The next big thing in the culture wars, or Newsweek hacks jumping the gun, what say you Languish?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/209164
Quote
Only You. And You. And You.
Polyamory—relationships with multiple, mutually consenting partners—has a coming-out party.
By Jessica Bennett | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jul 29, 2009
Terisa Greenan and her boyfriend, Matt, are enjoying a rare day of Seattle sun, sharing a beet carpaccio on the patio of a local restaurant. Matt holds Terisa's hand, as his 6-year-old son squeezes in between the couple to give Terisa a kiss. His mother, Vera, looks over and smiles; she's there with her boyfriend, Larry. Suddenly it starts to rain, and the group must move inside. In the process, they rearrange themselves: Matt's hand touches Vera's leg. Terisa gives Larry a kiss. The child, seemingly unconcerned, puts his arms around his mother and digs into his meal.
Terisa and Matt and Vera and Larry—along with Scott, who's also at this dinner—are not swingers, per se; they aren't pursuing casual sex. Nor are they polygamists of the sort portrayed on HBO's Big Love; they aren't religious, and they don't have multiple wives. But they do believe in "ethical nonmonogamy," or engaging in loving, intimate relationships with more than one person—based upon the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. They are polyamorous, to use the term of art applied to multiple-partner families like theirs, and they wouldn't want to live any other way.
Terisa, 41, is at the center of this particular polyamorous cluster. A filmmaker and actress, she is well-spoken, slender and attractive, with dark, shoulder-length hair, porcelain skin—and a powerful need for attention. Twelve years ago, she started datingScott, a writer and classical-album merchant. A couple years later, Scott introduced her to Larry, a software developer at Microsoft, and the two quickly fell in love, with Scott's assent. The three have been living together for a decade now, but continue to date others casually on the side. Recently, Terisa decided to add Matt, a London transplant to Seattle, to the mix. Matt's wife, Vera, was OK with that; soon, she was dating Terisa's husband, Larry. If Scott starts feeling neglected, he can call the woman he's been dating casually on the side. Everyone in this group is heterosexual, and they insist they never sleep with more than one person at a time.
It's enough to make any monogamist's head spin. But the traditionalists had better get used to it.
Click here to find out more!
Researchers are just beginning to study the phenomenon, but the few who do estimate that openly polyamorous families in the United States number more than half a million, with thriving contingents in nearly every major city. Over the past year, books like Open, by journalist Jenny Block; Opening Up, by sex columnist Tristan Taormino; and an updated version of The Ethical Slut—widely considered the modern "poly" Bible—have helped publicize the concept. Today there are poly blogs and podcasts, local get-togethers, and an online polyamory magazine called Loving More with 15,000 regular readers. Celebrities like actress Tilda Swinton and Carla Bruni, the first lady of France, have voiced support for nonmonogamy, while Greenan herself has become somewhat of an unofficial spokesperson, as the creator of a comic Web series about the practice—called "Family"—that's loosely based on her life. "There have always been some loud-mouthed ironclads talking about the labors of monogamy and multiple-partner relationships," says Ken Haslam, a retired anesthesiologist who curates a polyamory library at the Indiana University-based Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction. "But finally, with the Internet, the thing has really come about."
With polyamorists' higher profile has come some growing pains. The majority of them don't seem particularly interested in pressing a political agenda; the joke in the community is that the complexities of their relationships leave little time for activism. But they are beginning to show up on the radar screen of the religious right, some of whose leaders have publicly condemned polyamory as one of a host of deviant behaviors sure to become normalized if gay marriage wins federal sanction. "This group is really rising up from the underground, emboldened by the success of the gay-marriage movement," says Glenn Stanton, the director of family studies for Focus on the Family, an evangelical Christian group. "And while there's part of me that says, 'Oh, my goodness, I don't think I could see them make grounds,' there's another part of me that says, 'Well, just watch them.' "
Conservatives are not alone in watching warily. Gay-marriage advocates have become leery of public association with the poly cause—lest it give their enemies ammunition. As Andrew Sullivan, the Atlantic columnist, wrote recently, "I believe that someone's sexual orientation is a deeper issue than the number of people they want to express that orientation with." In other words, polyamory is a choice; homosexuality is not. It's these dynamics that have made polyamory, as longtime poly advocate Anita Wagner puts it, "the political football in the culture war as it relates to same-sex marriage."
