Polyamorous relationships

Balancing family life and the Dhamma, in pursuit of a happy lay life.
lostitude
Posts: 465
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 1:02 am

Re: Polyamorous relationships

Post by lostitude » Thu Dec 06, 2018 12:16 pm

santa100 wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 12:19 am
First of, as humans, I thought we should know better than the animals when it comes to understanding what the "norm" should be.
My point was that the notion of couples or monogamy is not a natural phenoenon,it is not biologically determined (that's actually the contrary), so it is a purely subjective social construct. Deciding that it is the form is subjective and this norm fulffills an obvious patriarcal purpose (having unambiguous lineages and paternal descendence) which Middle-Eastern monothiesms are famous for.

Second, your argument would only be valid in the case where there're societies with very scarce resources and folks have to resort to the practice out of necessity for survival. I don't know where you live, but from your other post about financial management, I'd assume you live in a society where 2-person relationship would do just fine
I am an exception to the rule and I'm lucky to be far above my national average in terms of financial wealth, but yes, scarcity is a fact in my country and the progression of human overpopulation will inevitably lead to a generalization of that scarcity.
and furthermore, polygamy is a violation of the Law of the land.
Which land? Many countries throughout history were or still are completely fine with polygamy.
So, any "extra" relationships would not be due to survival purpose, but due to sheer lust instead. And it is this exact type of uncontrolled runaway sexual promiscuity that certainly be a factor to the eventual downfall of our civilization.
How is that certainly a factor? I sense a lot of prejudice in your unsupported assumptions.
Actually it's not a unique thing to only our society. The Romans' before their collapse also showed that all-too-common symptom of widespread debauchery.
So you are implying thhat their debauchery was the cause of their collapse? That goes counter to what we know about the collapse of the Roman empire...
Besides what do you make of the extremely successful islamic empire and the Ottomans who practiced polygamy to an extreme level with their sex slaves and harems? You are trying to find a causality where there is none.

santa100
Posts: 3189
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Polyamorous relationships

Post by santa100 » Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:27 pm

lostitude wrote:How is that certainly a factor? I sense a lot of prejudice in your unsupported assumptions.
You intentionally removed my previous sentence. I said there's the case where folks resort to polygamy due to resources issue, but if you live in a notso poor country, and if 2-person relationship is just fine, what else other than lust that makes you engage in extra relationships? Ever heard of the word "progress"? And yes, I do think it's a big progress for 21st century nations to practice monogamy.
lostitude wrote:Besides what do you make of the extremely successful islamic empire and the Ottomans who practiced polygamy to an extreme level with their sex slaves and harems?
I don't know how you define "extremely successful" with the Islamic empire and Ottomans. But then again, you intentionally hide the fact that those societies also stone people to death if they commit adultery.

lostitude wrote:Which land? Many countries throughout history were or still are completely fine with polygamy.
I live the US and they'll throw you in jail if you practice polygamy. Why don't you tell me which country you're living in right here right now?

lostitude
Posts: 465
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 1:02 am

Re: Polyamorous relationships

Post by lostitude » Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:55 pm

santa100 wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:27 pm
lostitude wrote:How is that certainly a factor? I sense a lot of prejudice in your unsupported assumptions.
You intentionally removed my previous sentence. I said there's the case where folks resort to polygamy due to resources issue, but if you live in a notso poor country, and if 2-person relationship is just fine, what else other than lust that makes you engage in extra relationships?
But this is not what I was reacting to. You were ascribing the future downfall of civilization to polyamory. Again, how is that a factor? You are not answering this. And I certainly can't find this doomsday argument in the 3rd precept either.
what else other than lust that makes you engage in extra relationships?
What else other than lust/craving/desire/attachment makes you engage in ANY romantic relationship? Is it really what the 3rd precept is about?
Ever heard of the word "progress"? And yes, I do think it's a big progress for 21st century nations to practice monogamy.
Then you could at least concede that this is simply your personal subjective opinion. Some people believe polyamory is progress and you simply don't have any objective argument to rebut that because there is none.


lostitude wrote:Besides what do you make of the extremely successful islamic empire and the Ottomans who practiced polygamy to an extreme level with their sex slaves and harems?
I don't know how you define "extremely successful" with the Islamic empire and Ottomans. But then again, you intentionally hide the fact that those societies also stone people to death if they commit adultery.
Intentionally? Can you read my mind? Nice strawman. I said they had sex slaves too, and you think I'm trying to make them look good by hiding the bad stuff? :shrug:
You are forgetting that you, yourself, are the one who started using the rise and fall of great empires as an argument for the fatal effects of debauchery. The islamic empire is the longest-lived transcontinental empire in history, despite their debauchery, to use your vocabulary. So your point does not hold.
lostitude wrote:Which land? Many countries throughout history were or still are completely fine with polygamy.
I live the US and they'll throw you in jail if you practice polygamy. Why don't you tell me which country you're living in right here right now?
Because I don't need to tell you where I live to illustrate the point that this issue is not as universal as you make it out to be.

As an aside, i don't really see how your implicit accusations of bad faith on my part have in any way enhanced your response. I think you could have done without those. What I can see is that this discussion on the 3rd precept leads you to use a lot of arguments that have nothing to do with it, on top of being moot for the most part.

santa100
Posts: 3189
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Polyamorous relationships

Post by santa100 » Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:13 pm

lostitude wrote:The islamic empire is the longest-lived transcontinental empire in history, despite their debauchery, to use your vocabulary. So your point does not hold.
Are you living in a different universe or something? Just simply take a look in the news and see what region where all the most horrible ghastly news are coming from? Where else do people get stoned to death? where else were captured enemy soldiers beheaded, and captured pilot was burned to death?
lostitude wrote:Then you could at least concede that this is simply your personal subjective opinion. Some people believe polyamory is progress and you simply don't have any objective argument to rebut that because there is none.
About the downfall of society due to lust, I already provided backup reference in DN 26 in my previous post. But you continue to dodge my direct question. Why don't you tell me what country you're living right now? So far, it is you, and you only, who seems to believe polyamory is progress and that's exactly why you try to twist and bend the suttas to suit your taste. Are you living in a country where polygamy is against the law? I told you I live in the US and we can't do it here. How about your country? I have done my part in providing sutta to prove my point, it's your turn now to provide suttas reference that says lust is "progress"?

dharmacorps
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:33 pm

Re: Polyamorous relationships

Post by dharmacorps » Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:56 pm

lostitude wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:01 pm
It's also a way to pool together more ressources (3 salaries instead of 2 for a "trouple") hence avoid the suffering of material hardships), and to be less emotionally dependent on one single person who becomes his or her partner's "whole world" that comes crashing down if he or she disappears for any reason. In that respect there is nothing more filled with potential suffering than a 2-person exclusive romantic relationship.
So who gets to decide how the 3rd precept is to be interpreted?

[/quote]

If the idea is that the more people you add to a relationship, you can avoid more suffering, then that definitely has no basis in the teachings of the Buddha. The more people you are "attached" to in this way the more you will suffer.

lostitude
Posts: 465
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 1:02 am

Re: Polyamorous relationships

Post by lostitude » Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:47 pm

santa100 wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:13 pm
lostitude wrote:The islamic empire is the longest-lived transcontinental empire in history, despite their debauchery, to use your vocabulary. So your point does not hold.
Are you living in a different universe or something?
Was this really necessary?
Just simply take a look in the news and see what region where all the most horrible ghastly news are coming from? Where else do people get stoned to death? where else were captured enemy soldiers beheaded, and captured pilot was burned to death?
What you are referring to is a terrorist organization based in modern-day Arab states. The Ottoman empire disappeared at the end of WWI, so we are not talking about the same thing. Besides, I don't see what barbaric acts prove or disprove regarding the legitimac of polyamory. You are going off-topic.

About the downfall of society due to lust, I already provided backup reference in DN 26 in my previous post.
Well I have jus read it and was unable to find any reference to that. Could you be more specific?
But you continue to dodge my direct question. Why don't you tell me what country you're living right now?
Because I don't want to, and it would be pointless! What are you trying to say? Just say it and be done with it...
So far, it is you, and you only, who seems to believe polyamory is progress
I never said I believed polyamory is progress. I said it's wrong to base yourself on your own prejudice to judge other social models.
and that's exactly why you try to twist and bend the suttas to suit your taste.
I have never mentioned any sutta, so I really don't see how I could possibly be twisting and bending any.
Do you realize that trying to discredit me by resorting to false accusations only betrays your lack of confidence in your own position? I really don't think such behavior is doing any good to anyone, and you should probably refrain from it.
it's your turn now to provide suttas reference that says lust is "progress"?
No, because I have never stated that lust was progress. Now here you are twisting and bending what I write, and accusing me of the same deed. I wrote:
Some people believe polyamory is progress and you simply don't have any objective argument to rebut that because there is none.
I'm sorry you seem to feel so threatened by this conversation that you feel the need to resort to such behaviors.

lostitude
Posts: 465
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 1:02 am

Re: Polyamorous relationships

Post by lostitude » Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:52 pm

dharmacorps wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:56 pm


If the idea is that the more people you add to a relationship, you can avoid more suffering, then that definitely has no basis in the teachings of the Buddha.
Does the reverse view have any basis in the Buddha's teachings? That suffering can be reduced by reducing the number of people you are attached to, rather than by reducing the severity of the attachment?
The more people you are "attached" to in this way the more you will suffer.
Not if the resulting attachment is much more benign, due to the fact that you do not place all your love and emotions in one person. It's just like not putting one's eggs in the same basket. Obviously losing all your eggs is going to be a lot more painful than only losing half. To me it's just common sense... And if you are not convinced just ask anyone who has been engaged in both types of relationships, many supportres of polyamory precisely mention this as a big plus in this kind of relationship compared with monogamy.
Last edited by lostitude on Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

santa100
Posts: 3189
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Polyamorous relationships

Post by santa100 » Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:55 pm

lostitude wrote:Was this really necessary?
It is now since you consistently hide your info while I share mine. If you have nothing to hide, then what are you afraid of?
losttitude wrote:Well I have jus read it and was unable to find any reference to that. Could you be more specific?
I'd be happy to. But you have to do your part first. You have not provided a single reference to back up your lust as progressive agenda. Please provide sutta reference.

lostitude
Posts: 465
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 1:02 am

Re: Polyamorous relationships

Post by lostitude » Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:00 pm

santa100 wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:55 pm
lostitude wrote:Was this really necessary?
It is now since you consistently hide your info while I share mine. If you have nothing to hide, then what are you afraid of?
losttitude wrote:Well I have jus read it and was unable to find any reference to that. Could you be more specific?
I'd be happy to. But you have to do your part first. You have not provided a single reference to back up your lust as progressive agenda. Please provide sutta reference.
Wow! :shrug: I think that before lust brings on the downfall of our world, it is attitudes like yours that will.

santa100
Posts: 3189
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Polyamorous relationships

Post by santa100 » Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:03 pm

lostitude wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:00 pm
Wow! :shrug: I think that before lust brings on the downfall of our world, it is attitudes like yours that will.
I already knew you'll resort to the kind of behavior above. Ad hominem attack is an expected behavior when you have zero proof to back up your claim.

lostitude
Posts: 465
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 1:02 am

Re: Polyamorous relationships

Post by lostitude » Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:05 pm

santa100 wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:03 pm
lostitude wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:00 pm
Wow! :shrug: I think that before lust brings on the downfall of our world, it is attitudes like yours that will.
I already knew you'll resort to the kind of behavior above. Ad hominem attack is an expected behavior when you have zero proof to back up your claim.
I am not attacking you as a person, I'm attacking your attitude on this thread, replacing the words I write with others and linking some of my quotes with unrelated points. You are here to win a debate,, not to discuss so there is nothing for me to learn from you.

santa100
Posts: 3189
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Polyamorous relationships

Post by santa100 » Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:07 pm

lostitude wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:05 pm
I am not attacking you as a person, I'm attacking your attitude on this thread, replacing the words I write with others and linking some of my quotes with unrelated points. You are here to win a debate,, not to discuss so there is nothing for me to learn from you.
I don't care what you want or do not want from me. But if you've made unsubstantiated claim, I will follow thru to the end of time to make sure you do provide the required references. So stop playing around and provide the references.

lostitude
Posts: 465
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 1:02 am

Re: Polyamorous relationships

Post by lostitude » Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:09 pm

santa100 wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:07 pm
lostitude wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:05 pm
I am not attacking you as a person, I'm attacking your attitude on this thread, replacing the words I write with others and linking some of my quotes with unrelated points. You are here to win a debate,, not to discuss so there is nothing for me to learn from you.
I don't care what you want or do not want from me. But if you've made unsubstantiated claim, I will follow thru to the end of time to make sure you do provide the required references. So stop playing around and provide the references.
I have not made a single claim in this whole thread.

santa100
Posts: 3189
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Polyamorous relationships

Post by santa100 » Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:11 pm

lostitude wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:09 pm
I have not made a single claim in this whole thread.
Great, now you resort to denial. What other tactics you have after ad hominem attack and denial?

lostitude
Posts: 465
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 1:02 am

Re: Polyamorous relationships

Post by lostitude » Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:13 pm

santa100 wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:11 pm
lostitude wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:09 pm
I have not made a single claim in this whole thread.
Great, now you resort to denial. What other tactics you have after ad hominem attack and denial?
I'm not here to pick a virtual fight, thanks. If that's what you are into it's not going to happen with me.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests