Connection between love and sex?

[Sair]

I am saying that being the shepherd of a flock is far more difficult if you are a mother who has to bear and suckle the children.

But aren’t priests required to be celibate? Are you saying the lack of having children weighs more heavily on women than men? Because in my experience, that depends upon the individual concerned.

The principle that marriage should be for two persons who are dedicated to each other is not restricted to any particular belief system.

It is bound up with the belief in partners as property and the belief that a man must know he’s the father of his partner’s children, though.

You stated that when Christianity became an official religion it didn’t transform society - which is clearly false from the moral point of view.

How so? People still killed and maimed and tortured after the advent of Christianity - they just had a different name for the beliefs they were doing it for.

Men and women necessarily have different functions even in modern society.

Biologically, sure. But that’s it. Beyond that, there are women who are hard as nails and men who are soft and nurturing, as well as people who are better fit for the stereotypes. There is far greater variety between individuals than between the sexes.

Because natural inclinations to sexual indulgence should be resisted for one’s own benefit and that of others. Oscar Wilde was mistaken. To yield to temptations is not to get rid of them but to become a slave to them.

Depends on the temptation in question. Natural inclinations to sexual indulgence certainly have their time and place. This doesn’t change when you have more than one partner.

You have yet to prove self-control entails repression.

It doesn’t - unless it stems from a repressive mindset. If you repress your sexuality because you believe it to be a source of evil, or that it’s just dirty and distasteful, then that’s unhealthy. If you decide that you’re not going to just hop in the sack with anyone who looks game for it because you value the intimacy of sex in the context of a close emotional bond, then that’s another matter altogether.

The choice to have more than one sexual partner has far deeper and far-reaching effects on oneself and others than most other choices.

Perhaps…although it’s worth considering what the effects of other choices might be. For example, what food we choose to eat can have immensely far-reaching effects upon the people who produce said food, as well as on the environment and any other animals involved, but that’s obviously a topic for another thread. In any case, the effects of polyamory might be extensive, but it doesn’t follow that they must be negative.

How do you know I haven’t?

I don’t. But if you have, your vehement stance against it would indicate that it was a bad experience for you.

 

[Sair]

You make it sound as if polyamorists have to exercise more self-control rather than less! If it entailed such an amount of effort it would be far less enticing… unless it is masochistic!

The point is that doing what comes naturally to onesself requires less expenditure of effort than trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Certainly, in a poly relationship there are more than two people’s feelings to consider, but this kind of group mentality is what comes naturally to people who are inclined to polyamory.

Normal interaction with others does not entail negative intentions. The vast majority of people don’t set out to find other lovers when they have one already.

I think you’ll find many a divorced couple who would say otherwise.

Those who don’t set out to find other lovers when they have one already cannot regard another as essential.

There is a difference between essential and desirable, of course. Do you regard it as essential to avoid sex with others to whom you are attracted if you already have a partner?

You were disputing that there is a hierarchy and inequality. Friends would not be human if they accepted their different sexual roles as insignificant.

Again, it’s a matter of what comes naturally to the people involved. The fact that sex doesn’t feature in my relationships with most of my friends (except maybe as a topic of conversation) doesn’t make them any less my friends, and they don’t feel belittled because I don’t sleep with them - for the most part, the feeling is mutual in this regard. I get the impression that you think polyamory opens some kind of door that is closed in a monogamous relationship - because sex is not strictly forbidden to people other than one’s spouse, then it’s a big old free-for-all and suddenly people will take your refusal to sleep with them personally, rather than as something that is imposed by the fact that you already have a partner.

Monogamy in itself is not a remedy but it avoids **unnecessary **risks and complications.

Why is it necessary to be in a relationship at all, then? Some people are quite content with being hermits, after all.

