Sincere questions (I am not a troll, thank you!)

[Pantheist1]

(I may have posted this twice, sorry)

Hello all,

I am dating a woman who is very interested in a poly-amorous relationship.
She says one advantage of a poly-amorous situation is that instead of trying
to find all the traits you want in one person (admittedly difficult) it may
be better/easier to distribute those things among more than one person.

Which makes sense on the surface.

Here is my counter-argument:

Isn't it true that by doing so the level of love is also a fraction (per
person) of what it would be with one individual? So, you and others are
sharing not only qualities which others find attractive (and lacking in
other partners) but the love itself, and that love is only a smaller
fraction of the "100%" love otherwise available to one partner (?). In
addition, the qualities themselves are also shared with others (presumably)
so not only the love but the qualities themselves are shared, resulting in a
lesser share of those qualities available per partner. I understand it is
hard to quantify things such as love, you could say love is not a finite
substance, but emotional availability and the like certainly are. So in
theory my love is unlimited and I can love several women at once, but in
practice by sharing myself with more than one person each of those persons
will only have a proportional fraction of the love/qualities/availability I
would otherwise have for one individual.

Let's say there are ten people in such a relationship (okay, a large number
but it's an easy example mathematically, let's say it's a commune), and they
are all bi-sexual, each person only has and can also receive only 10% (yes,
I know it probably should be 11 people for the math to work better) of the
love and qualities available from each other person. Okay, it may be a
zero-sum game, the grand total whether it is 10 partners or 1 is still 100%
(or something close to it). I definitely do think the odds of finding all
the traits you want in a group of people (without the sexual aspect) as
opposed to one person is of course better, that is why married couples have
their own friends. But I believe it is much more difficult to find multiple
people who not only have in total all (or most) of the qualities you seek,
but who are all open to the idea of sexually sharing themselves with other
people. Let us assume they are all bi-sexual for simplicity's sake (which is
statistically probably very hard, no pun intended); mixing it up with
gay/bi/straight people further complicates the scenario.

And let us not ignore the emotional problems, what if (inevitably) one
person falls in love
with another in the group? Is that person then exiled because he/she no
longer wants to share themselves and the other person with everyone? Aren't
there ethical and moral ramifications to banning someone because of that as
well? What about jealously and the potential for violence? Isn't it very
likely that someone will murder his or her rival? What about economics, if
some are earning more than others should those people have to contribute
more to the communal whole? How about children? Assuming we even know who
the (biological) father is, will not being raised in such a family cause
confusion and stigma for the child in mainstream society? If the children
live in a commune forever that is great, but not really likely. People
raised in communes are usually pretty f----d up individuals.Not to say
people who aren't are not messed up too, of course. The problem is not
living in the commune, it is how to interact successfully with the
mainstream society which is usually necessary at some point.

From more of an economic viewpoint, will it not take the same amount of time
(if not longer) and effort to find compatible multiple (sexual) partners who
each possess one or a few traits you want as opposed to finding one partner
with almost all of the qualities you desire?

I believe that we are at our root basis economic beings, and that if it were
more economically beneficial (I don't mean necessarily things, I mean
personal qualities themselves) to have multiple partners as opposed to one
then that is what we would have. I believe some primates do practice
poly-amory (mostly of a sexual nature, but there is some kind of
"relationship" also), anthropologists say man also was probably the same in
the past. But we are no longer, because cultural and biological evolution
has determined that the benefits of monogamy are superior to those of
poly-amory. If poly-amory were a better arrangement then it would not have
died out with the pagan religions and whoever else was practicing it. Not to
say people won't continue it, just as Latin will always be spoken by a very
small number of persons, but just as languages evolve and die out, so do all
other cultural practices including community/family relationships and
sexuality (and economic systems, and everything else included in
civilization including different technologies; whatever happened to Beta-Max
and 8-track tapes and vinyl records, and the horse-drawn wagon? you get my
point). Socialism as an ideal is great, but no one has ever gotten it to
work very well either.

Now, if you are interested solely in the sexual aspects that is an entirely
different story. This is a good way for me to demonstrate the conundrum I
find myself in now. I am a fairly sexual being (like most primates) and like
most primates would like regular sexual relations. It is not very difficult
to find women who will have casual sex. There are drawbacks to that of
course, ie, diseases, pregancy, jealous husbands/boyfriends, psychos who
then stalk you, women who may rob or otherwise inflict criminal damage, etc.
Not many women are able to have sex without becoming emotionally involved.
My other conflict is that I believe sexual urges were designed into us in
order to ensure reproduction. So, by submitting to my sexual impulses I am,
in effect, merely a pawn of Mother Nature, just being used as a tool for the
purpose of propagation; there is no purpose in sex other than reproduction
(excluding the element of love, it gets worse below).

Now, as far as love goes, could it not be postulated that romantic love (ie,
sexual with a partner of the opposite sex) is Nature's "trick" to get people
to reproduce? Is "true" love exhibited in a non-sexual way, ie a mother for
her child? Of course all love can be said to be evolutionary in nature, ie a
mother loves her child because she wants the child to prosper and thus pass
on her genes. I don't see anything wrong with that, even my own "love" for
people is evolutionary, I am motivated to actualize my ideas of social
progress. The difference is sexual "love" is a more baser instinct, like
hunger or thirst. I am not sure how this comes to any conclusion however.
Jesus loved all of mankind, but he did not have sex with all of mankind (as
far as we know). Is that not a higher ideal of love to attain? Again, I am
not a religious fanatic (I don't even think Jesus even existed), I am just
using this as an example.

I know this is a long post, but I am very interested to hear any of your
opinions. No flames, please, I am sincere and would appreciate sincere
replies. Please post replies here, I do not use my real e-mail address for
newsgroups.

[Chris Croughton]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:26:01 -0400, Pantheist1

Post by Pantheist1
(I may have posted this twice, sorry)

You did, I assume it is this later version which you meant to be used?
Don't worry, it happens to us all...

Post by Pantheist1
I am dating a woman who is very interested in a poly-amorous relationship.
She says one advantage of a poly-amorous situation is that instead of trying
to find all the traits you want in one person (admittedly difficult) it may
be better/easier to distribute those things among more than one person.
Which makes sense on the surface.

First of all, thanks for asking about the subject, many people just
freak out and refuse to accept it at all.

Post by Pantheist1
Isn't it true that by doing so the level of love is also a fraction (per
person) of what it would be with one individual? So, you and others are
sharing not only qualities which others find attractive (and lacking in
other partners) but the love itself, and that love is only a smaller
fraction of the "100%" love otherwise available to one partner (?).