Polys themselves are not visibly crusading for their civil rights. But there is one policy issue rousing concern: legal precedents concerning their ability to parent. Custody battles among poly parents are not uncommon; the most public of them was a 1999 case in which a 22-year-old Tennessee woman lost rights to parent her daughter after outing herself on an MTV documentary. Anecdotally, research shows that children can do well in poly families—as long as they're in a stable home with loving parents, says Elisabeth Sheff, a sociologist at Georgia State University, who is conducting the first large-scale study of children of poly parents, which has been ongoing for a decade. But because academia is only beginning to study the phenomenon—Sheff's study is too recent to have drawn conclusions about the children's well-being over time—there is little data to support that notion in court. Today, the nonprofit Polyamory Society posts a warning to parents on its Web site: If your PolyFamily has children, please do not put your children and family at risk by coming out to the public or by being interviewed [by] the press!
The notion of multiple-partner relationships is as old as the human race itself. But polyamorists trace the foundation of their movement to the utopian Oneida commune of upstate New York, founded in 1848 by Yale theologian John Humphrey Noyes. Noyes believed in a kind of communalism he hoped would fix relations between men and women; both genders had equal voice in community governance, and every man was considered to be married to every woman. But it wasn't until the late-1960s and 1970s "free love" movement that polyamory truly came into vogue; when books like Open Marriage topped best-seller lists and groups like the North American Swingers Club began experimenting with the concept. The term "polyamory," coined in the 1990s, popped up in both the Merriam-Webster and Oxford English dictionaries in 2006.
Polyamory might sound like heaven to some: a variety of partners, adding spice and a respite from the familiarity and boredom that's doomed many a traditional couple. But humans are hard-wired to be jealous, and though it may be possible to overcome it, polyamorous couples are "fighting Mother Nature" when they try, says biological anthropologist Helen Fisher, a professor at Rutgers University who has long studied the chemistry of love. Polys say they aren't so much denying their biological instincts as insisting they can work around them—through open communication, patience, and honesty. Polys call this process "compersion"—or learning to find personal fulfillment in the emotional and sexual satisfaction of your partner, even if you're not the one doing the satisfying. "It's about making sure that everybody's needs are met, including your own," says Terisa. "And that's not always easy, but it's part of the fun."
It's complicated, to say the least: tending to the needs of multiple partners, figuring out what to tell the kids, making sure that nobody's feelings are hurt. "I like to call it polyagony," jokes Haslam, the Kinsey researcher, who is himself polyamorous. "It works for some perfectly, and for others it's a f--king disaster."
Some polyamorists are married with multiple love interests, while others practice informal group marriage. Some have group sex—and many are bisexual—while those like Greenan have a series of heterosexual, one-on-one relationships. Still others don't identify as poly but live a recognizably poly lifestyle. Terisa describes her particular cluster as a "triad," for the number of people involved, and a "vee" for its organization, with Terisa at the center (the point of the V) and her two primary partners, Scott and Larry (who are not intimate with each other) as the tips of each arm. Other poly vocabulary exists, too: "spice" is the plural of "spouse"; "polygeometry" is how a polyamorous group describes their connections; "polyfidelitous" refers to folks who don't date outside their menage; and a "quad" is a four-member poly group.
It's easy to dismiss polyamory as a kind of frat-house fantasy gone wild. But in truth, the community has a decidedly feminist bent: women have been central to its creation, and "gender equality" is a publicly recognized tenet of the practice. Terisa herself is proof of that proposition, as the center of her cluster. She, Scott, and Larry have all been polyamorous since meeting in the Bay Area in the '90s, where they were all involved with the same theater community.
Terisa and Scott started dating first. Both were getting out of long-term monogamous relationships—Terisa had been married for six years—and knew they wanted something different. They fell in love, and though they were committed, they began dating around. Two years in, Scott introduced her to Larry, a pit violinist and mutual acquaintance. When Larry was offered the Microsoft job in Seattle, he asked Terisa and Scott to go with him. "We were like, 'Wow, are we really going to do this?' " Terisa remembers. "And we sort of just said, 'Well let's jump in!' "
It wasn't long before they realized there was a thriving community of Seattleites living the same way. There were local outings, monthly poly potlucks, and a Sea-Poly e-mail list that served to keep everyone informed. Larry even found a poly club for Microsoft employees—listed openly on the company's internal Web site. (Microsoft declined to comment on the message board, or whether it still exists.) The trio has been together ever since, and they share a lakeside home in Seattle's Mt. Baker neighborhood, where they have a vegetable garden and three dogs. They often go on walks along the lake, hand in hand in hand. "I think if we were all given a choice, everyone would choose some form of open relationship," Scott explains, sitting in the family's hillside gazebo overlooking Lake Washington. "And I just like variety," Terisa chimes in, laughing. "I get bored!"
The trio have had emotional moments. Scott had a hard time the first time he heard Larry called Terisa "sweetie" nine years ago. Larry was nervous when Terisa began semiseriously dating somebody outside the group. There are times when Scott has had to put up with hearing his girlfriend have sex with someone else in the home they share. And there have been moments when each of them have felt neglected in their own way. But they agreed early on that they weren't going to be sexually monogamous, and they are open about their affairs. "So it's not as if anybody is betraying anybody else's trust," says Larry.
