Polyamory (1637 hits)
Category: RomanceRating: -0.72 on 109 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by PepsiCoke (View user info) at 2008-03-11 05:00:26 EDT
Human beings are not monogamous by nature. Nor is there any objective science telling us that monogamy is the ideal. The institution of marriage in the modern Western world is very much a product of antiquated Christian values.
The ideal, to me, is a community in which relationships have no institutional recognition. Sex is not sacred. It is an act of physical and emotional pleasure and biological function. Men and women will not be forced to limit themselves to one sex partner. Technology will be used to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the spread of disease. Communities will share the burden of raising children. If a parent dies, leaves, or is otherwise incapable of raising the child, the remaining parent will be able to fall back on the community for assistance. The raising of a child will be a public matter. The entire community will have a say in how the child is educated. Every child will have many parents. Children will not be possessions of their biological parents.
Honesty and complete openness will be the foundations of the community. No thoughts or emotions will be disregarded. Privacy will, in time, become unnecessary.
Jealousy and undesired attachment between sexual partners will be overcome by the brutal power of honesty. Sexual relationships will be acknowledged to be impermanent. Promiscuity will not be frowned upon. Emotions between sexual partners must be constantly discussed to avoid confusion and jealousy.
Everyone will be naked, weather permitting.
User Reviews
Submitted by Banjo (user info) at 2008-03-23 13:44:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Going to have to disregard this as total pigshit bullcrap nonsense. Parents dying and society looking after children...? What do you think already happens when parents die and there's no relatives to take care of said children, the state looks after them and look how well that turns out. Admittedly not a failure in all cases but a family home is the undisputed best place to bring up a child.
Sounds like a cop out to me, you want to go sleep with lots of people and shirk the responsibility when it all goes wrong.
Submitted by rodyarask (user info) at 2008-03-23 13:29:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Did you come up with this all on your own, little boy? Your parents must be so proud.
-2 for plagiarizing at least a million people.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-19 22:39:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I haven't had a "real" job since I was in high school, which is exactly why I don't have to lay off the weed, my friend. I'm the happiest person on the goddamn planet.
You should invest in a nice big bag of weed. You would be a lot less boring.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-03-19 18:18:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Damn, dismas712 was right on the money with his comment.
You are a fucking wacked out mother fucking hippie. Lay off the weed.
Go get a real job, asshole. After you've lived life in the real world, maybe you won't be so god damned ignorant.
Submitted by dismas712 (user info) at 2008-03-16 20:19:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
SCREW YOU HIPPIE!
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-03-16 19:58:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-14 20:34:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Go over what you just said here and then go back through all my reviews and try to understand why you don't make sense. You are REALLY going out of your way to misinterpret me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've got an idea. Why don't you re-read your original post and try to reconcile it with your running commentary? In your post you said that human being are not monogamous by nature, and that there is no objective science to justify monogamy. In your responses you said that polyamory isn't for everyone and agreed that it in fact is not natural to human beings. Are we cool on this? Because the evidence is dead clear both above and below.
>>>You don't respond to my responses. You haven't been telling me my topics don't exist. If you look carefully through the reviews of this post a few more times and seriously think that you've been talking about the same things I've been talking about, then you are simply wrong.<<<<
What part of what I've said above is innaccurate? What words did I put in your mouth? You seem to whine a good game. Let's see some proof.
>>If I was you I wouldn't bother reading any of my posts. I have admitted the poor quality of this post but I stand by what I've said in my reviews... I see your comments and insults and they just don't have anything to do with the things I've written. <<
Your reviews are shit as well. You need to learn how to:
A. Reason, don't whine.
B. Don't get your panties in a bunch because people read what you've put on the screen, not gleaned what you meant from some crystal ball.
C. Grow some bollocks
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-14 20:45:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by netimportant (user info) at 2008-03-13 12:00:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I get where you're coming from and it's cool that you have a desire to be honest about your feelings. I respect people who realize that they need to sleep around and choose to be single more than people who get into committed relationships and cheat on their partners.
I could accept that my partner had feelings for someone else if they were up front about it from the beginning and didn't try to hide things from me. But I couldn't handle a sexually open relationship and I don't think most women could. Social expectations aside, I think it's impractical because women are wired differently.
I think that wanting loyal men is as primal for women as it is for men to want to blow their load in every hole. You are wired to pass on your genes as often as possible and we want someone who will protect our kids. The differences are frustrating because it's hard to find a man who is willing to be loyal but isn't an effeminate pussy.
------------------
What you say about our respective primal desires is a great way of looking at it. I had never really thought of it in those exact terms. It's just another reason why my ideal is nothing more than an ideal. The differences between the sexes is a huge obstacle in trying to find some harmony. But I think what you're saying goes along with my main point about our instincts overriding our reasoning. The female instinct to protect her children has definitely assisted humanity's survival and evolution. But it is also possible to protect children without that instinct. We can think about the importance of child safety and make a conscious decision to protect them, as opposed to relying on our instincts in order to do so. That doesn't mean that we should ignore the fact that our instincts are there, but I think it's always important to recognize how our instincts serve us and how they can also have some side effects.
What you've made me realize is that my instinct to have multiple sex partners is not any more of a true ideal than your monogamous ideal. If both men and women lose their baser instincts, then men should also lose their instinct for multiple partners. I still think there is no real moral difference between monogamy and polyamory, but your points have made me realize that polyamory isn't necessary in the ideal.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-14 20:34:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-03-13 14:51:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-13 05:41:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If your ideal is a monogamous committed relationship, then more power to you and your prospective partner. I don't think that polyamory is for everyone. Nor do I think monogamy is better or worse than having multiple partners.
-------------------------------
Then what exactly did you mean by >>Human beings are not monogamous by nature. Nor is there any objective science telling us that monogamy is the ideal.<<?
You didn't say "I don't think most human being are monogamous by nature," or "I don't feel monogamy is right for me." You didn't give an opinion. You pretended to prescribe to us, as a solid statement of fact, what human nature IS. You later backpedaled, of course, waffling something about 'rhetoric' and 'it of course not really being practical' or having any foundation in nature, human otherwise. What I guess I'm getting at is that you're going to be an alter, you need to pick one story and stick to it.
-----------------------
Go over what you just said here and then go back through all my reviews and try to understand why you don't make sense. You are REALLY going out of your way to misinterpret me. I doubt you'll be able to figure out why you are wrong, which is why I'm not going to waste any more time on you.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-14 20:31:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If you actually bothered to read my response instead of whining on like a filthy hippy in a pot raid, you'd see that I'm not ignoring your 'topics', I'm telling you they don't exist.
-------------
I've taken the time to respond directly to just about everything you've said, so this statement of yours confirms to me that you are not worth talking to. You don't respond to my responses. You haven't been telling me my topics don't exist. If you look carefully through the reviews of this post a few more times and seriously think that you've been talking about the same things I've been talking about, then you are simply wrong. If I was you I wouldn't bother reading any of my posts. I have admitted the poor quality of this post but I stand by what I've said in my reviews.
I'm not going to read anything else you write, at least not on this post. You're condescending, narrow-minded and capable of writing coherent sentences. That's about all I've gathered from your responses. You have said very little with very many words.
I see your comments and insults and they just don't have anything to do with the things I've written.
I tend to avoid wasting time trying to evaluate my own intelligence and I'm not interested in your evaluation, either. If you're trying to make me "realize" how stupid I am, it's not going to work.
Submitted by Fungah (user info) at 2008-03-13 22:06:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
OBJECTIVITY IS A LIE.
WAKE UP.
LEARN THE TRUTH.
http://tinyurl.com/2yezzo
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-03-13 14:51:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-13 05:41:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If your ideal is a monogamous committed relationship, then more power to you and your prospective partner. I don't think that polyamory is for everyone. Nor do I think monogamy is better or worse than having multiple partners.
-------------------------------
Then what exactly did you mean by >>Human beings are not monogamous by nature. Nor is there any objective science telling us that monogamy is the ideal.<<?
You didn't say "I don't think most human being are monogamous by nature," or "I don't feel monogamy is right for me." You didn't give an opinion. You pretended to prescribe to us, as a solid statement of fact, what human nature IS. You later backpedaled, of course, waffling something about 'rhetoric' and 'it of course not really being practical' or having any foundation in nature, human otherwise. What I guess I'm getting at is that you're going to be an alter, you need to pick one story and stick to it.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-03-13 13:04:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-13 01:29:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
So you posted this idea of yours --one you admit has no grounds in natural law or practical reality-- on a website known for its immaturity and hate... and I'm the big meanie?
-------------
You're obviously content to throw insults. I don't really care, but I hope you realize how much you're wasting your time. I'm wasting my time, too, but it won't be such a waste of time if you decide to settle down and just talk about things that are actually worth debating. Nothing that we are talking about right now is even slightly productive or even amusing.
You could have turned this into a cool debate. Instead you just display how many hilarious hippy insults you can come up with. I get it. You think I'm a dirty hippy. You keep trying to make the argument that I'm stupid or an alter or whatever. I don't give a shit. Why is your interest only in me and how stupid I am? Why is your interest not in the topic? I've admitted that this post was sub-par multiple times and I've tried to help redirect the conversation, and yet you still harp on how stupid I am and how awful the post was. It surprises me that you, someone who can write coherently and is clearly interested in taking the high ground, isn't at all interested in talking about the topics that I originally wanted this post to highlight. I admit again that the post is a failure, but I think I've cleared up my positions pretty well in my reviews. If you want to talk about human instincts and polyamory then I'd be more than happy to do so.
If you want to talk about issues, I am very open minded. If you want to talk about personalities and intelligence judgements, I'm not interested. That stuff usually bores the shit out of me. At least it bores me in this case because I'm not trying to match you insult for insult.
We don't know each other. You don't know my background and I don't know yours. If you knew me in person I bet we could sit down and have a nice chat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you actually bothered to read my response instead of whining on like a filthy hippy in a pot raid, you'd see that I'm not ignoring your 'topics', I'm telling you they don't exist.
If you strip out the comments about jealousy and attachment not being reasonable emotions -- as you said yourself that they are both natural and practical, and that your theory in this regard has no historical basis and would not work except in some Platonic daydream-- and strip out the bit about forced marriages --as you said yourself that you were just being colorful-- all you're really saying is that your utopia would have all the wee wacky woohoo you don't get in real life. Big whup. Mine would revive the sailing warship and the duel. And I'd like to live in a large stone house with several dogs. And I'd like a large cup of tea about now. These are not topics of conversation or vehicles for rhetoric; they are qualifiers.
So you want to live someplace where you can walk around naked and have sex with other people regardless of age or gender. Is there something preventing you from doing that now? If not, is there any reason I should care? The only point of interest I find in your post is how your society would work with people like me. You said you're interested in exploring all emotions in your make believe world, that no emotion would be disregarded, but you seem to have an issue with my disapproval and disgust (both perfectly natural and productive emotions) even though it has no bearing on your life or your dreams.
Submitted by Ejryuu (user info) at 2008-03-13 12:18:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Soooooo your current partner is bad in bed and you'd like to visit other playing fields? Still, an interesting ideal that makes sense.
Submitted by netimportant (user info) at 2008-03-13 12:09:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Also, I think if you get involved with someone who excites you enough sexually and mentally, you will have little need to be with other people.
Submitted by netimportant (user info) at 2008-03-13 12:00:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"But if I love two women who love me, and I want a sexual and romantic relationship with both of them, I think it would be nice to be able to express my true feelings. I think they each have a right to know. Is it practical to be completely honest like that? No. Which is why I don't run around telling a bunch of girls that I want relationships with them. But in the big picture, why is it impractical? That's what I'm asking, really. Ultimately, I think it's impractical because of jealousy and possessiveness and things like that."
I get where you're coming from and it's cool that you have a desire to be honest about your feelings. I respect people who realize that they need to sleep around and choose to be single more than people who get into committed relationships and cheat on their partners.
I could accept that my partner had feelings for someone else if they were up front about it from the beginning and didn't try to hide things from me. But I couldn't handle a sexually open relationship and I don't think most women could. Social expectations aside, I think it's impractical because women are wired differently.
I think that wanting loyal men is as primal for women as it is for men to want to blow their load in every hole. You are wired to pass on your genes as often as possible and we want someone who will protect our kids. The differences are frustrating because it's hard to find a man who is willing to be loyal but isn't an effeminate pussy.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-13 05:41:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by netimportant (user info) at 2008-03-13 04:02:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You can't get rid of the people who find committed relationships more satisfying--they do exist. I have multiple sex partners but it's because none of them want only me, not because I find it more fulfilling. It's mildly depressing to know that if I ever got pregnant, I wouldn't have a loving and supportive partner, I would have a free ride to the abortion clinic. My ideal is a crazy passionate relationship with one person, filled with hot sex and allowing room for flirtation with other people. I would probably draw the line before introducing other sex partners into a dedicated relationship.
What society do you live in, anyway? Do they cut off your head if you have sex with more than one person? If you don't want monogamy, why don't you just not get into a monogamous relationship? Wanting a society to adhere to your liberal views on sex is just as dumb as conservatives pushing monogamy on other people. Sexual lifestyles are personal choices, not communal ones, and I'm not going to raise your fucking kids because you screw a lot of people.
------------------------------
If your ideal is a monogamous committed relationship, then more power to you and your prospective partner. I don't think that polyamory is for everyone. Nor do I think monogamy is better or worse than having multiple partners. I am absolutely not trying to force my personal sexual policies on anybody. I'm just stating my fantasy of how I would like my relationships to be.
And getting away from my post and back into the real world, I think that it's unreasonable to expect that an equal number of men and women will want to have multiple sex partners. You're right to say that my opinion is probably a typical male viewpoint. But I'm being honest about it. I completely respect a woman's right to choose her sexual partners or to choose to have no sexual partners. But if I love two women who love me, and I want a sexual and romantic relationship with both of them, I think it would be nice to be able to express my true feelings. I think they each have a right to know. Is it practical to be completely honest like that? No. Which is why I don't run around telling a bunch of girls that I want relationships with them. But in the big picture, why is it impractical? That's what I'm asking, really. Ultimately, I think it's impractical because of jealousy and possessiveness and things like that.
As for society's reactions, no I don't have my head cut off for having multiple partners. I never suggested that. I'm not even complaining about my current sex life. I'm very satisfied with my sex life, actually. But there is certainly a strong majority of people in this country that espouse the opinion that monogamy is the only acceptable sort of sexual relationship. I think that at its core it is a religious issue.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2008-03-13 05:14:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
How refreshing.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-13 05:12:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I always figured the reason people reject all that hippy shit is because of how impractical it is, not because they didn't actually want to do it. I wish I could sit around and sing and dance and fuck and play drums and guitar and get drunk and high all the time. That sounds pretty great. I know I can't keep that up for my whole life, though, so I generally settle for one or two of those things at a time and I only do them when I need a break from being responsible.
