Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution

[Valmy]

I have a real hard time imagining this sort of thing will be any more of a sexual revolution than swinging or any other sort of 'having sex with lotsa people' sort of revolution.  I think that one has been around a long time.

For myself one partner is plenty.  I don't have enough emotional libido to love dozens of people equally that, paradoxically, feels sort of impersonal and lonely.

[Caliga]

Serial monogamy is is not polyarmory...

Maybe.  They called themselves "polyamorous" but they might have been misusing the term.

As I recall this originally started as a group just interested in the polyamory stuff roughly in the Worcester area, and evolved into new and higher levels of insanity after one of the inherited a large woodlot in Maine.

[Berkut]

All of them?

Really?

I would not count in that any "family" deciding to live such a way, but for such a society to be real and functioning it would need to be large-ish - and this seems to be the utopian stumbling block.

But that is true for any "utopian" alternative lifestyle. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that the problem is polyamory, as much as it is that these kind of "utopian" societies that attempt to segregate themselves never seem to work out for a variety of what are usually rather obvious reasons.

I would be interested in seeing what the long term viability of polyamorous relationship *within* conventional society is.

[derspiess]

I have a real hard time imagining this sort of thing will be any more of a sexual revolution than swinging or any other sort of 'having sex with lotsa people' sort of revolution.  I think that one has been around a long time.

For myself one partner is plenty.  I don't have enough emotional libido to love dozens of people equally that, paradoxically, feels sort of impersonal and lonely.

You're obviously reacting that way because it threatens your worldview, according to the chick at the Center for Sex Positive Culture 

[Caliga]

I feel like I missed out on an opportunity there tho....

We became very good friends with another married couple who used to hang out with these people, but (wisely) chose not to go nuts and withdraw to the Maine backwoods with them.  Still, I got the impression they were interested in swinging.

[PDH]

But that is true for any "utopian" alternative lifestyle. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that the problem is polyamory, as much as it is that these kind of "utopian" societies that attempt to segregate themselves never seem to work out for a variety of what are usually rather obvious reasons.

I would be interested in seeing what the long term viability of polyamorous relationship *within* conventional society is.

I actually do think it is the stumbling block.  Because the basic relationship posited, along with the morality, kinship, and other structures of this "society" clearly are at odds with the general society.  To live within a larger society but to consistantly ignore major normalizing factors of that society is a counter that can lead to psychological, inter-group relationship, and other problems.

[Berkut]

But that is true for any "utopian" alternative lifestyle. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that the problem is polyamory, as much as it is that these kind of "utopian" societies that attempt to segregate themselves never seem to work out for a variety of what are usually rather obvious reasons.

I would be interested in seeing what the long term viability of polyamorous relationship *within* conventional society is.

I actually do think it is the stumbling block.  Because the basic relationship posited, along with the morality, kinship, and other structures of this "society" clearly are at odds with the general society.  To live within a larger society but to consistantly ignore major normalizing factors of that society is a counter that can lead to psychological, inter-group relationship, and other problems.

Well, that is the question, isn't it?

And even so, saying that it cannot work because of societal pressures is saying more about the society than it is about the relationship. What you are saying is that society will not tolerate it, hence the pressure will destroy it - which is very different from saying it simply cannot work do to human nature.

Personally, I think our society is a lot more flexible than you do, and in fact there are many places where it would be tolerated enough to allow it to sink or swim on its own merits.

[Malthus]

People have enough trouble successfully figuring out how to have a sexual relationship with a single other person. It is no surprise that attempts to form a successful sexual relationship among several people tend not to succeed.

[MadImmortalMan]

Pointless without threesomes. Fail.

[Berkut]

People have enough trouble successfully figuring out how to have a sexual relationship with a single other person. It is no surprise that attempts to form a successful sexual relationship among several people tend not to succeed.

True, but on the other hand, most of the problems people have with forming relationships with single people are not that hard to solve, if you just make some fundamental changes to your assumptions and learn how to communicate.

It is like saying there is no way anyone can ever do calculus, why, most people cannot manage algebra! But really, it isn't that hard, just takes a little more work, and a little more honesty/communication, etc., etc.

At least that is the theory.

I know people for whom marriage seems pretty easy - they communicate well, are honest, open, and willing to trust. I suspect that they could scale that to another person, or 2 more, or whatever, if those other people were good at these things as well.

It could be that the reality is that it is almost impossible to find more of these solidly stable people, and eventually you inevitably get someone who is not nearly as stable as they look. I would not be surprised to find that a polyamorous group could only ever be as stable as its least stable member, so maybe it isn't really all that practically possible.

[PDH]

Personally, I think our society is a lot more flexible than you do, and in fact there are many places where it would be tolerated enough to allow it to sink or swim on its own merits.

Oh, I was not speaking of societal pressures in the form of direct attacks and the like, but rather the attempt to breach societal norms and acculturated values/moralities/relationships that has posed problems to such sexual societies in the past.  The effect on the person an group is what I was speaking of, not necessarily that the larger society would damn and come at them with pitchforks.

If such a group could exist several generations, then those effects would be lessened.

[Sheilbh]

ANABAPTISTS!

[jimmy olsen]

People have enough trouble successfully figuring out how to have a sexual relationship with a single other person. It is no surprise that attempts to form a successful sexual relationship among several people tend not to succeed.

True, but on the other hand, most of the problems people have with forming relationships with single people are not that hard to solve, if you just make some fundamental changes to your assumptions and learn how to communicate.

It is like saying there is no way anyone can ever do calculus, why, most people cannot manage algebra! But really, it isn't that hard, just takes a little more work, and a little more honesty/communication, etc., etc.

At least that is the theory.

I know people for whom marriage seems pretty easy - they communicate well, are honest, open, and willing to trust. I suspect that they could scale that to another person, or 2 more, or whatever, if those other people were good at these things as well.

It could be that the reality is that it is almost impossible to find more of these solidly stable people, and eventually you inevitably get someone who is not nearly as stable as they look. I would not be surprised to find that a polyamorous group could only ever be as stable as its least stable member, so maybe it isn't really all that practically possible.

You're addressing this issue far too rationally. 

[Eddie Teach]

I saw a segment about this on O'Reilly's show a couple days ago. I think it's more the media trying to create some buzz than any important cultural shift.

[Malthus]

People have enough trouble successfully figuring out how to have a sexual relationship with a single other person. It is no surprise that attempts to form a successful sexual relationship among several people tend not to succeed.

True, but on the other hand, most of the problems people have with forming relationships with single people are not that hard to solve, if you just make some fundamental changes to your assumptions and learn how to communicate.

It is like saying there is no way anyone can ever do calculus, why, most people cannot manage algebra! But really, it isn't that hard, just takes a little more work, and a little more honesty/communication, etc., etc.

At least that is the theory.

I know people for whom marriage seems pretty easy - they communicate well, are honest, open, and willing to trust. I suspect that they could scale that to another person, or 2 more, or whatever, if those other people were good at these things as well.

It could be that the reality is that it is almost impossible to find more of these solidly stable people, and eventually you inevitably get someone who is not nearly as stable as they look. I would not be surprised to find that a polyamorous group could only ever be as stable as its least stable member, so maybe it isn't really all that practically possible.

I agree with all of this - as my brother's experience proved, finding a house full of stable friends to lease together proves hard enough when they *aren't* fucking each other in the bargain!