Sheep: yeah, there are certainly logistical and time-management challenges to poly relationships. Most poly people I know max out at 2 or maybe 3 partners depending on their particular circumstances. (Yeah, there are some "poly" people out there who will fuck anything with a heartbeat, but if we meander down all possible paths in our quest for an operating definition of "polyamory," eventually we will find ourselves afield where nary a true Scotsman lives.)
However, that's a very small minority, and the very act of an open relationship is there to specifically appease personal wants. Which is pretty much not good behavior for a relationship.
This is the part of your post that I don't really agree with. A certain amount of a relationship is about appeasing personal wants. A certain amount is about stifling them. And a certain amount is about getting them from other sources. There's a balance, and the trick is to figure out which needs to put into which category.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
People think that they need a shit-ton more than they actually do, in general. A good long-term solution is not to add another earner to the equation.
Or, OR! You can not be an idiot who doesn't know what the word "savings" means. That works too, I hear.
That is what I was implying, yes.
I don't know why I quoted that post of yours. I meant to quote another, but now I can't find it. Maybe I misread something. Either way, I agree with you.
Yeah, when the 1st grade class talks about how all families need to have a mommy and daddy, little Sally with her 2 dads and 1 gang-banged mom will feel pretty left out.
...as will Bobby with his 2 butt-pirate daddies.
...and so will Lisa with her single mom who has no idea who or where the father is.
...and so will Brett whose mom died while delivering him.
There are plenty of not typical family situations out there, why the hell are we making such a big deal out of this one?
Where the hell do you live where that many kids like that are in one class? Anyhoo...
Weird is not always bad. But it usually is. And in all the cases you just listed, there's a vacant spot where parenting should be, or additional complication in interpersonal relationships that are supposed to be reliable, stable, and comfortable for SallyBobbyLisaBrett. Sometimes it can't be helped, and we do what we can... but it is selfish to do something that conventional wisdom tells you is wrong with only a half-assed argument for why it isn't. If kids turned out better with six moms instead of one, I think we'd see a lot more mormons around.
...Couldn't help but notice you placed Brett in the category of bad parenting situations. Are you suggesting butt-pirates can't raise children? That's pretty fucked up man.
For that matter, I also take offense that you don't think a single parent could raise a child well, or any of the other hundreds of variations off the typical nuclear family.
Conventional wisdom tells me not to put my dick in another man's asshole. Should we ban gays, just because I don't feel an attraction to someone of my own sex? Yeah, I'm only in love with one person at a time, but does that somehow prove that being in love with several people is impossible? I believe it because people tell me they are in love with several people at once, just like I believe gays aren't just ass-fucking eachother as a cute joke toward me.
I just don't fucking get this thread, it's pretty much identical to an anti-gay thread but with a slightly different name. Haven't we gotten over judging others for their sexuality just because we don't agree with it yet?
Brett was the one whose mom died, and yes, that is suboptimal. We should try to keep that from happening.
You seem to have some trouble reading my posts. I did not say that a single parent could not raise a child well. I did imply that two parents will most of the time raise a child better. I also did not suggest that we should ban gays, or anything of the sort. I think it's best if they do not adopt children, but that is not what the thread is about, nor was it my point. I'm doing my best to reply to what you said, rather than what "people like you say" or some such assumption, and I'd like the same courtesy.
And no, we have not gotten over judging each other based on their actions which may harm innocents, and civil societies never will. That is why we have laws, after all. Some things are harmful to others, and we should try to prevent it. The question is, do non-standard parental arrangements have enough of a negative effect on children to warrant litigation enforcing traditional family structures? My personal belief in relation to the OP is that a mother and father is the natural way of things, and is the only scenario that makes any sense.
As much as I like name-calling and acting like I'm fifteen years younger than I am, I get enough of that with my cousins and nieces and nephews. If someone wants to explain why what I said was wrong, I'd gladly get back on topic.
My "prejudice and bigotry" is opinion explained logically as well as anyone else's in this thread. I'll even prove to be a wiser man by considering a rational disagreement before dismissing it out of hand with cliche.
As much as I like name-calling and acting like I'm fifteen years younger than I am, I get enough of that with my cousins and nieces and nephews. If someone wants to explain why what I said was wrong, I'd gladly get back on topic.
My "prejudice and bigotry" is opinion explained logically as well as anyone else's in this thread. I'll even prove to be a wiser man by considering a rational disagreement before dismissing it out of hand with cliche.
Why do you oppose gay couples adopting kids?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
As much as I like name-calling and acting like I'm fifteen years younger than I am, I get enough of that with my cousins and nieces and nephews. If someone wants to explain why what I said was wrong, I'd gladly get back on topic.
My "prejudice and bigotry" is opinion explained logically as well as anyone else's in this thread. I'll even prove to be a wiser man by considering a rational disagreement before dismissing it out of hand with cliche.
What values could a man and a woman instill in a child that two men or two women could not? Are you also against single parent adoption? If not, how is 2 parents not better than 1 regardless of gender?
