Sex is exalted when it is reserved for one’s spouse and debased when it is distributed.
How terribly inconsistent! But that is the very core of sex-negativity - the belief that consensual sex is only acceptable in certain contexts and done in certain ways, and that people require more than just their own permission to explore their sexuality.
Haven’t you witnessed the detrimental effects of the permissive society with its multitude of abortions, one-parent families and teenage pregnancies - plus the increase in venereal disease?
Hmm. Let’s see - I am, by your standards, highly promiscuous. Yet I have never had a venereal disease, an unwanted pregnancy, an abortion, and nor is there any sign that my marriage is on the rocks. The point about proper sex education is not to teach children to be promiscuous, but to teach them to deal with their sexuality in a positive, informed and sensible way that avoids the pitfalls of ignorance, such as those you list here.
Clear reasons are given why chastity and self-restraint lead to a healthier and happier life in which respect and self-respect are not undermined by sexual indulgence.
Clearly
artificial reasons, for the most part. A healthy attitude to sex leads to a healthier and happier life. Self-respect that depends upon denying part of oneself is no form of respect at all.
Children are perceptive enough to understand that sexual liberty is a licence for lechery!
Children understand honesty and openness. They are often the first to spot a person who is not being true to themselves. Whatever environment children are raised in, they will see that as normal and natural - if a husband is disrespectful to his wife, that will often result in children (particularly boys) who are disrespectful to women in general. If children grow up seeing that adults can have open, honest, respectful, loving relationships with more than one other adult at a time, they will accept that this is normal and natural - they won’t see it as a licence for abusive or disrespectful sexual relationships.
That is only your distortion of marriage as an excuse for rejecting monogamy.
I didn’t need any ‘excuse’ for rejecting monogamy. These are just facts about what marriage has been, historically - and still is in some cultures.
“if there seems to be no harm to anyone”.
By what means do you detect this ‘harm’ you insist must follow from polyamory?
“vanilla” aptly illustrates your contempt for spouses whose love is absolute and not conditional on the basis of mutual infidelity.
‘Vanilla’ is simply a pop-culture term for non-kinky sex. I presume, from your posts, that you find anything other than standard penetrative sex to be an aberration. As it happens, I am quite fond of vanilla, in whatever context you choose to take that.
Most non-believers accept monogamy and thereby disprove your attribution of the virtue of faithfulness to religion.
I attributed it to society as well - “religious
and social expectations”, I think you’ll find, was what I wrote.
Your “sex-positive” prejudice stems from your predilection for erotic pleasure.
The vast majority of humans have a predilection for erotic pleasure. If we didn’t, the species would die out. You simply choose to repress such predilections.
You have let the cat out of the bag! You stake your happiness and fulfilment on the pursuit and satisfaction of physical pleasure at the expense of personal values and ideals.
Ah, yes - that would be your narrow understanding of what ‘physical’ pleasures entail. When I am engaged in deep philosophical discussion, I consider this no less a physical pleasure than enjoying a finely-cooked meal. And I have personal values and ideals, thanks very much - but, unlike yours, it seems, they are based upon what exists in the physical world.
To what extent and for what purpose do polyamorists control their sexual desire?
To whatever extent they choose. I can’t speak for all polyamorists, but most, I would think, lead balanced lives that don’t revolve wholly around sex. Consequently, there may be more pressing needs that require attention. For me, sexual desire is not some simple, uncontrollable force that exists independently of other needs and feelings. As such, ‘controlling’ it is not something that has ever been an issue for me. It’s a bit like the desire for food - I enjoy eating, but I don’t feel like doing it all the time.
What would happen if you were married to a man you love deeply who loves you deeply and is opposed to polyamory?
Then there would need to be a lot of discussion and heavy negotiation as to how our respective needs might be met. One would need to question, though, how deeply one can really love another without accepting who that other person is.
