when i get attached to someone, it's never casual. i might only be with a gal a month, but my heartbreaks last a year or more.

the whole different needs thing is kind of why i'm turning misogynist. i've had it with stupid women ruled by their need to breed with even stupider men who ACT tough, but that are really just momma's boy sissies when they get sick and want to be babied. average human breeding rites disgust me. i like it old fashioned and simple.

of course i know people have different needs. i wouldn't be HERE if i wasn't reminded about it with EVERY social encounter where people aren't the least bit concerned about the correct plan of action for any situation.

if nothing else, i think that last fatal attraction finally cured me of the clinginess that has driven a couple gals i loved away. i think my current "women are way more trouble than they're worth" philosophy is healthier. no bickering here. no power plays. no lies. i can hear myself think any time i want. then again, people in general are really starting to annoy me.

do INTJs flip out after their mid life crisis?