Polyamorous Relationships (SPOILERS from School Days)

My sister asked me a question a few years back. The question was," How come when a girl sleeps with a bunch of guys, she is a whore and when I guy sleeps with a bunch of girls, is a player (for those who don't know ebonics that is a good thing)?"

That was a good point that was made and befuddles me to this day. Also I've watched the anime School Days, which relates to the same subject:



So with those points made, do you think being a "player" is a good thing or a bad thing? If the women (or men) that are sharing that certain individual with the harem are OK with the "harem lifestyle" is it OK?

Like so many other sexual oddities I would think that a Polyamorous relationship would be okay so long as its consensual. If you were in a relationship with two women, so long as they both knew about each other and they were both okay with it, then it would be fine.

However if the guy is deceiving either of the women then it is not okay.

Its important to note that its mostly just on TV/movies where a guy will be lauded for being a "player". In real life most people detest such a man and will denouce him as a Rake.

Make sure to tell your sister there is a big difference between TV and reality.

Because biologically men are suppose to be polyamorous for the survival of his genes. But i do agree on the one side stereotype of the slut to man whore meaning.

I judge both sides equally. Men are scum; women are whores.



The men who gave props are more likely than virgins who will never get laid unless they paid for sex. (Remember, mostly anyone watching shows like school days or any other non-dubbed mainstream anime, are more than likely otaku nerds. Let's face it, almost none of them will ever be in a relationship other than their daikimakura)

I would have smashed his head on the concrete.

Polygamy is one of things I despise the most in life. Women who have multiple men are wrong and so are men who have multiple women. There's really nothing much more I can say about it.

Took the words out of my mouth.

Makes you wonder how Rameses the II pulled it off. Fucking guy had hundreds of wives (few of which were his family) and children. Makes you wonder how he kept them all happy.....if he did at all.

good point
not forgetting those medieval princes and princesses in China
Ohwait. China...

AGREED. Couldn't say it any better.

Nah, polygamy is awesome, if it's consensual.

How consenting adults chose to live their life is entierly up to them and we have no fucking right to demand they live according to our standards.

If their actions endangered you*, or restricted your own freedom** than society has a right to step in and make them stop as freedom can extend only as far as it's not threatening the freedom of others.

However what in the nine hells does fucking each other behind closed doors have anything to do with you? If some people get their knockers off by having a huge orgy or living in a ménage à trois is entirely up to them.

The most common counterargument - "But think of the children!" - doesn't hold any fucking merit. People have been raised in extended families, in societies where polygamy of one sort or another are practiced.

The children are not involved in the sex, they don't observe the sex, they don't participate in the sex.

So in the end all that matters is whether they have a protecting and nurturing environment around them. An absolutely separate issue from the love life of the parents or guardians.

What most also can't fathom is that in such relationships, sexuality is not the exclusive subject of marriage... and why the hell should it be? It's fun, it bring pleasure... but in the modern times it doesn't have to result in children and therefore it won't lead to inheritance problems.

Why do we still act like it's the middle ages?

Marriage is more or less a contract, so that I have exclusive use of your genes, and return you gain exclusive use of mine... but even that shouldn't be. If a pair asked for my genes, because one of them can't conceive, me and my partner could supply said opportunity without sex ever entering the picture. I believe it morally right that one can help another to have and raise children.

If not genetics, than what?
Possession, pure and simple. We still like to *own* things, and often I see people at parties showing off their partner like some trophy. When will we learn that people aren't something to own, but something to experience. You can't own the soul of somebody, but you can still "touch it" if you're lucky.

We also still believe that sex implies dominance. This is why men who are "players" are viewed as strong and admired for their "conquests". Since he was penetrating the woman, it was his will that was enforced... and hence why the woman is shunned, since she submitted. When woman are admired for their "conquest" (femme fatals, vamps, etc.) it's because they appear to be dominant and we assume they've carried this dominance with them even in bed.

IMHO all of that is rubbish. We've created a civil society where it's finally impossible to own or dominate someone against their will as we have laws against them. We also have technology that allows us to enjoy our sexuality without the repercussions of having to carry or care for the genes of our partner - of raising their children, being part of their tribe/clan/family, of having to make alliances due now shared blood . So why do we still pretend that it's not so?

* - Failing to get shots against disease, living like a pig and leaving rotting things in your vicinity, creating hazardous conditions by leaving construction rubble around etc., the list goes on.
** - Blocking the entrance to your house with their car, loud music that makes it impossible to focus on your work or relax, etc.

Sexual openness is actually one of the things I appreciate the most. Therefore, I have nothing against gangbangs or mass orgies. All of your points are Valid, Flaser and I agree we shouldn't be condemning it.

That's different from saying I despise it though, which I still do. 50% of the world is male and 50% of the world is female. Technically, everyone should get a life partner. Now there's gay people who cancel eachother out and for this thing you could theoretically say polygamous men and women cancel eachother out too.

I know though that there are much more men with multiple women as there are women with multiple men. The latter is only found in rare cultures and like you said, it's implied that the women is the dominant person instead of the man so that's a cultural taboo. (Which I despise as well)

So theoretically, with so many polygamous men, there should be less women for men to go by and that's horrible. I know one or two of these marriages can't hurt, but there are countries where it's a normal thing to do. And for every man having 7 wives, there are 6 lonely men out there. It's that fact that I find something to despise. Sorry if it doesn't make any sense, but that's just what I think.

I think we shouldn't blend polyamory with polygamy. The first is conduct of sexuality, while the later is a legally binding arrangement. I find even the later OK, if it were only a form of marriage. I'm for all forms of marriage, or socially accepted contracts where the participants agree on common inheritance of their wealth and common social obligations toward their dependents. Yes, I'm for gay marriage too, for the same reasons I'm for open relationships.

Even if I wouldn't like to live in one, or would be only comfortable with some version, I still firmly support people's right to live their life as they wish.

However with poligamy, the picture is not this clear cut. In some countries or communities it is also an institution to make young girls the plaything of older men, which I despise. Not because a young woman couldn't live with an older man, but because great social pressure is put on these (typically teenagers!) to conform to expectations and to subject to the man's will.

Even if the age of consent or adulthood wasn't involved (which unfortunately it is) I'd still have reservations as the girls in question don't get to make a free choice as they're under constant pressure, and the only alternative to them is running away and abandoning all support form their folks.

Part of the reason why I'm a socialist, who thinks that society as a whole has to support a social net is so people can make their own choices without having to play dangerous gambles with their life.

And that's the truth. I couldn't agree more.

I have read a quite itneresting answer on exactly this Question not long ago and it goes like this:

"If a key opens all Doors, its the Master key. If a Lock is opened by any key its not the "Master Lock""

Something amount those lines, made me giggle to myself.

Anyway

I share that both Genders shouldnt be Polyamorous, while i perfectly aware of the Fact that Nature didnt gave us the Possibility to do so for nothing.

Its about how much you can hanlde yourself, your personal morale.

I think, personally, the relationship is only fine if its consensual by ALL parties involved.



See, this isn't really consensual. Super-Player Itou Makoto even took it upon himself to not even inform his significant other of his OTHER significant other (and the many other significant others that he had).

I myself do not give props to him for it. For him, I would have him suffer through every single imaginable hell in eternity and be fully alive and sane while he witnesses it. Seriously. No girl should ever have to suffer through such faggotry.

Like animefreak_usa said, it comes from that old biological need. i like to think that we are more evolved than that, but then i see maury and jerry springer and know better. as superior as people like to think they are, we're still just another animal in the end. eat, sleep, fuck. nothing more nothing less.

I just don't see how its possible to satisfy more than one person at a time equally.

um...while I don't like what he did I think quite a bit of blame falls on the shoulders of the woman...anyone who is that incredibly blind to reality ,and for lack of a better word "retarded" enough to stick around deserves what they get..I mean I know that sounds awful ,but sometimes people need to learn the hard way

Studying biology, I feel the need to add on to this. Biologically speaking, females of a species actually benefit from copulation with more than one male. This is because she wants children with her genes to survive. So in order to do so, whatever male's sperm fertilizes her eggs needs to be the strongest, so it's actually more beneficial for her to have more sex. That way she's guaranteed whatever sperm reaches her egg beat out all the other guys.
As to why humans formed monogamous bonds is because when we began standing upright, the birth canal narrowed and babies had to be born earlier. Leading to a much longer time a mother needed to protect her baby because its outside the womb. In order to protect her baby, herself and find food, it becomes more beneficial as a human to have a partner to help her out. The male also wants his genes to carry on so he sticks around to help prevent their kid from getting eaten by a hungry something or other.
So really, there's no reason one way or the other why a man/woman can/cannot be polyamorous in this day and age.
Biologically speaking of course. :)