Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-12-2011, 08:30 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,897
Default Open Discussion of "Poly Women Respond"

This thread is for discussing the women's responses in the thread "Poly Women Respond". http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13368

I've separated these threads so that the women could respond without men interfering with comments and questions, etc. I wanted a space for women to speak their minds, apart from the guys. Here, both men and women are welcome to discuss the "Poly Women Respond" thread and its comments.

The original thread already seems fairly popular, so this comment area seemed appropriate, given the limitation I provided in the original thread.

Moderators should feel free to move inappropriate posts in the other thread to this one.
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog

Last edited by River; 08-12-2011 at 08:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-12-2011, 09:06 PM
Snowbunting Snowbunting is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: upper midwest, U.S.
Posts: 13
Default What is Sean's evidence?

River,

Did Sean give reasons/arguments/evidence for his views? I'm wondering what sort of evidence he is calling on (even if only in his own mind) when he affirms his beliefs about women and poly.

I'm also wondering what he thinks about the power of social conditioning. Sometimes it can be very easy to absorb and internalize views that are prevalent in mainstream culture - this process can even result in a lack of self-knowledge that might have otherwise been present. (At least, this is my opinion, an opinion that stems from my own experience. It would be interesting to learn more about his experiences and how they impact his views concerning women and poly.)

Is there any chance that he'd be up for diving into the forum and reading a bunch of threads? It would be interesting to see whether doing so might lead him to alter his opinions in any way...

Cheers,
SB
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-12-2011, 09:34 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,897
Default

"Did Sean give reasons/arguments/evidence for his views? I'm wondering what sort of evidence he is calling on (even if only in his own mind) when he affirms his beliefs about women and poly."

When asked why he believed as he does, Sean drew from his experience with many women over many years. (He's in his mid forties, and has had many women lovers and companions.) He said all of the women in his life insisted on sexual/romantic exclusivity.

"I'm also wondering what he thinks about the power of social conditioning."

It would be fun to invite him here and ask him this question--which I shall do. And he shall remain anonymous and disguised in name, so he's safe to express himself in a public forum without worry. I got the strong impression that Sean thinks his view on women's sexual/romantic nature is rooted in biology, in the very essence of women, rather than socialization factors. My own strong impression is that women are at least as much "naturally inclined" (socialization aside) toward romantic nonexclusivity as men. And this includes bi and gay men, whom Sean thinks are much more open to it.

(My own observation is that gay men tend to be sexually nonmonogamous more often than persons in the general population, but about typically exclusive in the emotional intimacy realm. That is, many gay men are okay with their boyfriends having casual sex with strangers while fearing and prohibiting romantic love outside of the pairing.)

"Sometimes it can be very easy to absorb and internalize views that are prevalent in mainstream culture - this process can even result in a lack of self-knowledge that might have otherwise been present."

My impression is that most of us tend to uncritically absorb social norms and conventions, and even identify strongly with these without having much considered other ways of thinking, perceiving and behaving. This is true in so many domains of our lives, from how we think about economics to how we think about and behave as "consumers".... On and on. Society provides us with "default settings", to use a little computer metaphor. And it often punishes us for failure to keep our lives set in these conventional patterns, never mind that some of the "alternative" patterns often actually make more good sense than the "default".

"Is there any chance that he'd be up for diving into the forum and reading a bunch of threads? It would be interesting to see whether doing so might lead him to alter his opinions in any way..."

I'll invite him to look at the forum and respond in this thread, as Sean.
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog

Last edited by River; 08-12-2011 at 10:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-12-2011, 09:45 PM
Snowbunting Snowbunting is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: upper midwest, U.S.
Posts: 13
Default Welcome to Sean!

Great! Sean, if you see this, welcome aboard!

(By the way, while you're here, you'll find lots of great material in River's posts. You have a good friend in him. )
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-13-2011, 02:48 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,897
Default

"First of all, possessiveness and the desire for exclusivity in love have nothing to do with biology. Love is not biologically driven, but emotionally driven."

From - http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showp...2&postcount=15

Current scientific theory now has it that our species has a biologically rooted love drive, just as we have a biologically rooted sex drive. So it is now commonly accepted that falling in love is woven into our flesh, not just into our psyches (and psyche and flesh are quite interwoven, anyway). There are measurable chemical and brain state thingies involved. Our brains secrete specific chemicals, which act like a drug, when we're in love. But, of course, we have to be in love for them to be secreted, so there is a bit of a chicken and egg problem for those who insist that love is nothing more than the presence of these chemicals in x region of the body (blood?, brain region?).

So I'd say, yes, love is both biologically and "emotionally" driven. Those chemicals which scientists link with "being in love" are released when our dear one inspires such a chemical reaction. We truly do have "chemistry" with certain very special people.

Here's an article on the chemistry, etc.:
http://www.youramazingbrain.org.uk/l...ciencelove.htm

Love - mammalian drive -

https://encrypted.google.com/search?...love+mammalian
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog

Last edited by River; 08-13-2011 at 03:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-13-2011, 07:56 PM
AutumnalTone AutumnalTone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kansas City Metro
Posts: 2,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post
When asked why he believed as he does, Sean drew from his experience with many women over many years. (He's in his mid forties, and has had many women lovers and companions.) He said all of the women in his life insisted on sexual/romantic exclusivity.
I am also in my mid-40s and have had many lovers over the years. My reaction to the claim that most women prefer exclusivity is: hogwash. I suspect whatever his attraction process is works to sort for women who prefer exclusivity.

My experience with women with whom I've been involved and the many female friends I've been close to over the years tells me a significant portion don't require exclusivity. Many of those who do only do so because they don't see how a non-exclusive arrangement would work in practical terms.
__________________
When speaking of various forms of non-monogamy...it ain't poly if you're just fucking around.

While polyamory, open relationships, and swinging are all distinctly different approaches to non-monogamy, they are not mutually exlusive. Folks can, and some do, engage in more than one of them at a time--and it's all good.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-16-2011, 02:35 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackUnicorn View Post
.... Studies of surviving hunter-gatherer cultures show that foraging for food takes a much smaller part of the day than the average day job of the modern world, and leaves plenty of free time. ....
That's right. And this fact, that "primitive" peoples have on average had more leisure time than people in advanced technological civilizations does much to challenge the absurd myth of "progress" that keeps us in highly stressed and competitive social conditions. All of our "labor saving devices" have provided many things, but leisure is not one of them.
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-17-2011, 07:25 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
Hey River, what does your friend say about the responses?
He lives way out in the country and presently doesn't have internet at home. He's quite busy. I did invite him to read and respond, but it may be he just hasn't had an opportunity to do so yet. I'll nudge him a little--gently. I'd like him to answer your question himself, in the forum.
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:56 AM.