Polyamory and you

[Malthus]

I would not count a marriage that ends because the partners have drifted apart after many good years as a "failure". 

You may not, but I think Marty has you on a technicality.

I disagree. It isn't how something ends that matters, it is how one lives before it ends.

The two points are exactly symmetric: a marriage that doesn't end in divorce is not necessarily a "success", and for exactly the same reason: it may have been a miserable sham, in which the parties dulty tormented each other for years and only stayed married out of some sense of obligation. That's not a "successful" marriage, not in my mind at least.

Similarly, a marriage in which the parties were basically happy for years before drifting apart is not a "failure".

[Martinus]

The reverse assumption appears to be that a marriage that *did* end in divorce was of necessity entirely a "failure". I don't believe that, either.

Err... how is it not? The marriage is an exclusive union of two people "until the death do us part". A divorce is by definition a failure of an arrangement thus defined.

The point of the relationship is not that it end in death, it is that it was worthwhile while you were alive. Marriages may end in divorce because the partners have drifted apart, but the may have been very good while they lasted.

Same with friendships. I've lost touch with many friends over the years; there are however very few people I actively regret having been friends with.

I would not count a marriage that ends because the partners have drifted apart after many good years as a "failure".

Wrong.

Marriage vows ARE until death - that's what people who get married vow unto each other (unless they are some hippies who write their own vows and shit, but we can discount this as an anomaly). While your approach is sensible and realistic, that of marriage (at least in theory) is not, and it is an utopia as much as a polyamorous relationship is (in your own words).

[Martinus]

Similarly, a marriage in which the parties were basically happy for years before drifting apart is not a "failure".

It is a failure as a marriage. It may not be a failure as a relationship, but as a marriage it is.

For the record, my point is that a marriage is a set up as unrealistic and prone to failure when confronted with reality as a polymorous relationship, yet that does not stop people from trying to make it happen or considering it somehow "natural".

[Ed Anger]

[derspiess]

For the record, my point is that a marriage is a set up as unrealistic and prone to failure when confronted with reality as a polymorous relationship, yet that does not stop people from trying to make it happen or considering it somehow "natural".

Cool, so you'll be dropping the 'gay marriage' nonsense, then? 

[Valmy]

For the record, my point is that a marriage is a set up as unrealistic and prone to failure when confronted with reality as a polymorous relationship, yet that does not stop people from trying to make it happen or considering it somehow "natural".

That is all well and good you think that.  I still want it though and have no interest in a polyamorous relationship.  I try to make it happen BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I WANT TO HAVE.  Logical no?  I thought the question was 'what was acceptable to me' not 'what is natural'.  It is Drakken who was trying to argue polyamory was 'natural' for me and I should want that as my gender.

[Valmy]

Cool, so you'll be dropping the 'gay marriage' nonsense, then? 

Gays who want to get married want something unnatural and unrealistic.  Marty has something in common with conservative Christians finally.  All that time in Catholic Poland pays off.

[Barrister]

For the record, my point is that a marriage is a set up as unrealistic and prone to failure when confronted with reality as a polymorous relationship, yet that does not stop people from trying to make it happen or considering it somehow "natural".

You keep saying it, but you really haven't proven it.

LIke I mentioned a few pages back - even by your use of the term 'successful', half of all marriages are successful.  That doesn't sound like "unrealistic and prone to failure" to me.

[Malthus]

Wrong.

Marriage vows ARE until death - that's what people who get married vow unto each other (unless they are some hippies who write their own vows and shit, but we can discount this as an anomaly). While your approach is sensible and realistic, that of marriage (at least in theory) is not, and it is an utopia as much as a polyamorous relationship is (in your own words).

Seems to me you can't have it both ways. If you want to define the matter that way (and I don't for myself see why one would), then clearly a marriage that does *not* end in divorce is a "success" no matter how drunken, brutal, uncaring, or basically nasty the partners are towards each other.

To my mind, the marriage vows are expressions of intention. The intent is for the relationship to be permanent. However, circumstances change. Our marriage institutions quite clearly recognize this, making divorce possible and providing mechanisms for it.

Again, I'm being consistant here: I would judge the "success" of poly relationships in exactly the same way. In my experience those capable of making a "success" of them in this respect - i.e., to be happy and fulfilled in their relationships and lives - are few, since such a success requires a quite unrealistic combination of attributes. Many more are capable of making a 'success" of traditional marriage, since it does not demand the same level of detachment and lack of jealousy. 

[Valmy]

Female infidelity will never be tolerated by males to the same extent it is the other direction.  The drive to ensure exclusive vagina access and not raise other men's children if imputing resources in to her is too strong.

Females tolerate male infidelity?

[Malthus]

Female infidelity will never be tolerated by males to the same extent it is the other direction.  The drive to ensure exclusive vagina access and not raise other men's children if imputing resources in to her is too strong.

Females tolerate male infidelity?

Basically, no-one tolerates the other person's infidelity except:

1. Where there is an agreement in place for complete freedom and equality (in which case it is hardly "infidelity" at all); or

2. They are forced to, either because society rules that they must, or because circumstances put them so much under the thumb of the other partner that they have no choice.

From what I've seen, genuine situations like #1 are pretty rare; I've known more that are really #2 all decked out like #1 (mainly, folks who have an "open relationship" that basically allows the much more dominant partner to do what they like and the subordinate one goes along with it).

[Jacob]

Females tolerate male infidelity?

When there are great economic disparity and an unequal power balance, they sometimes do - in other words, when the woman stands to lose significant social standing or material comfort if she does not tolerate infidelity, she sometimes will.  I think that DP takes his experiences in Thailand and assumes they represent a more universal truth.

[DisturbedPervert]

Females tolerate male infidelity?

Some, yes.  A one night stand doesn't really affect them that much, I've never met a man who would put up with it, but have known plenty of females in college who didn't break up after finding out their boyfriend boned some slut.  A relationship is a different story. 

[Barrister]

Females tolerate male infidelity?

Some, yes.  A one night stand doesn't really affect them that much, I've never met a man who would put up with it, but have known plenty of females in college who didn't break up after finding out their boyfriend boned some slut.  A relationship is a different story.

That's a fairly low threshold of 'tolerates'.  They didn't break up immediately.

[DisturbedPervert]

Biologically, a man stands to lose everything by his mate having a one stand.  A man squirting some seed in a female he will never see again does nothing to harm his mate's reproductive success.