There are, of course, some things that are personal. "Terisa doesn't tell me a lot of the private stuff between her and Matt, and I respect that," says Scott. When there are twinges of jealousy, they talk them out—by getting to the root of what's causing the feeling. "It's one of those things that sounds really basic, but I think a lot of people in conventional relationships don't take the time to actually tell their partner when they're feeling dissatisfied in some way," says Terisa. "And sometimes it's as simple as saying, 'Hey, Larry,' or 'Hey, Scott, I really want to have dinner alone with you tonight—I'm feeling neglected.' We really don't let anything go unsaid." As Haslam puts it: "It's all very straight forward if everybody is just honest about what's going on in their brains—and between their legs."
Larry and Terisa married last year—with Scott's permission—in part for tax purposes. Larry owns the house they all live in, and Scott pays rent. Household expenses require a complicated spreadsheet. Terisa, Larry, and Scott all have their own bedrooms, but sleeping arrangements must be discussed. Larry snores, so Terisa spends most nights with Scott—which means she must be mindful of making up for lost time with Larry. Terisa and Larry only recently began dating Matt and Vera, after meeting on Facebook, and now every Friday, the couple bring their son over to the house and the three of them stay all weekend. Matt will usually sleep with Terisa, and Vera with Larry, or they'll switch it up, depending on how everyone feels.
The child, meanwhile, has his own room. And he's clearly the most delicate part of the equation. Matt and Vera have asked NEWSWEEK not to use their last names—or the name of their child—for fear, even in liberal Seattle, they might draw unwanted attention. Though Terisa doesn't have children—and doesn't want them—she adores Matt and Vera's son, who calls her Auntie. Recently, the child asked his father who he loved more: Mommy or Terisa. "I said, 'Of course I love momma more,' because that's the answer he needed to hear," Matt says. He and Vera say they are honest with him, in an age-appropriate way. "We don't do anything any regular parents of a 6-year-old wouldn't do," he says. For the moment, it seems to be working. The child is happy, and there are two extra people to help him with his homework, or to pick him up or drop him off at school. They expect the questions to increase with age, but in the long run, "what's healthy for children is stability," says Fischer, the anthropologist.
Quantcast
It's a new paradigm, certainly—and it does break some rules. "Polyamory scares people—it shakes up their world view," says Allena Gabosch, the director of the Seattle-based Center for Sex Positive Culture. But perhaps the practice is more natural than we think: a response to the challenges of monogamous relationships, whose shortcomings—in a culture where divorce has become a commonplace—are clear. Everyone in a relationship wrestles at some point with an eternal question: can one person really satisfy every need? Polyamorists think the answer is obvious—and that it's only a matter of time before the monogamous world sees there's more than one way to live and love. "The people I feel sorry for are the ones who don't ever realize they have any other choices beyond the traditional options society presents," says Scott. "To look at an option like polyamory and say 'That's not for me' is fine. To look at it and not realize you can choose it is just sad."
© 2009
:yawn:
Leave sex to grownups, Tim.
I know people who live this way. :ph34r:
Then again I've related this story before and I don't want to offend garbo by reposting. :(
Quote from: Caliga on July 29, 2009, 01:10:14 PM
I know people who live this way. :ph34r:
Then again I've related this story before and I don't want to offend garbo by reposting. :(
Please do. You or Neil is on your way to being the top poster. :hug:
Ok.
Before we moved down here we were... familiar with a polyamory group in New England that had bought property in the Middle of Fucking Nowhere, Maine, so they could fuck in peace.
In addition to being polyamorous, they were also obsessed with autarky and were trying to set up a self-sustaining community. Oh, and they were also all Wiccans.
I next expect to hear about them when the FBI raids their little stronghold and they commit mass suicide.
Preverts.
Not too suprisingly, all attempts at polyamorous groups have failed in the past 170 or so years...weird that societal mores and notions should interfer with a person's notions of utopia.
Oh, did I forget to mention that, while there were chicks and dudes, I think they were all bisexual? So, the guys not only fucked the girls, but each other, and vice versa.
Figure that'll assuage spiess's 'perverts' comment. :)
All of them?
Really?
Quote from: PDH on July 29, 2009, 01:17:32 PM
Not too suprisingly, all attempts at polyamorous groups have failed in the past 170 or so years...weird that societal mores and notions should interfer with a person's notions of utopia.
People that seek utopia will never find it, because man's nature is inherently selfish and cruel. :)
Quote from: Caliga on July 29, 2009, 01:18:29 PM
Oh, did I forget to mention that, while there were chicks and dudes, I think they were all bisexual? So, the guys not only fucked the girls, but each other, and vice versa.