In an ideal world that was free of human flaws, I think a Hippy Pleasure-Fest could be a daily occurence. The purpose of looking at an ideal is to compare it to our own world and try to find the problems that keep us from attaining that ideal. The ideal I came up with for this post was bad and ripe for misinterpretation.
If I was ever in a hippy drum circle I sure as hell wouldn't be singing "Kumbaya" because that song blows ass.
Submitted by netimportant (user info) at 2008-03-13 04:09:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Honesty and complete openness will be the foundations of the community. No thoughts or emotions will be disregarded. Privacy will, in time, become unnecessary."
I just reread this and it sounds even more insane than the first time. I dream of a community where no one is dishonest and everyone is compassionate and sits around the fire and sings Kumbaya!
That must be some good fucking weed, what's your dealer's number?
Submitted by netimportant (user info) at 2008-03-13 04:02:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"The ideal, to me, is a community in which relationships have no institutional recognition. Sex is not sacred. It is an act of physical and emotional pleasure and biological function. Men and women will not be forced to limit themselves to one sex partner."
You could have summed this all up with "I am a man." OMG GENERALIZATION
While one sexual partner for the rest of your life sounds boring, I imagine many open relationships end with the man becoming obsessed with other women, or the woman getting jealous and insecure.
You can't get rid of the people who find committed relationships more satisfying--they do exist. I have multiple sex partners but it's because none of them want only me, not because I find it more fulfilling. It's mildly depressing to know that if I ever got pregnant, I wouldn't have a loving and supportive partner, I would have a free ride to the abortion clinic. My ideal is a crazy passionate relationship with one person, filled with hot sex and allowing room for flirtation with other people. I would probably draw the line before introducing other sex partners into a dedicated relationship.
What society do you live in, anyway? Do they cut off your head if you have sex with more than one person? If you don't want monogamy, why don't you just not get into a monogamous relationship? Wanting a society to adhere to your liberal views on sex is just as dumb as conservatives pushing monogamy on other people. Sexual lifestyles are personal choices, not communal ones, and I'm not going to raise your fucking kids because you screw a lot of people.
Why the fuck did waste my time typing all that? Who cares? I hate Ubersite.
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2008-03-13 03:41:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Honesty and complete openness will be the foundations of the community. No thoughts or emotions will be disregarded. Privacy will, in time, become unnecessary
========
I'm down with the uninhibited sex, but do I really have to talk to...people?
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-13 01:36:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2008-03-12 16:43:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Privacy will, in time, become unnecessary
---
everyone has a right to thier secrets.
------------------------
They do. In the times we live in, personal privacy is extremely important. Financial privacy is one thing that I think is overrated but these days we need as much personal privacy and freedom as possible.
In an ideal world, privacy would become obsolete because rational thinking and open-mindedness would prevent misunderstandings and harmful judgement. It will never happen. We need privacy now more than ever.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-13 01:29:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
So you posted this idea of yours --one you admit has no grounds in natural law or practical reality-- on a website known for its immaturity and hate... and I'm the big meanie?
-------------
You're obviously content to throw insults. I don't really care, but I hope you realize how much you're wasting your time. I'm wasting my time, too, but it won't be such a waste of time if you decide to settle down and just talk about things that are actually worth debating. Nothing that we are talking about right now is even slightly productive or even amusing.
You could have turned this into a cool debate. Instead you just display how many hilarious hippy insults you can come up with. I get it. You think I'm a dirty hippy. You keep trying to make the argument that I'm stupid or an alter or whatever. I don't give a shit. Why is your interest only in me and how stupid I am? Why is your interest not in the topic? I've admitted that this post was sub-par multiple times and I've tried to help redirect the conversation, and yet you still harp on how stupid I am and how awful the post was. It surprises me that you, someone who can write coherently and is clearly interested in taking the high ground, isn't at all interested in talking about the topics that I originally wanted this post to highlight. I admit again that the post is a failure, but I think I've cleared up my positions pretty well in my reviews. If you want to talk about human instincts and polyamory then I'd be more than happy to do so.
If you want to talk about issues, I am very open minded. If you want to talk about personalities and intelligence judgements, I'm not interested. That stuff usually bores the shit out of me. At least it bores me in this case because I'm not trying to match you insult for insult.
We don't know each other. You don't know my background and I don't know yours. If you knew me in person I bet we could sit down and have a nice chat.
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2008-03-12 16:59:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Wow. You're just not gettin any poontang, huh?
Submitted by DudeThatsBOSH (user info) at 2008-03-12 16:50:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2008-03-12 16:43:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Privacy will, in time, become unnecessary
---
everyone has a right to thier secrets.
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2008-03-12 16:38:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2008-03-11 06:21:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Did you just read K-Pax or something?
_______________
I was thinking the same thing.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2008-03-12 14:46:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-03-12 14:03:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
---
I love it when you get all wound up.
There are few people on this site that possess the verbal acumen to string together such an entertaining collection of words to illustrate just how utterly disgusted they are.
It's art.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-03-12 14:03:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-12 11:26:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Icarus,
I will say this for the last time, and if you keep harping on the same things then I'm going to give up and you can count it as a victory for yourself if that makes you happy.
This ideal is RHETORICAL. It is not PRACTICAL. I've said or implied that quite a few times. This post is not about trying to get everybody to live in a commune. You keep pointing out how this ideal would never work. I agree with you. It's never going to happen.
The point of this RHETORICAL IDEAL was to point out some irrationalities in our emotions and in our culture. Let me know if you understand that. I will happily admit that this is a bad post. But there is no point in you continuing to argue against things that I'm not even saying.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you posted this idea of yours --one you admit has no grounds in natural law or practical reality-- on a website known for its immaturity and hate... and I'm the big meanie? There are two possibilities here. Either you're extraordinarily stupid, which I kinda doubt as you seem to be able to string a few words together, or you're a shit-stirring alter. I've been assuming that the answer's behind door #2, and giving you all the heat you could want, but if you're just a garden variety moron, please let me know.
You can say it was just some anal compulsive Platonic utopian fantasy, and you can sit here acting like a self-martyring, pretentious twat, trying for some reason to get me to focus on what you MEANT, not what you SAID. Reality? It doesn't matter. You can go have sex with whoever consents to let your hoo hoo go into their guadelahara. You can go move to New Mexico with your friends Ted and Jill, hang out in the buff, and bang them all you want. As long as you can sell enough handmade bongs to pay for your yurt, that's your right as an American. I'm still going to think you're a complete anklebiter of a hippy, but I think that sort of thing about a lot of people, so I fail to see the problem here.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-03-12 13:55:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
yeah, clothes leave something to the imagination and keep you warm and i like that.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2008-03-12 12:37:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I think clothing should be mandatory.
Other than that, I like the way your brain works.
You are a welcome addition to the muck.
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2008-03-12 11:54:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
=(
No one remembers me.
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2008-03-12 11:40:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2008-03-11 14:43:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
what did this have to do with AJ?
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2008-03-11 13:20:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2008-03-11 12:17:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
i thought this was going to be about the big gay giraffe.
:(
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-12 11:32:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-03-12 11:20:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-12 10:56:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"there is no longer as much social stigma attached to people who choose not to marry and have casual relationships. In the most part countries do not state that you 'Have' to marry."