Feral: I oppose gay couples adopting kids mainly because most cases of non-standard parent couples that I have seen myself have turned out worse than most cases of standard parent couples. Not always, but the vast majority. There also seems to be extra complications to the personalities of gay people I've met. Growing up I was taught that they are the same as anyone else, but my personal experience has shown that to be basically false.
jclast: I don't know that it's about which values can be instilled by whom intentionally. Most of what children learn from their parents isn't verbally handed down or given in a textbook. It's behavior learned by example. That comes back to bite ALL parents in the ass, gay or straight or whatever.
Adoption is a tricky issue regardless of who we'd prefer to be parents. There are more kids than willing and fitting homes, even if open to single parents or gay couples. It would clearly be best if a child had two parents rather than one.
Feral: I oppose gay couples adopting kids mainly because most cases of non-standard parent couples that I have seen myself have turned out worse than most cases of standard parent couples. Not always, but the vast majority. There also seems to be extra complications to the personalities of gay people I've met. Growing up I was taught that they are the same as anyone else, but my personal experience has shown that to be basically false.
jclast: I don't know that it's about which values can be instilled by whom intentionally. Most of what children learn from their parents isn't verbally handed down or given in a textbook. It's behavior learned by example. That comes back to bite ALL parents in the ass, gay or straight or whatever.
Adoption is a tricky issue regardless of who we'd prefer to be parents. There are more kids than willing and fitting homes, even if open to single parents or gay couples. It would clearly be best if a child had two parents rather than one.
1) a loving and well-adjusted gay couple should be just as good parents as a loving and well-adjusted straight couple by your logic then so long as either set of them sets a good example for the child.
2) two parents is not always better than one - single parent instead of an abusive home with two parents immediately jumps to mind as an example.
1) a loving and well-adjusted gay couple should be just as good parents as a loving and well-adjusted straight couple by your logic then so long as either set of them sets a good example for the child.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything like that. Where did I say that a gay couple should be just as good at parenting as a straight couple?
2) two parents is not always better than one - single parent instead of an abusive home with two parents immediately jumps to mind as an example.
I already pointed out that there are situations where the formula does not hold. However, the single parent would be well assisted by a non-abusive partner who could help raise the child. The optimal situation is still two parents, whether it's possible or not.
Numerous studies over the last three decades consistently demonstrate that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as children raised by heterosexual parents.
Results of research to date suggest that children of lesbian and gay parents have positive relationships with peers and that their relationships with adults of both sexes are also satisfactory.
Research comparing children raised by homosexual parents to children raised by heterosexual parents has found no developmental differences in intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, or peer popularity between them.
Feral: I oppose gay couples adopting kids mainly because most cases of non-standard parent couples that I have seen myself have turned out worse than most cases of standard parent couples. Not always, but the vast majority. There also seems to be extra complications to the personalities of gay people I've met. Growing up I was taught that they are the same as anyone else, but my personal experience has shown that to be basically false.
Forgive me if I'm not swayed.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Hey wowee, non-biased scientific studies, as rigorously screened for objectivity as these forums. Less even, since none of us get paid to share our opinions. I'm too lazy to go looking up contradicting studies, I'm not that hardcore on internet fights. Hot political topics breed biased studies in both directions, and arguing the merits of one source against another doesn't sound like a fun Wednesday night to me.
Forgive me if I fail to bow to your links as irrefutable.
Hey wowee, non-biased scientific studies, as rigorously screened for objectivity as these forums. Less even, since none of us get paid to share our opinions. I'm too lazy to go looking up contradicting studies, I'm not that hardcore on internet fights. Hot political topics breed biased studies in both directions, and arguing the merits of one source against another doesn't sound like a fun Wednesday night to me.
Forgive me if I fail to bow to your links as irrefutable.
What possible reason could you have for accusing both APAs and the AAP of bias?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Hey wowee, non-biased scientific studies, as rigorously screened for objectivity as these forums. Less even, since none of us get paid to share our opinions. I'm too lazy to go looking up contradicting studies, I'm not that hardcore on internet fights. Hot political topics breed biased studies in both directions, and arguing the merits of one source against another doesn't sound like a fun Wednesday night to me.
Forgive me if I fail to bow to your links as irrefutable.
What possible reason could you have for accusing both APAs and the AAP of bias?
Hey wowee, non-biased scientific studies, as rigorously screened for objectivity as these forums. Less even, since none of us get paid to share our opinions. I'm too lazy to go looking up contradicting studies, I'm not that hardcore on internet fights. Hot political topics breed biased studies in both directions, and arguing the merits of one source against another doesn't sound like a fun Wednesday night to me.
Forgive me if I fail to bow to your links as irrefutable.
What possible reason could you have for accusing both APAs and the AAP of bias?
Because they don't agree with his conclusions duh!
Hey wowee, non-biased scientific studies, as rigorously screened for objectivity as these forums. Less even, since none of us get paid to share our opinions. I'm too lazy to go looking up contradicting studies, I'm not that hardcore on internet fights. Hot political topics breed biased studies in both directions, and arguing the merits of one source against another doesn't sound like a fun Wednesday night to me.
Forgive me if I fail to bow to your links as irrefutable.
Do you have links to any large-scale studies that claim otherwise? Any at all? If you don't, shut up already. Seriously. Next thing you know, you're going to tell us God is going to smite us for not having a problem with gay people, or *shock horror* being gay.
Hey wowee, non-biased scientific studies, as rigorously screened for objectivity as these forums. Less even, since none of us get paid to share our opinions. I'm too lazy to go looking up contradicting studies, I'm not that hardcore on internet fights. Hot political topics breed biased studies in both directions, and arguing the merits of one source against another doesn't sound like a fun Wednesday night to me.
Forgive me if I fail to bow to your links as irrefutable.
Oh wow, this is incredibly weak. I've seen creationists even that were more successful at backpedaling out of a corner than this.
I'll just say the same thing I tell them, if you can't defend your (bigoted) position with anything more substantial than "I think so," then please, leave the arguing to those that can.
Anyway, on topic:
My fiancee and I are both interested in bringing another girl into the relationship, but we recognize just how rare qualities we're actually searching for, for this to work out.
Requires a vast amount of trust, which we both possess already, but also a distinct lack of jealousy, which is another trait we share.
However, that's a very small minority, and the very act of an open relationship is there to specifically appease personal wants. Which is pretty much not good behavior for a relationship.
Buh? Even agreeing to the notion that this is purely a hedonism issue; says who?
The one thing that people in poly relationships all agree on is that relationship dynamics get exponentially more complex the more people you add. This is particularly true when living together.
Having said that, people do form these kind of family units.
And quite often a child protection agency gets involved somewhere down the line. If the 60s have taught us anything it must be that these kind of family units are just a literal clusterfuck.
To be fair the ones that work you would probably never hear about in terms of CP.
It's a measurement issue. Two people can easily say that the other person is totally committed to them. Three people end up wondering if the other person is getting a greater share of "commitment" and naturally have no way to measure such a thing.
Honey, you know I love you with all 50% of my heart.
Well, the last post is likely in jest, but honestly, there are plenty of siblings out there who get along just fine knowing they're loved equally, then you have the inherently more jealous ones that will have a problem with it.
Solution is of course, don't bring jealous people into the relationship, it won't work at all.
Hey, even if you don't think that being raised by a gay couple makes for the best childhood, you know what sucks indisputably more? Growing up in a fucking orphanage (or "group home", or whatever today's term is).
Hey, even if you don't think that being raised by a gay couple makes for the best childhood, you know what sucks indisputably more? Growing up in a fucking orphanage (or "group home", or whatever today's term is).
This. Even if gay couples are sub-optimal, which I have no reason to suspect they are since some handy research was just linked but let's assume it is just for the sake of argument, it is still a metric ton better than growing up in an orphanage.
Hey, even if you don't think that being raised by a gay couple makes for the best childhood, you know what sucks indisputably more? Growing up in a fucking orphanage (or "group home", or whatever today's term is).
This. Even if gay couples are sub-optimal, which I have no reason to suspect they are since some handy research was just linked but let's assume it is just for the sake of argument, it is still a metric ton better than growing up in an orphanage.
Yeah, but at least growing up in an orphanage they won't catch teh gayzorz. :?
PeregrineFalcon on
Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
Hey, even if you don't think that being raised by a gay couple makes for the best childhood, you know what sucks indisputably more? Growing up in a fucking orphanage (or "group home", or whatever today's term is).
This. Even if gay couples are sub-optimal, which I have no reason to suspect they are since some handy research was just linked but let's assume it is just for the sake of argument, it is still a metric ton better than growing up in an orphanage.
Yeah, but at least growing up in an orphanage they won't catch teh gayzorz. :?
No, they'll catch teh sylyphisis from the pedo caretaker. Muuuuch better!
Well, the problem was that you mentioned the chance for sexy fun times in the OP, and this being the Internet, that's what we gravitated towards. :P
Also, you have to take into account that said third person's ambition in life would have to be "taking care of someone else's kid" otherwise they'd rapidly become more than a bit disenchanted with staying home and watching your munchkins while you went out and succeeded.
Things don't have to be permanent.
College students a lot of times have classes a few hours a day and just need to study the rest. Once can study and watch kids at the same time and I know of several women who worked as live in nannies while they went to college and several others that helped out with relatives in exchange for a free place to live.
I have good friends that recently had a baby and neither could take much time off. But the wife's sister wants to go to school in the state they live in and spending a year helping them out establishes residency for her and cuts her tuition by 2/3. Everybody wins, the couple in question has help with the baby and doesn't have to pay an arm and a leg for childcare and the sister is thrilled that she gets to go to school for less money.
In my family both my little sister and I lived with my older sister and exchanged free childcare for a place to live and food during an internship. Those were each only 3 months but they were situations that worked very very well.
I think the OP was thinking about things on a more permanent basis, but the costs of childcare fall dramatically around 1 year and at potty training so temporary changes to living situations can have a big impact on a couple's finances.
And if I knew how to multiquote I would lime the fact that the choice for adoption isn't between straight couple and gay couples. It is between foster homes and actual parents. (for the record I do think that gay parents make just as good parents as straight parents).
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
College students a lot of times have classes a few hours a day and just need to study the rest. Once can study and watch kids at the same time and I know of several women who worked as live in nannies while they went to college and several others that helped out with relatives in exchange for a free place to live.
