Polyamory 2013

tridentblue

missvicky
Everyone seems to be focusing on the dynamics (jealousy) of the relationship, not on the topic, which is it appears to be a trend, not a fad. And if so, what would a "family" be 50 years from now.

Has anyone else had issues with the link to the CNN news source?

It will be just the same. Some married couples will swing (polyamory) and most won't. Whether the swingers do it openly or clandestinely will be a product of the culture.

You are being heard. But my point is that our sexuality comes from a deep place in us, in many cases more tied to nature than to nurture. Changes in the culture won't change our attractions, that's the lesson of decades of trying to "fix" homosexuals. Nothing will change.

Given the current pressures on the current "family unit"...given the sheer numbers on craigslist looking for housing of same, given the (real) unemployment stats, given the need for health insurance for "families"(quotations because of lack of definition), given the sheer numbers of homeless "families" (quotation marks for the same reason), add nauseum, what do you think the "family " will be within the next 50 years?

I have already seen that dynamic change and not because of polyamory relationships. Because of necessity. However, the polyamory aspect contributes to the evolution of a meaningful "family" and what would that be in just 50 years given our current factors?

To "the Gut": If you have nothing to contribute, please don't

reply to post by tridentblue


Looking back into history, so much of what is really broken in our society today, operated smoothly at one time or another.

Take village life for example. Yes, they were monogamous. But there was a helping and nurturing mentality about them. Orphaned children were cared for without the need for courts and destructive agencies. Widows were cared for and eventually remarried. People worked and played together in harmony.

There were wise people who were cherished for their wisdom. The entire village raised the children. Life was hard and yet better than it is today. Society flourished.

The only downfall was the greedy lords, barons, warmongers and the like.

Our current path in the west is doomed to failure. Since we can not, are prevented from, evolving the next step has to be revolution.

The East also has it's problems. Cultural values in say China are still generally in harmony with the ethos of our species but their necessary population control will bring its own problems to be overcome. In other places overpopulation will cause revolution unless Mother Nature acts to bring us back to stable numbers.

Generally, current societies are doomed. The experiment in 'the rich get richer off the back of the poor who get poorer will end the way it always has. France had a very good solution for that problem, it was the guillotine.

Will we evolve into something better, time will tell. But as long as people have the attitudes already expressed in this thread, I am not hopeful.

P

pheonix358
reply to post by tridentblue

 

Looking back into history, so much of what is really broken in our society today, operated smoothly at one time or another.

Take village life for example. Yes, they were monogamous. But there was a helping and nurturing mentality about them. Orphaned children were cared for without the need for courts and destructive agencies. Widows were cared for and eventually remarried. People worked and played together in harmony.

There were wise people who were cherished for their wisdom. The entire village raised the children. Life was hard and yet better than it is today. Society flourished.

The only downfall was the greedy lords, barons, warmongers and the like.

Our current path in the west is doomed to failure. Since we can not, are prevented from, evolving the next step has to be revolution.

The East also has it's problems. Cultural values in say China are still generally in harmony with the ethos of our species but their necessary population control will bring its own problems to be overcome. In other places overpopulation will cause revolution unless Mother Nature acts to bring us back to stable numbers.

Generally, current societies are doomed. The experiment in 'the rich get richer off the back of the poor who get poorer will end the way it always has. France had a very good solution for that problem, it was the guillotine.

Will we evolve into something better, time will tell. But as long as people have the attitudes already expressed in this thread, I am not hopeful.

P

I agree with you. But what do you think "family life " in America will be like in the next 50 years? You said "we will evolve into something better"...what would be "better"? and why? and how? and does polyamory fit into that evolvolution?

missvicky

tridentblue

missvicky
Everyone seems to be focusing on the dynamics (jealousy) of the relationship, not on the topic, which is it appears to be a trend, not a fad. And if so, what would a "family" be 50 years from now.

Has anyone else had issues with the link to the CNN news source?

It will be just the same. Some married couples will swing (polyamory) and most won't. Whether the swingers do it openly or clandestinely will be a product of the culture.

You are being heard. But my point is that our sexuality comes from a deep place in us, in many cases more tied to nature than to nurture. Changes in the culture won't change our attractions, that's the lesson of decades of trying to "fix" homosexuals. Nothing will change.

Given the current pressures on the current "family unit"...given the sheer numbers on craigslist looking for housing of same, given the (real) unemployment stats, given the need for health insurance for "families"(quotations because of lack of definition), given the sheer numbers of homeless "families" (quotation marks for the same reason), add nauseum, what do you think the "family " will be within the next 50 years?

I have already seen that dynamic change and not because of polyamory relationships. Because of necessity. However, the polyamory aspect contributes to the evolution of a meaningful "family" and what would that be in just 50 years given our current factors?

