O P E N R E L A T I O N S H I P S ! ! !

[d'Arthez]

What I am saying is that in a free and democratic society, if someone tells you that they are planning to do something that could hurt them it is your responsibility to advise them not to do it.

No, it is not. You cannot be held accountible by any means, or the law if you advice a driver who is drunk, not to drive, with the driver subsequently ignoring that. And if he causes an accident, it is not your fault. You cannot assume personal responsibility for someone else - that would make the whole concept of personal responsibility void of meaning.

 

I believe polyamory is bad for people and, as part of being a responsible citizen in a free and democratic society, I choose to exercise my right to explain why I think it is bad for people.

Yes, and you have done away with personal responsibility in the proces. You are not, you are not, the sole person on the Western hemisphere who can exercise personal responsibility. Including your friends, who made wrong decisions.

 

If you can't tell the difference between advising people against doing harmful things and forcing them at gunpoint, I would suggest that you need to bring a little more sophistication to your political thought.

No, you are mistaken. I do know the difference quite well. But the whole tone of your contributions is quite telling of a few psychological tendencies you don't want to hear about.

 

Just to clarify what I'm saying:

Telling people polyamory is an emotionally harmful and unsustainable thing to do: GOOD

Passing a law banning polyamory: BAD

It is only harmful to people who can't handle it.

 

Let me elaborate a bit further:

You cannot absolve personal responsibility just because it suits your "moral" program.

As much as you would like to wipe open relationships out of existence, there is no way that it is possible that it is going to happen.

Same with religion (and some distorted interpretations of Marx): if you want to achieve such a thing you would have to address the roots, the causes. And reasoning is far beyond that. You can make of a believer an atheist, but that does not destroy religion in the slightest. Even the banning of the church in the USSR was a futile attempt at that.

[fusangite]

No' date=' it is not. You cannot be held accountible by any means, or the law if you advice a driver who is drunk, not to drive, with the driver subsequently ignoring that.[/quote']Re-read my post. I said the exact opposite of what you are claiming I said. I said that if you tell a drunk person it is okay for them to drive, you can (and there real life court judgements that reflect this) be sued for contributory negligence.

 

We both agree that it is wrong, both ethically and legally not to tell a drunk person who asks you if they should drive, that they are too drunk to drive. There is no argument here.

I believe polyamory is bad for people and, as part of being a responsible citizen in a free and democratic society, I choose to exercise my right to explain why I think it is bad for people.

Yes, and you have done away with personal responsibility in the proces.

Let me get this straight: responding to a person's request for advice is wrong because it robs them of personal responsibility? So, if someone asks you whether they should do something that you believe will hurt them, you say nothing or lie to them because telling them what you think robs them of personal responsibility? In my view, honestly answering people's requests for advice does not such thing. Their choice is still 100% their choice; it's just that now, they know what your opinion is. Do you believe that simply expressing an opinion to someone deprives them of free will? When people give you advice, does that mean you aren't responsible for the decision you make anymore?

You are not, you are not, the sole person on the Western hemisphere who can exercise personal responsibility. Including your friends, who made wrong decisions.

Yes. And if they ask me if I think their decision is wrong, I don't lie to them, as you appear to be suggesting I should.

If you can't tell the difference between advising people against doing harmful things and forcing them at gunpoint, I would suggest that you need to bring a little more sophistication to your political thought.

No, you are mistaken. I do know the difference quite well. But the whole tone of your contributions is quite telling of a few psychological tendencies you don't want to hear about.

Well, I beg to differ. This latest post of yours shows that lack even the most rudimentary understanding of the difference between advice and coercion.

As much as you would like to wipe open relationships out of existence, there is no way that it is possible that it is going to happen.

So, because we will never create a society in which nobody smokes, it would be wrong to advise people against smoking?

[BklynGuy]

I got hurt in this because first I was told it would be open, then it would not be open as time went on. I realized she was seeing other people so I did the same. Then she wouldnt stand for me dealing with others and it ended. It depends on the person but I am not really one for this type of thing. Many STD's, plus it will hurt if you fall for the person and they dont feel the same for you.

 

In truth, both people have to be on the same page.

[d'Arthez]

Sorry for the misreading of the drunk driving argument, Fusangite. It was not intentionally.

 

Let's recap:

But yes, the times open relationships are most likely to hurt people is when people in open relationships suck people in to the lifestyle who are not really comfortable with it but are too tempted by their attraction to the individual in the open relationship. Then you get to see lots of emotional damage.

And here starts the debate about personal responsibility. If you maintain that the concept has value, you must give value to the expressions of personal responsibility. That is not to say, that all expressions are of equal value. But given the fact that we, as a culture (whatever that means as we are a bit apart) also value concepts like freedom, there is no way we are able to prevent people from making "mistakes", no matter what we believe in as right and wrong.

 

I know from her post that she prefers this lifestyle to monogamy at present. But the fact that someone enjoys something is not evidence that it should be approved-of.

You are right about that. But that means that you require (implicitly) that a person rejects a form of hedonism (if we may assume this is hedonism) in favor of a moral system that is higher developed, and as a consequence of that rejects open relationships. It is a different matter if such a system actually does exist.

These ethical systems may exist, but then the question is imminent: with what ethical right can you require of a person to relinquish his or her current views, and with what right / philosophical justification could you say that your views are more correct (and will make her more happy)? And are we not getting in the direction of a debate, about who is going to educate the educators?

 

It is a cheap rhetorical tactic for you to argue that I only favour "traditional" types of relationships as a way of skirting the need to discuss the specific merits of open relationships.

Hey, you used the cheap rhetorical trick yourself first. So any accusation leveled at me in that regard, is in fact a misdirected criticism of your own words.

 

It[personal responsibility]'s still there. I guess you see nothing wrong with people selling crack cocaine either, then. After all, it's ultimately a question of personal responsibility.

Not ultimately. But to say that you are completely innocent for making a bad decision, because you went up to the crack dealer, bought the stuff and got yourself addicted, is indeed absolving of personal responsibility.

 

I guess these governments and individuals suing the tobacco companies are all just silly people who don't accept personal responsibility too.

Well, the first indications that smoking was dangerous were given in 1950. And when did the goverments made the switch to suing tobacco companies? I bet it was not in 1951, or in 1952. And you could argue that government neglected to fulfil its duties to the general public in the process. Or is Canada one of the countries where you can't sue your government if it screws up?

 

And, if for argument's sake, let's say that it was well established by 1980 that smoking is dangerous. With what right can an individual who started to smoke after 1980 claim that he did not know?

 

What is your standard for judging this? Lots of people tell the person to whom they are attracted that they are okay and comfortable with open relationships because they fear that the alternative is losing them.

Yes, but -

You cannot take a person to a psychologist or psychiatrist for every statement they make. It is a reasonable assumption to make, that if a person gives an opinion, that it is an opinion the person believes in. Mindreading is an ability people lack.

And it can also happen in monogamous relationships. It happens in affairs. It happens everywhere. The problem is not the open relationship, and the problem is not that people are not mindreaders. The problem is, that people are fooling themselves with their dishonesty. And you cannot hold another person responsible for the fact that you are being dishonest with yourself.

 

It is my hope that if I expressed on here that I wanted to do something unethical, dangerous or otherwise ill-advised that people would try to talk me out of it.

Of course. But if there is nothing dangerous, or unethical, nor ill-advised about the whole thing, there is no reason for people to try and talk someone out of the thing. That is the situation SilentPrayer is describing. If her partners in an open relationship make poor judgement, that is their issue. And of course, monogamous relationships are not immune to that either.

As for the alleged unethical nature of open relationships, that may be true in your view. But your views on morality are not the same as SilentPrayer's. Or mine. Or of Santa Claus.

It would be a different matter if someone came on the boards, with a question like: "He is into open relationships, and I am not, can this work?" It is clear what we both would advise on this.

 

The thing is, you have noble intentions, Fusangite. No doubt about that.

But as the example of smoking shows, you can argue that smoking is immoral all you want, but it won't make smoking history, and (that is a real problem) will make a lot of smokers more resistant to change. I can't see why it would not be the same with people who already believe in open relationships.

[RecordProducer]

Which is why it is important for the partners in the relationship to be respectful about using protection to avoid bringing home disease.

I don't want my partner sleeping with other women even if he uses a condom. First of all AIDS and hepatitis B and C can be transmitted orally too, secondly I don't want to kiss him after he's kissed another woman's pussy.

