Non-Monogamy Growing in Acceptance and Popularity

In recent years the issue of same sex marriage dominated the discussions about relationships and marriage. Other variations on traditional, one man, and one woman relationships only came up as slippery slope fear mongering in an attempt to thwart legalization of same sex marriage.

The fact is that the such practices as swinging, open relationships, polygamy and closed group (informal) marriage- also known as polyamory - have been part of the equation since long before same sex marriage ever became a serious issue.

At the same time, the acceptance and practice of varying forms of non-monogamy is not only growing but seems to be accelerating. One question that comes to mind is it a manifestation of the slippery slope to an “anything goes society” as the direct result of same sex marriage, or, is it a natural progression in the evolution of sexual norms and values that began with the sexual revolution. There is clearly a correlation between the advance of gay rights and these other changes, but I would not be too hasty to assign a cause and effect relationship.

In any case, it appears that political controversies and legal issues surrounding sexuality and relationships will be with us for some time to come. Perhaps the next flashpoint in the culture wars is already smoldering. Here is a rundown on what has been happening in the world of non mon-monogamy.

And then there was this recent article:

As stated earlier, these practices have been around a while. The Polyamory Society was formed in 1996

And for those who want to engage in a less formal and binding form of non-monogamy, there is swinging:

So there you have it. It’s a changing world. Each of us has the choice to embrace it, ignore it, or to torcher ourselves and others over it, which will not change or help anything or anyone.

 

It is the 21st century and society changes with the times. As long as everyone is a consenting adult, I say, "Whatever floats their boat."

 

The Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is constitutional....so polygamy must be too. Love is love no matter who or how many. The government doesn't have the right to decide who anyone can or can't love. Crossing the line is under age. Adults can make up their own minds, as long as it's with other adults.

It's so hypocritical for cons to say they don't want government interfering in their lives, yet wants the government in everyone's bedroom and genitals.

 

Your source is mainly aimed at LGBT audiences......

The OP's articles seem more like LGBT propaganda attempting to legitimize their "Movement" and divert attention from Gay Marriage.

 

Mormon Fundies practiced and some still do practice polygamy so this is not a new thing.

Is any of this Obama's fault ?

 

How is it propaganda? It's a factual overview of what is happening with non-monogamy. I don't think that LGBT folks have to legitimize anything anymore, nor do they have to divert attention away from marriage equality.

 

Supporters of same sex marriage once argued that their support on the issue was partially based on respect for monogamous relationships and for the institution of marriage. I always suspected this was just a front. Homosexuals as a group are very unlikely to stay monogamous, even if they are married. Their communities have always had high levels of infidelity and sexual debauchery.

Like any other issue, something that promotes stability is to be attacked by the left. Their ideology thrives in instability. Radical change is only possible when nothing is tied down and rooted firmly in the soil.

 

What exactly is being attacked that promotes stability? Are fewer heterosexuals going to get married because of gay marriage.? Has it changed their behavior with respect to the well known rate of high rate of "cheating" among them? Even if what you say abut gays is true- and you have provided no documentation of it - are they going to be any more "non-monogamous as the result of marriage? That seems counter intuitive, wouldn't you say? Lastly, how is non-monogamous synonymous with instability? I am non-monogamous and have been married ( to the same woman) for 30 years. What is your point with this blather?

 

You might be the exception, but on the greater whole, he's 100% accurate.

 

End the Tyranny of Monogamy !
I blogged that years ago -

Validate Group Marriage.​

As long as the entire group are individuals of consenting adult age.​

How about, "Don't Marry!"?
Why register your relationship(s) with the gov't?


Moi

r > g

View attachment 40420
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
What part don't YOU get?​

 

Oh, we get to tell other people what their emotions and thoughts are now?

In that case, you don't believe anything you just said, and your favourite colour is now green.

 

First, please remember that Lesbian relationships tend to be longer lasting than heterosexual relationships.

Next, please note that marriage promotes stability, as it is a legal commitment that includes a number of features holding those married for continuing mutual support.

Next, please note that marriage law is still exactly what it was - only the law on who may take part has changed. Thus your marriage is not affected.

 

So why monogamy?
Why not groups of consenting adults?

Mormon style polygamy
Hippie Commune.
Any combination of people.
Why Not?

 

The show Sister Wives confirms the OPs view that polygamy is becoming accepted.

 

If you want to propose any of those, go ahead.

As a nation, we went through the issues of plural marriage, and found that it was problematic. So, your first step should be to examine that aspect of our nation's history.



Obviously, it's nonsense to propose one of those arrangements as an argument against what we have today.

 

I possess an uncanny ability to see straight through people, based on very little information, and I'm pretty much always dead on with my observations.

He's the one telling me his emotions.

I simply reflected them right back at him, only I got rid rid of the filters and barriers his perverted ego has built up for the sake of his self justification in said miserable lust consumed lifestyle.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Text-based communication doesn't have the non-verbal nuance that makes cold reading possible. He literally just stated that non-monogamy is growing more popular and that he's a supporter of this trend.

I'm monogamous to the point that even imagining myself in a non-monogamous relationship upsets me, and I'm still a supporter of the polyamorous gaining acceptance in society.

Are you sure you aren't the one with the miserable, lust consumed lifestyle? You sound like you'd be a lot happier if you went out and took home whatever wanton lass or lad tickled your fantasy.

 

I think the fact that we are more connected to one another plays a part in our societal shifts. Polyamory (and homosexuality) has always existed within our society, only now we have more connections than before to familiarize ourselves to its existence, and the people who are a part of it. This very thread is an example of that, 25 years ago this thread and the links provided in the OP could not exist

We didn't have the internet, thus we were less familiar with one another. Now that we are connected, we can put a human faces on subjects that we couldn't before. This to me is the main source behind our growing social acceptance of things like same sex relationships, and polyamory relationships.

 

Random thoughts on this subject:

I do not think that more than 2 people should be able to marry for practical reasons--it gets too confusing and expensive regarding things like spousal benefits. What if Bill Gates decided he wants to marry anybody who shares a facebook post. That would be quite expensive payout on social security spousal benefits when he croaks. Of course it feeds over into other things like child support/custody/visitation etc.

Now outside of more than 2 people marriages, I am okay with it at least in theory. I would hope whatever arrangement would be somewhat organized with acceptable ground rules for all members--kind of like group dating, but you got to keep it inside the group just to reduce the risk of STD's and such.

 

How is an article with no links or citations to their "facts" in any way factual?

 

While I used to see no problem with consentual polygamy, when I explored what this does to cultures it changed my mind. Essentially it ends up with the wealthy buying wives, spending their money there - while other men then have no family anchor as a behavior and responsibility control factor. What happens with poor and working class men have no women and no children? Such cultures tend to have great unrest, poverty, crime and numerous other problems.

- - - Updated - - -

To the opposite, the Internet allows people to discuss topics as platitudes and fantasy outside of actual reality.

 

Tyranny of monogamy? Geeez! Give me a brake! No one is saying that there is anything wrong with monogamy. Just that it should e a choice. It would be more accurate to say the tyranny of forced monogamy.

Why "register your relationship"? Because marriage is more than a relationship. It's a legal arraignment that includes important benefits, protections and responsibilities. If you're to paranoid or hateful of government for that , it's your problem, no one else's.

 

No citations? Seriously? Can you read?

 

You are 100% delusional if you really think that you know anything at all about this subject.

 

Tyranny, YES.
Perpetuated by miserable people in monogamous relationships.

How about people can go to something like a "We The People" outlet and design their own
contractual relationship with the associated responsibilities, etc.

Marriage, the End of Free Love
​

Moi

r > g

View attachment 40437 ​