Why are Polyamorous relationships increasing in secular nations?

[KingKhanWC]

Polyamory

Polyamory simply means you’re open to the idea of both loving and having a serious romantic relationship with more than one person at a time. “Poly” comes from the Greek word meaning many, and “amory” from the Latin for love. Notice that it’s simply “open” to the idea of loving more than one person at the same time, meaning you can have just one partner, and still be polyamorous.

If this is the case, you and your partner haven’t found another person you want to call your boyfriend or girlfriend. Nevertheless, you’re not opposed to falling in love with another person. You’d also be supportive if your partner found another serious partner.
Open relationship

Lia Holmgren, a NYC-based intimacy and relationship coach, shed some light on the major difference between open and polyamorous relationships. She told Men’s Health, “In polyamorous relationships, you build relationships with other people outside your main relationship, and the purpose isn’t only sex but also emotional connection and support.” She continued, “In open relationship, you have one primary partner you have a sexual and emotional relationship with, but you are allowed to have sexual relationships with other people outside of the relationships that do not form into romantic relationships.”

https://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/a28648204/what-is-polyamory-gaining-popularity/

You can find many articles suggesting this is increasing.

Seems like such people are worse than animals? How would a husband say to his wife, he's off to see another woman and both be happy about this.

As mentioned there is no love here, those partners have no rights as someone married would and surely this increases STDs in society. Not to mention a breakdown of family moral values.

These people need spirituality in their lives to get away from this darkness.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Some women would rather share a husband who looks like Imran Khan, then have someone who looks like Maulana Diesel all to themselves

 

[Bigboii]

Good freedom to choose but I hope this lead to legalization of all kinds of relationships because gov has no business "regulating"marriages , relationships

Their only job is to work out the legal details of marriages and as long as it's not with a child, animal gov shouldn't be stopping relationships/marriages

Hopefully this lead to gov saying hey do whatever the hell you want and it's all legalized because it's not our job to dictate what you do in your private life in the first place

 

[KingKhanWC]

Good freedom to choose but I hope this lead to legalization of all kinds of relationships because gov has no business "regulating"marriages , relationships

Their only job is to work out the legal details of marriages and as long as it's not with a child, animal gov shouldn't be stopping relationships/marriages

Hopefully this lead to gov saying hey do whatever the hell you want and it's all legalized because it's not our job to dictate what you do in your private life

Its not illegal so yes, people can do what they like.

I have a few questions on this.

If a woman has mulitple male partners, how will she know who the father if she finds out she's pregnant. ? What if the father has moved on, cant be found or does not care?

There seems to be no morals. Well are morals even a thing in secularism?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Its not illegal so yes, people can do what they like.

I have a few questions on this.

If a woman has mulitple male partners, how will she know who the father if she finds out she's pregnant. ? What if the father has moved on, cant be found or does not care?

There seems to be no morals. Well are morals even a thing in secularism?

I think people should be free to choose their own morals within the law of the land. As long as the state doesn't end up paying for children where the father decides he'd rather not do so, I have no problem with how they choose to live.

 

[Tubs]

Yeah, not my thing, but some people seem to like the freedom, it's whatever to me.

And in regards to STDs, lesbians apparently have the lowest rate of STDs, so if we're going to use that as a metric, lesbian relationships/intercourse are better than heterosexual ones?

'Worse than animals' is strange as humans are animals. I get what you mean though, and while I understand sexual promiscuity is not for everyone (I'm secular and I'm not a fan of it for myself, personally), if all parties are consenting, what can we say about it?

And when you say there's no love there, it clearly says in the article there is. Again, not the love I'd want, but you can't just assert there's no love.

The whole thing is whatever to me, as long as everyone involved is happy and no one is getting hurt, I really don't care.

 

[Bigboii]

Its not illegal so yes, people can do what they like.

The cant marry I don't think that's legal at least in the States and that was my problem Gov shouldn't be regulating marriages in the first place

I have a few questions on this.

If a woman has mulitple male partners, how will she know who the father if she finds out she's pregnant. ? What if the father has moved on, cant be found or does not care?

DNA testing for Child support

There seems to be no morals. Well are morals even a thing in secularism?
What is immoral for me and you might be ok with them as long as they're not hurting anyone

Highlighted Quote

 

[Bigboii]

Yeah, not my thing, but some people seem to like the freedom, it's whatever to me.

And in regards to STDs, lesbians apparently have the lowest rate of STDs, so if we're going to use that as a metric, lesbian relationships/intercourse are better than heterosexual ones?

'Worse than animals' is strange as humans are animals. I get what you mean though, and while I understand sexual promiscuity is not for everyone (I'm secular and I'm not a fan of it for myself, personally), if all parties are consenting, what can we say about it?

And when you say there's no love there, it clearly says in the article there is. Again, not the love I'd want, but you can't just assert there's no love.

The whole thing is whatever to me, as long as everyone involved is happy and no one is getting hurt, I really don't care.

Do all these rules apply in polygamy with 80 wife if you want? (of course theoretically)

Or hell even in cousin marriages (I know the health effects but you're going to pay your own medical bills Gov isn't paying for it and stuff its kind of unfair on the child agreed but so are many other legal things but is it really the job of the government to interfere in peoples private life? )

 

[Tubs]

Do all these rules apply in polygamy with 80 wife if you want? (of course theoretically)

Or hell even in cousin marriages (I know the health effects but you're going to pay your own medical bills Gov isn't paying for it and stuff its kind of unfair on the child agreed but so are many other legal things but is it really the job of the government to interfere in peoples private life? )

Sorry I don't get what you mean, reword it maybe? Do you mean if 80 people were involved? Then yeah I guess, it's none of my business and as long as it isn't hurting anyone, I have no objections.

I'm not a fan of cousin marriages, because it's unfair to the offspring who will have a much higher risk of being disabled.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I think people should be free to choose their own morals within the law of the land. As long as the state doesn't end up paying for children where the father decides he'd rather not do so, I have no problem with how they choose to live.

State always will. We pay millions in taxes yearly to support single mothers. Those kids end up struggling.

This also breaks down the family system and will cause children distress. How do they explain to their kids? Buy them more crayons so they can draw mommy, daddy, bf, gf, bf and gf?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Yeah, not my thing, but some people seem to like the freedom, it's whatever to me.

And in regards to STDs, lesbians apparently have the lowest rate of STDs, so if we're going to use that as a metric, lesbian relationships/intercourse are better than heterosexual ones?

'Worse than animals' is strange as humans are animals. I get what you mean though, and while I understand sexual promiscuity is not for everyone (I'm secular and I'm not a fan of it for myself, personally), if all parties are consenting, what can we say about it?

And when you say there's no love there, it clearly says in the article there is. Again, not the love I'd want, but you can't just assert there's no love.

The whole thing is whatever to me, as long as everyone involved is happy and no one is getting hurt, I really don't care.

There are other articles which say there is no romance or love. Even many animals have love such as lions with various females.

I assume these people would also be ok with their elderly parents or their children having various bf/gfs too?

I dont know much about this , so trying to understand the morality of secular people or the lack of.

 

[Bigboii]

Sorry I don't get what you mean, reword it maybe? Do you mean if 80 people were involved? Then yeah I guess, it's none of my business and as long as it isn't hurting anyone, I have no objections.

I'm not a fan of cousin marriages, because it's unfair to the offspring who will have a much higher risk of being disabled.

Yeah sorry my bad man multitasking between work and this

I was saying imagine if there is this one guy with 80 wives should that marriage be legal?

With cousin marriage (personally I hate the concept) from a legal standpoint should that marriage be legal?

As I explained in the original post

"I know the health effects but
a- you're going to pay your own medical bills Gov isn't paying for it
b- its kind of unfair on the child agreed but so are many other legal things (its a rabbit hole that I am trying to avoid) but is it really the job of the government to interfere in peoples private life?

 

[Madplayer]

Yeah, not my thing, but some people seem to like the freedom, it's whatever to me.