Unity and harmony are difficult enough to achieve for two with children, let alone
a number which may reach ten adults and children - or more…

It’s comparatively rare for there to be more than three or four adults involved, but not unheard-of. The kinds of decisions one makes in a polyamorous relationship are very similar to those made in a monogamous relationship in terms of desiring partners with similar life goals and interests - one doesn’t just throw a completely disparate element into the family circle and expect it to work, just like one doesn’t (if one seeks contentment in life, at any rate) marry someone who wants different things in life than onesself. And it’s worth noting that a lot of the tensions in nuclear families arise from the difficulty inherent in only two people attempting to raise and support a horde of children.

It is not difficult to understand the polyamorists’ arrangements nor their risks and complications.

You seem to have great difficulty in understanding how it could be anything but a recipe for disaster.

To have experience of polygamous and promiscuous societies puts monogamy in perspective.

Polygamy and casual promiscuity are vastly different from polyamory.

Your concept is clear enough - that love is physical and stems from the sexual instinct.

Romantic love certainly does stem from the sexual instinct. This is the kind of love that you think must be kept in a box and not shared with more than one person.

Then there must be barriers which result from those preferences. For a start some individuals exclude themselves from the group sex activities.

If there even are group sex activities! Part of what makes a polyamorous relationship work is to respect and appreciate the preferences of the people involved - the same thing that makes any relationship work. You accept people for who they are.

The dedication of so much time, energy and attention to sexual activities with several individuals.

Right. 'Cause every night is orgy night in our household!

The vast majority of people are not sexually repressed because they are content with their partners and are capable of sublimating their sexual instincts into creative activities rather than being preoccupied with sexual pleasure, variety and excitement. The permissive society has led to a colossal amount of misery for many people.

Why would a polyamorous person be any more preoccupied with sex than a monogamous person? I can assure you that it isn’t the vast majority of people who are perfectly content with one partner - the divorce rate alone in our society demonstrates this. Not to mention that by the time most people marry, again in our society, they’ve already had several sexual partners, and are getting to the stage of life where sex has become far less of a preoccupation than it is during one’s youth. As I write this, I’m not sitting here thinking, “Gee, this is taking time away from all that sex I want to be having right now.” Sex isn’t something I constantly think about, nor something I indulge in just for the heck of it, 'cause I can. But when the moment is right, then it’s right. To use a rather crude analogy, I don’t spend all my time eating or thinking about food just because we have a well-stocked fridge!

 

[razredge]

And how can we be the final arbiters of our actions if everything we do has been foreseen and foreordained by an omnipotent, omniscient deity?

Who says that? You realise you can’t keep putting up straw men and knocking them down to refute theism.

And tonyrey you realise you are arguing with a polyamorous vegetarian, right? There’s no way you can win.

 

[Sair]

Who says that? You realise you can’t keep putting up straw men and knocking them down to refute theism.

Less of the “putting up straw men” and more pointing out the logical implications of belief in an omnipotent, omniscient deity.

And tonyrey you realise you are arguing with a polyamorous vegetarian, right? There’s no way you can win.

Careful - your irrational prejudices are showing through. If you’re that interested in winning arguments, you might consider actually making some…

 

[tonyrey]

Who says that? You realise you can’t keep putting up straw men and knocking them down to refute theism.

And tonyrey you realise you are arguing with a polyamorous vegetarian, right? There’s no way you can win.

I’m a vegetarian (apart from fish and eggs)! I’m wondering how that is related to love and sex…

 

[Sair]

I’m a vegetarian (apart from fish and eggs)! I’m wondering how that is related to love and sex…

Probably not much at all, except that in the eyes of certain conservative types, it makes you a hippy free-love type person…guilt by association, apparently

 

[levinas12]

Maybe the ‘we’ that is experienced requires such blind material processes in order to arrive at awareness of decisions and consequences.

That’s not the solution - it’s the problem. On one hand, we have a sense of personal responsibility (both for our actions and our knowledge claims). On the other hand, science says we are just machines.

Sair:

As for whether we are, in such conditions, the final arbiters of our actions, who else would you hold responsible? From my perspective, is there an ‘I’ that doesn’t depend upon physical processes to reach conclusions and perform actions? What do you think is responsible for such things and how do you account for it, if it exists?

There is a strange dialectic between physical processes and the “I”. Yes, we depend on physical processes for our human activities (cognition, agency). But we are not determined by those processes (at least not in the sense of physical necessity, e.g., in the way planets are constrained by gravity). We are free. And therefore, responsible.

Sair:

And how can we be the final arbiters of our actions if everything we do has been foreseen and foreordained by an omnipotent, omniscient deity?

It’s interesting that you mention this. The Calvinist theology of predestination was the cultural matrix for modern science (where all of nature became a machine). Catholics have a different theology. For us, creation has its own spontaneity, independence. God is not a mechanic. He’s a lover.

 

[tonyrey]

The vast majority of people are not sexually repressed because they are content with their partners and are capable of sublimating their sexual instincts into creative activities rather than being preoccupied with sexual pleasure, variety and excitement. The permissive society has led to a colossal amount of misery for many people.

The divorce rate demonstrates nothing of the sort. It simply shows that many people find their partner incompatible and wish to share their life with another person.

Not to mention that by the time most people marry, again in our society, they’ve already had several sexual partners, and are getting to the stage of life where sex has become far less of a preoccupation than it is during one’s youth.

Most people do not have several sexual partners at the same time.

Sex isn’t something I constantly think about, nor something I indulge in just for the heck of it, 'cause I can. But when the moment is right, then it’s right. To use a rather crude analogy, I don’t spend all my time eating or thinking about food just because we have a well-stocked fridge!

Nevertheless you don’t hesitate to indulge yourself in spite of the risks of abandoning yourself to your sexual desires. For you an urge is urgent! Certainly more demanding than other considerations.

But aren’t priests required to be celibate? Are you saying the lack of having children weighs more heavily on women than men?

I am saying the precise opposite! Having children weighs more heavily on women than men. In the Anglican and Orthodox Churches many good priests are successfully married for that very reason.

The principle that marriage should be for two persons who are dedicated to each other is not restricted to any particular belief system.

It is bound up with the belief in partners as property and the belief that a man must know he’s the father of his partner’s children, though.

Do you really believe that is the primary concern of most people in the modern world when they get married? It is rapidly becoming a weak excuse for rejecting the nobility of marriage and the inviolability of the family.

You stated that when Christianity became an official religion it didn’t transform society - which is clearly false from the moral point of view.

How so? People still killed and maimed and tortured after the advent of Christianity - they just had a different name for the beliefs they were doing it for.

The distortions of Christianity don’t alter the fact that Christians had the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity which didn’t exist before. The savagery of life in the relatively civilised Roman empire was no longer acceptable.

Men and women necessarily have different functions even in modern society.

Biologically, sure. But that’s it. Beyond that, there are women who are hard as nails and men who are soft and nurturing, as well as people who are better fit for the stereotypes. There is far greater variety between individuals than between the sexes.

You seem to regard our biological functions as insignificant even though you claim we are just higher apes!

Because natural inclinations to sexual indulgence should be resisted for one’s own benefit and that of others. Oscar Wilde was mistaken. To yield to temptations is not to get rid of them but to become a slave to them

.
Depends on the temptation in question. Natural inclinations to sexual indulgence certainly have their time and place. This doesn’t change when you have more than one partner.

Not so. There are more times and **more **places - unless they are shared!

You have yet to prove self-control entails repression.

It doesn’t - unless it stems from a repressive mindset. If you repress your sexuality because you believe it to be a source of evil, or that it’s just dirty and distasteful, then that’s unhealthy.

Do you believe the majority of married couples consider sexuality to be a source of evil, dirty and distasteful? Where is the evidence?

If you decide that you’re not going to just hop in the sack with anyone who looks game for it because you value the intimacy of sex in the context of a close emotional bond, then that’s another matter altogether.