 

Fusangite, you were indeed rude to Silent Prayer. Why she asks the question doesn't matter. If people get into a hostile debate because of her question, it's because people's opinions differ and you can't hold the thread starter responsible for that. In fact, the only one who expressed hostility here was you. She simply said "What do you think of open relationships? I think they are okay." You are trying to give her a hard time for her liberal way of life as if she is doing something immoral.

 

Be kind and polite! She already is.

[fusangite]

You are right about that. But that means that you require (implicitly) that a person rejects a form of hedonism (if we may assume this is hedonism) in favor of a moral system that is higher developed' date=' and as a consequence of that rejects open relationships.[/quote']That's not my argument at all. The reason polyamory fails is not because it is a less developed or sophisticated way of thinking about relationships but because it is too dissonant with primitive human behaviour. My argument is that polyamory, while a consistent and intellectually sophisticated moral system, creates problems on an emotional level because it demands that we adopt an ideology intellecutally that most people are viscerally unable to internalize.

with what ethical right can you require of a person to relinquish his or her current views,

I'm not requiring anyone to do anything. I am suggesting that someone do something. Giving advice is a basic part of human society. Given that we're on an advice forum, I don't think it's really credible to question whether giving advice is okay.

and with what right / philosophical justification could you say that your views are more correct

Again, I don't think there is any use in asking whether it is okay to think one's opinions are right. You could not have an opinion unless you believed it was right and that opinions contradicting it were wrong. I don't really feel okay about whether it is okay to have opinions. Again I plead that we're on an advice forum and expected to have opinions.

And are we not getting in the direction of a debate, about who is going to educate the educators?

No. Unless you want to start demanding that people read certain articles in order to get posting privileges here.

Not ultimately. But to say that you are completely innocent for making a bad decision, because you went up to the crack dealer, bought the stuff and got yourself addicted, is indeed absolving of personal responsibility.

Well, I think I'm with mainstream society when I say that, legal or not, pushing (ie encouraging the consumption of) dangerous, highly addictive drugs, be they tobacco or crack cocaine, is a bad thing to do. Encouraging people to damage themselves can be bad without extinguishing the idea of free will. Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit. They sinned. But that doesn't mean Satan didn't do anything wrong by encouraging them to.

Well, the first indications that smoking was dangerous were given in 1950. And when did the goverments made the switch to suing tobacco companies? I bet it was not in 1951, or in 1952. And you could argue that government neglected to fulfil its duties to the general public in the process. Or is Canada one of the countries where you can't sue your government if it screws up?

What does this have to do with anything? Does it change the fact that tobacco companies encouraged people to damage themselves and are now being sued for having done so? No.

And, if for argument's sake, let's say that it was well established by 1980 that smoking is dangerous. With what right can an individual who started to smoke after 1980 claim that he did not know?

I would encourage you to look at the law here; I don't intend to review the history of tobacco litigation here because it detracts from the basic point which is: encouraging people to hurt themselves is a bad thing to do. If you can't see that as a self-evident truth, no amount of exploration of recent court decisions can help there.

You cannot take a person to a psychologist or psychiatrist for every statement they make. It is a reasonable assumption to make, that if a person gives an opinion, that it is an opinion the person believes in. Mindreading is an ability people lack.

The reasonable thing to do, when someone makes a statement, is to determine if, based on experience, whether the statement is true. If an eight year old tells you he has super-powers, you don't need to take their opinion at face value. You know that, based on experience, their statement is likely to be false. We do the same thing with, "It's not you. It's me" or "I'm focusing on my career now" or "I have to get up early." When people talk to us, we should use our best judgement to assess the truth of their statements.

And it can also happen in monogamous relationships. It happens in affairs. It happens everywhere.

People starve to death in every country. But they are much more likely to starve to death if they live in Burkina Faso. That's my argument about polyamory: these kinds of relationships are more likely to cause damage than most are.

The thing is, you have noble intentions, Fusangite. No doubt about that.

But as the example of smoking shows, you can argue that smoking is immoral all you want, but it won't make smoking history,

Hey -- if one person out of millions stops smoking, in part, because of something I did or said, that would be fabulous!

and (that is a real problem) will make a lot of smokers more resistant to change. I can't see why it would not be the same with people who already believe in open relationships.

That's true. But they do study the efficacy of anti-smoking campaigns precisely because people do worry about that. But it's a fair criticism that I may have come off too abbrasively to get my point across. I'll take that into account in future.

 

Glad we're able to get this debate into a more cordial tone. Thanks.

[fusangite]

RecordProducer,

 

AIDS cannot be transmitted orally.

 

Regarding my tone. Sorry. I'll strive to be more polite.

[RecordProducer]

RecordProducer,

 

AIDS cannot be transmitted orally.

 

Regarding my tone. Sorry. I'll strive to be more polite.

 

Kewl.

I've read that AIDS can be transmitted orally. One is most likely to get it anally then vaginally then orally (oral sex). Theoretically you can even get it from touching a vagina if you have a wound on your finger or from a kiss if both partners have wounds in their mouths or their gums bleed.

 

I don't want to turn this into an AIDS-transmission debate, but please for your own sake, do a research and read about it. Perhaps you're occasionally risking your life without being aware of it.

[d'Arthez]

To clear things up, about the issue of morality (at least in my view).

 

The reason polyamory fails is not because it is a less developed or sophisticated way of thinking about relationships but because it is too dissonant with primitive human behaviour.

Or is it the other way around? That modern living standards are too dissonant with primitive human behavior? There have been done studies in (comparative) cultural anthropology, in which it was discovered that other forms of sexuality (other than monogamy) were practiced in some "primitive" societies, were it did not lead to more emotional / social problems.

My argument is that polyamory, while a consistent and intellectually sophisticated moral system, creates problems on an emotional level because it demands that we adopt an ideology intellecutally that most people are viscerally unable to internalize.

That is absoulutely true. But it is not true for all cultures. Nor is it true for all people. And culture seems to be playing a big role in this.

I think, that a lot of people overestimate what they can handle relationship-wise. Accidental pregnancies, STDs, relationships that are destroyed by cheating or other forms of dishonesty. Of course some issues can be more severe in open relationships.

Interesting enough something similar may be said about moral systems in general, and living up to the standards of the system you believe in. It is not hard to profess your belief in say the Ten Commandments, but a lot harder to act upon these beliefs.

 

I'm not requiring anyone to do anything. I am suggesting that someone do something. Giving advice is a basic part of human society. Given that we're on an advice forum, I don't think it's really credible to question whether giving advice is okay.

The question has to be asked, especially as we headed for more general, more meta-views on the matter. Perhaps the word 'require' was unluckily chosen. One issue, and that can be a frustating one, is that even if you have given the best advice that could be given in a situation, there is still no certainty that it will be followed.

 

You can argue two basic positions, about other people's statements. The one starting with trust, and the one starting with distrust. Of course, reason plays a role in that, as does context. If I were to say that I am Superman, it is reasonable to believe I am not, for quite a number of reasons. Statements as "It is not you, it is me", hold meaning dependent on the context and the situation. But, it is hard to figure out the exact meaning of these words. Sometimes such a statement is true, sometimes not. You cannot generalize it completely though.

And I still maintain, that if a person indicates repeatedly and convincingly that they can handle open relationships, that you cannot blame the person who does, for the first person's mistake. He "desperately" wanted to make the mistake.

 

Does it change the fact that tobacco companies encouraged people to damage themselves and are now being sued for having done so? No

Of course not. But the risks were known for a much longer time before governments stepped up the plate. Which is not in line with the purposes government has. Quite the contrary in fact. I do not know about Canada, but in many European countries the governments get big bucks as VAT and accins, on tobacco-ware. I am not claiming that this was the reason many governments chose to ignore the evidence. But you cannot ignore that accusation easily either.

But it is interesting, that people profess on the one hand to believe in individual freedom and personal responsibility, and on the other hand are so dependent on external forces to do anything with regards to their health. Where is the personal responsibility in these matters?

 

We know, and have known for many years that fast-food is a health risk. But suing the companies won't solve the problem. Eating fast-food will still remain a health risk. For some people it is ingrained in their life-style. More interesting questions are, why it is that way? And if there could be devised means to alter things, in the sense that people assume responsibility for their own actions?

 

Glad we're able to get this debate into a more cordial tone. Thanks.

You are welcome. I tend to get highly abrasive, when posts are worded in a similar way. I am just as guilty of that, in this case.

[fusangite]

Or is it the other way around? That modern living standards are too dissonant with primitive human behavior? There have been done studies in (comparative) cultural anthropology, in which it was discovered that other forms of sexuality (other than monogamy) were practiced in some "primitive" societies, were it did not lead to more emotional / social problems.

 

That is absoulutely true. But it is not true for all cultures. Nor is it true for all people. And culture seems to be playing a big role in this.

Fair enough; I think we are probably reading different works of speculative anthropology, neither of which is developed enough to be conclusive. So I am happy to take your suggestion and agree that another significant factor in the rate at which people abandon polyamory is its dissonance with our own contemporary culture, something that exercises a profound influence on our thoughts and feelings.

I still maintain, that if a person indicates repeatedly and convincingly that they can handle open relationships, that you cannot blame the person who does, for the first person's mistake. He "desperately" wanted to make the mistake.

I guess, for me, this hangs on "convincingly." I see a lot of wishful thinking on both sides when it comes to open relationships because both people are so invested in believing the new recruit can "handle it." So, yes, I can agree with this proposition, that if a person is convincing in asserting they can handle polyamory, I don't have a serious problem with them joining the movement.

[SilentPrayer]

Allrighty Boys,

 

Play nice now...I don't want to have to say it again.

 

Fact being that I started this thread I will help with it. to complete it.

 

So if you are reading to this point as of now, you must have read the whole thread and you are wondering what is the "Big" probleme. Really you are asking the wrong person because these guys are really smart and every time I skimm through thier "quoteings" of one another. I seriously have some major brain farts. It's like..."duh?"

 

Anyhow I am in an open relationship but it is based on rules. I do not freely sleep with whomever I please, but I can easily break off the relationship if I feel that I need to for whatever reason. I have been known to do seasonal relationships, as in. I will date a guy for the winter and come spring we usually end it. That is just another side of me and please "don't argue about that either".

 

Everyone is different I love seeing different people walk down a busy street in the city. There is so much color, difference, texture, different smiles. I enjoy the city being that is always packed with different kinds of people but basically I notice these differences but in the same way I consider myself the same as anyone else. My rights are the same, I breath the same, I feel the same, I cry the same, my heart breaks the same but I have something inside of me to make me different. I am a total different person from YOU....or YOU.....or YOU over there. I practice my life differently. I like haveing hot co-coa when Im taking a bath. I like feeling of a cold marbel floor on my bare feet. I hate eating meat...but I also like meat...it makes my stomach curl when I think that its an animal...but I lack meat from my diet and my doctor says I really need to eat meat. SEE...im different.

 

 

Me being in open relationships is all I have ever known. I have always been open in relationships. It has always been something I knew I wanted...I did it..and I like it. No its not for everyone, but anyone willing to try is brave. It takes alot of strength to let your partner sleep with someone else if they want to. It's the whole ESSENCE of an open relationship. Call me a hippy...a new age freak...some modern confused kid....lol...my dad calls it Bastardy.

Whatever that means ehh??

I practice relationships differently then others. Every partner has his or her owne personal rules they bring into "each" relationship they have.

 

I live in Canada. I have a pretty amazeing country that supports me in whatever I do. I have a great family that allows me to practice this within their eyes. They meet my partners, I am a family orientated person. I need my partner(s) to meet my family. I have a group of friends that don't really understand the way I do this, they dont know why I would...but they do know it keeps me happy..and that is all that matters to them.

 

I am a special person....im different....were all just as exually great as the next person....so let it be.

 

Also...anyone can catch a disease....have you ever heard of the guy who got pricked by something in a movie theater..and it was an AID infected needle planted on the chair?

SEE! Anyone can get AIDS.....if you can't practice safe and sound sex....then stay in a tested and safe environment...."a steady partner".

Personally..yes I have been scared to get it before....but my personal partners...are safe..this I know because you need to be safe doing this kind of thing....me..and partner(s) get tested often.

 

So...end of story.

 

I LOVE:love: Open Relationships!! I will continue to until I find my mate.

 

OK....im not all that bad...I believe in marriage. SOme people have open marriages...but I think I would rather have a closed one because I want to raise a nice family. ONE DAY...not soon.

 

So be all....and END all.

 

Adios:bunny:

 

Silent:love: