The Nation's Pulse
Cultures Monogamous and Polyamorous
The great divide in America.
In all of human history, the culture of monogamy has never
encountered the type of competition it faces now. We must
engage.
—Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D.
What is known as the “culture war” in America can be characterized in terms of the polarities it represents: red versus blue states, the mommy party versus the daddy party, the culture of death versus the culture of life, the culture of dependency versus enterprise, Palinistas versus Pelosians.
Now we have a new, intellectually audacious conceptualization of the struggle as proposed by Dr. Patrick F. Fagan, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Family and Community Policy at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under President George H.W. Bush, who is also a psychologist with a doctorate in social policy from University College Dublin:
The culture of the traditional family is now in intense competition with a very different culture. The defining difference between the two is the sexual ideal each embraces. The traditional family of Western civilization is based on lifelong monogamy. The competing culture is “polyamorous,” normally a serial polygamy, but also increasingly polymorphous in its different sexual expressions.
Monogamy versus polyamory. Fagan describes this great divide in an article in the latest issue of Touchstone which is based on a talk (PDF) he gave this past August to the World Congress of Families in Amsterdam. His description of these contending worldviews is clinical, yet bracing in its implications for the fate of the family, the culture and American society as a whole.
Fagan embraces a broad definition of polyamory, which a popular dictionary defines as the state or practice of having more than one open romantic relationship at a time. It is derived from the Greek, poly or many, and the Latin, amor or love. Clearly, Fagan’s definition includes a whole range of liberated sexual practices such as homosexuality, although some gay advocates reject the association.
The World Polyamory Association’s (“More Loves Make More Love”) Vision Statement proclaims an ecumenical standard of the widest latitude:
You have relationship options-monogamy, celibacy, open marriage, pair-bonded inclusive relating, triads (man-woman-woman, woman-man-woman, man-man-man, woman-woman-woman) polyfidelity [sic], loving networks, group marriage, multi-generational line marriage, and more. You have heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual alternatives within each. You have many spiritual practices and value systems to chose [sic]-to mix and match with your relationship options, styles and sexual orientation. What is most important is that you are the chooser and that you come from choice.
The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said that “The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.” But even the wily Moynihan learned that criticizing the unintended consequences of welfare-state politics, which undermine families and communities, can bring down the wrath of its “operational bureaucracy” (to use one of Fagan’s terms) on anyone so bold as to challenge its actual effects as opposed to its intended results.
Fortunately, Fagan is not a timid soul. He fearlessly describes, in excruciating detail, the profound differences and assumptions that differentiate the cultures of monogamy and polyamory. In addition to the obvious case of religion in the public square, they part ways on the very concept of freedom. The former emphasizes “the freedom to be good,” that is monogamous and faithful. The latter promotes “freedom from any constraints upon sexual behavior.”
Monogamy seeks objective truth and norms. Polyamory is relativist in its moral orientation. The one promotes a limited constitutional state because it assumes self-imposed restraint and self-discipline. The other relies on social welfare programs “to rescue its adherents from the effects of its form of sexuality.”
On children, abortion, the role of the traditional family and the responsibility of fathers as well as mothers, these cultures reflect antithetical views.
“In the culture of monogamy, men are anchored in their families and tied to their children and wives, through the free and deliberate focus of their sexuality,” says Fagan. “In the culture of polyamory, which treasures sexual freedom or license, such sexual constraint by men (or women) is not expected, nor, in fact, is any attempt to foster such constraint acceptable, for that would be the antithesis of the main project of the culture of polyamory, women are anchors, while men can drift (or be cast adrift) as desired, and they do so in very large numbers.”
Ironically, the culture of polyamory aggressively fosters the kind of male feminists justly decry: the sexually and physically harassing, the abusing and abandoning male. “Being the natural cost of its defining project, these and related dysfunctions justify and necessitate more safety nets,” says Fagan.
Despite the costs and social pathologies fostered by the culture of polyamory, it thrives by controlling the commanding heights of the culture and public policy: childhood education, sex education, and adolescent health programs. This, argues Fagan, allows it to reach into traditional culture, gradually dismantling it and gaining “converts”:
About the Author
G. Tracy Mehan, III served at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the administrations of both Presidents Bush. He is a consultant in Arlington, Virginia, and an adjunct professor at George Mason University School of Law.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (156) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by G. Tracy Mehan, III
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/08/cultures-monogamous-and-polyam
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Otis, my man!| 1.8.10 @ 8:32AM
More proof we are living in the Last Days.
ncatty| 1.8.10 @ 9:31AM
I would also add that this is more indication of the depraved nature of man.
Poly Friend | 11.30.10 @ 10:53AM
His blatantly misleading article has greatly rankled me. I wrote a massive rebuttal here:
http://community.modernpoly.co.....ulture-out
Ryan| 1.8.10 @ 9:00AM
Unless the government starts forcing abortion, monogamy is going to make a comeback. We simply have more children, while polyamorous types don't. We see it in the European populations and the rapid rise of Muslim populations there, and we'll see it here if/when more children are born to evangelicals.
La Realidad| 1.8.10 @ 10:09AM
Ryan, your statement is absurd on all levels. I have no idea where to begin... I'm sure this commment was made in jest.
Ryan| 1.8.10 @ 10:48AM
Really? What's the argument against it?
We're seeing a deeply religious Muslim population explode in Europe, and a deeply irreligious local population decline.
In America, the deeply religious have more children. Why can't we see the same thing here?
Smile| 1.8.10 @ 7:54PM
Ah, yes. Kids do everything their parents tell them to do, never questioning, never rebelling. Particularly in America...
Syndrilleum| 1.13.10 @ 12:39AM
While they do rebel, they don't always choose a promiscuous lifestyle, Smile.
Adheeb| 1.12.10 @ 12:39PM
As a Christian is wish this was true but I don't think this is supported by the facts. Barna research has shown that the value system of the American church differs very little from that of the non-christian.
On the otherhand, Muslims are multiplying far faster that the non-muslim population.
On a brighter note, in the end, Christ will reign.
M| 1.8.10 @ 10:48AM
Ryan,
Unfortunately, Ryan, media and state education has as many "children" as the evangelicals. Many progeny of Christian families fall far from the monogamy tree. Just as Jessica Simpson, Madonna, Mariah Carey. Joseph Stalin was thrown out of seminary. Not to mention, the octomom...
The point: we can't sit back and out-birth the polyamorists.
As for La Realidad, it is not absurd to consider demographic strategies per se. Aren't you supposed to be a realist? If you are, then you know demography is destiny.
Ryan| 1.8.10 @ 10:49AM
I'm not sure it's sustainable on their end. It simply doesn't happen already in Europe, but the ignorance about sex and responsibility is definitely less on this side of the pond.
Alan Brooks| 1.8.10 @ 10:53AM
Let them rut like mink if they want, sex isn't sinful in the 21st century-- it is merely boringly commercialized.
No, that isn't to say there is necessarily anything wrong with commercialization, only boring commercialization.
Alan Brooks| 1.8.10 @ 10:57AM
... or say you stay in a nudist camp for awhile; soon the last thing you want to see is a human body. Instead you want to go to a secluded spot, drink German beer, read Mein Kampf, and listen to Wagner.
victor| 1.8.10 @ 8:33PM
Now that's probably a sight to behold:
Alan in Lederhosen just before going to lunch:
http://www.bridgemanartondeman.....osen_c1934
Alan Brooks| 1.8.10 @ 9:11PM
I don't really blame Bavarians, or even Germans, for WWII.
It was Prussia's fault, far more than any other gau-- Prussia, now there was a perverted place. So glad it was dissolved; if Prussia is ever reconstituted, I hope the Russians nuke it.
And BTW, sex was a large part of it, breeding a master race.
I no longer think sex is good, only pleasurable. Be fruitful and multiply? too bad virgin births aren't more common ;)
Alan Brooks| 1.8.10 @ 9:17PM
... And PLEASE do not write that pleasure is good-- no one at AS would think sensuality and ethics are synonymous-- not even Daphne off her haldol would.
Northern Rebel| 1.8.10 @ 11:29AM
My wife, and I decided not to live in sin, 20 years ago. She was on welfare, and it would have been easy to be like other people we knew, and shack up illegally, and keep getting the check.
It cost us $8oo a month to get married. Now it is still costing us money, and will continue to cost us money, because of the wording of the health care/remove freedom from Americans bill.
I know I'm preaching to the choir, as this is a conservative site. (Except for Bob, Liberal Reader, Alan Brooks, and David Matthews, who are all the same person)
But what are we willing to do?
We can't all move to Texas, and hope they succeed. Is this the end of God's gift to humanity?
Will The United States of America cease to exist, in the form our forefather's created it?
What are you willing to do about it?
Watch, like it's a stupid reality show?
WAKE UP, and TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR FUTURE, WHILE YOU STILL HAVE A CHANCE TO DO SO!
I will willingly give my life for anyone who will step up, and say HALT!
I wish Bill Buckely was still alive, but I'm glad he's not here to witness the downfall of the country, he so revered.
Son Of Sam | 1.8.10 @ 1:46PM
We don't need matching tie and handkerchief conservatives like Bill Buckley. I grew up on NR and "God and Man at Yale", but what we really need now are men and women of deep thought, solid committment and a will to ACTION. If you've ever wondered why I am called Son Of Sam, it because I emulate the first American revolutionary, Sam Adams. He was a man of principle, a man who thought deeply about what sort of country America could and should be. He was also a man of practical direct action, and he wasn't afraid to suggest and incite the knocking together of heads and the tarring and feathering of the would be tyrants of those long ago days
stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com/
Alan Brooks| 1.8.10 @ 8:48PM
"I know I'm preaching to the choir, as this is a conservative site. (Except for Bob, Liberal Reader, Alan Brooks, and David Matthews, who are all the same person)"
You are correct, I'm more like a '50s liberal. But just as you see through me, I see through YOU.
Take the mote out of your eye! If our country falls from within, then you cannot just blame liberals. ALL HAVE SINNED; and remember what David sang in the Old Testament: 'all are liars'.
That is not entirely inaccurate for song lyrics, is it? Sure beats 'Cat Scratch Fever'.
Alan Brooks| 1.8.10 @ 8:53PM
Funny how everyone knows they can see through others if they make the attempt, but think others cannot see through them!
As if the mind is a one way mirror.
Margie| 1.8.10 @ 9:18PM
Alan you aren't able to get away with blaming everyone like that. Yes all have sinned, but some have also repented. We don't vote for Leftists. You did.. and you say you plan on voting for him again.. so you're being rather hypocritical aren't you?
Alan Brooks| 1.9.10 @ 10:13PM
I did NOT vote for Obama in '08, yet I will in '12.
Without the Cold War, the GOP has no core beliefs anymore, at least not enough to nominate a Reagan in '12.
A GOP Speaker will take his (or her) chair a year from now; though like Gingrich (Newt's myopic vision of "conservative futurism" was the largest political sham of the '90s) he will go nowhere because of the lack of foresight and cohesion in the GOP.
Margie| 1.10.10 @ 1:07PM
Well I can only hope that you are wrong and that millions of people are awake enough to do damage to your Obama. You're right to give no credit to the GOP, but you may be in for a surprise as far as the people are concerned. Conservatives are backing conservatives individually and NOT the Party directly. This is how we are going to take back the Party. IMHO.
p.s. my mistake if you didn't vote for the fascist last time.. I must have mistaken you for "Bob?"
Alan Brooks| 1.10.10 @ 10:34PM
You are confusing wealth; freedom: creativity, with virtue. There is a residual social conservatism, but it is shallowly rooted. If America was virtuous we wouldn't be in this condition.
I will vote for Obama as Reagan Democrats voted for Clinton; put up or shut up. Run another Bush, McCain or Dole? then the GOP will get what it deserves-- and so will YOU.
Margie| 1.11.10 @ 11:59AM
You are confused, period.
jimm | 10.12.10 @ 1:30AM
On children, abortion, the role of the traditional family and the responsibility of fathers as well as mothers, these cultures reflect antithetical views.
Tony in Central PA| 1.8.10 @ 11:39AM
Societies typically go through three main stages of family character : the Trustee Family, the Domestic Family and the Atomistic Family. The Trustee Family is very traditional, close - knit and extended. It members view themselves as the current trustees representing family members who have lived and are yet to live.
The Domestic Family might be best portrayed in America as the immigrant families that arrived from southern and eastern Europe about a century ago. They established themselves economically and grew, yet lost some of their identity upon exposure to the wider culture.
The Atomistic Family is now becoming very commonplace in America. Families are small and fragmented. The concept of the basic societal unit has shifted from the family to the individual. Its basically everyone for himself.
Historically, societies tend to undergo collapse when their family structures become atomistic. I wouldn't expect most of the people and organizations pushing for polyamory to know this because such a mindset usually has a disdain for history, which probably emanates from a disdain for the truth.
Its interesting to note that under Communism, the governments in Eastern Europe enacted policies to break down families and bonds between people to the advantage of the empowerment of the State. Its hard not to notice the same hand at work here in the West.
Pingback| 1.8.10 @ 12:13PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Cultures Monogamous and Polyamorous links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Adheeb| 1.8.10 @ 12:59PM
For the first 300 years of Islam, Mohammadism succeeded as a result of bickering Christians failing to unite against it. Nothing has changed. We still see many, many people undecided about the intentions of this false religion. In the past, the Crusades finally answered three centuries of barbarism .... and we too will eventually respond as they did. It's going to be a very bloody affair. America will either repent or die but the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Christian church.
billyjack| 1.8.10 @ 1:04PM
Neither monogomy nor marriage are now widely practiced in Western culture. The center-left culture has unanimously retired the guarantee (esp. to men) of sexual abundance within marriage. Every wife who conforms by meting out sex only as it suits her is thereby unfaithful (almost guaranteeing her husband will be unfaithful as well in one form or another), and reduces her marriage to a mere marriage-lite....a much more fragile arrangement. The unspoken cultural assumption that marriage will still work for men when sexual abundance is removed therefrom shows appalling ignorance of human behavior.
Flee| 1.8.10 @ 4:04PM
billyjack, I think what you say is true of most available women from the US. I think the women we find coming here from Asia and other countries may be more suitable for men seeking that traditional home life where sex is abundant. This is speaking from personal experience. I have experienced the wife/meter and it did not work as well as my current arrangement.
