response 1 of 73:

Dec 31 02:41 UTC 2001

I'm confused, I'd think that would be a good reason why polyamory is better,
frankly. If you honestly think that the one you're with is not the best
possible one for you, then why are you with them?

response 3 of 73:

Dec 31 03:38 UTC 2001

</ramble>
Taken literally, "the best possible one for you" is 99.9% sure to be a
person who you'll never even meet amid the worlds billions of people.

Considering the divorce rate in our rather-friendly-to-traditional-het-
monogamy society, it's pretty hard to criticize poly.  OTOH, there're
a lot more relationships that need to stay healthy in a triangle than in
a couple - i don't see poly working for more than a small minority. 

Ignoring emotions for a moment, non-sexual relationships tend not to have
issues with STD's, Friend of the Court, etc.  There's fairly good reason
for a strict pragmatist to be a bit more closed about sexual relationships. 
Jealousy seems (to me) to be pretty understandable as a genetic/ego self-
interest thing. 
</end ramble>

response 5 of 73:

Dec 31 06:10 UTC 2001

#4>I've had a few years to develop no-win arguments against monogamy. Here's
this one: If you honestly believe that there's one "best" person out there,
and it's not the one you're with, then you're ill-advised to limit yourself
to that person. If you don't honestly believe there's one"best" person out
there, it's because you realize that different people can fulfill different
emotional needs, which is also a pro-poly argument. *eg*
 
#3> POly is a cat-rat farm, as is any alternative lovestyle: The failure rate
is higher because societal support is lower, and so people who are opposed
to the lovestyle has ammo to keep it marginalized, which keeps failure rates
high. 

It is currently true, in our society, that polyamory requires a higher level
of self-awareness to succeed, because the social support is lacking.

response 7 of 73:

Dec 31 21:36 UTC 2001

Depends on what you mean by "best."  If it's just a better sexual partner with
better proportions that can make you cum a bit better, that's no reason to
leave your current partner.  There's a lot more to a relationship than that.

response 9 of 73:

Dec 31 23:20 UTC 2001

resp:3 I agree that certain outside issues are a factor (but remind me 
what a Friend of the Court is again?) and drawing such boundaries to 
filter out such problems is a good idea.

I have read brighn's statements regarding polyamory, and it's my 
understanding that boundaries must be set in such an arrangement, 
too.  Granted, they are not the same for monogamy, but they are there, 
nonetheless, so I suppose the given is that any relationship(s) must 
have structure and boundaries of some sort.

If I may back up a bit, it has been my observation that sex creates an 
emotional bond, and I have not only watched the media, but people in 
real life.  I have seen, usually, that old lovers often may be either 
on hostile or friendly grounds-- in reaction to the bond that was 
created-- and rarely, is the feeling one of pure indifference, at 
least from the outset.  Men may be encouraged to downplay it, but I 
think, honestly, there is always still a connection of some kind.

resp:4 and would your gf freak out if for some reason, you decided you 
sexually needed another man?  I know this has been discussed somewhere 
before, but I still fail to understand why femme f-f sex is a male 
fantasy, while the opposite isn't true.

resp:5 I keep wondering why society has been downplaying marriage in 
general.  I mean, not only is it opposed to just polyamory, it's 
specifically unlawful to practice polygamy (or polyandry, for that 
matter) in most world governments.  Now, I don't promote polygamy 
personally (and the LDS church outlawed it years ago-- that topic has 
been discussed here before), but just for the sake of discussion, why 
is that so?  Marriage may not be the ideal option for everyone, but.. 
if someone believed that structure was a strong foundation to build a 
marriage on, why not?

Perhaps the legal implications of marriage could be discussed (in 
another item, if need be)?  It is possible that it makes some legal 
matters easier to deal with and examine, but I am not a legal expert.

(I ran out of steam on that point, and will wait for comments)

resp:7  It's not always proportions, although that's a popular 
choice.  A good deal of the time, it's sexual practice, such as 
desiring a partner who wants 3-way sex, to practice BDSM, etc.

It should be considered that not all needs must be fulfilled by sex, 
so platonic relationships can fulfill a number of them.  We were 
discussing the concept of "brotherly love" that seems to be lacking in 
relations of heterosexual males, or relations between males that are 
not sexual in nature.  

response 11 of 73:

Jan 1 19:10 UTC 2002

The only universal attribute of polyamory is that it's not monogamy. ;} That
is, there's the recognition that it's morally acceptable for a person to
develop intimate relations with more than one person, if that winds up
happening. Beyond that, it's always true that relationships will only succeed
if everyone involved has compatible expectations, and most polyamorous
relationships have rules of some sort.

response 13 of 73:

Jan 2 04:13 UTC 2002

That depends on whether I find you physically and intellectually attractive
when meeting you. I'm not adverse to the possibility at present.