Aren't we all polyamorous?

[Shadowgbq]

Originally Posted by CielDuMatin

However I disagree. I don't consider it unnatural, but it is not, in my opinion the natural state - more a natural state. Because this implies that monogamy is an unnatural construct, and I find that I can not get behind that idea at all.

You may change your mind about that if you delve into the history of monogamy in western european culture, i.e. Christian white people and our folly. The historical development of the modern family unit had more to do with money and male control than any attempt to allow people to naturally express themselves.

[CielDuMatin]

Greater minds than I have delved into this and have not been able to come up with a logical, well-founded consensus. I bow to their energy, work and knowledge and file it away as a "we don't know, so I'm not going to give something that makes folks happy the stigma of being called 'unnatural'".

[lovefromgirl]

Originally Posted by Shadowgbq

You may change your mind about that if you delve into the history of monogamy in western european culture, i.e. Christian white people and our folly. The historical development of the modern family unit had more to do with money and male control than any attempt to allow people to naturally express themselves.

We can delve all we like, but nothing changes history.

We can move forward doing as we please; the history will still be there, will still have shaped modern cultures around the world, and attempting to undo it in one generation is, to borrow from Clarkson et al, "ambitious but rubbish".

[ThatGirlInGray]

Interesting thread so far, but the original post has me thinking along a different tangent: as I try to explain poly to people, would it be fair to say that polyamorists and serial monogamists are not THAT different? Both groups have the capacity to romantically love (and most likely have a sexual relationship with) more than one person. Poly people just have them at the same time, rather than one after another. Totally fair, imo, for a serial monogamist to say, "I don't have the capacity to love more than one person at a time; I need time in between relationships" so we wouldn't all be poly at our core. I'm just wondering, as I approach ways to explain my situation to my mother, for instance, am I really THAT different from my sister, who was married for 6 years, got divorced, and has been with her current boyfriend for 2 years? Is the overlap of relationships really THAT big a deal, that so many people feel the need to get their knickers in a twist over it?

[Shadowgbq]

Originally Posted by lovefromgirl

We can delve all we like, but nothing changes history.

We can move forward doing as we please; the history will still be there, will still have shaped modern cultures around the world, and attempting to undo it in one generation is, to borrow from Clarkson et al, "ambitious but rubbish".

Virginia used this exact argument in Congress to block the abolition of slavery in 1776.

Please take that in the (hopefully) thought-provoking but inoffensive way I intend it.

[CielDuMatin]

Originally Posted by Shadowgbq

Virginia used this exact argument in Congress to block the abolition of slavery in 1776.

Please take that in the (hopefully) thought-provoking but inoffensive way I intend it.

Hyperbolic comparisons don't do much to sway me, I'm afraid. Likening a change in the attitude towards relationships with the abolition of slavery is absolutely offensive to me on so many levels, no matter how you couch it. So I guess I am done with this part of the discussion.

[CielDuMatin]

Originally Posted by ThatGirlInGray

Is the overlap of relationships really THAT big a deal, that so many people feel the need to get their knickers in a twist over it?

Apparently yes, it is. I have made this point to several serial monogamists and they absolutely disagree that it is in any way the same or even vaguely similar.

[ThatGirlInGray]

Originally Posted by Shadowgbq

Virginia used this exact argument in Congress to block the abolition of slavery in 1776.

Please take that in the (hopefully) thought-provoking but inoffensive way I intend it.

But that's false. If Virginia had used that EXACT same argument the "We can move forward doing as we please" part would have been an argument FOR ending slavery, not against.

And to take it further, the abolition of slavery supports that quote. Regardless of the changes in laws, the changes in attitude certainly did not occur in a generation and have still not fully changed 150 years later. So the history of the institution is there, it shaped attitudes and beliefs that are still present to one degree or another MANY generations later, so there's evidence that the idea that you can change a deeply held belief in one generation is, absolutely, rubbish.

[Shadowgbq]

Originally Posted by CielDuMatin

Hyperbolic comparisons don't do much to sway me, I'm afraid. Likening a change in the attitude towards relationships with the abolition of slavery is absolutely offensive to me on so many levels, no matter how you couch it. So I guess I am done with this part of the discussion.

Dude, historically, relationships often *have* been a form of slavery. If you think about arranged marriages and the history of the patriarchy in Europe and Asia, such a comparison is by no means hyperbolic or contrived.

But, that's not what I was saying at all. I am making the broader point that social progress has always been inhibited by saying "Well, you know, history and institutions have taught us to be xyz, and I guess everyone isn't completely miserable with that, and it's a bitch to try to change it within our lifetimes so we might as well follow in kind."

Too bad you're out of the conversation, I for one am learning a lot from everyone's replies and thoughts.

[Shadowgbq]

Originally Posted by ThatGirlInGray

But that's false. If Virginia had used that EXACT same argument the "We can move forward doing as we please" part would have been an argument FOR ending slavery, not against.

And to take it further, the abolition of slavery supports that quote. Regardless of the changes in laws, the changes in attitude certainly did not occur in a generation and have still not fully changed 150 years later. So the history of the institution is there, it shaped attitudes and beliefs that are still present to one degree or another MANY generations later, so there's evidence that the idea that you can change a deeply held belief in one generation is, absolutely, rubbish.

You know, you make some really good points. I hadn't thought about it in quite that way before. I misunderstood your first sentence as "do as you like, but here's the real story" etc.

I would never think that people on a mass scale could be convinced not to be ignorant conformists to an ingrained tradition, even if it was invented by foolish white men. I agree with you there as well.