Susan Peterson| 1.12.10 @ 10:14PM
You sound incredibly self centered and selfish.
Marriage is not about YOU getting as much sex as you possibly can! Marriage is about a total commonality of life in the creating and raising of a family. It involves mutual self giving, and sacrifices from both parties.
With your attitude, you wouldn't want your wife to have children, it makes her less sexually available. She'll lose her figure, she'll be tired, when she is nursing her libido will be lower, the baby will cry and interrupt you. A real man knows all this and loves his wife more because she is nurturing their children. And a real woman loves and wants to make love to a man who loves and supports her in that role.
What you really want is a concubine.
JP| 1.8.10 @ 8:29PM
In the old days the Catholic Church used to teach married couples to "consecrete" thier marriages often. The fruit of this consecretion are many children. The focus of the family was the begetting and rearing of children, and not "happiness". As the parents get older and have more children, the old "flame" doesn't die but deepens. Parents with 5,6 or 9 children just don't have the energy to "do it" like they did when they were first married. But that doesn't mean that they love eachother less, or are frigid. Of course, I'm speaking of the "traditional" family where the mother stays home.
triclydesdal| 1.8.10 @ 3:00PM
Billyjack - well said!
Pingback| 1.8.10 @ 3:28PM
The American Spectator : Cultures Monogamous and Polyamorous campus university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.8.10 @ 4:31PM
The American Spectator : Cultures Monogamous and Polyamorous American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Northern Rebel| 1.8.10 @ 5:32PM
Son of Sam:
I suppose I used Bill as a symbol of modern conservatism, although my tastes run more towards Jefferson, than Adams. (Great beer though!)
BillyJack:
You have really hit the nail on the head here!
Women have been programmed by modern society, and it has been a disadvantage to all involved. My wife is as old-fashioned as they come, and the women's lib generation still infiltrated her brain!
Pingback| 1.8.10 @ 5:57PM
ADF Alliance Alert » Patrick F. Fagan: Monogamy, Liberty, Polyamory and the Socialist links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Andrew B| 1.8.10 @ 6:31PM
The problem with polygamous societies is that, eventually, you end up with a large pool of young, restless, sexually deprived men. Polygamy only works if you have sufficient resources to attract and support multiple mates. For the rest...not so much. It is like the old kindergarten rule: "You can only have cupcakes if you brought enough for everyone."
The Chinese are about to feel a variation of this, and it is going to hurt. Years of single child mandates (and the sex-selection abortions they produced) are going to leave vast numbers of Chinese men looking around, in vain, for a woman. Just think of what trouble a few million angry, horny, poor, desperate, hopeless, frustrated young men will cause. I shudder to think.
martha| 1.8.10 @ 7:33PM
If you want to see what a few million horny hopeless frustrated angry guys look like, look no further than your nearest Islamic Jihadist Terror Cell.
That's what they're all pissed about-they ca'nt get laid!
NN| 1.8.10 @ 8:34PM
BillyJack: Very interesting. In the beginning of our marriage this was true. What cured it was the Theology of Body. The commitment that both my wife and I have to the virtue of self-giving love has transformed our marriage, with the result of us being more happy and engaged in our conjugal life.
Alan Brooks| 1.8.10 @ 8:59PM
"If you've ever wondered why I am called Son Of Sam, it because I emulate the first American revolutionary, Sam Adams."
The founders were great. But any reference no matter how tenuous to the very sick psycho David Berkowitz is uncalled for.
c'mon, CHANGE YOUR HANDLE.
Use your head, fer chrissakes.
Alan Brooks| 1.9.10 @ 10:31PM
Do you know why Berkowitz shot women?
You don't want to know, it would give you the willies..
Keith| 1.8.10 @ 10:36PM
I am gladdened to see the growing acceptance of polyamory. Monogamy may work for some people, but it certainly doesn't work for everybody, and strikes me as both an antiquated, cruel, and unrealistic assumption. And polyamory can often mean many men with one woman, or the triad or vee configurations - it needn't lead to a generation of sexually frustrated men, nor to a culture of swinging.
Alan Brooks| 1.9.10 @ 10:20PM
"And polyamory can often mean many men with one woman"
This is a MAN'S WORLD. But no purpose in an empty 'debate' with you.
Alan Brooks| 1.9.10 @ 10:37PM
Keith,
Just say: "I want to scr*w."
Why does everyone have to go out of their way to be cute about it? You want to ball? do it, don't write about it. Sex isn't wicked, it's just rote.
Many men with one woman? just say: "I want more gangbangs."
Tony in Central PA| 1.10.10 @ 10:17PM
I live in a small to medium - sized town in central Pennsylvania. A few times a year, there are horrific tragedies splattered across the front pages of my local newspaper involving either the murder / vicious assault / sexual assault of a young child. The common denominator in these crimes ? Mom's live - in " boyfriend ".
Many people in America define freedom as being able, as adults, to do whatever they want to do without consequences. But freedom has another dimension that is lost on these people ; the freedom from certain things. It is for this freedom that a man marries a woman, forsaking all others and giving himself freely and completely that those in his family can live in freedom from the kinds of horrible stories I see on the front pages of my newspaper.
Curtis| 1.8.10 @ 11:48PM
The core problem with polygamy is,( inspite of what the darwinists and scientists' preach) that it's not natural.
I don't mean as in "Its gross and disgusting" I mean "It goes against our instincts." Its a womans' instincts to find the best man possible to father her children, defend her physically, and stand by her when needed.
It is a mans' instincts to find the best woman he can, defend his progeny, and stick around to ensure they flourish.
This is the biological definition of love. The completion of what you born to do. Literally.
We're not fish or frogs who spread millions of eggs and sperm around. We are a mammals who's offspring require large investments of time and energy. You can only make so many, and they are vulnerable for so long. Mothers must nurture, fathers must defend.
A male lion does not form a pride because he wants the females to hunt for him. They hunt because he is busy watching the cubs. Because if he doesn't another male will take over the territory, kill the cubs, (which will cause the mothers to go back into heat) and he will then impregnate the females with his own cubs.
Ignoring your instincts is a foolish thing to do. Defying your instincts is a suicidal thing to do.
You are hard-wired to not just want sex, but to want to procreate as well, and to want to form a strong, loving, and lasting relationship.
Stephanie| 1.9.10 @ 8:49AM
Curtis, you are the only one whos post didn't make me think of the 60's.
The rest were just typical horny men. How convenient to just have your sexual proclivities fulfilled however and whenever you want.
It will indeed mean the demise of our nation.
Alan Brooks| 1.10.10 @ 10:50PM
No, not all.
I think sex has become boring, Steph. Like shaking hands.
one word: Plastics! Plastic Fantastic "lover".
Sex is now empty, commercialized, dime-a-dozen.
Alan Brooks| 1.10.10 @ 10:56PM
"The rest were just typical horny men."
I would be horny if sex weren't so empty, oversold, vulgar.
You can't get away from it, otherwise you wouldn't be concerned-- now would you, Steph?
John II| 1.9.10 @ 9:37PM
Well, I was waiting for someone to make this obvious point, but I guess it's up to me. The term "polyamory" is itself a (subliminal?) reflection of the term's muddled referent.
It is a time-honored rule of language formation not to mix roots when coining terms. A correct coinage of a term to refer to the condition under discussion would be either Latin-Latin "multiamory" or (better, in my opinion) Greek-Greek "polyeroticism." The Greek-Latin hybrid "polyamory" is appropriate only to the extent it evokes the valley-girl ignorance and moral illiteracy of the practice to which the term refers.
IzeHavitt| 1.9.10 @ 11:20PM
Polyamory, multiamory...whatever. Forgive me for reminding everyone of the Classics. Let's go back to the Bible......In the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah 2:13, God reminds His (ahem) "chosen" people about their choices:"For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken Me, the Fountain of Living Waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water." From a biblical research perspective, this is a figure of speech, pointing out that humanity has this long standing habit of disobedience to the truth and; because of their sense of guilt, will carve out some manner of justification and/or theological system for it's errant behaviour One need look no further than todays' Episcopal Church. But just when they need the power..... it's not there. For it is also written: "I honor them that honor me..." Too, it must be noted that poly/multi-amory is just another description of......whoredom. That is the opposite of love.
JP| 1.10.10 @ 10:35AM
Polygamy as a large scale European practice died out with the fall of Roman and Greek Paganism. Islam had Polygamy, but over the centuries it has fallen out of favor.
There still are polygamist societies in Arizona and southern Utah to this day, and currently they've lawyered up. The scuttlebutt is that thier lawyers will use Grunwald v Conneticut, Roe, and Lawrence v Texas in order to have the courts discover another "right" hidden in our constitution.
And yes, Christianity may not be strong enough to withstand our new modern day pagans. But Islam is. If you doubt my words take a visit to Thailand, the Phillipines, Nigeria, and Europe. Our modern day pagans and assorted libertines are ultimately weak; thier convictions are shallow. Thier assault on our constitutional order will come back to haunt them. One day you will see some 80 year old retired feminist lesbian wearing a burqa.
Anonymous| 1.10.10 @ 2:15PM
And, those muslims? Four wives, twenty-seven children, Man Love Thursday? Dude, that's polyamory. Despite how godly they feel they are, monogamy isn't a part of their culture... look at Mohammed, it's his example they follow. A few studs hogging all the wives, divorcing/sending-away the older ones so they can marry teenagers and father a doze more kids? That's how it works. All the neglected, deprived-of-female-companionship young men go out and become jihadists for the "seventy-two virgins" because that's the all they've got left to look forward to.
Thomas Aarons| 1.10.10 @ 5:11PM
Listen, I won't praise polyamory here but for Heaven's sake, keep this topic OFF the GOP Platform! Holy Rollers are fine in the GOP but since everyone knows conservative men are divided on the issue, there is no reason to force half of the Republican men out there not to vote in the next election because some aging women wanted to retain control of the GOP and keep their husbands faithful by pretending that monogamy is a conservative political trait.
It figures that this article was pushed on the Spectator by a bunch of Bushies...who got the support of alpha males in 2004 because the Iraq War needed to be concluded properly but then went on to try to force Iraqis and Afghanis into a electing a quota of women and try to blackmail foreign countries into banning porn and prostitution (as if the US Constitution demands we interfere in other countries like that) and went so far as to support the radical feminist IMBRA law that forces US males to be background checked before being allowed to say hello to an adult foreign female online (nobody complies with this nonsense law).
I saw a Bush ambassador stand up in Estonia to beg a women's group there to push hard in parliament to make it a criminal offense in that country for an American or any man to be with a prostitute (conservative Estonian male politicians voted against that). Bushies needed to mind their own business. They didn't and they got voted out.
You must stop trying to legislate heterosexual male behavior (especially when all a man wants to do is meet a woman online for a friendship - supporting that feminist IMBRA law was insane for some misguided evangelicals to do).
Alpha males tend to be conservative (they don't want to divide their winnings) and they also tend to want to date a number of gorgeous women while Beta males are glad to have gotten one reasonably attractive woman...and the latter is often insecure in terms of wanting to "protect what's theirs". This doesn't mean all monogamous men are weak...but they don't define what conservative is.
I could write a book about how beta males tend to vote Democrat because they want to pander to women whom they think are all feminists. The theory that men who have the resources and charisma who are capable of sleeping with a number of gorgeous women in the same general time frame vote liberal is insane. Does anyone really believe the James Bonds of the world vote Democrat?
Most women strippers are Libertarians. The erotic industry is not Marxist. The GOP cannot win anymore without the libertarian vote (Ron Paul has at least 8% of the GOP vote in his control - people who voted for Bob Barr and took Indiana and North Carolina away from McCain/Palin).
Except for gays who see the Democratic Party as their protector, there is, at best, no correlation between sexual behavior and political affiliation. So there is no reason to rekindle a civil war in the GOP about premarital sex, monogamy, strip clubs, etc. A conservative stands up for individual rights and responsibility, period. No laws regulating men's sex lives are acceptable.
This means stopping feminists from overly punishing men financially for divorce so they can't marry another attractive female and have more children.
Remember Victorian England was run by a selfish aging insecure female who wanted men controlled. She successfully defined men who were willing to be controlled as "conservative". In non-English countries, conservative men are better prepared to stick up for male interests.
Sure, enmasse as in China and the Muslim world, rich men will get the best women and the poor men will get violent. Theoretically the same could happen in the USA...but I doubt that because the income gaps are not that large. Plus, what is good for a society as a whole must not result in laws regulating the individual - to think otherwise would be Marxist.
Now, thankfully only men in Texas seem to want to define being conservative in the Marxist context of needing regulation of men "for the greater good" (in this case not letting poor American men get angry that rich men took the best women).
Seriously now...since when is it conservative to look out for poor men's sexual chances? Bogus argument. What is really going on here is some older women want control of the GOP so they can brow-beat their hubbies into not abandoning them for a Texas A&M Cheerleader (if he is rich and good looking enough to get one).
It was Texas socon men who sided with feminists last year to try to tax men who entered strip clubs $5 for rape prevention programs (based on the Marxist feminist idea that seeing naked women causes men to want to rape). This was a major betrayal of men's rights and a judge quickly put that law on ice.
Texas needs a conservative male revolution to teach the evangelicals how to stop thinking about regulating men. Ron Paul has the right idea on this topic.
Spyndrillleum| 1.13.10 @ 12:53AM
The superiority of committed, permanent married relationships, my friend, IS a conservative value. Just like honesty and liberty. It is a value that some otherwise conservative folks do not espouse, but that does not remove it from the conservative set of values. Fathers and husbands have inherent value and responsibilities in their very nature, just as wives and mothers do.
Jim the Polyamorist | 1.10.10 @ 5:24PM
In his essay against non-monogamy, Patrick Fagan mistakenly chose to target the practice of "polyamory." And while polyamory is indeed one form of non-monogamy, it's the most socially and ethically responsible expression of it.
In fact, polyamory (a term coined in the 1970s by those who practice it) is often called "ethical non-monogamy." Polyamory is an arrangement in which one person may have ongoing, caring relationships (including sexual intimacy) with more than just one other person — but in a context of full awareness of, and support from, all persons involved.
Polyamory strives for a more emotionally-sincere course than is typical in "don't-ask-don't-tell" open relationships or open marriages. Polyamory is also NOT male-dominant or religiously hierarchical, as the similar sounding term "polygamy" often is. Neither is polyamory an intentionally temporary arrangement for recreational sex as swinging tends to be. Polyamorous relationships often last for many years or for life.
