Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution

[Darth Wagtaros]

Could just mean that he is into alt-his and arms with some sort of mishmash of military styles.  Like Cal with his Roman gladium and helmut with army boots and a Kalashnikov.

[jimmy olsen]

Serial monogamy is is not polyarmory...

Polyarmory - a room where you outfit your parrot with military gear? 

[Drakken]

Good. Any assault on traditional monogamy and sexual property rights is a good thing.

[alfred russel]

Good. Any assault on traditional monogamy and sexual property rights is a good thing.

An assault on those things is like an assault on cadillac fins. They aren't really around anymore.

[Caliga]

Been there. Done that.

[Malthus]

Good. Any assault on traditional monogamy and sexual property rights is a good thing.

Sexual property rights? Is that like what CdM stores in his basement? 

[Drakken]

Good. Any assault on traditional monogamy and sexual property rights is a good thing.

Sexual property rights? Is that like what CdM stores in his basement? 

Nah. It is just that I consider the notion of mandatory fidelity in relationships as a de facto property right, because it means that our sexuality is the sole reserve of our current official partner, and vice-versa. It becomes not an issue of trust and intimacy, but a sort of contract obligation in which you surrender the control of your body to obtain a "loving" relationship. It's an either/or.

[Martinus]

Drakken, seeing you support polyamory (surprising, I must say, considering your approach to, say, parenting) who should pay child support in polyamorous relationships? The biological father or all male participants equally?

[Drakken]

Drakken, seeing you support polyamory (surprising, I must say, considering your approach to, say, parenting) who should pay child support in polyamorous relationships? The biological father or all male participants equally?

The biological father. There is only one, whatver the count. Too bad it becomes a lottery. 

And anyway, contraception and protection should be a given in polyamory relationships, until such issues are resolved between the partner(s). Because, you know, the whole point of polyamory relationships is informed consent.

[HVC]

Drakken, seeing you support polyamory (surprising, I must say, considering your approach to, say, parenting) who should pay child support in polyamorous relationships? The biological father or all male participants equally?

The bitch who's screwing around of course

[Drakken]

Drakken, seeing you support polyamory (surprising, I must say, considering your approach to, say, parenting) who should pay child support in polyamorous relationships? The biological father or all male participants equally?

The bitch who's screwing around of course

That would be great if it was so simple. 

[BuddhaRhubarb]

I have more than a few so-called "poly" friends. Most of whom have normal-ish relationships with more than one person. What none of these people have is time alone. You think yr GF is demanding? try having 3!

[Ed Anger]

I'd like to have more than one wife. That would be awesome.

[Martinus]

Drakken, seeing you support polyamory (surprising, I must say, considering your approach to, say, parenting) who should pay child support in polyamorous relationships? The biological father or all male participants equally?

The biological father. There is only one, whatver the count. Too bad it becomes a lottery. 

And anyway, contraception and protection should be a given in polyamory relationships, until such issues are resolved between the partner(s). Because, you know, the whole point of polyamory relationships is informed consent.

Your response is, predictably, retarded.

[Malthus]

Good. Any assault on traditional monogamy and sexual property rights is a good thing.

Sexual property rights? Is that like what CdM stores in his basement? 

Nah. It is just that I consider the notion of mandatory fidelity in relationships as a de facto property right, because it means that our sexuality is the sole reserve of our current official partner, and vice-versa. It becomes not an issue of trust and intimacy, but a sort of contract obligation in which you surrender the control of your body to obtain a "loving" relationship. It's an either/or.

What's the problem with it? It is presumably a relationship entered into voluntarily.

It has none of the characteristics of a "property right". Notably, it is not transferable to others. I can sell my car; I cannot (easily) sell my wife's fidelity. 

I disagree that one gives one's fidelity in exchange for love. One gives one's fidelity in exchange for fidelity in return. Love may theoretically exist irrespective of fidelity; though most humans find that it is difficult to maintain love in the absense of fidelity, it could theoretically be done by some.

In any event - does your wife/gf feel the same as you about fidelity?