I have good friends that recently had a baby and neither could take much time off. But the wife's sister wants to go to school in the state they live in and spending a year helping them out establishes residency for her and cuts her tuition by 2/3. Everybody wins, the couple in question has help with the baby and doesn't have to pay an arm and a leg for childcare and the sister is thrilled that she gets to go to school for less money.
In my family both my little sister and I lived with my older sister and exchanged free childcare for a place to live and food during an internship. Those were each only 3 months but they were situations that worked very very well.
I think the OP was thinking about things on a more permanent basis, but the costs of childcare fall dramatically around 1 year and at potty training so temporary changes to living situations can have a big impact on a couple's finances.
And if I knew how to multiquote I would lime the fact that the choice for adoption isn't between straight couple and gay couples. It is between foster homes and actual parents. (for the record I do think that gay parents make just as good parents as straight parents).
Agreed that it works far better for temporary situations - generally that seems to be the third party suggesting the idea though, as in the "I'll babysit the kids in exchange for not having to pay for residence while I go to school." Doesn't seem to be what the OP is suggesting, as you mentioned.
PeregrineFalcon on
Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
Agreed that it works far better for temporary situations - generally that seems to be the third party suggesting the idea though, as in the "I'll babysit the kids in exchange for not having to pay for residence while I go to school." Doesn't seem to be what the OP is suggesting, as you mentioned.
The OP didn't seem to have much focus. I just wanted to point out that there are lots of situations where couples do exactly what is suggested and it works very well for all involved.
There has mostly been negative reactions in the thread so far and I think that is partly because so many different ideas are being conflated.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
Sheep: yeah, there are certainly logistical and time-management challenges to poly relationships. Most poly people I know max out at 2 or maybe 3 partners depending on their particular circumstances. (Yeah, there are some "poly" people out there who will fuck anything with a heartbeat, but if we meander down all possible paths in our quest for an operating definition of "polyamory," eventually we will find ourselves afield where nary a true Scotsman lives.)
However, that's a very small minority, and the very act of an open relationship is there to specifically appease personal wants. Which is pretty much not good behavior for a relationship.
This is the part of your post that I don't really agree with. A certain amount of a relationship is about appeasing personal wants. A certain amount is about stifling them. And a certain amount is about getting them from other sources. There's a balance, and the trick is to figure out which needs to put into which category.
It just comes down to a point where I have to speak from personal experience, ya know? Like I said, if it works for someone, then that's great. But in my own experience, and from those that I know, all of these relationships ended when someone wasn't getting the satisfaction that they wanted.
It's always boiled down to me deciding that I like someone enough to want monogamous, dedicated, relationship with someone, and them not liking the idea, or vice versa. Or, someone who feels like they're the main/more important/significant other feeling that their partner is giving someone else too much attention.
And finally, I simply don't condone the practice anymore because of the prevalence of STDs. You can't trust everyone you sleep with, and neither can someone else ensure that trust in other people.
Every instance that I can think of has resulted, whether quickly or over the course of years, in horrible, soap opera quality, "Let's all meet in Sheep's house and cry and scream and figure out who gave me the herp". And one particularly funny episode where two people were in an "open" relationship where she ended up sleeping with his brother. Suddenly, it wasn't so open.
Again, I'm not saying it's wrong or bad, I've practiced it before and so have pretty much everyone else I know.
But they and myself cut it out when we've found someone that we care enough about to be there for them 100% of the time because we don't want to deal with the inevitable emotional and physical issues that tends to come with these types of relationships.
I'm just expressing my opinion in context with the OP. If you're in the minority where this actually works for you, and you and your spouse are perfectly happy, congrats and I hope things continue to work.
Buh? Even agreeing to the notion that this is purely a hedonism issue; says who?
Sex is a basic, primary, urge for humans. Other than my fiancee and the few long term relationships I've had, I've never had sex for the benefit of someone else.
Unless you enter a relationship with full knowledge and are in completely agreement, starting a relationship and then saying, "you aren't enough, I need to sleep around" is a selfish act, and if that's the case you shouldn't be in a serious relationship with that person.
I'm making a clear distinction between seriously being ready to start a family, and not being ready to start a family and still wanting to sow your oats and get out and party and see the world or whatever euphemism people use.
I'd also like to add that, while I sure as hell enjoy sex as much as the next guy, I find our current culture glamorizes it to extremely gross amounts and usually when someone tells me that they gotta sleep around and get their fill, I tend to ask them if it's because they simply don't have anything better to do with their lives.
That's a bit assholish to say, and it's not aimed at anyone in particular or any particular group, just the sex obsessed nature that I see in so many people is getting mundane.
1) a loving and well-adjusted gay couple should be just as good parents as a loving and well-adjusted straight couple by your logic then so long as either set of them sets a good example for the child.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything like that. Where did I say that a gay couple should be just as good at parenting as a straight couple?
You didn't. That's the point I was making. If you recall, you were saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Honestly, I'm not sure we can continue this argument if I have to remind you which side you're on.
2) two parents is not always better than one - single parent instead of an abusive home with two parents immediately jumps to mind as an example.
I already pointed out that there are situations where the formula does not hold. However, the single parent would be well assisted by a non-abusive partner who could help raise the child. The optimal situation is still two parents, whether it's possible or not.