Figure that'll assuage spiess's 'perverts' comment. :)
How large was this group?
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2009, 01:19:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2009, 01:19:00 PM
All of them?
Really?
IIRC yes. There was one girl who was "only" a lesbian and I think this was tolerated. I think that at any given time they were coupled up and the couples were typically heterosexual, but not always (the lez was often not in a 'steady' relationship).
The impression I got was that they sorta rotated through the group in terms of pairings. I'm not sure how often they switched off or if there was any rhyme or reason to it.
Serial monogamy is is not polyarmory...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 29, 2009, 01:20:09 PMHow large was this group?
About a dozen lunatics at any given time. As you can imagine, people were frequently coming and going, either due to some petty disagreement or someone who had recently showed up and quickly discovered they couldn't take the craziness.
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.
Quote from: PDH on July 29, 2009, 01:21:43 PM
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.
Quote from: PDH on July 29, 2009, 01:20:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2009, 01:19:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 29, 2009, 01:22:37 PM
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 :lol:
I feel like I missed out on an opportunity there tho.... :ph34r:
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. :shifty:
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2009, 01:25:06 PM
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.
Quote from: PDH on July 29, 2009, 01:29:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2009, 01:25:06 PM
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.
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.
Pointless without threesomes. Fail.
Quote from: Malthus on July 29, 2009, 01:36:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2009, 01:34:26 PM
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.
ANABAPTISTS! :o
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wilsonsalmanac.com%2Fimages1%2Fanabaptists_po.gif&hash=be7f269bfae187866dfc6a72e2ac9746eeb4853d)
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2009, 01:42:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 29, 2009, 01:36:02 PM
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. :mad:
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.
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2009, 01:42:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 29, 2009, 01:36:02 PM
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! :lol:
This is really no surprise I guess...
So here's the thing:
Men are wired genetically to mate with as many different partners as possible as often as possible. Spread the seeds. Women do not seem to be, though I don't think I'd go so far as to say they are wired for monogamy. In any case, far more so than men.
So, we've had this cultural construction of monogamous relationships that is totally against the behavior model men are programmed for in place for a dozen centuries. Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't completely broken down long ago, but even so, this might just be another flash in the pan or exception to the rule that has existed all this time. If any of this actually does shift, why would it be a surprise to anyone?
Agree. That is why I affectionately refer to Christianity as a "bitch religion". :)
this sounds great and was forseen in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, but imo it would take a lot of personal work just to avoid stupid little dramas and jealousies and not being sucked in by other people's problems. and so on.
as I start to enter my Viagra years, I suspect this is really more of a young person's thing. thus, Tim should do some field work. It would do him good.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 29, 2009, 02:20:54 PM
So here's the thing:
Men are wired genetically to mate with as many different partners as possible as often as possible.
I keep hearing that. That was true before I got married but somehow my wiring altered after becoming married so that it seems I am wired to mate as often as possible with only one partner.
Quote from: saskganesh on July 29, 2009, 02:33:48 PM
this sounds great and was forseen in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, but imo it would take a lot of personal work just to avoid stupid little dramas and jealousies and not being sucked in by other people's problems. and so on.
Yeah. Too much effort.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 29, 2009, 02:20:54 PM
Men are wired genetically to mate with as many different partners as possible as often as possible. Spread the seeds. Women do not seem to be, though I don't think I'd go so far as to say they are wired for monogamy. In any case, far more so than men.
Actually women are too. A lot of stuff to do with babies is believed to have evolved so that women could choose the best possible mate at any point. Men are designed to spread the seed as it were, women are designed to always try and choose the best possible option. Neither's intrinsically monogamous.
Quote from: ulmont on July 29, 2009, 02:41:53 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on July 29, 2009, 02:33:48 PM
this sounds great and was forseen in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, but imo it would take a lot of personal work just to avoid stupid little dramas and jealousies and not being sucked in by other people's problems. and so on.
Yeah. Too much effort.
The first time I backpacked through Europe it seemed I had a "meaningful" encounter at pretty much every stop. After a while, even at that age, it all got a bit much and I took a break from the chase.
I am not so sure about the premise that men are wired to have sex as often as possible with as many as possible. I think it is a bit more complex then that.
The belief that such complex behaviors as mating and mate selection are simply hardwired is a bit...simplistic.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 29, 2009, 02:39:37 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 29, 2009, 02:20:54 PM
So here's the thing:
Men are wired genetically to mate with as many different partners as possible as often as possible.
I keep hearing that. That was true before I got married but somehow my wiring altered after becoming married so that it seems I am wired to mate as often as possible with only one partner.