I think I can show at least one circumstance where no one (in their
right mind) would try to argue that love is a finite resource. Mother
love (or parental if you prefer). Would you really argue that a couple
should only have one child because the love gets 'diluted' if you have
more? Be prepared to run if so, because I know some people with a lot
more than one child who will hotly dispute it!

Love doesn't divide, it multiplies. Jealousy (which many people are
taught is 'love') divides.

Post by Pantheist1
In addition, the qualities themselves are also shared with others
(presumably) so not only the love but the qualities themselves are
shared, resulting in a lesser share of those qualities available per
partner. I understand it is hard to quantify things such as love, you
could say love is not a finite substance, but emotional availability
and the like certainly are. So in theory my love is unlimited and I can
love several women at once, but in practice by sharing myself with more
than one person each of those persons will only have a proportional
fraction of the love/qualities/availability I would otherwise have for
one individual.

I think you're confusing 'love' with 'availability', for a start. The
two are not the same, and each can be present without the other (for
instance, I spend 8 hours a day at work, and 2+ hours commuting, and (if
I get the chance) another 8 hours sleeping, but I don't 'love' those
other things in any reasonable sense).

Post by Pantheist1
Let's say there are ten people in such a relationship (okay, a large number
but it's an easy example mathematically, let's say it's a commune), and they
are all bi-sexual, each person only has and can also receive only 10% (yes,
I know it probably should be 11 people for the math to work better) of the
love and qualities available from each other person. Okay, it may be a
zero-sum game, the grand total whether it is 10 partners or 1 is still 100%
(or something close to it).

Sex, probably (unless you are into threesomes or more, I'm told mass
orgies are fun!), although remember that you'be got 10 times the number
of p[eople to have sex with as well. But a lot of the other things, no,
because if it's a commune then likely most of you will be together for a
lot of the time. In fact in the communes I know (OK, so 2 isn't a big
sample) there is more availability because most of them work from home,
so if you need to talk (for instance) there is very likely to be at
least one other person around which there isn't for most monogamous
couples for most of the day.

For instance, in a monogamy if one person wants to go out to the pub and
the other wants to stay at home then one (or both) will be lonely. If
there are 10 of you, it's extremely likely that more than one will go to
the pub and more thasn one will stay at home, so no one is lonely.
Similarly with hobbies and work (how many "golf widows" effectively set
up a polyamoury by taking a lover, how many men have an affair when they
are away on business, but all secretly and deceitfully?).

Post by Pantheist1
I definitely do think the odds of finding all
the traits you want in a group of people (without the sexual aspect) as
opposed to one person is of course better, that is why married couples have
their own friends.

That's part of it, certainly.

Post by Pantheist1
But I believe it is much more difficult to find multiple people who not
only have in total all (or most) of the qualities you seek, but who are
all open to the idea of sexually sharing themselves with other people.

Sure, but that is changing. Also, one thing which seems to be common to
plural relationships which work is that they are consensual and planned,
it isn't (normally) a matter of saying "right, let's get a load of
people together and see what happens" but more that the existing group
invites someone in (possibly on a 'trial' basis) and all discuss it. Or
if it's looser then there is a 'core' group which is like that and the
partners are able to have 'secondary' relationships with someone not
(fully) in the group.

Post by Pantheist1
Let us assume they are all bi-sexual for simplicity's sake (which is
statistically probably very hard, no pun intended); mixing it up with
gay/bi/straight people further complicates the scenario.

For simplicity, OK.

Post by Pantheist1
And let us not ignore the emotional problems, what if (inevitably) one
person falls in love with another in the group?

One would hope that they did, with all of them. Or do you mean that
they get jealous and possessive and all those other nasty things
associated with monogamy?

Post by Pantheist1
Is that person then exiled because he/she no
longer wants to share themselves and the other person with everyone? Aren't
there ethical and moral ramifications to banning someone because of that as
well? What about jealously and the potential for violence? Isn't it very
likely that someone will murder his or her rival?

Come on -- have a look at the statistics. How many people actually get
so jealous that they musder their rival? It makes the headlines the few
times it happens, it's certainly not "very likely".

But that's a large amount of the point of polyamoury, that jealousy etc.
should not exist and doesn't need to exist. If person J wants to be
exclusive with person L, they have already lost it and shouldn't expect
to be part of the group (and it's up to person L whether zie wants to go
off and be exclusive with J).

But another point is that such a group can, if set up that way, allow
for such a thing, either on a permanent basis or as a 'sabbatical' for a
while with either or bot being welcomed back in if they want to later.

Post by Pantheist1
What about economics, if some are earning more than others should those
people have to contribute more to the communal whole?

How is it done in a monogamy? Or any other partnership? You work it
out either before you get into it (preferably) or when you need to.

Post by Pantheist1
How about children? Assuming we even know who
the (biological) father is, will not being raised in such a family cause
confusion and stigma for the child in mainstream society?

No more than a homosexual monogamy, or a single parent with children, or
any other 'non-standard' arrangement. I have known women who
deliberately had a child and didn't know who the father was, or who got
'caught' at a party and didn't know, or who had an 'affair' outside
marriage and weren't sure who the father was, there's no difference.
Except the big difference that in a planned polyamoury the children are
(should be) the children of /all/ the parents, rather than the more
common lacking a parent.

Post by Pantheist1
If the children live in a commune forever that is great, but not really
likely. People raised in communes are usually pretty f----d up
individuals. Not to say people who aren't are not messed up too, of
course. The problem is not living in the commune, it is how to interact
successfully with the mainstream society which is usually necessary at
some point.

I think you are referring to ones who are raised /only/ in a commune,
with no outside contact? That is a problem whatever the group (and is a
danger with home schooling, for instance). It isn't necessary, though,
the children can still go to school normally, have outside friends, etc.
Indeed, they should be encouraged to do so, just as children from any
large or 'extended' family should.

Post by Pantheist1
From more of an economic viewpoint, will it not take the same amount of time
(if not longer) and effort to find compatible multiple (sexual) partners who
each possess one or a few traits you want as opposed to finding one partner
with almost all of the qualities you desire?

If you insist on the "perfect match", yes, it's likely to take more than
a lifetime for either method. But if you are willing to settle for a
few traits 'missing' then no. To put it in figures, say that the best
match you can find with any individual is 50%, and you want at least 80%
to give you satisfaction. You won't find any individual who meets that,
but finding three with different areas of overlap so that the total is
over 80% is very possible.

Post by Pantheist1
I believe that we are at our root basis economic beings, and that if it were
more economically beneficial (I don't mean necessarily things, I mean
personal qualities themselves) to have multiple partners as opposed to one
then that is what we would have.

And indeed many societies do have it as a 'norm'. It could well be
regarded as a moral sickness which forbids more than one in a
partnership and makes it a 'sin'.

