RE: Naturally It's Poly (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

RCdc -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/26/2009 4:37:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn
"it sucks from a health standpoint and increased mortality rates."

Can you give us some more information on that point?




I don't have statistics to hand but personal observation and history/geography shows people who live together in close proximity are more likely to become sick more often, suffer from overcrowding and that the mortality rate is higher.  It's common sense really.  Even if people don't live together, STI stats increase with the higher amount of sexual partners you have.  Again, commen sense.
Unless you have substantial income or high up on the scale (kings and queens), even then, mortaility is and was still high compared to uncrowded environments.
 
the.dark.



LillyoftheVally -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/26/2009 4:41:12 AM)

Yup, the.darkness, for example I live in a crowded house, on an average day 10 people stay here, last week one of us got swine flu, did not take long for 8 of us to have it (luckily we are all ok) Makes sense then that more of us got sick than if only 3 of us lived in the house.



xiam -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/26/2009 6:02:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn
.... The modern anti-poly(using the word anti loosely) seems religious....


But, see, are we talking multiple sex partners here or creating and raising a family?  It's funny because as i was writing my original reply, i was thinking that it was more acceptable in the context of religion.  Depending on what religion you are, of course...!  :)



ranja -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/26/2009 6:53:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn


I can sincerely I have personally been more inclined to seek out and establish monogamous relationships - all but the current one have failed, will this one?



serial monogamy might be most humans 'normal' behaviour then?



LafayetteLady -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/26/2009 9:55:37 AM)

FR

Admittedly, I have not read all the responses, so if I repeat anyone else's response, my apologies. First from a religious standpoint, there can't be anything before Adam and Eve, as they were supposedly the first humans, with none before them. All those centuries ago, let's not forget that women were considered to be significantly "less than" men, and as such were equal to "chattel" (not unlike many people's views in BDSM). What has been said scientifically is that men are naturally pre-disposed to "spreading their seed" to as many females as possible. In countries where it is popular for a female to have multiple "husbands" or what have you, it is for population control due to the term limits of a pregnancy, whereas a man can impregnate as many women as he chooses within the same time period.

Has anyone considered that in modern times, one reason that women have become the "head" of a polyamorous household is born out of feminism and having equal rights to men? After all, men have been doing this for years, why shouldn't women?

I'm not condemning those who choose and successfully achieve having a poly household. If everyone is happy, then that is wonderful. However, far too often, I see the concept of a poly household being shoved down a female sub/slave's throat by some "dom" who really is using it as an excuse to screw anyone he wants. What no one seems to be able to explain, or cares to defend is the concept of the "head" of the household being able to initiate relationships within whomever they choose, while their partners must remain monogamous. I realize that this is not always the case, and that many poly households are "closed." However, if one is going to talk about polyamorous relationships actually being the "natural state" from a biological standpoint, then demanding monogamy from the subservient partner is defeating the argument for biology and once again brings the subject back, in my opinion, to the dom who is looking for an excuse to not be monogamous. Again, that statement is not meant for those who have poly households that are working well and they put all the work and effort that is necessary for that to happen. But even those with successful poly households will have to admit to being aware of the males I'm speaking of.

To that end, the "natural state" is therefore what we make it. For some it may be poly, for others, it is monogamy. To try to force one or the other to anyone is basically just ignorance, since what makes the monogamist happy will not make the polygamist happy and vice versa.



DemonKia -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/26/2009 10:16:36 AM)

Humans are not done evolving. No lifeforms on the planet are, evolution is an ongoing process that occurs over hundreds of generations to populations of organisms. Evolution is differences in mortality & reproductive outcomes between different populations over generations.

& pretty much only humans are capable of engaging in recreational sex. I think that's worth repeating. All other mammals only engage in reproductive sexual activities during estrus, the rest of the time there is no sex. (Again, with the exception of the chimps, particularly the bonobos.)

The fact that humans are designed for recreational sex strikes me as a pretty significant fact that doesn't seem to get appropriate consideration. & the fact that all that reproductive imperative drives so much modern recreational sexual behaviors also strikes me as a significantly under-appreciated factor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: couldbemage

...but only humans have intentional reproductive sex. And that started pretty much after we were done evolving. Every animal has sex purely because it feels good.



couldbemage -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/26/2009 11:25:01 AM)

I think you have a different definition of recreational than me.

I'd say that only humans (possibly chimps or dolphins) really do anything on purpose. Therefore everything animals do is recreational.



DomImus -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/26/2009 11:28:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn
The fact is the majority of LTRs fail along with at least 1/2 of the marriages.


There is no such fact unless the yardstick for all relationships is 'until death do you part'. That every relationship that does not reach the 'until death do you part' finish line be categorized as a failure is merely your opinion.

The 50% myth is another fallacy that does not take into account the numerous serial marriage folks. There are a minority of folks who are pulling that average up.



Apocalypso -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/26/2009 12:08:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn
I  am not seeking to debate the word 'natural' - by that all I mean is biologically programmed.
Do not get stuck on my poor choice of words in the OP.

Good night [8D]

I don't think your choice of words was poor, to be honest.

I think people are reacting to what you mean by them.

In essence, I suspect a lot of people would take issue with the concept that we're predestined by evolutionary biology in the way you suggest.

And there's obviously nuances there.  From the people who think you've merely overstated that point a bit, to the extremists like me who deny the value of evolutionary biology in any discussion of interpersonal relationships.  [;)]



Racquelle -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/26/2009 12:12:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ranja  so what exactly is poly when we talk about this then?
  When WE speak of it, we are never speaking of anything in exact terms.  There are so very many ways to express polyamorousness that we really can't cover all possible permutations.  All of the things you describe could be called "poly".



