Does 'ethical non-monogamy' really exist?

originally posted by: argentus
a reply to: FlyersFan

We have mentally dabbled with the inclusion of couples or a third to our two, but the reality of the situations were off-putting.

Me too - although went past the mental - once. Wasn't for me.

I got up -- went to find the kids -- and took them for ice cream (they were with a neighbor).

The kids always came first with me.

But I'm thinking of future generations. New thinking for what they will need.

One poster brought this out already, it can indeed result in children born out of wedlock, not taken care of by loving parents. So that is not ethical.

It can also result in the spread of STDs, that is not ethical.

It can also result in a lot of emotional trauma, that is violence in its own right, and is not ethical.

And of course everyone has free will. Just as Adam and Eve had the freewill to disobey and they paid the consequences. There are moral laws of the universe just as there are physical laws, that cannot be broken without paying the penalty. Just as if you jump off a high mountain you will be bound to the laws of gravity and die, thus too breaking God's moral laws he has put in place will also bring about the ultimate consequence of death, and whatever heartache and pain that brings with it.

No it is not ethical.

That's why this world is so screwed up, too many people are too short-sighted, stupid, to see it, even though we live in the midst of a dying, wicked, crass society of lawlessness and moral depravity.

a reply to: Freeborn

If there is no God, then everything is possible?
How then is this different from a dog wedding?

If people don't want to be monogamous then why get marriaged in the first place? Create a commune with sex for all whenever, wherever. It worked out so well for the Manson gang.....

How do you split your attention between two men/women and maintain any symbolance of quality? I won't want to double the work load a healthy relationship would require and my hubby feels the same way.

I think using the brain in ones' head rather than the one between their legs to create the best life possible has the greatest chance of success.

originally posted by: nugget1
If people don't want to be monogamous then why get marriaged in the first place? Create a commune with sex for all whenever, wherever.

Because, of course, it's all about sex.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nugget1
If people don't want to be monogamous then why get marriaged in the first place? Create a commune with sex for all whenever, wherever.

Because, of course, it's all about sex.

Marriage is not all about sex. For those who require/desire multiple partners, marriage shouldn't ever be part of the equation. It takes far more than animal instincts to create a healthy marriage, and nothing more than following ones animal instincts to end one.

a reply to: FlyersFan

But the question is ... does 'ethical non-monogamy' really exist?

Yes, of course it exists. Polygamy is common and legal all over the world.

Most people know about Muslim polygyny, but other societies practice it too. In many African countries it is a highly valued institution. Polyandry is less common, but does exist among human societies on every continent, including the Inuit people of North America.

The societies in which these peoples live are structured to handle the consequences of their marital arrangements, just as Western society is structured to handle the consequences of lifetime monogamy. In most cases, they do it far better than we do in the West, because serial polygamy is more natural to our species than monogamy, and polygamy, even if not serial, makes life a lot easier for all parties concerned. However, it has other, wider social consequences − in a society where a rich man keeps many wives, poor men find it that much harder to wed at all, and social disaffection among young males (the most dangerous demographic) is thereby increased.

The question you are asking, though, is whether non-monogamous relationships can be ethical in Western society. Assuredly they can, so long as all parties involved are in agreement and suitable arrangements are made for any children produced. However, the types of relationship you describe in your OP are not like these; they are simply versions of adultery, and merely reflect your bias against non-monogamous relationships. But there are more ways than one to skin a cat.

It's weird when you think about it.

One man - mutliple women
One woman - multiple men

What about 3 men and 15 women?

Polygamie seems to end up making all the world a family.

When you think about it it's either being friends with benefits or something else, but isn't that always the case.

Though let's say there's polygamy between a man and three women, he still would be able to have sex outside of the relationship.

Reading further, when it comes to relationships where a rich man has multiple wives while a poor man has none, what are the ramification for children born of the rich man when it comes to the overall genepool in those communities?

That's a lot of incestuous interbreeding of half siblings I would think....

originally posted by: Annee
Why wouldn't there be?

There is an intimacy and a special bond that comes from having a monogamous relationship with someone. If you are inviting all sorts of people into your relationship and being intimate with them, then that special one-on-one bond that you would have with another single person is gone. It's a free for all instead of something special just between a pair of people. The whole point of marriage ceases to exist.

originally posted by: nugget1
If people don't want to be monogamous then why get marriaged in the first place?

That IS the point of marriage. Two people who are in love spending their lives together, helping each other, being intimate with each other, bonding with each other, excluding others from that intimacy so that their bond is strong and the family unit survives.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: nugget1
If people don't want to be monogamous then why get marriaged in the first place?

That IS the point of marriage. Two people who are in love spending their lives together, helping each other, being intimate with each other, bonding with each other, excluding others from that intimacy so that their bond is strong and the family unit survives.

I agree with your take on it and to me marriage is also an emotional/psychological needs (trust) and expectations contract between two people. I also consider looking at others with lustful intentions as a form of adultery. Stay single if your intentions are not true or you cannot cleave onto each other as "the two shall become one flesh". I can expand on that where "the two shall become of one mind (intentions/expectations) and of one heart (meeting each others' needs; emotionally, psychologically and physically)". However, having said that, things happen in marriages where perhaps one person's sexual needs are not being met for various reasons, so then there comes the true test to determine if all-in love or sexual gratification wins out. If those concerned agree that the others' sexual gratification needs can be merged into their situation, then it's none of my business. In a that case, asking whether or not that is ethical or moral is not for me to judge.

I recall Dr. Ruth, sex therapist, saying that there are many ways to get the job done without having to go outside the marriage.

a reply to: FlyersFan

It would not work for me, my Mrs is my Mrs, and I'm not up for sharing.

Each to their own all the same where consenting adults are concerned.

After all, we are not the morality police.

Swingers = ethical non-monogamy

I'm far too jealous and my husband is far too disinterested.

We're too old for that hanky panky stuff these days.

Interesting interview between Freud and Dr. Ruth. Freud thought that everything in life revolves around the sex drive/libido. I can understand why the modern psychological science discarded some of Freud's theories by the wayside - even Freud admitted he had tunnel vision.

originally posted by: quintessentone
Freud thought that everything in life revolves around the sex drive/libido.

My major was Psychology. I always thought Freud had his head between his legs. And the psychotherapy he did with his daughter was strange. I always figured she was just saying what she thought her daddy would like to hear. Sex obsessed. There is more to life than sex ... much more. But some people get stuck on it.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: quintessentone
Freud thought that everything in life revolves around the sex drive/libido.

My major was Psychology. I always thought Freud had his head between his legs. And the psychotherapy he did with his daughter was strange. I always figured she was just saying what she thought her daddy would like to hear. Sex obsessed. There is more to life than sex ... much more. But some people get stuck on it.

It appears he had a sexual relationship with his daughter, so there ya go.

ETA: More on 'swinging' from a sex 'expert'.

Matty warns however, swinging is definitely not for everyone, even though it can enhance or improve the sex lives of many couples.

“When couples experience insecurities, jealousy and communication difficulties, swinging can ruin relationships instead of improving them,” she explains.

“Swinging requires a strong relationship and solid sense of trust between partners, and works best for couples when they see it as an enhancement of their existing relationship rather than a replacement for a failing one.

“It really is important for people to understand that swinging only enhances relationships that are strong and happy.”

au.lifestyle.yahoo.com...

a reply to: quintessentone

That would mean his daughter had a sexual relationship with him too.

From what I've heard his psychotherapy came from the years he used coc aine.

originally posted by: Unharmed
a reply to: quintessentone

That would mean his daughter had a sexual relationship with him too.

From what I've heard his psychotherapy came from the years he used coc aine.

From the little psychology I studied, Freud always struck me as a weirdo.