Post by Pantheist1
I believe some primates do practice poly-amory (mostly of a sexual
nature,

Do any not? OK, it's usually a single male and multiple females, for
biological reasons (increase of the tribe etc.).

Post by Pantheist1
but there is some kind of "relationship" also), anthropologists
say man also was probably the same in the past.

"In the past"? There are plenty which still do (Islam, for example, and
some of the Hindu cultures, as do some of the Inuit and other relatively
'unspoiled' cultures). And (see below) so do Western cultures, although
they tend to hide it hypocritically as "serial monogamy", "affairs",
etc. Having a 'mistress' (or a 'toy boy') is less common now, because
people are starting to object to the idea that they are 'property', but
things like "escort agencies" are on the increase and many men do build
up relationships with their 'escorts' (I'm told that women do with the
male 'escorts' as well, but I don't know any personally) in
non-exclusive ways.

Post by Pantheist1
But we are no longer, because cultural and biological evolution
has determined that the benefits of monogamy are superior to those of
poly-amory.

Sorry, but that's just not so. You could equally say that Christianity
has proven itself to be the 'superior' religion (or Islam, or many
others). Or that VHS is 'superior' to Betamax, or Windoze to MacOS.

Post by Pantheist1
If poly-amory were a better arrangement then it would not have
died out with the pagan religions and whoever else was practicing it.

Well, murdering people who practiced it is a pretty good way of stopping
the practice (see Jewish practice of stoning the woman to death, or for
more recent example the persecution of the Mormons, etc.). So is
abduction and rape of the 'loose' women (obviously, if a woman has
several partners she is 'loose' and must be available to anyone!). But
as I point out above (and below) it hasn't died out at all, it has just
been driven underground where people lie about it. People have actually
been practicing polyamoury all the time, just not called that and under
the strain of being found out and pilloried for it (literally, often).

Post by Pantheist1
Not to say people won't continue it, just as Latin will always be
spoken by a very small number of persons, but just as languages evolve
and die out, so do all other cultural practices including
community/family relationships and sexuality (and economic systems, and
everything else included in civilization including different
technologies;

No, we are 'evolving' our social structures back into it. Already
same-sex partnerships are being accepted (again) as valid, and multiple
ones are getting more common and accepted. People are realising the
massive harm that the Pauline JudeoChristian ethic has done to
relationships, in promoting jealousy and the belief that a person is the
exclusive property of another, and they are trying to go back to the
more tolerant ways.

Actually, we're just getting more honest about it and more fair. The
Victorians practiced polyamoury, mistresses were common (and in many
cases openly admitted). Women couldn't get away with it openly, but
there were many women who had 'paramours'. The only difference is that
it was secret and so the 'secondaries' had no rights in the
relationship. And bastardy was fatal socially so it was covered up (a
child born to a young unmarried woman, for instance, would often be
registered as the child of her mother, both to preserve her 'innocence'
and to prevent the child being labelled a bastard).

Post by Pantheist1
whatever happened to Beta-Max

It was better than VHS but wasn't marketed as well. See Windoze for
another example, or the Commodore Amiga. The people with the money
(and/or political influence) call the shots, regardless of how 'good'
the technology is in real terms...

Post by Pantheist1
and 8-track tapes and vinyl records, and

OK, some are replaced. Slowly (you can still buy new recordings on
vinyl). But not always by something 'better'.

Post by Pantheist1
the horse-drawn wagon?

Priced out of the market by oil barons and their political lackeys. And
the desire to be somewhere else quickly (I can see horses coming back as
transport if oil gets short and with more people telecommuting, for
instance).

Post by Pantheist1
you get my point). Socialism as an ideal is
great, but no one has ever gotten it to work very well either.

Ditto democracy and every other social method imposed by force. The
problem is the force, not the system (both 'pure' communism and 'pure'
capitalism can work, and have, but only in populations which consent
freely to live under those systems and allow people to "opt out" and
join as they will; this usually means groups of under 600 or so people).

Post by Pantheist1
Now, if you are interested solely in the sexual aspects that is an entirely
different story. This is a good way for me to demonstrate the conundrum I
find myself in now. I am a fairly sexual being (like most primates) and like
most primates would like regular sexual relations. It is not very difficult
to find women who will have casual sex. There are drawbacks to that of
course, ie, diseases, pregancy, jealous husbands/boyfriends, psychos who
then stalk you, women who may rob or otherwise inflict criminal damage, etc.

Most of which are caused by the ethic of exclusivity, resulting in such
liasons being largely furtive and secret and hence problems like disease
can't be openly discussed because of fear of being branded 'unfaithful'
and possibly discarded as "spoilt goods". Disgusting.

Post by Pantheist1
Not many women are able to have sex without becoming emotionally involved.

Yes, because they have been brought up in a society where they are
expected to become the 'property' of one man 'til death do them part,
and that men don't want "used goods". Hence they at least pretend that
it's for 'love' becausre that excuses them (men don't need excuses so
much because they are traditionally the 'owners').

(There is also the biological aspect, of course -- it's the woman who
gets to carry the baby for 9 months if precautions fail or aren't taken,
whereas the man can just walk away from the problem.)

Post by Pantheist1
My other conflict is that I believe sexual urges were designed into us in
order to ensure reproduction. So, by submitting to my sexual impulses I am,
in effect, merely a pawn of Mother Nature, just being used as a tool for the
purpose of propagation; there is no purpose in sex other than reproduction
(excluding the element of love, it gets worse below).

The solution to that is simple -- cut off your goolies! Or equivalent.
Take yourself out of the reproduction pool and then you'll know that you
aren't being 'conditioned' any more. (I knew someone who did that, for
that very reason...)

Post by Pantheist1
Now, as far as love goes, could it not be postulated that romantic love (ie,
sexual with a partner of the opposite sex) is Nature's "trick" to get people
to reproduce? Is "true" love exhibited in a non-sexual way, ie a mother for
her child?

That's not non-sexual! Why do you think that the female mammary gland
is an erogenous zone -- it's to make the feeding of a child a
pleasurable experience so the mother will do it often. At least, that's
one theory. Cuddling children similarly.

Oh, and note that 'romantic' love has very often been regarded as
non-sexual -- classic case Romeo and Juliet, who never (according to
Shakespere) got round to actually having sex, but most of the ballads
are about love of a person with whom it can never be consummated
sexually. But that's back to the distortion that sex is somehow
'wrong', 'dirty' or even 'evil' (which comes largely from the fact that
any peasant could get screwed but the gentry had to think about economic
and political effects first so didn't get laid as often; the word 'rude'
meant 'uncultured', 'rough' etc. originally and then changed to also
mean "obscene, like a peasant").

Post by Pantheist1
Of course all love can be said to be evolutionary in nature, ie a
mother loves her child because she wants the child to prosper and thus pass
on her genes. I don't see anything wrong with that, even my own "love" for
people is evolutionary, I am motivated to actualize my ideas of social
progress. The difference is sexual "love" is a more baser instinct, like
hunger or thirst. I am not sure how this comes to any conclusion however.

The problem is that you are trying to reinvent "Platonic Love", and
coming to the same conclusion he did, that such a thing cannot logically
exist (note that what he was actually trying to show was the fallacy of
trying to analyse everything with logic, but people latched onto the
wrong concept).

Post by Pantheist1
Jesus loved all of mankind, but he did not have sex with all of mankind (as
far as we know). Is that not a higher ideal of love to attain? Again, I am
not a religious fanatic (I don't even think Jesus even existed), I am just
using this as an example.

Did he love them as brothers (filios), as an abstract (agape), or one
of the others I forget (parental love for children, love for parents,
love of a creator for the creation -- the Greeks allegedly had 13
different words for 'love', of which only one (eros) was sexual love)?
For instance, in the passages about "the disciple [who] Jesus loved" the
word used is 'filios', brotherly love, in other places 'agape' etc.

But why is one 'better' than the others, except that the Christian
church has been telling us so for almost 2000 years (and enforcing it at
the point of a sword for most of that)?

Post by Pantheist1
I know this is a long post, but I am very interested to hear any of your
opinions. No flames, please, I am sincere and would appreciate sincere
replies. Please post replies here, I do not use my real e-mail address for
newsgroups.

Fair enough, replies should normally be posted anyway.

Chris C

[Trin]

Post by Chris Croughton

Post by Pantheist1
I am dating a woman who is very interested in a
poly-amorous relationship.

Good luck with it. :)

Post by Chris Croughton

Post by Pantheist1
Isn't it true that by doing so the level of love is
also a fraction (per person) of what it would be with
one individual? So, you and others are sharing not
only qualities which others find attractive (and
lacking in other partners) but the love itself, and
that love is only a smaller fraction of the "100%"
love otherwise available to one partner (?).

I think Francis summed it up wonderfully t'other day with: The more
loving we share with other people, the more loving we have for number
one. That's how it works out.

Post by Chris Croughton
I think you're confusing 'love' with 'availability',
for a start.

<nods emphatically>

I love my husband massively, but currently I'm seeing many many other
people a _lot_ more than I'm seeing anything of him because I'm working
now and only have a couple of hours a day when I'm not working,
commuting or sleeping.

Post by Chris Croughton

Post by Pantheist1
But I believe it is much more difficult to find
multiple people who not only have in total all (or
most) of the qualities you seek, but who are all
open to the idea of sexually sharing themselves
with other people.

I dunno, I don't seem to be finding it at all difficult of late, seem to
be tripping over damn potential/lovers pretty much everywhere I go -
heck, even pulled on my first Friday at work 4 weeks next Friday... and
I only got oobldy married a couple of months ago! <boggled g>

Seriously though, how about you don't actually go around looking for
people to add, but rather just be open to the idea of discussing it
should a potential ever occur? Or is this part of the "building up a
picture of the *perfect* partner" kinda thang that's s'posed to
happen... 'cause if it is then that could be why I don't get it. When I
develop an interest in someone, it's not because they fit $quality-
looked-for but because I happen to like something about them as a person
who adds value to my life.

Post by Chris Croughton

Post by Pantheist1
And let us not ignore the emotional problems, what if
(inevitably) one person falls in love with another in
the group?

What's wrong with that?

Post by Chris Croughton

Post by Pantheist1
Is that person then exiled because he/she no longer
wants to share themselves and the other person with
everyone?

Why should they be? And surely it's for the lover to decide whether they
wanna be shared or not?

Post by Chris Croughton

Post by Pantheist1
Aren't there ethical and moral ramifications to
banning someone because of that as well? What about
jealously and the potential for violence? Isn't it
very likely that someone will murder his or her rival?

Erm... but when the love is accepted, how can $other-person be seen as a
"rival"?

Post by Chris Croughton
But that's a large amount of the point of polyamoury,
that jealousy etc. should not exist and doesn't need to
exist.

And here's the bit that made me decide to reply to this post in the
first place... Chris dear, I disagree - strongly. Jealousy can be a damn
useful tool, if you know how to let it show you where your
insecurities/irritations/etc lie then these can be mentioned to people
as a warning of potential problems for the future.

Sowee hon. <g>

/me huggles Chris

Post by Chris Croughton

Post by Pantheist1
From more of an economic viewpoint, will it not take
the same amount of time (if not longer) and effort to
find compatible multiple (sexual) partners who each
possess one or a few traits you want as opposed to
finding one partner with almost all of the qualities
you desire?

See above. Why go out and "seek" qualities, why not just meet people
and enjoy being in their company?

Also, does it matter how long it takes, you've got your entire life to
do things in. :)

Post by Chris Croughton

Post by Pantheist1
I believe that we are at our root basis economic
beings, and that if it were more economically
beneficial (I don't mean necessarily things, I mean
personal qualities themselves) to have multiple
partners as opposed to one then that is what we would
have.

But then that allows for less control. O: )

Post by Chris Croughton

Post by Pantheist1
But we are no longer, because cultural and biological
evolution has determined that the benefits of monogamy
are superior to those of poly-amory.

Nope, Xtianity came along and decided for us.

Post by Chris Croughton

Post by Pantheist1
If poly-amory were a better arrangement then it would
not have died out with the pagan religions and whoever
else was practicing it.

See above: control.

:/

Post by Chris Croughton

Post by Pantheist1
Not many women are able to have sex without becoming
emotionally involved.

ROTFLMAO!

No, I agree, and I know that exactly the same is true for men too.

Post by Chris Croughton

Post by Pantheist1
My other conflict is that I believe sexual urges were
designed into us in order to ensure reproduction. So,
by submitting to my sexual impulses I am, in effect,
merely a pawn of Mother Nature, just being used as a
tool for the purpose of propagation; there is no
purpose in sex other than reproduction (excluding the
element of love, it gets worse below).

Fun dear... forget the mechanics and get down to enjoying it. :)

Post by Chris Croughton

Post by Pantheist1
Is "true" love exhibited in a non-sexual way, ie a
mother for her child?

That's not non-sexual! Why do you think that the female
mammary gland is an erogenous zone -- it's to make the
feeding of a child a pleasurable experience so the mother
will do it often. At least, that's one theory.

It's a theory that I, a mother who absolutely *adored* breast-feeding
her child, will willing support.

Post by Chris Croughton
Cuddling children similarly.

And throttling them. <angelic g>

Post by Chris Croughton

Post by Pantheist1
I know this is a long post, but I am very interested
to hear any of your opinions. No flames, please, I
am sincere and would appreciate sincere replies.

Was an interesting post I thought. :)

Post by Chris Croughton

Post by Pantheist1
Please post replies here

I wouldn't've replied if it had to be via e-mail.

[Chris Croughton]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 02:17:03 +0100, Trin

Post by Trin

Post by Chris Croughton
But that's a large amount of the point of polyamoury,
that jealousy etc. should not exist and doesn't need to
exist.

And here's the bit that made me decide to reply to this post in the
first place... Chris dear, I disagree - strongly. Jealousy can be a damn
useful tool, if you know how to let it show you where your
insecurities/irritations/etc lie then these can be mentioned to people
as a warning of potential problems for the future.

But if you don't have that insecurity, why would you want jealousy?
Jealousy is about possession, and dehumanises its object, why would you
want to do that to a person you love?

Certainly if you have a problem with being jealous then it needs to be
looked at, and not covered up, I'm not saying that it should be
'suppressed'. Just that there should be no need for the same sort of
insecurities in a poly group, and if there are they should be dealt with
preferably before the person joins the group (cf. Ben in "Stranger in a
Strange Land").

Post by Trin
/me huggles Chris

/me snugs Trin

Post by Trin

Post by Chris Croughton
That's not non-sexual! Why do you think that the female
mammary gland is an erogenous zone -- it's to make the
feeding of a child a pleasurable experience so the mother
will do it often. At least, that's one theory.

It's a theory that I, a mother who absolutely *adored* breast-feeding
her child, will willing support.

Post by Chris Croughton
Cuddling children similarly.

And throttling them. <angelic g>

That's counter-survival for the species <g>.

Chris C

[Steve Pope]

Jealousy for me is about being ripped off and maltreated. Why would I
"do that" to someone I love? Better ask why someone who claims to love
me would fuck me over.

But sometimes, a person can do everything correctly and
considerately and within range of expectations and still
someone else gets jealous. There doesn't necessarily need
to be a ripped-off / maltreated aspect.

YMMV.

Steve

[Chris Croughton]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:48:41 -0400, Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)

Post by Chris Croughton
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 02:17:03 +0100, Trin

Post by Trin
And here's the bit that made me decide to reply to this post in the
first place... Chris dear, I disagree - strongly. Jealousy can be a damn
useful tool, if you know how to let it show you where your
insecurities/irritations/etc lie then these can be mentioned to people
as a warning of potential problems for the future.

But if you don't have that insecurity, why would you want jealousy?
Jealousy is about possession, and dehumanises its object, why would you
want to do that to a person you love?

Jealousy for me is about being ripped off and maltreated. Why would I
"do that" to someone I love? Better ask why someone who claims to love
me would fuck me over.

Doesn't sound like jealousy to me, it sounds like anger (and justified)
on your part. Webster's, via dictionary.com says:

The quality of being jealous; earnest concern or solicitude; painful
apprehension of rivalship in cases nearly affecting one's happiness;
painful suspicion of the faithfulness of husband, wife, or lover.

As to the person who (is, has been?) ripping you off and maltreating you,
I would say that anyone who intentionally harms[1] someone they claim to
love either has no understanding of the word 'love' or they are mentally
ill. Or both.

[1] Without their consent, or more particularly against their will.
'Harm' in the context of consensual S&M etc. is not what I'm talking
about.

Jealousy is basically an envy of what another person has, plus a desire
that they not have it (the object in question being either unique or in
scarce supply). It is an extreme state based on the classification of
the desired thing as an object to be possessed.

For instance, if someone has something I don't, and I want the same sort
of thing of my own, that is envy. As in "I want a car /like that/". That
can be a positive thing, inspiring the envious person to change or work
to get what they desire.

On the other hand, if the person wants /that specific thing/ and
therefore wants to take it away from the other person, that is jealousy
and is always a negative emotion, as in "I want /his/ car". It tends to
lead to violence against the person who possesses the object, and even
when obtained often does not satisfy because part of the desire was
bound up in the fact that it was belonging to someone else.

Similarly, I might say "I want a relationship with someone like Trin".
There's no harm in that. But if I say "I want an exclusive relationship
with Trin" then that is jealousy and is harmful (because for it to be
exclusive would take her away from her other loves and make her and them
unhappy), and would make her into a possession.

Chris C

[Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)]

Post by Chris Croughton
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:48:41 -0400, Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)

Post by Chris Croughton
But if you don't have that insecurity, why would you want jealousy?
Jealousy is about possession, and dehumanises its object, why would you
want to do that to a person you love?

Jealousy for me is about being ripped off and maltreated. Why would I
"do that" to someone I love? Better ask why someone who claims to love
me would fuck me over.

Doesn't sound like jealousy to me, it sounds like anger (and justified)
The quality of being jealous; earnest concern or solicitude; painful
apprehension of rivalship in cases nearly affecting one's happiness;
painful suspicion of the faithfulness of husband, wife, or lover.

Yup.

Someone who takes something which is mine and allocates it to someone
else is ripping me off.

These are the circumstances that induce in me "apprehension of
rivalship".


So your overgeneralisation is still fatally flawed.


- Darkhawk.

[The Thingfish]

Post by Chris Croughton
Jealousy is basically an envy of what another person has, plus a
desire that they not have it (the object in question being either
unique or in scarce supply). It is an extreme state based on the
classification of the desired thing as an object to be possessed.
For instance, if someone has something I don't, and I want the same
sort of thing of my own, that is envy. As in "I want a car /like
that/". That can be a positive thing, inspiring the envious person to
change or work to get what they desire.
On the other hand, if the person wants /that specific thing/ and
therefore wants to take it away from the other person, that is
jealousy and is always a negative emotion, as in "I want /his/ car".
It tends to lead to violence against the person who possesses the
object, and even when obtained often does not satisfy because part of
the desire was bound up in the fact that it was belonging to someone
else.
Similarly, I might say "I want a relationship with someone like Trin".
There's no harm in that. But if I say "I want an exclusive
relationship with Trin" then that is jealousy and is harmful (because
for it to be exclusive would take her away from her other loves and
make her and them unhappy), and would make her into a possession.
Chris C

For what its worth I think that folks, particularly poly folks really need to get more of
a handle on what jealosy *actually* is rather than, at best dismissing it as a fault or
at worst demonising it as abuse.

Chris, above give an excellent functional comparison between jealosy and envy. But,
unfortunately emotions and intelect are different beasts.

Feeling stuff is not, in my view wrong or abusive, whether or not those feelings fit into
a pre-conceived sense of what is politically correct or otherwise. Also, again from my
perspective caring about another involves caring for them regardless of the political
correctness of their feelings.