How do you judge whether an emotional bond is sufficiently close to justify sexual intimacy?

To have more than one sexual partner has far deeper and far-reaching effects on oneself and others than most other choices.

Perhaps…although it’s worth considering what the effects of other choices might be. For example, what food we choose to eat can have immensely far-reaching effects upon the people who produce said food, as well as on the environment and any other animals involved, but that’s obviously a topic for another thread. In any case, the effects of polyamory might be extensive, but it doesn’t follow that they must be negative.

Are there no negative effects?

I don’t. But if you have, your vehement stance against it would indicate that it was a bad experience for you.

Many people have bad experiences related to sex without being polyamorists. “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak”. The difference is that they don’t seek to justify their lapses, try to obtain their partner’s consent to have further sexual adventures or adopt infidelity as a premeditated way of life because they put their family first and respect the privacy of other families. When people start taking apples off the cart you know what happens…

 

[levinas12]

When people start taking apples off the cart you know what happens…

Tonyrey, right on. Don’t dis Aphrodite. She has a pretty nasty temper.

 

[levinas12]

When people start taking apples off the cart you know what happens…

Right on, tonyrey … Aphrodite has upended many an apple cart …

 

[Sair]

That’s not the solution - it’s the problem. On one hand, we have a sense of personal responsibility (both for our actions and our knowledge claims). On the other hand, science says we are just machines.

I’m not sure which ‘science’ you’ve been reading, but science looks for physical explanations for physical phenomena - all the stuff we can experience and test and measure. Biologists don’t generally refer to organisms as ‘machines’, nor even think of them as such. We are dynamic, interactive, responsive, complex systems of matter and energy.

There is a strange dialectic between physical processes and the “I”. Yes, we depend on physical processes for our human activities (cognition, agency). But we are not determined by those processes (at least not in the sense of physical necessity, e.g., in the way planets are constrained by gravity). We are free. And therefore, responsible.

In what sense are we free? Because we too are constrained by such physical forces as gravity - we could, if we chose, step of the top of a tall building without a parachute, but that would be where our options ended. It might well be that we are physically constrained in terms of the range of choices we might make - such constraints might be internal or external. But up until the moment of action, we still have choices. I don’t think free will is as free as some would like to believe.

It’s interesting that you mention this. The Calvinist theology of predestination was the cultural matrix for modern science (where all of nature became a machine). Catholics have a different theology. For us, creation has its own spontaneity, independence. God is not a mechanic. He’s a lover.

According to some here, God is a perfect designer and a miraculous intervener. Except when there are awkward discrepancies to explain, then he’s a hands-off observer who just likes to give his creations a chance to express themselves, even though he already knows what they’re going to do! Sometimes it seems like the Christian God’s purported attributes can be conveniently reshuffled depending upon the point being argued.

 

[tonyrey]

Right on, tonyrey … Aphrodite has upended many an apple cart …

But Eve started the apples rolling…

 

[Sair]

The divorce rate demonstrates nothing of the sort. It simply shows that many people find their partner incompatible and wish to share their life with another person.

That and the fact that a lot of people don’t consider the implications of an actual lifetime commitment before choosing to share their life with someone, and think that if it’s not all freewheeling and easy, they’ve picked the wrong person.

Most people do not have several sexual partners at the same time.

But most people also don’t have one and only one sexual partner over their lifetime, so they’re still not fulfilling your ideals of marriage and sexuality.

Nevertheless you don’t hesitate to indulge yourself in spite of the risks of abandoning yourself to your sexual desires. For you an urge is urgent! Certainly more demanding than other considerations.

Where are you even getting this from? There is nothing in my descriptions and explanations of polyamory as I practice it that suggests I am some kind of reckless hedonist. You are projecting your prejudices onto someone who does not and never did fit them.

I am saying the precise opposite! Having children weighs more heavily on women than men. In the Anglican and Orthodox Churches many good priests are successfully married for that very reason.

Yet the Catholic church remains rabidly opposed to ordaining women as priests, or to priests being anything other than officially celibate. My point was not that women and men have an equal physical investment in childbearing - clearly that’s not the case. The point was that women are just as capable of foregoing reproduction and family life as men - else why would the church insist upon celibacy for nuns? The Anglican church has been known to ordain women, and there are not a few Anglican clerics who are, for all intents and purposes, atheists. I’m not sure the Anglican example provides much support for the argument you appear to be making, that the Catholic Church has some actual justification for denying women the priesthood.

Do you really believe that is the primary concern of most people in the modern world when they get married? It is rapidly becoming a weak excuse for rejecting the nobility of marriage and the inviolability of the family.

I don’t think it’s the primary concern of most modern couples, but it is the heritage of traditional marriage. I think the ownership mentality of monogamy expresses itself far more subtly in the modern West than it did a couple of centuries ago.

The distortions of Christianity don’t alter the fact that Christians had the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity which didn’t exist before. The savagery of life in the relatively civilised Roman empire was no longer acceptable.

Of course they were still acceptable. The savagery was just directed at a different set of people. The trouble with Christian ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity is that they tend to be postponed until the afterlife.

You seem to regard our biological functions as insignificant even though you claim we are just higher apes!

I don’t claim we are ‘just’ anything. We are what we are - but the fact that a woman is capable of bearing a child should not be used as a determinant for her personality and the course her life will take. Potential motherhood does not define a woman, any more than potential fatherhood defines a man.

Not so. There are more times and **more **places - unless they are shared!

Again, this depends upon the partners involved.

Do you believe the majority of married couples consider sexuality to be a source of evil, dirty and distasteful? Where is the evidence?

Only if they’ve been brought up in strict Catholic homes - and even then, they might think it’s OK once they’ve officially obtained God’s permission to do what comes naturally.

How do you judge whether an emotional bond is sufficiently close to justify sexual intimacy?

How do you judge this in a monogamous relationship?

Are there no negative effects?

We’ve been through this. Several times now. Polyamory carries the risk that it will not work out for the people involved. But monogamy carries the same risks, and a person who leaves a monogamous relationship, importantly, leaves their partner alone.

Many people have bad experiences related to sex without being polyamorists. “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak”. The difference is that they don’t seek to justify their lapses, try to obtain their partner’s consent to have further sexual adventures or adopt infidelity as a premeditated way of life because they put their family first and respect the privacy of other families. When people start taking apples off the cart you know what happens…

And you’re still equating polyamory with casual promiscuity! The two are qualitatively different things. You’re taking apples off the cart and calling them oranges. Of course sex is going to lead to bad experiences if you’re careless or indiscriminate in your choice of partner and if you don’t appreciate and respect the intimacy that goes along with sexual intercourse. But this can - and very frequently does - happen to people who are monogamously inclined. It’s got nothing to do with the decision to pursue polyamorous relationships. Until you can appreciate that the inclination to polyamory is, in many cases, borne of a desire to build family and nurture relationships, then there seems little point to continuing this discussion. :banghead:

 

[razredge]

I’m a vegetarian (apart from fish and eggs)! I’m wondering how that is related to love and sex…

A pescetarian is not a vegetarian by any means.

It isn’t related - it just goes with the whole hippy ‘free love’ thing Sair seems to espouse.

Less of the “putting up straw men” and more pointing out the logical implications of belief in an omnipotent, omniscient deity.

Careful - your irrational prejudices are showing through. If you’re that interested in winning arguments, you might consider actually making some…

The logical implications only follow in certain conceptions of an omnipotence and omniscience, while you can certainly claim that of say, a Calvinist it isn’t true of other theist positions.

