View Single Post
Old 11-07-2011, 02:31 AM
opalescent opalescent is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: US
Posts: 2,170

Originally Posted by UnwittinglyPoly View Post
I need to preface my main point with a note about the discussion style I'm going to use on this subject. Otherwise, I will likely be seen as bullheaded and agrumentative This is one of those things where I have an idea in my head, I've rolled it around and around and need to fully vet it and see which parts of it hold water and which ones don't. During that process, I'll make an assertion, examine feedback, note what I think has merit and what I think doesn't and make more assertions. Sometimes it might seem as though I'm not listening, but what I'm really doing is running the idea through the meat grinder, many times with a devil's advocate approach, and seeing what makes it out the other side. I assure you I have no problem ultimately admitting I'm wrong, in part or fully. I just have to run it through all the logic in my head first, and I've found the only way I can do that is to open up my thoughts to being challenged and to challenge responses. I always do my best to do so respectfully and gracefully
Originally Posted by ray View Post
I dislike your premise because it seems to be making the assumption that polyamory is inherently more 'evolved' than monogamy. I think that poly can encourage personal growth and often does but so does monogamy and any healthy human relationship. Humans do have emotional needs and monogamy can be very rewarding. It's completely possible to confront jealousy and other emotional issues as an adult in any situation. Not everyone wants to be polyamorous. I think that those who feel like it enriches their life should go for it but that doesn't mean that everyone else is emotionally stunted and jealousy riddled. Saying that jealousy is a root of monogamy frames it as being almost pathological. To me, that's like saying promiscuity or unfaithfulness is the root of polyamory. Both are valid approaches to relationships.
Originally Posted by UnwittinglyPoly View Post
Liking or disliking a premise has nothing to do with whether it's logically sound, nor does a premise's implications (pathology in this case).
Originally Posted by UnwittinglyPoly View Post
Interesting. This is exactly the same type of response I got time and time again on religious forums, as I was going through the process of trying to determine whether my life-long faith actually had merit or was ill-placed. If I'm in the wrong place to be having a discussion where the first few responses don't answer the complexities of the subject, then by all means, I won't have these types of discussions here. As with my religious experience, I may have to go to something like an automobile forum in order to find people who are willing to plumb the depths of a subject like this, rather than a forum one would think would be full of people willing to do so without being so quickly bored. Oh, and to clarify--yeah, my track record shows that I'm willing to do a complete 180 on my thinking if the logic warrants it. Going from a life-long right-wing fundagelical extremist to an atheist bears that out. But such changes in thinking don't occur in places where people bore of such discussions. So maybe rather than trying to stifle such discussions, it might be helpful to meaningfully engage them beyond the pat answers that come from both sides.
UP, first some of my concerns. I will address your ideas in another post.

People here are more than happy to wrestle with diffucult, complex issues. But they generally aren't willing to always revisit the same argument over and over. Did you eyeball the threads that deal with monogamy vs. poly? Many of the ideas you posed come up in those threads - not framed exactly as you did, but still there. This doesn't mean you shouldn't pose it but be prepared for folks to point you to threads where similar ideas were discussed.

This is not an academic forum where such exercises are common. Not that people here don't have the brainpower or background to weigh in on an academic discussion but that simply isn't this forum's focus.

Also, you pooched your reply to Ray's response. "Dislike" meant she disagreed with your hypothesis; she then proceeded to offer logical arguments why. You certainly are not required to agree with her but it is polite to recognize when someone answers in the manner which you set up in your original post.

Finally, I submit to you that your underlying methodology is flawed - if one wants to get academic. The questions with which you are wrestling - religion, relationships, sexuality - are precisely the ones particularly resistant to logic and the scientific method. They attempt to address in various ways what it means to be human, and what it means to be a moral human. Does that mean that science and logic have no place in these discussions? Of course not. I find the arguments presented in "Sex at Dawn" to be compelling. But they are not conclusive and will likely never be definitively proven given that the answers are in so far in the past. Science can certainly inform these discussions. But science and logic cannot answer questions like these because they edge into morality, ethics and philosophy - what is it to be human, and to be a moral human?

Now like any good academic, I want to add a caveat. Obviously this method works for you personally to wrestle with the big questions. You mentioned using it to resolve some religious identity questions. Yet, for many people, maybe most, logic and scientific method are ultimately not useful to resolve these type of questions.
Reply With Quote