I find it really odd that people feel that anyone's life choices, as long as they are within the law, need justifying.
If a person wishes to sleep with more than one partner and are open and honest about that and up front with their sexual partners I see nothing wrong with those actions at all.
Yeah I agree with this. It wouldn't be for me and I would not be with a person who doesn't believe in monogamy but I really couldn't care less what anyone else does in their relationships as it isn't my relationship and effects me in no way what so ever. As far as I'm concerned if all people involved are aware and happy with the relationship set up, then what is wrong with that?
Polyamourous may (or may not) be a real condition/life choice, but Jade certainly isn`t it. She has read it somewhere & thought it would make her seem interesting, but when she was put on the spot to define exactly what it meant, everything she said about herself completely contradicted what it would mean to be polyamourous, She then tried to justify that & made herself look like a total idiot.
I agree that jade is definitely not Polyamorous, what she described herself as being was young and not ready for a relationship yet
Nope! He did have a few off days but ....... My point is that the beauty of the human condition is that each passing generation does not have to start form scratch we have the learning and experiences of the previous ones. We can improve our situation but it doesn't mean we write off the research of the past because 'we are more enlightened'.
I've really liked Jade these last few days but let's be honest, she is using all this "spiritual" nonsense to disguise her lack of personality. She's fascinating to watch, but her polyamorous-ness will be no use to her in the house and she doesn't have a lot more going on!
How was Freud wrong? He was revolutionary in his day and changed the way people thought about 'personalities' and the way in which the individual thinks and perceives the world.
He was the first in his field - like anything that begun many years ago his work has been modified and extended - tried and tested but he certainly wasn't WRONG.
Why do young people feel that everything from the past is 'wrong' or irrelevant today? The world evolves but where would we be without the doctors, scientists, psychologists, architects etc. etc. who started it all off?
Like Jade with this Polyamorous story (and I believe it's just that) it really isn't anything new - it's simply choosing to have sexual relationships without emotional monogamous ties.
Polyamourous may (or may not) be a real condition/life choice, but Jade certainly isn`t it. She has read it somewhere & thought it would make her seem interesting, but when she was put on the spot to define exactly what it meant, everything she said about herself completely contradicted what it would mean to be polyamourous, She then tried to justify that & made herself look like a total idiot.
When people are put on the spot they don't always articulate themselves perfectly. It happens.
I found Joel to be very closed-minded when he said this, as well as people on this thread saying it's "code for sl*t" etc. As far as I'm concerned, as long as all parties involved in a polyamorous relationship are aware, then it's fine. It's not for me, and presumably a lot of people, but it can obviously work for some. It doesn't make Jade immoral in any way.
I found Joel to be very closed-minded when he said this, as well as people on this thread saying it's "code for sl*t" etc. As far as I'm concerned, as long as all parties involved in a polyamorous relationship are aware, then it's fine. It's not for me, and presumably a lot of people, but it can obviously work for some. It doesn't make Jade immoral in any way.
I think it just illustrated just how young and lacking in life experience Joel is.
Having never had a relationship (or sex) I don't think he really has the knowledge/experience to pass comment.
Because you're acting as if something subjective is objective.
Or perhaps I'm not looking for (or asking for) evidence of something that is - you said it - subjective. If something doesn't ring true then it's called a hunch......most scientific discoveries come from a hunch but there doesn't need to be prima facie evidence to back up that hunch.
Or perhaps I'm not looking for (or asking for) evidence of something that is - you said it - subjective. If something doesn't ring true then it's called a hunch......most scientific discoveries come from a hunch but there doesn't need to be prima facie evidence to back up that hunch.
How was Freud wrong? He was revolutionary in his day and changed the way people thought about 'personalities' and the way in which the individual thinks and perceives the world..
Really? Blimey! All I thought he ever did was present second rate cooking shows whilst getting drunk as skunk. I obviously missed the subtext.
Ha, ha that really irritates me when people use that argument. It's like saying Freud was wrong, it's like saying Marie Curie was a hack, it's like saying all the great thinkers and scientists were wrong because we are more enlightened.
By the way I am old enough to have been around when the Joy of Sex was written. Not only that but I was not commenting on the book but observations made after it had been in publication for at least ten years.
Finally whatever you like to call it poly wotsit has been around for thousands of years. It is not new.
Yes 'old' expert theories of sexuality (and you're free to choose whether you accept the word 'expert') arn't necessarily wrong because of their age. But then nor are they necessarily right.
Nor are housemates or any of us obliged to follow or even worse, be governed by them whether published or not.
In 1972 it was illegal for a homosexual act to take place where a third person was likely to be present, let alone be shown on television. In Scotland homosexuality was still illegal until 1980. Weve just had the gay marriage referendum in Ireland.
I have no problem with the morality of polyamourous or open or whatever you want to label it, relationships. The danger though is that humans do tend to fall in love and what often happens in these relationships, open, swinging, wife swapping or whatever, is that people fall in love and when that happens someone invariably gets hurt.
I have no problem with the morality of polyamourous or open or whatever you want to label it, relationships. The danger though is that humans do tend to fall in love and what often happens in these relationships, open, swinging, wife swapping or whatever, is that people fall in love and when that happens someone invariably gets hurt.
Absolutely - I suppose polyamory works if both all 'participants' are truly polyamorous - the problem is - as human beings jealousy and possessiveness often rear their ugly heads - all this 'but we are not exclusive' rarely works (IMO) - if it's one sided then I suppose it could be viewed as immoral no matter what the initial rules were.
^^ Not sure if I've made sense but I know what I mean.
I think she said something along the lines of ceasing with the polyamory once she's in a relationship leading to marriage....or could have been the marriage itself. Surely that shouldn't matter a jot for a predilection so ingrained to her soul. So I believe she's probably just playing the field at the moment and 'dating'. That is quite commonplace modern behaviour for the 21st century woman, but hey polyamory sounds so out there and progressive so that's what she's going to call it.
Comments
Yeah I agree with this. It wouldn't be for me and I would not be with a person who doesn't believe in monogamy but I really couldn't care less what anyone else does in their relationships as it isn't my relationship and effects me in no way what so ever. As far as I'm concerned if all people involved are aware and happy with the relationship set up, then what is wrong with that?
I agree that jade is definitely not Polyamorous, what she described herself as being was young and not ready for a relationship yet
He was though wasn't he?
Nope! He did have a few off days but ....... My point is that the beauty of the human condition is that each passing generation does not have to start form scratch we have the learning and experiences of the previous ones. We can improve our situation but it doesn't mean we write off the research of the past because 'we are more enlightened'.
How was Freud wrong? He was revolutionary in his day and changed the way people thought about 'personalities' and the way in which the individual thinks and perceives the world.
He was the first in his field - like anything that begun many years ago his work has been modified and extended - tried and tested but he certainly wasn't WRONG.
Why do young people feel that everything from the past is 'wrong' or irrelevant today? The world evolves but where would we be without the doctors, scientists, psychologists, architects etc. etc. who started it all off?
Like Jade with this Polyamorous story (and I believe it's just that) it really isn't anything new - it's simply choosing to have sexual relationships without emotional monogamous ties.
When people are put on the spot they don't always articulate themselves perfectly. It happens.
Just shows how petty you are tbh.
I think Seymour could be a posh name for an idiot.
Or maybe he/she sees more;-)
I think it just illustrated just how young and lacking in life experience Joel is.
Having never had a relationship (or sex) I don't think he really has the knowledge/experience to pass comment.
Especially when they're put on the spot about something they might just have made up and have no real knowledge or experience of.
Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?
Why would I need evidence of something self-evident?
Because you're acting as if something subjective is objective.
Or perhaps I'm not looking for (or asking for) evidence of something that is - you said it - subjective. If something doesn't ring true then it's called a hunch......most scientific discoveries come from a hunch but there doesn't need to be prima facie evidence to back up that hunch.
True.
I submit then that all but two are, therefore, immoral and the other two are just waiting for the opportunity to be immoral
And then I remembered that he thinks chickens lay eggs out of their necks.
I suspect he said used the word immoral without really knowing what he meant.
A quick quip. I vaguely recall him using another word in the wrong context a few nights back, subverting what I suspect he thought he was saying.
Really? Blimey! All I thought he ever did was present second rate cooking shows whilst getting drunk as skunk. I obviously missed the subtext.
Yes 'old' expert theories of sexuality (and you're free to choose whether you accept the word 'expert') arn't necessarily wrong because of their age. But then nor are they necessarily right.
Nor are housemates or any of us obliged to follow or even worse, be governed by them whether published or not.
In 1972 it was illegal for a homosexual act to take place where a third person was likely to be present, let alone be shown on television. In Scotland homosexuality was still illegal until 1980. Weve just had the gay marriage referendum in Ireland.
You may like it or not but Its progress.
.
Absolutely - I suppose polyamory works if both all 'participants' are truly polyamorous - the problem is - as human beings jealousy and possessiveness often rear their ugly heads - all this 'but we are not exclusive' rarely works (IMO) - if it's one sided then I suppose it could be viewed as immoral no matter what the initial rules were.
^^ Not sure if I've made sense but I know what I mean.