Have you cheated on your significant other?

[Ajax Knucklebones]

say for example my Mrs cheats on me.

it still does not give me the right to do the same.

its a sign that things should end between us and to go our seperate ways, hopefully still amicably so.

Why doesn't it give you the right?

[Head Wreck]

petty retaliation can scupper any chance of making amends and moving ahead.

i make no apologies for being old fashioned that way. and dont expect people to agree, nor do i hold them disrespectfully in my view for being who they are. what works for me does not work for everyone and i have one or two friends in polyamourous relationships, and they dont seem to be hurting each other. good for them, its just not me

[Ajax Knucklebones]

Well....I guess it's because what you said WASN'T about working it out and trying to stay together. You said that it's a sign that things should end....Period. If that's true, why not get a nubbing in there? Why be the person who got shit upon vs. the person who got even....Since you're gonna end it anyway? Is it because you feel like the better person for not going that deceitful route? Just asking is all....

[OrganizedKhaos]

AK, you've got an imagination, I dont think that one's too much of a stretch

[Ajax Knucklebones]

AK, you've got an imagination, I dont think that one's too much of a stretch

Hahaha! Yeah...I'm just screwing with you.....

[Head Wreck]

i think you may be right there AK.

decietfulness is not a property i'd like people to remember me by. as to the who is the better person, the person who cheated or the person dumb enough not to read the signs

[Raza]

That is a flat out cop-out if you're cheating on someone who perceives the relationship with you as monogamous. You are lying and you are hurting another person. It's simply an excuse for yourself to make you feel better.

This is rarely that clear-cut, though. The problem is that most people consider monogamy the 'default', and presume that the agreement to refrain from intimacy with outsiders comes unspoken with admissions of love or even just any affection expressed.

And that is simply not true; the 'wrongness' of cheating rests entirely on the transgression of agreements made, so when they never were made, there's no leg for it to stand on. But because so few people even realise that alternatives to monogamy exist, they rarely think to actually make those agreements. Most relationships that are considered monogamous by the participants are actually quite unclassified, and it'd be very difficult to say that someone is in the wrong for not making this unwarranted presumption.

[drewblood]

so this means I shouldnt ask Lady Alias out on a date?



Jackass? sure maybe... but at least I dont pretend to understand other people's situations just so I can judge them. Good luck with your moral superiority though

[episode allah]

why? Isnt it just the evolution of (monogamous) relationships... for some people at least?

This is rarely that clear-cut, though. The problem is that most people consider monogamy the 'default', and presume that the agreement to refrain from intimacy with outsiders comes unspoken with admissions of love or even just any affection expressed.

And that is simply not true; the 'wrongness' of cheating rests entirely on the transgression of agreements made, so when they never were made, there's no leg for it to stand on. But because so few people even realise that alternatives to monogamy exist, they rarely think to actually make those agreements. Most relationships that are considered monogamous by the participants are actually quite unclassified, and it'd be very difficult to say that someone is in the wrong for not making this unwarranted presumption.

Rarely that clear-cut? I’m sorry but at the very least the onus is on the person who ‘cheats’ to make the status of the relationship clear before they do so. You’d have to be a real fucker to cheat on your partner and come back the next morning and say “well it wasn’t written in the contract love”. I suspect that the people looking for these “unclassified” contracts aren’t looking for love in the first place; they’re looking for orifices, meat-sticks and someone to fall back on when they get a bit lonely. On the other hand the people that use this ’unclassified contract’ excuse when the ’unclassified’ part was never classified with their partner are just assholes. But if all you’re saying is that there’s nothing wrong with people ‘cheating’ in relationships where it’s understood by both parties that there are no ground rules to break then fine, but that’s kind of obvious.

Sure you can argue that polygamy is just monogamy evolving but sure as shit you can argue vice versa too. IMO polygamy undermines the concept of love in a very real way. Despite what we may have been lead to believe most mammals are not monogamous (not even swans) and most of us already believe that love is a human concept. If you want to argue that in the future, polygamy should replace monogamy then you are in essence also saying that the human notion of ‘love’ should be vanquished. Of course you may not give a shit about this or even think it’s a good thing and that’s ok with me. The problem for me is when people talk about monogamy and polygamy like they are equivalent entities both washing their feet in the same basin of ’love’. Polygamy has its roots in excess, overabundance and eventually debauchery. Rich and powerful men took concubines and wives as a sign of power in times past. Polygamy is egoistic, monogamy is romantic. Of course, as Humans we are not actually monogamous, but I kind of like the ideal.

In a purely metaphysical way, I believe that as human beings and as the pinnacle of everything I see around me, our activities, over the course of thousands and thousands of years are getting better and better; perhaps monogamous love was a tool of our times and is soon to be replaced with wanton gratification and then eventually replaced with sexless androgyny. Who knows.
Maybe next century we get to say ‘love is dead’…

[DonkeyMoses]

Polygamy and monogamy are not diametric opposites. If anything, polygamy is a fidelious relationship between more than two partners and has nothing what-so-ever to do with "excess, overabundance and eventually debauchery". Your generalisations, judgements and presumptions, EA, have at this point completely ceased to amaze me. Just because I tell you there's pork chops for dinner, don't assume I'm serving them with applesauce. I hate applesauce. But that's beside the point.
"polygamy undermines the concept of love in a very real way" I suppose in the way that same sex marriage undermines the sanctity of the institution of wedlock. I don't even see the connection. The nature of the word itself not just implies but defines marriage between multiple partners. This doesn't outline whether or not the parties involed are in love any more than in a monogamous marriage, just that they're married. It's generally assumed that they're in love unless they're deluded or doing it for legal reasons. What we're disscussing here (if I'm not splitting hairs by using actual definitions rather than pretend fun-time ones) is polyamory. And again, this word doesn't define whether or not the people involved are in love or just fuckin'. It implies so by the use of the root amor, but the definition leaves it at love or sex. And again again, none of these words in any way have any context or basis in emotionless wanton debauchery. Excess and overabundance. Feh! [waves hand dissmissively] And finding a job to support my family will only lead to avorice and gluttony. I might start buying decadent bluejeans and fresh peas instead of canned. And I don't actually hate applesauce, I just don't like it on my porkchops.
"Polygamy is egoistic, monogamy is romantic". Take the hand of the Ghost of Monogamy Past as we go back in time. Back to a nice young horny teenage couple who are told they'll go to the see the bad bad man in Hell if they do it before they are wed. Now we'll go forward to a time when they start to realize just how incompatable they really are, but with a couple of kids they stay together out of some sense of religious propriety. Stuck in a loveless marriage with itches they can't scratch. Sound romantic? Imagine the poor bastard who isn't getting any from their spouse, for whatever reason, but isn't allowed to go and satisfy the primal urge without engaging in a game of deceit. Still romantic? My marriage is romantic as hell. If it was any more so my face would implode. I'm getting just plenty and it's good. Damn good. I or my wife could go out any time and hook up with any number of people, but we don't. No need. We simply don't limit ourselves when the oppertunity arises with someone I or she (or we) care about, are attracted to, and have a chemistry with. We consider ourselves to be monogamous because, well, by definition, we are not married to anyone else, and in the colloquial context because neither one of us is seeking a long or short term relationship with anyone else.
This suggestion of egotism in polygamy is an astouding connection that's obviously quite brilliant in some way so that I am entirely incapable of perceiving it, thus evoking a slightly embarrassing sarcasm. Look what you made me do, I hate being sarcastic. Please elaborate on how marriage to more than one person is exactly egotistic, and how your judgement is not.
I have no real personal perspective on whether or not polygamy is a viable and workable scenario as I am not a polygamist and I don't know any actual polygamists. I can not say If I ever will be or not because I have not reached the end of my days. It's entirely possible that we, as a married couple, could meet someone who fits. I tend to doubt it, but I don't know every existing variable. To think that i do would be egotistical. For now I'm glad to stick to monogamous polyamory. Maybe when I'm rich and powerful.
I can't infer that this situation of mine is part of some grand evolution of love and relationships either. Biological evolution is a linear progression, social evolution is not.

[Vexbeast]

DonkeyMoses just served up the facts warm with applesauce right there... o.o

Although, I prefer to think of the terms in the biological sense. (That is to say, polygamy = many MATES, not necessarily spouses) Hence terms that end in 'gamy' refer to sexual relationships and terms that end in 'amory' refer to romantic relationships. (Which, of course, aren't biological terms, since the nearest thing to 'romance' that biology involves is gestures meant to attract a mate, which are closer in nature to polygamy.)

Although it seems to be socially accepted that they're defined in terms of marriage, I can't help but see that as incorrect, since they -were- originally biology terms with different definitions.

And for the record:

NEVER. Fuck that shit.
Male, heterosexual with bisexual, pansexual and asexual tendencies...

Yeah, it's kinda hard to explain... <.<;

[DoctorZ]

Bah, no it's not.

And, Muslim God, I may be a fucked up insane WHACKO with an ego the size of Atlantis, and an imagination that puts Atlantis to SHAME, but I'm not a bad person, and I'm a polygamist.

Sure, most of the stuff I do is just to have fun, but hey, what's wrong with that, eh?

[Thistle Harlequin]

say for example my Mrs cheats on me.

it still does not give me the right to do the same.

its a sign that things should end between us and to go our seperate ways, hopefully still amicably so.

Depends on the relationship and wanting to work things out because you want to be together (may it be for convenience or whatever)

but if you cheated, he/she gets a free pass too

[episode allah]

And, Muslim God, I may be a fucked up insane WHACKO with an ego the size of Atlantis, and an imagination that puts Atlantis to SHAME, but I'm not a bad person, and I'm a polygamist.

I have absolutely no idea how you inferred that I think you are a bad person just because you are a polygamist.

[episode allah]

Polygamy and monogamy are not diametric opposites. If anything, polygamy is a fidelious relationship between more than two partners and has nothing what-so-ever to do with "excess, overabundance and eventually debauchery". Your generalisations, judgements and presumptions, EA, have at this point completely ceased to amaze me.

I feel that you didn't really make any attempt to understand me but that’s your prerogative. I'll elaborate when I have time but meanwhile what is this "loveless marriage" nonsense?? I never said that people should stay in loveless marriages; shit I never even said that people should get married.

People it's bandwagon time...

[DonkeyMoses]

It was a retort to the statement that monogany is romantic. It's not always romantic. And I did make an attempt to understand you regarding the egotistical aspects of poygamy. I don't see it. Normally even when we disagree I can see where your coming from. I just think you have a lot of opinions and judgements on things that you don't seem to have nuch background on. It's all superficial generalisations. Is it based on what you've seen in the mainstream media? I only ask because the thngs that you say about polygamy really don't apply. Not even a little.
And what's with the bandwagon?

[Head Wreck]

if monogamy doesnt work for you, dont kid yourself.

just be who you are and find something that works well in any case

[Head Wreck]

as to working things out. i dont mean the usual "lets work things out" aka "lets further stifle each other and end up hating each other".

the last Girlfriend i had tried to be monogamous and it just wasn't in her. we worked things out, and went our seperate ways before we started hating each other.

i still consider her a good friend to this day

[babyswitchblade]

Yeah I have. I'm female, straight.

I'm not proud of it but there's no point in denying it, and I was pretty fucked up at the time.
I was near the end of a very bad relationship and it was pretty much already over, just not officially. He bullied me and made me feel awful, though I know that's not an excuse.
But, yes, I cheated on him, and though he never found out, I broke up with him shortly afterwards because I didn't want to keep lying to him.

Now I'm with an amazing guy who I would never even DREAM of cheating on!

[episode allah]

Polygamy and monogamy are not diametric opposites. If anything, polygamy is a fidelious relationship between more than two partners and has nothing what-so-ever to do with "excess, overabundance and eventually debauchery".

You’re right they are not opposites because they’re not even in the same playing field. This is what I am trying to say. I haven’t made any moral judgments in this conversation at all. I only say that unlike polygamy, monogamy comes from a romantic ideal and this is where you seem to severely misinterpret me. When I talk about romance I am talking about it in the true sense of the word, i.e. romanticism and not the flowers and fucking chocolates thing you seem to be talking about. What I’m trying to get at here is the deep psychological root of these issues and yeh, I think polygamy, whether the polygamist realizes it or not, is based in egoism. Now that I’m saying it, I’m thinking that romanticism is based in egoism too, but at least there’s a façade; an allusion to love, spiritual oneness and greater good.

The alternative, which is what you seem to be saying, is that they are exactly the same, with the same meaning and intensity and that the only difference is quantitive. So tell me, if monogamy and polygamy are the same then why do people bother with binary relationships in the first place? Wouldn’t we all just join enormous ‘families of lovers' if everyone could feel as special, understood, and cared for in a family of 14. You’d get a lot more sex wouldn’t you?? Sure it’d be a bit harder to find suitable people, but you’d have online forums to take care of that. You could have goth sex families, with satellite emo sex families, distantly related punk-rock sex families etc. etc. etc.

As human beings we can only provide absolute attention to a limited number of items simultaneously; its obvious, if you have two equations to solve in ten minutes you wont do as well as if you only had one. Love is suppose to be as special as you can make it. Love is about quality not quantity, its about really really really knowing and understanding someone…..how often do we actually do this? I don’t know….as I said it’s the ideal I sympathize with. I don’t make any claim to be a psychologist or philosopher in the same way I never made a claim to be artist; I’m just a person with opinions and you can’t blame someone for having an opinion can you?

polygamy undermines the concept of love in a very real way" I suppose in the way that same sex marriage undermines the sanctity of the institution of wedlock. I don't even see the connection.

Mmm well you could certainly argue that same-sex marriage undermines the concept of Christian marriage yeh. Christian marriage was intended to be marriage between men and women and nothing can change that. That was the way it was intended and that is the definition. Is it the ideal? No! Does it propagate phobia? Yes! Do fundamental Christian’s have a point when they say that ‘marriage’ should remain a ceremony between only men and women? Yes! I think (and hope) that most gay people don’t give a shit about this and that they only want a civil service which unites them with their lover and gives them the same rights as married people. My point is that things seem to be more complicated then you give them credit for.

So yes, polygamy does undermine the concept of love because love is suppose to be about dedication and understanding and you can’t dedicate yourself to two people in the way you can dedicate yourself to one: this is an axiom.

"Polygamy is egoistic, monogamy is romantic". Take the hand of the Ghost of Monogamy Past as we go back in time. Back to a nice young horny teenage couple who are told they'll go to the see the bad bad man in Hell if they do it before they are wed. Now we'll go forward to a time when they start to realize just how incompatable they really are, but with a couple of kids they stay together out of some sense of religious propriety. Stuck in a loveless marriage with itches they can't scratch. Sound romantic?

I don’t see what this has to do with anything. I am using the word romance in true sense of the word. I am talking about romanticism and idealism, not Satan and propriety.

"Imagine the poor bastard who isn't getting any from their spouse, for whatever reason, but isn't allowed to go and satisfy the primal urge without engaging in a game of deceit. Still romantic?

Sorry to be rude but unless that women is pregnant or ill (in which case the guy is a dickless bastard) that guy sounds like a dumb fuck.

My marriage is romantic as hell. If it was any more so my face would implode. I'm getting just plenty and it's good. Damn good. I or my wife could go out any time and hook up with any number of people, but we don't. No need. We simply don't limit ourselves when the oppertunity arises with someone I or she (or we) care about, are attracted to, and have a chemistry with. We consider ourselves to be monogamous because, well, by definition, we are not married to anyone else, and in the colloquial context because neither one of us is seeking a long or short term relationship with anyone else.

Mmm yeh so what? You are a monogamous couple that swing. Thats nothing new. What I’m saying is that I don’t think that you and your wife would have as deep a connection if there was three or four of you there on a permanent basis. In fairness if we were just debating about whether people should be allowed one partner or several partners then….you know….there’d be no debate because that just isn’t taboo anymore.

Please elaborate on how marriage to more than one person is exactly egotistic, and how your judgement is not.

Ok. I made no judgments (although i'm starting to feel like i should). We are all egoistic, egoism saturates everything and I don’t see how calling something egoistic is ‘judging’ it. At least not in the cathedral bells and scaffold kind of way you seem to be implying. If I’m not wrong you seem to be accusing me of having an opinion. Yeh I have opinions but they’re not set in stone and they are subject to change. I don’t know all the variables either but I don’t use that as an excuse to say “everything goes”.

[episode allah]

Normally even when we disagree I can see where your coming from. I just think you have a lot of opinions and judgements on things that you don't seem to have nuch background on. It's all superficial generalisations. Is it based on what you've seen in the mainstream media? I only ask because the thngs that you say about polygamy really don't apply. Not even a little.

You accuse me of using stereotypes when I actually avoided using them. If I’d been using stereotypes I would have brought up the Latter Day Church of Christ, The children of God, fundamentalist Mormons as well as the general misfortune of plenty of women in African and Muslim polygamous families. so yeh there I’m talking about ped0philia, r*pe, incest, genital mutilation, subjugation, slavery and sexism. There are your stereotypes. And while we’re at it, don’t you find it interesting that 99% of the polygamous relationships we hear of are comprised of one man and a lot of women? Why is that? That’s an interesting point right there, and I have a feeling that even your vaguely pagan-counter culture-neo-polygamy is gonna be gender biased a lot of the time too (way to go girls! expressing your freedom through slavery!). You know, customarily women can actually have more than one husband in polygamy but get this, only after they’ve been passed on by one husband to another. So yeh, this all goes back to egoism. As I said, we’re all egoistic, but I figure that traditionally, egoism as been a hallmark of the male gender quite profoundly (and often regrettably). If you’re gonna argue that theres no truth to stereotypes and that men and women are the same then fine, but then I’m gonna call you a relativist and you’re gonna come up against a whole lot of more problems. The telling thing is that even though you espouse the benefits of polygamy you yourself are not a polygamist; in fact you are the opposite of a polygamist because you have a long term and committed relationship with only one person (swinging doesn’t count). Tell me you’re not being counter intuitive?? Then again, some people really get off on being counter-intuitive.

Its impossible to have an opinion without making generalizations, you do it, I do it and so does everyone else. Moreover you’ve made your fair share of assumptions too, not least of all that just because I’m not some hyper-supporter of polygamy that I’m some kind of retrogressive conservative whose bringing the same kind of venom and bias to the table that Michael Moore brings to a gun rally. Which I really don’t understand since I never made a negative judgment on polygamy in the first place; I just said that in my opinion it’s a totally different kettle of fish to monogamy. I believe people should have shit loads of freedom, freedom to marry, freedom to divorce, to be catholic, to buy amphetamines and heroin in the local pharmacy and to pay for sex. I mean I don’t even like half those things but I think people should be able to do them. I don’t care whether someone has 1 partner or 100 as long as they are all consenting adults and I’ll be friends with polygamists, protestants, nudists and cannibals if they come across nicely.

No I don’t get my opinions from mainstream TV. I hardly watch TV but that’s not because I believe it’s the mega-weapon of some evil empire either.

About being far from what I talk about? Wait, now is this about art again? I’m not an artist so I don’t get it? I’m not a polygamist so I don’t get it? I see a reoccurring theme in your debate! I could send you photos of things I’ve made that you would probably consider art but I don’t want to.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

Rarely that clear-cut? I’m sorry but at the very least the onus is on the person who ‘cheats’ to make the status of the relationship clear before they do so. You’d have to be a real fucker to cheat on your partner and come back the next morning and say “well it wasn’t written in the contract love”. I suspect that the people looking for these “unclassified” contracts aren’t looking for love in the first place; they’re looking for orifices, meat-sticks and someone to fall back on when they get a bit lonely. On the other hand the people that use this ’unclassified contract’ excuse when the ’unclassified’ part was never classified with their partner are just assholes. But if all you’re saying is that there’s nothing wrong with people ‘cheating’ in relationships where it’s understood by both parties that there are no ground rules to break then fine, but that’s kind of obvious.

Sure you can argue that polygamy is just monogamy evolving but sure as shit you can argue vice versa too. IMO polygamy undermines the concept of love in a very real way. Despite what we may have been lead to believe most mammals are not monogamous (not even swans) and most of us already believe that love is a human concept. If you want to argue that in the future, polygamy should replace monogamy then you are in essence also saying that the human notion of ‘love’ should be vanquished. Of course you may not give a shit about this or even think it’s a good thing and that’s ok with me. The problem for me is when people talk about monogamy and polygamy like they are equivalent entities both washing their feet in the same basin of ’love’. Polygamy has its roots in excess, overabundance and eventually debauchery. Rich and powerful men took concubines and wives as a sign of power in times past. Polygamy is egoistic, monogamy is romantic. Of course, as Humans we are not actually monogamous, but I kind of like the ideal.

In a purely metaphysical way, I believe that as human beings and as the pinnacle of everything I see around me, our activities, over the course of thousands and thousands of years are getting better and better; perhaps monogamous love was a tool of our times and is soon to be replaced with wanton gratification and then eventually replaced with sexless androgyny. Who knows.
Maybe next century we get to say ‘love is dead’…

Different strokes for different folks...Period. Everything else you discussed is just wasteful blather because it's what YOU believe. That's fine and dandy, but you are not EVERYBODY. Everybody has their own idea on subjects, but this is their idea. Ideas are just big piles of water, gravel, and cement, unmixed. Hardly any of them ever become concrete.

[DonkeyMoses]

True. But an opininion implies personal belief. A judgement implies an absolute intrinsic to the subject. "I hate applesauce" is an opinion. "Applesauce is bad" is a judgement. It's from there that the judgement otfen spreads to include the people who like applesauce.

[Wickedanima]

Yes - However, I always within a day or two broke it off with the boyfriend I cheated on, and we were always living separately by that time.

bi-female

[Raza]

Ooh, conservatism itt. Allow me to fix.

Rarely that clear-cut? I’m sorry but at the very least the onus is on the person who ‘cheats’ to make the status of the relationship clear before they do so. You’d have to be a real fucker to cheat on your partner and come back the next morning and say “well it wasn’t written in the contract love”.

Your argument is circular. There is no such thing as 'cheating' until both parties agree to define their relationship as in some way exclusive. Monogamy is not the 'default' of romance, it's a human cultural standard and an addition.

That said, it is definitely the nice thing to do to inform lovers well in advance that you do not intend on monogamy. A lot of people make the mistake of assuming it - and they do so at a lot of different benchmarks in the progression of a (potential) relationship, such as at a first 'date', first kiss, first sex, first pronunciation of love, or (usually) some abstract and unspoken point in between all these, leaving it difficult to predict. And while this is definitely their mistake, it is also an easy one to make in a world where so few people will tell you anything else. Warning them is not a moral responsibility, but it's an obvious opportunity to be nice and potentially save them some grief, and I should think you want to take these if you're intimate with someone.

I suspect that the people looking for these “unclassified” contracts aren’t looking for love in the first place; they’re looking for orifices, meat-sticks and someone to fall back on when they get a bit lonely.

You suspect wrong. Firstly because most people in undefined relationships weren't specifically looking for these so much as that they ended up in a relationship without anyone taking the initiative to define it; but also about people, such as myself, who reject prescriptive social roles as undesirable on principle.

Defining relationships prescriptively is an emotional crutch; setting rules and boundaries gives you a sense of security, but only works when the people involved never wanted to break them anyway - at which point the people would have acted the same way spontaneously and the rules are merely redundant. But when one or both parties does have the desire to break the rules, having them there as rules is just as likely to backfire and stimulate the temptation into compulsion or create recurring frustration contaminating otherwise functional aspects of the relationship as it is to keep someone sustainably on the straight and narrow - and perhaps even more detrimentally, it forces a bond when the people involved apparently have incompatible desires. Describing a relationship as fitting in with a certain cultural model is fine, of course, if you both get a kick from that - but the idea that this is something to be obeyed rather than taken inspiration from can be quite destructive.

On the other hand the people that use this ’unclassified contract’ excuse when the ’unclassified’ part was never classified with their partner are just assholes.

Errr... so the only time at which one is allowed to take the absence of a classification into ethical account, is when it is paradoxically classified as such - whereas in the meantime, while no actual classification exists, we're all supposed to act as if your preferred model were already in place?

I don't think that logic quite works out.

Sure you can argue that polygamy is just monogamy evolving but sure as shit you can argue vice versa too. IMO polygamy undermines the concept of love in a very real way. Despite what we may have been lead to believe most mammals are not monogamous (not even swans) and most of us already believe that love is a human concept. If you want to argue that in the future, polygamy should replace monogamy then you are in essence also saying that the human notion of ‘love’ should be vanquished. Of course you may not give a shit about this or even think it’s a good thing and that’s ok with me. The problem for me is when people talk about monogamy and polygamy like they are equivalent entities both washing their feet in the same basin of ’love’. Polygamy has its roots in excess, overabundance and eventually debauchery. Rich and powerful men took concubines and wives as a sign of power in times past. Polygamy is egoistic, monogamy is romantic. Of course, as Humans we are not actually monogamous, but I kind of like the ideal.

Neither monogamy or polygamy are inherently more closely related to love. Love is a psychological function of the human mind; a feeling for us to indulge for joy and motivation, that gets triggered under certain conditions. Relationships, whether monogamous, polygamous, polygynous, polyandrous, polyamorous or anything we've ever slapped a nametag on, are merely the practical structures of human culture's clumsy attempts at milking this emotion (and its cousin, lust) for it's greatest value. They're constructs full of the ridiculously redundant etiquette that grows into all human behaviour when it is picked up from one person by the next rather than reinvented for and by the individual. Etiquette that generally springs into being when someone looks to rationalize a feeling, whether enjoyable or unpleasant, in order to vindicate their own emotional position by some practical truth - an absurd tendency, but one that motivates nearly all products of the unpractised mind. Etiquette, that while without considered practical function, fills our minds with narrowed expectations and thereby creates the potential for disappointment and grief at otherwise harmless scenarios that happen to fall outside of these - external intimacy being a prime example.

To quote attitudes historically and culturally associated with different relationship structures to critique them mechanically is absurd; and to claim a monopoly on 'true' love for any of them is even more so. Your words here describe the perspective of mainstream western romanticism, but they don't even begin to argue it.

[DonkeyMoses]

I never made a negative judgment on polygamy in the first place; I just said that in my opinion it’s a totally different kettle of fish to monogamy.

Um. yea, you did.

No I don’t get my opinions from mainstream TV. I hardly watch TV but that’s not because I believe it’s the mega-weapon of some evil empire either.

I said media, not TV.

About being far from what I talk about? Wait, now is this about art again? I’m not an artist so I don’t get it? I’m not a polygamist so I don’t get it? I see a reoccurring theme in your debate! I could send you photos of things I’ve made that you would probably consider art but I don’t want to.

Again, I said I'm not a polygamist so I have no opinion as to whether it works in it's true form, I only know that I don't think it would work for me, but not knowing what it can truely be like who d'fuck knows? But I certainly can't say that it undermines the very concept of love. Tht's a judgement, not an opinion. Learn the difference and you won't have people up in arms about it.
But I am an artist, proffessionaly and personally, and when someone gets on a thread disscussing art and you say "i hate 'artists" it's going to raise some ire. Espessially when you provide illperceived, inexperienced and uninformed articles to back up your statement. Like saying "I hate France" when you haven't been there and then going on to use every negative stereotype to describe why you hate france to a bunch of French people who don't fit that stereotype. Yes there is a reoccuring theme to my posts. Judge not what you do not understand.

Um....

[DonkeyMoses]

You’re right they are not opposites because they’re not even in the same playing field. This is what I am trying to say. I haven’t made any moral judgments in this conversation at all. I only say that unlike polygamy, monogamy comes from a romantic ideal and this is where you seem to severely misinterpret me. When I talk about romance I am talking about it in the true sense of the word, i.e. romanticism and not the flowers and fucking chocolates thing you seem to be talking about. What I’m trying to get at here is the deep psychological root of these issues and yeh, I think polygamy, whether the polygamist realizes it or not, is based in egoism. Now that I’m saying it, I’m thinking that romanticism is based in egoism too, but at least there’s a façade; an allusion to love, spiritual oneness and greater good.

This is where I'm trying to figure out why, with no personal experience on the subject, you assume there is no allusion to love if there's more than one person involved?

The alternative, which is what you seem to be saying, is that they are exactly the same, with the same meaning and intensity and that the only difference is quantitive. So tell me, if monogamy and polygamy are the same then why do people bother with binary relationships in the first place? Wouldn’t we all just join enormous ‘families of lovers' if everyone could feel as special, understood, and cared for in a family of 14. You’d get a lot more sex wouldn’t you?? Sure it’d be a bit harder to find suitable people, but you’d have online forums to take care of that. You could have goth sex families, with satellite emo sex families, distantly related punk-rock sex families etc. etc. etc.

For one thing, in this time, it is more morally accepted to stick to the binary relationship. That doesn't relfect on whether it works or not, just that it's not accepted by society. Up until this last generation, neither was dying your hair purple. And who said 14? If you stretch it just a bit further out of proportion you might make your point. I'm not sure why you poured the whole mess into all of these subcultural moulds. Seems a little beside the point. Besides, most polygamists I've seen are new-age hippy types, but that was on tv.

As human beings we can only provide absolute attention to a limited number of items simultaneously;

This is not a proven fact, only the perspective of your experience. And the attention doesn't have to be absolute or simultaneous. We're disscussing affairs of the heart, not math.

its obvious, if you have two equations to solve in ten minutes you wont do as well as if you only had one.

Then it's quite fortunate that we've been given longer than ten minutes to formulate this particular equation. There's no "pencils down" in this situation. On most of this I agree for myself personally. I feel that my relationship with (but not my love for) my wife could be deluded if shared in any way beyond sex and affection with another. But I can't project my situation on to that of others who may not work the same way I do.

[DonkeyMoses]

Love is suppose to be as special as you can make it. Love is about quality not quantity, its about really really really knowing and understanding someone…..how often do we actually do this? I don’t know….

I agree. That's what it's about for me. I just don't assume that that can't be the case with more than one person. Maybe a bit much with 14 fer crissakes, but a few, maybe. People have lifetimes to grow closer.

as I said it’s the ideal I sympathize with. I don’t make any claim to be a psychologist or philosopher in the same way I never made a claim to be artist; I’m just a person with opinions and you can’t blame someone for having an opinion can you?

Not at all. Plenty of opinions have been expressed here that I take no umbrage with even though they differ from mine. Those were opinions i.e. "polygamy wouldn't work for me because....." as opposed to "polygamy is......" or "polygamists are....." and go on to explain that the concept of polygamy is rooted in excess, overabundance, wanton debauchery, egotism, slavery, and a general loveless parody of manogamy. These are not opinions as much as an implied absolute. You are stating these things as though they are inextricably and intrinsically this way outside of yourself and your opinions or experience. Once again there is a difference between opinion and judgement. Even a positive judgement is still a judgement. My wife and I meet people who assume our art must be fantastic because we come across as colorful characters. We could be completely unimaginative and gotten our look from some boho salon or magazine, but they just assume because we look interesting we must be talented artists. This pisses me off about as much as when I was still in Pittsburgh and people assumed we were baby-eating satanists on junk for the same reason. It's still a projected assumption. You assume because men have in the past enslaved concubines with no free will of their own that if a woman is in a relationship with multiple partners she has been enslaved. As tuh she has no free will and is being kept. So by that logic, my marriage to my wife implies that she is a peice of property. Guess what, I live in a dessert and I still eat pork. (just not with applesauce)

Mmm well you could certainly argue that same-sex marriage undermines the concept of Christian marriage yeh. Christian marriage was intended to be marriage between men and women and nothing can change that. That was the way it was intended and that is the definition. Is it the ideal? No! Does it propagate phobia? Yes! Do fundamental Christian’s have a point when they say that ‘marriage’ should remain a ceremony between only men and women? Yes! I think (and hope) that most gay people don’t give a shit about this and that they only want a civil service which unites them with their lover and gives them the same rights as married people. My point is that things seem to be more complicated then you give them credit for.

I suppose maybe for the fundamental christian concept of marriage as it was intended back in the day. What they fail to understand is if two people get all gayed up and get married, it doesn't change the depth or meaning of the marriage of the heterosexual couple next door. They are just as married as they were before.If anything,that particular model of matrimony has its historical roots in more pragmatic reasons than emotional ones. I think the concepts are more simplistic than you realize. The complications are put there by people who think about it too much and don't seem to think it wise to mind their own business.

So yes, polygamy does undermine the concept of love because love is suppose to be about dedication and understanding and you can’t dedicate yourself to two people in the way you can dedicate yourself to one: this is an axiom.

You can’t dedicate yourself to two people in the way you can dedicate yourself to one. This is another place where I don't understand the generalisation based on something you haven't experienced yourself. I don't know that I could have that devotion or dedication either, but I'm not in a position to find out. We've been together for years so we understand each other the way we do. But whose to say that if there wasn't a third or even forth party involved, and if we were all living together for years and years, that we wouldn't get as close as all that? This is obviously not a self-evident axiom as there are differing opinions on the issue that I am not in a position to argue truthfully as I am not in that situation. And anyway, most polygamistic situations that I have read and disscussed involve a primary mate and all others are sharing secondary. It was never implied that quantitative love are shared equally.

I don’t see what this has to do with anything. I am using the word romance in true sense of the word. I am talking about romanticism and idealism, not Satan and propriety.

Merely illustrating that not all situations are romantic because of a prearranged disposition toward monogamy. In fact, the restriction of manogamy can sometimes kick romance in the pants.

Sorry to be rude but unless that women is pregnant or ill (in which case the guy is a dickless bastard) that guy sounds like a dumb fuck.

I didn't say he wasn't a dumb fuck. But those dumb fucks exist because to go against the situation would, in a lot of people's minds, mean conscribing to a heaping load of taboo that people like yourself perpetuate by holding concrete judgement. And she is pregnant. With a couple of kids and a dead end job and a dog that humps his leg every time he comes home from work.

[quote=episode allah]Mmm yeh so what? You are a monogamous couple that swing. Thats nothing new. What I’m saying is that I don’t think that you and your wife would have as deep a connection if there was three or four of you there on a permanent basis. In fairness if we were just debating about whether people should be allowed one partner or several partners then….you know….there’d be no debate because that just isn’t taboo anymore.

Never said it was new. In fact, probably oldr than monogamy. Not trying to pass myself off as some sort of romantic revolutionary. only using my own situation as a first hand example of a couple who can be intimate with others on a "very real level" and not just a couple of swingers or polygamists. Somewhere in the middle. You might be right about our connection not being as deep, or it might be as deeper. Don't know. Never been there.