To "the Gut": If you have nothing to contribute, please don't

Ah, now I see you're deeper point. You're talking about economics, not just individual sexual desires. And you're way, way, smarter than I thought.

One thing I've studied a lot of in history is communism. I've always wanted to understand it. Many on the right, including Reagan, have set out to defend 'the family' as the ultimate bastion against communism. That's why you have groups like 'Focus on the Family' and all these other family value groups so central to the right and conservatives today.

They clearly did their homework and studying, there's a reason they take that stance: Communism was associated with the redefinition of the family to include a much larger group of people, and always has been. Proletariat becomes family, party becomes family. But I think they mixed up cause and effect. I personally believe economic necessity in hard times forces people to redefine family in much larger terms. So your point is deep and has a lot of merit.

If you are the type who can read between lines, this is worthy of reading:

Marx says that the bourgeoisie fears that a proletarian revolution will destroy all culture because bourgeois culture will no longer be produced. What does he imply about the continued existence of culture? Why does he argue it is pointless to use arguments based on freedom, culture, and law against communism? The earliest Western theoretician of communism, Plato, had argued for a lottery rotating the matings of men and women to create a sense of solidarity in which all citizens would view themselves as part of one big family. Some other communists had argued for similar arrangements, like group marriage or " free love," but Marx did not. He did feel that people should be free to form their own unions without any role being played by the state. He was also opposed to the idea of "illegitimacy." Here he sarcastically attacks his critics without making his own position explicit. Remembering Germinal, why do you think he says the family is "practically absent" among the proletarians? ....

source: public.wsu.edu...

Why indeed? The revolutionary group who overthrew the rulers and established the Soviet rule, a singular family, with all bands of family unit dissolved? Pretty much. Communisism is nation as family.

But the difference between me and the vast majority of people in power now is that I see this force is in NO WAY in decline. It grows more powerful every year. The big bad capitalists are pretty good at resisting the stick, but they suck at resisting the carrot. Why for instance can't we go back to a 1950's lifestyle where the man earns the paycheck, the woman takes care of the family, and the family is a powerful unit? Because that would pull a whole lot of women out of the workforce, and raise labor costs. The capitalist elite can't have that, and so they accidentally engineer a situation where the family is torn apart in the name of short term profits, a fundamental condition of communism, all while outsourcing American jobs to China (where workers are subsidized by the Communist party). Result? An ever growing trade deficit with China. Last year it was over $1,000 for every person in the US, working or not. And the quality of life keeps sinking for working people in the US, calling us ever onward to embrace a larger family, the workers and those that fight for us, in order to to unsaddle us from oppression. But the elites can't see this, because their eyes are on that big, fat, short term carrot of profits and wealth inequality.

The inevitable outcome of this for anyone with a brain is pretty clear. What does that mean for the family? It means a much larger family, called the party. It could mean future US conflicts being send to Bejing for arbitration. It means we lose ourselves a bit in the larger collective.

But still, all that said, swingers gonna swing, monogamists gonna monogomize.

Peace!

The GUT
reply to post by missvicky

 

Sorry, I thought I was on topic in stating the reasons why I don't think it's a trend of the future in my opinion. 50 years from now, should we still exist, the numbers will all be pretty much the same is what I'm thinking.

I've said it will probably always somewhat work for a minority. I'm also the only person speaking from admitted experience so far. Does that count? It might sound good on paper, but try and make it work is all I'm saying.

I'm the one that has been accused of "not thinking" and being some kind of impediment to the progress of humankind and I'm not mad at all, but it seems like a couple of y'all are.

I can give as good as I get though.

edit on 27-10-2013 by The GUT because: (no reason given)

I did not understand from your posts that you actually had experience with a poly relationship. My apologies to you sir.
However, the question is : that since this obviously not a fad, but a trend, given this faction, what will a "family" be like 50 years from now?

tridentblue

missvicky

tridentblue

missvicky
Everyone seems to be focusing on the dynamics (jealousy) of the relationship, not on the topic, which is it appears to be a trend, not a fad. And if so, what would a "family" be 50 years from now.

Has anyone else had issues with the link to the CNN news source?

It will be just the same. Some married couples will swing (polyamory) and most won't. Whether the swingers do it openly or clandestinely will be a product of the culture.

You are being heard. But my point is that our sexuality comes from a deep place in us, in many cases more tied to nature than to nurture. Changes in the culture won't change our attractions, that's the lesson of decades of trying to "fix" homosexuals. Nothing will change.

Given the current pressures on the current "family unit"...given the sheer numbers on craigslist looking for housing of same, given the (real) unemployment stats, given the need for health insurance for "families"(quotations because of lack of definition), given the sheer numbers of homeless "families" (quotation marks for the same reason), add nauseum, what do you think the "family " will be within the next 50 years?

I have already seen that dynamic change and not because of polyamory relationships. Because of necessity. However, the polyamory aspect contributes to the evolution of a meaningful "family" and what would that be in just 50 years given our current factors?

To "the Gut": If you have nothing to contribute, please don't

Ah, now I see you're deeper point. You're talking about economics, not just individual sexual desires. And you're way, way, smarter than I thought.

One thing I've studied a lot of in history is communism. I've always wanted to understand it. Many on the right, including Reagan, have set out to defend 'the family' as the ultimate bastion against communism. That's why you have groups like 'Focus on the Family' and all these other family value groups so central to the right and conservatives today.

They clearly did their homework and studying, there's a reason they take that stance: Communism was associated with the redefinition of the family to include a much larger group of people, and always has been. Proletariat becomes family, party becomes family. But I think they mixed up cause and effect. I personally believe economic necessity in hard times forces people to redefine family in much larger terms. So your point is deep and has a lot of merit.

If you are the type who can read between lines, this is worthy of reading:

Marx says that the bourgeoisie fears that a proletarian revolution will destroy all culture because bourgeois culture will no longer be produced. What does he imply about the continued existence of culture? Why does he argue it is pointless to use arguments based on freedom, culture, and law against communism? The earliest Western theoretician of communism, Plato, had argued for a lottery rotating the matings of men and women to create a sense of solidarity in which all citizens would view themselves as part of one big family. Some other communists had argued for similar arrangements, like group marriage or " free love," but Marx did not. He did feel that people should be free to form their own unions without any role being played by the state. He was also opposed to the idea of "illegitimacy." Here he sarcastically attacks his critics without making his own position explicit. Remembering Germinal, why do you think he says the family is "practically absent" among the proletarians? ....

source: public.wsu.edu...

Why indeed? The revolutionary group who overthrew the rulers and established the Soviet rule, a singular family, with all bands of family unit dissolved? Pretty much. Communisism is nation as family.

But the difference between me and the vast majority of people in power now is that I see this force is in NO WAY in decline. It grows more powerful every year. The big bad capitalists are pretty good at resisting the stick, but they suck at resisting the carrot. Why for instance can't we go back to a 1950's lifestyle where the man earns the paycheck, the woman takes care of the family, and the family is a powerful unit? Because that would pull a whole lot of women out of the workforce, and raise labor costs. The capitalist elite can't have that, and so they accidentally engineer a situation where the family is torn apart in the name of short term profits, a fundamental condition of communism, all while outsourcing American jobs to China (where workers are subsidized by the Communist party). Result? An ever growing trade deficit with China. Last year it was over $1,000 for every person in the US, working or not. And the quality of life keeps sinking for working people in the US, calling us ever onward to embrace a larger family, the workers and those that fight for us, in order to to unsaddle us from oppression. But the elites can't see this, because their eyes are on that big, fat, short term carrot of profits and wealth inequality.

The inevitable outcome of this for anyone with a brain is pretty clear. What does that mean for the family? It means a much larger family, called the party. It could mean future US conflicts being send to Bejing for arbitration. It means we lose ourselves a bit in the larger collective.

But still, all that said, swingers gonna swing, monogamists gonna monogomize.

Peace!

I am stunned by your response. I was asking in merely social aspects...you, however have lined it all out. I am not an educated person like yourself, but I think I understand what you're saying, and I am stunned...I see this happening in real life...I have gone broke trying to reverse what I have seen...no avail except that I am broke. geeze.

missvicky

I am stunned by your response. I was asking in merely social aspects...you, however have lined it all out. I am not an educated person like yourself, but I think I understand what you're saying, and I am stunned...I see this happening in real life...I have gone broke trying to reverse what I have seen...no avail except that I am broke. geeze.

You may not have the paper degrees, but you're asking the key questions, and I can see you're pretty smart. I hear you saying you're broke. Maybe you're folks can help you. If not, there's other's who are willing to, if you look. And when that happens... well, welcome to the family, sister.

reply to post by missvicky


Polyamore is nothing new. If you are a Hippy your half way there and will find it the lifestyle for you.

Wny not have a site for Polypsittacoidery...those with multiple parrots?

Or how about Polypsittacoideraphily...those having sex with many parrots?

reply to post by missvicky


Being a total geek, I can help but respond:

POLYAMORY IS WRONG!

Poly is from Greek, Amoy is from Latin. You can't make conjunctions like that!

Now on the subject matter, in a stable relationship where the one partner's sex drive is order of magnitude more than the other, polyamory (or should that be multiamory/polyerotica) is a fabulous solution. We're soul mates and I need help from other beautiful creatures in that department.

Has worked wonderfully for 13 years so far, the other relations tend not to be that long term, max about 3 years so far, their life situations tend to change and move on, but they've always stayed good friends.

Jealousy would ruin it, so only post-fear people should tango.

asciikewl
reply to post by missvicky

 

Being a total geek, I can help but respond:

POLYAMORY IS WRONG!

Poly is from Greek, Amoy is from Latin. You can't make conjunctions like that!

Yes, you can....

Look at the word TELEVISION... TELE from Greek and VISION from Latin.

asciikewl
reply to post by missvicky

 

Being a total geek, I can help but respond:

POLYAMORY IS WRONG!

Poly is from Greek, Amoy is from Latin. You can't make conjunctions like that!

Yes, you can....

Look at the word TELEVISION... TELE from Greek and VISION from Latin.

abacus10

asciikewl
reply to post by missvicky

 

Being a total geek, I can help but respond:

POLYAMORY IS WRONG!

Poly is from Greek, Amoy is from Latin. You can't make conjunctions like that!

Yes, you can....

Look at the word TELEVISION... TELE from Greek and VISION from Latin.

And you go stupid when you watch it. Has to be because of the linguistic mess! Conspiracy I tell you! They want people into advanced relationships go stupid too!

a society of social individuals where jealous, desperate people are shunned?

sounds good to me

I have been thinking about this thread for a few days.
I have been watching TV shows like Sons of Anarchy, the Borgia's, CNN, etc.
Now, I'm probably gonna get some heat for this, but I see a big change coming. I apologize in advance if I trigger
anyone's emotional responses...but here I go:

ok.

I see shows about "clubs", "family influence", "alternative lifestyles" . The common thread seems to be some sort of support system that either the current government or religion condemned.
Now, in this year, I see that what certain alternative lifestyles were considered immoral became "fads", yet survived the fad momentum to become a part of a group that seeks mainstream acceptance (for serious reasons such as insurance benefits, medical rights, etc), and through the "fad" phase became more accepted....rather than those "fads" going away, they have received the attention of mainstream media.
Yet, mainstream media actually "allows" certain shows depicting just such alternative lifestyles within certain plotlines. How do you reconcile "Suburban Housewives" with "Borgia"? How do you view "Sons of Anarchy" with communal living of the 70's?
What I am wondering , I guess, is given the breaking of so many illusions at the same time, what will family be like in 50 years? Where are we going? Is it designed? Is "alternative" really the "canary in the coal mine"? Has so many social icons failed that we are now are on our own to discover what the answers are to questions like "family"?, "community"?, "nation"?, "person"?
Are we on a track to really discover these answers or are we fooling ourselves into buying into some sort of idea that has been "introduced" to us by some sort of salesmanship?
I don't know about you guys, but I see a change a-coming....
I am sorry if I seem to be using the Polyamory issue/topic to talk about this, but it's what got my attention. I think that the polyamory issue/situation is THE "Canary-in-the-Coalmine" in order to really discuss ourselves. Isn't it at least curious that the ployamorous "movement" has aligned with the gay rights movement in order to gain acceptance when ployamorous groups are hetero/bi? Just a comment....

Marx says that the bourgeoisie fears that a proletarian revolution will destroy all culture because bourgeois culture will no longer be produced. What does he imply about the continued existence of culture? Why does he argue it is pointless to use arguments based on freedom, culture, and law against communism? The earliest Western theoretician of communism, Plato, had argued for a lottery rotating the matings of men and women to create a sense of solidarity in which all citizens would view themselves as part of one big family. Some other communists had argued for similar arrangements, like group marriage or " free love," but Marx did not. He did feel that people should be free to form their own unions without any role being played by the state. He was also opposed to the idea of "illegitimacy." Here he sarcastically attacks his critics without making his own position explicit. Remembering Germinal, why do you think he says the family is "practically absent" among the proletarians? ....




I see that "we" are trying to figure out "who" we are with all the dressings of religion and politics removed. Now, I understand that has been going on for a while, but I don't think it has had the momentum that it has now.

Thank you to all who have replied!

missvicky
what will family be like in 50 years?

You keep asking that over and over again. In my opinion, if you live in a society that is "finance-centric", meaning that everything is based on, and revolves around, money, the family unit in 50 years will reflect what it needs to be based on the financial shape of the U.S. People can argue the fact that everything comes down to money 'till they're blue in the face, but it is what it is.

The lifestyle you're talking about will only be openly accepted when the culture that it's in doesn't have so much competition and jealousy, and I don't think you're ever going to see that in the U.S. There's too much competition to make money and keep it, that no one really focuses too much on the family aspect of their lives. Sure, we get together for the holidays, but at this point we do it because we feel we need to.

The lifestyle you're talking about is all and fine in my opinion, but in this day and age it's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It doesn't fit, and the one's who try to make it work for themselves won't be socially accepted. Do they care? Some do and some don't, but it will never catch on and become the norm.

The typical family in 50 years will reflect the needs of the people who make the family, and as more people populate the planet with more diversity, there will be no norm. Simply lifestyles that reflect individual needs.