With the recent decision in California, this seems a reasonable time to bring up something that's been in the back of my mind for a while.
Several months ago a friend lent me Skipping Towards Gomorrah by Dan Savage, an author and columnist whose work has been featured in Seattle's The Stranger as well as Salon, NPR, and various other places.
Savage is a gay man living in Seattle who is in a long-term relationship. He has an adopted son.
Skipping Towards Gommorah is an examination (and in some ways celebration) of the Seven Deadly Sins. It's an interesting, often funny, and sometimes unsettling read regarding various vices as they're practiced in America: Greed (gambling), Gluttony (fat acceptance groups), Wrath (handguns), and so on.
But somewhere amidst Lust ("swinging" marriages) and Pride (Gay Pride) he rather casually claims that gay men simply don't tend to be monogamous, and that it's not realistic to expect them to be.
Cough, sputter... Excuse me?!
Now, Savage's biggest claim to fame is writing as a sex columnist. On one hand, part of me says that he's possibly more qualified to say what the reality of being a gay man in America than myself, a straight married guy.
But another part of me says, have you really examined that idea? Are you so sure that this is a reality inherent to being a homosexual male, and not simply part of a culture that the more negative aspects of "gay pride" have made introspective examination of all but impossible?
He shares some interesting and valuable thoughts on marriage and "gay pride" along the way. Notably, that we would have a much lower divorce rate if we thought of adultery as less of an unforgivable misdeed and more as a breach of trust that, while regrettable, occurs in many marriages and ought to be seen as a stumbling block rather than an impassable chasm. And that while "gay pride" was very valuable in its infancy, it sometimes provides cover for individual homosexuals who, as often as individual heterosexuals, aren't necessarily inherently good, considerate, caring people.
But on the unlikelihood of gay male monogamy, Savage's comments caused me to hit a stumbling block of my own.
I don't think of myself as a prude. I do think that committed couples, whatever their gender, should be able to enjoy the priveliges and recognition of marriage, including the ability to raise children of their own. Nor do I believe that premarital sex is inherently wrong.
...But there's those words committed and premarital.
I find I am perfectly willing to see the validity of two people who love each other making a permanent commitment, creating a home, raising a family, growing old together, and to call that a marriage whether those two people are male, female, or one of each.
What I'm not willing to call such is a relationship where one person waits at home for the other to call while said other is out chasing tail.
I confess I've seen people try to do things like this and I've never really seen it work. Someone always seems to end up getting hurt. Marriage means to me that when you need your partner, they're there for you, and only you, not someone else who happened to momentarily catch their eye. Doubly so when children get involved in the mix.
It's not impossible that there's someone out there somewhere who has an "open relationship" like this that's genuinely equal and non-explotive. But I find it incredibly hard to suggest, even for a moment, that we take it for granted that things will work out that way.
And I think, "Savage, you idiot. You just gave legitimacy to every opponent of gay marriage who says there's a homosexual agenda to change the 'definition of marriage'."
I really, really hope that Savage is actually in the minority in this matter. Because while I don't have a problem with marriage being a committed relationship between two people determined to spend their lives together, I do have a problem with juggling the meaning of that word "committed".
I sometimes think that America gets so caught up in the physical and moral aspects of sexuality that we badly neglect the emotional ones. No amount of semantic gymnastics, psychobabble, or philosophical contortion can make sexual intercourse an emotionally neutral act.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I think monogamy and commitment are very challenging for a lot of people, gay or straight. (I say this from the outside looking in, as I've been quite contentedly monogamous my entire life. I'm not sure if it's because I'm just that way or because my husband is just that good. )
The gay people I know are also pretty contentedly committed, or seeking commitment. That may be a case of 'birds of a feather' - I can't say for certain. This fellow's experience obviously varies from mine, and I assume he's known a lot more gay men.
Last fall I was at a fundraiser, taken under the wing of one of teh salesladies at my husband's company. She was loud, funny and probably very drunk. Anyway, she dragged me around introducing me to people. One of them was the father of the charity's organizer, a fellow who was very pleasant and outgoing, and gay. He showed us pictures of his fella, and the saleslady asked if he was his partner.
This man, obviously of an older generation than either of us shook his head and said, "Why would i want to get married again? Share all my property" etc. He pretty openly said he wanted to hang onto his wealth and make certain of his children's inheritance. He thought younger gays were foolish for wanting the right to marry.
The saleslady soon enough dragged me off to meet more people, boasting, "I know all the best gays!"
(This was probably the exact moment that illustrated for me how different life was going to be in New Orleans, as compared to the conservative Atlanta suburbs we'd just left.)
But anyway. The older I get the more I realize that everyone's belief of How Things Are is colored by their experience, and no matter how large the sampling, the big picture is always too big for any one person to really see all of it.
I grow suspicious of statements of certainty on broad topics, no matter how well-informed. Especially where groups of people are concerned.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually Savage is on record as saying he doesn't think monogamy is easily attainable for any human, male or female, straight or gay.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
What I've heard (from a random unscientific source) is that approximately 20% of the population tends towards cheating, and those people tend to hang out together, resulting in a perception that "everybody cheats."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Some of that 20% hang out in the Senate and Congress Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Olivet, you are in New Orleans now ?!? I was just there.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
However, Savage is also highly in favor of honesty in couples, and does not generally condone cheating. Non-monogamy is not necessarily cheating, in his view, when your partner knows about it and is OK with it. Or, for that matter, is present at the time.
But he has very direct views about people who screw over their partners for their own selfishness, with language not really suitable for Hatrack.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Dang, dkw! Sorry I missed you! Next time you're down this way, let me know! I've been here almost a year, and we know lots of great family-friendly things to do and great restaurants that aren't priced for drunk tourists who don't know any better.
I take exception to the idea that monogamy is not natural - it certainly feels very natural to me.
*realizes the irony of her statement, considering the thread*
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: However, Savage is also highly in favor of honesty in couples, and does not generally condone cheating. Non-monogamy is not necessarily cheating, in his view, when your partner knows about it and is OK with it. Or, for that matter, is present at the time.
But he has very direct views about people who screw over their partners for their own selfishness, with language not really suitable for Hatrack.
That's the impression I've gotten of his take; I just don't agree. My suspicion is that many partners end up "being OK" with their partner's non-monogamy because the alternative is giving up on the relationship. If they indulge in the "openness", it's done out of spite; if the partner doesn't react to their "infidelity", they feel undervalued. And again, powers help you if there's children involved in that relationship. Even the enormous sampling of ONE couple that he writes about in his "Lust" chapter still simply hasn't engaged the problem of what to tell their children or their family.
I'm willing to consider the possibility that monogamy is "unnatural", but if so, so is marriage. And it being "unnatural" doesn't change that to be human is to move beyond the satiation of biological urges and do all manner of "unnatural" things for a variety of reasons.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
We found lots of family friendly things to do, but I would have loved to get our monkeys together. We ended up getting a membership to the children's museum, since it paid for itself in two visits and was within walking distance of the hotel. Bob's going to be down again in a few weeks, but the boys and I won't be along this time.
On topic, I think that some people are naturally monogamous, others probably not. But I do agree with Savage about the importance of honesty and agreed upon expectations in a relationship.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Monogamy 'isn't natural?' it's certainly within the obviously expressed range of human sexuality. The issue is that polyamory is also natural, to such an extent that the stigma against it is rapidly dropping away.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Sterling: You seem ready to accept that one partner in the relatinship might want to be open to other sexual partners. What prevents two of those people to get together, and both be willing to accept an open relationship?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Sterling: You seem ready to accept that one partner in the relatinship might want to be open to other sexual partners. What prevents two of those people to get together, and both be willing to accept an open relationship?
Nothing. I just feel that such a relationship shouldn't be a marriage. To do so, to my mind, creates the expectation that one shouldn't expect monogamy in marriage, with the potential to do harm to the other (vast majority) of relationships. Something which isn't true, to my mind, of homosexual marriage.
It isn't a matter of replacing a fuse or changing a shirt with 'a' being different than 'b', but effectively fulfilling the same basic purpose. No one has come up with effective and accepted ways of dealing with a myriad of issues regarding polyamory that simply don't exist in a monogamous marriage. What if a lover becomes pregnant, or a spouse brings home a sexually transmitted disease? What if someone feels that extended sexual cohabitation implies a willingness to provide financial support? How does anyone come to an understanding of what time and attention elements of marriage or maintaining a home requires that simply cannot be put off for the sake of other people? What if both spouses accept an "open" arrangement but one simply cannot abide by a spouse's particular choice of lover?... And so on, and so on.
There are two very simple ways to make most of these issues go away. You get married, and commit to one person. Or you don't get married, and you accept that you're in a relationship that other people may move through and that the other party may at some point simply walk away from.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:No one has come up with effective and accepted ways of dealing with a myriad of issues regarding polyamory that simply don't exist in a monogamous marriage. What if a lover becomes pregnant, or a spouse brings home a sexually transmitted disease? What if someone feels that extended sexual cohabitation implies a willingness to provide financial support? How does anyone come to an understanding of what time and attention elements of marriage or maintaining a home requires that simply cannot be put off for the sake of other people? What if both spouses accept an "open" arrangement but one simply cannot abide by a spouse's particular choice of lover?... And so on, and so on.
No one has come up with one overarching solution for all the issues inherent in all polyamorous relationships because not every poly relationship is alike. But many individuals have come up with acceptable ways of dealing with all the issues you mention above in their relationships. Some of those ways of dealing include not marrying anyone. Some of them do include marrying someone. I happen to be the not-marrying sort (at least, at present), but I know plenty of people who are in happily open marriages, and have been for years--or decades.
It seems that what you're saying here is basically that you could not satisfactorily resolve the issues you raise. Which, you know, is absolutely fine. Stay monogamous! Most people seem to want to. Societal norms are in their favor.
But if someone else can answer all the questions you raise for their marriage--to the satisfaction of them, their spouse, and any other partners--why do you care if they choose to open it?
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:What if a lover becomes pregnant, or a spouse brings home a sexually transmitted disease? What if someone feels that extended sexual cohabitation implies a willingness to provide financial support? How does anyone come to an understanding of what time and attention elements of marriage or maintaining a home requires that simply cannot be put off for the sake of other people? What if both spouses accept an "open" arrangement but one simply cannot abide by a spouse's particular choice of lover?
I don't see these issues as being inherently more problematic than other issues couples face. There exist people for whom open relationships are worth the effort to understand and examine these issues. Some of these people will get married and continue their open relationships. I don't see how it significantly impacts my own interest and ability to maintain an open relationship.
We can pick any number of issues that could be Big Important, Relationship Defining or Breaking Questions. What if one partner wants children and the other one doesn't? What if one partner loses their job? What if one partner loses sexual interest in the other? etc.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Don't blast polyamory until you've tried it! There are a lot of people who've made polyamorous relationships work for them, and who've even found that it works better than monogamy.
quote:No one has come up with effective and accepted ways of dealing with a myriad of issues regarding polyamory that simply don't exist in a monogamous marriage. What if a lover becomes pregnant, or a spouse brings home a sexually transmitted disease? What if someone feels that extended sexual cohabitation implies a willingness to provide financial support? How does anyone come to an understanding of what time and attention elements of marriage or maintaining a home requires that simply cannot be put off for the sake of other people? What if both spouses accept an "open" arrangement but one simply cannot abide by a spouse's particular choice of lover?... And so on, and so on.
Here's a polyamorous relationship contract that addresses all of the issues you bring up and more. It's really interesting, actually, and very well thought out--they've defined their triggers, their boundaries, rules regarding protection, veto powers, criteria for what people qualify as secondary partners, sex acts that are exclusive to the two of them, and so on. In fact, I bet the percentage of monogamous couples who've put this much thought into their marriage before they got married is definitely in the single digits.
Reading this, I get the impression that a polyamorous relationship takes a lot of maturity on all sides, and a lot of communication. But ideally, you wouldn't be marrying someone unless your relationship possessed those attributes either.
how well you do in the poly scene measures pretty solidly with how mature and honest you are. You also have to be honest with yourself. Some people are the jealous type and psychologically lock up over the idea of their partner having sex with another person. You either overcome this then become poly, or you try to become poly to overcome it (or because a partner insisted and you didn't know how to stand up for yourself in saying that you were not cool with it/would 'go along with it' hoping to make things work, etc) and disaster and fireworks result.
