Page 341 of 418 FirstFirst ... 241291331339340341342343351391 ... LastLast
Results 3,401 to 3,410 of 4172

Thread: The OT thread V1

  1. #3401
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    Cohabitation forces cooperative reliance to some extent, which is fundamentally opposed to the basic precepts you have laid-out for your open relationships. The practicality of openness is superseded by responsibility... or at least how I see it.

    Procreation as a purely biological function is not really what I meant. Bad term there, rather child rearing. Despite unfounded claims to the counter, there is a strong body of information that suggests that kids do better in traditional mom-dad families. Even if you dispute that and suggest same-sex couples can have the same success, the structural instability of the open system is not ideal for child development. Logically, I don't see a way around it.

    This coming from a square that just celebrated my 14th year of marriage.
    why do you think open relationships are fundamentally opposed to cooperative reliance? its actually the exact opposite, its a larger network of humans to support yourself with.

    same thing on child rearing.

    admittedly i do not have personal experience on the topic, as i do not plan to have children, and do not co-habitate with my partner (yet). but i also know poly folks in both situations. when you have children its actually massively helpful to have community of like-minded adults to help out with the children. the poly parents i know can't think of doing it any other way. i mean people do, they just end up paying through the nose for adult supervision of there children, but in a polycule, the children have a much larger network of adults to care for and raise them. far more efficient and trustworthy than babysitters and day care and crap like that. reduces both actual costs, and most importantly, relationship costs, as the adults can now spend more reliable time with each other as well.

    talking about the "structural stability" of a system that fails catastrophically 50% of the time, is really, not a strong foundation to put your argument on.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 08-23-2018 at 09:26 AM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  2. #3402
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    704
    Or how about this for a radical idea!! Couples could actually, you know, TALK to each other!! Shocking concept, I know...
    Dear boy, I work at Planet Eclipse, don't you know..

  3. #3403
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Wood View Post
    Or how about this for a radical idea!! Couples could actually, you know, TALK to each other!! Shocking concept, I know...
    yup
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  4. #3404
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    704
    Basically that is the crux of your point. If you can talk about your sexual desires and preferences with your partner, you can pretty much talk about anything.

    But starting from the basis of both of you being "poly", whatever that is, you are already miles ahead of the curve. Plus, both of you being poly would suggest you are far closer to the liberal (morally and sexually) end of the spectrum, so therefore more open to a relaxed and open style of communication where ideas, feelings and desires can be openly discussed. All essential in maintaining a lasting, happy and healthy relationship, regardless of your sexual bent.
    Dear boy, I work at Planet Eclipse, don't you know..

  5. #3405
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Wood View Post
    Basically that is the crux of your point. If you can talk about your sexual desires and preferences with your partner, you can pretty much talk about anything.

    But starting from the basis of both of you being "poly", whatever that is, you are already miles ahead of the curve. Plus, both of you being poly would suggest you are far closer to the liberal (morally and sexually) end of the spectrum, so therefore more open to a relaxed and open style of communication where ideas, feelings and desires can be openly discussed. All essential in maintaining a lasting, happy and healthy relationship, regardless of your sexual bent.
    absolutely, as i detailed in my first post, entering into a poly relationship was the kick in the pants as it were to actually having fully open communication. and i know most folks are like "yeah im open with my partner too" but man, i've been in a lot of relationships, most pretty serious, with a lot of different women, some that were verging on married, and there is no comparison in openness of communication to this one. its kinda mind-blowing actually.

    the linked pod-cast is mostly about the same thing. the notion that marriage is overburdened right now, that "traditional" marriage never really existed and that the pressure on modern partnerships to be everything to everyone is simply unrealistic. and thats why it fails so often, and that there are methods and way to unburden your marriage and let it be whats great about it, and not try to force what is shitty about it. this ted talks deals with it alot: https://www.ted.com/talks/esther_per...m_relationship

    communication is key. as i fall deeper into the kink community, communication becomes even more key.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  6. #3406
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    why do you think open relationships are fundamentally opposed to cooperative reliance? its actually the exact opposite, its a larger network of humans to support yourself with.

    same thing on child rearing.

    admittedly i do not have personal experience on the topic, as i do not plan to have children, and do not co-habitate with my partner (yet). but i also know poly folks in both situations. when you have children its actually massively helpful to have community of like-minded adults to help out with the children. the poly parents i know can't think of doing it any other way. i mean people do, they just end up paying through the nose for adult supervision of there children, but in a polycule, the children have a much larger network of adults to care for and raise them. far more efficient and trustworthy than babysitters and day care and crap like that. reduces both actual costs, and most importantly, relationship costs, as the adults can now spend more reliable time with each other as well.

    talking about the "structural stability" of a system that fails catastrophically 50% of the time, is really, not a strong foundation to put your argument on.
    Reliance is the opposite of freedom. You can't walk away from a contract without significantly steeper consequences. At that point you have to enter a binding cohabitation agreement to avoid common law marriage (in Texas). So, you move in together and the freedom is gone.

    Child rearing is a more difficult conversation. Saying it fails 50% of the time is kills your basic notion. Time and time again, research shows that the development of children is fostered in a stable environment. The fact that marriage does fail 50% of the time and does have HUGE impacts on a child doesn't support poly in any way. Rather it suggests that the instability (which poly is by nature) is detrimental.

    As I said, I've been married 14 years (and have been in a stable relationship with her for ~16) and, as Jack said, our roots have always been open communication. We also adopted a silly rule early on, but "nobody goes to bed mad." So, we hash out our differences as they come up as opposed to burying them in a closet. There's also the understanding that if, it's not working out, then we both agree to part ways mutually. As far as a relational philosophy, I think it's similar to Ray Dalio's concept that "Pain + Reflection = Progress." This core fundamental is vital in finding joy over hapiness, but requires commitment. Empowerment through security and not control.

