Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 03-15-2011, 01:50 AM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Just so everyone understands why I am often so hard on strategies or aproaches to promoting poly or non-monogamy in general; I have been living this life successfully as a mono for over two years...if your strategies trigger me imagine what those without my experience will react like?

Just saying.
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 03-15-2011, 01:59 AM
SourGirl's Avatar
SourGirl SourGirl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South of an Igloo, North of a Desert.
Posts: 885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
Why would we want to deny any legal advantage or "special" treatment to those who practice monogamy? The vast majority of modern civilization practices monogamy. To me this rings of the same train of thought that there should be no "personal possessions" that is held by some anarchist friends I have. If people chose to live outside of the norm then they shouldn't begrudge the benefits to those who do. Stop expecting people to give up things and figure out ways to get them for yourself if you are jealous of them...that's like trying to tear down a neighbor's house to achieve parity instead of building up our own.
..This.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 03-15-2011, 02:32 AM
HappiestManAlive HappiestManAlive is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Vegas, Baby!
Posts: 348
Default

Who said anything about denying monogamous couples anything (other than in jest)? We're talking about allowing poly folk the SAME advantages that "traditional" relationships enjoy.

For instance, if Lana stays with us and "marries" us in the current political and legal landscape, it would be a strictly ceremonial thing, not legally recognized. While that's fine in many ways, she could never file as "married" for taxes, couldn't get family health benefits, etc on so on and so forth.

Same thing gays have been after for so long. Don't deny anyone what they have now, but why does the legal system get to sy that because two people are the same gender, they can't have those same legaal benefits? Or because 3 or 4 people choose to intermarry, only 2 of them get to have it legally recognized?

And don't start the old "people would abuse it" BS. Mail order brides and a dozen other forms of marriage for convenience are already long standing "traditions", lol.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 03-15-2011, 02:50 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,086
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ladyintricate View Post
Wow! Where do you get your energy!?
He's hot.
Seriously-he's totally sexy. It's impossible not to get worked up. Even when we're fighting or having such major problems we're talking about possible divorce, I can't NOT get turned on looking at him or smelling him. He's just so fucking sexy.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 03-15-2011, 02:53 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,086
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
Why would we want to deny any legal advantage or "special" treatment to those who practice monogamy? The vast majority of modern civilization practices monogamy. To me this rings of the same train of thought that there should be no "personal possessions" that is held by some anarchist friends I have. If people chose to live outside of the norm then they shouldn't begrudge the benefits to those who do. Stop expecting people to give up things and figure out ways to get them for yourself if you are jealous of them...that's like trying to tear down a neighbor's house to achieve parity instead of building up our own.
I am totally for taking the time to create MORE privileges across the board, not taking away. I treasure the privileges I share with Maca. I just wish I could ALSO share them with GG...

More later, there's a drama here, I really can't focus well enough to get through the list. I'm sorry.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 03-15-2011, 03:39 AM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

The monogamous agreements that people enter into, and are recognized for the purposes of benefits, have one thing that poly will need to compensate for; stability. No one can expect government or employers to try to keep up the fluidity of relationships even seen on this forum. The administrative burden of paperwork to assign and de-assign benefits would be ridiculous in many cases. One day you could be together..the next you are not...the next day you are. The paperwork and criteria to qualify for benefits are extensive and limiting for a reason; to create a benchmark of commitment and longetivity to recognized couples. When poly can come up with some way and agreed upon idea of what avalid relationship entails, thenwe can lobby for rights and benefits. This community is defined to broadly and without enough criteria to have relationships recognized legally or by employers. Unfortunately some people will get left out of any description that will be sufficient to legitimately seek recognition. How do we handle that?
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 03-15-2011, 03:56 AM
HappiestManAlive HappiestManAlive is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Vegas, Baby!
Posts: 348
Default

In NV, it is entirely possible for me to marry, divorce, and remarry between 6 and 12 times a year, depending on how you read the law. :shrug:

The government and other agencies

A. - shouldn't be so involved anyway

B. - should cater to the peoplel however complex that might be,

C. - shouldn't cater to only certain people for beurocrocies sake,

D. - should define things insofar as they must only insofar as the people want, and not by the definitions only some of the people want.

At least, that's how many Americans would see it, LMAO.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 03-15-2011, 04:52 AM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

If you don't want the government involved that is fair enough...but don't ask it for benefits. If you are asking for something tangible you should be prepared to offer something tangible....the revolution is wasting it's time if it refuses to pin things down. The system isn't going anywhere soon because it is driven by the vast bulk of society; learn to work within it because changing it is highly unlikely (hippy movement serves as a good example). if you can't convince me good luck with the rest of society..the refusal to establish criteria for valid poly relationships is why I can't find any hope for legal recognition beyond asking for freedom from persecution. Freedom from persecution does not cost anything and therefore does not require a strict definition. Things like benefits and employee privileges do; it is only resonable that to take something that has value and an affect on the operating costs of governments and employers should come with a criteria for validity.
In Canada,at least in BC, you need to be separated for at least a year before filing for divorce. Relationship status is taken very seriously. I think it is good to have solid criteria to be recognized as a valid benefit deserving relationship because everyone is paying into these things: they have a right to decide how that money is spent.
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 03-15-2011, 12:53 PM
RobFire RobFire is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milford, Michigan
Posts: 29
Default Um, Wow?

I agree on some of your points disillusioned, mainly that:

  1. Human behavior is, by virtue of a very deep biological imperative, driven to procreate, and usually not monogamously.
  2. The traditional sanctioned monogamous marriage model has some fairly dismal statistical success
  3. Our current society is almost pathologically driven to promote an ideal that, at least for many, maybe a majority, will not have great results
However, there are other deep biological imperatives that play into the equation:
  1. Humans are behaviorally greedy when it comes to resources, which is also a good primitive survival instinct. When extended to relationships, that can lead to a sometimes overwhelming possessive drive that can heartily interfere with a poly lifestyle.
  2. As a species that owes survival more to intellectual means rather than more primitive methods, we have for better or worse risen to a level where the ability to control our sexual whims separates us from other species.
  3. That great intellectual superiority we have over other species comes along with a lot of baggage, like insecurity, rational and irrational fear, complex emotional responses and a host of other nuances.

Yes, most long time married couples are not as sexually active as when they first met. There are measurable chemical changes that occur between infatuation (NRE) and long term bonding (My Luvy Soulmate). This does not discount the very real, and most valuable long term bonding, as that cannot be measures with the number of times a couple jumps in the sack.

It is quite understandable that many couples yern for that long term bonding, and seek to protect it against disruptive new influences.

When the danger to that long term bonding is perceived as being too much a risk to dally with new infatuations (NRE), some are quite happy to stay the safe road and remain monogamous. Those fancy, exotic brain chemicals that course through the cortex when we do the mating dance can be *awfully* disruptive, and cause better sense to exit stage left.

Bottom line, it's all a big balancing act, and not everyone falls on the same side of the tightrope. there's really no right or wrong about it.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 03-15-2011, 12:55 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

The problem with "revolutions" is that sometimes people get what they want and then they don't know what to do with it.


This PSA brought to you by the Department of Retrospective Pessimism.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
activism, anarchy, biology, books, monogamy, poly anarchy, poly revolution, research, revolution, sex at dawn, studies

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 04:29 PM.