Ok. I made no judgments (although i'm starting to feel like i should). We are all egoistic, egoism saturates everything and I don’t see how calling something egoistic is ‘judging’ it. At least not in the cathedral bells and scaffold kind of way you seem to be implying. If I’m not wrong you seem to be accusing me of having an opinion. Yeh I have opinions but they’re not set in stone and they are subject to change. I don’t know all the variables either but I don’t use that as an excuse to say “everything goes”.

There is a certain ego in everyone, obviously or I wouldn't be interested in explaining my point. But having an ego isn't the same as being egotistic. Ego pertains to one's perception of self, egotism pertains to self-importance. Ego allows me to feel confident enough about my work to get up in front of a bunch of people on stage and perform. To think my work and ideas are better than anyone else's would be egotistic or egocentric. Anyway, what I was saying was not that calling something "egoist" is a judgement, I said that calling judgement on something is egotistic, but that it a judgement in itself. If I thought by the standards that you have displayed I would be judging you as someone I don't like because of the opinions you've expressed. I would assume the statements you have made imply a lot of ather characteristics as well. As it is, we'd probably get along great and have some interesting disscussions.
And as it is, there are so many perspectives in the chaos that is reality that, yes, everything goes. Any given thing in any place or time can only be regarded as contrary to its opposite which is in turn equally and adversly in proportion to itself.
Wow, sorry for hijacking this thread so terribly much. Good mental work-out, though.

[DonkeyMoses]

No. Male.

[jonny.illuminati]

No. Male.

YAY!

[Madam Yummi]

say for example my Mrs cheats on me.

it still does not give me the right to do the same.

its a sign that things should end between us and to go our seperate ways, hopefully still amicably so.

No, straight, female.
I sort of agree. If I ever found out that someone I was dating had or was cheating on me. I'm just gonna leave you. I'm not gonna stoop to your level and cheat on you.

If I feel like I want to be with someone else, I'm going to tell you (and I have done this) and we will go from there.

[episode allah]

Everything else you discussed is just wasteful blather because it's what YOU believe. That's fine and dandy, but you are not EVERYBODY. Everybody has their own idea on subjects, but this is their idea.

is this suppose to be ironic (possibly your own working example of “wasteful blather" )?? I mean, why are you telling just me this, why didn't you copy and paste it as a reply to everyone else too?

Anyway you quoted three paragraphs of mine: the first had an “I suspect that”, the second had an “imo” (in caps no less) and the third had an “I believe” which can only lead me to believe that your post was merely an expression of your intolerance of my beliefs, no more, no less.

To donkey Moses and Raza. You are both entitled to your opinions like I am mine. I don’t see that you have any argumentative or scientific advantage so don’t try to play one. You have an alternative opinion (in fact I’m the one that has the alternative opinion relatively speaking but whatever) and that’s all. I have no intention of arguing this further because….well this is a message board not a PhD forum. I’ve also said everything I want to say seeing as how this isn’t something I consider myself to have much of an opinion on in the first place. Plus there is no conclusive answer to this type of question anyway so I will continue to express my opinions and assume that I needn’t footnote every sentence and qualify everything with ten dozen IMOs.

[Mr Karl]

I've cheated on lot's of significant others..............but never on the current one

[Azreal Lucifuge]

But do they know that? Look at it like this: if you've done it once, you're more likely to do it again.

Make sense?

That's why I've never done it. Had it done to me. It sucked. But only because I really like this girl, and didn't want to break up with her. But, I did. Because if she had already done it once, and I gave forgiveness, she would likely do it again, thinking I would forgive her again.

I'm not saying don't do it. Sometimes, that's what's needed. Kinda brutal, but so am I.

Yeah?

[VampireLover]

No - straight female

[Raza]

But do they know that? Look at it like this: if you've done it once, you're more likely to do it again.

Make sense?

Not necessarily.

That's why I've never done it. Had it done to me. It sucked. But only because I really like this girl, and didn't want to break up with her. But, I did. Because if she had already done it once, and I gave forgiveness, she would likely do it again, thinking I would forgive her again.

So, wait. Being cheated on only hurt you because you didn't want to break up with her, but you did that anyway to avoid it happening again.

Monogamist logic...

[Raza]

To donkey Moses and Raza. You are both entitled to your opinions like I am mine. I don’t see that you have any argumentative or scientific advantage so don’t try to play one. You have an alternative opinion (in fact I’m the one that has the alternative opinion relatively speaking but whatever) and that’s all. I have no intention of arguing this further because….well this is a message board not a PhD forum. I’ve also said everything I want to say seeing as how this isn’t something I consider myself to have much of an opinion on in the first place. Plus there is no conclusive answer to this type of question anyway so I will continue to express my opinions and assume that I needn’t footnote every sentence and qualify everything with ten dozen IMOs.

I've put forth plenty of 'argumentative advantage'; frankly, this is a bit of a cop-out. It's a simple enough matter of applied ethics; by no means an issue irreducible to anything but preference or culture. If you're disinclined to approach the issue in such detail that is, of course, your prerogative - but that doesn't warrant the conclusion that no one else did.

[bilbrown]

Of course. Straight Male.

[VoltaireBlue]

yes. very straight. female

[Ubiquitress]

nope.bi lady sometimes fembivalent.
yikes y'all can jaw,im impressed.