Polyamory.
Arguments for it, arguments against it?
>>16687398
Pros:
>If you're a really attractive man or an at least average woman you can get more fuck.
Cons:
>Otherwise you get less fuck.
Hard to swing, hard to swing.
>>16687398
Great in theory, ignores that it's hard coded into our dna to be possessive and jealous people when it comes to sexuality and emotional connections.
It's sort of like communism, great in theory, not actually possible to be put into practice.
>>16687420
>hard coded
You mean hard programmed by society that was fooled by lies that marketers told to sell diamond rings and panty hose?
You can do what they told you to do.
I'll do what I want, and love myself.
>>16687420
>>16687430
Express examples of one or the other?
>>16687430
Yeah, no, sexual jealousy is as old as our species. Much, much older, in fact. There's a reason why certain patterns always crop up in societies across the whole globe, even those that developed in isolation (like the fact that polyandry in any form is exceptionally rare, and the societies that feature it tend to be unstable and plagued by violence.) Before the development of agriculture, humans tended to be either monogamists or sometimes polygynists, with a certain amount of serial monogamy and infidelity to be sure; things changed somewhat after the development of agriculture and sedentary society, some trends were strengthened and some were changed, but there was no complete upheaval from some kind of idealized noble-savage free-lovin' fuckfest into oppressive monogamist rigidity.
Polyamory, as most people mean the term, has never been practiced on a large scale by any society, to my knowledge, not ever, and I contend that looking at it from an anthropological perspective, it's unlikely to work for most people and unlikely to ever be widely adopted. Maybe some people can make it work, but they're very rare.
>>16687455
All of this.
>>16687455
I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to say you are talking out of your ass when you say that it is in our genes to put value in sex and a nuclear family with one person. Where do you think this hookup culture came from? Your mother?
>>16687455
So as someone who doesn't believe in polyamory, what elements do you feel (to play devil's advocate) make it work on the small scale? What elements do you feel DON'T make it work on the small scale?
>>16687486
Well to his point, can you provide a societal example in which poly lifestyle became a beneficial overarching lifestyle choice for a society?
>>16687486
I didn't say the nuclear family was in our genes. I said that polyamory explicitly wasn't. The single most common form of marriage (measured by the number of societies observed practicing it, not by population totals) is polygyny, followed by monogamy, followed (with a massive gap between them) by polyandry, with cenogamy -- also called group marriage, the closest thing to what most people usually mean when they talk about polyamory -- bringing up the absolute rear. It's so rare that I never read a single paper or book that mentioned a society that featured it during my entire academic career, nor in the several years since then, and I've read many. I'm not saying it's never happened -- I'd hesitate to make any absolute pronouncement like that -- but I certainly couldn't name one. Of course there have been artificially-formed experimental societies that have tried it, but none that I know of that developed naturally, and none that have really stuck around or made an impact.
I've already mentioned how humans behave in the ancestral environment. We know that by looking at modern-day hunter-gatherers and how they behave, by observing how our bodies are structured relative to other primates, and by looking at the archaeological record. As regards promiscuity, that's different from polyamory; of course humans have always sometimes practiced promiscuous behavior, from sex outside the bounds of a relationship to infidelity. That's different from polyamory. You understand that, right?
>>16687493
My comment got too long; I'll respond in a follow-up post.
>>16687398
its a fad. people want to like it because it's new and exciting, have your cake and eat it too type of bullshit. the fact is that men don't want to share their woman. most men do not value a woman who sleeps with many men or deem them worthy of a serious relationship.
slutty women devalue themselves for instant gratification. then they go on the internet to find people who affirm their lifestyle choices and make them feel like what they're doing isn't wrong.
i'm a little tipsy so ill tell you why i bothered to respond to this thread. i was fucking a poly chick i met online abuot once a week for 3 months, it was great for me just to get an easy nut off. she had 1 "real boyfriend" but still fucked pretty much all of her male "friends" occasionally and randoms from the internet too. eventually i just stopped fucking her because i grew to dislike her immensely. she was a manipulative lazy whore who used her pussy to get guys to support her financially and emotionally. a mental midget with nothing to offer but sex and a gorgeous face.
