Non-monogamous relationship models - Armor Games Community

17	4415

offline

kingryan

4,193 posts

Farmer

Posted June 25, '08 9:27am UTC

Strop have you been watching the news? There was just an article here in SA about that on Channel 7! I'm guessing thats where you got the idea from...

I am pretty much against this...I should look for somewhere in the Bible where it says about this...but I am tired and I have to go and do some homework

However there were quite a few people in the Bible with Multiple wives...look at Solomon for example - He had heaps of wives...and concubines too...

It is illegal...

I heard somewhere that in some country you can have as many wives as you want but you have to treat them all the same - That means if you buy one a Pearl Necklace then they all have to get one...

KingRyan

offline

Estel

1,971 posts

Peasant

Posted June 25, '08 10:43am UTC

I also heard something like this on the news.....

Well, I see this is a wrong religiously AND morally. On a religious standpoint, it is wrong because the bible states that it was meant for a man and a woman to be together. I never read anthing that said multiple wives/husbands are okay.

On a morality standpoint, it is also wrong. If you have two wives/husbands, then you should treat all spouses the same. I believe that it is impossible to love two or more spouses the exact same. So with this being said, one or more spouse(s) will have less treatment thus ties to my point. I also think that there will be fights, favoritism, etc. around the spouses. I just don't see how this can be right.

offline

Strop

10,816 posts

Bard

Posted June 25, '08 11:51am UTC

Watching Today Tonight, were we Kingryan?

Heh, I've actually been waiting for a while for an excuse to ask these questions because relationship dynamics in their varied forms is something I'm interested in.

Okay, so far we have this:

1) Religious and Biblical considerations
2) Equality of rights
3) Legality

In terms of one, I have the following questions:

* First, obviously, the relevant passages in the Bible would be nice, although I'm aware that Jesus seems to be the source of the strongest espousal for monogamous (and lifelong) marriage.

* However, just how strong a claim to authority is this? It may be relevant to you but are you going to, as many here seem to, claim some kind of moral obligation over all based on claims taken from the Bible?

Let's go onto the equality of rights. You're right in that many common interpretations of the equality of 'olygamous' relationships is questionable. However:

* The gender equality of the society which makes these kinds of judgments is also questionable. Most prevalent societies in this day and age are patriarchies, and simply pretend to different degrees not to be. If we were to throw arranged marriages and other aspects that may be relevant into the mix, you would pretty much be compelled to make blanket judgment against entire cultures.

* There are examples of, as I've mentioned above, polyandry and polygamy for both sexes- just these are rarer.

This tells us about the differing social contexts as well as the fact that we are speaking from a single social perspective. Speaking of which:

* I also mentioned that while it is illegal in Australia and the US, it's legal in the UK. Ask yourself- why would this be so? If we could get somebody from the UK (e.g. woody) to comment about it to see if they know, that'd be awesome too.

I've got an answer to this question but I'm going to wait to see what kind of responses I get to that one.

And finally, once again we're examining what 'marriage' means, and whether you would have responded in the same way if I had used 'legally recognised union' instead.

Watching [i]Today Tonight[/i], were we Kingryan?\r\n\r\nHeh, I've actually been waiting for a while for an excuse to ask these questions because relationship dynamics in their varied forms is something I'm interested in.\r\n\r\nOkay, so far we have this:\r\n\r\n1) Religious and Biblical considerations\r\n2) Equality of rights\r\n3) Legality\r\n\r\nIn terms of one, I have the following questions:\r\n\r\n* First, obviously, the relevant passages in the Bible would be nice, although I'm aware that Jesus seems to be the source of the strongest espousal for monogamous (and lifelong) marriage.\r\n\r\n* However, just how strong a claim to authority is this? It may be relevant to you but are you going to, as many here seem to, claim some kind of moral obligation [i]over all[/i] based on claims taken from the Bible?\r\n\r\nLet's go onto the equality of rights. You're right in that many common interpretations of the equality of 'polygamous' relationships is questionable. However:\r\n\r\n* The gender equality of the society which makes these kinds of judgments is also questionable. Most prevalent societies in this day and age are patriarchies, and simply pretend to different degrees not to be. If we were to throw arranged marriages and other aspects that may be relevant into the mix, you would pretty much be compelled to make blanket judgment against entire cultures.\r\n\r\n* There are examples of, as I've mentioned above, polyandry and polygamy for both sexes- just these are rarer.\r\n\r\nThis tells us about the differing social contexts as well as the fact that we are speaking from a single social perspective. Speaking of which:\r\n\r\n* I also mentioned that while it is illegal in Australia and the US, it's legal in the UK. Ask yourself- why would this be so? If we could get somebody from the UK (e.g. woody) to comment about it to see if they know, that'd be awesome too.\r\n\r\nI've got an answer to this question but I'm going to wait to see what kind of responses I get to that one.\r\n\r\nAnd finally, once again we're examining what 'marriage' means, and whether you would have responded in the same way if I had used 'legally recognised union' instead.

