Connection between love and sex?

[levinas12]

Why even argue about polyamory?

Unless “reasons” are not the same as “physical causes”.

 

[Sair]

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

And some people only want one…

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

Projecting again. I believe sexual activity is acceptable with friends, desirable with partners because it is an act that, if properly approached, strengthens and nurtures relationships.

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…

Who was recognised as a virgin and a mother, and nothing in between.

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.

There are always qualifications in relationships - if one partner violates the relationship, they’re out, at least until such time as the violation is amended. Such qualifications are the result of negotiation between partners…except in the case where the belief in marriage continuity at all costs overrides the needs of the individuals concerned.

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.

Inclusive only to the extent that physical intimacy is taboo - why place physical intimacy on a pedestal above emotional intimacy? Is it legitimate and understandable to be jealous of one’s spouse’s best platonic friend? If not, why not?

When you are happy you want others to share your sense of fulfilment by finding the **person **with whom they will find contentment.

And when you are happy with yourself, you understand that your partner(s) loves and values you for who you are, but doesn’t depend upon you for all of their personal fulfilment.

Pleasure is not intrinsically evil but it becomes evil when it is a priority.

Does that mean one must not take pleasure in emotional intimacy?

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.

And this obligation has obviously been distributed equally between men and women… How many men, throughout history, have been stay-at-home fathers whilst their wives went out to earn a living?

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

So you think that minimising sexual intimacy is a priority?

It is the abuse of sexuality that is evil, dirty and distasteful.

Agreed - although I think you’re using a different definition of ‘abuse’ to mine.

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

At what point do you realise this with a potential partner?

1. Polyamory carries greater risks because there are more individuals concerned.

And obviously the way to completely reduce the risks is to remain celibate and alone.

1. 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.

Do you even understand what is involved in long-term relationships that are chosen rather than imposed?

1. 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.

Firstly, it isn’t infidelity if there’s mutual consent. Infidelity involves deception. Secondly, you’re making a slippery-slope argument, and they’re rarely if ever valid.

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.

I can’t speak for all poly folks, but as it happens, my husband and I had been monogamous for many years before we married, and a couple of years into our marriage, we realised that we had polyamorous inclinations. It’s not a matter of supplementing a relationship, but enhancing it. As for children, they can be legally defined, if necessary, by DNA testing, at least until the system catches up with the reality. Otherwise, they are the children of the mother, as the children of single mothers are legally defined. Are you primarily concerned with instilling conservative values in children? If not, how can you not see that educating children in the principles of broad-ranging love and respect is beneficial? A faulty attitude to sexual morality is generated when children are taught that the only person they need to respect is the one they intend to marry…

 

[tonyrey]

Projecting again.

Isn’t it logical to behave like animals if we are animals?

I believe sexual activity is acceptable with friends, desirable with partners because it is an act that, if properly approached, strengthens and nurtures relationships.

How does it do that?

Mary…

Who was recognised as a virgin and a mother, and nothing in between.

She is the co-redemptrix because she shared in the suffering and love of her Son for everyone. Being a virgin and mother inspires rather than stifles other activities. My wife’s life was saved by nuns in an African mission hospital. Sublimation is more fertile and creative than submission to the sexual urge.

There are always qualifications in relationships - if one partner violates the relationship, they’re out, at least until such time as the violation is amended. Such qualifications are the result of negotiation between partners…except in the case where the belief in marriage continuity at all costs overrides the needs of the individuals concerned.

So the initial relationship is more important than subsequent relationships?

Is it legitimate and understandable to be jealous of one’s spouse’s best platonic friend? If not, why not?

Jealousy is justified by neglect - or even the sense of neglect. Favouritism is always a potential cause of conflict and sex is often a cause of murder or suicide.To play with sex is to play with dynamite!

And when you are happy with yourself, you understand that your partner(s) loves and values you for who you are, but doesn’t depend upon you for all of their personal fulfilment.

When you are really happy with your spouse you do not endanger your marriage. We are rational beings but sometimes we are dominated by our emotions.