One thing I have learnt from internet debate is that it is pretty much impossible to win an argument with an opponent unwilling to cede their position (as the geocentrists,creationists etc on here so eminently demonstrate) so it might be better to stay out of this one (especially since I already have a stake in a dozen other debates currently raging on CAF) though it is an interesting topic

So I think, I’ll let Tony get back to it - he certainly doesn’t seem to be running out of steam or needing any help

 

[Sair]

\

The logical implications only follow in certain conceptions of an omnipotence and omniscience, while you can certainly claim that of say, a Calvinist it isn’t true of other theist positions.

The only time you get different logical implications from omniscience and omniscience is if they aren’t actually characteristics of your God. Is your God limited or is he not? Is the Catholic version or the Calvinist version the real Christian God, and how would one know?

One thing I have learnt from internet debate is that it is pretty much impossible to win an argument with an opponent unwilling to cede their position (as the geocentrists,creationists etc on here so eminently demonstrate) so it might be better to stay out of this one (especially since I already have a stake in a dozen other debates currently raging on CAF) though it is an interesting topic

That’s certainly true. Once people run out of arguments, it becomes time to rehash the previously covered ones or descend into name calling - although at least the latter seems to happen less readily here than on some other such forums and blogs I’ve visited.

So I think, I’ll let Tony get back to it - he certainly doesn’t seem to be running out of steam or needing any help

Although it is getting pretty repetitive…

 

[razredge]

The only time you get different logical implications from omniscience and omniscience is if they aren’t actually characteristics of your God. Is your God limited or is he not? Is the Catholic version or the Calvinist version the real Christian God, and how would one know?

Yes, I’d say He is ‘limited’, omnipotence can be taken as the greatest power in existence, similarily with omniscience - perhaps God can only know what is knowable so He may not know the future since it doesn’t exist.

Although it is getting pretty repetitive…

Like I said, he doesn’t seem to be running out of steam - and neither do you - it’s almost like a staring contest. I just enjoy seeing the whole pages of multi quotes.

 

[Sair]

Yes, I’d say He is ‘limited’, omnipotence can be taken as the greatest power in existence, similarily with omniscience - perhaps God can only know what is knowable so He may not know the future since it doesn’t exist.

I guess that pulls the rug out from under those who want to argue that God is ‘outside’ time. Although I’m not sure the definitions of omnipotent and omniscient (never mind perfect) allow for any limitations, except perhaps that which is logically (not just practically) impossible. Maybe some new adjectives would be in order.

Like I said, he doesn’t seem to be running out of steam - and neither do you - it’s almost like a staring contest. I just enjoy seeing the whole pages of multi quotes.

Oh, I think the conversation actually ran out of steam quite some time ago - after all, how many ways are there to assert or deny that polyamory entails hedonistic abandon with rampant orgies every night? I think we’ve covered all of them and then some…

 

[levinas12]

We are dynamic, interactive, responsive, complex systems of matter and energy.

The problem is reconciling our sense of “free will” with science. Some say that consciousness is a weird, inexplicable effect of electrical events in the brain driven solely by physical necessity … we are biological computers … according to this view, we are not free at all …

 

[tonyrey]

The divorce rate shows that many people find their partner incompatible…

Another result of the permissive society is that many people don’t want a lifetime commitment.

But most people also don’t have one and only one sexual partner over their lifetime, so they’re still not fulfilling your ideals of marriage and sexuality.

Most people don’t believe in having several at the same time because they know it is unrealistic to divide your attention and create unnecessary complications.

There is nothing in my descriptions and explanations of polyamory as I practice it that suggests I am some kind of reckless hedonist.

Being reckless and misguided are not identical. You believe sexual activity is desirable with friends because you believe we are animals.

Yet the Catholic church remains rabidly opposed to ordaining women as priests, or to priests being anything other than officially celibate.

I have pointed out the limitations of the patriarchal mentality. Infallibility is restricted to fundamental doctrines of faith and morals. Whether women become priests or not they are regarded as equal in the sight of God, many have been canonised and they include the greatest saint of all: Mary…

I think the ownership mentality of monogamy expresses itself far more subtly in the modern West than it did a couple of centuries ago.

Ownership is not the same as unwillingness to share one’s partner.Physical or psychological “possession” in marriage does not necessitate inequality or domination. It reflects the willingness to give yourself completely to your partner without reserve or qualifications or conditions. It is an expression of total love which does not need to be supplemented by physical intimacy with anyone else. Yet at the same time it is inclusive of others. When you are happy you want others to share your sense of fulfilment by finding the **person **with whom they will find contentment.

The distortions of Christianity don’t alter the fact that Christians had the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity which didn’t exist before. The savagery of life in the relatively civilised Roman empire was no longer acceptable.

Of course they were still acceptable. The savagery was just directed at a different set of people. The trouble with Christian ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity is that they tend to be postponed until the afterlife.

On the contrary the Sacraments are designed to help Catholics to aim at those ideals and give them the grace to overcome their failings. We believe we determine our own destiny and postponement is out of the question. We are also sinners but we don’t accept our weaknesses as inevitable. Pleasure is not intrinsically evil but it becomes evil when it is a priority.

Potential motherhood does not define a woman, any more than potential fatherhood defines a man.

Actual motherhood defines a woman because her primary obligation - like her husband’s - is the welfare of her family, which has always been the nucleus of civilised society. Moral decadence has destroyed more than one person, family, nation and empire.

There are more times and more places - unless they are shared!

Again, this depends upon the partners involved.

When there are several lovers there are more sexual encounters - unless masochism is involved!

Do you believe the majority of married couples consider sexuality to be a source of evil, dirty and distasteful?

Only if they’ve been brought up in strict Catholic homes - and even then, they might think it’s OK once they’ve officially obtained God’s permission to do what comes naturally.

It is the abuse of sexuality that is evil, dirty and distasteful. It was the Manicheans and Puritans who regarded physical pleasure as sinful. Christian marriage is the consecration of man and wife to God. If it is not consummated it can be annulled. That demonstrates the necessity, beauty and significance of the sexual act.

How do you judge whether an emotional bond is sufficiently close to justify sexual intimacy?

How do you judge this in a monogamous relationship?

By being prepared to cherish the person for the rest of your life without extramarital relations.

Polyamory carries the risk that it will not work out for the people involved. But monogamy carries the same risks, and a person who leaves a monogamous relationship, importantly, leaves their partner alone.

1. Polyamory carries greater risks because there are more individuals concerned.
2. You don’t incur less risk of being left alone when you have several lovers because if one leaves you and you get older their attention will turn to others.
3. The basis of polyamory is infidelity even though by mutual consent. It is the thin end of a wedge to which there are no definite limits.

Until you can appreciate that the inclination to polyamory is, in many cases, borne of a desire to build family and nurture relationships, then there seems little point to continuing this discussion.

When you get married do you set out with the express intention and mutual agreement that you will build a family with lovers? Or is it a later development when you realise you need others to supplement your relationship? What would be the legal status of children who are born into a polyamorous community? Shouldn’t our primary concern be for the principles, values and welfare of those who are growing up in our family rather than the adults? They are at the most impressionable stage of their lives and a faulty attitude to sexual morality will lead to promiscuity and unwanted pregnancy before they have fully matured.

 

[levinas12]

The problem is reconciling our sense of “free will” with science. Some say that consciousness is a weird, inexplicable effect of electrical events in the brain driven solely by physical necessity … we are biological computers … according to this view, we are not free at all …

The more appropriate place for this issue is probably the Stephen Hawking thread.

But the problem of freedom is caught up in the connection between love and sex. Especially when the question arises whether we are free to choose different sexual lifestyles.

If it’s all a matter of physical necessity, then we are no more free than the planets in their circuit about the sun. In the world of strict scientific determinism, some of us have to be monogamous; others have to be polyamorous.

Our only “option” in this scenario is amor fati, love of fate (per Spinoza, one of the great pantheists).

Why even argue about polyamory?