---------
Maybe there is less social stigma than there once was, but I think there are still very powerful societal pressures towards marriage. Filing taxes jointly is one lure of marriage. In the long run, cultural trends always seem to become more liberal. Right now I think there is definitely still a stigma against polyamory. If people want to rely on the institution of marriage then it's their right to do so. But I also believe that polyamorous relationships are not immoral and that among the right group of people such relationships can be very productive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's your example of societal pressures? If you get married or have a child, or make other major changes to your lifestyle just because you get a write-off on your taxes, you're a greedy, weak-willed idiot. Since when is the IRS an enforcer of American virtue? And what about single lifestyles you see portrayed on television and in movies? What about simply looking around at your friends? I'm 30 and married, and I'm in the minority in my circle.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't get married or have a child for the tax break, but it is still definitely a passive pressure. The government rewards you for getting married. I'm not suggesting that many people go and get married just for the tax break (though it's not unheard of) but it is still an example of the state encouraging marriage. The IRS
There are single lifestyles portrayed on television and in movies. There are also a lot of sitcoms and movies based on two-parent families. Religion is a big part of our culture and it overwhelmingly supports traditional marriage. Most people in America are Christians, and that alone is a huge factor in encouraging marriage.
Most of my friends are married. They have their reasons. I'm not married but I've been in a relationship for a long time. In my circle I'm definitely the minority.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-12 11:26:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Icarus,
I will say this for the last time, and if you keep harping on the same things then I'm going to give up and you can count it as a victory for yourself if that makes you happy.
This ideal is RHETORICAL. It is not PRACTICAL. I've said or implied that quite a few times. This post is not about trying to get everybody to live in a commune. You keep pointing out how this ideal would never work. I agree with you. It's never going to happen.
The point of this RHETORICAL IDEAL was to point out some irrationalities in our emotions and in our culture. Let me know if you understand that. I will happily admit that this is a bad post. But there is no point in you continuing to argue against things that I'm not even saying.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-03-12 11:20:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-12 10:56:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"there is no longer as much social stigma attached to people who choose not to marry and have casual relationships. In the most part countries do not state that you 'Have' to marry."
---------
Maybe there is less social stigma than there once was, but I think there are still very powerful societal pressures towards marriage. Filing taxes jointly is one lure of marriage. In the long run, cultural trends always seem to become more liberal. Right now I think there is definitely still a stigma against polyamory. If people want to rely on the institution of marriage then it's their right to do so. But I also believe that polyamorous relationships are not immoral and that among the right group of people such relationships can be very productive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's your example of societal pressures? If you get married or have a child, or make other major changes to your lifestyle just because you get a write-off on your taxes, you're a greedy, weak-willed idiot. Since when is the IRS an enforcer of American virtue? And what about single lifestyles you see portrayed on television and in movies? What about simply looking around at your friends? I'm 30 and married, and I'm in the minority in my circle.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-12 11:15:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I hate the idea of having a say over other peoples children and them over mine. I just find it very uncomfortable I honestly believe that it could never work because everyone would never completely agree.
Humans without the emotions pepsi wants us to shed lose their humanity and their ability to reason properly.
------------------
It's rare that a mother and father completely agree on everything about raising their children. I think adding the influence of a few more close friends will only serve to mediate conflict between biological parents.
I don't want humans without emotions. I think that the things I'm suggesting in my comments will in fact free us to be more emotive and more human and will help us think and reason more clearly.
This is an admittedly pretty lousy post. I wrote the nudist colony post as sort of a sarcastic version of this. I was trying to be slightly more serious here just to have some conversation about polyamory and the value of certain instinctive emotions.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-03-12 11:10:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 23:05:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
------------------------------
If you want to argue semantics, then I'll admit I should have used a better word than "forced". What I mean is that our culture vehemently encourages monogamy. Maybe not forced. I'm sorry. You don't have to tell me to shut the hell up. Is it really that satisfying to be pointlessly mean?
--------------
1. What particularly portion of this very basic concept are you having trouble wrapping your brain around? Force is force. Either you coerced someone into doing something by force or threat of force, or you did not. It's that simple. If you get married because your mother wants grandkids, that isn't force. It's you lacking a set of bollocks.
2. What century are you living in? Are you living among the Amish or in some backwoods small town in Wisconsin? I'm thirty and married, and in the minority among my friends. The majority of your television shows out there feature single people, and many could easily be said to advocate the single lifestyle.
3. Yes it is. And if I'm supposed to put up with your being a shit-stirring alter, you could at least put up with me being a dick without whining like a pre-teen girl.
Not even close. I never said anything like that. You keep ignoring the very simple points I was trying to make.
------------------
What point? That you think that, even though it goes against nature and a basic sense of hygiene, it's "reasonable" for humans to be a bunch of naked hippy whores? Where's your logic? Where's your historical proof that this could theoretically work in the modern world? This post is nothing but a touchy-feely mass of conjecture.
For the last time, this is an IDEAL. Have you ever encountered the rhetorical use of an ideal before? I am not trying to mold our current culture to my ideal. The point of the ideal is to spark discussion. The discussion was basically supposed to be about whether or not jealousy and possessiveness and monogamy are all necessary.
---------------
This is discussion. You stated your ideal for a society. I've clearly showed you why it wouldn't work. You can't control who's in your society, and you will . As a result, there's going to have a TON of people like me. Hell, I look like a pacifist compared to some of people you'd have to incorporate.
Well, I definitely don't want to build a hippy commune, so you're again putting words in my mouth. I'm very happy with my current situation. But I don't think communal living is impossible among the right group of people. If you're proud to say you want to slaughter people like me then that's weird. I suspect you're just trying to sound tough and cool and funny. Eh.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What group of people? Utah? Some make-believe D&D race? Your girlfriend and your friend Bob?
2. I think wanting to be a naked, stinking hippy is weird, so we're par on this one.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-12 11:05:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by whiskey_jack (user info) at 2008-03-12 02:09:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You want to leave raising children up to the public?! Have you never been outside? People are morons when in groups
--------------
No, I wouldn't want my own children raised by strangers, but I would like my friends and family to be a big part of my child's upbringing. People do this already. I think healthy polyarmous relationships could facilitate a better upbringing for kids. I think everyone benefits when a child has more than one or two major influences. It eases the strain on parents and it gives the children some more balance and perspective.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-12 10:56:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"there is no longer as much social stigma attached to people who choose not to marry and have casual relationships. In the most part countries do not state that you 'Have' to marry."
---------
Maybe there is less social stigma than there once was, but I think there are still very powerful societal pressures towards marriage. Filing taxes jointly is one lure of marriage. In the long run, cultural trends always seem to become more liberal. Right now I think there is definitely still a stigma against polyamory. If people want to rely on the institution of marriage then it's their right to do so. But I also believe that polyamorous relationships are not immoral and that among the right group of people such relationships can be very productive.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-03-12 10:46:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-03-12 05:45:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-03-11 22:55:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
There's no bantering about the meaning of the word, so either show me where these "forced marriages" are common, or kindly shut the hell up.
=================================================================
are you serious? i've been to 5 different countries where this is common....
-------------------
See for context: >>I wasn't aware we still had arranged marriages or bride sales in the first world; assumed, like scurvy and witch burning, that they were confined to the Middle East, Africa, and the Ozarks.<<
Show me the forced, legal, societally acceptable marriages in the US, Britain, Canada, France, etc. I don't want "well, it happens in Darfur," "it USED to happen in the early 1800's", or "it happened this one time in this secret cult I saw on Sixty Minutes."
Submitted by DrogoRoch (user info) at 2008-03-12 06:33:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Forced marriages are most definately happening in some places in the world. Aparently here in Blighty children are Dissapearing from schools and being whisked away to places to get married. There is no doubts a movie in that somewhere.
I get Pepsi's idea about 'Forced Monogamy' but the way he said it was wrong. People are no longer forced into Monogamy, there is no longer as much social stigma attached to people who choose not to marry and have casual relationships. In the most part countries do not state that you 'Have' to marry.
I hate the idea of having a say over other peoples children and them over mine. I just find it very uncomfortable I honestly believe that it could never work because everyone would never completely agree.
Humans without the emotions pepsi wants us to shed lose their humanity and their ability to reason properly.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-03-12 05:45:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-03-11 22:55:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
There's no bantering about the meaning of the word, so either show me where these "forced marriages" are common, or kindly shut the hell up.
=================================================================
are you serious? i've been to 5 different countries where this is common....
and he/she wasn't talking about forced marriage in the literal sense, anyway. he/she meant it's the societal norm and in many families, if you don't follow the norm you are an outcast or the black sheep, or even worse, disowned.
i think PepsiCoke makes some good points.
Submitted by whiskey_jack (user info) at 2008-03-12 02:09:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You want to leave raising children up to the public?! Have you never been outside? People are morons when in groups
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 23:11:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not really interested in talking about hippy comunes and all that stuff. I'm sorry if my post mislead you into thinking that I was.
If you want to talk about the value of instinct, I would be more than happy to keep talking about that.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 23:05:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"""Forced, to my knowledge, is forced; as in coerced through the use of force, real or implied. There's no bantering about the meaning of the word, so either show me where these "forced marriages" are common, or kindly shut the hell up."""
------------------------------
If you want to argue semantics, then I'll admit I should have used a better word than "forced". What I mean is that our culture vehemently encourages monogamy. Maybe not forced. I'm sorry. You don't have to tell me to shut the hell up. Is it really that satisfying to be pointlessly mean?
"""So basically, let's boil it down to this: you think everyone else should be just like you"""
------------------
Not even close. I never said anything like that. You keep ignoring the very simple points I was trying to make.
"""because you, like everyone else on the planet, think you're an evolutionary step above the hoy paloy. There's no real logic behind what you're asking. There's no historical example. You can't even tell us HOW this utopia of yours would work beyond people would just use "reason" to go against their natural instincts; I mean it worked SO well with communism, after all."""
----------------
For the last time, this is an IDEAL. Have you ever encountered the rhetorical use of an ideal before? I am not trying to mold our current culture to my ideal. The point of the ideal is to spark discussion. The discussion was basically supposed to be about whether or not jealousy and possessiveness and monogamy are all necessary.
"""So let's keep it at this; there will always be people (you) who want to build hippy communes, and there will always be people (me) who want to tear them down and slaughter their population.""
-------------------------
Well, I definitely don't want to build a hippy commune, so you're again putting words in my mouth. I'm very happy with my current situation. But I don't think communal living is impossible among the right group of people. If you're proud to say you want to slaughter people like me then that's weird. I suspect you're just trying to sound tough and cool and funny. Eh.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 22:56:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
whoops. "allows me to leave happily as a non-rapist."
Meant to say "LIVE happily as a non-rapist".
My urges to rape a bunch of women don't overwhelm me or most people. A long time ago, almost all sex was forced. Society recognized that the instinct to rape needed to be overcome, and we HAVE overcome it for the most part.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-03-11 22:55:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 22:45:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-03-11 17:13:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 16:55:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
My post should've just said:
Even though jealousy is a natural feeling, does that mean it's a good thing? Does it still serve a purpose?
Should we not acknowledge that jealousy is irrational? Wouldn't truly enlightened human beings be able to realize that the confines of forced monogamy are boundaries that prevent us from really being honest with ourselves?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forced monogamy?.. I wasn't aware we still had arranged marriages or bride sales in the first world; assumed, like scurvy and witch burning, that they were confined to the Middle East, Africa, and the Ozarks.
If you're going to be an alter, at least be a consistent one. Either you're for the natural order, or you're not. There is a rationale to the natural order; jealousy is a very useful instinct if you'd care to keep what's yours. To my knowledge, virtually all animals have it in one form or another.
--------------------------------------------
You know what I mean by "forced monogamy" and you're choosing a false interpretation of what I said. I don't mean that anyone should be forced into a marriage. I just mean that, ideally, it would be socially acceptable for people to extend their romantic relationships beyond one person.
You're second comment is the sort of response I was trying to get out of this post. I was looking for explanations about why the natural order is supposedly the best. I think in some cases it is and in some cases it isn't. I don't think it is black and white. The natural order includes the instinct to rape every attractive woman I see. The values of our society have evolved in such a way that allows me to leave happily as a non-rapist. That is an example of the natural order being overcome. If you want to say that "you're either for the natural order or you're not" then I definitely disagree. There are instincts that are useful and there are instincts that are destructive.
Jealousy may be a useful instinct if you care to keep what is yours. That's true. I'm not saying that feelings of jealousy have never caused people to do "good" things. But we can also use rational thought to keep what is ours. I think that I can protect my own things without the instinct of jealousy. I think I've evolved beyond it. If I have something and I want to keep it then I can think about why I want it and decide that I will defend it. I don't have to succumb to baser instincts in order to realize that it is worthwhile to protect things that are worth defending.
Do you want to talk about this post, ignore it, or throw around a bunch of lame insults? I'd prefer to talk about it but it's up to you.
-------------------------------------------
Forced, to my knowledge, is forced; as in coerced through the use of force, real or implied. There's no bantering about the meaning of the word, so either show me where these "forced marriages" are common, or kindly shut the hell up.
So basically, let's boil it down to this: you think everyone else should be just like you because you, like everyone else on the planet, think you're an evolutionary step above the hoy paloy. There's no real logic behind what you're asking. There's no historical example. You can't even tell us HOW this utopia of yours would work beyond people would just use "reason" to go against their natural instincts; I mean it worked SO well with communism, after all.
So let's keep it at this; there will always be people (you) who want to build hippy communes, and there will always be people (me) who want to tear them down and slaughter their population.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 22:52:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HellRazer (user info) at 2008-03-11 20:36:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I think that there are kids in the world who grew up without parents that would passionatly disagree with you.
--------------
Where did I say that I think kids shouldn't have parents? That's the opposite of what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting MORE parents. I think parents should raise their kids and I think extended family and friends should also play a major support role.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 22:50:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-03-11 22:00:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Yeah, you fucking put your kid in my yard and it will spend the rest of its short, anguished life in a sweatshop.
---------------
I hope you snickered really hard to yourself after wrting this little chestnut.
I've never had children. I don't want to have any. But I do love taking care of kids. My nieces and nephews are a lot of fun and it's really rewarding being a major part of their upbringing. I won't let them into your yard, but they are great kids and I'm sure you would change your mind if you met them.
I'll await your pedophile jokes.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 22:45:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-03-11 17:13:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 16:55:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
My post should've just said:
Even though jealousy is a natural feeling, does that mean it's a good thing? Does it still serve a purpose?
Should we not acknowledge that jealousy is irrational? Wouldn't truly enlightened human beings be able to realize that the confines of forced monogamy are boundaries that prevent us from really being honest with ourselves?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forced monogamy?.. I wasn't aware we still had arranged marriages or bride sales in the first world; assumed, like scurvy and witch burning, that they were confined to the Middle East, Africa, and the Ozarks.