And who gets to decide optimal? Because I'd say that "optimal" would be two full-time parents, four full-time grandparents, and a large number of aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. all available all the time to help raise and nurture a child. Obviously we don't always get everything we want, but "optimal" sure as hell isn't just "mommy, daddy, and baby."
If we really want to define optimal then I think my best stab would be "a loving home where the child is well-provided for."
Anyway, on topic:
My fiancee and I are both interested in bringing another girl into the relationship, but we recognize just how rare qualities we're actually searching for, for this to work out.
You do realize that in some circles, we call what you're looking for a "unicorn" (see definition 5), right?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Or, someone who feels like they're the main/more important/significant other feeling that their partner is giving someone else too much attention.
In principle, how is this any different from somebody deciding that their spouse is spending too much time at work? Or spending too much time on a hobby? Or, hell, spending too much time playing WoW?
And finally, I simply don't condone the practice anymore because of the prevalence of STDs. You can't trust everyone you sleep with, and neither can someone else ensure that trust in other people.
Plenty of monogamous people get STDs, too. I wholly reject the notion that polyamory inherently puts you at greater risk of STDs. Number of partners, use of protection, and testing habits are all going to be significantly more important than whether your lifestyle is poly or monogamous.
Sex is a basic, primary, urge for humans. Other than my fiancee and the few long term relationships I've had, I've never had sex for the benefit of someone else.
Unless you enter a relationship with full knowledge and are in completely agreement, starting a relationship and then saying, "you aren't enough, I need to sleep around" is a selfish act, and if that's the case you shouldn't be in a serious relationship with that person.
First off, I find it funny that you base your argument on the notion that 'sex is selfish except with somebody you're in a long-term relationship with.' It seems like you have this unassailable mental block against seeing the secondary partners as having serious long-term potential.
Anyway, I hope you don't spend every waking moment in abject servitude to your partner. There should be some room in a relationship for "selfish acts." Again, to use a similar argument as the first part of my post, watching the Super Bowl is a selfish act if your partner hates football. Going on a raid in WoW is a selfish act if your partner doesn't play with you. That something is a "selfish act" does not necessarily imply that it is completely forbidden.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Hey wowee, non-biased scientific studies, as rigorously screened for objectivity as these forums. Less even, since none of us get paid to share our opinions. I'm too lazy to go looking up contradicting studies, I'm not that hardcore on internet fights. Hot political topics breed biased studies in both directions, and arguing the merits of one source against another doesn't sound like a fun Wednesday night to me.
Forgive me if I fail to bow to your links as irrefutable.
What possible reason could you have for accusing both APAs and the AAP of bias?
And in this corner, coming up with an astounding 3 punch knock-out, the victor, FERAL.
Seriously, "I dont trust peer-editted journals" is such an admit of defeat when it comes to reasoned argument. There is nothing psych professors love doing more than poring over the details of academic papers hoping to find some tiny problem with the methodology or results so that they can denounce the whole paper. Unfortunately, "I dont like the gays Ive met" isn't a valid argument against it.
I wholly reject the notion that polyamory inherently puts you at greater risk of STDs.
So, having sex with multiple people who are having sex with multiple people doesn't put you at greater risk of contracting an STD than just sleeping with one person who is only sleeping with you?
That something is a "selfish act" does not necessarily imply that it is completely forbidden.
I've never said that anything is forbidden. I've stated plenty of times that if you can make it work, then go for it.
I'm just saying it isn't likely.
I also think that sex holds a little bit more importance than spending too much time at work, or on WoW.
If you can't see yourself settling down with one person, but need to fulfill your needs with multiple, then you shouldn't be getting married. Also, if you are a workaholic to the point where it could affect a relationship, you should hold off on getting married. If you have a videogame addiction, you shouldn't be getting married. Unless you marry someone who is 100% okay with this.
I don't know why you're suddenly jumping to extremes. It's not about servitude, it's about compatibility. Even if you're doing something that your SO is reacting to in an unreasonable manner, you probably shouldn't be in a relationship with that person.
To reiterate, if you can make it work, fine. But based on human condition, it rarely works. So when the OP suggests if adding someone to a family to alleviate social problems is a good idea, I have to respond that it isn't.
I wholly reject the notion that polyamory inherently puts you at greater risk of STDs.
So, having sex with multiple people who are having sex with multiple people doesn't put you at greater risk of contracting an STD than just sleeping with one person who is only sleeping with you?
Inherently? No.
Could it? Yes, certainly. Depends on how fast and loose people play it.
I admit, I've seen plenty of poly people who are really just sluts who sleep around haphazardly. Of course, I've seen self-described monogamous people who do the same. Some people are serial monogamists; two weeks with one partner, then three with another, then a one night stand. Their short relationships simply never overlap. And of course there are people who spend a long time with one partner, then break up, go through a slutty phase where they fuck everything that moves for six months, and then once they get it out of their system end up with another monogamous partner.
On the other hand, there are "poly" people who never actually have PIV intercourse with their secondary partners, limiting themselves to lower risk behaviors. Or possibly very limited contact, as in the BDSM community where some people limit their contact exclusively to toys and hands. Or their poly-ness is restricted to a closed group, like cohabitating triads; or they simply don't change partners that often.
All I'm saying is that there are so many other factors, so many different types of open lifestyle, and so many different behaviors that you can't really say that being poly inherently increases the risk of STDs. It depends entirely on your "style" of poly.
Can we at least all agree that while non-"standard" living arrangements work for some and not for others, it's a horrible solution to "living with just two incomes is hard?"
Can we at least all agree that while non-"standard" living arrangements work for some and not for others, it's a horrible solution to "living with just two incomes is hard?"
Yah I tried to point this about 20 posts ago but Cognisseur seemed to think I was all for alcoholic fathers and some anti gay shit. Dude what is that guys damage?
Can we at least all agree that while non-"standard" living arrangements work for some and not for others, it's a horrible solution to "living with just two incomes is hard?"
Yah I tried to point this about 20 posts ago but Cognisseur seemed to think I was all for alcoholic fathers and some anti gay shit. Dude what is that guys damage?
I don't really like derailing threads and rehashing old arguments, but you are personally asking me.
Yes Ken was an alcoholic father and abusive but some kids, SOME KIDS need to be raised that way.
Edit: And I was not claiming you're anti-gay, I only asked you to clarify your position in my initial post because that's the way it sounded.
I am claiming Slimjane2k is anti-gay, which is where most of my gay-related posts in this thread are located because of posts about how a gay couple is in the category of not-good parenting, and how a mother and father is the "natural way" and therefore only way that makes sense.
Can we at least all agree that while non-"standard" living arrangements work for some and not for others, it's a horrible solution to "living with just two incomes is hard?"
Yeah, I think most of us could agree upon that.
Though honestly, I have to agree with Sheep. Most the poly or open relatinships I have seen either lead to jealousy and relationship explosions, or is just someones excuse for sleeping around while having a solid to come home to.
Not saying it can't work, just saying it is hard to make it work.
Posts
This is the part of your post that I don't really agree with. A certain amount of a relationship is about appeasing personal wants. A certain amount is about stifling them. And a certain amount is about getting them from other sources. There's a balance, and the trick is to figure out which needs to put into which category.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't know why I quoted that post of yours. I meant to quote another, but now I can't find it. Maybe I misread something. Either way, I agree with you.
Brett was the one whose mom died, and yes, that is suboptimal. We should try to keep that from happening.
You seem to have some trouble reading my posts. I did not say that a single parent could not raise a child well. I did imply that two parents will most of the time raise a child better. I also did not suggest that we should ban gays, or anything of the sort. I think it's best if they do not adopt children, but that is not what the thread is about, nor was it my point. I'm doing my best to reply to what you said, rather than what "people like you say" or some such assumption, and I'd like the same courtesy.
And no, we have not gotten over judging each other based on their actions which may harm innocents, and civil societies never will. That is why we have laws, after all. Some things are harmful to others, and we should try to prevent it. The question is, do non-standard parental arrangements have enough of a negative effect on children to warrant litigation enforcing traditional family structures? My personal belief in relation to the OP is that a mother and father is the natural way of things, and is the only scenario that makes any sense.
It doesn't matter how much flowery language you soak it in, prejudice still smells like shit.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
So does a cock pulled out of an ass.
So does being a bigot.
This just in: Straight couples have anal sex too.
My "prejudice and bigotry" is opinion explained logically as well as anyone else's in this thread. I'll even prove to be a wiser man by considering a rational disagreement before dismissing it out of hand with cliche.
Why do you oppose gay couples adopting kids?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
What values could a man and a woman instill in a child that two men or two women could not? Are you also against single parent adoption? If not, how is 2 parents not better than 1 regardless of gender?
jclast: I don't know that it's about which values can be instilled by whom intentionally. Most of what children learn from their parents isn't verbally handed down or given in a textbook. It's behavior learned by example. That comes back to bite ALL parents in the ass, gay or straight or whatever.
Adoption is a tricky issue regardless of who we'd prefer to be parents. There are more kids than willing and fitting homes, even if open to single parents or gay couples. It would clearly be best if a child had two parents rather than one.
1) a loving and well-adjusted gay couple should be just as good parents as a loving and well-adjusted straight couple by your logic then so long as either set of them sets a good example for the child.
2) two parents is not always better than one - single parent instead of an abusive home with two parents immediately jumps to mind as an example.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything like that. Where did I say that a gay couple should be just as good at parenting as a straight couple?
I already pointed out that there are situations where the formula does not hold. However, the single parent would be well assisted by a non-abusive partner who could help raise the child. The optimal situation is still two parents, whether it's possible or not.
(1) the American Psychiatric Association
(2) the American Psychological Association
(3) the American Academy of Pediatrics
And in the other corner...
Forgive me if I'm not swayed.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Hey wowee, non-biased scientific studies, as rigorously screened for objectivity as these forums. Less even, since none of us get paid to share our opinions. I'm too lazy to go looking up contradicting studies, I'm not that hardcore on internet fights. Hot political topics breed biased studies in both directions, and arguing the merits of one source against another doesn't sound like a fun Wednesday night to me.
Forgive me if I fail to bow to your links as irrefutable.
What possible reason could you have for accusing both APAs and the AAP of bias?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
EDIT: Beat'd like I was by my father.
Do you have links to any large-scale studies that claim otherwise? Any at all? If you don't, shut up already. Seriously. Next thing you know, you're going to tell us God is going to smite us for not having a problem with gay people, or *shock horror* being gay.
Oh wow, this is incredibly weak. I've seen creationists even that were more successful at backpedaling out of a corner than this.
I'll just say the same thing I tell them, if you can't defend your (bigoted) position with anything more substantial than "I think so," then please, leave the arguing to those that can.
Anyway, on topic:
My fiancee and I are both interested in bringing another girl into the relationship, but we recognize just how rare qualities we're actually searching for, for this to work out.
Requires a vast amount of trust, which we both possess already, but also a distinct lack of jealousy, which is another trait we share.
Buh? Even agreeing to the notion that this is purely a hedonism issue; says who?
Well, the last post is likely in jest, but honestly, there are plenty of siblings out there who get along just fine knowing they're loved equally, then you have the inherently more jealous ones that will have a problem with it.
Solution is of course, don't bring jealous people into the relationship, it won't work at all.
This. Even if gay couples are sub-optimal, which I have no reason to suspect they are since some handy research was just linked but let's assume it is just for the sake of argument, it is still a metric ton better than growing up in an orphanage.
LoL: failboattootoot
Yeah, but at least growing up in an orphanage they won't catch teh gayzorz. :?
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
No, they'll catch teh sylyphisis from the pedo caretaker. Muuuuch better!
Things don't have to be permanent.
College students a lot of times have classes a few hours a day and just need to study the rest. Once can study and watch kids at the same time and I know of several women who worked as live in nannies while they went to college and several others that helped out with relatives in exchange for a free place to live.
I have good friends that recently had a baby and neither could take much time off. But the wife's sister wants to go to school in the state they live in and spending a year helping them out establishes residency for her and cuts her tuition by 2/3. Everybody wins, the couple in question has help with the baby and doesn't have to pay an arm and a leg for childcare and the sister is thrilled that she gets to go to school for less money.
In my family both my little sister and I lived with my older sister and exchanged free childcare for a place to live and food during an internship. Those were each only 3 months but they were situations that worked very very well.
I think the OP was thinking about things on a more permanent basis, but the costs of childcare fall dramatically around 1 year and at potty training so temporary changes to living situations can have a big impact on a couple's finances.
And if I knew how to multiquote I would lime the fact that the choice for adoption isn't between straight couple and gay couples. It is between foster homes and actual parents. (for the record I do think that gay parents make just as good parents as straight parents).
Agreed that it works far better for temporary situations - generally that seems to be the third party suggesting the idea though, as in the "I'll babysit the kids in exchange for not having to pay for residence while I go to school." Doesn't seem to be what the OP is suggesting, as you mentioned.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
The OP didn't seem to have much focus. I just wanted to point out that there are lots of situations where couples do exactly what is suggested and it works very well for all involved.
There has mostly been negative reactions in the thread so far and I think that is partly because so many different ideas are being conflated.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
It's a lot more like Medusa, in most cases.
Edit: LOVE ME AS MUCH AS YOU LOVE HER OR I WILL FEAST ON YOUR FLESH!
It just comes down to a point where I have to speak from personal experience, ya know? Like I said, if it works for someone, then that's great. But in my own experience, and from those that I know, all of these relationships ended when someone wasn't getting the satisfaction that they wanted.
It's always boiled down to me deciding that I like someone enough to want monogamous, dedicated, relationship with someone, and them not liking the idea, or vice versa. Or, someone who feels like they're the main/more important/significant other feeling that their partner is giving someone else too much attention.
And finally, I simply don't condone the practice anymore because of the prevalence of STDs. You can't trust everyone you sleep with, and neither can someone else ensure that trust in other people.
Every instance that I can think of has resulted, whether quickly or over the course of years, in horrible, soap opera quality, "Let's all meet in Sheep's house and cry and scream and figure out who gave me the herp". And one particularly funny episode where two people were in an "open" relationship where she ended up sleeping with his brother. Suddenly, it wasn't so open.
Again, I'm not saying it's wrong or bad, I've practiced it before and so have pretty much everyone else I know.
But they and myself cut it out when we've found someone that we care enough about to be there for them 100% of the time because we don't want to deal with the inevitable emotional and physical issues that tends to come with these types of relationships.
I'm just expressing my opinion in context with the OP. If you're in the minority where this actually works for you, and you and your spouse are perfectly happy, congrats and I hope things continue to work.
Sex is a basic, primary, urge for humans. Other than my fiancee and the few long term relationships I've had, I've never had sex for the benefit of someone else.
Unless you enter a relationship with full knowledge and are in completely agreement, starting a relationship and then saying, "you aren't enough, I need to sleep around" is a selfish act, and if that's the case you shouldn't be in a serious relationship with that person.
I'm making a clear distinction between seriously being ready to start a family, and not being ready to start a family and still wanting to sow your oats and get out and party and see the world or whatever euphemism people use.
