polyamory | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

polyamory

I am not understanding the big arguments about polyamory... Doesn't it just mean you love more than one person at once and you all function as a part of a committed relationship? Like a micro-community? It's not all about sex. It is also a relationship which requires effort and support for one another. It isn't for everyone, but it works for some. Just like everything else in the world.

Haven't you people ever fallen in love more than once? "The One" does not exist. "The One" is created, is defined by you. Life outside the norms is not that "evil". Some people will find one special person they love, others will find several different people they love, one at a time. Some will never fall in love, some will love many all at once. There are many approaches to life and love.

As for "sluts", what's wrong with someone liking to have lots of sex? The main problem is when they engage in "immoral" behavior as people mentioned, but the sex isn't really that immoral if it is consensual amd permitted? The problem here lies if a contract of monogamy is breached, or someone was lied to or deceived, but if all was done in knowledge and consent, what's the problem?
 
  • Like
Reactions: splott
I don't really think the discussion this thread has turned into was about polyamory per se. I don't see anything wrong with it at all.

It sort of developed into the discussion of what the term "slut" means to people. And I have the same opinion as you -- if it's consensual and permitted someone can have all the sex in the world, none of my business.

Your post kinda confused me, because you're saying pretty much the exact thing that I was trying to get across.. but you're saying it like I was on the opposite side. :noidea:
 
Elowen said:
I don't really think the discussion this thread has turned into was about polyamory per se. I don't see anything wrong with it at all.

It sort of developed into the discussion of what the term "slut" means to people. And I have the same opinion as you -- if it's consensual and permitted someone can have all the sex in the world, none of my business.

Your post kinda confused me, because you're saying pretty much the exact thing that I was trying to get across.. but you're saying it like I was on the opposite side. :noidea:
Click to expand...

Lol. I wasn't arguing. Just adding my thoughts. :) I agree with you.

Edit: I was just trying to dissect the reasoning a little more.
 
Phage said:
Lol. I wasn't arguing. Just adding my thoughts. :) I agree with you.

Edit: I was just trying to dissect the reasoning a little more.
Click to expand...

Ohh okay! :) Thank you for clarifying, lol I was quite confused. I don't think I've had enough sleep lately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phage
Sali said:
Define "slut", define "Sleezebag".

what is it that you believe makes your subjective opinion on sexual ethics more "right" than others to the extent to which others must be given derogatory labels?
Click to expand...

Slut: polyamorous female.

Sleezebag: polyamorous male.


Polyamorous: someone who is in a relationship, which includes the possibility of having sex, with more than one person at a time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bronson_
Flavus Aquila said:
Slut: polyamorous female.

Sleezebag: polyamorous male.


Polyamorous: someone who is in a relationship, which includes the possibility of having sex, with more than one person at a time.
Click to expand...
those are not very flattering words for something which already has terminology
 
Resonance said:
because satisfying a basic biological need is just soo reprehensible
Click to expand...

Need, or want? Admittedly the line can be blurry.

However, moral standards exist relative to the utility of those standards to the subscribing nation.

Polyamory - or having multiple sexualized partners - is detrimental to social stability in general:

teachman.jpg


Sexual Partner Divorce Risk

For women in particular, it destabilizes their expectations of exclusive relationships, which are the natural pattern of nearly all human societies.

Furthermore, natural male inclinations see female value inversely correlated with number of sexual partners. Risk of disease vector (ever seen a "sex partner chart"), risk of cuckoldry, risk of female disloyalty, risk of female inattention to offspring, etc.
 
Barnabas said:
Sex isn't a need, you don't die from lack of sex.
Click to expand...
You won't die per se, but it is kind of the end goal of satisfying all your other, 'actual' needs. If you have everything else, it's hard not to think about it. In other words, you yourself won't die, but your bloodline does.

SpilledMilk said:
Need, or want? Admittedly the line can be blurry.

However, moral standards exist relative to the utility of those standards to the subscribing nation.

Polyamory - or having multiple sexualized partners - is detrimental to social stability in general:

For women in particular, it destabilizes their expectations of exclusive relationships, which are the natural pattern of nearly all human societies.

Furthermore, natural male inclinations see female value inversely correlated with number of sexual partners. Risk of disease vector (ever seen a "sex partner chart"), risk of cuckoldry, risk of female disloyalty, risk of female inattention to offspring, etc.
Click to expand...
Okay, but this is all based on the assumption that divorce and liberal values are a bad thing. It's circular logic.

My experience is that marriages between people who value marital commitment more are
1) more likely to produce/sustain multi-generational abuse cycles
2) more likely to produce explosive divorces when they do happen

"Social stability" and "sustained marriages" are quite different.
 
Resonance said:
You won't die per se, but it is kind of the end goal of satisfying all your other, 'actual' needs. If you have everything else, it's hard not to think about it. In other words, you yourself won't die, but your bloodline does.
Click to expand...

People are capable of procreating with a single partner. FA isn't saying that people shouldn't fulfill there sexual needs, Just that they needn't sleep with multiple people to do so. At that point your not looking to procreate, your looking to fulfill your urges.
 
Barnabas said:
Sex isn't a need, you don't die from lack of sex.
Click to expand...

Sex is a need for the species as a whole. Without it we cease to exist. Richard dawkins' book the selfish gene maintains that reproduction may in fact be more important of a need than survival. Many animals will put their lives in danger to perform their mating dances and reduce their own personal chances of survival.
 
Resonance said:
I'd rather you helped me reform the human-computer relationship or the education system or something ;.;
Click to expand...

After what 4chan has been doing I don't think will eve be able to restore computer-human relations. As for education, That would require the death of all children and many teachers currently in the system so that we could start a new.
 
Barnabas said:
After what 4chan has been doing I don't think will eve be able to restore computer-human relations. As for education, That would require the death of all children and many teachers currently in the system so that we could start a new.
Click to expand...
That's rather pessimistic ._.

We can change how people interact with computers by changing how they can interact with them.

And the education system doesn't need to be totally redone from scratch right away. Gradual shifts will work.
 
Resonance said:
That's rather pessimistic ._.

We can change how people interact with computers by changing how they can interact with them.

And the education system doesn't need to be totally redone from scratch right away. Gradual shifts will work.
Click to expand...

Either way, this thread is about polygamy not pigmys, back to the talks about people having sex with other people and then having sex with different people.
 
Sali said:
Sex is a need for the species as a whole. Without it we cease to exist. Richard dawkins' book the selfish gene maintains that reproduction may in fact be more important of a need than survival. Many animals will put their lives in danger to perform their mating dances and reduce their own personal chances of survival.
Click to expand...

Some people will even try to reproduce without asking for permission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back