If you're going to be an alter, at least be a consistent one. Either you're for the natural order, or you're not. There is a rationale to the natural order; jealousy is a very useful instinct if you'd care to keep what's yours. To my knowledge, virtually all animals have it in one form or another.
--------------------------------------------
You know what I mean by "forced monogamy" and you're choosing a false interpretation of what I said. I don't mean that anyone should be forced into a marriage. I just mean that, ideally, it would be socially acceptable for people to extend their romantic relationships beyond one person.
You're second comment is the sort of response I was trying to get out of this post. I was looking for explanations about why the natural order is supposedly the best. I think in some cases it is and in some cases it isn't. I don't think it is black and white. The natural order includes the instinct to rape every attractive woman I see. The values of our society have evolved in such a way that allows me to leave happily as a non-rapist. That is an example of the natural order being overcome. If you want to say that "you're either for the natural order or you're not" then I definitely disagree. There are instincts that are useful and there are instincts that are destructive.
Jealousy may be a useful instinct if you care to keep what is yours. That's true. I'm not saying that feelings of jealousy have never caused people to do "good" things. But we can also use rational thought to keep what is ours. I think that I can protect my own things without the instinct of jealousy. I think I've evolved beyond it. If I have something and I want to keep it then I can think about why I want it and decide that I will defend it. I don't have to succumb to baser instincts in order to realize that it is worthwhile to protect things that are worth defending.
Do you want to talk about this post, ignore it, or throw around a bunch of lame insults? I'd prefer to talk about it but it's up to you.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-03-11 22:00:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Yeah, you fucking put your kid in my yard and it will spend the rest of its short, anguished life in a sweatshop.
Submitted by HellRazer (user info) at 2008-03-11 20:36:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I think that there are kids in the world who grew up without parents that would passionatly disagree with you.
Submitted by Gravity_Purple (user info) at 2008-03-11 19:06:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I like the idea of sleeping around. I don't like the idea of raising other peoples kids.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-03-11 17:13:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 16:55:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
My post should've just said:
Even though jealousy is a natural feeling, does that mean it's a good thing? Does it still serve a purpose?
Should we not acknowledge that jealousy is irrational? Wouldn't truly enlightened human beings be able to realize that the confines of forced monogamy are boundaries that prevent us from really being honest with ourselves?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forced monogamy?.. I wasn't aware we still had arranged marriages or bride sales in the first world; assumed, like scurvy and witch burning, that they were confined to the Middle East, Africa, and the Ozarks.
If you're going to be an alter, at least be a consistent one. Either you're for the natural order, or you're not. There is a rationale to the natural order; jealousy is a very useful instinct if you'd care to keep what's yours. To my knowledge, virtually all animals have it in one form or another.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-03-11 17:03:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 07:53:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The point of this post is to point out the real problem with polyamory is not that it is somehow immoral. The only reason it isn't practical because of irrational human emotions like jealousy and possessiveness. That's all.
------------------
You actually meant this as something more than a stupid joke? Somehow I'm not convinced, but I'll play along. By all evidence, "jealousy and posessiveness" are the oldest of animal instincts. Only hippies think otherwise, and that's mostly the pot talking.
Submitted by pandora (user info) at 2008-03-11 17:02:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I only have three things to say about this:
1.) I don't want any kids, and I don't want to raise anybody else's. We have enough irresponsible parents around now who think their part in "parenting" began and ended with spreading their legs.
If the community has to help raise the kids, we should limit how many kids people can have.
2.) No matter where I live and under what circumstances, I will always want privacy. Always. If I don't get enough "alone time", I tend to get stabby.
3.) Being nude all the time may be all right for you, but imagining a scenario of riding a crowded bus will cure ANYONE of their nudist fantasies. The only thing standing between you and everyone else's wet farts, oozing STDs, menstrual blood, and habitual crotch-scratching is a pair of pants. Think about it.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 16:55:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
My post should've just said:
Even though jealousy is a natural feeling, does that mean it's a good thing? Does it still serve a purpose?
Should we not acknowledge that jealousy is irrational? Wouldn't truly enlightened human beings be able to realize that the confines of forced monogamy are boundaries that prevent us from really being honest with ourselves?
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-03-11 16:51:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I will carronade your stinking, filthy, venereal cess pool of a hippy community into the ground and build a Best Buy upon your ashes.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 16:45:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by MANICMOTHER (user info) at 2008-03-11 08:33:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 07:53:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The point of this post is to point out the real problem with polyamory is not that it is somehow immoral. The only reason it isn't practical because of irrational human emotions like jealousy and possessiveness. That's all.
------------------
Irrational human emotions like jealousy and possessiveness? You don't get outside much do you? Possessiveness of mate and territory, maternal protection of offspring are NATURAL instincts that have been with us since BEFORE we wandered out of the trees and decided walking upright was the new fad. Have fun changing basic specie survival instincts. Shouldn't take more than a few 100k years with our "enlightened" humans.
I'm done, I'll crawl back to my hole now. Certainly a bit cheerier than this place.
----------------------------------------
I never said that maternal protection of offspring was bad. In fact, if you read my responses below you would see that I explicitly stated that it was a good thing. I think possessiveness of mates and territory is irrational. A long time ago, these emotions helped us survive. My argument is that we no longer need them, and it would be IDEAL if we could evolve beyond them.
Most of you that are trashing this post are arguing against points that I never made.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2008-03-11 16:30:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
do you like soda alot?
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-03-11 16:30:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Crystle (user info) at 2008-03-11 15:52:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I couldn't disagree more.
this is how pedophilia starts.
=================================
??
i believe pedophilia starts in a sick mind. there are many cultures that raise children as a community. there is a little of that in western culture. not exactly co-parenting, but we have mentors for children that can help in areas where the biological parent can't.
as far as having multiple sexual partners, it's working out pretty well for me. if you can do it right, it's great. i keep my freedom, but i still get to have mind-blowing, animal sex. i just had some very fulfilling sex an hour ago. now i'm going to get some work done from home and then go hang out with friends later. i love days like this. i would be miserable being married and not having my time all to myself.
having one partner works fine for some people. it doesn't work for everyone, especially not me. sex is really not something sacred to me. i do treat it with respect, though. it's just something humans do instinctively and it feels awesome and is very healthy for you (well, as long as you're being safe about it). i don't buy that you need to be in a monogamous marriage to have a healthy sex life.
Submitted by Crystle (user info) at 2008-03-11 15:52:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I couldn't disagree more.
this is how pedophilia starts.
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2008-03-11 14:43:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
what did this have to do with AJ?
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-03-11 14:04:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You failed Psychology 101, didn't you?
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2008-03-11 13:59:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
http://uuinthepines.org/
Polyamory-friendly. My parents told me after they went there on an Elderhostel. They didn't know it was polyamoy-friendly beforehand. Funniest goddamned thing ever, that.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2008-03-11 13:50:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
No one "forces" you to have one sexual partner, its only how many husbands/wives you have that is restricted by law. Go fucking crazy.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2008-03-11 13:20:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2008-03-11 12:17:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
i thought this was going to be about the big gay giraffe.
:(
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2008-03-11 13:05:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
sure that's all good until your population reaches 5...and nobody wants to fuck you because Joe Schmoe has better proficiency in the sack.
what about your fat? do I have to have sex with them or can I stick to the hotties...and how will they squeeze me into their sex schedules? being the hottest chicks in the community probably means they're booked.
