Connection between love and sex?

[Sair]

The Christian ideal of marriage is certainly not a business transaction.

Yet somehow Christianity failed to alter the traditional nature of marriage for centuries after it became the dominant religion in the West. It merely provided a gloss on what was already a well-established socioeconomic institution.

The reason so many marriages fail is because we live in a permissive society dominated by sexploitation where faithfulness has become far less important and far more difficult.

That depends on what you count as failure. Does a marriage fail when two people who can’t stand the sight of each other are obliged to stay together by social expectation and economic necessity, as happened in past centuries? Does a marriage fail if there is mutual agreement between the spouses to amicably end it? I think you’d find, if you went back in history, that sexual promiscuity always happened, whether it was considered socially acceptable to speak of it or not. After all, Charles II was one of the most notoriously promiscuous of English kings, yet he fought to preserve his marriage to Catharine of Braganza, despite parliamentary pressure to divorce her. Was his marriage a failure?

Then why did it take you both so many years to have lovers?

Our relationship was too volatile early on to invite anyone else into it. There were always hints that sexual exclusivity was not something either of us wanted, but we needed time to establish what we wanted and needed from each other and from our life together. A couple of years before we married, when we finally realised that we just couldn’t do without each other, we also realised that our relationship was strong enough to allow us to explore relationships with other lovers.

 

[Sair]

It sounds as if submission to sexual attraction is essential!

That is just your interpretation of what I’ve been attempting to explain - the fact that sex is not prohibited with others. Sexual attraction - for me, at least - is something that requires time and nurturance, not a fleeting fancy. I don’t just see someone and decide I must have sex with them.

It is absurd to pretend we are never attracted.

Quite. Yet some people still take attraction to others to mean their partner doesn’t love them enough.

Polyamory without sex?

Why not? As I’ve been saying all along, sex is just one means of expressing intimacy. I guess this also depends upon precisely what you define as sex.

What makes a limit artificial? Is sexual perversion permissible?

Again, what kind of activity constitutes sexual perversion? Short of demonstrably harmful activities such as rape and paedophilia, it pretty much depends upon who you ask. Some people consider BDSM to be sexual perversion, yet there are healthy, thriving relationships in which the partners practise it. I would consider artificial any limit which requires a person to conform to a condition which cannot meet their personal needs, when nonconformity to said condition produces no demonstrable harm - or when the harm involved is due to artificial social or religious expectations, rather than real human requirements.

There is no evidence that animals restrain themselves - or behave altruistically - according to moral principles or that they have abstract concepts of good or evil.

Then clearly they need neither moral principles or abstract concepts of good and evil in order to do so.

Is all human interaction based solely on natural demands?

From my perspective, how could it be otherwise?

That is because they are either incompatible or sexually insatiable.

So monogamous marriages work because the partners are partially frigid? Maybe part of the incompatibility issue is that one partner simply isn’t wired for monogamy.

Sexual inclusivity implies that sexual activity with others is entirely a matter of choice and mutual consent.

Personal choice and mutual consent are essential aspects of any relationship, whether sexual or otherwise. You choose those with whom you wish to be friends, right? And one presumes that they would welcome your friendship in turn.

Over a million one-parent families in the UK are the direct result of the absence of what you call “artificial limits”.

Actually, they are in part the result of the presence of artificial limits - monogamous culture requires that if you want to be with another person, you abandon your existing partnership.

It is a form of primitive animalism to think contentment is entirely or even mainly the result of balancing our physical urges. Polyamory is the logical outcome of such a hedonistic belief. The body is no longer the temple of the Holy Spirit but primarily a source of pleasure!

As far as I’m concerned, no body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. Contentment is the result of balancing all of our urges. Of course the body is to be considered a source of pleasure - but I suspect my concept of what constitutes pleasure is somewhat broader than what you mean by it here. And all pleasures are supervenient upon the physical body.

The logical outcome of polyamory in a secular society is the eventual disappearance of marriage:

“Additionally, participants in a polyamorous relationship may not have, nor encourage their partners to have, preconceptions as to the duration of the relationship, in contrast to monogamous marriages where a life-long union is generally the goal.” - wikipedia

This is true of some people’s approach to polyamory, but it is also true of the way many people approach monogamy - particularly in youth, where transitory relationships are the norm in our society. But the fact is that some people do actually pursue long-term polyamory, seeking life-long partnerships with two or more lovers. If anything, the logical outcome of polyamory is the eventual acceptance of group marriage, not the disappearance of marriage altogether. There will always be people who seek life-long, loving, committed relationships - it’s just that some people seek them with more than one other person at a time.

 

[tonyrey]

It sounds as if submission to sexual attraction is essential!

Then submission to sexual attraction **is **essential if it something that requires time and nurturance! Otherwise you wouldn’t bother…

It is absurd to pretend we are never attracted.

Yet some people still take attraction to others to mean their partner doesn’t love them enough.

They are justified if their partner believes the attraction is irresistible.

Polyamory without sex?

Why not? As I’ve been saying all along, sex is just one means of expressing intimacy. I guess this also depends upon precisely what you define as sex.

Polyamory wouldn’t exist if no polyamorists had lovers.

What makes a limit artificial? Is sexual perversion permissible?

Again, what kind of activity constitutes sexual perversion? Short of demonstrably harmful activities such as rape and paedophilia, it pretty much depends upon who you ask. Some people consider BDSM to be sexual perversion, yet there are healthy, thriving relationships in which the partners practise it.

If you don’t practise it why not?

I would consider artificial any limit which requires a person to conform to a condition which cannot meet their personal needs, when nonconformity to said condition produces no demonstrable harm - or when the harm involved is due to artificial social or religious expectations, rather than real human requirements.

Do you think all harm is demonstrable? How do you decide which social or religious expectations are artificial?

There is no evidence that animals restrain themselves - or behave altruistically - according to moral principles or that they have abstract concepts of good or evil.

Then clearly they need neither moral principles or abstract concepts of good and evil in order to do so.

You assume animals can restrain themselves or behave altruistically to the same extent as us.

Is all human interaction based solely on natural demands?

From my perspective, how could it be otherwise?

So you equate personal with natural? Which animals are persons?

That is because they are either incompatible or sexually insatiable.

So monogamous marriages work because the partners are partially frigid?

Most work because the deep love of the partners makes extramarital sex unnecessary.

Maybe part of the incompatibility issue is that one partner simply isn’t wired for monogamy.

If that is the case such persons are incapable of controlling their sexual urge.

Sexual inclusivity implies that sexual activity with others is entirely a matter of choice and mutual consent.

Personal choice and mutual consent are essential aspects of any relationship, whether sexual or otherwise. You choose those with whom you wish to be friends, right? And one presumes that they would welcome your friendship in turn.

In other words you put the marital relationship on a par with other relationships - with no distinctive feature.

Over a million one-parent families in the UK are the direct result of the absence of what you call “artificial limits”.

Actually, they are in part the result of the presence of artificial limits - monogamous culture requires that if you want to be with another person, you abandon your existing partnership.

Do you have any evidence that most people want to share their partner?

It is a form of primitive animalism to think contentment is entirely or even mainly the result of balancing our physical urges. Polyamory is the logical outcome of such a hedonistic belief. The body is no longer the temple of the Holy Spirit but primarily a source of pleasure!

As far as I’m concerned, no body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. Contentment is the result of balancing all of our urges. Of course the body is to be considered a source of pleasure - but I suspect my concept of what constitutes pleasure is somewhat broader than what you mean by it here. And all pleasures are supervenient upon the physical body.

That means your sexual play is justified because you are a plaything of your instincts and urges!

The logical outcome of polyamory in a secular society is the eventual disappearance of marriage:

“Additionally, participants in a polyamorous relationship may not have, nor encourage their partners to have, preconceptions as to the duration of the relationship, in contrast to monogamous marriages where a life-long union is generally the goal.” - wikipedia

This is true of some people’s approach to polyamory, but it is also true of the way many people approach monogamy - particularly in youth, where transitory relationships are the norm in our society. But the fact is that some people do actually pursue long-term polyamory, seeking life-long partnerships with two or more lovers. If anything, the logical outcome of polyamory is the eventual acceptance of group marriage, not the disappearance of marriage altogether. There will always be people who seek life-long, loving, committed relationships - it’s just that some people seek them with more than one other person at a time.

Because one person is not enough to satisfy them psychologically and physically.

 

[tonyrey]

The Christian ideal of marriage is certainly not a business transaction.

Christianity has always upheld the rights of women but it cannot compel everyone to respect them.

The reason so many marriages fail is because we live in a permissive society dominated by sexploitation where faithfulness has become far less important and far more difficult.

That depends on what you count as failure. Does a marriage fail when two people who can’t stand the sight of each other are obliged to stay together by social expectation and economic necessity, as happened in past centuries?Does a marriage fail if there is mutual agreement between the spouses to amicably end it?

Marriage fails when the children cannot be brought up with the love of united parents.

I think you’d find, if you went back in history, that sexual promiscuity always happened, whether it was considered socially acceptable to speak of it or not. After all, Charles II was one of the most notoriously promiscuous of English kings, yet he fought to preserve his marriage to Catharine of Braganza, despite parliamentary pressure to divorce her. Was his marriage a failure?

Sexual promiscuity is as significant as theft…
:

Then why did it take you both so many years to have lovers?

Our relationship was too volatile early on to invite anyone else into it. There were always hints that sexual exclusivity was not something either of us wanted, but we needed time to establish what we wanted and needed from each other and from our life together. A couple of years before we married, when we finally realised that we just couldn’t do without each other, we also realised that our relationship was strong enough to allow us to explore relationships with other lovers.

Is it a sign of strength or weakness to have to explore other sexual relationships? Is it a necessary achievement?

 

[tonyrey]

I wasn’t posing a dilemma - I was pointing out that you apparently see no difference between casual promiscuity and polyamory.

 	  	*What gives you that idea?*

Your insistence upon approaching polyamory as if it was entirely motivated by the desire for superficial, transient sexual relationships of the kind pursued by people who just like to ‘hook up’ with others for sex with no strings attached. The point of polyamory is that the strings are what we want - it’s about whole relationships, not just sex. It’s about intimacy that doesn’t get strictly defined under the headings of ‘intellectual’ or ‘emotional’ or ‘sexual’ because one of those categories is forbidden to be shared with anyone other than one’s spouse.

I fully realise that the sexual relationships may be deep and long-lasting but they are necessarily more uncertain than your prime relationship. Or do you regard all your lovers as equally important?

It’s about actually sharing your life with more than one person at a time.

We can share our life with our friends but do you have to share your body? What is so important about physical sex that it must be a part of close friendship? Does successful intercourse give you an illusion of being fully united? The need for physical exploration implies that the amount of sexual pleasure obtained with your husband is not sufficient…

 

[tonyrey]

It is ironic that you think sexual considerations are paramount for me because you are the one who is convinced it is your right to have intercourse with whoever you choose!

Don’t women have a right to have children?

For you it is an essential part when you are physically attracted to another person.

No, not essential. Desirable, perhaps, but not necessary.

Polyamory implies that it is essential.

And the pursuit of ‘more worthwhile’ goals that don’t afford a sense of pleasure and satisfaction leads to misery.

So physical pleasure always comes first?

What do you imagine you are if not an animal?

A person with a capacity for unselfish love.

Do you base your decisions on biological factors?

Not all of them.

What are the exceptions?

What would be a non-biological factor?

Unselfish love.

If monogamy was natural for humans, it would require considerably less effort and would enjoy rather more success as a social arrangement. Be that as it may, the limits are based upon what each partner feels comfortable with.

So morality means staying in your comfort zone? You oppose monogamy because it requires too much effort.

Sometimes the attraction doesn’t develop until the friendship is well established.

Not always?

How do you justify that hypothesis?

Only through the evidence of social history.

What evidence?

How do you justify that belief?

Through my own experience and intentions, and those of my friends, and those of other poly folks. How do you justify your implication that my beliefs about my own experience are invalid, particularly when it’s not apparent that you have any such experience of your own to measure against?

You stated that “the network of intimate friends… was the norm” as if there is clear evidence polyamory was common at one time.

The vast majority of couples need to express their love by committing themselves exclusively to each other without needing to use their genital organs to express friendship.

A vast majority? Are you sure? What makes this a need rather than a cultural convention?

The deep conviction that the love of a man and a woman is a unique personal relationship which does not need to be supplemented by sexual intercourse with others.

Your mutual decision to have lovers is a logical consequence of your belief that we are apes.

Absolutely. Just like our mutual fondness for bananas and our tendency to groom each other and look for lice. Your logic is not like our earth logic…

Your earth logic blinds you to spiritual reality.

As far as I’m aware, pigs aren’t polyamorous.

They put physical satisfaction first.

Do you really think physical enrichment precludes emotional and intellectual enrichment?

Any form of physical self-indulgence - whether it be food, drink or sex - can impoverish personal qualities

Your self-control, respect and commitment are diminished as a result of mutual consent. You have chosen to be members of a volatile sexual community based on expediency. When your lovers cease to be friends they are replaced by others. Your initial relationship is weakened because you have lovers who may prove to be more fulfilling in the long run.

What reason would I possibly have for discarding friends? That would only happen if something was done to actively ruin the friendship - and that would take a pretty significant betrayal. There is nothing volatile about the relationships we build with our lovers, any more than there is volatility inherent in any monogamous relationship.

Monogamous relationships are not based on a set of relationships which necessarily differ in their intensity and duration. The lovers appear at different times and may disappear more readily than your husband. There cannot be complete equality or stability in such an arrangement. The more persons there are the more likely some will be incompatible.

Clearly you haven’t read anything I’ve written so far, preferring to content yourself with the all-knowing Wikipedia…

The fact remains that for you physical sex is the sine qua non of close friendship.

Of course it “works” for you at the animal level because you believe there is no other level! For an “emancipated” woman chastity is folly and self-indulgence is a virtue. Men have had an unfair share of sexual adventures and now you must demonstrate you are equally capable of enjoying yourself.

Yes, of course. My polyamorous inclinations are actually an expression of deep-seated feminism. I mean to level the playing field, dammit!

So your main motive is to achieve absolute equality with men? Regardless of whether their behaviour is justified…

I wonder why you keep coming back to this ‘animal level’ tripe, since it’s pretty obvious that most animals don’t pursue sex for any other reason than reproductive instinct, and only at certain times of the year. If anything, sexual indulgence is a particularly human characteristic.

You obviously regard sexual indulgence as an achievement and a virtue! We can live at a higher level than animals because we can deliberately pursue sex for maximising pleasure…

 

[Sair]

Don’t women have a right to have children?

