Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 03-04-2011, 10:05 AM
disillusioned disillusioned is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 40
Default

Annie Hall - Woody Allen -1977

Alvy Singer: Here, you look like a very happy couple, um, are you?
Female street stranger: Yeah.
Alvy Singer: Yeah? So, so, how do you account for it?
Female street stranger: Uh, I'm very shallow and empty and I have no ideas and nothing interesting to say.
Male street stranger: And I'm exactly the same way.
Alvy Singer: I see. Wow. That's very interesting.

***

You keep telling me the same thing - "people are different". If you don't want to have a discussion and try to dig deeper into the nature of relationships and sexuality, in a broader and more intellectual way, that's fine with me. I know, it's hard. The ramifications of such discussion can be devastating, even disastrous. It is much easier to explain everything by saying that people are people and we all have different orientations and that's that. Boy, how much I wish I thought the same way too.

Interested parties can PM me. Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-04-2011, 10:21 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,155
Default

Disillusioned,
This is a discussion board. Of course, people here want to discuss and "dig deeper." That's all we do here. Have you read much of it? Look at how many pages and pages of posts there are here, where people are digging deeper. However, what folks are saying here is that you seem to be talking down to anyone with a different opinion or idea, in quite a condescending manner. That is not discussion. That is browbeating.

No one here has said they don't want to discuss the topic you brought up. However, the request has been made numerous times for you to look at the way in which you attempted to engage us and make an adjustment to that. In other words, please dial down the "holier than thou" attitude that you've put forth. Even in your last post, you seem to be saying that you are the one here who knows how to carry on a "broader and more intellectual" discussion, and that reads as maddeningly arrogant. I'm sure many of us here, if not most, would appreciate hearing your perspective and discussing it intelligently, if only your delivery wasn't so confrontational and hard to swallow.

I'm actually wondering if you're just a troll.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein

Last edited by nycindie; 03-04-2011 at 07:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-04-2011, 11:37 AM
BlackUnicorn's Avatar
BlackUnicorn BlackUnicorn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 906
Default

I guess what the original poster is talking about is a need (some) people have for sexual variety as in multiple sexual partners during their life cycle, which isn't really what inspires the most polyamorous people, I guess. I mean, there is swinging and open relationships for pure variety-seekers. I am someone who considers herself to be a very sexual person, but I would have no problem for at least the next decade or so to engage in polyromance only with no physical relationships with any of my loved ones. Polyamory, for me, is about being able and willing to express 'couple love' towards more than one person at a time. It if it includes sex, great, but for a variety of reasons, not all couples are sexual with each other all the time during the course of their relationship. Love doesn't begin and end in between the sheets.
__________________
Me: bi female in my twenties
Dating: Moonlightrunner
Metamour: Windflower
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-04-2011, 11:57 AM
Penny's Avatar
Penny Penny is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 143
Default

I read Sex at Dawn. It was fascinating and, in many ways, uplifting. I will not go so far as to bring up my qualifications to have an opinion on this or any of the follow-up research I've done, except to say that I indeed do have such academic qualifications but bringing them up in this context is like saying, hey, look, I'm smarter than you, I can think better than you, so your opinions, observations, and experiences are less valuable to this dialogue than mine.

I have met many people with advanced degrees who are total idiots. Not saying this is the case with the OP, but flaunting a degree doesn't mean anything if it isn't backed up by convincing argument.

If scientists proved that grass was purple, they could publish all the papers they wanted to about it, and yet, as an empiricist, I would still believe that grass is green. After all, it is still green for all practical intents and purposes.

Sex at Dawn focuses on our polyamorous natures, but it also demonstrates that humans evolved to have a mixed reproductive strategy. This does not exclude monogamy as a viable option. Certainly we were meant to be much more egalitarian in our sexual practices, and certainly polyamory is natural, but you cannot tell a person who feels, even after deep self-reflection and contemplation, that monogamy is a better fit for them that they are wrong.

I have observed many long-lasting, beautiful and close monogamous relationships. The OP seems to deny that they exist, without presenting convincing evidence to the contrary. I am not that easily swayed into disbelieving the evidence of my own senses, observations, and experience. I have read the book, yet remain unconvinced that these relationships would have gained anything from nonmonogamy.

While he has many interesting points, I find his manner off-putting. Even insulting.

Also, reading one book does not make anyone an expert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect
__________________
.
Hinge of a V relationship with my husband (Thumper) and boyfriend (T-Rex). Also, mother of a 6 y/o girl by my husband.

My poly story begins here. Now with new blogging action!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-04-2011, 12:34 PM
disillusioned disillusioned is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penny View Post
Haha, interesting. I might be an idiot. But the fact that I won every single award in my department while a student, makes it unlikely. And that's why I brought it up only deep into this discussion, because you kept telling me "you don't understand!" as if I'm an idiot... I don't understand what? That all people are "different" from each other?

If we were monogamous, we would bond with one person until death, never look left or right, never have recreational sex, there would have been no reason for multiple orgasms, sperm wars wouldn't make any sense, pornography would have been at the fringe, escort services none existent... It is just that, for me, yes, for ME, the evidence is so overwhelming that I can't wrap my mind around the idea that it is not "obvious" for everybody.

But then again, 90% of people believe in a "god" so...

OK, I must remind myself how emotional and irrational people are, and move on.... thanks
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-04-2011, 12:40 PM
disillusioned disillusioned is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penny View Post

Sex at Dawn focuses on our polyamorous natures, but it also demonstrates that humans evolved to have a mixed reproductive strategy. This does not exclude monogamy as a viable option.
The question is "what is the natural strategy?" (natural as in "what is our real nature?"). Rape has also been, at times, a viable option to reproduce.

Is there a variety of strategies? sure.. you only need to look back 70 years to Nazi Germany, where the state put together tall blond female officers with tall blond male officers, so they would "create" a "perfect Aryan baby". I'm sure it seemed "normal" to them.

But look at high schools today, teen pregnancies... today teens first have sex, THEN start dating.

Is monogamy a viable option? yea...... sure. From all viable options what is the likelihood that it is the most basic and natural option, when you consider all the evidence to the contrary? About one in a million. Even catholic priests can't keep their hands off the cookie jar ! How strong should the urge for novelty be so even the most powerful person in the world won't be able to control it??? Ask Monica Lewinsky....

Last edited by disillusioned; 03-04-2011 at 12:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-04-2011, 12:49 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by disillusioned View Post
OK, I must remind myself how emotional and irrational people are, and move on.... thanks
You're welcome. Please do go troll somewhere else.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-04-2011, 02:23 PM
AutumnalTone AutumnalTone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kansas City Metro
Posts: 2,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by disillusioned View Post
I might be an idiot. But the fact that I won every single award in my department while a student, makes it unlikely.
An indirect appeal to authority is still a fallacious argument. There are other folks here with at least the same claim to "authority," so this sort of nonsense won't play well.
__________________
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
  #39  
Old 03-04-2011, 03:26 PM
Derbylicious's Avatar
Derbylicious Derbylicious is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 1,603
Default

Most things with human sexuality are on a spectrum. It might very well be true that the majority of people are non-monogamous by nature but there are absolutely some that are monogamous-till-death-do-us-part through and through and others who are serial monogamists, only able to be with one person at a time. As far as I can see these ways of being are as much genetically encoded (if you want to make that argument) as being poly.

It's the same as the straight to gay spectrum. Most people fall somewhere in the middle. Although they may have a stronger preference one way or the other, under the right circumstances they could be involved with someone who isn't of the normally prefered gender.
__________________
Everything will be ok in the end. If it's not ok it's not the end.

Last edited by Derbylicious; 03-04-2011 at 03:27 PM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-04-2011, 03:36 PM
disillusioned disillusioned is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 40
Default

I'm sitting in a coffee shop now and a couple is breaking up, right in front of me, exchanging bags with what each person had in the other person's apartment. They are of the same nationality as me but we are in another country, so they didn't bother to not be loud thinking that nobody understands them.

God... the irony.

The girl left without looking back. The guy was trying to be hard with her but you could see how sad he was. Too bad, if they only knew it was coded in their DNA maybe they would have been nicer to each other... not hurt, not angry... they could have told each other "That's life, relationships can't last forever, despite what all those songs on radio say..."

Jesus, I wish I was a believer.... I feel like I'm 7 years old again, realizing for the first time that my parents can't answer all my questions. Terrible.

Last edited by disillusioned; 03-04-2011 at 03:47 PM.
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 04:53 PM.