You keep hearing it, but there is no evidence that it is true. Certainly what strikes the anthropologist studying human cultures across the world is the great variety of social relationships - the most common of which, from hunter-gatherers to modern first worlders, being the "nuclear family".
If guys were hardwired to have as much sex as possible, you would predict a rather different situation.
What does seem the case is that young folk are predisposed to travel widely and sample freely, to the extent that they are capable or allowed to do - see the Australian aborigine and the "walkabout", and see the modern backpacker wandering across Europe (or going to university). :D Seems to affect both men *and* women.
To my mind, little of this (aside from the urge to mate itself) is "hardwired", and if it were obseved human behaviour would be rather different.
Quote from: PDH on July 29, 2009, 02:51:58 PM
The belief that such complex behaviors as mating and mate selection are simply hardwired is a bit...simplistic.
This is true. But I believe that biologists think that certain things have been made biologically evolved to enable certain sexual behaviour.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 29, 2009, 02:39:37 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 29, 2009, 02:20:54 PM
So here's the thing:
Men are wired genetically to mate with as many different partners as possible as often as possible.
I keep hearing that. That was true before I got married but somehow my wiring altered after becoming married so that it seems I am wired to mate as often as possible with only one partner.
There is an evolutionary concept called "docility" which is apparently somewhat unique to humans: unlike other animal groups that live in specific types of arrangements, some human group somewhere has lived in virtually every type arrangement imaginable. The idea behind it is that humans haven't kept the hardwiring of other species, but have instead evolved docility, which is the concept we will accept what society has adopted. Hence a young man might do such evolutionary foolish things as committing ritual suicide to preserve honor, or joining a monastary, or remaining faithful to his wife in a distant city, while monkeys don't seem prone to such behaviors.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 29, 2009, 02:20:54 PM
Men are wired genetically to mate with as many different partners as possible as often as possible. Spread the seeds. Women do not seem to be, though I don't think I'd go so far as to say they are wired for monogamy. In any case, far more so than men.
The men in my family are not. We have had ridiculous nesting instincts for generations. I am not really sure why that is but I certainly never even had the slightest desire to 'spread my seed' around. Logically I should I suppose.
I thought this looked like it all worked oK, until I saw this
QuoteLarry and Terisa married last year—with Scott's permission—in part for tax purposes. Larry owns the house they all live in, and Scott pays rent.
and read further back that Larry was dating Matt's wife. I think Larry is doing rather well out of this
Quote from: alfred russel on July 29, 2009, 02:56:41 PM
There is an evolutionary concept called "docility" which is apparently somewhat unique to humans: unlike other animal groups that live in specific types of arrangements, some human group somewhere has lived in virtually every type arrangement imaginable. The idea behind it is that humans haven't kept the hardwiring of other species, but have instead evolved docility, which is the concept we will accept what society has adopted. Hence a young man might do such evolutionary foolish things as committing ritual suicide to preserve honor, or joining a monastary, or remaining faithful to his wife in a distant city, while monkeys don't seem prone to such behaviors.
That seems more reasonable.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 29, 2009, 02:39:37 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 29, 2009, 02:20:54 PM
So here's the thing:
Men are wired genetically to mate with as many different partners as possible as often as possible.
I keep hearing that. That was true before I got married but somehow my wiring altered after becoming married so that it seems I am wired to mate as often as possible with only one partner.
Oxytocin is the devils hormone :P
What a brilliant way to increase litigation.
Quote from: Valmy on July 29, 2009, 03:11:44 PM
The men in my family are not. We have had ridiculous nesting instincts for generations. I am not really sure why that is but I certainly never even had the slightest desire to 'spread my seed' around. Logically I should I suppose.
Staying with one woman and ensuring those children survive to adulthood is a perfectly viable reproductive strategy. Spreading your seed around also carries costs to it, cavewomen might refuse you, other cavemen might kill you, your cavewife might cuckold you, your cavechildren could die, etc.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2009, 04:32:39 PM
What a brilliant way to increase litigation.
Yeah, but this sort of thing isn't really getting more common.
Those men aren't men.
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 05:13:02 PM
Those men aren't men.
How would you know? You lack potency, and are thus neither man nor woman.
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2009, 05:14:29 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 05:13:02 PM
Those men aren't men.
How would you know? You lack potency, and are thus neither man nor woman.
Bend over and I'll show you how much potency I lack.
Great. The longstanding UST between Siege and Neil is about to burst forth in electronic form.
Darth Fagtaros is envious of Neil's upcoming sexual revolution.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 29, 2009, 06:04:44 PM
Great. The longstanding UST between Siege and Neil is about to burst forth in electronic form.
UST? You forgetting an L?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 29, 2009, 06:06:08 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 29, 2009, 06:04:44 PM
Great. The longstanding UST between Siege and Neil is about to burst forth in electronic form.
UST? You forgetting an L?
What's that anyway?
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:05:52 PM
Darth Fagtaros is envious of Neil's upcoming sexual revolution.
Dude, I've had your back many a time in the threads. I've never insulted your heritage or commitment. This is just betrayal. :(
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 29, 2009, 06:10:49 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:05:52 PM
Darth Fagtaros is envious of Neil's upcoming sexual revolution.
Dude, I've had your back many a time in the threads. I've never insulted your heritage or commitment. This is just betrayal. :(
You are a name changer, thus I hate you.
I have PTSD. My memory doesn't work too well, especially in relation to non-military issues.
I cannot and will not remember a name-changer's former name.
Thus I hate you from the deep ends of my heart.
Not that I have a heart.
Just a manner of speaking.
Do you copy, over?
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:17:03 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 29, 2009, 06:10:49 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:05:52 PM
Darth Fagtaros is envious of Neil's upcoming sexual revolution.
Dude, I've had your back many a time in the threads. I've never insulted your heritage or commitment. This is just betrayal. :(
You are a name changer, thus I hate you.
I have PTSD. My memory doesn't work too well, especially in relation to non-military issues.
I cannot and will not remember a name-changer's former name.
Thus I hate you from the deep ends of my heart.
Not that I have a heart.
Just a manner of speaking.
Do you copy, over?
reading you five by five. Rubber Duck over and out.
Siege hush on the name changing front. Wags changed his name as much as you did.
Such people make me sick.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 29, 2009, 06:17:56 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:17:03 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 29, 2009, 06:10:49 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:05:52 PM
Darth Fagtaros is envious of Neil's upcoming sexual revolution.
Dude, I've had your back many a time in the threads. I've never insulted your heritage or commitment. This is just betrayal. :(
You are a name changer, thus I hate you.
I have PTSD. My memory doesn't work too well, especially in relation to non-military issues.
I cannot and will not remember a name-changer's former name.
Thus I hate you from the deep ends of my heart.
Not that I have a heart.
Just a manner of speaking.
Do you copy, over?
reading you five by five. Rubber Duck over and out.
Five by five?
Are you fucking gay?
Use proper commo procedures.
"That's a good copy, read you lima-charlie (loud and clear), over".
You don't OUT me.
Whoever starts the com outs.
If I ask you "Hot copy, over", that means you say back to me what I just told you, so i know for a fact that you got me.
Quote from: garbon on July 29, 2009, 06:18:16 PM
Siege hush on the name changing front. Wags changed his name as much as you did.
Who was wag?
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:24:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 29, 2009, 06:18:16 PM
Siege hush on the name changing front. Wags changed his name as much as you did.
Who was wag?
One of the most notorious posters.
Dude, have I ever come across as someone who knew the proper procedure to even start a fcuking car? I mean, shit. I'm Wags.
Who the FUCK was wag?
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:28:20 PM
Who the FUCK was wag?
Just a guy Siege. He was just a guy. He didn't win any medals or fight in any wars. But you know? He had heart. That's more than a lot of guys could say.
All this "polyamory" "nonmonogamy" or whatever the fuck it is, is rehashed communal Age of Aquarius shit from the '60s, although not nearly as hip. Nonissue.
:yes: Much like Communism polyamory will fail after dominating half the globe for half a century.
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:24:23 PM
Five by five?
Are you fucking gay?
Use proper commo procedures.
"That's a good copy, read you lima-charlie (loud and clear), over".
You don't OUT me.
Whoever starts the com outs.
If I ask you "Hot copy, over", that means you say back to me what I just told you, so i know for a fact that you got me.
:rolleyes:
Not everyone uses US Army military commo procedures.
10-3.
Quote from: Barrister on July 29, 2009, 06:53:25 PM
:rolleyes:
Not everyone uses US Army military commo procedures.
10-3.
7/29 actually
So I guess that one is universal then. :cool:
Anyway, back on topic.
Who the fuck is wag?
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:03:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2009, 05:14:29 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 05:13:02 PM
Those men aren't men.
How would you know? You lack potency, and are thus neither man nor woman.
Bend over and I'll show you how much potency I lack.
Pervert.
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2009, 07:04:12 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:03:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2009, 05:14:29 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 05:13:02 PM
Those men aren't men.
How would you know? You lack potency, and are thus neither man nor woman.
Bend over and I'll show you how much potency I lack.
Pervert.
And the complicated mating dance goes on.
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2009, 07:04:12 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:03:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2009, 05:14:29 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 05:13:02 PM
Those men aren't men.
How would you know? You lack potency, and are thus neither man nor woman.
Bend over and I'll show you how much potency I lack.
Pervert.
Perverted by your sexual intoxication.
