Pantheist1
2003-07-15 16:19:56 UTC
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?
Here is a crude comparison chart:
Relationship type One-partner
Multiple-partners
Odds of finding persons who will
accept sexual High
Low
lifestyle (one or many)
Odds of finding persons with all of the 75%(?)(sexual)
close to100% (non-sexual)
traits you desire
90%(?)(non-sexual) ?% much lower (sexual)
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.
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?
Here is a crude comparison chart:
Relationship type One-partner
Multiple-partners
Odds of finding persons who will
accept sexual High
Low
lifestyle (one or many)
Odds of finding persons with all of the 75%(?)(sexual)
close to100% (non-sexual)
traits you desire
90%(?)(non-sexual) ?% much lower (sexual)
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.