>>16687493
I wish I had more time to spend on this thread -- I do have to go to bed in about half an hour. In brief, I don't think polyamory will ever work on a large scale simply because most people aren't equipped to handle it. Particularly most men; again look at the figures for how few societies have ever been polyandrous -- and cross-culturally, sexual jealousy is one of the single most common instigators for murder/violence. *Especially* in relatively "primitive" (I'm not supposed to use that word, but you know what I mean) societies!
I'm sure there are some very few people who are able to handle it. I can't find a source for it, but I know I read some paper once that observed that some people on the autism spectrum that do seem to feel sexual jealously less strongly than others, or even to not feel it at all, so I'm not going to make a blanket pronouncement that nobody can deal with it. There might be other conditions with similar effects. Some very few people might just born disinclined towards sexual competition/jealousy. What I know is that, looking at the anthropology of war and violence, of marriage, and even how our bodies (yeah, particularly the genitals -- i.e. the size of the penis and testes, cf. for instance gorillas) are built, it's pretty clear most people aren't made that way.
I should note that I don't really "not believe" in polyamory, in the sense that I'm morally against it. I think it's a bad idea 99 times out of 100, but I basically believe people should be let to do as they please, and if they want to have an open marriage or a marriage with multiple partners of both sexes, that's their prerogative. But it does raise my hackles when anthropologically illiterate people claim that monogamy is "unnatural" and that we were all polyamorists, once, back before the dawn of civilization. It's just not true.
>>16687503
Africa and the middle east have their heads on their shoulders where it's part of their cultures to creating empires where children are wealth.
Europe and the United States birthrates are flailing at that 1.3 per household. Next to nobody is popping out healthy children en masse to survive past 18 over here. Both of those cultures have 3+ rates.
>>16687550
>I didn't say the nuclear family was in our genes. I said that polyamory explicitly wasn't.
You just contradicted yourself in the first sentence so I have no reason to acknowledge you word vomit.
>>16687486
>Where do you think this hookup culture came from?
men created it to make women easier to fuck more bitches, just like feminism
>>16687486
>Hook up culture
>good
Hook up culture is not good long term. This is coming from someone who was a fratbro in college.
>>16687586
Shame, thanks for your input though. You make some really good points.
>>16687611
Do you not understand that "polygamy" and "polyamory" are different? Or are you seriously suggesting that polyamory and the nuclear family are the only two possible options? I mentioned several others in my "word vomit."
You're wrong, I think you know you're wrong, and you've done nothing but make yourself look rude, uneducated and lazy.
>>16687430
For fucks sake, you fucking postmodernists. NO, THIS FUCKING THING IS IN EVERY FUCKING CULTURE IN THE FUCKING WORLD. Even fucking tribes like guayakis who have polyandrous societies have this fucking issue, arabs with the exact opposite have this fucking issue. They're people BORN AND RAISED in that fucking society, and they STILL feel jealousy.
NO, you fucking idiot, just NO. God, I hate postmodernism and their fucking idiocy. Fucking pseudoscientists.
>Africa & The Middle East
>Not war torn shitholes filled with poverty and violence
Pick uno. Not to mention that the type of polyamory practiced there is much different than our current hook up culture which idolizes instant gratification and poor decision making.
>>16687625
>>16687625
Exact opposite marital arrangement. Polygamy vs polyandry.
>>16687622
Thanks! I have to admit it is nice to get a real reply after typing a post like that. If your interest isn't purely academic, best of luck with whatever situation you're considering or dealing with.
>>16687618
Tell me how it's so hard to get laid as a man that has had sex a handful of times in succession.
Exactly. Shut up.
>>16687601
Overpopulation isn't really a proactive argument towards what I was asking. And regardless, reproduction isn't something directly affected by polyamory. Polygamy perhaps, if that's what you were aiming for?
>>16687611
There are other things in the world besides the "nuclear family" and polyamory. That's not a contradiction.
>>16687641
Western hook up culture is rooted in a lack of control and short sighted thinking. Greek-life really opened my eyes to just how bad it really is.
I won't say that I didnt and do not currently take advantage of hook up culture, but for society in the long term I realize that it's not good. Also, stop acting so self-righteous. You sound like a fucking child.
>>16687624
I know what you were insinuating by the way you said it.
Fuck the rest of your uneducated keyboard mashings.
>>16687641
No-strings-attached sex isn't a positive in and of itself.
>>16687653
OK, I really do have to go to bed here (coming on /adv/ right before sleepytime is a bad habit I need to break) but I have to ask, is this person for real, or an honest-to-god troll? I've seen her name a lot around here.
>>16687660
has to be a troll, too many bait worthy posts and opinions
>>16687653
You can go back to reddit now darling. Men are talking.
>>16687669
Fair enough. Either way, I don't think engaging with her is going to accomplish much besides making me look petty. Goodnight y'alls, it's been fun.
Poly is a time sink in my opinion.
If person C is partners with persons A and B, all three must work their schedules together. Is this doable? Yes. But ultimately it's difficult. It's hard enough with just C and A working between work, family, etc... Adding B adds an extra element.
Then furthermore if C takes on more partners, or A or B take on more, that's even more factors to the table. A schedule for love seems kinda stupid to me.
>>16687430
You fucked a dog. Your opinion doesn't matter.
>>16687653
>blown the fuck out
>makes an ass of herself trying to damage control
>>16687776
Wow, I never even considered the logistics side of it. It's bad enough convincing your emotions to split between 2+ partners, but making it physically work with your schedule too successfully...yikes.
I have yet to meet anyone who engages in polyamory/open relationships to be really and truly emotionally mature. I really don't think there is anything wrong with the practice but the idea seems appealing to certain kinds of people.
Whenever such arguments come up about polygyny or gay marriage I just say why the fuck does government even regulate marriage at all, in America at least and I assume other secular nations it violates separation of church and state. Either the marriage registry should be abolished, or marriages should fall under jurisdiction of the "church" or whatever body officiates the marriage. Like in an Islamic marriage sharia law should apply as long as its within the limits of criminal law to ban stonings, beheadings, genital mutilation, etc. But whichever way, non-married people, whether cat ladies, forever alone men or MGTOW will inevitably revolt against discrimination they face when married people are favored for tax exemptions and other benefits
>>16687868
>marriage is better for society
>government wants more nuclear families
>government gives tax benefits for marriage
Sorry but cat ladies and single men aren't beneficial for a society, but at least they're not like single moms who are actually a detriment to society.
>>16687918
Single men can be great for society, if they're able to get laid.
It's sexually frustrated single men that can fuck your world up.
>>16687921
Man's benefit to society is how much money he makes.
Most men that make the most money, get laid the most.
That doesn't mean getting laid has anything to do with your value to society.
I dated a poly girl. I presented the argument that because another partner was brought into consideration he love for both of us was effectively lessened. She believed that love was a non-finite thing. I countered with the "if you could only save one of us from a burning building" hypothetical.
She brought up an interesting point that "well what if it was two of your kids?" My answer is the kid I loved more because unlike her I could choose (a tough choice but a choice). And in the end I'm not even sure if romantic partners and kids are interchangeable metaphors here.
But ultimately this relationship didn't work out less because of the poly but more because the reason behind the poly: in inability to choose and make sacrifice. I personally feel love is having someone you would sacrifice for, wether that be "she doesn't do anal" or whatever, or time and work sacrifices (e.g. spending hours on end finding a specific brand of tampons she needs). Poly is the opposite of that; poly is finding another partner that fills the voids that your first partner doesn't. Which objectively sounds useful; but then neither person is someone you are really happy with.