Racquelle -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/26/2009 12:15:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

quote:

ORIGINAL: couldbemage

I'd say natural is having 1 official partner, cheating in secret, all while becoming incensed if any of your partners cheat on you.

I wouldn't say poly is natural. Possible healthier.


I provided quite a few journals.  I will allow you to object on some type of philosophical term - but to just object with out providing any useful information? 
  Esinn, Mage is using a form of humor commonly referred to as "sarcasm".



ranja -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/26/2009 12:27:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Racquelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: ranja  so what exactly is poly when we talk about this then?
  When WE speak of it, we are never speaking of anything in exact terms.  There are so very many ways to express polyamorousness that we really can't cover all possible permutations.  All of the things you describe could be called "poly".



exactly...poly simply means many it does not even mean 'many at the same time'... but just many and many meaning more than one.
and as hardly any one of us has only one partner throughout our entire life, should we all consider ourselves to be poly? ... i think not....



Racquelle -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/26/2009 12:48:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ranja

quote:

ORIGINAL: Racquelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: ranja  so what exactly is poly when we talk about this then?
  When WE speak of it, we are never speaking of anything in exact terms.  There are so very many ways to express polyamorousness that we really can't cover all possible permutations.  All of the things you describe could be called "poly".



exactly...poly simply means many it does not even mean 'many at the same time'... but just many and many meaning more than one.
and as hardly any one of us has only one partner throughout our entire life, should we all consider ourselves to be poly? ... i think not....
Or perhaps we should.  We are not far removed from a time when having more than one partner in life would have been considered rather unusual.



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/26/2009 1:13:38 PM)

quote:

First from a religious standpoint, there can't be anything before Adam and Eve, as they were supposedly the first humans, with none before them.


Um... you -do- realize that there are a LOT of religions outside of the Judao-Christian religion, and that some of those have different creation stories with humans and even gods and other beings habiting the planet who have no relation whatsoever to the Judeo-Christian mythos, right?

quote:

What no one seems to be able to explain, or cares to defend is the concept of the "head" of the household being able to initiate relationships within whomever they choose, while their partners must remain monogamous.


Actually, there are -several- individuals on other threads where this has come up who have explained their own (very happy) relationships where their dominant partner is allowed to initiate any relationships they choose, and the submissive partner must, by their agreement, restrict hir sexual activity and/or emotional relationships to only hir dominant partner. It works very well for some people.

DC



Racquelle -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/26/2009 1:23:53 PM)

Frenchy has my tacit approval, nay encouragement, to seek other relationships.  He simply prefers not to.



allthatjaz -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/26/2009 1:25:02 PM)

I think when we start talking about primal ancestry and the gene pool, we also have to consider that there was safety living in numbers and the more hunter gatherers within a family unit meant our offspring were more likely to be fed.
The human race are great at adapting. We can live in one culture for most of our lives but when faced with another culture we quickly adapt or at least most of us do.
Religion in many countries dictate what we can and can't do. An Arab man for example can marry more than one woman providing he can provide equally for each wife but most wealthy Arabs that could well afford a second or even third wife (in modern society) tend to stick with just the one (providing she can give him children.) But then go out to the Arabic nomadic tribes (the hunter gatherers) and you will find that most of the men will have more than one wife. Go to the African bush tribes and again you will find poly households.

Whilst I see poly households as somewhat attractive, I do so because I imagine a hard working team that all get along on an equal footing but the reality for many that try to do this is a bunch of people with conflicting emotions that quickly ends in tears. For the poly households that have got that golden key to get it right, all I can say is I'm as jealous as hell!




autoRelease -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/26/2009 8:36:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: allthatjaz
Whilst I see poly households as somewhat attractive, I do so because I imagine a hard working team that all get along on an equal footing but the reality for many that try to do this is a bunch of people with conflicting emotions that quickly ends in tears. For the poly households that have got that golden key to get it right, all I can say is I'm as jealous as hell!


I agree!



DavanKael -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/26/2009 10:16:21 PM)

There is no new thing under the sun. 
People have lived in poly- and mono- pairings throughout time. 
This is not merely for matters of sexuality or of actualization but poly-, at times, was simply the best way to guarantee survival. 
As for pair-bondings, 'nature' seems to make them 4-7 years in duration for humans (Ie: make a baby, birth it, get it to a point of statistically better survivability, move on to next mate, repeat process).  Mating with quality and diversity is something that biology would seem to give us a proclivity for: survival of the fittest. 
However, whether one wants to argue that mono- or poly- is the most viable, there also needs enter the thought-process that we are creatures of free will and, thus, we can decide to be either/or. 
Most of my marriage was poly, though relationships with others only occupied about 1/5 of the years of said marriage.  THe rest of the time, we were mono- while open to poly-.  As it is, I desire a life partner.  I seek a mono- situation because imo and ime, it's a poor idea to go into poly with a primary relationship on rocky footing and while I will tolerate sharing, I must be the Alpha female and, thus, a hirearchical situation, if other females are involved, is all that is acceptable to me. 
< shrug >
     Davan



Esinn -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/26/2009 10:55:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally


quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

Before I pass out.....

I am not seeking to debate the word 'natural' - by that all I mean is biologically programmed.
Do not get stuck on my poor choice of words in the OP.



Still means the same thing, you are still dictating



Philosophical musings have meaning when describing something in it's natural state. 

Biologically programmed machines are unable to act in a way that would violate such programming.  On the rare occasion they do the outcome is not productive.  Such changes(mutations) would take thousands of years to overwrite existing programming. 



NormalOutside -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/26/2009 11:02:45 PM)

Not 100% sure what the OP's point is, but I figured I'd chip in to say that most of the first post does make sense to me. To me it's basically saying loving 3-or-mores make sense even though they're often judged by outsiders. Fair enough.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.445313E-02