offline

th3pr3tz3l

189 posts

Nomad

Posted June 25, '08 4:02pm UTC

DAAAAAARN Strop =P

After my Is Al Gore a Terrorist? topic, where I was challenging myself to try and say that he was, I was going to be pro polygamist for my next one. Oh well, can't have 2 polygamy topics going at once.

Anyways, I am an atheist, but I try to be educated about most religion. I believe the first passage where polygamy is mentioned is 4:19. Where it says "Lamech married two women." Other prominent figures in the Old Testament had multiple wives (Abraham, Jacob, Solomon, etc.)

So other than the fact that God himself stated that his intention was for one man to be with one women, it does seem almost accepted in the bible.

And as too my understanding there is at the moment a disproportianate number of women too men. I think it is .5% more women. And, assuming that was also the case long ago, and with the fact that war was a great cause of deaths back then, and only men would go to war. There could have been a substantial difference in the ratio of women to men.

I have also had heard testimony of a Polygamist woman, it was a long time ago, on a website ssomewhere.., She basically stated that she liked her polygamist relationship, because if one day she came home from work and was exhausted and didn't want to cook dinner, there would always be another wife to do it for her while she relaxed.

That's all I've got time to write for the moment. But I will probably be stalking this topic for now on .

DAAAAAARN Strop =P\r\n\r\nAfter my Is Al Gore a Terrorist? topic, where I was challenging myself to try and say that he was, I was going to be pro polygamist for my next one.  Oh well, can't have 2 polygamy topics going at once. \r\n\r\nAnyways, I am an atheist, but I try to be educated about most religion.  I believe the first passage where polygamy is mentioned is 4:19.  Where it says "Lamech married two women."  Other prominent figures in the Old Testament had multiple wives (Abraham, Jacob, Solomon, etc.)\r\n\r\nSo other than the fact that God himself stated that his intention was for one man to be with one women, it does seem almost accepted in the bible.\r\n\r\nAnd as too my understanding there is at the moment a disproportianate number of women too men.  I think it is .5% more women.  And, assuming that was also the case long ago, and with the fact that war was a great cause of deaths back then, and only men would go to war.  There could have been a substantial difference in the ratio of women to men.\r\n\r\nI have also had heard testimony of a Polygamist woman, it was a long time ago, on a website ssomewhere.., She basically stated that she liked her polygamist relationship, because if one day she came home from work and was exhausted and didn't want to cook dinner, there would always be another wife to do it for her while she relaxed.\r\n\r\nThat's all I've got time to write for the moment.  But I will probably be stalking this topic for now on .

offline

eyetwitch

737 posts

Shepherd

Posted June 25, '08 5:07pm UTC

Wow how weird not 3 days ago i had this same discussion with a Muslim. He was saying that in the Quaran(how do you spell it?) or Koran it states that you can have as many wives as you like, but you must treat/love each of them exactly the same, EXACTLY, or you can't do it. then it goes on to say that this is impossible and you shouldn't practice polygamy.
Just found that interesting...and thats how i believe it should work, if it were to be legalized, and since thats not going to happen...it shouldn't be legal.

offline

Eyes

139 posts

Blacksmith

Posted June 25, '08 5:24pm UTC

I think the spousal equality arguement is an interesting one. I understand that you think no one should be treated special or favorited (or the oposite), but in any relationship (which I am defining as any willing commitment between 2 or more people, regardless of sex, for the moment), all the parties AGREE to take part in it. They can leave at any time or they can go along with it. My point is, if you are treated unfairly it is because you CHOSE to accept the unfair behavior, instead of saying "I don't want to be treated like that. Bye." Free will when it comes to marriage (at least in the US). You don't marry someone if you don't like them (unless it IS an arranged marriage, then it is different, but then the issue would be the forcing of marriage, not necessarily the type of marriage).

offline

Squalick

68 posts

Nomad

Posted June 25, '08 5:36pm UTC

relationship dynamics in their varied forms is something I'm interested in

Why?