Pleasure is not intrinsically evil but it becomes evil when it is a priority.

Does that mean one must not take pleasure in emotional intimacy?

To put pleasure before common sense is a form of addiction. When sex becomes an inveterate habit it can have devastating consequences.

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.

How many men, throughout history, have been stay-at-home fathers whilst their wives went out to earn a living?

Most men care deeply for their children in spite of having to go out to work. Yet moral decadence destroys persons, families and society. It is largely due to ignorance not malice. Many women have abortions without even considering whether it is right or wrong…

So you think that minimising sexual intimacy is a priority?

I believe in Aristotle’s principle of moderation.

It is the abuse of sexuality that is evil, dirty and distasteful.

Agreed - although I think you’re using a different definition of ‘abuse’ to mine.

In my opinion the substitution of sex for other creative activities with your friends is a misuse which may well lead to abuse.

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

At what point do you realise this with a potential partner?

When you have good reasons to believe you are physically, psychologically and spiritually compatible.

1. Polyamory carries greater risks because there are more individuals concerned.

And obviously the way to completely reduce the risks is to remain celibate and alone.

On the contrary it increases the risks if you are not capable of celibacy.

1. 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.

Do you even understand what is involved in long-term relationships that are chosen rather than imposed?

People usually become more sensitive and vulnerable as they get older. They are more likely to feel neglected and depressed when they are separated from their partner. It is then that the real test of polyamory occurs.

1. 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.

Firstly, it isn’t infidelity if there’s mutual consent. Infidelity involves deception. Secondly, you’re making a slippery-slope argument, and they’re rarely if ever valid.

How about taking drugs, stealing, telling lies, giving in to temptation? In law the infidelity of a married person constitutes adultery regardless of mutual consent.

I can’t speak for all poly folks, but as it happens, my husband and I had been monogamous for many years before we married, and a couple of years into our marriage, we realised that we had polyamorous inclinations.

Getting married has made polyamory more attractive! What does that signify?

It’s not a matter of supplementing a relationship, but enhancing it.

Quality is preferable to quantity!

As for children, they can be legally defined, if necessary, by DNA testing, at least until the system catches up with the reality. Otherwise, they are the children of the mother, as the children of single mothers are legally defined.

The children of a married person and an adult other than the spouse are illegitimate.

How can you not see that educating children in the principles of broad-ranging love and respect is beneficial?

I cannot see how educating children to be unfaithful is beneficial.

 

[tonyrey]

In my opinion the substitution of sex for other creative activities with your friends is a misuse which may well lead to abuse.

Sexual activity with your friends is creative in the sense that it may lead to pregnancy or an attachment to one of them which is stronger than your attachment to your spouse - and also negative if it leads to separation or divorce.

 

[Sair]

Isn’t it logical to behave like animals if we are animals?

And how exactly do ‘animals’ behave? Do all nonhuman animals behave in the same way?

How does it do that?

Encourages bonding and emotional intimacy. That’s part of its natural function.

She is the co-redemptrix because she shared in the suffering and love of her Son for everyone. Being a virgin and mother inspires rather than stifles other activities. My wife’s life was saved by nuns in an African mission hospital. Sublimation is more fertile and creative than submission to the sexual urge.

How is being a virgin and mother inspiring when the reality is that those things are mutually exclusive? Sublimation and submission, in terms of sexual intimacy, ought to be in balance. An excess of either can be harmful.

So the initial relationship is more important than subsequent relationships?

Should it be ‘more’ important?

Jealousy is justified by neglect - or even the sense of neglect. Favouritism is always a potential cause of conflict and sex is often a cause of murder or suicide.To play with sex is to play with dynamite!

If there’s a sense of neglect, the sensible thing to do is to discuss it and make the person concerned aware that you feel neglected, so that those involved can attempt to resolve the problem. This is what mature adults do, rather than overreacting and letting the problem fester.

When you are really happy with your spouse you do not endanger your marriage. We are rational beings but sometimes we are dominated by our emotions.

Who said anything about endangering a marriage? My relationship with my husband has grown stronger and richer through our pursuit of polyamory.

To put pleasure before common sense is a form of addiction. When sex becomes an inveterate habit it can have devastating consequences.

Again, you’re projecting your concerns onto me. I am neither addicted nor habituated to sex for its own sake. And part of common sense is allowing the experience of pleasure, even finding pleasure in the ordinary.

Most men care deeply for their children in spite of having to go out to work. Yet moral decadence destroys persons, families and society.

I don’t doubt that men care for their children, only that social expectations tend to limit the ways in which this care is expressed. Stay-at-home dads are still very much in the minority.

I believe in Aristotle’s principle of moderation.

And I believe in Epicurus’s principle of moderation.

In my opinion the substitution of sex for other creative activities with your friends is a misuse which may well lead to abuse.

Who said anything about substitution? Do you think sex is the only activity in which I engage with my friends?

When you have good reasons to believe you are physically, psychologically and spiritually compatible.

There you go. That’s when you know with poly partners as well.

On the contrary it increases the risks if you are not capable of celibacy.

So, you think that capability is important, huh? Don’t you think there are people who are not capable of monogamy? Why should it be legitimate to marry if you’re not capable of celibacy, but not legitimate to be polyamorous if you’re not capable of being happy in a monogamous relationship?

People usually become more sensitive and vulnerable as they get older. They are more likely to feel neglected and depressed when they are separated from their partner. It is then that the real test of polyamory occurs.

Presumably the possibility of separation from a partner is increased if you only have one partner… But seriously, why would increased vulnerability be more of an issue for polyamorous folks, with a network of close relationships, than for monogamous folks with one close relationship?

How about taking drugs, stealing, telling lies, giving in to temptation?

How about them? What do they have to do with sex?

In law the infidelity of a married person constitutes adultery regardless of mutual consent.

And presumably this only becomes an issue if divorce is on the cards…

Getting married has made polyamory more attractive! What does that signify?

It signifies that we came to a point where we had enough confidence in ourselves and in the strength of our partnership that we could consider inviting others into our relationship.

Quality is preferable to quantity!

Sure. I certainly wouldn’t have sex with just anyone, at any available opportunity. I have enough experience to know that there’s no fulfilment to be found in sex unless there’s an emotional connection.

The children of a married person and an adult other than the spouse are illegitimate.

But they’re still real, living, breathing, feeling children. Legitimacy and illegitimacy are defined for the sake of property and inheritance laws. But to quote a character from a particularly fine BBC miniseries, “The world is full of bastards who became kings, little man.”

I cannot see how educating children to be unfaithful is beneficial.

How would they be educated to be unfaithful? Being unfaithful means engaging in deceit, knowingly acting in ways that are hurtful to your partner, violating the agreed terms of a relationship. None of these things apply to a sound polyamorous relationship.

 

[Sair]

Isn’t it logical to behave like animals if we are animals?

And as I’ve pointed out in a previous post, most other animals - notable exceptions being our closest relatives, the chimps and bonobos - invest comparatively very little time engaging in sexual activity, only during specific seasons and almost exclusively for the purpose of reproduction. So apparently it’s you who is suggesting that we ought to “behave like animals”…

 

[tonyrey]

And as I’ve pointed out in a previous post, most other animals - notable exceptions being our closest relatives, the chimps and bonobos - invest comparatively very little time engaging in sexual activity, only during specific seasons and almost exclusively for the purpose of reproduction. So apparently it’s you who is suggesting that we ought to “behave like animals”…

In that case according to your naturalist interpretation of human nature we should all be obliged to model ourselves on the chimps and bonobos - and become polyamorists, making monogamy and celibacy criminal offences!

 

[Sair]

In that case according to your naturalist interpretation of human nature we should all be obliged to model ourselves on the chimps and bonobos - and become polyamorists, making monogamy and celibacy criminal offences!

Yeah, because polyamory and even casual promiscuity are currently criminal offences… Do you even understand how it’s possible to accept alternative sexual orientations and configurations without condemning them out of hand because they don’t match your narrow idealism?

 

[Sair]

My naturalist interpretation of human behaviour allows for many variations, because such is the nature of the human animal - I don’t condemn monogamy and celibacy in the same manner in which you condemn everything that is not monogamy or celibacy. I simply contend that it is possible to achieve fulfilment and happiness in ways other than those instituted by Christianity and capitalism.

 

[tonyrey]

Do all nonhuman animals behave in the same way?

Should it be ‘more’ important?Is the relationship with your husband on par with the others?

If there’s a sense of neglect, the sensible thing to do is to discuss it and make the person concerned aware that you feel neglected, so that those involved can attempt to resolve the problem.

What happens in your discussions? It must be very hard to give up a person who has become a part of your life. Some one must eventually succumb to jealousy because you cannot give equal attention and affection to everyone over a long period of time.

My relationship with my husband has grown stronger and richer through our pursuit of polyamory.

In which ways?

I am neither addicted nor habituated to sex for its own sake.

You are not addicted to sex for its own sake but you are more habituated to it than most people.

And part of common sense is allowing the experience of pleasure, even finding pleasure in the ordinary.

Having several lovers is hardly finding pleasure in the ordinary!

I don’t doubt that men care for their children, only that social expectations tend to limit the ways in which this care is expressed.

That strengthens their love.

I believe in Epicurus’s principle of moderation.

Do you believe the distinction between good and evil stems from pleasure and pain? Epicurus believed that when we do not suffer we no longer need pleasure and attain ataraxia, i.e. peace of mind. That’s why probably why he never married, knowing sex often disturbs one’s equilibrium. He also explicitly warned against overindulgence.

In my opinion the substitution of sex for other creative activities with your friends is a misuse which may well lead to abuse.

Who said anything about substitution? Do you think sex is the only activity in which I engage with my friends?The increased amount of time spent on sexual activity with your friends reduces your scope for other creative activities. If it is a genuine expression of friendship it cannot be brief.

When you have good reasons to believe you are physically, psychologically and spiritually compatible.

That’s when you know with poly partners as well.With the problem of deciding whether your lovers will be physically, psychologically and spiritually compatible with your husband and with one another. Are you prepared to cherish all of them for the rest of your life?

Why should it be legitimate to marry if you’re not capable of celibacy, but not legitimate to be polyamorous if you’re not capable of being happy in a monogamous relationship?

Why shouldn’t you be happy with your husband?

But seriously, why would increased vulnerability be more of an issue for polyamorous folks, with a network of close relationships, than for monogamous folks with one close relationship?

If they are honourable your lovers do not want to displace your husband from the first place in your love and loyalty.

How about taking drugs, stealing, telling lies, giving in to temptation?

What do they have to do with sex?You stated that a slippery-slope argument is rarely if ever valid. You underestimate the power of the libido especially if a person is hypersexual. History is full of scandals which have led to misery and disaster.

Getting married has made polyamory more attractive! What does that signify?

It signifies that we came to a point where we had enough confidence in ourselves and in the strength of our partnership that we could consider inviting others into our relationship.
If it took such a long time it seems you eventually found each other sexually inadequate and were motivated by a desire for variety and excitement.

I have enough experience to know that there’s no fulfilment to be found in sex unless there’s an emotional connection.

Emotions are notoriously changeable. How long would a friendship have to last before intimacy becomes possible?

Legitimacy and illegitimacy are defined for the sake of property and inheritance laws.

The issue is not the intrinsic value of the children but the social and legal consequences which often** harm** them.

Being unfaithful means engaging in deceit, knowingly acting in ways that are hurtful to your partner, violating the agreed terms of a relationship. None of these things apply to a sound polyamorous relationship.

Children are taught that sex is not a sacred, beautiful gift that should be reserved for your life partner but a physical expression of friendship in which they can indulge with whoever they choose. In our society the consequences are the huge increase in teenage pregnancies, abortions, STDs, divorces and one parent families.

[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

Yeah, because polyamory and even casual promiscuity are currently criminal offences… Do you even understand how it’s possible to accept alternative sexual orientations and configurations without condemning them out of hand because they don’t match your narrow idealism?

I’m not condemning but simply stating the facts. I have pointed out that our conscience is our ultimate authority…

 

[tonyrey]

My naturalist interpretation of human behaviour allows for many variations, because such is the nature of the human animal - I don’t condemn monogamy and celibacy in the same manner in which you condemn everything that is not monogamy or celibacy.

Yet you wrote:

“Sublimation and submission, in terms of sexual intimacy, ought to be in balance. An excess of either can be harmful.”

 

[tonyrey]

I simply contend that it is possible to achieve fulfilment and happiness in ways other than those instituted by Christianity and capitalism.

Capitalism has been condemned by the Catholic Church: although there is a right to private property no one has the right to accumulate large amounts of private property while others in the world lack the basic requirements for survival and development.

 

[Sair]

Yet you wrote:

“Sublimation and submission, in terms of sexual intimacy, ought to be in balance. An excess of either can be harmful.”

What does this have to do with not condemning monogamy or celibacy? Everyone’s balance point will be different, depending on their individual needs. For some people, celibacy is optimal - such a choice is not compelled by anyone else’s rules, but is the lifestyle with which they feel most comfortable. They’re not sublimating their sexual urges for the sake of making sure they don’t bubble over into excess - they just prefer to spend their energies on other activities. I have no issue with this. People are entitled to choose how they live, if by doing so they refrain from harming others. This argument stands for any relationship configuration to which a person might feel drawn.

What I take issue with is people feeling compelled by religious or societal expectations to act in ways that are contrary to their individual needs, and being made to feel ashamed of their natural desires if they find it difficult to fit the prefab mould. If a person is sublimating their sexual urges primarily because they are not permitted to express them, this is hardly a matter of balance.

 

[tonyrey]

“Sublimation and submission, in terms of sexual intimacy, ought to be in balance. An excess of either can be harmful.”

“An excess of either can be harmful” gives the impression that celibacy - which entails total voluntary sublimation - is harmful. No Catholic is compelled to act in ways that are contrary to their individual needs, far less be made to feel ashamed of their natural desires.

It is ludicrous to regard sexual infidelity as a need**.** A person who is not satisfied with one lover needs counselling. Self-restraint is preferable to self-indulgence unless we choose to live like animals…

 

[Sair]

“An excess of either can be harmful” gives the impression that celibacy - which entails total voluntary sublimation - is harmful. No Catholic is compelled to act in ways that are contrary to their individual needs, far less be made to feel ashamed of their natural desires.

“Voluntary” is the key here. If a person feels most comfortable being celibate, keeping themselves from intimate sexual relations with others, that is a matter for them. Sublimation is not really an issue, because there is not the extent of sexual desire that may manifest in others.Sublimation is only an issue when it is demanded by an external pressure, rather than felt naturally.

It is ludicrous to regard sexual infidelity as a need**.** A person who is not satisfied with one lover needs counselling. Self-restraint is preferable to self-indulgence unless we choose to live like animals…

Immense score here for revealing your personal prejudices - why is it ludicrous to regard “sexual infidelity” as a need if it is part of our biological makeup? Why would you assume that just because certain individuals can conform, everyone must? What is the aim of counselling directed towards a person who desires more than one intimate lover? Conformity? Or is there some aspect of their individual welfare you are taking into account? If there is, I don’t see it.

As for “living like animals,” I’ve already addressed that misunderstanding. It just reveals that you don’t have much understanding of how the rest of the animal kingdom conducts itself.

 

[tonyrey]

“Voluntary” is the key here. If a person feels most comfortable being celibate, keeping themselves from intimate sexual relations with others, that is a matter for them. Sublimation is not really an issue, because there is not the extent of sexual desire that may manifest in others.Sublimation is only an issue when it is demanded by an external pressure, rather than felt naturally.

 

[Sair]

Sair;8011467:

I am simply giving you my personal opinion just as you give your personal opinion that Mary “was recognised as a virgin and a mother, and nothing in between”…

Mary’s defining characteristics are her virginity and her motherhood - everything else is either subordinate to or follows from these.

What evidence is there that a normal person must have several lovers in order to be happy and satisfied?

What do you recognise as normal? Different people have a different range of needs, different ways of expressing themselves such that they feel comfortable and happy with their lives. For some, this involves having more than one intimate relationship.

It is not a matter of conformity but common sense. Obesity and alcoholism are often due to lack of self-restraint which stems from other factors like boredom, loneliness and a sense of futility. Hypersexuality is a similar disorder which requires investigation and counselling.

Are you talking about sex addiction? Because that is a vastly different issue to wanting to develop close relationships with multiple lovers. Addictions all share the same fundamental characteristic - the substance or behaviour to which a person is addicted, be it drugs, alcohol, food, gambling, sex or whatever, becomes the controlling factor in the person’s life. This is not what happens in polyamorous relationships. The sex follows from the close, intimate partnership with a lover - it is not the driving force.

Of course it is difficult to distinguish to what extent we are motivated by physical and psychological traits. The decision to have several lovers may be simply due to a rational decision to live according to one’s belief that we are animals.

There is nothing to ‘believe’ - we are animals. We’re not mineral or vegetable, therefore animal. The decision to have several lovers is not, as you seem to be trying to portray, something that stems from any rejection of the ‘higher’ aspects of human nature - our ability to share deep emotional, intellectual and physical bonds - but something undertaken from the conscious awareness that it is not only possible but also worthwhile and immensely rewarding to share intimacy in all its aspects with more than one other person.

Yet it is unrealistic to think the desire for intense sexual pleasure and excitement are not a contributing factor - and it can become a necessity rather than a luxury.

See above comments about sex addiction. Most people who present with this identify as monogamous, but consider the sex in and of itself to be entirely separate from any close relationships they may have. This is very far from what polyamory is about. I obviously wouldn’t deny that sexual pleasure plays a not insignificant part in the equation, but that is the case with all sexual relationships, ideally. Sex shouldn’t be a chore, after all!

One thing is certain. If we live as if we are animals we shall be restricted in our personal, moral and spiritual development. Our worst enemies are those which are intangible…

We are animals! African apes, to be precise. What’s more, we are not the only animals that display cooperation, altruism, a theory of mind and a sense of justice. All the qualities that we possess are animal qualities, and must be, because we are animals.

I am well aware of the flaws in the theory that we are naked apes - which maintains that we are dominated by physical factors beyond our control. Our supposed origin from killer apes is said to explain our blood-stained history, as if we cannot choose how to act. Its logical corollary is that we cannot choose what to believe! If that is true how can we rely on our conclusions about what we are?

Generally speaking, we can’t choose what to believe. I love the idea of reincarnation, but I can’t just make myself believe in it, no matter how attractive, absent some concrete evidence that it happens. As for the ‘killer ape’ thing, it’s probably bogus, invented by theorists who are wedded to the idea of progress, that we are somehow getting better all the time. Our closest living relatives are chimps, which are violent in certain circumstances, and bonobos, which are the most peaceful animals on earth, pretty much. The better aspects of our nature and our capacity for such achievements as we’ve made - intelligence, altruism, emotional bonding, science, philosophy, ethics, language, art - are qualities that couldn’t have evolved without the innate cooperation and interdependence of our ape ancestors, and certainly not in a violent chaos of every ape for itself.

 

[tonyrey]

Mary’s defining characteristics are her virginity and her motherhood - everything else is either subordinate to or follows from these.

What do you recognise as normal? Different people have a different range of needs, different ways of expressing themselves such that they feel comfortable and happy with their lives. For some, this involves having more than one intimate relationship.The same argument could be used by those who are promiscuous. Isn’t it just a question of degree?

Addictions all share the same fundamental characteristic - the substance or behaviour to which a person is addicted, be it drugs, alcohol, food, gambling, sex or whatever, becomes the controlling factor in the person’s life. This is not what happens in polyamorous relationships. The sex follows from the close, intimate partnership with a lover - it is not the driving force.

How can you be sure of that? You seem to believe it has now become a need whereas it wasn’t when you were younger. Is that due to becoming older or has your personality changed? Or were you unhappy and frustrated all those years?

There is nothing to ‘believe’ - we are animals. The decision to have several lovers is not, as you seem to be trying to portray, something that stems from any rejection of the ‘higher’ aspects of human nature - our ability to share deep emotional, intellectual and physical bonds - but something undertaken from the conscious awareness that it is not only possible but also worthwhile and immensely rewarding to share intimacy in all its aspects with more than one other person.

So your intimate relationships are absolutely essential for you to be completely happy and fulfilled because they are the most worthwhile and rewarding experiences of which you are capable. Is that correct?

Yet it is unrealistic to think the desire for intense sexual pleasure and excitement are not a contributing factor - and it can become a necessity rather than a luxury.

Most people who present with this identify as monogamous, but consider the sex in and of itself to be entirely separate from any close relationships they may have.
I think you are exaggerating. How do you know that people isolate sex from everything else? You are going to the other extreme and associating sex with close friendship. . Sex is an important part of life but it is not the only form of love and affection. In fact persons can be more deeply united when they expressing their thoughts and feelings with words rather than physical contact. Nor are they isolated from others like lovers “making love”. Sex becomes a divisive factor because it is not a social activity but reserved for certain privileged individuals. Some conversations need to be private but **all **sexual activity is unsocial - unless one is an exhibitionist.

We are animals! African apes, to be precise. What’s more, we are not the only animals that display cooperation, altruism, a theory of mind and a sense of justice. All the qualities that we possess are animal qualities, and must be, because we are animals.

In that case we should treat human beings like animals and animals like human beings!
If there is no essential difference they should have equal rights and the same obligations.They should held responsible, put on trial and in prison with men and women. The world should be an Animal Farm in which there is genuine liberty, equality and fraternity for all species. Polyamory should be extended to other apes and mammals. Humanism should become animalism and democracy bestiocracy!

Generally speaking, we can’t choose what to believe.

Why “Generally speaking”? If we can’t choose what to believe we can’t - full stop. There’s no point in analysing or discussing anything because our minds are already made up for us. Even we’re wrong we’ll never change our minds because we’re incapable of doing so. Conclusions are thrust upon us like the shapes of our fingers and toes. In other words we’re wasting our time and energy thinking about anything. The die is cast and all our beliefs are worthless because there are far more ways of being wrong than being right. There are countless errors but only one truth.

As for the ‘killer ape’ thing, it’s probably bogus, invented by theorists who are wedded to the idea of progress, that we are somehow getting better all the time. Our closest living relatives are chimps, which are violent in certain circumstances, and bonobos, which are the most peaceful animals on earth, pretty much. The better aspects of our nature and our capacity for such achievements as we’ve made - intelligence, altruism, emotional bonding, science, philosophy, ethics, language, art - are qualities that couldn’t have evolved without the innate cooperation and interdependence of our ape ancestors, and certainly not in a violent chaos of every ape for itself.

“better” is a value judgment which is meaningless in a mechanistic world where no one can choose what to believe or how to behave. What must be must be and that’s it! Finis.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Sair]

You have already made it clear that you have a low opinion of virginity, a nebulous attitude towards motherhood and a total rejection of the value of Christ’s suffering and that of His mother at the foot of the Cross.

I certainly have a low opinion of the advocacy of virginity as an ideal state, especially for a woman. Not to mention the fact that Mary is set up as an ideal no real woman could emulate - a virgin and a mother.

The same argument could be used by those who are promiscuous. Isn’t it just a question of degree?

It depends how you treat the people you take to bed - if you use them for sex and discount every other aspect of their person, especially if they are seeking more from the association than a casual bit of fun, then it’s a bit more than a question of degree.

You seem to believe it has now become a need whereas it wasn’t when you were younger. Is that due to becoming older or has your personality changed? Or were you unhappy and frustrated all those years?

People change throughout their lives. Are you the same person you were as a teenager or a young adult? If you’re attempting to compare polyamory to addiction, you’re barking up the wrong tree.

So your intimate relationships are absolutely essential for you to be completely happy and fulfilled because they are the most worthwhile and rewarding experiences of which you are capable. Is that correct?

Certainly one of the most worthwhile and rewarding experiences. I also, for example, find it extremely worthwhile and rewarding to walk and cuddle the dogs at the shelter I’ve been volunteering with. What’s your point?

How do you know that people isolate sex from everything else?

Some people’s behaviour is a big giveaway in this regard.

Sex is an important part of life but it is not the only form of love and affection. In fact persons can be more deeply united when they expressing their thoughts and feelings with words rather than physical contact. Nor are they isolated from others like lovers “making love”. Sex becomes a divisive factor because it is not a social activity but reserved for certain privileged individuals. Some conversations need to be private but **all **sexual activity is unsocial - unless one is an exhibitionist.

Actually, there’s some evidence that prior to the advent of the extensive taboos of organised religion, sex was not such a private activity. The numbers of people who view pornography and the natural tendency of women, in particular, to be loudly vocal during sex, suggest that there’s a strong and probably innate desire to watch or at least be aware of others having sex. Unless a couple spends all their time having sex, they are hardly to be considered as isolating themselves from others. Do you worry about isolating yourself from a partner when you use the toilet? Because I presume you don’t share that with anyone. In any case, polyamory involves exploring a range of intimate expression with lovers, not restricting one particular expression to one person and one only.

In that case we should treat human beings like animals and animals like human beings! If there is no essential difference they should have equal rights and the same obligations.They should held responsible, put on trial and in prison with men and women. The world should be an Animal Farm in which there is genuine liberty, equality and fraternity for all species. Polyamory should be extended to other apes and mammals. Humanism should become animalism and democracy bestiocracy!

Firstly, what a ridiculous set of assertions. Different animals have different capacities. Would you treat a tapeworm the same way you would treat a cat? By your lights, why wouldn’t you? They’re both animals. Secondly, I think you’ll find that our closest relatives - chimps and bonobos - are already quite happily exercising a form of polyamory without any intervention required from us.

Why “Generally speaking”? If we can’t choose what to believe we can’t - full stop.

Some people try really, really hard to persuade themselves that the religion they have adopted or that they grew up in is really, really true. It’s more a process of denying or ignoring any challenges or inconsistencies than actively choosing what to believe, though.

There’s no point in analysing or discussing anything because our minds are already made up for us. Even we’re wrong we’ll never change our minds because we’re incapable of doing so. Conclusions are thrust upon us like the shapes of our fingers and toes. In other words we’re wasting our time and energy thinking about anything. The die is cast and all our beliefs are worthless because there are far more ways of being wrong than being right. There are countless errors but only one truth.

Who’s making up our minds for us? If certain of my neural impulses control and shape other neural impulses, or hormonal, electrochemical, kinetic impulses, then I am, in every way that matters, a self-controlling entity. This process is not a one-way street, either - other impulses and responses influence neural impulses in their turn, as we interact with our environment. Beliefs are meaningful in that they influence our actions and the way we think about things. That doesn’t mean they can’t change as we continue to experience different aspects of life in the world. Why do you find it at all useful or meaningful to draw a distinction between the ‘me’ that governs a person’s actions and the ‘me’ that exists as part of material reality? They are one and the same being. And good luck finding that one truth out of the many contenders - I know your church claims access to ultimate truth, but it’s hardly shown itself immune to error or to changing its mind.