Vestitor:Offical sha::ing about. One of my friends declares himself 'polyamorous'

[...]

It's a total crock devised to give a special name to promiscuity.

What is your message here? That you conclude from the behavior of your friend to all people who declare themselves polyamorous?

Vestitor:I'm not trying to stop them, I'm just saying what it looks like. And that's what it looks like. I've had this discussion with self-confessed polyamorous people and it doesn't come out as much more than simple promiscuity given the title of 'amour'.

There is a gay guy on youtube that has 2 bfs, yet they don't sleep around. This group of 3 is content and doesn't appear to be promiscuous.

One of my professions told us about her friend who is married to an asexual guy and so he lets her have a bf. But, she doesn't go sleeping around. She isn't promiscuous

There are also lots of examples around the world were a man will have more than one wife, or a wife will have more than one husband.

Therefore, it is not the same as being promiscuous.

Vestitor:So long as it's not 'my' spouse? Okay, let's turn a blind eye unless it's our personal relationships at risk?

Why not? Are we supposed to get involved in other people's relationships? Do you want people to get involved in your relationship?

You deserve unlimited freedom until you use it to hurt someone.

Tempodivalse:Why so hostile?... :confused

I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to detect hostility on the internet. How would you know if they are being hostile or if they are just enjoying the discourse?

Vestitor:It's easy to just dismiss it as 'adult decisions'. This is the special pass card given to sexual behaviour (as opposed to other behaviour) which is supposed to make it immune from any analysis that isn't a trendy tolerance.

What do you suggest we do then?

I've already agreed to say no more on the matter, so I'll leave it.

Alkanadi:
You deserve unlimited freedom until you use it to hurt someone.

This, however, is utilitarian idealism, and idealism never transfers neatly to complicated reality.

erinja:I can't see why anyone would care about someone else being polyamorous, so long as it's not your spouse.

Let's assume there is a seller of a new type of contraceptives for polyamorous groups. That seller will pay Facebook, Google, and others a lot to know who is sleeping with whom.

erinja:If someone wants to be polyamorous and jealous, or be married and cheat - it's not really anyone else's business outside of their relationship, the people in question need to deal with it themselves and the rest of us should stay out of it.

If that person happens to be a friend, a relative, or someone I care about: I will definitely warm him or her of the consequences.

erinja:No one is forcing anyone to be polyamorous who doesn't want to be. Much like listening to country music, it's not my cup of tea but I really could not care less if other people want to do it.

People are animate and tangible. And music is inanimate and intangible. Therein lies a big difference.

Moosader:Unless you're part of said group, I don't really think you get to talk on behalf of them.

(Even then, I wouldn't speak for all Asexuals, but I can speak generally about asexuality much better than you could.)

It doesn't affect you. Let adults make adult decisions. Stop acting so offended by other peoples' personal choices.

Does that mean you will never ever criticise what they are doing in Saudi Arabia?

Or, polygamy?

Or, two people playing the Russian roulette?

Or, some pinhead thinking it is okay to blow himself in a public place?

Or....

They are adults, making their own decisions.

There is no freedom without limits. Not at all. You can only be free if you accept certain limits. And it is on the question of "what those limits should be?" people debate.

I can notice changes even here. 15 years ago, it was considered bad to take a loan. I have taken this advice to heart. Today, credits cards are the new norm and my friends make a fun of me for not having one. For them, having a credit card equates to freedom and for me (and many others) not having one is freedom.

You cannot impose or convince others to accept your definition--what is rude and what is not--of freedom. And no man (I am deliberately being politically incorrect) is an island. The people around me affect me and my actions affect them. And if someone disagrees, he is fooling himself.

Your ideas can give us ghettoisation, not harmony and love--both of which are not possible without politically incorrect jokes. I have never seen close friends or lovers or even family members speaking politically correct to one another. But I have seen diplomats being politically correct.

Vestitor:

Alkanadi:
You deserve unlimited freedom until you use it to hurt someone.

This, however, is utilitarian idealism, and idealism never transfers neatly to complicated reality.

I am asking this out of curiosity. In what situation does this not apply?

Alkanadi:

Vestitor:

Alkanadi:
You deserve unlimited freedom until you use it to hurt someone.

This, however, is utilitarian idealism, and idealism never transfers neatly to complicated reality.

I am asking this out of curiosity. In what situation does this not apply?

Perhaps in a situation when you don't really know you're hurting someone? Or is it that we know everyone's true feelings and motives? The effects of unwitting behaviour are also harmful.

I don't really want to embark on the philosophical unravelling of all this though; I'm a bit tired of the topic.