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 07:23:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2009, 07:04:12 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:03:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2009, 05:14:29 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 05:13:02 PM
Those men aren't men.
How would you know? You lack potency, and are thus neither man nor woman.
Bend over and I'll show you how much potency I lack.
Pervert.
Perverted by your sexual intoxication.
Chicks dig me.
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2009, 07:27:45 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 07:23:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2009, 07:04:12 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:03:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2009, 05:14:29 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 05:13:02 PM
Those men aren't men.
How would you know? You lack potency, and are thus neither man nor woman.
Bend over and I'll show you how much potency I lack.
Pervert.
Perverted by your sexual intoxication.
Chicks dig me.
Oh, that was just a wig.
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:17:03 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 29, 2009, 06:10:49 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:05:52 PM
Darth Fagtaros is envious of Neil's upcoming sexual revolution.
Dude, I've had your back many a time in the threads. I've never insulted your heritage or commitment. This is just betrayal. :(
You are a name changer, thus I hate you.
I have PTSD.
seek therapy. quit the war games.
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 07:29:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2009, 07:27:45 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 07:23:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2009, 07:04:12 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:03:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2009, 05:14:29 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 05:13:02 PM
Those men aren't men.
How would you know? You lack potency, and are thus neither man nor woman.
Bend over and I'll show you how much potency I lack.
Pervert.
Perverted by your sexual intoxication.
Chicks dig me.
Oh, that was just a wig.
No. Wag.
Quote from: saskganesh on July 29, 2009, 07:31:32 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:17:03 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 29, 2009, 06:10:49 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:05:52 PM
Darth Fagtaros is envious of Neil's upcoming sexual revolution.
Dude, I've had your back many a time in the threads. I've never insulted your heritage or commitment. This is just betrayal. :(
You are a name changer, thus I hate you.
I have PTSD.
seek therapy. quit the war games.
I had therapy. That's why I am still combat effective.
I do not play war games.
Well, I mean that I don't play FPSs.
I play strategy games. They don't have any negative effect on me.
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:03:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2009, 05:14:29 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 05:13:02 PM
Those men aren't men.
How would you know? You lack potency, and are thus neither man nor woman.
Bend over and I'll show you how much potency I lack.
Asking Neil to engage in homesexual sex with you isn't really the best way to insist on proving what a manly man you are.
Just sayin'.
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2009, 08:57:35 PM
Asking Neil to engage in homesexual sex with you isn't really the best way to insist on proving what a manly man you are.
On the contrary, Semitic cultures often view the giving side of homosexual intercourse as a form of hypermasculinity.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 29, 2009, 06:06:08 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 29, 2009, 06:04:44 PM
Great. The longstanding UST between Siege and Neil is about to burst forth in electronic form.
UST? You forgetting an L?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnresolvedSexualTension
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 29, 2009, 09:40:41 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 29, 2009, 06:06:08 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 29, 2009, 06:04:44 PM
Great. The longstanding UST between Siege and Neil is about to burst forth in electronic form.
UST? You forgetting an L?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnresolvedSexualTension
I'd point out that there's a variant name with the word long added up front, but meh, I'd never heard of the term and that was coincidental.
Been there. Done that. :yawn:
Quote from: PDH on July 29, 2009, 01:21:43 PM
Serial monogamy is is not polyarmory...
Polyarmory - a room where you outfit your parrot with military gear? :)
Quote from: Martinus on July 30, 2009, 01:59:11 AM
Quote from: PDH on July 29, 2009, 01:21:43 PM
Serial monogamy is is not polyarmory...
Polyarmory - a room where you outfit your parrot with military gear? :)
Or your sheep.
Hmmm, I guess that makes Brain polyamorous.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on July 30, 2009, 01:59:11 AM
Quote from: PDH on July 29, 2009, 01:21:43 PM
Serial monogamy is is not polyarmory...
Polyarmory - a room where you outfit your parrot with military gear? :)
:lol:
Good. Any assault on traditional monogamy and sexual property rights is a good thing.
Quote from: Drakken on July 30, 2009, 09:03:36 AM
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.
Quote from: Drakken on July 30, 2009, 09:03:36 AM
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? :D
Quote from: Malthus on July 30, 2009, 10:24:17 AM
Quote from: Drakken on July 30, 2009, 09:03:36 AM
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? :D
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.
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?
Quote from: Martinus on July 30, 2009, 11:23:15 AM
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. :boff:
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.
Quote from: Martinus on July 30, 2009, 11:23:15 AM
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
:P
Quote from: HVC on July 30, 2009, 11:27:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 30, 2009, 11:23:15 AM
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
:P
That would be great if it was so simple. :lol:
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!
I'd like to have more than one wife. That would be awesome.
Quote from: Drakken on July 30, 2009, 11:27:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 30, 2009, 11:23:15 AM
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. :boff:
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.
