The first International Academic Polyamory Conference was held in Berkeley CA February 15-17, 2013 with approximately 100 attendees. Polyamory is the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. It is not new or revolutionary that individuals may be involved with more than one other party; what is new is the openness, acknowledgement, and support and encouragement of the situation.
What future? Kids won’t function in a jealous environment.
Posted by Intomorrow on 02/18 at 06:25 PM
No purpose in arguing this.
If you want justice, there can be some justice, and there is: when an innocent person is exonerated in court, there is justice.
But there can be no consensus on virtue; however if you want to spend the rest of your life promoting virtue, there is positive and negative:
Positive is, you may help some, but the negative is the effort may be 999 people you cannot help; 1 person you can help. Not a good percentage unless you’re self-sacrificing—and today Prosperity Christianity has put self sacrificing Christians on the Endangered Species list. Yet if you are self-sacrificing, Henry, then good for you.
No point in arguing further, except to write I’m all for polyamory save that it is too conservative for my taste. Get it while you can for there’s none in a nursing home.
Every man to the devil his own way, Henry.
Posted by Intomorrow on 02/18 at 09:11 PM
Here is one way we might be able to communicate (though why you would want to blog at a h+ site is the first question to ask you, Henry). Let’s substitute ‘sin’ for another three letter word:
One can avoid bad by staying inside all day, eating organic brown rice (small portions) etc. and drinking purified water. Plus meditating, prayer—prayer works well. It is probably better to live a clean life, but no proof of that.. and if a guy really wants to do a bad, he is going to bad. Only thing that would work against this is—as far as I know—reverse psychology, which is as disingenuous as what you are opposing. So do what you wish, however you might end up making men even more rebellious than they already are—that is how reactive men are.
Posted by SHaGGGz on 02/18 at 10:04 PM
Really liking that polyamory symbol. So many layers of meaning.
If polyamory were ever to achieve a predominant orientation, it would be the ultimate triumph of culture and technology over our bestial selves, a continuation of our transcending Darwinian selection, to the conclusion of subverting the pair bonding dynamic itself. Though the biological logic of two parents forming a zygote would still (presumably) be there, the transition to polyamory would be a far more profound shift.
@Intomorrow: how is polyamory too conservative for you, you wild, subversive, oh-so-radical revolutionary, you?
Posted by Intomorrow on 02/18 at 11:24 PM
No, SHaGGGz, it’s Henry: he wants to keep all the debutantes to himself—he is very bright, you know.
And priests; nowadays they do better in the sack than all of us rolled into one. Today ‘lay’ priest and ‘defrocked’ priest have different meanings than in the past.
Now do you see why I have a weakness for religion?
Posted by SHaGGGz on 02/18 at 11:27 PM
It all makes so much sense now.
Posted by Henry Bowers on 02/19 at 10:48 AM
Is polyamory really Darwainistic, when the pair-structures that aren’t marriage tend to fall away from societal recognition, while the marriage institution perdures? For example, even in non-Christian cultures, concubines aren’t accorded the same status as wives; why is that?
Posted by Intomorrow on 02/20 at 12:43 AM
“For example, even in non-Christian cultures, concubines aren’t accorded the same status as wives; why is that?”
First come first served, for starters: the wives came into the household first, just say.
You’re the most challenging of Christians, Henry, because you know so much. Don’t know what to think; however it must be written you are ambitious—but then so are Marxists. They with their classless world, you with Jesus. We should be pleased at such ambitiousness.
One possibility for you to consider is Christians can abandon Prosperity Christianity so as to be less of this world, but still in this world. Christian intentional communities are refuges from temptation.
Reverse psychology can work as well: tell your children/grandchildren when they grow up they ought to smoke cheap cigarettes, drink mediocre beer at sleazy bars, and associate with cads and floozies. Then when they are told by their peers, teachers, etc., otherwise, they will react against what they were erroneously told when children.
An interesting piece and an interesting academic conference.
Yet, I do wonder about polyamory. Oh, yes, I believe it is entirely possible for some people. In fact, I’ve even written about a future in which “intimate networks” are the norm (though I’m somewhat tongue in cheek about it. I envision a female-dominant order in which the normal “family” is four superwomen sharing one ingenue like male. See the link below).
But in the real world, among real people, I wonder about the energy involved. It takes a lot of effort to maintain a long term relationship. I wonder how many of us have the energy required to be so close to more than one mate plus children.
In other words, it’s not people’s morality I question. It is their stamina.
book in question: http://www.amazon.com/The-Pellucid-Risen-Awakening-ebook/dp/B0092QUEB8
Posted by SHaGGGz on 02/20 at 06:21 PM
@Brad: Cue the staminogenic nootropics!
Posted by Intomorrow on 02/21 at 12:46 AM
Wish Henry would reply.
This is direct to Henry’s faith: if someone wants to be Christian, they might want to do as the Amish do- be more in this word than of this world. Prosperity Christianity is an oxymoron, a corruption of Christianity, the Bible doesn’t say,
“Thou shalt grab the dollars and get filthy rich”..
it is similar to if a Marxist were to make billions, smoke cigars and say,
“I’m a Marxist, now where’s my humidor?”
If you don’t like polyamory then you withdraw a la the Amish, you shouldn’t sit side-saddle on the Golden Calf, serving two masters.
Posted by SHaGGGz on 02/21 at 01:02 AM
@Intomorrow: While your point about the prosperity gospel is valid, it’s pretty arbitrary to single out that particular violation of scripture. Pretty much the entirety of extant Christianity, save the tiny sliver of dominionists who wish to restore unbridled theocracy, including slavery, execution for working on the Sabbath and all those delicious divinities, exhibits profound lack of theological integrity.
Posted by Henry Bowers on 02/21 at 10:30 AM
@Intomorrow: I’m not sure when I argued for Prosperity Christianity.
To the theological/intellectual dishonesty charge, I find it interesting that those who level it tend to have rejected the faith. They are covert, unwitting fundamentalits, assuming the Bible is to be read as a code of law at face value, for all peoples of all ages; unfortunately this hypothesis is nowhere to be found in the Bible itself.
Therefore I can’t help but suggest that a single semester course in New Testament theolgy would dispel the biting suspicion that all Christians are adopting biblical maxims a la carte.
The reason faith is hated is because it is the one thing at which no one of any talents or abilities will excel. Great faith is, in the end, a thread, and a weak one, made strong by God alone.
Can we tie this any way into the polyamory discussion?
Posted by SHaGGGz on 02/21 at 11:17 PM
@Henry: “I’m not sure when I argued for Prosperity Christianity. “
I too am curious where he got that from.
“To the theological/intellectual dishonesty charge, I find it interesting that those who level it tend to have rejected the faith.”
The aforesaid Dominionists would level said charge every bit as fervently, likely more so, and have a far better claim to having upheld the faith than you and similar pickers of cherries.
“Therefore I can’t help but suggest that a single semester course in New Testament theolgy…”
The uncanny convenience of your deflecting substantive defense by requiring one get a certificate in unicornology in order to criticize unicornology must be noted.
“...would dispel the biting suspicion that all Christians are adopting biblical maxims a la carte.”
I would be interested in hearing your account of how it’s reasonable to presume that a book whose specificity is at the level of prescribing particular methods of execution for particular offenses is meant to be taken non-literally. Feel free to draw upon your presumably extremely valuable insights gleaned from unicornology courses.
“The reason faith is hated is because it is the one thing at which no one of any talents or abilities will excel.”
Ah, the ol’ “u haten cuz u jelly” defense. Worked well for Romney. No, I think a more reasonable explanation would be the millennia of unspeakable crimes against humanity, as well as the less-spectacular constant, mind-numbing drag on human civilizational progress,
“Great faith is, in the end, a thread, and a weak one, made strong by God alone.”
I think I’ll have to agree with you there; I can’t think of anything existing outside the bubble that would give one’s belief from within the bubble strength.
Posted by Intomorrow on 02/22 at 01:04 AM
It is true Prosperity Christianity is a given- so I shouldn’t have brought it up. Before modernity, when scarcity was regnant, frugality was celebrated. Henry, you appear to be an Englishman; but in America the frugality of the Frontier ages faded in the 20th century. In the ‘80s (I witnessed it, so do not write it did not occur) Prosperity Christianity took hold and dominates Christianity today. Anybody not well-off is considered a loser- not a sinner. I see it all the time: pack the miscreant losers off to homeless shelters and Section 8, for they falleth short of the abundance of God, and must suffer for the Sins of Mankind.. they are miniature crucified Jesuses to take on our sins. Henry, I’ve been talking to Christians for over 50 years.
“Therefore I can’t help but suggest that a single semester course in New Testament theolgy would dispel the biting suspicion that all Christians are adopting biblical maxims a la carte.”
Can’t say for sure.
My grandfather was a Methodist minister and he, plus six years of Sunday school, inculcated Christianity completely—it is wired into my subconscious. I genuinely like Christianity but from weakness (it is the subject’s perception of one’s weakness, not the stranger’s).
“Can we tie this any way into the polyamory discussion?”
Yes, but only subjectively: I personally like Christians but don’t trust them, in a manner quite similar to how you might not trust certain members of your family. Think of it—if you will—as mistrust of brothers and sisters in Christ. In sexual matters I don’t trust Christians, but they can do what they want as long as they only interfere in matters of abuse. Christians do tend to promote a slightly higher conventional morality so they will endeavor (merely as one example) to protect spouses and children from violent sexual abuse by the husbands/fathers. You know very well men are not civilised.
I can’t discuss particle physics but I can go into these simpler matters: anyone who looks carefully into these issues can see what is going on.
Most of all, IMO sex is no big deal; us making a big shi-doo about penises and vaginases is a waste of time. One has sex, takes a shower and forgets about it—there are other things in life. However the author of this article is serious and the piece deserves serious discussion. Now the ball is in your court.
Posted by Henry Bowers on 02/22 at 10:18 AM
@Shagggz: My defense would focus on the claims made by Christ himself, and their theological implications for fulfilling and superceding promises of the Old Covenant. A second point would be that certain maxims made it into the 10 Commandments while others did not; and a third would be that you still haven’t provided a reason to adopt every command in the Bible as universally applicable; I did not deny that any or all passages can or should be read literally. To make this defense, however, would be highly off-topic. Lastly, I don’t think you want to compare atheist-crimes vs. church-crimes, for the disparity in casualties is not in your favor.
@Intomorrow: I started a serious discussion by questioning the well-being of kids in a polyamorous arrangement. Indeed, the arrangement might not be about kids, but as in same-sex marriage arrangements, children begin to be seen as a right of the cohabiting adults, instead of having rights of their own, viz. the right to be raised by their own married parents.
Posted by SHaGGGz on 02/22 at 06:47 PM
@Henry: You mean the claims attributed to Christ, written down at the terminal end of a multigenerational game of telephone decades after his purported existence? As for biblical interpretation, if one has the leeway to come to conclusions directly antithetical to the plain words written by the supposed deity in question, it’s reasonable to infer that it is not at all the books that guide the reasoning, thus rendering them at best superfluous. I’m well cognizant of the bodycount of dogmatic atheist philosophies and have no problem accounting for them, as their fault was the sort of dogmatism impervious to reason that I am now decrying, not an excess of self-reflective free inquiry.
As for children in polyamorous arrangements, they have to be seen as rights to be fought for because it is the wider society that questions said right that brings the issue to the fore in the first place.
Posted by Intomorrow on 02/22 at 07:09 PM
“As for children in polyamorous arrangements, they have to be seen as rights to be fought for because it is the wider society that questions said right that brings the issue to the fore in the first place.”
Yes, now we are getting somewhere. Because…
“children begin to be seen as a right of the cohabiting adults, instead of having rights of their own, viz. the right to be raised by their own married parents.”
...what if the married parents are uninspiring dweebs or worse?
I wish people would talk about sex (and sexually-related matters such as polyamory, polyfidelity), less and do it more; silence is golden. You don’t have to write a treatise about it, hire two attorneys and a paralegal. It doesn’t have to be a big shidoo where Oprah is debating James Dobson.
When reading your comments, Henry, I think religion is as Christmas.. something to go along with to please the old folks. People want illusions: Christmas illusions, Hollywood illusions, that which is to take their minds off the pressures of life.
Posted by Intomorrow on 02/22 at 08:47 PM
.. should add polyamory/polyfidelity doesn’t interst me anymore, after hearing about such for decades have become bored. Does appear to be a topic to sell books for, and have a nagging Auntie on the radio, a Laura Schlessinger, to yap on. That’s what it is: a bunch of yapping. Nothing new being said for decades. Well-off cognescenti preaching down to po’ folks.
A frowning Robert Bork writing “Slouching Towards Gomorrah”, versus Hugh Hefner writing “The Joy Of Dancing Nekkid On A Waterbed”
It has become hypostatised. And don’t say it isn’t about sex- it is. Remember Henry, you are the one making a big deal about it; you comment at a site you know is not conservative, yet you write nothing new on the topic. If you wrote something interesting such as:
“if you people have your way the public will be rutting in the streets like mink in April.”
Instead you write the standard,
“what about the children! ooooh [sob, sniff]”
Don’t care if you are provocative, Henry: as long as you write something that hasn’t been written a thousand times before.