    Heh, as for kids killing sex...


    (A joke, but kids didn't change much.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD1Xjdr1TbM
    Last edited by ironyusa; 08-23-2018 at 12:56 PM.

  7. #3407
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    Reliance is the opposite of freedom. You can't walk away from a contract without significantly steeper consequences. At that point you have to enter a binding cohabitation agreement to avoid common law marriage (in Texas). So, you move in together and the freedom is gone.

    Child rearing is a more difficult conversation. Saying it fails 50% of the time is kills your basic notion. Time and time again, research shows that the development of children is fostered in a stable environment. The fact that marriage does fail 50% of the time and does have HUGE impacts on a child doesn't support poly in any way. Rather it suggests that the instability (which poly is by nature) is detrimental.

    As I said, I've been married 14 years (and have been in a stable relationship with her for ~16) and, as Jack said, our roots have always been open communication. We also adopted a silly rule early on, but "nobody goes to bed mad." So, we hash out our differences as they come up as opposed to burying them in a closet. There's also the understanding that if, it's not working out, then we both agree to part ways mutually. As far as a relational philosophy, I think it's similar to Ray Dalio's concept that "Pain + Reflection = Progress." This core fundamental is vital in finding joy over hapiness, but requires commitment. Empowerment through security and not control.

    Heh, as for kids killing sex...


    (A joke, but kids didn't change much.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD1Xjdr1TbM
    so your proposition that we need monogamous marriage is that its shitty to get out of, and thats why people use it to rely on one another?

    what if you just like this person and don't want them to have a shitty time in life? and they come to rely on you for that support, and you get that support from them? do you have a contract with your friends?



    my point is a child can have a stable environment in a poly situation. and that in a non-poly situation the child still doesn't have that stable of an environment. my parents for example did make it work, and it was not a stable situation for the children. and they are on the half of the coin toss that kept it together.

    why is instability inherent in a poly relationship? esp compared to the massive failure rate of monogamous marriage?


    no where did i say having children meant the end of sex, and its pretty strange that you jumped to that conclusion when i said that the adults can spend time together without needing to always be taking care of the kids. how does that translate to "having kids is kills the sex"
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 08-23-2018 at 01:09 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  8. #3408
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    I think the same lady that you linked earlier does a pretty decent job of unpacking you at around ~13:00 here: https://www.ted.com/talks/esther_per...has_ever_loved

    No, I'm saying poly isn't freer or less dependent. By it's nature cohabitation forces dependence and dependence is an antithesis to independence/ freedom, which has been a central point as you discuss poly. So, I don't believe there is any liberating attribute to poly, particularily after you move in together.

    I also don't agree that poly will ever be a "stable environment" and since you made the claim, you need to support your assertion that it is a reasonable environment to raise kids. I think it's completely unreasonable and the tribal influence comes with things like school and other activities, with a stability at home.

    I don't believe this statement: "reduces both actual costs, and most importantly, relationship costs, as the adults can now spend more reliable time with each other as well." I take that to mean intimate time, whether in meaningful discussion or sex. Either way, if your prioritize those things (above your kids) then you'll do them.

  9. #3409
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    I think the same lady that you linked earlier does a pretty decent job of unpacking you at around ~13:00 here: https://www.ted.com/talks/esther_per...has_ever_loved

    No, I'm saying poly isn't freer or less dependent. By it's nature cohabitation forces dependence and dependence is an antithesis to independence/ freedom, which has been a central point as you discuss poly. So, I don't believe there is any liberating attribute to poly, particularily after you move in together.

    I also don't agree that poly will ever be a "stable environment" and since you made the claim, you need to support your assertion that it is a reasonable environment to raise kids. I think it's completely unreasonable and the tribal influence comes with things like school and other activities, with a stability at home.

    I don't believe this statement: "reduces both actual costs, and most importantly, relationship costs, as the adults can now spend more reliable time with each other as well." I take that to mean intimate time, whether in meaningful discussion or sex. Either way, if your prioritize those things (above your kids) then you'll do them.
    independence/freedom isn't the point of being poly, where did i say that?

    i think children have been raised by tribes far longer than they have been raised by nuclear families, and the failure of the nuclear family is pretty obvious to even the most pro-nuclear family person. why else would we be having this discussion at all? why else would we be coping (badly) with these relationships and the fallout generationally from them going badly? id in fact argue that children being raised by a tribe is far closer to the "natural" state than the artificially constructed notion of the nuclear family. its also far more stable to have a diversity of humans for children to interact with, because there is a greater chance that one of them will be stable, rather that just two people, who most often argue with each other, and only two people, who can create a toxic home environment very easily because they ARE the home environment.

    most to the point, i dont think its productive to try and argue what is better for the children, monogamy or not. rather, my argument is two fold 1. monogamy and the nuclear family isn't really any paragon of stability or some kind of gold standard for child rearing and 2. poly relationships are not inherently in there structure any worse, and can have certain advantages in child rearing. and maybe 3rd: for most of human history, tribes have raised children, not nuclear families. the nuclear family is a bad 1950s joke.

    reliable time that two people can spend together doesn't just mean sex. nor does intimacy mean sex. sex means sex.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 08-23-2018 at 02:22 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  10. #3410
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    There is at least some investigation into how children fare in monogamous, non-monogamous, and polygynous groups. It generally says that poly groupings harm children. I generally support the idea of using a village to support kids, so perhaps it is that the poly structure doesn't actually create the nurturing tribe that children need? I'm uncertain of that, but the research starts here:

    http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o...t/367/1589/657

    Key quote is "Living in the same household with genetically unrelated adults is the single biggest risk factor for abuse, neglect[,] and homicide of children."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •