Polyamory and you

[Slargos]

But flip it around.  50% of marriages last until death.  That's a lot of successful marriages.

Just because something happends hundreds of millions of times does not mean it is not a pipedream invented by Hollywood.

Are the movies from the 12th century available on torrent?

[Malthus]

I am with Brother Valmy on this question.

While I have no doubt that amongst six billion human beings all manner of sexual combinations have been tried, and at some point even worked for some duration of time, our modern experience has shown that open relationships, polyamory, or whatever have all tended to spectacular failure.

Our modern experience also show that believing that people can remain love together with a single partner for a life time is a pipedream to sell Twilight books and bad, cheezy Hollywood flicks.

Yeah, at some point it worked due to social pressure, but with this now gone couples cracking up is only a matter of time except in a very, very, very tiny minority of people. Nowadays a couple staying up to ten years together is considered a steady couple. Hell, even Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins broke up.

So, is Helen Fisher right? Are we creatures whose reproductive behavior can be akind to serial monogamy, a middle way between the monogamy of gorillas and the aggressive polygamy of chimpanzees?

I dunno. One can accept that many folks are in practice "serially monogamous" without thereby jumping to the conclusion that they would be happier or better off in polyamourous relationships.

The latter only work, from what I've seen, for a minority of folks. In most actual cases I've seen, it has been more of one partner driving the "open' relationship and the other ending up feeling hard done by. In short, not truly "poly" relationships, which I suspect are rather rare. 

Historically, in those societies in which multiples have been allowed or encouraged, they took the form of a harem. A harem (of either sex) works because there is no equality; a monogamous relationship works because jealousy is kept under control. a relationship both equal in access to sex from multiples and free of jealousy drama seems ideal but highly unrealistic in practice, except for a small minority of people.   

[Slargos]

. Our scientific knowledge of human reproduction behaviors has long killed the myth that humans were as much monogamic as gorillas. 

"our" reptilian male instinct is to have sex with as many women as possible

Suggestion - your argument would be stronger if you didn't try to wrap it up in unconvinving pseudo-scientific appeals to "nature".  Eg. the "myth" that men don't act as "monogamic as gorillas" because of their "repitilian instincts"

That ad hominem was rather uncalled for. Yeah, it is an argument from nature, because human reproductive behavior is part of nature AND we have instincts as much as other animals, especially hominids (which we are a part of). And I mind my audience. I am not in front of the Royal Society of Sciences, but arguing with people who are as likely as I am to use silliness and hyperbole to present their points in good heart and fun. We won't change sociobiology today by this discussion.

I don't claim monogamy or polygamy is better or worse or put it in normative manner because it is natural and other behaviors are artificial, which is why an "appeal to nature" really is. Both forms are present in nature in many species and subspecies, and both sides may - and do - argue where we humans lay on the spectrum. I may lay in the "poly" side of the spectrum, but both Valmy and BB can argue from the "mono" side with equally good arguments.

If you disagree about the claim, or the way I have presented the claim, your argument would be stronger if you countered it factually and argued where I am wrong, in other words keep it on the claim (which is that humans, despite socialization and normative issues, are instictively wired to go for more than one partner, either in serial or in parallel, and that our current definition of monogamy and faithfulness isn't adapted to that reality) instead ot attacking the form, whatever the way you may qualify it.

How is saying "your argument sucks ass" an ad hominem?

You suck ass. Ad hominem.

Your argumentation is akin to that of a pre schooler. Not ad hominem.

[Malthus]

It would be even more accurate to say that evolutionary psych is still a young field in the state of flux, and even the state of play now with respect to analysis to sexual behavior is considerably more complex and layered than can be easily summarized in the format of this board.

I have strong doubts about the value of evolutionary psych as a science. It is very difficult to falsify many theories proposed under this head. In many cases where I've seen it discussed, it seems to take the form of "just so" accounts to describe what might be a plausible reason for an observed behavior ... and then, might not be. Often, the theories rest on assumptions about what may be evolutionarily adaptive that are dubious, as well as assuming human behaviour is much more uniform than anthropolgists do - I remember reading one study that attempted to explain the evolutionary value of the phobia of spiders, which appeared to assume that the phobia was a human universal (it isn't, across cultures) and that spiders were a major source of injury or mortality for hunter-gatherers (they aren't, for modern ones at least).

The assumption appears to have been that, if a behaviour exists, it must have an evolutionary basis. This is problematic for humans because so much of their behaviour is clearly cultural, and varies so much from culture to culture. Certainly basic drives have an evolutionary basis, like the sex drive; proposing that particular human expressions of that drive have such a basis is problematic to say the least. 

[Neil]

Polyamory is having different partners without all the drama coming from cheating behind one's partner's back. By definition, everyone knows about it and gets along.

Yeah that doesn't sound like a train wreck at all.

Yeah, because in real life this sort of thing always ends up badly.

[Neil]

Minsky, nothing in your argument negates that the Homo Sapiens have instincts. We still have the same urges than animals to eat, drink, sleep, protect ourselves, and fuck, and our mating behaviors aren't that different from those in animals, despite our developped socialization and abstract thinking.

Some animals are monogamous.  Like homo sapiens, for example.

Moreover, the social advantages of monogamy are so enormous that it is worth maintaining.

[Jacob]

So Drakkan is into polyamory and he's a member of the pick-up "community"?

Seems a bit contradictory as modern polyamory, allegedly, is all about openness, trust, communication and honesty and being a pick-up "artist" is all about manipulation and exploiting peoples' insecurities.

[DontSayBanana]

Well, I'm number three on "full" polyamory.  That's in theory, though.  In practice, I've realized how small a minority we are and that none of my significant others, including the current one, have been really okay with it.

[Neil]

So Drakkan is into polyamory and he's a member of the pick-up "community"?

Seems a bit contradictory as modern polyamory, allegedly, is all about openness, trust, communication and honesty and being a pick-up "artist" is all about manipulation and exploiting peoples' insecurities.

They're both predicated on immaturity.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I wouldn't say no...I would say hell no.

Yes.

[Martinus]

Not to mention that there's a long tail of people who have been married and divorced multiple times, driving down the marriage rate further.

My Mother-in-law married and divorced four times...so statistically there are four happily married couples out there just for her.

The assumption that any marriage that does not end up in divorce is a happy one or one where people are faithful to each other completely is the biggest crock of bullshit in this thread so far.

In any case, there is one thing to not be into polyamory, and another to be as judgmental about it as you or BB are. It really makes it hard not to make a personal jab about it.

[Barrister]

Not to mention that there's a long tail of people who have been married and divorced multiple times, driving down the marriage rate further.

My Mother-in-law married and divorced four times...so statistically there are four happily married couples out there just for her.

The assumption that any marriage that does not end up in divorce is a happy one or one where people are faithful to each other completely is the biggest crock of bullshit in this thread so far.

In any case, there is one thing to not be into polyamory, and another to be as judgmental about it as you or BB are. It really makes it hard not to make a personal jab about it.

In what way have I been judgmental?

Please show me a quote of me being judgmental?

All I have done is demonstrate my strong personal support for the traditional family, and pounce on Drakken's semi-ridiculous claims that the traditional family is failing.

If some alternate situation works for you Martinus, then great.   But for most people traditional families seems to be what works.

[merithyn]

I'm too insecure to have Max with someone else, and I've no desire to be with someone else myself. So, I voted no.

That being said, I know several polyamorous groups, and only one seems to work well. It requires a certain level of trust to be capable of that kind of relationship that most people just can't achieve.

[Martinus]

I suspect it is somewhat easier for same-sex couples as you can have threesomes and various group arrangements without anyone feeling left out.

[Martinus]

Not to mention that there's a long tail of people who have been married and divorced multiple times, driving down the marriage rate further.

My Mother-in-law married and divorced four times...so statistically there are four happily married couples out there just for her.

The assumption that any marriage that does not end up in divorce is a happy one or one where people are faithful to each other completely is the biggest crock of bullshit in this thread so far.

In any case, there is one thing to not be into polyamory, and another to be as judgmental about it as you or BB are. It really makes it hard not to make a personal jab about it.

In what way have I been judgmental?

Please show me a quote of me being judgmental?

All I have done is demonstrate my strong personal support for the traditional family, and pounce on Drakken's semi-ridiculous claims that the traditional family is failing.

If some alternate situation works for you Martinus, then great.   But for most people traditional families seems to be what works.

I think only polyamory (option no. 1 in my poll) is really incompatible with the "traditional family". The rest is just a matter of having an extra arrangement. Even historically, there has been little prejudice in our culture against marital unfaithfulness as perpetrated by men. The problem is that the gender equality movement has led to an extension of the previously-female-only standard of faithfulness to men, and not vice-versa.