Thankfully it's all a lot of fast-burning drama, not the long slow implosions of many marriages. It works, or you move on.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
A few of my friends are poly and it works for them so I've been seriously considering it, but I think I may be the jealous type Not over sex so much as emotional connection. Maybe when I'm older and more mature.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: But if someone else can answer all the questions you raise for their marriage--to the satisfaction of them, their spouse, and any other partners--why do you care if they choose to open it?
I suppose, in honesty, it's because of the potential for people getting hurt. "Here's a tightrope, c'mon, walk on over, it's easy!"
I will grant you that I can only speak from my experience, which is limited. And as I say, I do not doubt that there are people for whom such a situation could work, but I've encountered very few. And that, like many monogamous relationships, things can look fine on the outside.
My leading examples are someone who left a string of unhappy women behind him because he somehow never made clear what *he* felt was acceptable for him to do within the bounds of the relationship, and a married couple who basically can't stand each other and have used polyamory to keep stringing things on for a while to prevent them from admitting that they should just get the hell away from each other. Oh, and one threesome that quickly dissolved into a twosome because they couldn't handle each others' needs for attention.
Within any relationship there is the possibility of dishonesty, communication failures, disproportionate power structures, and so on. It is very hard for me to believe that these problems do not multiply with more people involved. I have encountered little to disuage me of this view, YMMV. It's all well and good to say that it's a mark of maturity to be able to handle a polygamous relationship, but... You never know, really, until you walk the tightrope. I've just seen people fall. Some of whom might have been happy, had they not tried.
quote:It seems that what you're saying here is basically that you could not satisfactorily resolve the issues you raise.
To be fair, there are also serious legal and ethical issues regarding some matters that go well outside the existing framework and have the potential to affect people well beyond the polyamorous relationship. In part because said framework was created with marriage-based families in mind from long standing. It isn't just me being a fuddy-duddy.
[ August 06, 2010, 03:26 AM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Sterling: No offense, but I don't see how it's yours ou anyone else's business.
People do a lot of things in their marriage that someone else doesn't want to do, or thinks is a bad idea. So what? How does that hurt anyone else, and why should we worry about what might or might not work for them?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Post #2: I think monogamy and commitment are very challenging for a lot of people, gay or straight.
So that's not the issue at all then, is it?
Polyamory is not a viable consideration, and no one who values his or her time is going to explore it. Go for it if that's what you want to do, but don't be surprised when you come away from it wondering what you've been wasting your life doing.
In the meantime, what is the real issue concerning gay rights, regarding legal marriage?
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
A lot of this debate all comes down to simplified thinking and a love for particular definitions. To say that marriage ( as a title of a relationship ) should be kept solely for monogamous individuals or really any specific group.
What it all ends up being is an error of composition. To give "marriage" a meaning requires that your society gives it a meaning. Part of the problem of mega-societies ( such as the USA ) is that just because you are part of that society does not mean that all definitions necessarily go up and down the gamut of societies within it. For instance the United States government deciding that marriage is X does not mean that the societal definition for say the Missouri Lutheran Synod changes. They might value marriage as Y.
Assigning different values to the same term does not change that value or term for either party. However, for many people this is extremely difficult to deal with. Its like going into a coffee shop and ordering a coffee and getting an espresso, except quite a deal more disconcerting for the parties involved.
As far as Dan Savage goes, my main issue with society is our love-affair with comfortability mixed with utilitarianism. A great article by Ross Douthar in The Atlantic ( http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/10/is-pornography-adultery/6989/ ) is if pornography is adultery ( to the chagrin of many I know I agree with Douthat) Douthat would say that it is.
That and the desire to do something is neither sufficient or necessary to an act being "natural", but then what is really is natural and can there truly be an unnatural.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: To be fair, there are also serious legal and ethical issues regarding some matters that go well outside the existing framework and have the potential to affect people well beyond the polyamorous relationship. In part because said framework was created with marriage-based families in mind from long standing. It isn't just me being a fuddy-duddy.
I'll be honest--I have no idea what you're saying here. Can you clarify?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I think he's referring to the fact that most members of poly relationships have no legal rights.
My sister-in-law's first husband got her into poly groups on the web, talked her into taking part in some activities and then divorced her, using her web browsing history and evidence of her 'infidelity and perversion' to get full custody of their children. She had no proof that he had brought her into that life, and still has very limited access to her kids (and was stuck with most of the marital debt in the divorce).
He then married the woman half of the couple he wanted her to swing with. It was, and is, one of the ugliest, most destructive things I have ever seen one person do to another.
Maybe a contract would have helped her, but she was young, naive and trusted her husband. ;(
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There are also marriages where one spouse decides that physical intimacy is over for the both of them. There is still love and commitment but no more sex. Couples don't always reach this point at the same time, leaving one partner starved to be touched. Is that right? Should a man or in their thirties have to accept that they can never have that again unless they give up their family?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Frankly, unless the spouse that has decided there will be no more physical intimacy agrees that the other spouse can seek it elsewhere, yes. If the "deal" when they got married was that it would be an exclusive marriage, one person does not get to change the deal. As far as I'm concerned, it's get permission, get the other person to change their mind, or divorce.
I realize that's over simplifying things, of course. But on a "buck stops here" level, it's what I believe.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There are also marriages where one spouse decides that physical intimacy is over for the both of them. There is still love and commitment but no more sex. Couples don't always reach this point at the same time, leaving one partner starved to be touched. Is that right? Should a man or in their thirties have to accept that they can never have that again unless they give up their family?
Certainly not. But if the spouse is against it, or changes his/her mind, they could lose their family anyway, because of the way the laws are written.
I mean, as long as you know the risks and do your best to protect yourself, I don't see why things couldn't work out. But romantic relationships often have a huge amount of trust inherent in them, and if that trust is misplaced things can get very ugly, very quickly.
I'm sure there are lots of ways to make those relationships work.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that, often, getting permission to seek elsewhere is a better choice than divorce.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you are going to break your vows, be honest about it and break them: get a divorce. Dating while married is fundamentally dishonest to both your spouse and the person you are dating.
I have to wonder, what kind of loser dates a married man? Who wants someone who, in the very act of asking you out, is proving himself to lack integrity or courage or both? Who wants that kind of guy? How low does someone's self esteem have to be to WANT to be a mistress?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You are making a lot of assumptions, there, that are not universally true.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
He proves himself to be someone who doesn't respect the promises he makes. Either keep them or officially disavow them. Divorce exists - someone who wants to keep the benefits of being married but be free to date is too selfish for respect.
It is sad when someone wants to be the partner of someone with low integrity and be a part of breaking serious promises. It doesn't reflect well on either person, and I have to wonder about the mistress's self esteem.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
One assumption you are making is that you know what promises were made in the first place. You also don't know what was "re-negotiated". Nor do you know the many reasons people may decide to stay married.
I don't need to or expect to change your mind. But I will remind you that you are making a lot of assumptions that may not be true in all cases. People are different; marriages are different.
Back to the original point, I don't see why this would be different for SSM than it is for OSM except that marital expectations are sort of "new" for SSM.
Posted by Amberkitty (Member # 12365) on :
Dan Savage - and anyone else - commenting on what's natural relationship or sexual behavior is bullshitting. The range of such is so broad, it is unfitting to say any one specific behavior or inclination is natural other than we seek emotional and sexual bonding, and sometimes in very creative ways. Saying that it's unreasonable to expect gay men to be monogamous is like saying that it's unreasonable to expect straight married men to stop "appreciating" beautiful women. It removes responsibility from both parties - one from acting in concordance to the established relationship contract and the other from creating and enforcing boundaries that make themselves happy. Having relationships - mono or poly - requires the maturity on both parties to do both. Savage has great insight on many things concerning sex and relationships (such as honesty is of utmost importance), but on this he has not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:He proves himself to be someone who doesn't respect the promises he makes.
I don't think most people actually promise to exclusively have sex with their spouses when they marry, now that I think about it. There's perhaps an implied promise, but the applicability of that implication depends entirely upon both spouses' expectations of sexual behavior.
[ August 06, 2010, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If you are going to break your vows, be honest about it and break them: get a divorce. Dating while married is fundamentally dishonest to both your spouse and the person you are dating.
Can someone be wrong without being dishonest? I mean, I know what I, personally, think marriage is and as with any kind of moral question, if someone diverges sharply enough from it, I will disapprove just like anyone. But I wouldn't assume just from external, publicly known facts that they must be sleazy liars. Just because marriage means one thing to me doesn't mean it means the same thing to whichever them is in question.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Men have a bigger problem with monogamy than women do. Statistically, of course; any finding like that is only statistical, and there are exceptions, but still, everyone knows it.
So how odd is it to think that a relationship that's only men would be less likely to be monogamous? Again, statistically.
In the gay community, there's a joke:
Q: What does a lesbian bring on the second date? A: A U-Haul.
Q: What does a gay man bring on the second date? A: What's a second date?
Both of those are stereotypes, and I personally know exceptions to each of them, but stereotypes come from somewhere.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I know plenty of people who are going to get married for the tax benefits and both parties are freely poly and they have never been 'dishonest' with each other about that fact, so the premise of fundamentally dishonest is false there.
I know plenty of swingers who are married to each other and love each other and date outside of the marriage and got into the marriage with that premise - they're still each others' main loves and want the partnership to stand that way, with all the civil benefits and permission sin cases of medical emergency, etc. They've never 'promised' just to have sex with each other.
It doesn't make them 'low integrity,' unless you think that being poly or swinger itself makes you 'low integrity.' Which is completely untrue, so.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
There's a poly blogger (that is, a blogger who happens to be poly, as opposed to someone who blogs exclusively about poly-related things), that I generally respect. He often emphasizes a few things about how he manages his lifestyle:
1. Always remember that poly is HARDER than monogamous relationships. If you're doing it because you think monogamy is "hard," you're doing it wrong.
2. Whenever they want to introduce a new person to their poly circle, they have to get express permission from EVERYONE who's already involved.
3. Whenever things between he and his wife are tense/difficult, they retreat AWAY from poly relationships, focusing on fixing their core marriage, because if they used other girl/guyfriends to escape from whatever problems their facing, their marriage might break.
4. Since sexual fidelity is less of an issue, he (and most poly groups he knows) find other ways to be faithful to each other. For example, there's a playful word that he made up, which he only uses with his wife.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Extreme counterexamples are suspect and even if true, statistically irrelevant.
Asking the person who is cheating if it is okay is not going to give you an accurate picture. Ask the people are being cheated on if this is what they had in mind when their spouse promised to be faithful.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Extreme counterexamples
Extreme counterexamples of what?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Try to keep up.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Katie, do you think it's inherently "cheating" to sleep with someone other than your spouse, even if that spouse knows about it or has previously given consent?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Unless stated otherwise in the marriage vows ("I'll always love you, and I'll sleep with you even when I'm sleeping with other people, which I plan on doing"), monogamy is one of the assumptions of marriage.
Also, vows are said in front of witnesses for a reason. It isn't just a promise to each other, so you can't just dissolve them by an agreement with each other. You're married until the divorce is legally final.
If you want to sleep with someone else, get a divorce. Until then, it's cheating. This is not a gray area.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think it IS worth worrying about the fact that a lot of "poly" relationships are men getting "consent" from women who are afraid of losing their husbands. I don't know what the statistics are (nor how to get an accurate picture of) the number of poly relationships that are actually healthy. That doesn't mean such things are "extreme counterexamples," though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's a good point, Raymond. I know a huge number of women that tolerate their husband's cheating because of monetary or family or low self estreem reasons. That toleration doesn't make the cheating man worthy of respect.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Unless stated otherwise in the marriage vows ("I'll always love you, and I'll sleep with you even when I'm sleeping with other people, which I plan on doing"), monogamy is one of the assumptions of marriage.
Where? Why? I mean, Christy and I had fairly normal marriage vows, and we certainly entered into a marriage with the expectation of monogamy, but there was absolutely nothing said at our wedding which stated or implied monogamy.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
As much as I do think the first point is extremely important to consider, it doesn't make the second point - that relationships, even marriages, can be based around something other than sexual fidelity and be healthy - any less important as well.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that there is also an element of "vow breaking" for one partner to decide unilaterally that sex is no longer part of the relationship. There may be good reasons for it but the person asking to "seek elsewhere" is not the only person not living up to the original expectations.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:I think it IS worth worrying about the fact that a lot of "poly" relationships are men getting "consent" from women who are afraid of losing their husbands.
Based purely on observation and anecdote, I would actually say that more heterosexual couples get into poly at the behest of the woman than at the behest of the man (though not by a huge margin). Poly women also seem to have an easier time finding additional partners than poly men. Some of that is because most of the poly women I know are open to partners of either gender, while most of the poly men I know are not, but there's certainly other factors in play.
The swinging community has very different dynamics, I gather, and since I'm not involved in it I don't really feel like I should comment on it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm sure Tiger Woods would agree with you.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Unless stated otherwise in the marriage vows ("I'll always love you, and I'll sleep with you even when I'm sleeping with other people, which I plan on doing"), monogamy is one of the assumptions of marriage.
Where? Why? I mean, Christy and I had fairly normal marriage vows, and we certainly entered into a marriage with the expectation of monogamy, but there was absolutely nothing said at our wedding which stated or implied monogamy.
With many people writing their own vows, it may or may not be in there. Most traditional orders of service have, as part of the declaration of consent, wording along the lines of "and forsaking all others be faithful to him/her as long as you both shall live."
You could interpret faithfulness in a way that doesn't include sexual exclusiveness, but I would argue that it's pretty clearly part of the original intent of the words.
Posted by Amberkitty (Member # 12365) on :
In a healthy relationship, openness to outside sexual or romantic partners is discussed before marriage, or it is discussed within the marriage with the agreement and understanding of sexual and emotional responsibility. Yes, there are unhealthy arraignments where one member of the married couple takes advantage of an alternative relationship model at the expense of the other person or flat out cheats, but generalizing those scenarios to all open marriages is unfair.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
My wife and I don’t like people to butt into our relationship. Telling everyone else to mind their own business is the right of married partners, IMO. However, having others be a part of our relationship is pretty much inescapable.
My wife and I are part of various communities that impose certain definitions and proscriptions on our behavior as a married couple. Everybody is. Our communities (not necessarily organizations or towns) provide plenty of norms to follow, be they conservative or liberal, and to retain our acceptance in those communities we adhere to those norms. Break the norms, especially blatantly or repeatedly, and we estrange ourselves from those communities that have defined those norms.
My point is, we don’t exist in a vacuum, and we don’t conduct our relationships in a vacuum. What we do is influenced by the communities we’re a part of, and in turn influences others around us. If we want to change how our relationship works, we don’t just do it between us. We switch communities as well, and find a new comfortable place where we are accepted and agree with the norms.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that there is also an element of "vow breaking" for one partner to decide unilaterally that sex is no longer part of the relationship. There may be good reasons for it but the person asking to "seek elsewhere" is not the only person not living up to the original expectations.
Of course there is. And in that situation, the response should be to say "This isn't working for me. We need to get counseling and work this out, or you need to agree it's ok for me to be physically involved with other people, or we need to get a divorce." Not to unilaterally decide that it's ok to cheat because their spouse won't put out.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I completely agree with ElJay.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
With the exception of the term "put out" - I think it is deeper and more complicated than that* - and being wary of using divorce as a sort of trump card, I agree that this is how it should work as well.
*I am not saying you don't, just that the phrasing is a problem for me.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I'm not listing it as a trump card. I'm listing it as a last resort in an otherwise untennable situation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I was more addressing the issue of "consent from women who fear losing their husbands." It can be held over someone's head as a threat.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's part of why the vows are important and "getting permission" isn't one of the options. The honorable options are either married and faithful or else divorced. Anything else is dishonest and very inclined towards abuse - "Let me cheat or I'm leaving you" when in reality someone cheating has left already. Make a decision and pick a life. Anything else is selfish and cruel.
I've seen how soul-sucking infidelity can be. Women who have chosen to tolerate it have their self esteems steamrolled. Having the closest person to you treat you with that much disrespect? It's a terrible thing. If you don't want someone anymore, be honest and brave enough to get divorced.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again, I think that you are making assumptions and over simplifying. Which you are free to do.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
If it takes a mature adult to handle a poly relationship well, it also takes a mature adult to put the relationship first and work through a difficult relationship problem like a spouse refusing to be intimate. Looking for an out like a side relationship is as selfish as the other spouse is being, and won’t solve anything. There might not have been any specific agreements about sexual fidelity in the marriage, but if the relationship hasn’t been open to that point, quibbling about the wording of your vows is pretty silly. You ought to know what’s accepted and what isn’t, and live by it like it was written down and signed by both parties.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Try to keep up.
I am. I'm asking for an expanded definition from you.
also:
quote:If you want to sleep with someone else, get a divorce. Until then, it's cheating. This is not a gray area.
It's actually just completely incorrect. That's not what cheating in a relationship is. An open marriage isn't automatically infidelity. Cheating is unfaithfulness. People in an open marriage are equally as capable of being faithful and disclosing to each other, and not acting with violation of the mutually agreed-upon boundaries of intimacy.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Statistically irrelevant sideshows.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Based on what exactly? If either side has statistics that's great, otherwise we're trading anecdotes.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Open marriages formed with the vows pertaining to sexual fidelity deliberately removed that last longer than, oh, grab a number: five years, minimum, ten years better. Lots of pre-nuptial agreements phase out at ten years.
I bet the number is vanishingly tiny.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was more addressing the issue of "consent from women who fear losing their husbands." It can be held over someone's head as a threat.
Ah, I thought you were talking about people who use their spouse cutting off physical intimacy as an excuse to cheat, not people who blackmale their spouses into accepting an open/poly/swinging marriage while still having physical intimacy with each other. I see those as two different issues.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Source?
The most useful comparison I can think of is the average length of a marriage wherein both parties agreed at the onset to an open relationship, vs the average length of traditional marriages.
Bear in mind the above doesn't even come close to painting a complete picture, since you can have open relationships that are long and satisfying but not necessarily involving "marriage." Also, length of marriage doesn't necessarily indicate happiness. How many people get married young, are pressured to stay together by society but ultimately are not happy with each other?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was more addressing the issue of "consent from women who fear losing their husbands." It can be held over someone's head as a threat.
Ah, I thought you were talking about people who use their spouse cutting off physical intimacy as an excuse to cheat, not people who blackmale their spouses into accepting an open/poly/swinging marriage while still having physical intimacy with each other. I see those as two different issues.
That or even, "have sex with me or I will divorce you". Like intimacy under duress is what people are looking for anway. Relationships are complicated and often messy and I am far less apt to judge what kinds of marriages people negotiate than I once was.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
...And now to juggle some plates...
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Sterling: No offense, but I don't see how it's yours ou anyone else's business.
People do a lot of things in their marriage that someone else doesn't want to do, or thinks is a bad idea. So what? How does that hurt anyone else, and why should we worry about what might or might not work for them?
No offense, but saying something is no one else's business just drops a wall in the path of discussion.
If couples or groups choose to quietly engage in polyamorous relationships among themselves, absolutely, it's none of my business.
If "swingers' groups" choose to meet in hotels and go about things... Yuck. But, again, yes, not really my business.
But about the time someone says that marriage should no longer come with reasonable expectations of sexual fidelity and seeks to create a public legal and social framework around that reality, I think at a very minimum I have a right to raise objection.
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: I think he's referring to the fact that most members of poly relationships have no legal rights.
Basically, yes (thanks for clarifying). And about the point that you start trying to establish a visible legal and social framework, you open up ze kettle o' fish.
quote:Originally posted by Amberkitty: Dan Savage - and anyone else - commenting on what's natural relationship or sexual behavior is bullshitting.
I tend to feel there's an element of satire to Savage suggesting anything is "natural" or "unnatural", simply because the terms have been used so often by opponents of gay rights. But to the extent that he's serious, I agree.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't think most people actually promise to exclusively have sex with their spouses when they marry, now that I think about it. There's perhaps an implied promise, but the applicability of that implication depends entirely upon both spouses' expectations of sexual behavior.
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: There might not have been any specific agreements about sexual fidelity in the marriage, but if the relationship hasn’t been open to that point, quibbling about the wording of your vows is pretty silly. You ought to know what’s accepted and what isn’t, and live by it like it was written down and signed by both parties.
I think that at this point it's worth noting that traditionally marriage has contained the notion of sexual fidelity (for all that "traditionally" is worth in a discussion, which I recognize isn't a heckuva lot). But more to the point, sexual infidelity remains legitimate grounds for divorce just about everywhere, and adultery is actually illegal in many places including at least twenty-two states.
So perhaps it isn't just expectations and what's implicitly stated in vows.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Men have a bigger problem with monogamy than women do. Statistically, of course; any finding like that is only statistical, and there are exceptions, but still, everyone knows it.
To throw out some vast generalizations: many people would agree with the basic model that, biologically, men have a directive to both a) procreate as widely as possible, and b) prevent other men from mating with women they have mated with, lest the limited opportunity for one of their mates to bear their offspring be "squandered" by conceiving a child of a different genetic line.
By contrast, any offspring a woman bears will of course carry on her genetic line. But childbearing renders the woman physically vulnerable and perhaps less attractive to other men (in as much as she clearly won't bear their children while she's bearing someone else's.) It's to her advantage that the man who has made her pregnant focus his attention on providing for her rather than shuffling off to find another fertile female.
So monogamy is a sort of compromise: the man gets some security (including that the child the woman will bear is, presumably, his) in exchange for a broader selection of mates. The woman gets help raising their child and caring for the family- gets to be the sole focus of the male's attention- in exchange for providing that security.
Which somewhat leads me to say that if one wants to make the assertion that, at least as far as males go, non-monogamy is "natural", jealousy is part of that same package. But again, as human beings, we sometimes choose to engage in things that aren't "natural"- in some cases because they're much better for us, either as individuals or as groups.
We can, as we do, discuss whether polyamory or monogamy is "better for us". But I do think, despite whatever biological pressures may be upon us, as human beings we make a choice.
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: There's a poly blogger (that is, a blogger who happens to be poly, as opposed to someone who blogs exclusively about poly-related things), that I generally respect. He often emphasizes a few things about how he manages his lifestyle:
1. Always remember that poly is HARDER than monogamous relationships. If you're doing it because you think monogamy is "hard," you're doing it wrong.
2. Whenever they want to introduce a new person to their poly circle, they have to get express permission from EVERYONE who's already involved.
3. Whenever things between he and his wife are tense/difficult, they retreat AWAY from poly relationships, focusing on fixing their core marriage, because if they used other girl/guyfriends to escape from whatever problems their facing, their marriage might break.
4. Since sexual fidelity is less of an issue, he (and most poly groups he knows) find other ways to be faithful to each other. For example, there's a playful word that he made up, which he only uses with his wife.
Interesting. But it does raise something that I've been kind of dancing around in many of the things I've said: there are probably a lot more people who would like to engage in a polyamorous relationship (in some cases because of wildly unrealistic senses of what that would entail) than there are people with the ability to carry one off without someone getting hurt.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Source?
The most useful comparison I can think of is the average length of a marriage wherein both parties agreed at the onset to an open relationship, vs the average length of traditional marriages.
I'd love to see such a comparison. I googled up a lot of numbers but nobody seems to have anything concrete. CNN came up with a 93% failure rate, FWIW.
quote:Bear in mind the above doesn't even come close to painting a complete picture, since you can have open relationships that are long and satisfying but not necessarily involving "marriage."
I don't care about those. Dating and non-marriage relationships involve promises to each other. Marriages involve flat-out vows that exist independent of the other's permission.
quote:
Also, length of marriage doesn't necessarily indicate happiness. How many people get married young, are pressured to stay together by society but ultimately are not happy with each other? [/QB]
It isn't a perfect measure, but it's a sure bet that couples who divorce can't be counted in the "happy together" column. If CNN is right and only 7% of open marriages stay together, and say half of those that stay together are unhappy, that's hardly a supportive statistic for "unfaithful is cool".
I'm sure someone will come up with an off-the-wall example and pretend the norm is defined by the lunatic fringe. In which case: sure, sure.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Statistically irrelevant sideshows.
In matter of fact, you would only need one married couple who have an open relationship and are not cheating on each other. And this group of 'statistically irrelevant sideshows' may comprise as six percent of all married people, nearly equivalently distributed between sexes.
SOURCE
Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz (1983). American Couples: Money, Work, Sex, New York, NY: William Morrow and Company, ISBN 0688037720
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Don't pretend there aren't problems with that study. Like the poor wife who denied any toleration of cheating in their relationship whose husband happily claimed to be in an open marriage.
And how many people claim to be in an open marriage, even when both agree, is less important than how many marriages are formed with that in mind and how many of those deliberately formed open marriages last for any appreciable length of time before imploding.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If I were pretending there were no problems with that study, you could bet my language would be that the group "definitely" comprised, as opposed to "may" comprise.
We're still where we were.
- Your use of the word "cheating" is completely incorrect,
- Marriage does not necessarily include the promises you are insisting it does, and
- None of this can be handwaved away as 'statistically irrelevant,' especially when it is you being wrong about both about terminology and applying a broad, personal axiom about marriage when it clearly does not universally apply.
At some point you'll hopefully have to admit at least the top two, because they're not ambiguous.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You fail to be convincing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Why is it that in any contentious argument you immediately resort to acting in a backbitey manner and acting, often, worse than what accusations you fire at people who disagree with you?
Well,
quote:You fail to be convincing.
Gosh, what a stunning counterargument.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:- Your use of the word "cheating" is completely incorrect,
(...)
At some point you'll hopefully have to admit at least the top two, because they're not ambiguous.
Come now. I don't hold that there is no correct meaning of a word and that any usage is acceptable, but what we have here is a disagreement between two largish schools of thought about what constitutes cheating, not an attempt to unilaterally redefine a word so as to support one's argument. Your assertion is much too bombastic.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Unless stated otherwise in the marriage vows ("I'll always love you, and I'll sleep with you even when I'm sleeping with other people, which I plan on doing"), monogamy is one of the assumptions of marriage.
Also, vows are said in front of witnesses for a reason. It isn't just a promise to each other, so you can't just dissolve them by an agreement with each other. You're married until the divorce is legally final.
If you want to sleep with someone else, get a divorce. Until then, it's cheating. This is not a gray area.
Y'know, katharina, marriage is...well, pretty personal. You are not the arbiter of what is and isn't marriage, and what two people decide their marriage means really isn't something you or anyone gets a vote on in terms of defining what they're doing. You just don't, no matter your certainty, no matter the number of witnesses, no matter what you or I believe are the givens of marriage.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Why do people still respond to Katharina? She is not interested in arguing.
If she is wrong at the beginning of a thread, that's it. Its over. Trying to correct her just picks a fight with her.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It is sad when someone wants to be the partner of someone with low integrity and be a part of breaking serious promises. It doesn't reflect well on either person, and I have to wonder about the mistress's self esteem.
What's also sad is when someone makes sweeping, damning generalizations and accusations based entirely on their own limited experience and completely refuses to even entertain any notions that might be different.
It goes without saying it doesn't reflect well either. It's their business, it's not yours.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:what we have here is a disagreement between two largish schools of thought about what constitutes cheating, not an attempt to unilaterally redefine a word so as to support one's argument. Your assertion is much too bombastic.
Her assertion is far too broad to be correct. if two people go get married, have always been polyamorous, and continue to have an open relationship while married, they're 'cheating.' Strangely, I don't think you agree.
Of course, I'd like to see an actual argument in favor of that terminology, if I say that it is wrong and she disagrees. Perhaps she could back herself up! Perhaps something more than a Katharina-grade contemptuous dismissal. Maybe I expect too much!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Without getting into the worth/longevity of poly relationships, I would like to point out:
The wife who puts up with poly relationships to keep her husband has been mentioned several times. Let's not forget the husband who puts up with poly relationships to keep his wife.
My own anecdotal "evidence": I have known several poly groups. A few lasted -- are still lasting -- quite a few years, but not always with the same cast they started out with. More than a few crashed and burned heavily after a short period.
I'd say a poly relationship is possible, but much more difficult to maintain than the two-person marriage. Like, exponentially more difficult. Part of that would be, I think, the social stigma and necessary secrecy adding stress to an already unstable combination, but just the sheer amount of communication and juggling needed to balance 3 or more people's wants, needs and desires boggles the mind.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:what we have here is a disagreement between two largish schools of thought about what constitutes cheating, not an attempt to unilaterally redefine a word so as to support one's argument. Your assertion is much too bombastic.
Her assertion is far too broad to be correct. if two people go get married, have always been polyamorous, and continue to have an open relationship while married, they're 'cheating.' Strangely, I don't think you agree.
Indeed, I don't. But nonetheless it is a point where people might differ without one side being obviously in the wrong.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Sterling:But about the time someone says that marriage should no longer come with reasonable expectations of sexual fidelity and seeks to create a public legal and social framework around that reality, I think at a very minimum I have a right to raise objection.
First, same sex marriage isn't about adding infidelity to marriage any more than interracial marriage is about adding spicy food to marriage.
Second, it's still none of your damn business how faithful someone else's marriage is. It has absolutely zero to do with you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That's part of why the vows are important and "getting permission" isn't one of the options. The honorable options are either married and faithful or else divorced.
Katie, I'm curious why you'd assert that a couple who has married while fully intending to have sex with other people (with the acknowledgement and permission of their counterpart(s)) cannot be honorable. Or, rather, why you do not permit the possibility that one can be "faithful" to a spouse while not remaining sexually exclusive to that spouse.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: First, same sex marriage isn't about adding infidelity to marriage any more than interracial marriage is about adding spicy food to marriage.
Second, it's still none of your damn business how faithful someone else's marriage is. It has absolutely zero to do with you.
First, I never said that it inherently was- in fact I was quite clear that I support SSM. Second, that reply suggests to me that you are no longer actually listening.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I don't have any objection to polyamorous relationships.
However, anyone who says that monogamy is "unnatural" has clearly never heard of Anglerfish.
PS There are also less ridiculous examples of animals practicing monogamy, but they aren't nearly as funny.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Sterling: It isn't that I'm not listening, but that I can't figure out what your point is. You seem to be equating this infidelity argument with Savage's assertion that gay men are less interested in a faithful marriage, but I don't see where you make the jump from "Some gay men aren't faithful" to "seeking to create marriage that includes infidelity" and then to "I must stop other people from doing things in their marriage that I don't approve of."
I don't understand your thought process that leads you to believe that your situation is actually going on (strawman) or why you care what other people do when they're married (noneya bidness).
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
Dan, anglerfish aren't monogamous, they engage in polyandry(multiple male anglerfish can and have been noted to be attached to a single female at any given time). In fact, the vast majority of what we consider monogamous relationships in animals are at best only serial monogamy.
Your point, however, remains. There is, to my knowledge, no animal that exclusively practices monogamy. But there are cases of some animals that occasional engage in monogamy, for various reasons(inability to find mates is a common one why an animal would only have 1 mate). Monogamy is just as unnatural as polygamy, which is to say, not at all.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am dismissing the "long lasting, healthy open marriages formed as such from the beginning" because those are statistically insignificant. Nothing anyone has posted even whispered otherwise.
When I say that people who cheat are selfish and dishonorable, it's enough that it's true 99.9% of the time.
Of course, there will always be sad, deluded people who are convinced that THEIR situation is part of the .01% and their dishonest selfishness is totally cool.
It isn't complicated. It isn't like it is an enormously complex situation. It is a common, sad, horrible one that is the worst thing most people who do it will ever do. It is simply people valuing themselves above their spouse and their sex lives above their integrity.
[ August 07, 2010, 07:09 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Honestly, why are people focusing on the will-o-whisp here?
It has to be because "cheaters are selfish, dishonest, and dishonorable" is such an obvious statement there really is no discussion there. I also think people are irritated by strong, flat statements by me, in which case, *%R*&@(*#@)*. Get over it.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Lying and manipulation are almost always wrong.
If we have a hypothetical couple, and one of them has sex with another person, we do not have enough data to impugn the honor of any of the three involved.
I hear that you feel it's enough data to call the person having sex with someone a cheater. But the consensus of the others arguing with you is that the answer is, "It depends."
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
kat, do you consider swinger culture equally wrong?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: Lying and manipulation are almost always wrong.
If we have a hypothetical couple, and one of them has sex with another person, we do not have enough data to impugn the honor of any of the three involved.
I hear that you feel it's enough data to call the person having sex with someone a cheater. But the consensus of the others arguing with you is that the answer is, "It depends."
Right but the overwhelming (I'd say 96%+) number of married people having sex with people other than their partner are not doing it for reasons I think anybody considers moral.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:Right but the overwhelming (I'd say 96%+) number of married people having sex with people other than their partner are not doing it for reasons I think anybody considers moral.
I'd say that's because they fall under "lying" or "manipulation" which are closer to universally agreed moral rules.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
we're not talking about the liars and manipulators because everyone agrees those people are wrong and there's nothing to discuss.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It isn't complicated. It isn't like it is an enormously complex situation. It is a common, sad, horrible one that is the worst thing most people who do it will ever do. It is simply people valuing themselves above their spouse and their sex lives above their integrity.
Nothing is really 'complicated' when you've oversimplified people to fit squarely in moral preconceptions, and then refuse to challenge or address that.
Like, "It is simply people valuing themselves over their spouse" would certainly be a howler for many people actually in open marriages or otherwise not conforming to your (not cited and made up) statistics and claims of irrelevance, not least my own parents, who love and respect each other deeply.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: [QB]It has to be because "cheaters are selfish, dishonest, and dishonorable" is such an obvious statement there really is no discussion there.
Alternate (correct) answer: it's because the way that you are defining 'cheating' is wrong, and the fact that you are applying 'dishonesty and dishonor' to them categorically for opting to have sex with people outside of marriage is also wrong.
Your definitions are so hackneyed that it leaves one wondering if all threesomes are 'cheating.' Is four people in two marriages having sex only with their partner in the same room cheating? Or if it's not cheating is it cheating once anyone touches outside of the 'promised' bonds of marriage? When you remove elements of trust and informed consent from deciding whether someone is 'honest' and just say people are being 'dishonest' regardless of whether or not that's actually true, you end up with a bad, conflated definition that doesn't apply outside of the Unrevised Katharina Heritage Dictionary.
[ August 07, 2010, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It has to be because "cheaters are selfish, dishonest, and dishonorable" is such an obvious statement there really is no discussion there. I also think people are irritated by strong, flat statements by me, in which case, *%R*&@(*#@)*. Get over it.
It is an obvious statement, and there is no discussion there. The discussion lies in exactly who is the cheater, and how we will know it. We're none of us in a position to speak with half as much authority on the subject of who is and isn't a cheater, absent actual personal evidence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Honestly, why are people focusing on the will-o-whisp here?
It has to be because "cheaters are selfish, dishonest, and dishonorable" is such an obvious statement there really is no discussion there.
Sort of. The problem is not that you said "cheaters are selfish and dishonest."
The problem is that you called people who entered into polygamous relationships with the knowledge and approval of their partners "cheaters," even though this is not in fact "cheating." If you'd acknowledge that you misspoke, and that it is indeed possible for people to have polygamous relationships without "cheating," I'd imagine people would get off your back ASAP.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Raymond: The problem is that katharina seems to be saying:
(people who sleep with someone other than their spouse) == (selfish, dishonest, dishonorable)
It seems no one here would care to argue that the following is untrue: (people who sleep with someone other than their spouse)(through lying or manipulation) = (selfish, dishonest, dishonorable)
But many of us agree that there exists: (people who sleep with someone other than their spouse) != (through lying or manipulation)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think maybe Katharina just can't hear anyone else over the volume of how awesome she's being. She turned this thread up to eleven!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There are always people who are POSITIVE that THEIR breaking of vows and infidelity is totally justified. Even the scummy consider themselves heroes.
I'm not worried about people "on my back". Anyone so preoccupied with the wil-o-the-whisp and determined to talk about me instead of an actual interesting and relevant subject isn't worth worrying about.
You know who'd I'd be interested in hearing from? Someone who: 1. Has been married for ten years. 2. To the same person. 3. Who deliberately made it a marriage where from the beginning they slept with other people regularly - both of them. No "faithful only to you" in any shape or form in the vows. 4. While still sleeping with each other - love match only, business arrangements don't count. 5. Would do it again, as would their spouse.
Anyone?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
kath, no is arguing is there are plenty of people who breaking vows and are scummy. No is arguing there is any particularly sizeable percentage of people who attempt poly lifestyles honestly and successfully. But you're insisting, not merely that the people who do so are merely .01% of the population (a statistic you completely made up), but that those .01% of the population are STILL SOMEHOW CHEATING, even though both the male and female partners agreed to it, are both participating in it, in at least one case that I know of both blog extensively about how they go about it and why they think its a good idea.
If you stopped insisting that this (arbitrarily small) group of people don't exist at all, when several of us in this thread actively know one or more people who fit the description, we'd stop focusing on that "Will O' Wisp" and move on to something else.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nope. That's not what I said. Read it again.
Regardless, it's irrelevant. That's what statistically insignificant means. Not that it couldn't possibly exist, but that if it does, it happens so rarely that you don't have to worry about it.
What I AM saying is that if you vows are the traditional ones, which reference fidelity, or contain ANY sort of reference to fidelity in them, then breaking them with your spouse's permission is still breaking them, because they were made with more than your spouse involved. If you don't want anyone else involved at all, then don't get married. If you want to get married but still be free to cheat up a storm, then include that explicitly in your vows. If you didn't, then get divorced first, because otherwise you are breaking them.
As an addendum, dating while married is a rotten thing to do to the person you are dating as well as the person you are cheating on. If you respected her, then you'd be single before you ask her out.
And the reason I think a mistress has to have either low esteem or something wrong is because I don't think healthy people want to romantically be with someone who doesn't respect them.
Posted by Amberkitty (Member # 12365) on :
Heterosexual monogamous marriage has been so enforced as the acceptable model due to the Catholic Church (re: St. Paul), alternative relationship models have been devalued or established as ungodly, freakish, unhealthy, or sexist. Functional open marriages are underreported because of stigmatization. This must be taken into consideration when discussing statistics.
Also, it is incorrect to say that the small percentage for healthy open marriages is statistically insignificant. Simply put, that is not the way stats work or the way that term is used. False premise.
I get what you are saying about vows. But including extramarital sex in vows and then engaging in such does not constitute cheating. If what you are doing is in accordance to your vows, then you are not breaking your vows!
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:That's part of why the vows are important and "getting permission" isn't one of the options. The honorable options are either married and faithful or else divorced.
quote:If you want to get married but still be free to cheat up a storm, then include that explicitly in your vows. If you didn't, then get divorced first, because otherwise you are breaking them.
See, you keep making (even in a post where you claim you are not) statements like these. If you include an understanding that you can both have sex with other people in certain situations in your wedding vows, then having sex with other people in certain defined situations is not cheating. The definition of cheating is circumventing a rule. If that rule doesn't exist, you can't break it. We aren't arguing about the statistical relevance of a group of people. We're arguing that you've made statements that are simply not coherent.
I disagree with the notion that you should get divorced (and then remarry?) if you and your partner both agree to amend your vows after the fact, but I at least get where you're coming from there and I have no real counterargument other than "it seems silly to me."
My introduction to poly relationships was reading a blog by a guy who goes by the name "the Ferrett" (it's not just his screen name, it's what his friends and wife call him). I'm not sure whether he's been married a full 10 years but he's at least pretty close. I suspect they did not include a poly-specific wedding vows but I would wager that he, his wife, and the people they made the vows in front of are all okay with them having come to the understanding they have no after the fact.
He "came out of the closet" with regards to poly a few years ago and has since talked about it with some frequency. One main thing he emphasizes:
quote:Polyamory is one of those words that doesn’t quite work, like “Republican,” or “Love.” The problem with Polyamory is that, being one word, everything thinks there’s one definition… But really, “Polyamory” as it’s practiced in the real world is a thousand different concepts, bundled up in one loosely-related package.
It’d be like if we used the same word to describe bagels, biscuits, and Wonder Bread simply because they’re all bakery products made with wheat.
There's a lengthy post in which he discusses the rules of their arrangement, which I touched on earlier. The full post is here.
There's lots of very unhealthy ways to be poly. But I cannot for the life of me imagine that people following those rules would be statistically more likely to fail at their relationships than anyone else. (For that matter, a lot of monogamous people would do well to read on the extent to which he and his wife make an effort to respect each other).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: What I AM saying is that if you vows are the traditional ones, which reference fidelity, or contain ANY sort of reference to fidelity in them, then breaking them with your spouse's permission is still breaking them, because they were made with more than your spouse involved.
Fidelity in the context of marriage is conjugal faithfulness. You can be faithful to your spouse in the context of an open marriage. There's no rule that states otherwise.
Not that you've yet taken the effort to cite one when asked multiple times.
quote: If you want to get married but still be free to cheat up a storm, then include that explicitly in your vows. If you didn't, then get divorced first, because otherwise you are breaking them.
They don't have to, because vows don't say you aren't allowed to have sex with anyone else. Also, if we want to be hyper-literal in an attempt to defend your incorrect use of the word 'cheating,' then you can't just use 'get divorced' as an alternate option because you're not allowed to. You promised to stay married till death do you part.
Oh well!
quote:And the reason I think a mistress has to have either low esteem or something wrong is because I don't think healthy people want to romantically be with someone who doesn't respect them.
A mistress (defined here by the act of 'having sex with a married person,' whether or not that act of sex is allowed and open knowledge within that marriage, does not have to have low self esteem or 'something wrong with them' because it's not categorically impossible for an open marriage relationship to be sans respect for the third party, no matter if you assume so through amateur, reactive pseudopsychology.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
For anyone who is interested in learning more about a generally functional poly relationship, here's two posts from the Ferrett's wife that are also pretty good:
The latter is a "advice for poly relationships" post which is really an "advice for relationships, period" post.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The problem is that you called people who entered into polygamous relationships with the knowledge and approval of their partners "cheaters," even though this is not in fact "cheating." If you'd acknowledge that you misspoke, and that it is indeed possible for people to have polygamous relationships without "cheating," I'd imagine people would get off your back ASAP.
The disagreement, I think, stems from everyone's view of marriage.
If you're of the opinion that marriages are personal, private things, and that the couple makes the marriage what it is, then poly-amorous relationships are not a problem, provided there's respect, consent, etc.
But if you think of marriage as a sacred institution, something akin to entering a monastery or mosque, it changes your view. For instance, while entering the Alabaster Mosque in Cairo, we were required to remove our shoes, and all women had to wear coverings if their clothing showed more than the forearm and ankles. If you didn't want to follow those rules, that's fine. But you could not enter the mosque.
Marriage, for those who feel this way, is no different. If you want the privilege of entering into it, you must follow the rules and traditions. So a poly-amorous marriage would be considered a sham.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Marriage, as an institution, does not mandate monogamy. You could add a qualifier that "An open CATHOLIC marriage is cheating" or "An open MORMON marriage is cheating" since we're all acknowledging rules put in place by specific sects and cults and denominations and all that.
In marriage itself, it's not an automatic disqualifier that renders any open sex 'cheating,' nor, in the case of Katharina's psychological argument, does it automatically make someone low-morals, inconsiderate scum or assure that people having sex with the married person/persons necessarily has low self-esteem. This is where the disagreement comes from, is that Katharina is making stuff up from out of her own personal moral disgust and refuses to admit she is using inapplicable language and making incorrect absolutes.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Gets back to the whole "red family, blue family" thing.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
FoolishTook, you explained it perfectly. I think the government should administer civil unions with the legal benefits that marriage currently has, and marriages should be religious and/or personal contracts that individual couples create for themselves. It would simplify things. Couples would have to actually talk about their expectations for their relationships explicitly, and marriage contracts could be scrapped and rewritten without having to go through a complicated legal process.
[ August 07, 2010, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: sinflower ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Marriage, as an institution, does not mandate monogamy. You could add a qualifier that "An open CATHOLIC marriage is cheating" or "An open MORMON marriage is cheating" since we're all acknowledging rules put in place by specific sects and cults and denominations and all that.
In marriage itself, it's not an automatic disqualifier that renders any open sex 'cheating,' nor, in the case of Katharina's psychological argument, does it automatically make someone low-morals, inconsiderate scum or assure that people having sex with the married person/persons necessarily has low self-esteem. This is where the disagreement comes from, is that Katharina is making stuff up from out of her own personal moral disgust and refuses to admit she is using inapplicable language and making incorrect absolutes.
In around half of US states adultery is both illegal and grounds for divorce. So a pretty strong argument could be made that monogamy is a part of secular marriage contracts in those states. Now whether it's "cheating" if you sign a marriage certificate in such a state while agreeing beforehand that you're going to have an open relationship I don't know, "cheating" not being a technical term. I tend to think it would be better for such a couple to come up with their own contract than to sign, in front of witnesses and a judge, one that they have no intention of abiding by.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I tend to think it would be better for such a couple to come up with their own contract than to sign, in front of witnesses and a judge, one that they have no intention of abiding by. "
I tend to think it would be better if the marriage contract didn't exclude people because of a lifestyle they've agreed to.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Then lobby for a change in the law.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I rather think the change in the law will come, but I also think that its more than a little unjust to ask people to wait to access a civil right until the majority of people are comfortable with their sexual practices.
Huh. Sounds familiar, actually...
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The difference is that the SSM lawsuits are seeking access to a form of contract that already exists and is offered to others, with all the rights and responsibilities that it entails. Not to change the form of the contract.
I have no problem with consenting adults entering into whatever arrangements they mutually agree on. I do have a problem with "fingers crossed" agreements. I think important arrangements supposedly based on honesty shouldn't be entered into with a lie, even if it's to a judge and not to the other party. It's pretty much the same as what I tell people who want to be married in church to please their parents (or for the pretty setting) even though they don't believe in God. If the marriage vows are important to you find a way to make them without telling a lie.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The difference is that the SSM lawsuits are seeking access to a form of contract that already exists and is offered to others, with all the rights and responsibilities that it entails. Not to change the form of the contract. "
Except, the argument that the anti-SSMers are saying that it DOES change the form of the contract. So how would polyamory change the form of the contract if a fundamental way, while same sex marriage would not? I feel like any answer here is going to get into the same form of argument that exists around SSM...religious mores and squick factor.
" I do have a problem with "fingers crossed" agreements."
I don't when, if you don't cross your fingers, you are denied access to a legal institution that is recognized as a fundamental civil right.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually am more concerned with poly-marriage getting legalized than same-sex marriage. (that is, I am not at all concerned about same-sex marriage but I am concerned about poly). Not because I am against poly relationships, but because there's a lot of different types of poly relationships, and every single one of them changes the dynamics of state law in a way that is not merely semantic. Poly relationships are (or can be) large, sprawling interconnected things, and the considerations of who gets what tax breaks and who gets visitation rights when a person is sick and can only have so many visitors and who gets child custody in the event of a divorce - these are not insurmountable obstacles, but they are real issues that cannot be addressed simply by substitution the word "man" for "woman" or vice versa.
In this area, statistical significance IS, well, significant. The effort involved to craft legislation for poly relationship is enough to warrant a noticeable percentage of functioning, healthy poly relationships. We may already have that percentage (the arbitrary one I'm going to make up now is maybe 5% in a given state), but more actual research needs to be done to determine what types of poly relationships warrant support from the government.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Yeah, I'm thinking of open marriages more than multiple marriages.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Except, the argument that the anti-SSMers are saying that it DOES change the form of the contract.
They are saying that, but the courts seem to be pretty consistently ruling that they are wrong.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I guess I haven't heard a huge outcry (even among poly people I know/read about) over the lack of official support for open marriages. Generally if you want an open marriage I think you can do it. There's some social stigma, but thats not something that goes away in the face of government endorsement. And if your partner ends up wanting a divorce, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference whether your vows officially banned whatever action you took. Staying together due to a technicality isn't exactly going to be a great option either.
Posted by Amberkitty (Member # 12365) on :
Nitpick: Statistical significance refers to the likelihood whether a phenomenon (or a set of phenomena) could have occurred by chance.
Please PLEASE do not misuse this term. It does have a VERY specific meaning. I understand the concern over whether the percentage of marriages using a non-monogamous framework is significant enough to warrant legal attention and/or social concern. But the phrasing is not to say that the percentage is statistically significant but that the percentage is practically significant.
Anyway, there have been changes that allow people to define who is granted privileges to their lives, such as visitation rights and medical decisions. If people are granted further power to define who is allowed access to very personal information and decisions, it may render some marriage privileges obsolete.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Fair enough.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Amberkitty: I dearly hope the situation you describe in your last paragraph comes to pass. The current system is too inflexible by far.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
This is kinda off-topic now, but I wanted to thank you for the link. I really enjoyed the article.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Sterling: It isn't that I'm not listening, but that I can't figure out what your point is. You seem to be equating this infidelity argument with Savage's assertion that gay men are less interested in a faithful marriage, but I don't see where you make the jump from "Some gay men aren't faithful" to "seeking to create marriage that includes infidelity" and then to "I must stop other people from doing things in their marriage that I don't approve of."
I don't understand your thought process that leads you to believe that your situation is actually going on (strawman) or why you care what other people do when they're married (noneya bidness).
I don't believe that the situation is going on at present; in fact, I don't even know that Savage's assessment of the potential (or lack thereof) for fidelity in gay men is particularly accurate. Arguably, the push by gay men for the right to enter marriage- which is, at present, an institution that carries with it an expectation of sexual fidelity- could easily be taken as a sign to the contrary.
But I do find the possibility of several million people getting married all at once who do not believe that monogamy has value in a sexual relationship to have an significant possibility to change the institution of marriage and the perception thereof- and not necessarily in a positive manner.
What occurs in private between consenting adults is indeed, I would agree, none of my business, whether it's a sexual relationship between three partners or a ceremony in which said partners profess that they mutually agree to enter into such.
When people ask that such a relationship be recognized by law and society as identical to a monogamous relationship, it seems reasonable to ask, "Is it?" Especially when there's a possibility that such a recognition might cause some people to believe that the various problems, stresses, and issues of one are substantially similar to the other, to their detriment.
I can support SSM with a clear conscience in part because I have no qualms about a public policy that says that marriage as it presently exists is a beneficial and useful instituion and so of course one should be able to engage in same whether one wishes to marry someone of the same or the opposite sex. My (quite admittedly!) limited experiences with polyamorous relationships have not led me to a similar conclusion about their potential as an institution. This is not to say that there are not or cannot be useful and beneficial polyamorous relationships, only that my observance has seen a lot of harm and hurt as a result of the attempt even without matters of children, property, inheritance, end-of-life care and the like coming into the picture.
I recognize that at present a significant number of marriages end in divorce. But I find it hard to believe that those numbers would improve if law and society were suddenly to say, unequivocaly, that marriage vows no longer entail the assumption of sexual fidelity. Of course couples can choose to remain monogamous despite a change of expectations. But is harm likely to be done to marriages as a result, and are the contrasting tangible benefits worth it?
In short, it's all well and good to say that marriage, and what occurs within it, is a private matter. And in many aspects, this is true. But not all. When law and societal expectation of what the contract entails change, those issues are decidedly not private matters.
My qualms do not take the form of opposition to SSM; they just recognize that maybe, possibly, they herald that this issue may come up on another day... And, somewhat uncomfortably, that I might find myself on the other side of it.
Further, I'm not unwilling to consider the possibility that this issue can be worked out, that the parallel existance of polyamorous marriages could occur without substantial harm to existing marriages, or that a framework could be created under which it was tangibly evident that polyamorous marriage was a net benefit.
But my experiences leave me singularly unwilling to accept that as a given on faith, and being told it's none of my business doesn't particularly help.
Posted by Amberkitty (Member # 12365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: But I do find the possibility of several million people getting married all at once who do not believe that monogamy has value in a sexual relationship to have an significant possibility to change the institution of marriage and the perception thereof- and not necessarily in a positive manner.
I understand your doubt, but I am not clear as to your reasoning other than "I have seen it fail often". Can you elaborate further? How would introducing sexual non-monogamy in the institution of marriage ruin marriage?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"They are saying that, but the courts seem to be pretty consistently ruling that they are wrong. "
And? Do you have any doubt that 30 years ago the courts would not have ruled in a different fashion?
Its easier to find historical examples of polyamorous marriages than it is to find historical examples of gay marriage. On those grounds, I think its hard to argue that same sex marriage doesn't change the form of marriage, but polyamorous marriage does.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Same sex marriage does not change the way the law relates to opposite sex marriage. Removing the legal presumption of monogamy does change the way the law relates to monogomous marriage.
For instance, someone who was cheated on in a theorectically monogamous marriage would no longer be a legally wronged party. It would no longer be grounds for a divorce in states that haven't moved entirely to no-fault divorce. You can argue that those are positive changes, if you think they are, but they are definitely changes to the legal status of current marriages. I have yet to see any example of how allowing same-sex marriage affects current opposite sex marriage in any way.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Sterling: I guess what is tripping me up most is what makes you believe that a large population of gay men want to somehow institutionalize open marriages. I am unaware that shuch a movement exists.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Especially considering there's no pressing NEED to institutionalize open marriages. You just, you know, have one. Nobody's going to stop you. If it came down to (another) court challenge, where someone was actually bizarrely being prosecuted for being 'adulterous' despite consent and approval of both parties within the marriage, it would go to court, and any such technical prohibition against open marriage would be struck down resoundingly.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: ... But somewhere amidst Lust ("swinging" marriages) and Pride (Gay Pride) he rather casually claims that gay men simply don't tend to be monogamous, and that it's not realistic to expect them to be.
Something interesting, somewhat related to the original post. Lesbian marriage more monogamous than straight marriages more monogamous than gay male marriages?
quote:Of course, actual real life-long monogamy is relatively rare, especially if you take into account pre-marital sex. And therefore, the ideals of monogamy and hypocrisy are deeply entwined. But the social conservative will be fine with some measure of hypocrisy as a concession to human nature as long as the norm is enforced. I know of no more sophisticated treatment of this than Jon Rauch's here and most acutely here.
Will marriage that encompasses gays and lesbians undermine this?
The first thing to say is that lesbians seem to be far more eager to marry than gay men. Duh. It's not because they're lesbians, it's because they're women. It follows, however, that lesbian couples are likely to be more monogamous than most straight couples as well as more numerous than gay males ones. So adding lesbians to the mix actually reinforces monogamy as an ideal and feminizes marriage in ways that Ross would presumably favor.
Gay men? I think it's fair to say that the fact that they are men makes monogamy less likely than even straight marriages. If Eliot Spitzer had married another Eliot Spitzer, he may have had more sex on the downlow and spent a lot less money on hookers. Male-male marriages that survive are likelier to have some kind of informal level of permission and forgiveness and defensible hypocrisy on this score than most male-female marriages or female-female marriages, especially if the men marry young. I think the honesty within these relationships can actually be a good thing and can help sustain a life-long commitment rather than weaken it.
(Not that I consider it much of an "argument" either way. More of a follow-up on the subject of probability of monogamy)
[ August 13, 2010, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I guess I haven't heard a huge outcry (even among poly people I know/read about) over the lack of official support for open marriages.
Ah but why would there be an outcry? If the Supreme Court rules in favor of SSM (Which I believe to be unlikely) then it becomes that much easier for practicers of other types of non traditional marriages to get the same privilege . Let someone else jump over the toughest hurdles.
I work with a man that lives in an open marriage. He is married and loves his wife, but they are both swingers. When they do swing they always do so while the other is present and approves. For them it works. I don't agree with the lifestyle but it seems to work for them. He has told me "There is more to marriage than just sex."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:He has told me "There is more to marriage than just sex."
That's one of the things that I really don't like about defining "faithfulness" in the context of marriage as being solely or primarily about not having sex with other people.
To me, the point of the faithfulness is that your goal is now to make that person and the family you create together the center of your life, that you are going to try to always be someone that they can trust and rely on. If that's something that you can achieve while having sex with other people, then I don't see a problem with it.
I'm not going to have sex with someone other than my wife, just like I'm not going to abuse her or demean her to others or cultivate non-sexual intimate relationships with others that would lead me to neglect her. And the primary reason for that isn't that I promised not to do any of those specifically, but because they violate the overriding vow of faithfulness that I took (actually, I'm really not going to do them because they would hurt her and I love her and take my marriage very seriously - if I needed the vow not to do them, I shouldn't have gotten married in the first place).
The focus on marriage as a vehicle for socially sanctioned sex is often a distraction from what I see as the really positive things in a good marriage that really should be the focus.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I still think that everyone's take on this question:
quote:Marriage, as an institution, does not mandate monogamy.
is at the heart of the issue. I have two specific responses to some of the presumptions behind the arguments here:
Claiming that the Catholic Church is responsible for creating our current view of marriage is rather Eurocentric. I suppose that's understandable in a discussion populated mainly by Americans, but keep in mind that the Catholic Church has had absolutely nothing to do with the concept of monogamous marriage as practiced in, say, China, India, or Africa, where large swaths of humanity live and have, for thousands of years, considered monogamy to be the norm and sexual fidelity to be inherent in marriage. Even more strictly so than many Christian civilizations.
Secondly - what Katharina is trying to say about the Will-o-the-Wisp and "statistically insignificant numbers" is that we're drawing assumptions about human behavior from fringe examples. This is a prevalent trend in the postmodern approach to the world: to focalize the marginal. But it does us a great disservice when we're trying to get a broad view of human nature.
Finding out that something exists in the world is not enough to prove that it is a common human experience. Some have tried to find out what's truly universal by discounting anything that is contradicted in one human society by another - the oft-quoted idea that the only universal taboo is incest is one of these attempts. But attempts like this allow a very small phenomenon to mask the huge presence of a more common phenomenon. Is it part of human nature to kill your enemies and eat their brains? If you allow yourself a broad scope that generalizes across cultures without getting bogged down in variations among small numbers of people, you're going to say "of course not; that is anti-social behavior." But if you follow the same train of logic of the "universal taboo" people you'd say "Well, yes, it exists in the Highlands of New Guinea. It must be a natural human behavior."
"It exists" does not mean "it is a favorable behavior." The natural world is full of maladaptive behaviors. They might survive in little lingering eddies for a while but guess what ultimately happens to them?
Is sexual fidelity an inherent assumption of marriage?
Answer 1: Anecdotes A, B, C, and on down to R say no: Just read wikipedia entries on all your favorite artists. They totally cheated on their wives. Prostitution is the oldest profession. Because things exist they're legitimate.
Answer 2: Looking at the majority of human cultures, present and past, that base society around monogamous couples and possess stigmas, laws, and penalties against adultery, we'll have to say yes. If it's all about personal preference, then there's no reason that humans from such disparate cultures should, in such large numbers, be displaying similar behavior.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: has had absolutely nothing to do with the concept of monogamous marriage as practiced in, say, China, India, or Africa, where large swaths of humanity live and have, for thousands of years, considered monogamy to be the norm and sexual fidelity to be inherent in marriage. Even more strictly so than many Christian civilizations.
That might be more impressive if you didn't just make it up in contravention to actual facts.
edit: Multiple wives and concubines were an accepted and historically significant part of Indian and Chinese marriage customs. And Africa is a big place, but various parts of it have historically practiced various forms of polygamy.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Are you telling me that the Catholic Church has defined marriage norms in China? Is that an acutal fact?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, I'm saying that you've made up the idea that China, India, and Africa have considered monogamy the norm for thousands of years and that this has no foundation in things that actually happened.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
OK, I see your edit and understand what you meant.
I shouldn't have said monogamous marriage in that sentence, I should have said an expectation of sexual fidelity. I was thinking one thing and typing another.
I'm very aware of the history of polygyny, but the expectation of sexual fidelity was a very big part of social codes in all of those places.
I should point out, however, that polygamy, where practiced, has always been a privilege of a wealthy or otherwise privileged class. The majority of the population has had to stick to monogamous marriage because, frankly, the math doesn't work out well when you don't.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I notice that even the people who want to say that sexual activities with people other than your spouse is totally okay are very quick to note that THEY are faithful and THEIR WIVES never have to worry and OF COURSE they'd never have sex with someone else. That they practive sexual fidelity.
In the midst of denying that the expectation of fidelity should exist, they are quick to note that they follow it.
To me, that's more telling than anything else. "This behavior is totally okay, but of course I would NEVER do it. I actually love my wife."
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I notice that even the people who want to say that sexual activities with people other than your spouse is totally okay are very quick to note that THEY are faithful and THEIR WIVES never have to worry and OF COURSE they'd never have sex with someone else. That they practive sexual fidelity.
In the midst of denying that the expectation of fidelity should exist, they are quick to note that they follow it.
To me, that's more telling than anything else. "This behavior is totally okay, but of course I would NEVER do it. I actually love my wife."
It's like the people who argue that pornography is totally harmless because they use it responsibly and their spouse likes it too.
But I'm guessing nobody wants me to open that can of worms up in here.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's worse than that, even. It's the people who are, literally, claiming behaviors are totally fine and shouldn't be considered destructive that they quick to deny they would ever do, because such behavior would destroy their relationship and they are better than that.
"Go ahead, shoot up. Heroin won't hurt you."
[ August 13, 2010, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: I'm very aware of the history of polygyny, but the expectation of sexual fidelity was a very big part of social codes in all of those places.
But wouldn't that have just been an expectation of sexual fidelity on the part of the woman? The man could be having sex with as many wives or concubines as he could afford. And no permission from those women was required.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
This is true. Their concept of marriage contained double standards for the men and women involved. Heaven knows I wouldn't trade places with O Lan from The Good Earth for anything you could offer.
And yet that was still a very small minority of the men in those countries. Poor and lower-class men who couldn't afford additional wives were expected to remain faithful to the one they had.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Did either of you look at the links I provided earlier to the in depth discussion by practicing poly-amor-ists about how and why they consider their relationships healthy?
For me, the question of whether something is "natural" is irrelevant (for reasons Annie just described). The question is, is a given behavior helpful or harmful?
For poly, the obvious answer to me is "helpful to specific people when done in specific ways." People who are already in happy, committed monogamous marriages obviously have no particular use for poly, whether done "healthily" or not.
The actual questions I assume we're dealing with here are:
1. Should society as a whole go out of its way to shun/discredit poly relationships, period? 2. Should society make any effort to recognize poly relationships in an official, marriage-like capacity? 3. Should individual people who want to pursue a poly relationship do so?
I think the answer to #1 is that "poly" is a such a varied, complex thing that reflexively shunning it is silly. I do think the "spouse who puts up with a "poly" relationship because they don't have the will/means to leave their partner" is of course unhealthy and should be discouraged for the sake of discouraging unhealthy paradigms. But that is such a completely different animal from "honest agreement between two or more adults who all consider sexual fidelity largely irrelevant to the strength of their relationship" that the two shouldn't be remotely compared. Unhealthy relationship frameworks should be discouraged. Things that happen to have the same name as an unhealthy framework but are otherwise perfectly workable should not be.
#2, my answer is "not yet" because there's no single version of poly that is widespread enough to really warrant specific laws addressing it.
For #3, my answer is "so long as it actually makes sense for those people," and nobody is qualified to judge that other than the people in question and their closest friends.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, that's not the issue, because what you are talking about is much too narrow a subset of everything encompassed by extramarital sex.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Which isn't which issue?
(Edit: assuming you're replying to me in the first place, my most recent posts's point was to break up the myriad issues into their component parts so we weren't conflating different things.)
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I've read quite a bit recently on polyamory. I'm not convinced that a minority of people succeeding in sustaining relationships and claiming that they're happy means anything. I read a particularly disturbing article this morning. I say disturbing because it brings a child into the issue.
quote: 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.
So he admits that stability is important for children while describing his utterly UNstable love life. And admits lying to his son because "that's what he needed to hear."
The article freely admits that polyamory hasn't been studied long enough to ascertain long-term effects on children. I, for one, hope that we can learn from the research done on children in other similar unstable life situations such as divorce, and extrapolate that to realize that children are not going to be healthy if the adults in their lives are performing social sexual experiments on their home environments.
I don't care how happy or fulfilled you and your consenting friends claim to be. When you're normalizing a social behavior that's harmful to children and publicizing it, thus influencing even more people to try it out, that is something that is no longer confined behind closed doors and I have the right to say something about it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:So he admits that stability is important for children while describing his utterly UNstable love life. And admits lying to his son because "that's what he needed to hear."
The article freely admits that polyamory hasn't been studied long enough to ascertain long-term effects on children. I, for one, hope that we can learn from the research done on children in other similar unstable life situations such as divorce, and extrapolate that to realize that children are not going to be healthy if the adults in their lives are performing social sexual experiments on their home environments.
I don't care how happy or fulfilled you and your consenting friends claim to be. When you're normalizing a social behavior that's harmful to children and publicizing it, thus influencing even more people to try it out, that is something that is no longer confined behind closed doors and I have the right to say something about it.
I think this is a valid point. I don't have time to really discuss it in detail right now, but the bottom line is that more research needs to be done (or I need to be better educated on it) before I can develop an informed opinion.
I do think there it's (in general) possible for adults to do things that kids can't or shouldn't have to understand.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ... But wouldn't that have just been an expectation of sexual fidelity on the part of the woman? The man could be having sex with as many wives or concubines as he could afford. And no permission from those women was required.
Yep. I think fidelity as defined as "be faithful unless you can responsibly afford second wifes, concubines, or courtesans" is a fairly different concept from the monogamous sort of fidelity that is being discussed by social conservatives here. (Toss in the expectation that love and reproduction were somewhat independent)
If you add in the fact that it took the Communists to finally stamp out polygamy (and foot-binding), aided by the Republicans (encouraged by missionaries), in a "non-partisan" sense as we might call it today, the whole Chinese example I think becomes a bit orthogonal to the debate about same-sex marriage in the West.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
While I pray my wife never cheats on me, I have already given her permission to sleep with any of the following with my blessing:
1) Chuck Norris (Its Chuck Norris..Who could turn him down?)
2) Gerard Butler (Pretty sure I'd actually go gay for him)
3) Michael Balak, Close, Muller, or any other member of Germany's World Cup team (I want me a soccer player child.)
4) Josh Duhamel
Likewise, I have permission from her to sleep with the following:
1) Scarlett Johansson 2) Jessica Alba 3) Ashley Greene
Since none of those really have the possibility of ever happening, I think I'm pretty safe. Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Sterling: I guess what is tripping me up most is what makes you believe that a large population of gay men want to somehow institutionalize open marriages. I am unaware that shuch a movement exists.
What he's saying, at least as I understand it, is that it is his business when someone tries to change how marriages are handled legally.
Nothing to do specifically with Savage or SSM.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I personally could not maintain a poly-amorous relationship, I'd get way too jealous.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I could.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Sexual fidelty for women is pretty common expectation- mostly I would think because you want to know who the daddy is. For poor men, I would think the issue would be that some poor loser took away the potential value of the girl and possibly impregnated her, without being able to support baby. If a man had enough money, the cheating was acceptable (though I think in many places even without supporting babies, it was still fine for the man to cheat). It wasn't a moral fortitude question, or a love/respect wife issue. Until recently, the whose the baby question hasn't been resolvable. Now, with DNA testing and birth control, both these issues are ressolved, so, it isn't surprising to see some changes in society.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Also, wasn't gay sex in China all good, provided you were still making babies with your wife? Like as long as it was just good fun, go for it? It only was a negative if your desire for men interfered with your ability to get your wife pregnant and make heirs.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: What he's saying, at least as I understand it, is that it is his business when someone tries to change how marriages are handled legally.
Nothing to do specifically with Savage or SSM.
My point is that nobody is trying to make marriage legally allow cheating or multiple partners.
I'd sure hate it if people tried to make marriage about kicking puppies, but that isn't happening, so it's pretty silly to argue about it, especially somehow elbowing it into the same-sex marriage debate.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Also, wasn't gay sex in China all good, provided you were still making babies with your wife? Like as long as it was just good fun, go for it? It only was a negative if your desire for men interfered with your ability to get your wife pregnant and make heirs.
Mostly. Here's a good summary:
quote:Mr. Palmer feels the same and he wrote a bit about homosexuality’s (especially male homosexuality) place in Chinese culture and history, something him and I both seem to have an interest in. He brings up the eminent Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci (1552-1610), a man more fascinating and game-changing than Marco Polo ever was, who, in his quest to convert the Chinese masses, looked the other way when it came to ancestor worship but could never understand the Chinese people’s acceptance of homosexuality. He wrote of homosexuality: “It is spoken of in public and practised everywhere without there being anyone to prevent it.”
European societies, as Mr. Palmer points out, were cultures where homosexuality was, “condemned by religion, law and custom, and vicious punishments, even including death, were handed down to gay men.” In contrast, China had long viewed homosexuality not in such black and white terms. Many Chinese Emperors were bisexual (all but one in the Han dynasty), male concubines were allowed and often common among the wealthy, and male poets would write romantic lines about their same sex lovers. While ancient China was never a homosexual paradise, it was also not the judgmental nightmare than Christian Europe used to be.
It was only with the Self-Strengthening Movement, the fall of the Qing dynasty, and the adoption of Western political and cultural ideas that allowed Western ideas towards homosexuality to become the norm in China. Mr. Palmer points out that during Mao’s reign homosexuality was considered a “Western bourgeois vice,” a line of thinking that some still believe today. Go figure, the ancient country with a long history of open homosexuality calls homosexuality a Western trend.
[ August 13, 2010, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: The article freely admits that polyamory hasn't been studied long enough to ascertain long-term effects on children. I, for one, hope that we can learn from the research done on children in other similar unstable life situations such as divorce, and extrapolate that to realize that children are not going to be healthy if the adults in their lives are performing social sexual experiments on their home environments.
I don't care how happy or fulfilled you and your consenting friends claim to be. When you're normalizing a social behavior that's harmful to children and publicizing it, thus influencing even more people to try it out, that is something that is no longer confined behind closed doors and I have the right to say something about it.
In this, you bounced through three quantum states on whether or not polyamory is necessarily inherently harmful to children.
1. We don't know the long term effects of polyamory on children
to
2. I hope we can prove that polyamory is harmful to children
to
3. It is harmful to children
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No. That is a poor, innacurate summary.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Samprimary,
Katharina is right. You forgot:
"I don't care if you are happy or not," and "I get to judge you."
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
It seems to me the guy in the story didn't have to lie to his kids. I mean, when I asked my mom who she loved best with different variations (my brother or me, my sister or my brother, etc), she managed to answer without stating a preference. Divorced parents remarry and navigate the do you love mommy conversation as well, without lying. So, this story seems more a father who made a mistake, not an indictment of polyamory.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: While I pray my wife never cheats on me, I have already given her permission to sleep with any of the following with my blessing:
1) Chuck Norris (Its Chuck Norris..Who could turn him down?)
2) Gerard Butler (Pretty sure I'd actually go gay for him)
3) Michael Balak, Close, Muller, or any other member of Germany's World Cup team (I want me a soccer player child.)
4) Josh Duhamel
Likewise, I have permission from her to sleep with the following:
1) Scarlett Johansson 2) Jessica Alba 3) Ashley Greene
Since none of those really have the possibility of ever happening, I think I'm pretty safe.
Dude, you've given her the entire national German football team. While the possibility of her ever coming across any of them is slight, she definitely has a better chance than you do of getting something on the side.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Don't ever try to quote me, kmboots. I want nothing to do with your brand of "discussion".
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:So, this story seems more a father who made a mistake, not an indictment of polyamory.
The poor kid needing to ask the question is an indictment of polyamory.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
So when I asked my mom if she loved my brother or my sister best, that was an indictment against having more than one child?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Don't ever try to quote me, kmboots. I want nothing to do with your brand of "discussion".
As opposed to your brand of 'discussion', in which things that seem uncertain or even controversial to many are supposedly self-evident, and disputing that is met with chilly hostility?
Well, I know which kind of 'discussion' I prefer, katharina. It's pretty unpleasant how often hostility seems to be your default position these days.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I hope that if people wish to discuss individual poster nuance that they will take it to email with those respective posters.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Kat, you are free to discuss with me or not as you please. Within the bounds of the TOS, I am free to post as I please.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: So when I asked my mom if she loved my brother or my sister best, that was an indictment against having more than one child?
There is a difference between competition between siblings in a family and the insecurity caused by parents that have competing loyalties outside the family.
Unless you're trying to claim that all those adults have committed themselves to be that kid's parents. I don't believe it - there was no indication of such in the article. The father's admission to lying means he knows that the truth would be damaging. The kid knows it, too - kids aren't stupid. They can most certainly tell when things are unstable. So on top of being unstable, the father's now a liar.
And you know there is a major difference. How could you possibly be confused?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There is a difference between competition between siblings in a family and the insecurity caused by parents that have competing loyalties outside the family.
You're begging the question again when you apply this statement to all cases of polyamory.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You have fundamentally misunderstood what I said, probably deliberately. I won't address your confusion until your comments are relevant.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm going to quote myself:
quote:To me, the point of the faithfulness is that your goal is now to make that person and the family you create together the center of your life, that you are going to try to always be someone that they can trust and rely on. If that's something that you can achieve while having sex with other people, then I don't see a problem with it.
It seems to me that kat and Annie are arguing their conclusion. What I'm taking away is that they have a problem with polyamory per se and are frustrated that other people do not.
To make any headway, I think you'd need to show how it intrinsically does bad things like violate what I said above.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No. That is a poor, innacurate summary.
You are welcome to challenge it with a response of substance, if you wish, because this will only count as a further general invalidation of tone by people who might disagree with me.
So, if you opt to stick with the one-liner, then ... thanks! I appreciate the help in furthering the cause of acceptance, grudging or otherwise, with my analyses.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*shrug* I've already made my opinion of your arguments clear.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But you have not made your reasons clear. You just noted on Facebook that simply saying something's stupid won't win your admiration. Do you not seek to behave in ways that you would, yourself, admire?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also it would be super nice if when you don't present clear reasoning, don't jump to saying that you are probably being 'deliberately misunderstood' by people who are actually still in good faith trying to get answers and clarifications/assertions/proof of concept from you.
Hell freezing over not required.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Dude, you've given her the entire national German football team. While the possibility of her ever coming across any of them is slight, she definitely has a better chance than you do of getting something on the side.
I'm fine with that. If she does I told her she better get pregnant. I want a soccer player in my family. If he looks like Muller or Balak, I'm cool with that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
When someone says something interesting or relevant, I'll respond.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: When someone says something interesting or relevant, I'll respond.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't consider your own behavior and standards to be relevant to any discussion, especially when they turn into double standards, but, oh well!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:When someone says something interesting or relevant, I'll respond.
This is a response, as far as I can tell. Is there a reason you don't consider it one?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Talk about the thing. Don't talk about the talk about the thing.
I'm really not that fascinating. Quit focusing on me, and go back to saying how absolutely fabulous it is for kids to be surrounded by adults that lie to them and can't be counted on, and how relationships don't have to be sexually exclusive to be good, even though YOUR relationship is definitely sexually exclusive because you respect your spouse.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
As soon as you stop saying blatantly provocative things that suggest extreme doublestandards in how other people talk vs how you talk, people will stop focusing on how you communicate and how hypocritical it is.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm really not that fascinating. Quit focusing on me,
You as an individual are completely interchangeable. We're focusing on 'you' only insofar as the arguments and the tone and the statements you have made — the position you are taking in sum! — are filled with holes you refuse to clarify and you become more bitter and defensive when people point out to you ways in which they find it to be clearly wrong.
For instance, this post is a perfect example of you biting back with a wholly useless mistranslation of a counterargument presented to you. A defensive mechanism that leaves you basically saying to everyone else here that you're not really interested in confronting other people's arguments, but would instead like to invent them FOR them so that you can continue to refuse to budge from an originally erroneous stance.
Then, you go through a pattern of having an ever larger percentage of your posts being "I am responding to say I refuse to respond, take that."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:how relationships don't have to be sexually exclusive to be good, even though YOUR relationship is definitely sexually exclusive because you respect your spouse
My relationship is sexually exclusive not merely because I respect my spouse, but because my spouse would like our relationship to be sexually exclusive and I respect my spouse. I have had, in the past, relationships which were not sexually exclusive and yet which I feel were conducted with respect.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So nothing to say about the topic? Can only focus on me? Take it off the boards. You're being boring.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Several people made it clear earlier that they agree with you on the one element of the topic that you seem eager to discuss (the fact that people who use poly as an excuse to be jerks are, in fact, jerks). So no, there is nothing to say on that topic. If that is all you are interested in discussing than the conversation is indeed over.
Things that (I, at least) still consider worth discussing that I can recall off the top of my head from the past few pages:
1) what the actual statistics are regarding various types of poly relationships and their successs
2) how society should respond to poly relationships, both as a whole and individually
3) various ways poly relationships might or might not be executed healthily (these relationships are NOT including people who claim the "poly" label solely as an excuse to be jerks or because they have no self esteem. Whether or not they are successful overall, these people absolutely exist).
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Why do people still respond to Katharina? She is not interested in arguing.
If she is wrong at the beginning of a thread, that's it. Its over. Trying to correct her just picks a fight with her.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:how relationships don't have to be sexually exclusive to be good, even though YOUR relationship is definitely sexually exclusive because you respect your spouse
My relationship is sexually exclusive not merely because I respect my spouse, but because my spouse would like our relationship to be sexually exclusive and I respect my spouse. I have had, in the past, relationships which were not sexually exclusive and yet which I feel were conducted with respect.
There are a great number of ways to construct a marriage that I would not do myself but don't see a problem with if they work for other people.
For example, I'd never want to be in a relationship where the primary expected role of the woman is take care of the home and kids. It's quite possible that when I have kids, I will be the primary care giver for at least some of their lives. But I'm certainly not going to assume that this couldn't work for other people.
I have no desire to be in a gay relationship, but I'm very supportive of same sex marriage.
The idea of a S&M sexual relationship sort of baffles me, but this seems to work for some people.
The trick here is that these things don't work for me because of who I and my wife are, not because those things just don't work.
You seem to have this magical view of sex that I don't share. It probably does make sense to you that relationships that are not sexually exclusive must intrinsically involve disrespect of your partner, because that's how it would be for you. That is not, however, how it was for me when I was in relationships like that, nor it is how it is for many, many other people.
The ability to separate how things are for you from how things are for everyone is a very important thing to be able to do.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: 1) what the actual statistics are regarding various types of poly relationships and their successs
They basically don't exist. Quoting Taormino's Opening Up, "There has not been enough research on polyamorous people to produce many meaningful statistics about the number of people currently or formerly involved in some kind of consensual nonmonogamous relationship." The handful of studies she does cite include Blumstein and Schwartz, 1983 (15 percent of married couples in a sample of 3,574 have "an understanding that allows nonmonogamy under some circumstances"); Janus and Janus, 1993 (21 percent in a sample of 1,800 people say they participate in an open marriage); and Page, 2004 (33 percent of a sample of 217 bisexual people claim to currently be involved in a polyamorous relationship). But none of these really answer any of the questions raised above.
Taormino's book is based on interviews with 126 individuals in consensual nonmonogamous relationships. It provides demographics about her interviewees, but she makes no claims that they represent a statistically valid sample of, well, anything. You might find it interesting anyway.
Every poly person I know is fully aware they're part of a really small minority (note "consensual nonmonogamy," above, includes a much broader range of identifications than polyamory). Very, very few anticipate or desire that fact ever changing.
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: 3) various ways poly relationships might or might not be executed healthily (these relationships are NOT including people who claim the "poly" label solely as an excuse to be jerks or because they have no self esteem. Whether or not they are successful overall, these people absolutely exist).
In all honesty, discussing this with a group of mostly monogamous people strikes me as about as useful as if some poly friends and I sat around discussing "various ways monogamous relationships might or might not be executed healthily (these relationships are NOT including people who claim the "monogamous" label but then cheat)"--that is to say, not very.
The thread in general makes me feel rather like an animal in a zoo: "Let us observe that rare, possibly mythical creature, the polyamorous person. Does it really exist? What are its mating habits?" It's not an atmosphere that makes me particularly comfortable joining in. No one expects the panda to talk back, after all.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Well, this is certainly easy for me to say (though bear in mind that I'm more of a nogamist than a monogamist at present) but I think there is value to speaking up, period, to dispel the notion that you are a rare an exotic animal as opposed to a regular person who hangs out on the forum like the rest of us.
As for discussing private aspects of your life that aren't our business... well, obvious they aren't our business so I don't expect you to. But I think that katherina (and, perhaps more relevantly, Annie) are generating part of their worldview from the simple fact that they don't know any practicing polyamorous people, and they assume that there aren't any in this thread.
I do apologize if I've made you uncomfortable/offended you, and I generally agree that there isn't much left to actually discuss here unless some actual facts are brought up.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: No one expects the panda to talk back, after all.
That would be so cool, though. I hope that you end up feeling more comfortable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Quit focusing on me, and go back to saying how absolutely fabulous it is for kids to be surrounded by adults that lie to them and can't be counted on...
It doesn't make much sense to ask that people stop focusing on you and then go on to tell such a falsehood, katharina. And I'm using a pretty gentle term for the words I just quoted.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: As for discussing private aspects of your life that aren't our business... well, obvious they aren't our business so I don't expect you to. But I think that katherina (and, perhaps more relevantly, Annie) are generating part of their worldview from the simple fact that they don't know any practicing polyamorous people, and they assume that there aren't any in this thread.
I don't really expect a change in tone for virtue of being 'outed' or present when we get attitudes like the ones presented here. But that comes with the caveat that prior to annie's contribution, the primary hijacking con argument against poly hasn't reached a point more coherent than visceral personal distaste and the biases kept in place to keep moral dissonance at bay.
Generally, most people trend towards one of two positions, and it's relevant mostly to one factor. That factor is "Do you believe there are a strict set of rules set in place by God about what kind of sexual relations you can have?"
If the answer is no, then people will usually say, essentially, "it's not for me, but I suppose it works for some people"
If the answer is yes, then arguments will crop up to sustain the religious underpinning, much in the same way that people will come up with all manner of poor arguments against gay parentage when their religion believes homosexual union to be a state of living in abominable sin (a favorite of mine: 'children suffer when they do not live in a family with a mother and father figure of the appropriate gender!') They will also, usually, be equally poor as in their anti-homosexuality analogues. We got a bit of this here, but, again, I can't even use the arguments here as a good example of that yet, since it's been mostly prickly nonarguments.
But, we'll see.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The other problem with that idea is that there is another member or possibly now former member of the forum who openly practices poly and has in the past been in a poly marriage who kat has met in person at a forum gathering. So she, at least, knows a practicing poly person. I guess it could be a question of critical mass, but I doubt it.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Sam- I believe God has a strict set of rules in place about sexual relations, but if someone else wants to have a polyamorous relationship, I fail to see how this affects me. Same with gay marriage. That stuff is all between you, your partner and God. Unless you are trying to get me to engage in a relationship, I don't see why my opinion matters. To be fair though, I was fairly judgemental of the one couple I actually knew, but that was more of the female saying I am sleeping with other people, deal. And he said, well, I don't believe in divorce (Catholic) so don't see what I can do other than pretend this is ok and he was pretty miserable. But that is a specific case and not really what we are talking about.
That being said, I can see why making it legal might be a bit more complicated. Assume one member of a threesome is in a persistant vegetative state. Which spouse gets to make the call? Can I divorce one person but not the other? If so, how does custody work? Insurance- can I count them all as spouses for family plan (potential scam there)? This isn't to say those issues can not be worked out, but before I would vote to legally support polyamorous situations, I really would need to know how those issues will all play out.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If the answer is no, then people will usually say, essentially, "it's not for me, but I suppose it works for some people"
It's sort of like that, but for me, at least, it's that 1) it's not my place to say and 2) I don't see any reliable evidence that it is intrinsically harmful.
For example, I am strongly against abusive relationships. That's not a case of live and let live for me.
Gay adoption is another example where I could feel more of a call to interfere. I've said multiple times here that if the evidence showed that children raised by same sex parents were seriously disadvantaged because of this, I'd advocate against gay adoption. This isn't the case and thus I fully support it, but I think there's an important distinction between saying it's none of my business and relying on the evidence.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:"It exists" does not mean "it is a favorable behavior." The natural world is full of maladaptive behaviors. They might survive in little lingering eddies for a while but guess what ultimately happens to them?
One thing that, in my opinion, may confound this type of analysis is that historical adaptive value of behaviors might have little to do with whether people are happy (and whether their children are happy, too).
I think there are a few modern factors that are combining in relatively novel ways: 1) Huge increases in the standard of living for a large middle class 2) Decoupling of the inculcation of ethics and social safety nets from religious authority 3) Increased physical mobility and online virtual communities; norms of the local community are less dominant 4) Progressive study of child development with a focus on emotional health 5) STD and pregnancy prevention mechanisms other than abstinence and fidelity
...really, there are a lot of reasons to think that even if something was maladaptive in the past, it could be accommodated now. Plus devoting a lot of effort directly to ones own emotional health and happiness is an unprecedented mass luxury.
I see no reason to deny the very possibility that anyone who chooses to experiment with their own happiness (in any way they choose) could have the capacity to manage parallel concerns such as home life stability, honest respect for a spouse, etc.
[ August 18, 2010, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Yes. I'd further note that there's no such thing as NOT "experimenting" with your happiness, or your kids. Because not only are individuals all, well, individual, but modern society is changing so rapidly that things that worked in one decade won't necessarily work as well in the next.
Just because the majority of humans (either universally or in a particular country) has been doing something one particular thing, that doesn't make that thing good. Not only have times changed, but humans have a sizeable bias for the status quo and only recently have we become even aware of the extent of our own biases, let alone skilled at countering them.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)