I think you misspoke. MEN aren't monogamous by nature. we can pollinate any time of the day, any day of the year. women are fertile for about a week every month. that's Darwin telling us that guys should be shagging more broads...it's why men cheat. women cheat for different reasons. for them, it's not a natural, constant horniness that forces them to get some strange ass.
it doesn't matter anyway. STDs will be the death of the human race.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2008-03-11 12:17:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
i thought this was going to be about the big gay giraffe.
:(
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-03-11 12:16:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
AND YOU WONDER WHY I THOUGHT YOU WERE A BROAD???
Submitted by Ballare (user info) at 2008-03-11 12:02:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
tried to "date" a polyamorous once, didn't go over so well
I guess I'm just irrational
Submitted by Rhymenocerous (user info) at 2008-03-11 11:23:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Who's Barry Badrinath?
Who's Barry Badrinath?
Who's Barry Badrinath?
Who's Barry Badrinath?
Who's Barry Badrinath?
Who's Barry Badrinath?
Who's Barry Badrinath?
Submitted by Yozz (user info) at 2008-03-11 10:16:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Good luck with that.
Submitted by NotSteve (user info) at 2008-03-11 10:01:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
tard
Submitted by ArnieGeddon (user info) at 2008-03-11 09:51:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
just negating that idiot ltap. WHY didn't his father blow on the sheets.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2008-03-11 09:48:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You've obviously had no educational background in psychology.
Submitted by Ltap (user info) at 2008-03-11 09:37:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
this idea is kind of interesting although it's been talked about a lot, have a +2 for all the crap you'll take from people.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-03-11 08:49:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
If you were able to go back in time, go back to early man's time. Walk up to said early man and try to take his mate. Chances are he'd rip both your arms off.
The subject of your post has already been covered, more or less, in Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World.'
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2008-03-11 08:46:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
this read like Fitter Happier on OK Computer, or by someone who just lost their virginity.
I look forward to another nervously irritable piece when you're a parent.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2008-03-11 08:43:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Banging a bunch of girls when I was young and then getting married and having kids worked out pretty well for me.
Submitted by MANICMOTHER (user info) at 2008-03-11 08:33:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 07:53:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The point of this post is to point out the real problem with polyamory is not that it is somehow immoral. The only reason it isn't practical because of irrational human emotions like jealousy and possessiveness. That's all.
------------------
Irrational human emotions like jealousy and possessiveness? You don't get outside much do you? Possessiveness of mate and territory, maternal protection of offspring are NATURAL instincts that have been with us since BEFORE we wandered out of the trees and decided walking upright was the new fad. Have fun changing basic specie survival instincts. Shouldn't take more than a few 100k years with our "enlightened" humans.
I'm done, I'll crawl back to my hole now. Certainly a bit cheerier than this place.
Submitted by lostnphound (user info) at 2008-03-11 08:29:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
RC Cola.
Submitted by orphelia (user info) at 2008-03-11 08:23:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
The idea you thought Drogo could get internet 'angry', I find as hilarious as your post.
I have bought a smashing new belted red mac. I feel like a flasher in the making...
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2008-03-11 08:14:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
the beauty of the world is that if you wanted to live as you have mentioned here...you are free to do so.
you don't have to get married, its not a law nor will you be publicly shunned for not doing so.
you don't have to be monogamous, you can sleep with whoever you'd like and whenever you'd like. you options maybe change as some people will not see this as wanted behavior but so be it.
the idea of imposing 'rules of the world' on oneself for the simple reason of rebelling against them is futile and a waste of time.
don't you have something more important or rewarding to do with your time?
Submitted by DrogoRoch (user info) at 2008-03-11 08:10:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 08:02:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DrogoRoch (user info) at 2008-03-11 07:21:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Also your use of 'Irrational Emotions' is just fucking pretentious and idiotic. Who decides what is irrational or not? You? Fuck me I hope not.
We are humans. Part of the great thing about us is that we can think for ourselves and feel love and hurt. It makes us what we are.
-----------------
Jealousy and possessiveness are irrational, in my opinion. I was pretty much stating that opinion in this post. Why don't you talk about that instead of just getting angry? This post is just my view on how stupid emotions get in the way of things. You're an idiot if you think this post was a call for everyone to start fucking everyone else.
I really like feeling love. I don't like feeling hurt. I want to be happy all the time. Some people say that they want to feel pain because it lets them know they are human. But at the same time you don't hear happy people complaining about not feeling enough pain. Personally, I'd rather just be happy all the time. I don't think that hurting is a "great thing about us". Maybe it is necessary for some people to feel some pain to appreciate pleasure. Happiness is still the goal. Being happy all the time is still what I want. I don't want to suffer and I don't want others to suffer.
-
Damn Pepsi. Believe me when I say this. 'I'm not angry in any way shape or form' I dont let the strange and wodnerful world of the internet get me angry.
My problem with your 'Ideal' here is that in this super evolved emotionally stable and wonderful land of chocolate and loveliness is just gross.
Yes no one wants to feel hurt or pain, tough i'm afraid. It's going to happen and it has to happen. It is a natural part of life and balance and will always be there until someone in your perfect little utopia discovers a way of keeping us all alive forever, and considering how many babies you would no doubts have in this wonderfully promiscuous society that could cause some serious issues on 'How to feed them, 'Clothe them' 'House them'???????
If you remove all these 'Irrational Emotions' as you call them you just end up with automatons, strangely not human. Personally I dont like the idea of it.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 08:02:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DrogoRoch (user info) at 2008-03-11 07:21:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Also your use of 'Irrational Emotions' is just fucking pretentious and idiotic. Who decides what is irrational or not? You? Fuck me I hope not.
We are humans. Part of the great thing about us is that we can think for ourselves and feel love and hurt. It makes us what we are.
-----------------
Jealousy and possessiveness are irrational, in my opinion. I was pretty much stating that opinion in this post. Why don't you talk about that instead of just getting angry? This post is just my view on how stupid emotions get in the way of things. You're an idiot if you think this post was a call for everyone to start fucking everyone else.
I really like feeling love. I don't like feeling hurt. I want to be happy all the time. Some people say that they want to feel pain because it lets them know they are human. But at the same time you don't hear happy people complaining about not feeling enough pain. Personally, I'd rather just be happy all the time. I don't think that hurting is a "great thing about us". Maybe it is necessary for some people to feel some pain to appreciate pleasure. Happiness is still the goal. Being happy all the time is still what I want. I don't want to suffer and I don't want others to suffer.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2008-03-11 08:01:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I thought that this would be about AJ.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 07:53:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-03-11 07:02:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
*shakes head*
You're a loony.
So what about other aspects of your mad society? Will people be paid to mop up the jizz or is it going to be more of an assignment thing? WHat's your position on stem cell research? What will be the punishment for criminals and delinquents?
----------------
In an IDEAL society there aren't very many criminals and delinquents. They are subject to laws and punishments and rehabilitation.
How do you mop up your jizz?
By the time the ideal society happens, stem cells will have been exhaustively researched.
The point of this post is to point out the real problem with polyamory is not that it is somehow immoral. The only reason it isn't practical because of irrational human emotions like jealousy and possessiveness. That's all.
Submitted by DrogoRoch (user info) at 2008-03-11 07:21:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 06:51:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The bond between mother and child is beneficial and it is completely allowed in my ideal. But my ideal also calls for input and mediation from the community. The evolved human mother will accept this assistance for the good of her child and herself.
--
You do realise how fucking Creepy this sounds dont you?
Also your use of 'Irrational Emotions' is just fucking pretentious and idiotic. Who decides what is irrational or not? You? Fuck me I hope not.
We are humans. Part of the great thing about us is that we can think for ourselves and feel love and hurt. It makes us what we are.
We get your point Pepsi, you want to have sex! Thats great, but it may be time for you to open up your wallet and pay for it because if you're waiting on your 'Evolved Human Female' to come along you may have a long old wait.
It's beyond me that someone would even type out 'Evolved Human Mother' and expect people to take him seriously, even an alter for fuck sake.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-03-11 07:02:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
*shakes head*
You're a loony.
So what about other aspects of your mad society? Will people be paid to mop up the jizz or is it going to be more of an assignment thing? WHat's your position on stem cell research? What will be the punishment for criminals and delinquents?
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 06:51:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-03-11 06:34:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Alright mate look, here's the thing:
People form attatchments, whether you or they like it or not. Now I'm willing to overlook the bond formed between brother and bitch, but the bond a pregnant bitch will form with her baby is a much more serious affair.
----------------------
The bond between mother and child is beneficial and it is completely allowed in my ideal. But my ideal also calls for input and mediation from the community. The evolved human mother will accept this assistance for the good of her child and herself.
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-03-11 06:48:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I've seen your face. Don't talk about sex, uggo.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 06:45:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-03-11 06:39:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Incidently; promiscuity isn't really frowned upon in our own culture.
----------------
Maybe not in certain pockets of our culture, but there are very few people in this country that would say promiscuity is a good thing, even if it is responsible promiscuity.
I don't think promiscuity in our current society is a good thing. Most people aren't strong enough to deal with its effects.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 06:43:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There's nothing wrong with bonds if they are rational and constructive and enjoyable by all parties. But there are parts of human nature that do need to be combated and eliminated. The urge to rape is one of those things that society has, for the most part, determined to be an intolerable evil. Jealousy and possessiveness are evils, too. We need to overcome them rather than set up legal boundaries to protect ourselves from ever encountering them. My ideal society wouldn't work at all in a world where jealousy and possessiveness are seen, indirectly, as virtues.
Again, my ideal assumes that humans have evolved and rid themselves of irrational emotion.
Submitted by HurtByTheSun (user info) at 2008-03-11 06:40:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Sucks.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-03-11 06:39:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Incidently; promiscuity isn't really frowned upon in our own culture.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-03-11 06:34:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Alright mate look, here's the thing:
People form attatchments, whether you or they like it or not. Now I'm willing to overlook the bond formed between brother and bitch, but the bond a pregnant bitch will form with her baby is a much more serious affair.
That's it really. I mean basically what you're saying could work theoretically but it is akin to saying that you'll give your class of under 10's a kicking every week to 'toughen them up'. It WILL make them tougher, but it will also make them mental.
I suppose you could levy that argument at anything though: You can read a newspaper everyday and it WILL make you more informed but it will also make you mental. The thing is though that life is fundamentally awful and the ONLY thing worthwile in any real sense are those bonds which you're seeking to be rid of.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 06:34:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
A (relatively) practical step in the direction of this ideal is the legalization and societal acceptance of polyamorous families. I would live with a family of a few heterosexual women and a few heterosexual men that all loved each other. We would have a few kids. We'd all raise the kids together. I know I would be capable of withstanding the harsh honesty that would come with that kind of relationship. It would only be a matter of finding partners who were equally capable and willing.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 06:29:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This little ideal that I set up is an ideal. I even used the word "ideal". It doesn't account for human irrationality. It assumes we've evolved beyond it. This is not a model for what the United States should turn into.
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2008-03-11 06:21:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Did you just read K-Pax or something?
There are people in my community I don't want anywhere near my children. Your utopian ideal would work great if we weren't human beings.
Submitted by DrogoRoch (user info) at 2008-03-11 06:10:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I dont believe for a minute that you really believe in this kind of crap.
If you have multiple people all having an 'Equal' say in how to bring up children then you will end up with conflict. This model just doesnt work Pepsi. Someone ends up having overall and final say which ends up making the rest completely and utterly useless. This just doesnt work.
and i think this line sums up everything about you: "I will fuck fat girls for the good of the community. Fat guys will get fucked for the good of the community. "
You're a fat guy who just wants to get some ass. Ahhhhh Bless! Cookie?
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 06:01:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"""Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-03-11 05:32:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Communities will share the burden of raising children."
That's awfully vauge, isn't it? And what was that you were on about with everyone having a say in the kids upbringing? Won't that inevitably lead to contradictory teaching?"""
------------------------------------
Thanks for pointing out that unspecificity. I honestly thought I had all of the world's problems solved in this very short post. Now I realize it's more complicated than that!
My parents didn't agree on a lot of things and they contradicted themselves a lot. Having more than two parents will make open discussion of problems easier. There can be mediation. If everyone is completely open and completely honest about having a functional community then more parents will result in more balanced children.
--------------------------------------
"""What about fat and ugly people? What if someone in the community decides they don't like sex or physical intimacy?"""
--------------------------------------
We will sympathize with fat people and help them become healthier. I will fuck fat girls for the good of the community. Fat guys will get fucked for the good of the community. Also, my society will not have as many fat people because gluttony and sloth will be serious taboos. Ugliness that is not health-related will be nonexistent. Our arbitrary views of physical beauty will be known to be just that: arbitrary. This will be common knowledge in my society.
If they don't like physical intimacy then they will not be forced to partake, and they will not be scolded for it.
--------------------------------------
"""Of course all this questions and flaws are irrelevant because what you're essentially saying is "I WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH ANYONE I WANT AND HAVE THEM VIRTUALLY FORCED TO CONSENT, THAT WILL BE AWESOME AND I WON'T FEEL LIKE SUCH A LOSER ANYMORE!""""
--------------------------------------
I never said anything about forcing anyone to consent. Rape is obviously not to be tolerated. But yes, I certainly admit that I want to have sex with a lot of people. So do you.
--------------------------------------
"""I'd find the tragedy comic if it weren't for the fact that I see this post 8 times every year by different people."""
--------------------------------------
It's because everyone wants to have more sex with more people. Duh.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-03-11 05:34:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Do you know what would be an interesting thought?
If we could genetically engineer a pig to look like a beautiful woman, but she has the mind of an animal, would you root her and would that be bestiality?
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-03-11 05:32:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Communities will share the burden of raising children."
-----------------------
That's awfully vauge, isn't it? And what was that you were on about with everyone having a say in the kids upbringing? Won't that inevitably lead to contradictory teaching?
What about fat and ugly people? What if someone in the community decides they don't like sex or physical intimacy?
Of course all this questions and flaws are irrelevant because what you're essentially saying is "I WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH ANYONE I WANT AND HAVE THEM VIRTUALLY FORCED TO CONSENT, THAT WILL BE AWESOME AND I WON'T FEEL LIKE SUCH A LOSER ANYMORE!"
I'd find the tragedy comic if it weren't for the fact that I see this post 8 times every year by different people.
Submitted by DrogoRoch (user info) at 2008-03-11 05:29:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What an amazingly original idea. Sorry just sounds like hippy socialist bullshit being used to try and actually get some action.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-03-11 05:09:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
this is all poppyCOCK.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-03-11 05:09:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There will be orgies.
Submitted by bjrog2 (user info) at 2008-03-11 05:05:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
So, in a nutshell, you're wanting a big, naked, socially-acceptable orgy?
Sign me up