Perhaps Fagan had some of these other arrangements in mind when he incorrectly used the word "polyamory" in his generalized attack against non-monogamy. Had he done the requisite research, he would have also discovered that polyamorous people aim for deeply-committed, long-lasting relationships that may include raising children — and they do so as successfully as monogamous people do.
Fagan also incorrectly used the term "monogamous" to describe current American culture. In truly monogamous societies people marry and stay that way until death. The U.S. has a 50+% divorce rate, to include many of the religious, high profile, right-wing cultural heroes of politics and the media. (Need I cite names?) Many people move on to 2nd, 3rd and more spouses after failed marriages. Our current societal reality could more accurately be designated as "serial monogamy" but with a 54% ADMITTED infidelity factor. Using "monogamous" to describe modern America is far more wishful than substantive.
Finally, Fagan's diatribe consists of generalities and absolutist positions unsupported by a single citation of scientific (sociological or otherwise) evidence. If he chooses to see in only black or white terms, he should at least attempt back up his assertions. At the very least, he should consult a dictionary before using terms he doesn't understand. If Fagan, the American Spectator reviewer, Mr. Mehan, and the dozens of commenters who have ignorantly parroted Fagan's error would Google (Boston Globe polyamory) they would find a new, nicely-composed, dispassionate piece "Love's New Frontier" about polyamory which might enlighten them.
John II| 1.10.10 @ 5:54PM
"Finally, Fagan's diatribe consists of generalities and absolutist positions unsupported by a single citation of scientific (sociological or otherwise) evidence. "
You mean . . . like your response?
Jim the Polyamorist| 1.11.10 @ 7:01AM
Yes, and yours.
Hey, show me your data on the wonderful "success" of American serial monogamy and how it benefits humanity especially children.
Why don't you start out by telling us the success rate of marriages and infidelity rates among those who should be the shining examples of monogamy...the religious right?
Tony in Central PA| 1.10.10 @ 10:08PM
Interesting this post didn't say much about how these arrangements benefit children. Get back to us on all of the exhaustive studies proving how kids fare better in these situations.
John II| 1.10.10 @ 11:44PM
It's also interesting that contemporary social science research, so to speak, over the past few decades has been gradually acknowledging the emotional damage to children caught up in these asinine experiments in old-fashioned narcissism.
But I don't need the research to point out the obvious. For years now I've been observing first-hand the effects of a degenerate culture on the most vulnerable of my students: no moral center, not much affective response to others, a creepy sort of presumptive despair.
None of this had any bearing in the shallows inhabited by Jim the multiamorist. Boring, if a tad terrifying.
Jim the Polyamorist| 1.11.10 @ 7:19AM
Oops, sorry but that last response was intended for Tony but I guess I sent it to John II.
John II wrote:
>It's also interesting that contemporary social science research, so to speak, over the past few decades has been gradually acknowledging the emotional damage to children caught up in these asinine experiments in old-fashioned narcissism.
Wow, John, weren't you the guy demanding scientific citations? Where are yours for these assertions? Of course, such statements work well in typical right-wing forums....make a statement and claim that it's supported by science even if you don't have any. Good job perpetuating the pattern.
> But I don't need the research to point out the obvious.
Yeah, like I said.
> For years now I've been observing first-hand the effects of a degenerate culture on the most vulnerable of my students: no moral center, not much affective response to others, a creepy sort of presumptive despair.
Nice generalities based on subjective observation, John II. Oh, but I guess that's only a "sin" when people you don't agree with do it. But that's SOP for the "religiously self-righteous," isn't it?
> None of this had any bearing in the shallows inhabited by Jim the multiamorist. Boring, if a tad terrifying.
Aha, now things are finishing up nicely with the ad hominem attacks. Well played, John. Dick Cheney and Karl Rove would be proud. You've been well taught.
John II| 1.11.10 @ 10:53AM
You can start with the reference given by Tony below, Jim, but if the substance and tone of your response are reliable indicators, you won't do so. You express yourself in the manner of an adolescent who greatly overestimates his own knowledge and is trying to hide something from himself.
Free advice, which you are free to mock for now, but it may come back to you subliminally if you're favored with a sure-enough moral crisis down the road. The research merely confirms the obvious for anyone in the habit of listening to his own heart. If and when the crisis comes, look there and listen to the same voice that alrleady has you spot-on to the emptiness of serial monogamy. You just need to take that kind of insight a step further.
Jim the Polyamorist| 1.11.10 @ 7:07AM
You go first, Tony. Show me yours on how well children are doing in conventional American society under serial monogamy.
Oh, and polyamorists are a small group, but the children I know in such arrangements are thriving under the tutelage of more than just two over-worked adults. They also learn by example another important aspect of successful relationships...honesty...something that's in shorter supply in serial monogamistic arrangements especially in those where infidelity lurks.
But hey, if you know some serious social scientists who want to find out if this is hot air, send them our way, OK?
Tony in Central PA| 1.11.10 @ 10:07AM
Probably the first place to start would be the 2009 World Congress of Families referenced in the above article. I read a review of the conference and I could find no endorsement from this event for polyamory.
I think it is worth examining the motives for why adults chose to live this way. My impression from everything I have read here is that its all about what they want right now.
Jim the Polyamorist| 1.11.10 @ 11:55AM
Tony, you might want to update the Wikipedia entry for the World Congress of Families. No one apparently cared enough to even bring it up to date on what happened at the 2009 meeting.
But thanks for citing such a non-objective source that clearly promotes a religious/political agenda. The "science" brought to such forums is usually as suspect as the "science" that once helped defend cigarettes as "safe." :)
You wrote:
>I think it is worth examining the motives for why adults chose to live this way.
Since you don't know any real polyamorists, only read negative things about non-monogamy but were happy to lump polyamory in with all other expressions of non-monogamy, and then give your own answer apriori, how can claim to be "examining" anything?
Farewell, I think I'm done here. Best wishes to all for an expanding view of reality.
Tony in Central PA| 1.11.10 @ 12:50PM
Wikipedia ? Why bother ?
As for what defines a " real polyamorist ", I'm sure its a slippery category for its proponents.
Good luck, you'll be needing it.
Thomas Aarons| 1.10.10 @ 5:39PM
In short, it is wrong to define the "Culture War" as being men against other men (who might think all the Cowboys cheerleaders are fine) instead of against the Godless man-hating feminists who want to legally castrate all men (older feminists with cats don't want to see men their own age having any fun) and are more anti-sex than any evangelical ever thought of being (at least evangelicals want sex inside marriage). Under Bush, there was an unholy alliance between Marxist feminists and some misguided evangelicals that the Bush family made temporarily prominent. Check out GlennSacks.com and MensNewsDaily.com to see this documented.
Alex | 1.10.10 @ 7:29PM
This is hands down the dumbest article I ever read.
John II| 1.10.10 @ 11:58PM
Perhaps you don't have sufficient experience reading. A book I read many years ago by a dude named Kinsey and, later, a fraudulent piece of research by a dudess named Mead were much dumber, if the deliverate attempt at deceit may charitably be regarded as dumb.
Spyndrilleum| 1.13.10 @ 12:57AM
Read more, Alex.
alin | 1.11.10 @ 1:08AM
This is hands down the dumbest article I ever read. nike outlet
adidas outlet
Jim the Polyamorist| 1.11.10 @ 11:50AM
I note that this site does not notify with an email when someone else replies to one's post, so it's not going to be practical for me engage in follow up discussions buried in non-chronological order. I'm not an American Spectator reader and only found this article because it had been flagged by a Google Alert.
I do note, however, that my rant may have had its desired effect. No one else has incorrectly used the term "polyamory" to mean "non-monogamy" since I pointed out that the original essay writer, the A.S. reviewer and several posters had misused it. Mission accomplished. Thanks, guys, for at least respecting the dictionary.
I will point out an error in my original post. I said that the word "polyamory" was coined in the 70s. It was, in fact, the 90s.
But I do see that John II has attempted to coin another word to describe people like me...multiamorist. Congratulations, John, you've invented a new word that turns up zero Google hits. A Latin rather than a Greek prefix is clever, but your invention is redundant with "polyamorist." I don't think it will go very far. I do note, however, that the root of both words is "amor" meaning "love." Polyamorists do, in fact, strive for loving, committed relationships with more than just one other person...an ethical, honest form of non-monogamy in which no one is deceived, demeaned or left behind for a deficit of desirability.
Of course, IF you were open to examining history, you'd find that contemporary Western monogamistic expectations are an outgrowth of Roman social customs which became "wedded" to 4th Century Christian practice after the Church and Empire themselves got "married" via the Counsel of Nicaea and the Donation of Constantine. False monogamy worked for the wealthy and powerful (who practiced it only in a legalistic sense and used it to determine their real heirs), and it became the cudgel for the church/state hierarchy to keep the behavior of the masses in line....one of many "commandments" designed to control populations and make sure they stayed obedient by threatening hellfire for non-conformance and heaven for good behavior. The Biblical prophets and kings certainly did NOT practice monogamy. You'll find no support for it in the OT and none in the NT other than one reference about bishops having one wife which can be interpreted several ways....like that a bishop must at least be married.
One of Johns comment was quite revelatory. He said of polyamory:
> Boring, if a tad terrifying.
I suspect that John is not telling the truth here...at least to himself. I think he finds polyamory anything BUT boring. In fact, the emotion he may be feeling within himself while pondering that certain other people are capable of having long-term, loving relationships with more than one other person would perhaps better be described as jealousy.
Not to despair, John. Polyamory is certainly not for everyone (we're not out to "convert" everyone), but for those who honestly do want to explore it, there are many resources including web-based information and online support groups throughout the nation and world. We are still a very small and new segment of the population (thus the dearth of sociological studies on us), but we're becoming ever more visible. We welcome the studies which we're confident will illustrate that polamorists are at least as happy, fulfilled and successful in our relationships and in raising children as monogamists...even more so we believe.
For those capable of seeing beyond the dualistic paradigm of black or white, right or wrong, one size fits all, and who have the ability to discern nuance, polyamory may be an option for you.
Finally, to restate John's comment about polyamory:
> Boring, if a tad terrifying.
Religiosity (not spirituality) often prompts one to defend one's positions because the alternatives seem "terrifying." Such "terror" stems from the position that society should be only one rigid way (based on one's imaginings of how God would have it) and then fearfully defending it against any "assault" meaning everyone else views.
Modern society is gradually growing beyond dualistic views, and the fear of differences and of change is gradually losing its power over the minds of individuals as they become educated. They're realizing that the rigid worldviews that previously programmed their minds are full of holes and are the inventions of human culture rather than dictates from on high.
Right wing Christian religiosity and it's Eastern counterpart (fundamentalist Islam) ARE seeing somewhat of a surge among those who are still scared, but this phenomenon may really be more akin to the death throes than sustainable resurgence. I think the effect of the current crusade/jihad clash will be that the power of the two major Abrahamic faiths will cancel each other out as people gradually realize that the battles between them are at best silly. At worst they are dangerous and a threat to the continued existence of humankind on this planet. Ironically, I think Jesus and even Mohamed would have been appalled by what goes on in their names.
I had no intention in engaging in a long polemic when I first wrote in. All I wanted to do was point out that Fagan and others had misused the word "polyamory" and that we polyamorists wanted our word back. If the follow-on discussion has prompted a single person to examine the possibility that our marital arrangements are (like most societal institutions that surround us) products of cultural evolution rather than the manifestations of the will of God, my time here will not have been a complete waste.
Margie| 1.11.10 @ 12:18PM
The perverse will go to great lengths to try and "prove" and in quite "intellectually" I"m so much smarter than you because I just know so much more than you do because I read more books.. to prove that their sin life is acceptable. Proving to no one who but trying to prove it to themselves.
Man's biggest drive is to justify himself. Here we have just another example.
The truth doesn't change for any of us, whether we choose to believe it or not.
"But know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment." Ecc. 11:9.
Spyndrilleum| 1.13.10 @ 1:04AM
Margie,
Yup.
"If I like it, it must be right, even though all reason and evidence indicates it is evil." - they say within themselves, while denying any wrong outwardly. (watch the denial)
But we are told, "They will call evil good and good evil." And so they do. To justify themselves.
And to convert, as the article says. They don't want privacy as you and I want, they want all to know what they do, and positively affirm it.
Jim the Polamorist| 1.11.10 @ 1:07PM
Wow, the cursings flow even before I can close this window from my desktop. But thanks, Margie. I always appreciate a good cursing from the whited sepulchre crowd. It lets me know I'm not going soft.
And I'm glad to see you're not hampered by the old "judge not lest ye be not judged" and "judgment is mine, sayeth the Lord" references. It makes it much easier to take judgment into your own hands when you ignore those, doesn't it?
Hey, I have no doubt that I'd judged and judged harshly in the name of the Lord if you and your buddies are ever calling the shots especially in the absence of pesky Constitutional provisions barring a cozy church/state relationship.
Ya know, I'm always intrigued by the lack of "Christianity" present in "Chrisitian" history especially since the post-Nicaean, Trinitarian myths got hatched and ramrodded into acceptance in the 3rd and 4th centuries. They've led to all kinds of incidents in which human "judgment" got wrapped up in the flag of divinity and have sparked any number of crusades, inquisitions, "reformations," counter-reformations, witch hunts and all manner of interesting stuff. And thanks to folks like you and your occasional recapture of political power, I doubt we've seen the complete end of such things.
> Man's biggest drive is to justify himself.
Amen, sister! But hey, don't forget "herself," OK?
> Here we have just another example.
Yeah, they just keep pillin' up, don't they?
> The truth doesn't change for any of us, whether we choose to believe it or not.
I have not doubt that changing your views is way off your radar screen, Maggie. I won't go all epistemological here, but I'm glad you have the comfort of "knowing" that everything you believe right now is eternally exactly how you and your pastor imagine it to be. I'm sure that's something that helps you navigate this complex world. I wouldn't change a thing for you.
But hey, on the bright side, maybe you'll someday get to pull the lever on my dunking stool. See ya then.
Now I really am outta here. You folks enjoy your sandbox.
Jim the Pervers...errrr...the Polyamorist
Jim the Polyamorist| 1.11.10 @ 1:44PM
Hey, I have an apology to make. As I was closing this page, my eye caught another American Spectator link. It's "Plus Eight is Enough" at:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....-is-enough
I guess American Spectator isn't as bad a right wing rag as I thought it was. The piece (which correlates nicely to the topic we've been hashing here) contains some very good info. The conclusions in the last two paragraphs are a bit off in that they fail to address why Christians are succumbing to the same social ills as non-believers but in even greater numbers despite their beliefs, but I'm giving high marks for honest disclosure.
Now it's your turn to consider that polyamorists (of whom I've never known ANY to have an unwanted pregnancy, an abortion or an episode of spousal or child abuse) might be doing a better job having "Christian" relationships (even though most don't espouse that faith) than are many believing Christians.
I'm sorry if I painted this publication with too broad a brush. There are some respectable contributions here.
Now I really am gone, GONE. Bye.
Jim the Person
Tony in Central PA| 1.11.10 @ 3:19PM
Again, it gets to the definition of what constitutes " polyamory ". I'm a health care provider in a rural area and I see the result of " polyamory " every day. As an example, I'll see a mother with two children from two different men. She is still involved with these two original men, but also now has a new live - in boyfriend. Its a mess and the kids suffer. Child and Youth Services are frequently involved and I can tell you from a health outcome, these kids don't fare as well as the average kid from a committed, two - parent home.
But again, what do I know, I've only been seeing this kind of thing for more than twenty years.
John II| 1.11.10 @ 4:05PM
Which recapitulates the context of my use of the word "terrifying," which the omniscient Jim promptly mocked without bothering to understand what the word was doing there. Jim's insecure smugness isn't at all terrifying--but its consequences for children are, if one has eyes to see and ears to hear.
Euphrosyne| 1.12.10 @ 11:54AM
I have sometimes wondered if much of the social pressure to conform to norms of monogamy and fidelity don't come from parents' own children. At seven or eight years of age (or six or even five if they're quite bright), kids figure out that they feel happiest, most secure, and most fulfilled if they are living with the Mom and the Dad they came from, who are living together, getting along with each other, and have devoted themselves to caring for each other and their children. These, kids know instinctually, are the optimal conditions in which they will best thrive. And what kid doesn't want that? So kids push hard to keep their Moms and Dads together and faithful, and to get them that way, if they're not already.
(Little rug-rat bastards, spoiling all the adults' fun! Who do they think they are, anyway?)
John II| 1.12.10 @ 11:25PM
Yeah. My theory is that those pesky ankle-grabbers are tied in to the natural law without the proper sophistication that comes with maturity. The little shits actually believe in some hard-and-fast difference between right and wrong, and they won't let you forget it.
But it's worse than that. If you have a good marriage and lots of kids, the sneaky brats give you this illusion that you're happy. And just when they're grown and gone and you're free to have a good time and tend to your self and stuff, they start producing grandkids. And the grandkids turn around and pull the same stunt, making you think you're filled with all this disgusting joy when you're just as tied down as before and too damn old to chase all those women you missed out on when you were tied year after year to the same old broad you started with, thinking you love her more and more or something when you really just want to be free.
It's the oldest conspiracy in the world. Thanks for reminding me, Mirth. I'll pass this on to my old lady and see what she says. After 36 years of marriage, I still can't be sure what she'll say. She's kind of sneaky too.
Spyndrilleum| 1.13.10 @ 1:19AM
PolyJimory,
I know you have commented your last here. Nevertheless, I shall compliment you as more articulate than most trolls.
I am disappointed in your focus on semantics instead of the issue, even though the author explained the meaning of Polyamory being used in the article.
Also your ignorance is disappointing, but this is just a comment section of an article you don't like. And I understand the difficulty of defending a moral stand that has no basis in fact.
And, my friend, while hypocrisy is not to be praised, that hypocrisy of itself does not negate the values espoused by the hypocrite.
Ex:
Murder is wrong, even if Hitler says it is wrong.
Jim the Polyamorist| 1.15.10 @ 11:58AM
I heard a rumor that my name was taken in vain in this forum. Good news. It turns out that only my words have been abused, so thanks, folks, for keeping it civil. I doubt anyone is still following this thread, but I'll take one last stab at the rebuttals to my comments since I last signed off.
Tony wrote:
> it gets to the definition of what constitutes " polyamory "
My point exactly, Tony. So remember the words of Inigo Montoya in the classic film, "Princess Bride"..."You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
> I'm a health care provider in a rural area and I see the result of " polyamory " every day.
I doubt you've ever met a polyamorist, Tony. I bet you come across a lot of uneducated people with really messed up personal lives (including all manner of warped family arrangements), but how many people that you treat have consciously chosen to have fully open, faithful, equal, fair, balanced relationships with more than one other person?
We polyamorists tend to be educated, successful, dedicated to each other and to our children, and work hard to maintain our additional relationships whether they are live-in or not. No, Tony, I doubt you've met a single "polyamorist" unless you (like Fagan) continue to label as "polyamory" anything that doesn't fit your narrow definition of a proper marriage. But if you do, don't get too upset when others refer to Christianity as "ignorance" or "delusion" or call conservatism "fascism" or "imperialism," OK? Hey, they're just exercising their right to use words as they please...just like you.
> As an example, I'll see a mother with two children from two different men. She is still involved with these two original men, but also now has a new live - in boyfriend. Its a mess and the kids suffer.
I have no doubt. It sounds totally dysfunctional. But it's probably not polyamory. I bet some of those folks might even try to kill each other if they were fully aware of the situation and found each other in the same room.
> kids don't fare as well as the average kid from a committed, two - parent home.
If one is better than two, imagine how it would be in a three or four-parent home. I could introduce you to some.
> But again, what do I know, I've only been seeing this kind of thing for more than twenty years.
But what you've been seeing is not "polyamory"....but do I trust that what you've been seeing is NOT pretty.
John wrote:
> Which recapitulates the context of my use of the word "terrifying," which the omniscient Jim promptly mocked without bothering to understand what the word was doing there.
Isn't the onus on the writer to use words in a context in which their meaning is clear? Oh, and thanks for the "omniscient" tag. I can't honestly claim it, but I certainly am more "scient" than you on this particular topic.
> Jim's insecure smugness isn't at all terrifying--but its consequences for children are
"Insecure?" That's an accusation not often leveled at me. And I'll match children raised in a conscious poly home for "well-adjustedness," confidence, intellect or any other emotional health category against the typical kids of monogamous unions anytime. Hey, bring on that study!
> if one has eyes to see and ears to hear.
Ah, the time-honored appeal to scriptural authority! It work well for swaying listeners for whom critical thinking isn't all that important, doesn't it? Who cares if you use it properly or in the same context, right? Using the hidden code words and tying into the listeners strongly held prejudices is what counts to win points.
Euprhosyne wrote:
>I have sometimes wondered if much of the social pressure to conform to norms of monogamy and fidelity don't come from parents' own children.
For fidelity and the security it provides, I'd guess tons. For "monogamy," I'd say very little. Even if two parents are keeping the sexual exclusivity clause of the monogamous marriage contract, if they're unhappy together, fighting regularly, or not providing for the emotional health of their children, I doubt the kids are feeling very secure. Of course, sometimes the best certain individuals can hope for is "stability," which is what often keeps spouses and children locked into downright abusive relationships...the old "better the devil that you know" thing.
> At seven or eight years of age (or six or even five if they're quite bright), kids figure out that they feel happiest, most secure, and most fulfilled if they are living with the Mom and the Dad they came from, who are living together, getting along with each other, and have devoted themselves to caring for each other and their children.
I'll concede that point. Now tell me how it couldn't possibly be better with three, four or even more adults in the same household providing those same things?
John wrote:
> If you have a good marriage and lots of kids, the sneaky brats give you this illusion that you're happy.
People in loving, secure relationships usually are happy. So how exactly is that different for polyamorists? Oh, and "lots of kids" is quickly becoming recognized as "not an option" for every nuclear family in light of the reality of contracting economies, dwindling resources and an over-taxed environment stemming from the post WWII, human population explosion. But polyamorous families can offer a way for several adults to "share" a smaller number of children and thus lift some of the burden from a society that's grown too big, too fast.
> you're just as tied down as before and too damn old to chase all those women you missed out on when you were tied year after year to the same old broad you started with, thinking you love her more and more or something when you really just want to be free.
Sarcasm aside, John, the situation you're alluding too happens much more frequently in serial monogamy than in polyamory. When wanderlust kicks in, serial monogamists bail out and seek greener pastures. Just ask Misters Rove, Limbaugh and Gingrich. We polyamorists just expand our pastures to include "more land."
Spyndrilleum wrote:
> I know you have commented your last here. Nevertheless, I shall compliment you as more articulate than most trolls.
Thanks for the props. I'll try to come back and respond if there's more discussion that mentions me and to which someone tips me off.
> I am disappointed in your focus on semantics instead of the issue
Reclaiming our word was my primary motivation, but I think I've addressed the merits of polyamory, too. I have cited resources (like that recent Boston Globe piece and another site with family stats on American Spectator) which illustrate the weaknesses of modern monogamy, but nobody else addressed those. Hey, that's not my fault.
> the author explained the meaning of Polyamory being used in the article.
But he doesn't get to misuse a word and then say "new definition, everybody"....not if he has a intellectual integrity anyway. Perhaps for Mr. Fagan that's an issue, however.
> I understand the difficulty of defending a moral stand that has no basis in fact.
In "fact?" Well, polyamory does exist, and those who practice it with sincere commitment are living successful lives in thriving relationships. Is it any different from monogamy which is the norm in our culture? Hell yes. Is it "better" or "worse?" Well, that depends on who's practicing it.
> while hypocrisy is not to be praised, that hypocrisy of itself does not negate the values espoused by the hypocrite.
The sad stats, however, are that the most vocal defenders of monogamy (the Christian Right) are practicing it less successfully than those who do not hold to such philosophies or who practice alternatives to monogamy like polyamory. Hey, if this keeps up, the cultural pendulum is going to keep swinging our way. Of course, conservatives have the option of attempting to close down the "free market of ideas" by enacting legislation to prohibit private behaviors which they find distasteful or challenging to their agenda. History of the world, my friends, but just don't call such philosophies "true conservatism" or "libertarianism." But, hey, I've already caused enough problems over definitions. I'll stop now.
Jim the Polyamorist
Ss| 1.21.10 @ 11:10AM
Funny that the article focuses on straying men. Poly is more about female sexuality. My wife has a boyfriend. I am monogomous. God doesn't care. Neither should you.
Pingback| 2.2.10 @ 12:05PM
Suit Up – The War is Here « Manogamy Movement links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
d | 4.2.10 @ 3:31AM
d
Pingback| 4.22.10 @ 6:37PM
In Enemy Terrority: Activision visits its Facebook hate page | ConcerningFacebook.inf links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.26.10 @ 11:34AM
Commonly Misunderstood Concepts: Employment | EmploymentSeek.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
UKNorth | 11.3.10 @ 3:29AM
he countenance of North Face Jackets Perdana Menteri pGFP saudara, dan teknologi inovatif While greater than the North Face the Dalaia tersusun jubah Outdoor kasut sepasang Dan, Polartec, LLC pemaju of Dan, Dan, North Face UK Akan pengeluar Polartec pemasar laid to my charge to be North Face mens given to Hari untuk mengetahui pengaruh Parfum: North Face Jacket Kishtwar ufti of Dan Tahun pada North Face Clothing.
explosion proof floodlight | 11.25.10 @ 1:17AM
If freedom has a natural home in the modern world, therefore, it is the nation-state
UKNorth | 11.3.10 @ 3:29AM
he countenance of North Face Jackets Perdana Menteri pGFP saudara, dan teknologi inovatif While greater than the North Face the Dalaia tersusun jubah Outdoor kasut sepasang Dan, Polartec, LLC pemaju of Dan, Dan, North Face UK Akan pengeluar Polartec pemasar laid to my charge to be North Face mens given to Hari untuk mengetahui pengaruh Parfum: North Face Jacket Kishtwar ufti of Dan Tahun pada North Face Clothing.
A516 GRADE 70 | 12.3.10 @ 7:42PM
good article
Louis Vttion handbags | 12.9.10 @ 12:46AM
he countenance of North Face Jackets Perdana Menteri pGFP saudara, dan teknologi inovatif While greater than the North Face the Dalaia tersusun jubah Outdoor kasut sepasang Dan, Polartec, LLC pemaju of Dan, Dan, North Face UK Akan pengeluar Polartec pemasar laid to my charge to be North Face mens given to Hari untuk mengetahui pengaruh Parfum: North Face Jacket Kishtwar ufti of Dan Tahun pada North Face Clothing.
Louis Vttion handbags | 12.9.10 @ 2:24AM
I have not had much interest in football in 20 years. I watched no NFL games this year. Only one thing interests me. The NFL needs to get rid of the field goal and the pat kick. All pat's should be run or pass. It is absurd to have a have fought game decided by a cheap kick. A four touchdown game should be settled by real pat's; 27-25 or something. A close game should be decided by a last minute touchdown. This would make for more exciting games as the teams would have to work on pat drills as well as two minute drills. No more foreign soccer players coming in to keeck a touchdown.
DVDSoft | 3.23.11 @ 2:41AM
With the right tool, you can easily burn mp4 to dvd.
lucy| 6.19.11 @ 9:52PM
Just like honesty and liberty. It is a value that some otherwise conservative folks do not espouse, but that does not remove it from the conservative set of values. Fathers and husbands have inherent value and responsibilities in their very nature, just as wives and mothers do. itunes movie to dvd
Adidas | 8.11.11 @ 9:26PM
is good
Deanna| 3.8.12 @ 6:42AM
Wow, every description in the article of polyamory and what it means to live polyamorously is completely incorrect. Polyamory is not about sex. It certainly is not about casual sex, and polyamorists generally do not promote promiscuity or irresponsible parenthood.
Polyamory is simply about being receptive to the practice of having multiple loving, committed relationships with full knowledge and consent of everyone involved. That does not automatically mean that people are randomly having sex with a bunch of people they don't know.
Monogamous culture is more accepting and forgiving of people who cheat on their spouses with secret affairs than it is of people who would rather be honest about having loving feelings toward more than one person simultaneously. Polyamorists conduct their relationships in the open and with the consent of their partners. That is why polyamory is also known as ethical non-monogamy.