My opinion is that people should be free to develop their own understanding of love and find their own way to happiness; if mutually consenting partners find love and happiness in any kind of relationship then so be it; we should give them our blessings. I haven't settled on any particular path for myself yet - I have my reservations about every 'gamy', I tend to be wary of anything that can be put in a conceptual box - but I think that strict monogamy is essentially suffocating: we are human animals with complex personal identities and powerful natural instincts. We shouldn't self-impose arbitrary limits in terms of the aspects of ourselves that we choose to cultivate and express because we can connect different parts of our own soul to different parts of different people in different ways to construct distinct meanings and nurture unique forms of happiness. We should, however, be mindful of balance and harmony in all of our relationships, especially those that we have with ourself, even if this means keeping it in our pants from time to time.

[quote]relationship dynamics in their varied forms is something I'm interested in[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhy?\r\n\r\nMy opinion is that people should be free to develop their own understanding of love and find their own way to happiness; if mutually consenting partners find love and happiness in any kind of  relationship then so be it; we should give them our blessings. I haven't settled on any particular path for myself yet - I have my reservations about every 'gamy', I tend to be wary of anything that can be put in a conceptual box - but I think that strict monogamy is essentially suffocating: we are human animals with complex personal identities and powerful natural instincts. We shouldn't self-impose arbitrary limits in terms of the aspects of ourselves that we choose to cultivate and express because we can connect different parts of our own soul to different parts of different people in different ways to construct distinct meanings and nurture unique forms of happiness. We should, however, be mindful of balance and harmony in all of our relationships, especially those that we have with ourself, even if this means keeping it in our pants from time to time.

offline

kingryan

4,193 posts

Farmer

Posted June 26, '08 7:35am UTC

No...I don't get TodayTonight where I live...I just saw a small bit about it on the news....

Mind you...I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't realised that I had a laptop and that I could sit on the couch typing away!

I still think that a marriage is a two person thing...and that there shouldn't be any extra parts to it.

KingRyan

offline

Strop

10,816 posts

Bard

Posted June 26, '08 9:08am UTC

...relationship dynamics in their varied forms is something I'm interested in

Why?

I think you may be misunderstanding my agenda here, Squalick. I'm not seeking to make more of anything than should be made of it, though in future it is likely that I'll be consulted on issues that will involve relationship dynamics. In fact the reason I made this thread is because I wanted to push the awareness of our habit of doing this (see my initial response).

In the course of my own experience with a committed relationship, there was much discussion about the bounds of such a commitment, and how to manage communication, jealousy etc. From this a curiosity naturally extends to a consideration of behavior as a whole.

Anyway:

but I think that strict monogamy is essentially suffocating

I agree with this in both the applied and the conceptual sense, hence my previous statements in other threads that society should start heading towards a greater versatility in this respect.

Other responses:

So other than the fact that God himself stated that his intention was for one man to be with one women, it does seem almost accepted in the bible.

As far as I remember polygamy was simply at one point acceptable then as the times changed, marriage between more than two parties was not as the meaning of marriage changed.

n any relationship (which I am defining as any willing commitment between 2 or more people, regardless of sex, for the moment), all the parties AGREE to take part in it. They can leave at any time or they can go along with it. My point is, if you are treated unfairly it is because you CHOSE to accept the unfair behavior

Hm, yes and no.

It is true that a relationship, by definition, means some kind of reciprocal interaction on whatever level. However, autonomy i.e. saying that one necessarily 'chose' to accept 'unfair behavior' is questionable. One may have to be careful not to overextend generalisations here because what you're doing here implies that all talk of 'abusive relationships' is invalid. I am skeptical of much of the rhetoric, yes, but in its place we can't forget a certain plasticity (hence, again, my interest in 'dynamics'.

On a general level I'm also skeptical of the applicability of 'equality', which to me seems to be grossly misinterpreted at times.

[quote]...relationship dynamics in their varied forms is something I'm interested in\r\n\r\nWhy?[/quote]\r\n\r\nI think you may be misunderstanding my agenda here, Squalick. I'm not seeking to make more of anything than should be made of it, though in future it is likely that I'll be consulted on issues that will involve relationship dynamics. In fact the reason I made this thread is because I wanted to push the awareness of our habit of doing this (see my initial response).\r\n\r\nIn the course of my own experience with a committed relationship, there was much discussion about the bounds of such a commitment, and how to manage communication, jealousy etc. From this a curiosity naturally extends to a consideration of behavior as a whole.\r\n\r\nAnyway:\r\n\r\n[quote]but I think that strict monogamy is essentially suffocating[/quote]\r\n\r\nI agree with this in both the applied and the conceptual sense, hence my previous statements in other threads that society should start heading towards a greater versatility in this respect.\r\n\r\nOther responses:\r\n\r\n[quote]So other than the fact that God himself stated that his intention was for one man to be with one women, it does seem almost accepted in the bible.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAs far as I remember polygamy was simply at one point acceptable then as the times changed, marriage between more than two parties was not as the meaning of marriage changed.\r\n\r\n[quote]n any relationship (which I am defining as any willing commitment between 2 or more people, regardless of sex, for the moment), all the parties AGREE to take part in it. They can leave at any time or they can go along with it. My point is, if you are treated unfairly it is because you CHOSE to accept the unfair behavior[/quote]\r\n\r\nHm, yes and no.\r\n\r\nIt is true that a relationship, by definition, means some kind of reciprocal interaction on whatever level. However, autonomy i.e. saying that one necessarily 'chose' to accept 'unfair behavior' is questionable. One may have to be careful not to overextend generalisations here because what you're doing here implies that all talk of 'abusive relationships' is invalid. I am skeptical of much of the rhetoric, yes, but in its place we can't forget a certain plasticity (hence, again, my interest in 'dynamics').\r\n\r\nOn a general level I'm also skeptical of the applicability of 'equality', which to me seems to be grossly misinterpreted at times.

offline

Squalick

68 posts

Nomad

Posted June 26, '08 1:02pm UTC

Your agenda, eh? I had not suspected a sinister plot before you said that :P I was just wondering what made this issue interesting to you. It's also interesting to me from time to time, mostly for personal reasons. With one girl at a time I will have sex (it's my own rule and I've broken it a few times without guilt) and little communication, with others a lot of communication and only flirtation. Emotionally I prefer to be independent at this stage in my life.

Emotional: 0 Girls
Sexual: 1 Girl
Intellectual: As many as possible

Everything is intertwined (and those three categories lack distinctiveness from one another) and in flux, so I need flexibility for my comfort zone, and this makes me interested in this debate too. From a larger sociological perspective, I'm interested in the different forms that relationships can take and how these can affect society. Ultimately I think that an acceptance of polygamy will allow everyone to develop their personalities more freely, even if individuals don't feel inclined to be polygamous (or even monogamous, in the case of asexuals)

Interesting to note: throughout history, when a society has suffered large losses (of males) from wars, polygamy is often temporary sanctified, even in Christian societies under the Vatican in the middle ages. (I don't want to dig for the specific example but I will if I have to)

Your agenda, eh? I had not suspected a sinister plot before you said that :P I was just wondering what made this issue interesting to you. It's also interesting to me from time to time, mostly for personal reasons. With one girl at a time I will have sex (it's my own rule and I've broken it a few times without guilt) and little communication, with others a lot of communication and only flirtation. Emotionally I prefer to be independent at this stage in my life.\r\n\r\nEmotional: 0 Girls\r\nSexual: 1 Girl\r\nIntellectual: As many as possible\r\n\r\nEverything is intertwined (and those three categories lack distinctiveness from one another) and in flux, so I need flexibility for my comfort zone, and this makes me interested in this debate too. From a larger sociological perspective, I'm interested in the different forms that relationships can take and how these can affect society. Ultimately I think that an acceptance of polygamy will allow everyone to develop their personalities more freely, even if individuals don't feel inclined to be polygamous (or even  monogamous, in the case of asexuals)\r\n\r\nInteresting to note: throughout history, when a society has suffered large losses (of males) from wars, polygamy is often temporary sanctified, even in Christian societies under the Vatican in the middle ages. (I don't want to dig for the specific example but I will if I have to)

offline

DragonMistress

1,058 posts

Blacksmith

Posted June 26, '08 1:13pm UTC

Hmm. Being the 'liberal to a fault' that I am, I think it would be really interesting, and quite acceptable to my morality, to have polygamous relationships. Disregarding the legal issues (I have never found legality to be a good point in a debate) I think there are few things wrong with it, and it could even be a good thing! I don't know how many of you out there are married/engaged/in a long term relationship, but sometimes it's hard to keep up with everything! It'd be kind of nice to be able to pass my fiance off to someone else while I go shopping...

Jesting aside, I think that if all parties are alright with it (and are *really* alright, not just saying it) it would be alright. There would have to be some serious marriage counseling there, though, to make sure that the jealousy doesn't rage. Personally, I couldn't share my husband with another wife, but I wouldn't mind taking a few husbands *laughs*.

offline

Asherlee

5,001 posts

Peasant

Posted June 26, '08 3:15pm UTC

I think that if 3 or more consenting adults want to be in a relationship together then I am all for it. It does not matter whether they are happy or not in the relationship, as long as they know what they are doing and everyone agrees.

Every person is unique (of course). Some feel they can/want to only love 1 person at a time. Others want to spread their love and share it. It is all just how you feel about things.

On a personal level, I find it rather strange. I would never be able to do be in a relationship with more than one person.

I would like to see some studies on children in the homes of these types of relationships. Is it better to have more parents? Or would it confuse the children?

offline

woody_7007

2,662 posts

Peasant

Posted June 26, '08 6:42pm UTC

relationships with more than 2 parties are weird in my opinion. One time my gf and u got rele drunk and she suggested a 3some. I was about to slap her silly man. Even tho she sed it could b 2 girls and 1 gu/ Seriously that shit is fucked up. Sono way man. Noooo way. I can see how some kinky @ss people could like it. But if it is a proper serious relationship not a fling i dont think it can work.

offline

Eyes

139 posts

Blacksmith

Posted June 26, '08 9:51pm UTC

It is true that a relationship, by definition, means some kind of reciprocal interaction on whatever level. However, autonomy i.e. saying that one necessarily 'chose' to accept 'unfair behavior' is questionable. One may have to be careful not to overextend generalisations here because what you're doing here implies that all talk of 'abusive relationships' is invalid. I am skeptical of much of the rhetoric, yes, but in its place we can't forget a certain plasticity (hence, again, my interest in 'dynamics'.

Strop, when I first read that my reaction was "You took my comment out of context," but then I realized I didn't necessarily put it in the context I wanted...

I was specifically refering to the initial commitment. While it is true that the roles in a relationship can change and one or more parties can become abusive, there is, in my opinion, a grace period were you see the behavior and make the decision wether to continue or not. Beyond that point a person may very well be come trapped in an abusive relationship, but, at the very least, they chose the PATH to an abusive relationship (from there they may have little choice in how they are treated).

[quote]It is true that a relationship, by definition, means some kind of reciprocal interaction on whatever level. However, autonomy i.e. saying that one necessarily 'chose' to accept 'unfair behavior' is questionable. One may have to be careful not to overextend generalisations here because what you're doing here implies that all talk of 'abusive relationships' is invalid. I am skeptical of much of the rhetoric, yes, but in its place we can't forget a certain plasticity (hence, again, my interest in 'dynamics').[/quote]\r\n\r\nStrop, when I first read that my reaction was "You took my comment out of context," but then I realized I didn't necessarily put it in the context I wanted...\r\n\r\nI was specifically refering to the initial commitment. While it is true that the roles in a relationship can change and one or more parties can become abusive, there is, in my opinion, a grace period were you see the behavior and make the decision wether to continue or not. Beyond that point a person may very well be come trapped in an abusive relationship, but, at the very least, they chose the PATH to an abusive relationship (from there they may have little choice in how they are treated).

offline

Strop

10,816 posts

Bard

Posted June 27, '08 10:10am UTC

Okay, having reviewed some of the editorial and written responses and opinions in today's newspaper, I now have a greater grasp of the perceived issues at hand.

* Religious and cultural- how important is it to respect these in a purportedly 'multicultural' country? What does that mean?
* Legal- in terms of monetary benefit (and significantly, fraud)
* In terms of relationship dynamics, have we really got it right? Do we understand it?

One of the things I see here is an opportunity not to necessarily reinforce old values, but rather to critically evaluate them to see just how applicable they are and who they are applicable of.

@ Squalick:

Everything is intertwined (and those three categories lack distinctiveness from one another) and in flux, so I need flexibility for my comfort zone

This may be a personal question but I'm going to throw it out under the pretext of a more academic, or even rhetorical purpose: Given that sex and emotion can be intertwined, how would one go about managing this!

Complex question, huh.

@ Asherlee:

I would like to see some studies on children in the homes of these types of relationships. Is it better to have more parents? Or would it confuse the children?

I think I vaguely alluded to this in suggesting that the place of the 'nuclear family' shouldn't be as concrete as it apparently is in this day and age. What I was going to do after this was then suggest the role of such terms as 'olyamory' as opposed to polygamy, given the shape and development of the institution of marriage in its varied forms, both religious and secular.

All my suggestions here are strictly speculative, however. I have no evidence to back this up and so am saying these things as food for thought, not for some kind of social advocacy per se.

@ Eyes:

I was specifically refering to the initial commitment. While it is true that the roles in a relationship can change and one or more parties can become abusive, there is, in my opinion, a grace period were you see the behavior and make the decision wether to continue or not.

I'm going to disagree with this for the reason that I think this gives far too much credit as to the faculties of awareness and evaluation in people as a whole. There are a whole range of factors that one may (would likely) be influenced by (infatuation, circumstance), which have greater effect than the simple judgment of one's behavior on some kind of objective scale. Things can go unnoticed, ignored, and dismissed: we are marvelously gifted at doing that, and therefore not so much at considering everything in an unaffected light.

Having observed multiple relationships that have turned abusive, I can also assert that 'ropensity to abusiveness' is not a clear, measurable factor and can be subject to another set of contingencies. Often it becomes apparently only when things become strained, which precipitates a gradually uncontrolled spiral.

However I'm not going to go so far as to say we have none such- it is to me important to believe we have some kind of choice and the ability to exercise that. What I am pointing out however is the difficulties that lie in the way of basing judgment on the assumption that we are autonomous beings.

Okay, having reviewed some of the editorial and written responses and opinions in today's newspaper, I now have a greater grasp of the perceived issues at hand.\r\n\r\n* Religious and cultural- how important is it to respect these in a purportedly 'multicultural' country? What does that mean?\r\n* Legal- in terms of monetary benefit (and significantly, fraud)\r\n* In terms of relationship dynamics, have we really got it right? Do we understand it?\r\n\r\nOne of the things I see here is an opportunity not to necessarily reinforce old values, but rather to critically evaluate them to see just how applicable they are and who they are applicable of.\r\n\r\n@ Squalick:\r\n\r\n[quote]Everything is intertwined (and those three categories lack distinctiveness from one another) and in flux, so I need flexibility for my comfort zone[/quote]\r\n\r\nThis may be a personal question but I'm going to throw it out under the pretext of a more academic, or even rhetorical purpose: Given that sex and emotion can be intertwined, how would one go about managing this!\r\n\r\nComplex question, huh.\r\n\r\n@ Asherlee:\r\n\r\n[quote]I would like to see some studies on children in the homes of these types of relationships. Is it better to have more parents? Or would it confuse the children?[/quote]\r\n\r\nI think I vaguely alluded to this in suggesting that the place of the 'nuclear family' shouldn't be as concrete as it apparently is in this day and age. What I was going to do after this was then suggest the role of such terms as 'polyamory' as opposed to polygamy, given the shape and development of the institution of marriage in its varied forms, both religious and secular.\r\n\r\nAll my suggestions here are strictly speculative, however. I have no evidence to back this up and so am saying these things as food for thought, not for some kind of social advocacy per se.\r\n\r\n@ Eyes:\r\n\r\n[quote]I was specifically refering to the initial commitment. While it is true that the roles in a relationship can change and one or more parties can become abusive, there is, in my opinion, a grace period were you see the behavior and make the decision wether to continue or not.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI'm going to disagree with this for the reason that I think this gives far too much credit as to the faculties of awareness and evaluation in people as a whole. There are a whole range of factors that one may (would likely) be influenced by (infatuation, circumstance), which have greater effect than the simple judgment of one's behavior on some kind of objective scale. Things can go unnoticed, ignored, and dismissed: we are marvelously gifted at doing that, and therefore not so much at considering everything in an unaffected light.\r\n\r\nHaving observed multiple relationships that have turned abusive, I can also assert that 'propensity to abusiveness' is not a clear, measurable factor and can be subject to another set of contingencies. Often it becomes apparently only when things become strained, which precipitates a gradually uncontrolled spiral.\r\n\r\nHowever I'm not going to go so far as to say we have none such- it is to me important to believe we have some kind of choice and the ability to exercise that. What I am pointing out however is the difficulties that lie in the way of basing judgment on the assumption that we are autonomous beings.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Non-monogamous relationship models