Clearly, when feelings spill over into actions the situation may (or may not) become
abusive, but that is not the same thing.

Jelousy is not an emotion. Jelousy is a composite. It is rooted in fear and anger.
Generally speaking the anger comes from the fear, and again generally speaking, within
poly-related-jealosy the fear is "fear of loss".

I do think that it is difficult to live ones entire life in the monocentric world that we
all inhabit and not to develop a fear of the poly-bogey-person, (aka the others lover).

This is a learned behaviour and as such can be changed. It requires a desire to change
AND (critically), some support from those involved.

Just my views.

TF

[Trin]

Post by The Thingfish
"fear of loss".

Thank you - that's the phrase I was looking in my last post! Yes. <g>

[Trin]

Post by Chris Croughton
Jealousy is basically an envy of what another person
has, plus a desire that they not have it (the object
in question being either unique or in scarce supply).
It is an extreme state based on the classification of
the desired thing as an object to be possessed.

Ah, see this is where I differ, for me it's jealously guarding your own
personal access to object, not restricting the access of others.

Post by Chris Croughton
For instance, if someone has something I don't, and I
want the same sort of thing of my own, that is envy.
As in "I want a car /like that/". That can be a
positive thing, inspiring the envious person to change
or work to get what they desire.
On the other hand, if the person wants /that specific
thing/ and therefore wants to take it away from the
other person, that is jealousy and is always a
negative emotion, as in "I want /his/ car". It tends
to lead to violence against the person who possesses
the object, and even when obtained often does not
satisfy because part of the desire was bound up in
the fact that it was belonging to someone else.
Similarly, I might say "I want a relationship with
someone like Trin". There's no harm in that. But if
I say "I want an exclusive relationship with Trin"
then that is jealousy and is harmful (because for it
to be exclusive would take her away from her other
loves and make her and them unhappy), and would make
her into a possession.

Although it'd be fun to see someone try that... again. <smirk>

<shakes head>

Nope, can't get my head around the concept. Why would anyone wanna
restrict someone they love from being happy? I just don't get it.

[Janet McKnight]

And lo, on Wed, 23 Jul 2003 02:40:01 +0100, Trin

Post by Trin
Nope, can't get my head around the concept. Why would anyone wanna
restrict someone they love from being happy? I just don't get it.

There's always a balance between making the person you love happy, and
being happy yourself.

Try to imagine for a moment that when your partner sleeps with somebody
else, it *doesn't* make you happy or "frubbly" or whatever the word of the
day is -- try to imagine that in fact it makes you feel miserable and
insecure; it makes you feel that you're not valued by your partner; it
makes you feel terrified of losing them. Maybe these feelings are
irrational; but emotions are like that, and you can't help feeling them.
Would you still not want to "restrict" your partner? Would you be quite
willing to make yourself utterly miserable on a long-term basis for the
sake of their happiness?

I'm not saying that's what it's like for all monogamous folks. (I'm also
not saying poly folks never feel like that.) But that's how it *can* feel,
and you have to weigh up whether the unhappiness is worth the other
benefits of the relationship -- or whether you want to try to persuade
your partner to stop doing the thing that makes you unhappy (however much
it makes them happy) -- or whether it's best to call it a day.

I'm not saying it's a good idea to *impose* limits or restrictions on
another person. But if my partner's doing something that makes me unhappy,
I think I have a right to say "This is making me unhappy"; they can then
decide whether the unhappiness that stopping doing it will cause them is a
fair trade-off for the increased happiness it might give me. Maybe it is
-- maybe they're not really that bothered, and keeping me is far more
important to them. Or maybe it's non-negotiable, and they'll say that they
can't change, so I'll either have to learn to deal with it or find someone
else.

There's always an element of compromise in any relationship. Keeping the
other person happy is important, but not (at least not long-term) at the
expense of your own happiness.

All IMHO of course, feel free to ignore...

Jan()

[Pantheist1]

Thanks for your thoughtful and sincere reply, you have given me some things
to think about.

Joe

Post by Chris Croughton
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:26:01 -0400, Pantheist1

Post by Pantheist1
(I may have posted this twice, sorry)

You did, I assume it is this later version which you meant to be used?
Don't worry, it happens to us all...

Post by Pantheist1
I am dating a woman who is very interested in a poly-amorous

relationship.

Post by Chris Croughton

Post by Pantheist1
She says one advantage of a poly-amorous situation is that instead of trying
to find all the traits you want in one person (admittedly difficult) it may
be better/easier to distribute those things among more than one person.
Which makes sense on the surface.

First of all, thanks for asking about the subject, many people just
freak out and refuse to accept it at all.

Post by Pantheist1
Isn't it true that by doing so the level of love is also a fraction (per
person) of what it would be with one individual? So, you and others are
sharing not only qualities which others find attractive (and lacking in
other partners) but the love itself, and that love is only a smaller
fraction of the "100%" love otherwise available to one partner (?).

I think I can show at least one circumstance where no one (in their
right mind) would try to argue that love is a finite resource. Mother
love (or parental if you prefer). Would you really argue that a couple
should only have one child because the love gets 'diluted' if you have
more? Be prepared to run if so, because I know some people with a lot
more than one child who will hotly dispute it!
Love doesn't divide, it multiplies. Jealousy (which many people are
taught is 'love') divides.

Post by Pantheist1
In addition, the qualities themselves are also shared with others
(presumably) so not only the love but the qualities themselves are
shared, resulting in a lesser share of those qualities available per
partner. I understand it is hard to quantify things such as love, you
could say love is not a finite substance, but emotional availability
and the like certainly are. So in theory my love is unlimited and I can
love several women at once, but in practice by sharing myself with more
than one person each of those persons will only have a proportional
fraction of the love/qualities/availability I would otherwise have for
one individual.

I think you're confusing 'love' with 'availability', for a start. The
two are not the same, and each can be present without the other (for
instance, I spend 8 hours a day at work, and 2+ hours commuting, and (if
I get the chance) another 8 hours sleeping, but I don't 'love' those
other things in any reasonable sense).

Post by Pantheist1
Let's say there are ten people in such a relationship (okay, a large number
but it's an easy example mathematically, let's say it's a commune), and they
are all bi-sexual, each person only has and can also receive only 10% (yes,
I know it probably should be 11 people for the math to work better) of the
love and qualities available from each other person. Okay, it may be a
zero-sum game, the grand total whether it is 10 partners or 1 is still 100%
(or something close to it).