Quote from: Drakken on July 30, 2009, 11:19:40 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 30, 2009, 10:24:17 AM
Quote from: Drakken on July 30, 2009, 09:03:36 AM
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? :D
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. :lol:
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?
I think this could all get a bit complicated for couples going in for it. The partner could feel under pressure to get involved when they wouldn't otherwise make that choice.
This is ridicoulus.
If you want more than one woman, practice polygamy.
But sharing your woman with other men? Are you fucking gay?
Gay dudes would probably insist that other men take the women entirely.
Quote from: Siege on July 30, 2009, 09:14:35 PM
This is ridicoulus.
If you want more than one woman, practice polygamy.
But sharing your woman with other men? Are you fucking gay?
Quote from: Siege on July 30, 2009, 09:14:35 PM
This is ridicoulus.
If you want more than one woman, practice polygamy.
But sharing your woman with other men? Are you fucking gay?
Nah, that's not gay. Making repeated sexual overtures to other men online is though.
I think in order for polyamory to work all or most of the participants would either need to be bisexual and/or homosexual and of the same gender. If it's mainly heterosexual people someone's gonna feel screwed. :P
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2009, 06:41:44 AM
I think in order for polyamory to work all or most of the participants would either need to be bisexual and/or homosexual and of the same gender. If it's mainly heterosexual people someone's gonna feel screwed. :P
That was the deal in the real-life example I gave.
In case anyone was thinking of that as HOTT, most of the chicks were fat, ugly, and didn't shave their armpits.
There was one girl who was actually hot, but she was a Caucasian with dreadlocks, which infuriates me severely.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 30, 2009, 09:41:02 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 30, 2009, 09:14:35 PM
This is ridicoulus.
If you want more than one woman, practice polygamy.
But sharing your woman with other men? Are you fucking gay?
Nah, that's not gay. Making repeated sexual overtures to other men online is though.
It's not gay when another man sucks your dick. Thems the rules.
Quote from: Caliga on July 31, 2009, 06:45:38 AM
In case anyone was thinking of that as HOTT, most of the chicks were fat, ugly, and didn't shave their armpits.
I kind of assumed that was the case.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 30, 2009, 09:24:43 PM
Gay dudes would probably insist that other men take the women entirely.
:lol:
Seriously I'm starting to wonder if Seige is not someone's suckpuppet.
G.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on July 31, 2009, 07:24:18 AM
I kind of assumed that was the case.
I guess I wouldn't mind if one of those chicks was blowing me, but I'd claim exclusive rights on the hot one for banging as soon as I got her hair untangled. :x
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2009, 06:41:44 AM
I think in order for polyamory to work all or most of the participants would either need to be bisexual and/or homosexual and of the same gender. If it's mainly heterosexual people someone's gonna feel screwed. :P
So it sounds like it is only going to work for a small percentage of a small percentage of the population.
Some revolution.
Quote from: Drakken on July 30, 2009, 09:03:36 AM
Good. Any assault on traditional monogamy and sexual property rights is a good thing.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Valmy on July 31, 2009, 07:55:38 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2009, 06:41:44 AM
I think in order for polyamory to work all or most of the participants would either need to be bisexual and/or homosexual and of the same gender. If it's mainly heterosexual people someone's gonna feel screwed. :P
So it sounds like it is only going to work for a small percentage of a small percentage of the population.
Some revolution.
Yeah, I am thinking using Marty as a source on anything, much less issues of sexuality where he has jammed his gay into the discussion again is not a really great idea.
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2009, 06:41:44 AM
I think in order for polyamory to work all or most of the participants would either need to be bisexual and/or homosexual and of the same gender. If it's mainly heterosexual people someone's gonna feel screwed. :P
The people are I know are straight (afaik) but most of them are morbidly obese. And all of them are nerdy D&D types.
Not surprisingly, I only know of gay people who engage in such.
Quote from: Grallon on July 31, 2009, 07:27:46 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 30, 2009, 09:24:43 PM
Gay dudes would probably insist that other men take the women entirely.
:lol:
Seriously I'm starting to wonder if Seige is not someone's suckpuppet.
G.
The real Siegebreaker died some time ago.
Heart attack at a Martinus' post, I've been told.
Quote from: Siege on August 02, 2009, 01:47:43 AM
Quote from: Grallon on July 31, 2009, 07:27:46 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 30, 2009, 09:24:43 PM
Gay dudes would probably insist that other men take the women entirely.
:lol:
Seriously I'm starting to wonder if Seige is not someone's suckpuppet.
G.
The real Siegebreaker died some time ago.
Heart attack at a Martinus' post, I've been told.
Rumor.
Died of a heart attack at Mileys slut pictures.