I'd also like to add that, while I sure as hell enjoy sex as much as the next guy, I find our current culture glamorizes it to extremely gross amounts and usually when someone tells me that they gotta sleep around and get their fill, I tend to ask them if it's because they simply don't have anything better to do with their lives.
That's a bit assholish to say, and it's not aimed at anyone in particular or any particular group, just the sex obsessed nature that I see in so many people is getting mundane.
And who gets to decide optimal? Because I'd say that "optimal" would be two full-time parents, four full-time grandparents, and a large number of aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. all available all the time to help raise and nurture a child. Obviously we don't always get everything we want, but "optimal" sure as hell isn't just "mommy, daddy, and baby."
If we really want to define optimal then I think my best stab would be "a loving home where the child is well-provided for."
You do realize that in some circles, we call what you're looking for a "unicorn" (see definition 5), right?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
In principle, how is this any different from somebody deciding that their spouse is spending too much time at work? Or spending too much time on a hobby? Or, hell, spending too much time playing WoW?
Plenty of monogamous people get STDs, too. I wholly reject the notion that polyamory inherently puts you at greater risk of STDs. Number of partners, use of protection, and testing habits are all going to be significantly more important than whether your lifestyle is poly or monogamous.
First off, I find it funny that you base your argument on the notion that 'sex is selfish except with somebody you're in a long-term relationship with.' It seems like you have this unassailable mental block against seeing the secondary partners as having serious long-term potential.
Anyway, I hope you don't spend every waking moment in abject servitude to your partner. There should be some room in a relationship for "selfish acts." Again, to use a similar argument as the first part of my post, watching the Super Bowl is a selfish act if your partner hates football. Going on a raid in WoW is a selfish act if your partner doesn't play with you. That something is a "selfish act" does not necessarily imply that it is completely forbidden.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And in this corner, coming up with an astounding 3 punch knock-out, the victor, FERAL.
Seriously, "I dont trust peer-editted journals" is such an admit of defeat when it comes to reasoned argument. There is nothing psych professors love doing more than poring over the details of academic papers hoping to find some tiny problem with the methodology or results so that they can denounce the whole paper. Unfortunately, "I dont like the gays Ive met" isn't a valid argument against it.
So, having sex with multiple people who are having sex with multiple people doesn't put you at greater risk of contracting an STD than just sleeping with one person who is only sleeping with you?
I've never said that anything is forbidden. I've stated plenty of times that if you can make it work, then go for it.
I'm just saying it isn't likely.
I also think that sex holds a little bit more importance than spending too much time at work, or on WoW.
If you can't see yourself settling down with one person, but need to fulfill your needs with multiple, then you shouldn't be getting married. Also, if you are a workaholic to the point where it could affect a relationship, you should hold off on getting married. If you have a videogame addiction, you shouldn't be getting married. Unless you marry someone who is 100% okay with this.
I don't know why you're suddenly jumping to extremes. It's not about servitude, it's about compatibility. Even if you're doing something that your SO is reacting to in an unreasonable manner, you probably shouldn't be in a relationship with that person.
To reiterate, if you can make it work, fine. But based on human condition, it rarely works. So when the OP suggests if adding someone to a family to alleviate social problems is a good idea, I have to respond that it isn't.
Inherently? No.
Could it? Yes, certainly. Depends on how fast and loose people play it.
I admit, I've seen plenty of poly people who are really just sluts who sleep around haphazardly. Of course, I've seen self-described monogamous people who do the same. Some people are serial monogamists; two weeks with one partner, then three with another, then a one night stand. Their short relationships simply never overlap. And of course there are people who spend a long time with one partner, then break up, go through a slutty phase where they fuck everything that moves for six months, and then once they get it out of their system end up with another monogamous partner.
On the other hand, there are "poly" people who never actually have PIV intercourse with their secondary partners, limiting themselves to lower risk behaviors. Or possibly very limited contact, as in the BDSM community where some people limit their contact exclusively to toys and hands. Or their poly-ness is restricted to a closed group, like cohabitating triads; or they simply don't change partners that often.
All I'm saying is that there are so many other factors, so many different types of open lifestyle, and so many different behaviors that you can't really say that being poly inherently increases the risk of STDs. It depends entirely on your "style" of poly.
I've never said that anything is forbidden. I've stated plenty of times that if you can make it work, then go for it.[/quote]
Fair enough. You did say that.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yah I tried to point this about 20 posts ago but Cognisseur seemed to think I was all for alcoholic fathers and some anti gay shit. Dude what is that guys damage?
I don't really like derailing threads and rehashing old arguments, but you are personally asking me.
Edit: And I was not claiming you're anti-gay, I only asked you to clarify your position in my initial post because that's the way it sounded.
I am claiming Slimjane2k is anti-gay, which is where most of my gay-related posts in this thread are located because of posts about how a gay couple is in the category of not-good parenting, and how a mother and father is the "natural way" and therefore only way that makes sense.
Yeah, I think most of us could agree upon that.
Though honestly, I have to agree with Sheep. Most the poly or open relatinships I have seen either lead to jealousy and relationship explosions, or is just someones excuse for sleeping around while having a solid to come home to.
Not saying it can't work, just saying it is hard to make it work.