Sex, probably (unless you are into threesomes or more, I'm told mass
orgies are fun!), although remember that you'be got 10 times the number
of p[eople to have sex with as well. But a lot of the other things, no,
because if it's a commune then likely most of you will be together for a
lot of the time. In fact in the communes I know (OK, so 2 isn't a big
sample) there is more availability because most of them work from home,
so if you need to talk (for instance) there is very likely to be at
least one other person around which there isn't for most monogamous
couples for most of the day.
For instance, in a monogamy if one person wants to go out to the pub and
the other wants to stay at home then one (or both) will be lonely. If
there are 10 of you, it's extremely likely that more than one will go to
the pub and more thasn one will stay at home, so no one is lonely.
Similarly with hobbies and work (how many "golf widows" effectively set
up a polyamoury by taking a lover, how many men have an affair when they
are away on business, but all secretly and deceitfully?).

Post by Pantheist1
I definitely do think the odds of finding all
the traits you want in a group of people (without the sexual aspect) as
opposed to one person is of course better, that is why married couples have
their own friends.

That's part of it, certainly.

Post by Pantheist1
But I believe it is much more difficult to find multiple people who not
only have in total all (or most) of the qualities you seek, but who are
all open to the idea of sexually sharing themselves with other people.

Sure, but that is changing. Also, one thing which seems to be common to
plural relationships which work is that they are consensual and planned,
it isn't (normally) a matter of saying "right, let's get a load of
people together and see what happens" but more that the existing group
invites someone in (possibly on a 'trial' basis) and all discuss it. Or
if it's looser then there is a 'core' group which is like that and the
partners are able to have 'secondary' relationships with someone not
(fully) in the group.

Post by Pantheist1
Let us assume they are all bi-sexual for simplicity's sake (which is
statistically probably very hard, no pun intended); mixing it up with
gay/bi/straight people further complicates the scenario.

For simplicity, OK.

Post by Pantheist1
And let us not ignore the emotional problems, what if (inevitably) one
person falls in love with another in the group?

One would hope that they did, with all of them. Or do you mean that
they get jealous and possessive and all those other nasty things
associated with monogamy?

Post by Pantheist1
Is that person then exiled because he/she no
longer wants to share themselves and the other person with everyone? Aren't
there ethical and moral ramifications to banning someone because of that as
well? What about jealously and the potential for violence? Isn't it very
likely that someone will murder his or her rival?

Come on -- have a look at the statistics. How many people actually get
so jealous that they musder their rival? It makes the headlines the few
times it happens, it's certainly not "very likely".
But that's a large amount of the point of polyamoury, that jealousy etc.
should not exist and doesn't need to exist. If person J wants to be
exclusive with person L, they have already lost it and shouldn't expect
to be part of the group (and it's up to person L whether zie wants to go
off and be exclusive with J).
But another point is that such a group can, if set up that way, allow
for such a thing, either on a permanent basis or as a 'sabbatical' for a
while with either or bot being welcomed back in if they want to later.

Post by Pantheist1
What about economics, if some are earning more than others should those
people have to contribute more to the communal whole?

How is it done in a monogamy? Or any other partnership? You work it
out either before you get into it (preferably) or when you need to.

Post by Pantheist1
How about children? Assuming we even know who
the (biological) father is, will not being raised in such a family cause
confusion and stigma for the child in mainstream society?

No more than a homosexual monogamy, or a single parent with children, or
any other 'non-standard' arrangement. I have known women who
deliberately had a child and didn't know who the father was, or who got
'caught' at a party and didn't know, or who had an 'affair' outside
marriage and weren't sure who the father was, there's no difference.
Except the big difference that in a planned polyamoury the children are
(should be) the children of /all/ the parents, rather than the more
common lacking a parent.

Post by Pantheist1
If the children live in a commune forever that is great, but not really
likely. People raised in communes are usually pretty f----d up
individuals. Not to say people who aren't are not messed up too, of
course. The problem is not living in the commune, it is how to interact
successfully with the mainstream society which is usually necessary at
some point.

I think you are referring to ones who are raised /only/ in a commune,
with no outside contact? That is a problem whatever the group (and is a
danger with home schooling, for instance). It isn't necessary, though,
the children can still go to school normally, have outside friends, etc.
Indeed, they should be encouraged to do so, just as children from any
large or 'extended' family should.

Post by Pantheist1
From more of an economic viewpoint, will it not take the same amount of time
(if not longer) and effort to find compatible multiple (sexual) partners who
each possess one or a few traits you want as opposed to finding one partner
with almost all of the qualities you desire?

If you insist on the "perfect match", yes, it's likely to take more than
a lifetime for either method. But if you are willing to settle for a
few traits 'missing' then no. To put it in figures, say that the best
match you can find with any individual is 50%, and you want at least 80%
to give you satisfaction. You won't find any individual who meets that,
but finding three with different areas of overlap so that the total is
over 80% is very possible.

Post by Pantheist1
I believe that we are at our root basis economic beings, and that if it were
more economically beneficial (I don't mean necessarily things, I mean
personal qualities themselves) to have multiple partners as opposed to one
then that is what we would have.

And indeed many societies do have it as a 'norm'. It could well be
regarded as a moral sickness which forbids more than one in a
partnership and makes it a 'sin'.

Post by Pantheist1
I believe some primates do practice poly-amory (mostly of a sexual
nature,

Do any not? OK, it's usually a single male and multiple females, for
biological reasons (increase of the tribe etc.).

Post by Pantheist1
but there is some kind of "relationship" also), anthropologists
say man also was probably the same in the past.

"In the past"? There are plenty which still do (Islam, for example, and
some of the Hindu cultures, as do some of the Inuit and other relatively
'unspoiled' cultures). And (see below) so do Western cultures, although
they tend to hide it hypocritically as "serial monogamy", "affairs",
etc. Having a 'mistress' (or a 'toy boy') is less common now, because
people are starting to object to the idea that they are 'property', but
things like "escort agencies" are on the increase and many men do build
up relationships with their 'escorts' (I'm told that women do with the
male 'escorts' as well, but I don't know any personally) in
non-exclusive ways.

Post by Pantheist1
But we are no longer, because cultural and biological evolution
has determined that the benefits of monogamy are superior to those of
poly-amory.

Sorry, but that's just not so. You could equally say that Christianity
has proven itself to be the 'superior' religion (or Islam, or many
others). Or that VHS is 'superior' to Betamax, or Windoze to MacOS.

Post by Pantheist1
If poly-amory were a better arrangement then it would not have
died out with the pagan religions and whoever else was practicing it.

Well, murdering people who practiced it is a pretty good way of stopping
the practice (see Jewish practice of stoning the woman to death, or for
more recent example the persecution of the Mormons, etc.). So is
abduction and rape of the 'loose' women (obviously, if a woman has
several partners she is 'loose' and must be available to anyone!). But
as I point out above (and below) it hasn't died out at all, it has just
been driven underground where people lie about it. People have actually
been practicing polyamoury all the time, just not called that and under
the strain of being found out and pilloried for it (literally, often).

Post by Pantheist1
Not to say people won't continue it, just as Latin will always be
spoken by a very small number of persons, but just as languages evolve
and die out, so do all other cultural practices including
community/family relationships and sexuality (and economic systems, and
everything else included in civilization including different
technologies;

No, we are 'evolving' our social structures back into it. Already
same-sex partnerships are being accepted (again) as valid, and multiple
ones are getting more common and accepted. People are realising the
massive harm that the Pauline JudeoChristian ethic has done to
relationships, in promoting jealousy and the belief that a person is the
exclusive property of another, and they are trying to go back to the
more tolerant ways.
Actually, we're just getting more honest about it and more fair. The
Victorians practiced polyamoury, mistresses were common (and in many
cases openly admitted). Women couldn't get away with it openly, but
there were many women who had 'paramours'. The only difference is that
it was secret and so the 'secondaries' had no rights in the
relationship. And bastardy was fatal socially so it was covered up (a
child born to a young unmarried woman, for instance, would often be
registered as the child of her mother, both to preserve her 'innocence'
and to prevent the child being labelled a bastard).

Post by Pantheist1
whatever happened to Beta-Max

It was better than VHS but wasn't marketed as well. See Windoze for
another example, or the Commodore Amiga. The people with the money
(and/or political influence) call the shots, regardless of how 'good'
the technology is in real terms...

Post by Pantheist1
and 8-track tapes and vinyl records, and

OK, some are replaced. Slowly (you can still buy new recordings on
vinyl). But not always by something 'better'.

Post by Pantheist1
the horse-drawn wagon?

Priced out of the market by oil barons and their political lackeys. And
the desire to be somewhere else quickly (I can see horses coming back as
transport if oil gets short and with more people telecommuting, for
instance).

Post by Pantheist1
you get my point). Socialism as an ideal is
great, but no one has ever gotten it to work very well either.

Ditto democracy and every other social method imposed by force. The
problem is the force, not the system (both 'pure' communism and 'pure'
capitalism can work, and have, but only in populations which consent
freely to live under those systems and allow people to "opt out" and
join as they will; this usually means groups of under 600 or so people).

Post by Pantheist1
Now, if you are interested solely in the sexual aspects that is an entirely
different story. This is a good way for me to demonstrate the conundrum I
find myself in now. I am a fairly sexual being (like most primates) and like
most primates would like regular sexual relations. It is not very difficult
to find women who will have casual sex. There are drawbacks to that of
course, ie, diseases, pregancy, jealous husbands/boyfriends, psychos who
then stalk you, women who may rob or otherwise inflict criminal damage, etc.

Most of which are caused by the ethic of exclusivity, resulting in such
liasons being largely furtive and secret and hence problems like disease
can't be openly discussed because of fear of being branded 'unfaithful'
and possibly discarded as "spoilt goods". Disgusting.

Post by Pantheist1
Not many women are able to have sex without becoming emotionally involved.

Yes, because they have been brought up in a society where they are
expected to become the 'property' of one man 'til death do them part,
and that men don't want "used goods". Hence they at least pretend that
it's for 'love' becausre that excuses them (men don't need excuses so
much because they are traditionally the 'owners').
(There is also the biological aspect, of course -- it's the woman who
gets to carry the baby for 9 months if precautions fail or aren't taken,
whereas the man can just walk away from the problem.)

Post by Pantheist1
My other conflict is that I believe sexual urges were designed into us in
order to ensure reproduction. So, by submitting to my sexual impulses I am,
in effect, merely a pawn of Mother Nature, just being used as a tool for the
purpose of propagation; there is no purpose in sex other than

reproduction

Post by Chris Croughton

Post by Pantheist1
(excluding the element of love, it gets worse below).

The solution to that is simple -- cut off your goolies! Or equivalent.
Take yourself out of the reproduction pool and then you'll know that you
aren't being 'conditioned' any more. (I knew someone who did that, for
that very reason...)

Post by Pantheist1
Now, as far as love goes, could it not be postulated that romantic love (ie,
sexual with a partner of the opposite sex) is Nature's "trick" to get people
to reproduce? Is "true" love exhibited in a non-sexual way, ie a mother for
her child?

That's not non-sexual! Why do you think that the female mammary gland
is an erogenous zone -- it's to make the feeding of a child a
pleasurable experience so the mother will do it often. At least, that's
one theory. Cuddling children similarly.
Oh, and note that 'romantic' love has very often been regarded as
non-sexual -- classic case Romeo and Juliet, who never (according to
Shakespere) got round to actually having sex, but most of the ballads
are about love of a person with whom it can never be consummated
sexually. But that's back to the distortion that sex is somehow
'wrong', 'dirty' or even 'evil' (which comes largely from the fact that
any peasant could get screwed but the gentry had to think about economic
and political effects first so didn't get laid as often; the word 'rude'
meant 'uncultured', 'rough' etc. originally and then changed to also
mean "obscene, like a peasant").

Post by Pantheist1
Of course all love can be said to be evolutionary in nature, ie a
mother loves her child because she wants the child to prosper and thus pass
on her genes. I don't see anything wrong with that, even my own "love" for
people is evolutionary, I am motivated to actualize my ideas of social
progress. The difference is sexual "love" is a more baser instinct, like
hunger or thirst. I am not sure how this comes to any conclusion however.

The problem is that you are trying to reinvent "Platonic Love", and
coming to the same conclusion he did, that such a thing cannot logically
exist (note that what he was actually trying to show was the fallacy of
trying to analyse everything with logic, but people latched onto the
wrong concept).

Post by Pantheist1
Jesus loved all of mankind, but he did not have sex with all of mankind (as
far as we know). Is that not a higher ideal of love to attain? Again, I am
not a religious fanatic (I don't even think Jesus even existed), I am just
using this as an example.

Did he love them as brothers (filios), as an abstract (agape), or one
of the others I forget (parental love for children, love for parents,
love of a creator for the creation -- the Greeks allegedly had 13
different words for 'love', of which only one (eros) was sexual love)?
For instance, in the passages about "the disciple [who] Jesus loved" the
word used is 'filios', brotherly love, in other places 'agape' etc.
But why is one 'better' than the others, except that the Christian
church has been telling us so for almost 2000 years (and enforcing it at
the point of a sword for most of that)?

Post by Pantheist1
I know this is a long post, but I am very interested to hear any of your
opinions. No flames, please, I am sincere and would appreciate sincere
replies. Please post replies here, I do not use my real e-mail address for
newsgroups.

Fair enough, replies should normally be posted anyway.
Chris C