Not if they are unable to care for them, for whatever reason - once the children are in existence, their rights have to be considered also.

Polyamory implies that it is essential.

Uh, no - rampant casual sex implies that it is essential. Polyamory implies that intimacy is essential, although it need not be sexual intimacy.

So physical pleasure always comes first?

Depends how you define physical pleasure, but even so, why should it? Why should not physical pleasure be just one part of an overall package? Are you suggesting that one would automatically gravitate to what you call ‘physical’ pleasure over any other kind of pleasure?

A person with a capacity for unselfish love.

What counts as unselfish in your world? Do you derive no satisfaction whatsoever for giving up particular pleasures of your own for the sake of the pleasure of seeing another’s needs satisfied? Or don’t you count the latter as pleasure?

Unselfish love.

What do you count as unselfish love? Would it include allowing your spouse to explore emotional and sexual opportunities with other lovers despite your own feelings of jealousy or inadequacy?

So morality means staying in your comfort zone? You oppose monogamy because it requires too much effort.

There’s a difference between staying in your comfort zone and doing what is comfortable.
A comfort zone implies that one has got used to a certain set of circumstances, regardless of whether this is what one really needs or wants. Habitation is hard to break out of, but sometimes breaking out is the only way to find fulfilment.

You stated that “the network of intimate friends… was the norm” as if there is clear evidence polyamory was common at one time.

Polyamory, as it is currently understood, is a very recent social phenomenon. The practices that influence polyamory, however, have probably been going on for millennia. It’s just that people are talking about them openly now. Shared intimacy is one of these practices.

The deep conviction that the love of a man and a woman is a unique personal relationship which does not need to be supplemented by sexual intercourse with others.

Um, sexual intercourse with others is not - at least, in my relationships - considered as supplementary to sexual intercourse with my husband. That would be treating my other partners as a means to an end, not appreciating them as ends in themselves. What’s more, as I’ve pointed out before, my relationship with each partner is unique, because the individuals involved are unique. Relationships - at least in terms of polyamory - are not defined solely by the degree of sexual intimacy involved, as relationships often are in monogamous culture.

Your earth logic blinds you to spiritual reality.

What does this statement even mean? What ‘spiritual’ reality is available for the seeing?

They put physical satisfaction first.

Sure they do. But that physical satisfaction often includes intelligent exploration of their environment, hence we must presume some intellectual engagement therein. I’ve yet to hear the explanation for how intellectual stimulation and satisfaction are not ‘physical’.

Any form of physical self-indulgence - whether it be food, drink or sex - can impoverish personal qualities

So your ideal is to pursue an ascetic existence, devoid of simple bodily pleasure or pursuit of knowledge and understanding and experience? After all, if the indulgence of desire leads to some kind of ‘personal’ diminution, the upshot is that denial leads to personal enhancement, right? Again, you’ve yet to demonstrate that such things as intellectual curiosity and emotional need are not physical.

Monogamous relationships are not based on a set of relationships which necessarily differ in their intensity and duration. The lovers appear at different times and may disappear more readily than your husband.

And yet this perfectly describes most of the ‘relationships’ I saw during my youth, only they were defined by the cultural boundaries of monogamy.

There cannot be complete equality or stability in such an arrangement. The more persons there are the more likely some will be incompatible.

Sure - but if you put all your eggs in one basket, that doesn’t decrease the odds of incompatibility, only the impact upon your emotional stability and general wellbeing.

So your main motive is to achieve absolute equality with men? Regardless of whether their behaviour is justified…

Hmmm. Maybe I should put sarcasm markers on subsequent comments.

You obviously regard sexual indulgence as an achievement and a virtue! We can live at a higher level than animals because we can deliberately pursue sex for maximising pleasure…

Wow. You’re quite happy to wax lyrical about human superiority in every other field - why do you close the shutters when it comes to sex? I merely point out that humans have far more diverse and complex sexual proclivities than most other animals, and you suddenly abandon your ‘acting like animals’ schtick and accuse me of elevating sex to a human ‘achievement’! You’re obviously confused - pursuit of unfettered sexual satisfaction is, according to you, an ‘animal’ instinct, and therefore reprehensible in humans (who, by your lights, are not animals); except that most animals engage in the kind of sex recommended by ascetically-inclined religions - at certain times, and only for procreation. When I point this out, you tie yourself in knots to claim that sexual diversity is ‘animal’ whilst restriction of sexual behaviour is uniquely ‘human’.

 

[tonyrey]

]Not if they are unable to care for them…

So women have the right to have children if they can.

Polyamory implies that intimacy is essential, although it need not be sexual intimacy.

Sexual intimacy is essential for most polyamorists .

Are you suggesting that one would automatically gravitate to what you call ‘physical’ pleasure over any other kind of pleasure?

Polyamorists do gravitate to physical pleasure.

Do you derive no satisfaction whatsoever for giving up particular pleasures of your own for the sake of the pleasure of seeing another’s needs satisfied?

Is your main aim to see your husband’s needs satisfied with other women?

What do you count as unselfish love? Would it include allowing your spouse to explore emotional and sexual opportunities with other lovers despite your own feelings of jealousy or inadequacy?

That situation arises only for those who believe sexual opportunities are essential.

Habituation is hard to break out of, but sometimes breaking out is the only way to find fulfilment.

A criminal could use the same argument!

The practices that influence polyamory, however, have probably been going on for millennia.

Infidelity has occurred for millenia but as a virtue.

Sexual intercourse with others is not - at least, in my relationships - considered as supplementary to sexual intercourse with my husband. That would be treating my other partners as a means to an end, not appreciating them as ends in themselves.

It is supplementary - regardless of how you regard them!

Relationships - at least in terms of polyamory - are not defined solely by the degree of sexual intimacy involved, as relationships often are in monogamous culture.

Most polyamorist relationships are distinctive because the sexual love of a couple is considered inadequate.

Your earth logic blinds you to spiritual reality.

What ‘spiritual’ reality is available for the seeing?

Do you believe only what you observe?

They put physical satisfaction first.

But that physical satisfaction often includes intelligent exploration of their environment, hence we must presume some intellectual engagement therein.

“some” is the key word!

I’ve yet to hear the explanation for how intellectual stimulation and satisfaction are not ‘physical’.

Or how intellectual activity stems from neural impulses.

So your ideal is to pursue an ascetic existence, devoid of simple bodily pleasure or pursuit of knowledge and understanding and experience?

Are ideals physical? Your priority is the pursuit of sexual knowledge and experience.

If the indulgence of desire leads to some kind of ‘personal’ diminution, the upshot is that denial leads to personal enhancement.

Doesn’t indulgence of any desire have adverse effects?

Again, you’ve yet to demonstrate that such things as intellectual curiosity and emotional need are not physical.

There is a whole range of intangible ideas, principles, desires and emotions.

Monogamous relationships are not based on a set of relationships which necessarily differ in their intensity and duration.

And yet this perfectly describes most of the ‘relationships’ I saw during my youth, only they were defined by the cultural boundaries of monogamy.

They were not committed relationships.

The more persons there are the more likely some will be incompatible.

Sure - but if you put all your eggs in one basket, that doesn’t decrease the odds of incompatibility, only the impact upon your emotional stability and general wellbeing.
Is having lovers** essential **for your emotional stability and general wellbeing?

So your main motive is to achieve absolute equality with men?

Hmmm. Maybe I should put sarcasm markers on subsequent comments.

Not sarcasm but a reasonable interpretation of your words:

“My polyamorous inclinations are actually an expression of deep-seated feminism. I mean to level the playing field, dammit!”

You’re quite happy to wax lyrical about human superiority in every other field - why do you close the shutters when it comes to sex?

I don’t. I have exalted it as the highest relationship between a man and a woman.

I merely point out that humans have far more diverse and complex sexual proclivities than most other animals, and you suddenly abandon your ‘acting like animals’ schtick and accuse me of elevating sex to a human ‘achievement’!

I have simply taken you at your word:

1. Contentment is “the result of balancing all of our urges”).
2. Polyamory is “about **building **family, about restoring the network of intimate friends.”
3. Its point is “to **nurture **intimate relationships, an honest attempt to **acknowledge **human nature and provide it with a nurturing, ethical framework in which to grow and develop.”

You’re obviously confused - pursuit of unfettered sexual satisfaction is, according to you, an ‘animal’ instinct, and therefore reprehensible in humans (who, by your lights, are not animals); except that most animals engage in the kind of sex recommended by ascetically-inclined religions - at certain times, and only for procreation.

The pursuit of unfettered sexual satisfaction is voluntary submission to a physical instinct. Sexual satisfaction is only reprehensible when it is idolised as essential because it reduces sex to pleasure and gives the illusion that lovers are fully united.

When I point this out, you tie yourself in knots to claim that sexual diversity is ‘animal’ whilst restriction of sexual behaviour is uniquely ‘human’.

You equate human exploitation of sex with sexual diversity. Animals act instinctively whereas we misuse our genital organs.

 

[Sair]

So women have the right to have children if they can.

I’m not certain procreation is a right at all. There are other considerations involved as well as the ability of the parents to properly care for a child.

Sexual intimacy is essential for most polyamorists .
Polyamorists do gravitate to physical pleasure.

But they generally don’t divorce the act of sex from the emotional connection involved.

Is your main aim to see your husband’s needs satisfied with other women?

How do you leap from this being something I could do to it being my main aim? The fact is that many polyamorists do derive pleasure and satisfaction from knowing their partners give and receive pleasure with others.

That situation arises only for those who believe sexual opportunities are essential.

Are emotional opportunities essential? Is it just sex that is essential with only one person?

It is supplementary - regardless of how you regard them!

I could with equal justification say monogamy is always restrictive and suffocating, no matter how you regard it!

Most polyamorist relationships are distinctive because the sexual love of a couple is considered inadequate.

Tying yourself exclusively to one person and expecting them to fulfil all your needs is inadequate and unhealthy, no matter how you regard it.

Do you believe only what you observe?

I don’t invest belief in notions that are ill-defined and irrelevant and most likely imaginary.

Or how intellectual activity stems from neural impulses.

We don’t know precisely how it works. What we do know is that intellectual activity ceases when the physical brain is no longer functional. Everything points to a direct connection between neural activity and what we experience as conscious awareness and thought and sensation.

Are ideals physical? Your priority is the pursuit of sexual knowledge and experience.

Ideals are general descriptions abstracted from particular physical states of affairs. In that sense, they are physical and could not exist absent other physical phenomena. And yes, pursuit of knowledge is one of my priorities in life - sex is one very powerful means of getting to know another person, if you do it properly.

Doesn’t indulgence of any desire have adverse effects?

Why would this be so? And what do you count as indulgence? Anything other than self-denial?

There is a whole range of intangible ideas, principles, desires and emotions.

The point is that these things are based upon tangible things, and would not exist without them.

They were not committed relationships.

Then they are no yardstick against which to compare committed polyamorous relationships.

Is having lovers** essential **for your emotional stability and general wellbeing?

Yes. Having a network of close relationships is better for emotional and mental health than isolating yourself with just one other person.

Not sarcasm but a reasonable interpretation of your words:

“My polyamorous inclinations are actually an expression of deep-seated feminism. I mean to level the playing field, dammit!”

Which were intended to be sarcastic. Polyamorous inclinations do not stem from any ideological position I may hold.

I don’t. I have exalted it as the highest relationship between a man and a woman.

But only if it’s done strictly within the church’s rules, apparently…

I have simply taken you at your word:

1. Contentment is “the result of balancing all of our urges”).
2. Polyamory is “about **building **family, about restoring the network of intimate friends.”
3. Its point is “to **nurture **intimate relationships, an honest attempt to **acknowledge **human nature and provide it with a nurturing, ethical framework in which to grow and develop.”

None of which indicates that I consider human sexuality to be any kind of ‘achievement’.

The pursuit of unfettered sexual satisfaction is voluntary submission to a physical instinct.

Who said anything about it being ‘unfettered’? That is your misguided equation of polyamory with casual, no-strings-attached sex.

Sexual satisfaction is only reprehensible when it is idolised as essential because it reduces sex to pleasure and gives the illusion that lovers are fully united.

Yet you have just admitted that you idolise sex as “the highest relationship between a man and a woman”. Sexual pleasure, in an intimate, committed relationship, is about far more than mere stimulation of erogenous zones. I fail to see how you can regard sex as sacred when confined to one other person yet reprehensible if shared with more than one other person, even if that sharing is on the same terms of deep emotional connection and commitment. Do you think it is impossible to regard someone other than your spouse as anything more than a sex object? Do you think pleasure is only legitimate as a side-effect of something you do for some other purpose?

You equate human exploitation of sex with sexual diversity. Animals act instinctively whereas we misuse our genital organs.

‘Exploitation’ of sex is treating it as a commodity to be bought and sold and traded. Sexual diversity is simply an accurate description of the range of ways in which humans express sexuality. I think you underestimate the influence of instinct upon human behaviour. Is a human who masturbates, for example, acting more or less upon instinct than a bonobo who does the same? And how, exactly, is polyamory a ‘misuse’ of organs that have obviously evolved not just for procreation but for social bonding through shared pleasure?

 

[tonyrey]

There are other considerations involved as well as the ability of the parents to properly care for a child.

But they generally don’t divorce the act of sex from the emotional connection involved.It is a pretext for the act of sex.

]How do you leap from this being something I could do to it being my main aim?

If you are a polyamorist it must be one of your main aims because sexual pleasure and satisfaction are essential priorities which determine your life style and without which you are doomed to be frustrated and unhappy.

Are emotional opportunities essential?

Sexual opportunities are not the most important emotional opportunities.

I could with equal justification say monogamy is always restrictive and suffocating, no matter how you regard it!

Only for a small polyamorist minority.

Tying yourself exclusively to one person and expecting them to fulfil all your needs is inadequate and unhealthy, no matter how you regard it.

You equate all your needs with sexual needs.

I don’t invest belief in notions that are ill-defined and irrelevant and most likely imaginary.

Do you believe only what you observe?

What we do know is that intellectual activity ceases when the physical brain is no longer functional.

You assume it ceases.

Everything points to a direct connection between neural activity and what we experience as conscious awareness and thought and sensation.

A connection is not a cause.

Ideals are general descriptions abstracted from particular physical states of affairs.

Ideals are personal goals based on our highest values and principles more important than pleasure and even survival.

In that sense, they are physical and could not exist absent other physical phenomena.

Only for physicalists.

And yes, pursuit of knowledge is one of my priorities in life - sex is one very powerful means of getting to know another person, if you do it properly.

Then you cannot know a person fully unless you know how to - and -copulate with that person properly?

What do you count as indulgence?

Excessive attachment to pleasure.

Anything other than self-denial?

Do you never practise self-denial?

The point is that these things are based upon tangible things, and would not exist without them.

How do you know that? Your entire philosophy is based on obsolete materialism - which was discredited when logical positivism collapsed.

Then they are no yardstick against which to compare committed polyamorous relationships.

It is only your yardstick.

Having a network of close relationships is better for emotional and mental health than isolating yourself with just one other person.

It is ludicrous to think that without sexual intercourse with others we are doomed to isolation.

Polyamorous inclinations do not stem from any ideological position I may hold.

So you don’t want to level the playing field?

I have exalted sex as the highest relationship between a man and a woman.

But only if it’s done strictly within the church’s rules, apparently…Countless couples outside the Church share that belief.

1. Contentment is “the result of balancing all of our urges”).

1. Polyamory is “about building family, about restoring the network of intimate friends.”
2. Its point is “to nurture intimate relationships, an honest attempt to acknowledge human nature and provide it with a nurturing, ethical framework in which to grow and develop.”

None of which indicates that I consider human sexuality to be any kind of ‘achievement’.
The issue is not sexuality but polyamory…

The pursuit of unfettered sexual satisfaction is voluntary submission to a physical instinct.

Who said anything about it being ‘unfettered’? You did!

That is your misguided equation of polyamory with casual, no-strings-attached sex.

Your misguided preconception of my concept of polyamory!

Sexual satisfaction is only reprehensible when it is idolised as essential because it reduces sex to pleasure and gives the illusion that lovers are fully united.

Yet you have just admitted that you idolise sex as "the highest relationship between a man and a woman"Idolatry is a far more appropriate term for those who replace God with goals like pleasure and sex.

I fail to see how you can regard sex as sacred when confined to one other person yet reprehensible if shared with more than one other person, even if that sharing is on the same terms of deep emotional connection and commitment.

Sharing cannot be on the same terms.

Do you think it is impossible to regard someone other than your spouse as anything more than a sex object?

Polyamorists regard every friend as a potential sex object. For you sexual pleasure is an absolute necessity for understanding a person and developing the highest form of love.

Do you think pleasure is only legitimate as a side-effect of something you do for some other purpose?

How do you reach that conclusion?

‘Exploitation’ of sex is treating it as a commodity to be bought and sold and traded.

Sexploitation includes the multiple use of sex as a proof and guarantee of love.

Is a human who masturbates, for example, acting more or less upon instinct than a bonobo who does the same?

No. There is the element of choice.

And how, exactly, is polyamory a ‘misuse’ of organs that have obviously evolved not just for procreation but for social bonding through shared pleasure?

Do you base **all **your moral values on our evolutionary heritage?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Sair]

Sair;8117946:

It is a pretext for the act of sex.

And I suppose monogamous marriage is never this…

If you are a polyamorist it must be one of your main aims because sexual pleasure and satisfaction are essential priorities which determine your life style and without which you are doomed to be frustrated and unhappy.

Sex no more dominates the lifestyle of a polyamorist than it does that of a monogamist. To say otherwise is the equivalent of saying that sex is the primary goal of marriage, and that your relationship with your spouse is all and only about the sex.

Sexual opportunities are not the most important emotional opportunities.

Except with your spouse?

You equate all your needs with sexual needs.

Hardly. Do you obtain all your emotional and intellectual satisfaction from your spouse? Or do you spend time with other friends as well?

Do you believe only what you observe?

I believe only what has a demonstrable bearing upon my life in this world.

You assume

it ceases.

Based upon observation. There are no observations or experiences that suggest otherwise. Do you participate in seances and speak with dead people? Otherwise, on what basis do you assume that despite all evidence to the contrary, minds persist in the absence of neural activity?

A connection is not a cause.

Not necessarily, but it’s still a connection. How does anything nonphysical have any connection to anything at all?

Ideals are personal goals based on our highest values and principles more important than pleasure and even survival.

Such as?

Excessive attachment to pleasure.

So, would you claim that a scholar who found great pleasure in learning was being indulgent?

Do you never practise self-denial?

Sure I do. But not for its own sake.

How do you know that? Your entire philosophy is based on obsolete materialism - which was discredited when logical positivism collapsed.

Then I take it you’ve never heard of nonreductive physicalism…

It is ludicrous to think that without sexual intercourse with others we are doomed to isolation.

But without interaction with others, we are doomed to isolation. It seems odd to hold sexual interaction apart from every other form of personal interaction.

So you don’t want to level the playing field?

Sure I do, but this is quite distinct from my polyamorous inclinations. The one is not a product of the other - it would be just as easy to be a monogamous feminist, and many women are so.

Countless couples outside the Church share that belief.

Not usually outside religious regulations, though.

The issue is not sexuality but polyamory…

Actually, the issue really is sexuality. You only see one form of it as legitimate.

Your misguided preconception of my concept of polyamory!

Your continuous denouncement of polyamory as being all about cheap sexual thrills would seem to suggest that you do equate it with casual promiscuity.

Idolatry is a far more appropriate term for those who replace God with goals like pleasure and sex.

I don’t idolise pleasure - I merely seek it and appreciate it, not only for myself but for all those with whom I share my life.

Sharing cannot be on the same terms.

And you know this how?

Polyamorists regard every friend as a potential sex object. For you sexual pleasure is an absolute necessity for understanding a person and developing the highest form of love.

Polyamorists - at least those who practice it the way I do - regard close friends as family. We seek relationships with whole people, not, as I have repeatedly pointed out, for the sake of sex. Sex is just one way of relating to a person, not the end goal of the relationship.

Sexploitation includes the multiple use of sex as a proof and guarantee of love.

‘Use’ of sex, I suspect, is distinct from participation in sexual intimacy with a lover.

No. There is the element of choice.

Well, that really didn’t answer the question. I presume what you mean is that the bonobo doesn’t choose whether or not to masturbate. How would you know?

Do you base **all **

your moral values on our evolutionary heritage?

Given that I believe the ability to comprehend morality is part of our evolutionary heritage, yes.

 

[tonyrey]

It is a pretext for the act of sex.

And I suppose monogamous marriage is never this…

If you are a polyamorist it must be one of your main aims because sexual pleasure and satisfaction are essential priorities which determine your life style and without which you are doomed to be frustrated and unhappy.

Sex no more dominates the lifestyle of a polyamorist than it does that of a monogamist.

It must do because you regard it as essential.

To say otherwise is the equivalent of saying that sex is the primary goal of marriage, and that your relationship with your spouse is all and only about the sex.

Sex with one person is an essential element of marriage.

Sexual opportunities are not the most important emotional opportunities.

Except with your spouse?

Sexual opportunities are not the most important emotional opportunities.

Do you obtain all your emotional and intellectual satisfaction from your spouse? Or do you spend time with other friends as well?

Yes - without needing sexual satisfaction.

I believe only what has a demonstrable bearing upon my life in this world.

Does that include evil and injustice?

Based upon observation. There are no observations or experiences that suggest otherwise. Do you participate in seances and speak with dead people? Otherwise, on what basis do you assume that despite all evidence to the contrary, minds persist in the absence of neural activity?

There is no evidence to the contrary! Physical phenomena have no bearing on intangible realities like persons, truth, freedom and moral integrity.

A connection is not a cause.

Not necessarily, but it’s still a connection. How does anything nonphysical have any connection to anything at all?

How does anything physical have any connection to beliefs, principles and decisions?

Ideals are personal goals based on our highest values and principles more important than pleasure and even survival.

Such as?

Freedom, equality, justice and love.

So, would you claim that a scholar who found great pleasure in learning was being indulgent?

If he neglected himself and others, yes.

Do you never practise self-denial?

Sure I do. But not for its own sake.

What for?

Your entire philosophy is based on obsolete materialism - which was discredited when logical positivism collapsed.

Then I take it you’ve never heard of nonreductive physicalism…

How does it explain the verifiability principle - or any other principle?

It is ludicrous to think that without sexual intercourse with others we are doomed to isolation.

But without interaction with others, we are doomed to isolation. It seems odd to hold sexual interaction apart from every other form of personal interaction.

Then why it is reserved for the select few?

So you don’t want to level the playing field?

Sure I do, but this is quite distinct from my polyamorous inclinations. The one is not a product of the other - it would be just as easy to be a monogamous feminist, and many women are so.

So your decisions are based on your inclinations?

Countless couples outside the Church share that belief.

Not usually outside religious regulations, though.

Most non-religious couples share that belief. The romantic concept of love is universal even though it is often unrealistic.

The issue is not sexuality but polyamory…

Actually, the issue really is sexuality. You only see one form of it as legitimate.

The issue is polyamory because you regard it as an achievement which requires balancing all of our urges, building family, nurturing intimate relationships and providing it with an ethical framework

Your continuous denouncement of polyamory as being all about cheap sexual thrills would seem to suggest that you do equate it with casual promiscuity.

I haven’t denounced it because you are sincerely misguided and will eventually suffer as a result of trying to share yourself with too many men.

I don’t idolise pleasure - I merely seek it and appreciate it, not only for myself but for all those with whom I share my life.

What do you seek and appreciate more than sexual friendship?

Sharing cannot be on the same terms.

And you know this how?

How can you be fully committed to several lovers simultaneously?

Polyamorists - at least those who practice it the way I do - regard close friends as family.

A genuine family entails having children.

We seek relationships with whole people, not, as I have repeatedly pointed out, for the sake of sex. Sex is just one way of relating to a person, not the end goal of the relationship.

But in your view it is essential for understanding a person and developing the highest form of love.

Sexploitation includes the multiple use of sex as a proof and guarantee of love.

‘Use’ of sex, I suspect, is distinct from participation in sexual intimacy with a lover.

Without supplementary physical sex polyamorists would have no proof and guarantee that their lovers love them.

I presume what you mean is that the bonobo doesn’t choose whether or not to masturbate. How would you know?

No animal bases its conduct on abstract moral principles

Do you base all your moral values on our evolutionary heritage?

Given that I believe the ability to comprehend morality is part of our evolutionary heritage, yes.

Then your “moral values” are merely terms for expediency - with survival at the top of the list.

 

[Sair]

Sex with one person is an essential element of marriage.

Then why do you find it odd that polyamorous partners seek sexual consummation?

Yes - without needing sexual satisfaction.

I interact with friends all the time without needing sexual satisfaction. Like I said, sex is but one form of intimacy, not the be all and end all of a relationship.

Does that include evil and injustice?

Do you see these things as reified abstractions or ways we choose to describe certain behaviours or states of affairs?

There is no evidence to the contrary! Physical phenomena have no bearing on intangible realities like persons, truth, freedom and moral integrity.

Then these ‘intangible realities’ can have no effect upon how we conduct our lives.

How does anything physical have any connection to beliefs, principles and decisions?

Beliefs, principles and decisions are based upon our interaction with the physical world - otherwise, what are they and how could they possibly be of any use?

Freedom, equality, justice and love.

Which, again, are descriptions of certain behaviours and states of affairs in the physical world.

If he neglected himself and others, yes.

So it’s only neglect which defines indulgence? In that case, I am not guilty.

What for?

For the sake of greater pleasures, or for not destroying pleasure. To use a simple example, if I am going out for dinner one evening, I might restrict myself to a rice cake for lunch. Similarly, I might limit the amount I eat at dinner so as not to suffer discomfort later. Self-denial is an important part of achieving balance in life. We can’t be all about immediate gratification.

How does it explain the verifiability principle - or any other principle?

Any principle is a general abstraction from specific observations. As it happens, the verifiability principle has served science very well, even if it leaves philosophy unsatisfied.

Then why it is reserved for the select few?

In the same way as deep personal conversation, for example, is reserved for a select few. Don’t you exercise personal preference in such matters?

So your decisions are based on your inclinations?

Inclinations influence my decisions, but they are not the only factors involved.

Most non-religious couples share that belief. The romantic concept of love is universal even though it is often unrealistic.

If unrealistic, pursuit of a romantic ideal will generally lead to a feeling of failure and consequent unhappiness.

The issue is polyamory because you regard it as an achievement which requires balancing all of our urges, building family, nurturing intimate relationships and providing it with an ethical framework

And yet you seem to see this as problematic.

I haven’t denounced it because you are sincerely misguided and will eventually suffer as a result of trying to share yourself with too many men.

Uh, yes, you have denounced it, and are doing so even here. You assume a position of superior wisdom even though you have cited no experience or observational evidence to back up your assertion that I will ‘suffer as a result of trying to share myself with too many men’. You are simply extrapolating from your monogamist ideal, and assuming every other relationship choice (perhaps apart from celibacy) is inferior.

What do you seek and appreciate more than sexual friendship?

Intellectual connection. Good conversation.

How can you be fully committed to several lovers simultaneously?

Easily. It just takes a little more thought and organisation. How can parents be committed to several children simultaneously?

A genuine family entails having children.

Just your own biological ones?

But in your view it is essential for understanding a person and developing the highest form of love.

It’s not essential to understanding someone who identifies as asexual…

Without supplementary physical sex polyamorists would have no proof and guarantee that their lovers love them.

Cobblers. There are many other ways of demonstrating love.

No animal bases its conduct on abstract moral principles

Except us, from time to time. Do you base every action upon an abstract moral principle? Do you even think that much about every activity you undertake?

Then your “moral values” are merely terms for expediency - with survival at the top of the list.

This is a pretty big leap from what I actually wrote - the fact is that our ability to conceive and comprehend any moral principles at all is an accumulation of evolutionary adaptations.

 

[tonyrey]

Then why do you find it odd that polyamorous partners seek sexual consummation?

It implies that your first partner is inadequate.

I interact with friends all the time without needing sexual satisfaction. Like I said, sex is but one form of intimacy, not the be all and end all of a relationship.

Then why the select few?

Does that include evil and injustice?

Do you see these things as reified abstractions or ways we choose to describe certain behaviours or states of affairs?

They are destructive relationships between persons which are often intangible.

Physical phenomena have no bearing on intangible realities like persons, truth, freedom and moral integrity.

Then these ‘intangible realities’ can have no effect upon how we conduct our lives.

The ideas of Karl Marx and many others disprove that assumption.

How does anything physical have any connection to beliefs, principles and decisions?
They are based on our interaction with the physical world - otherwise, what are they and how could they possibly be of any use?

They are primarily based on our thoughts and emotions which are often related to the thoughts and emotions of others.

Freedom, equality, justice and love.

Which, again, are descriptions of certain behaviours and states of affairs in the physical world.

They are facts about intangible relationships between persons.

So it’s only neglect which defines indulgence? In that case, I am not guilty.

It is not a question of guilt but error.

What for?

For the sake of greater pleasures, or for not destroying pleasure… Self-denial is an important part of achieving balance in life. We can’t be all about immediate gratification.

Then your sole aim is to maximise ultimate gratification…

How does it explain the verifiability principle - or any other principle?

Any principle is a general abstraction from specific observations. As it happens, the verifiability principle has served science very well, even if it leaves philosophy unsatisfied.

The verifiability principle is restricted to physical phenomena. Are all your decisions based on scientific theories?

In the same way as deep personal conversation, for example, is reserved for a select few.

Deep personal conversation does not include - and usually excludes - the genital organs.

Inclinations influence my decisions, but they are not the only factors involved.

What else?

If unrealistic, pursuit of a romantic ideal will generally lead to a feeling of failure and consequent unhappiness.

It need not be unrealistic.

The issue is polyamory because you regard it as an achievement which requires balancing all of our urges, building family, nurturing intimate relationships and providing it with an ethical framework

And yet you seem to see this as problematic.

The “ethical” framework is undoubtedly problematic.

You assume a position of superior wisdom even though you have cited no experience or observational evidence to back up your assertion that I will ‘suffer as a result of trying to share myself with too many men’. You are simply extrapolating from your monogamist ideal, and assuming every other relationship choice (perhaps apart from celibacy) is inferior.

No superior wisdom is required to decide whether a life style based on the quest for sexual fulfilment with various individuals over a long period of time is likely to lead to frustration and disappointment. In the long run dependence on safety in numbers is not a solution but a complication.

What do you seek and appreciate more than sexual friendship?

Intellectual connection. Good conversation.

Nothing more?

How can you be fully committed to several lovers simultaneously?

Easily. It just takes a little more thought and organisation.

“little” is an understatement! So is “just thought and organisation”…

How can parents be committed to several children simultaneously?

Children do not need sexual commitment.

A genuine family entails having children.

Just your own biological ones?

Why should it?

But in your view it is essential for understanding a person and developing the highest form of love.

It’s not essential to understanding someone who identifies as asexual…

But essential where those who are not asexual are concerned?

Without supplementary physical sex polyamorists would have no proof and guarantee that their lovers love them.

There are many other ways of demonstrating love.

Then why is additional physical sex essential?

No animal bases its conduct on abstract moral principles

Except us, from time to time. Do you base every action upon an abstract moral principle? Do you even think that much about every activity you undertake?

Moral principles become habits of thought. The fact remains that no animal bases its conduct on abstract moral principles.

Then your “moral values” are merely terms for expediency - with survival at the top of the list.

This is a pretty big leap from what I actually wrote - the fact is that our ability to conceive and comprehend any moral principles at all is an accumulation of evolutionary adaptations.

Which are all related to survival…

 

[Sair]

It implies that your first partner is inadequate.

So one could extrapolate that marriage is necessary because celibacy is inadequate? That is the logical corollary of your assertion here.

Then why the select few?

Because we all select those with whom we wish to be intimate. Did you just randomly happen upon your spouse?

They are destructive relationships between persons which are often intangible.

Yet I think you’ll find that destructive relationships are destructive because of their tangible effects.

The ideas of Karl Marx and many others disprove that assumption.

You are the one who said that ideas and principles bear no relation to physical realities. How do you disprove anything in the absence of evidence? Are the ideals of communism unrelated to the physical realities of communal ownership and government control of the means of production?

They are primarily based on our thoughts and emotions which are often related to the thoughts and emotions of others.

Which we access by physical means, and which are, in all probability, the products of physical phenomena.

They are facts about intangible relationships between persons.

In what sense is any relationship between persons - between physical beings such as ourselves - intangible?

It is not a question of guilt but error.

Then I am likewise not in error, since I do not neglect the needs of others in order to fulfil my own.

Then your sole aim is to maximise ultimate gratification…

As is yours, only you seek to do so in a (probably imaginary) realm beyond this world.

The verifiability principle is restricted to physical phenomena. Are all your decisions based on scientific theories?

I don’t know all the scientific theories related to my everyday decisions.

Deep personal conversation does not include - and usually excludes - the genital organs.

So? It’s still a form of intimate personal (and physical) interaction. It just stimulates different parts of the body.

What else?

Consideration of likely consequences of certain actions.

It need not be unrealistic.

You were the one who claimed it was unrealistic! What if it is unrealistic for certain people? Do you deny that different people have different needs? If we have different needs in other areas, why should every person have the same sexual needs?

The “ethical” framework is undoubtedly problematic.

So, openness and honesty are ‘undoubtedly’ problematic?

No superior wisdom is required to decide whether a life style based on the quest for sexual fulfilment with various individuals over a long period of time is likely to lead to frustration and disappointment. In the long run dependence on safety in numbers is not a solution but a complication.

As I keep pointing out, POLYAMORY IS NOT JUST ABOUT SEX. It is a quest for personal fulfilment, of which sex is but one single element. Safety in numbers is an incredibly simplistic interpretation of the fact that a diversity of personal interaction is, for humans, psychologically optimal.

“little” is an understatement! So is “just thought and organisation”…

And you know this how?

Children do not need sexual commitment.

No - they need a far greater commitment of time, energy and resources than adult partners, and so are more likely to suffer from neglect if parents choose to have more than one.

But essential where those who are not asexual are concerned?

Desirable, perhaps, but sexual desire is particular to every person. If you are sexually attracted to a person, as well as emotionally and intellectually drawn to them, then sexual intimacy may be an appropriate means of sharing intimacy. Knowing how you relate to particular people is important.

Then why is additional physical sex essential?

Why, beyond basic reproductive necessity, is any sex essential? Or don’t you think it has any other purpose?

Moral principles become habits of thought. The fact remains that no animal bases its conduct on abstract moral principles.

And why does this even matter, then? Don’t you think other animals have habits of thought? Or do you imagine that we are the only animals that think?

Which are all related to survival…

Not all. Some are related to reproductive success…

 

[tonyrey]

It implies that your first partner is inadequate.

Marriage is necessary partly because celibacy is inadequate for most people.

Then why the select few?

Did you just randomly happen upon your spouse?

Do you put your lovers on the same level as your spouse?

I think you’ll find that destructive relationships are destructive because of their tangible effects.

Not always. Mental anguish is quite distinct from physical pain and sometimes drives people insane.

You are the one who said that ideas and principles bear no relation to physical realities.

I did not say** all **ideas bear no relation to physical reality.

Are the ideals of communism unrelated to the physical realities of communal ownership and government control of the means of production?

Dialectical materialism is not related to those factors unless one is a Marxist.

They are primarily based on our thoughts and emotions which are often related to the thoughts and emotions of others.

Which we access by physical means…

That does not alter their reality.

…and which are, in all probability, the products of physical phenomena.

How do you estimate that?

In what sense is any relationship between persons - between physical beings such as ourselves - intangible?

When you love a person you can know intuitively what he or she thinks and feels.

Then I am likewise not in error, since I do not neglect the needs of others in order to fulfil my own.

No one can know for certain but in any case you have stated that polyamory needs considerable effort and skill. The longer human relationships last the more likely they are to come to grief.

Then your sole aim is to maximise ultimate gratification…

As is yours, only you seek to do so in a (probably imaginary) realm beyond this world.

A hedonistic assumption. Genuine love entails suffering and self-forgetfulness. Compassion entails not only the willingness but the desire to share another person’s suffering. Father Kolbe is but one example of a person who wasn’t motivated by self-gratification but unselfish concern.

I don’t know all the scientific theories related to my everyday decisions.

Then you’re not entitled to generalise.

Deep personal conversation does not include - and usually excludes - the genital organs.

So? It just stimulates different parts of the body.

So ideas and emotions are no more than events in the body?

Consideration of likely consequences of certain actions.

According to you the consideration of likely consequences is also due to physical causes.

You were the one who claimed it was unrealistic!

Not in every respect nor by everyone.

If we have different needs in other areas, why should every person have the same sexual needs?

Pedophiles and sadists could claim to have special needs!

The “ethical” framework is undoubtedly problematic.

So, openness and honesty are ‘undoubtedly’ problematic?

Are they your only ethical priorities? Are they the most important?

No superior wisdom is required to decide whether a life style based on the quest for sexual fulfilment with various individuals over a long period of time is likely to lead to frustration and disappointment. In the long run dependence on safety in numbers is not a solution but a complication.

As I keep pointing out, POLYAMORY IS NOT JUST ABOUT SEX. It is a quest for personal fulfilment, of which sex is but one single element.

As I keep pointing out, polyamory is **meaningless **without sex.

Safety in numbers is an incredibly simplistic interpretation of the fact that a diversity of personal interaction is, for humans, psychologically optimal.

You were the one who related polyamory to security. Why does there need to be sexual diversity?

“little” is an understatement! So is “just thought and organisation”…

And you know this how?

Because you have implied it in the list I gave.

Children do not need sexual commitment.

No - they need a far greater commitment of time, energy and resources than adult partners, and so are more likely to suffer from neglect if parents choose to have more than one.

The majority of parents with several children do not neglect their children because they are willing to sacrifice themselves for them - and even die for them if necessary.

But essential where those who are not asexual are concerned?

Desirable, perhaps, but sexual desire is particular to every person.

For most polyamorists sex is essential for happiness and fulfilment.

If you are sexually attracted to a person, as well as emotionally and intellectually drawn to them, then sexual intimacy may be an appropriate means of sharing intimacy.

That is your conviction (not criminal or culpable, of course!).

Why, beyond basic reproductive necessity, is any sex essential? Or don’t you think it has any other purpose?

For most people it is clearly an expression of love for one person.

Moral principles become habits of thought. The fact remains that no animal bases its conduct on abstract moral principles.

And why does this even matter, then? Don’t you think other animals have habits of thought? Or do you imagine that we are the only animals that think?

Animals cannot reason about moral principles.

Which are all related to survival…

Not all. Some are related to reproductive success…

Which is related to survival.

 

[Sair]

Marriage is necessary partly because celibacy is inadequate for most people.

Yet celibacy is an ideal espoused by the church. Is marriage then a form of failure?

A hedonistic assumption. Genuine love entails suffering and self-forgetfulness. Compassion entails not only the willingness but the desire to share another person’s suffering.

What good is sharing suffering without the desire to alleviate it? Do you intend to spend an eternity suffering in order to express your love for your God? Is that your idea of heaven? Weird. Suffering and self-forgetfulness, if pursued for their own sake, are counterproductive. It is not possible to care for others without caring for onesself. If I suffer for the sake of another, that is because the greater suffering to me would be to see a loved one in pain when I could prevent or relieve it. What you are speaking of here is a kind of pathological masochism that seeks to prove love through pain.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Yet celibacy is an ideal espoused by the church. Is marriage then a form of failure?

Celibacy is not an “ideal”; it is a highly regarded form of self-sacrifice. It is not done for its own sake, but so that the celibate individual can offer his/her sacrifice in the hope of bringing God’s grace.

What good is sharing suffering without the desire to alleviate it? Do you intend to spend an eternity suffering in order to express your love for your God? Is that your idea of heaven? Weird. Suffering and self-forgetfulness, if pursued for their own sake, are counterproductive. It is not possible to care for others without caring for onesself. If I suffer for the sake of another, that is because the greater suffering to me would be to see a loved one in pain when I could prevent or relieve it. What you are speaking of here is a kind of pathological masochism that seeks to prove love through pain.

Suffering and self-forgetfulness are not pursued for their own sake, as I pointed out above. What you don’t seem to realize is that, for Catholics, embracing suffering and making personal sacrifice is a means of sharing in the redemptive suffering of Christ – that is, we offer our sufferings up as sacrifices to God for the benefit of others.

Think of it this way: when someone prays for me, they might say, “Dear God, please let Dante get that new job” or “please don’t let Dante die”, or they might say a Rosary for me. Prayer is not merely asking God for something; it’s a small personal sacrifice of time, mediation, and compassion that is offered up to God for someone else’s benefit – in this case, so that I might get a new job or that I might not die. Likewise, when someone is suffering due to cancer, say, they can earnestly hope the pain will go away and STILL offer up their suffering as a sacrifice for someone else.

Peace,
Dante

 

[tonyrey]

Marriage is necessary partly because celibacy is inadequate for most people.

You have answered that question by pointing out that people have different needs - and therefore different vocations.

A hedonistic assumption. Genuine love entails suffering and self-forgetfulness. Compassion entails not only the willingness but the desire to share another person’s suffering.

What good is sharing suffering without the desire to alleviate it?

Even if you are unable to alleviate suffering compassion is a source of consolation to those who suffer.

Do you intend to spend an eternity suffering in order to express your love for your God? Is that your idea of heaven? Weird.

That is your distortion of the truth.

Suffering and self-forgetfulness, if pursued for their own sake, are counterproductive.

A straw man which corresponds to none of my statements.

It is not possible to care for others without caring for oneself.

Ditto.

If I suffer for the sake of another, that is because the greater suffering to me would be to see a loved one in pain when I could prevent or relieve it. What you are speaking of here is a kind of pathological masochism that seeks to prove love through pain.

Ditto.

 

[tonyrey]

The sexual relationships of polyamorists may be deep and long-lasting but they are necessarily more uncertain than the relationship with the spouse. On the other hand if all the relationships are equally important the spouse is clearly devalued. The marital relationship is put on a par with other relationships - with no significant distinctive feature.

The need for physical exploration with others implies that the amount and variety of sexual pleasure, satisfaction and fulfilment with one’s spouse are insufficient. It is not a sign of strength but of weakness to need to explore other sexual relationships. It is certainly not essential unless one’s desire is insatiable. If sexual attraction is considered to require time and nurturance it has obviously become a dominating factor which dictates one’s way of life.

It also deeply affects any children in the household. They grow up in an atmosphere of sexual freedom which is disastrous for adolescents who are often influenced by their hormones and are not yet mature enough to behave consistently unless they have clear guide lines. They are deprived of the noble ideal of marriage in which a man and a woman are united by faithful love without the need for sexual diversity.

It is a form of primitive animalism to think contentment is entirely or even mainly the result of balancing our physical urges. Sexual play with whoever we choose is justified only if we are the playthings of our instincts and urges! If BDSM can be the basis of “healthy, thriving relationships” there is hardly any limit to which aberrant sexual behaviour is justified. Anything can be justified on the ground of “personal needs” if there seems to be no harm to anyone.

Polyamory is a logical consequence of the belief that all human interaction is based solely on “natural demands”. Persons are reduced to animals. Polyamory is seen as legitimate because some individuals are simply not “wired for monogamy” and therefore frustrated if they cannot satisfy - and have great difficulty in controlling - their sexual desires. Even if this is true it is not a valid reason for rejecting the dignity, value and importance of monogamy for the vast majority of people.