And in regards to STDs, lesbians apparently have the lowest rate of STDs, so if we're going to use that as a metric, lesbian relationships/intercourse are better than heterosexual ones?

'Worse than animals' is strange as humans are animals. I get what you mean though, and while I understand sexual promiscuity is not for everyone (I'm secular and I'm not a fan of it for myself, personally), if all parties are consenting, what can we say about it?

And when you say there's no love there, it clearly says in the article there is. Again, not the love I'd want, but you can't just assert there's no love.

The whole thing is whatever to me, as long as everyone involved is happy and no one is getting hurt, I really don't care.

What is your opinion on incest? Lauren krauss, the champion of many atheists once openly said that he might be open to support consensual incestual relationships between biological brothers and sisters if "proper protection" is used because it's not harming anybody and moral values which prohibit it mean nothing in reality.

 

[Slog]

If you have no problem. With polygamy then shouldn’t face problem with this

 

[Slog]

If a woman has mulitple male partners, how will she know who the father if she finds out she's pregnant. ? What if the father has moved on, cant be found or does not care?

There’s a thing called science. You can check the dna

 

[KingKhanWC]

There’s a thing called science. You can check the dna

No way sherlock.

The point was, it would be strange when the woman see a positive test but then has to get all the men she's been with recently to take tests. sounds like a lot of fun.

 

[KingKhanWC]

If you have no problem. With polygamy then shouldn’t face problem with this

Not even close to being the same.

When married, the partner has rights.

 

[CricketCartoons]

There’s a thing called science. You can check the dna

Not a feasible option even today for many. Also with polygamy every woman can become a mother without waiting for her turn. With polyandry, there will be a pecking order and a large gap before the 4th husband can become a father. Not fair. Polygamy is the only naturally fair option.

 

[Madplayer]

There’s a thing called science. You can check the dna

It's not practical slog. It'll look like a riot outside clinics and hospitals.

 

[Itachi]

Stick to the topic, this is not about Muslims, I know you're obsessed.

Poly means many, when you have relationships with multiple people, sometimes random people you may never meet again, this is dangerous and can lead to STDs.

Do you agree with Polyamory or not?

These whole assumptions are wrong to begin with.

In poly Amory, you don't meet random person and have sex. Just because poly word is there, it doesn't mean the person will just sleep with anybody. There has to have romantic connection with understanding or otherwise, it will be just an open relationship.

The difference between a traditional relationship and polyamory is very thin with just an exception of, traditional relationship doesn't believe in loving more than one person romantically at the same time while polyamory accepts the fact that you can love more than one person with more or less equal intensity at the same time. Rest of the same rules applies. There are commitments, restrictions in polyamory too.

Open relationship is a whole another subject deserving a thread of its own.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

If a man can love 4 women equally, then a woman can also do the same. Marriage is just a certificate to involve in sexual relationship.

Indian history has instances where women are married to several men and men are married to several women. Rules should be same for all.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

These whole assumptions are wrong to begin with.

In poly Amory, you don't meet random person and have sex. Just because poly word is there, it doesn't mean the person will just sleep with anybody. There has to have romantic connection with understanding or otherwise, it will be just an open relationship.

What makes you think an open relationship can't have romantic connections?

 

[SpiritOf1903]

If a man can love 4 women equally, then a woman can also do the same. Marriage is just a certificate to involve in sexual relationship.

Indian history has instances where women are married to several men and men are married to several women. Rules should be same for all.

That's also biological lunacy. Not a fan of these obvious whataboutery threads . "Oh you people of understanding" is a phrase off repeated for believers..

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

If a man can love 4 women equally, then a woman can also do the same. Marriage is just a certificate to involve in sexual relationship.

Indian history has instances where women are married to several men and men are married to several women. Rules should be same for all.

So are you talking about such relationships as historical, or have these wonderful practises passed the test of time?

 

[KingKhanWC]

These whole assumptions are wrong to begin with.

In poly Amory, you don't meet random person and have sex. Just because poly word is there, it doesn't mean the person will just sleep with anybody. There has to have romantic connection with understanding or otherwise, it will be just an open relationship.

Is this from a personal experience?

According to a few articles I've read, romance isnt always there, its the physical part they want. Of course every case differs but to outright say there has to be romance in every relationship, seems your making it up.

The difference between a traditional relationship and polyamory is very thin with just an exception of, traditional relationship doesn't believe in loving more than one person romantically at the same time while polyamory accepts the fact that you can love more than one person with more or less equal intensity at the same time. Rest of the same rules applies. There are commitments, restrictions in polyamory too.

Open relationship is a whole another subject deserving a thread of its own.

Massive difference, marriage is a contract and married people have rights under the law.

 

[KingKhanWC]

If a man can love 4 women equally, then a woman can also do the same. Marriage is just a certificate to involve in sexual relationship.

Indian history has instances where women are married to several men and men are married to several women. Rules should be same for all.

A married person has legal rights under the law.

We cant take India as an example of anything, its a nation where widows used to burn themselves.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

A married person has legal rights under the law.

We cant take India as an example of anything, its a nation where widows used to burn themselves.

To be fair in regions where the quality of the male species is slightly less potent, a woman having access to more males might make sense in many ways.

 

[KingKhanWC]

To be fair in regions where the quality of the male species is slightly less potent, a woman having access to more males might make sense in many ways.

You maybe right but in India there seems to be problem with quality rather than quantity.

It reminds me , India is a secluar nation as I keep being told. Do any Indian posters know if Polyamorous relationships are thriving in this secular nation?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You maybe right but in India there seems to be problem with quality rather than quantity.

It reminds me , India is a secluar nation as I keep being told. Do any Indian posters know if Polyamorous relationships are thriving in this secular nation?

Yes I already asked the lurking Indian this question, just waiting for a reply.

 

[Slog]

Not even close to being the same.

When married, the partner has rights.

It is totally comparable. Your reasoning is totally stupid. Men can love four women equally but women can’t love multiple men at same time?

 

[Slog]

It's not practical slog. It'll look like a riot outside clinics and hospitals.

You’re just engaging in whataboutery. And love isn’t about having children anyway. So if a woman decides she won’t decide to have kids (abort any unexpected) you’re fine with woman having multiple male partners and it’s same to men having multiple female partners?

 

[Bigboii]

To be fair in regions where the quality of the male species is slightly less potent, a woman having access to more males might make sense in many ways.

You maybe right but in India there seems to be problem with quality rather than quantity.

Good lord sure blessed Pak with higher quality, vigorous men just look at Qom Ka supoot uncle Mujboor

 

[Itachi]

What makes you think an open relationship can't have romantic connections?

It can. But not necessarily.

 

[Itachi]

Is this from a personal experience?

According to a few articles I've read, romance isnt always there, its the physical part they want. Of course every case differs but to outright say there has to be romance in every relationship, seems your making it up.

You know what "amour" means in polyamory right?

To understand polyamory, you'll need to change your traditional views and logics. Similar to how one needs to see it when they say it Islam promotes violence or Islam promotes misogyny etc.

Massive difference, marriage is a contract and married people have rights under the law.

Who talked about marriage?

 

[Itachi]

You maybe right but in India there seems to be problem with quality rather than quantity.

It reminds me , India is a secluar nation as I keep being told. Do any Indian posters know if Polyamorous relationships are thriving in this secular nation?

Its not about quantity or quality. It's about love and compassion.

Your wife married you because she felt an emotional connection with you. Not because there are less males available and she had no other choice hence.

 

[Robert]

https://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/a28648204/what-is-polyamory-gaining-popularity/

You can find many articles suggesting this is increasing.

Seems like such people are worse than animals? How would a husband say to his wife, he's off to see another woman and both be happy about this.

As mentioned there is no love here, those partners have no rights as someone married would and surely this increases STDs in society. Not to mention a breakdown of family moral values.

These people need spirituality in their lives to get away from this darkness.

More natural than the artificial construct of marriage, I suppose.

Very few species mate for life. Albatross and penguins do. Our closest relatives the Bonobos are polyamorous and have sex all the time, often as transactions. If one has more food than another then she or he will trade some for a sexual act.

 

[Madplayer]

You’re just engaging in whataboutery. And love isn’t about having children anyway. So if a woman decides she won’t decide to have kids (abort any unexpected) you’re fine with woman having multiple male partners and it’s same to men having multiple female partners?

I was responding to your unfathomable suggestion that a woman should take all her partners to a clinic and check whose dna matches with the baby. Now you've jumped ship to what if a woman doesnt want to have a baby. This is another topic which you've switched to. Anyway, having children is the biological purpose of the human species and all species for that matter. Exceptions dont make a rule. Why make world a more complex place than it already is? Boy, we are finally seeing the side effects of the ideology of rabid individualism after a few centuries now.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I was responding to your unfathomable suggestion that a woman should take all her partners to a clinic and check whose dna matches with the baby. Now you've jumped ship to what if a woman doesnt want to have a baby. This is another topic which you've switched to. Anyway, having children is the biological purpose of the human species and all species for that matter. Exceptions dont make a rule. Why make world a more complex place than it already is? Boy, we are finally seeing the side effects of the ideology of rabid individualism after a few centuries now.

Patriarchy is the natural outcome of biology. Because the woman gets pregnant and nurses the baby, she needs extra care and excluded from hardships which became men's responsibility. polygamy is another natural outcome of biology as it is easy for a male to father kids from multiple women, but it is difficult for a woman to mother kids, one by one, from a queue of husbands. woke generation only knows to cry misogyny this and patriarchy that, but there is a reason the societies and religions evolved this way.

 

[Hadi Rizvi]

Yeah, not my thing, but some people seem to like the freedom, it's whatever to me.

And in regards to STDs, lesbians apparently have the lowest rate of STDs, so if we're going to use that as a metric, lesbian relationships/intercourse are better than heterosexual ones?

'Worse than animals' is strange as humans are animals. I get what you mean though, and while I understand sexual promiscuity is not for everyone (I'm secular and I'm not a fan of it for myself, personally), if all parties are consenting, what can we say about it?

And when you say there's no love there, it clearly says in the article there is. Again, not the love I'd want, but you can't just assert there's no love.

The whole thing is whatever to me, as long as everyone involved is happy and no one is getting hurt, I really don't care.

If all we care about is consent, then you might as well legalize incest and paedophilia.

Who cares about morals and basic societal values right?

 

[Robert]

Patriarchy is the natural outcome of biology. Because the woman gets pregnant and nurses the baby, she needs extra care and excluded from hardships which became men's responsibility. polygamy is another natural outcome of biology as it is easy for a male to father kids from multiple women, but it is difficult for a woman to mother kids, one by one, from a queue of husbands. woke generation only knows to cry misogyny this and patriarchy that, but there is a reason the societies and religions evolved this way.

A number of so-called primitive societies were matriarchal and matrifocal. The elevation of patriarchy only began with the Abrahamic one-god-no-goddesses religions. Without the spread of such religions there would be no patriarchy.

 

[CricketCartoons]

A number of so-called primitive societies were matriarchal and matrifocal. The elevation of patriarchy only began with the Abrahamic one-god-no-goddesses religions. Without the spread of such religions there would be no patriarchy.

As you said, the primitive societies were matriarchal. When societies advanced, they took the natural patriarchy, which is what biology and nature wants us to be.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I completely disagree. A black child and white child can be great friends. They just see another the same as them. They have to be taught to hate.

Has there been any experiment done to support this view?

tribalism is not taught, it comes natural.

You were making natural vs artificial constructs. human rights is also an artificial human construct, but you will not call it artificial, will you?

 

[KingKhanWC]

It is totally comparable. Your reasoning is totally stupid. Men can love four women equally but women can’t love multiple men at same time?

lol. I wrote marriage has rights, nothing to do with love. Please read properly before calling others stupid.

More natural than the artificial construct of marriage, I suppose.

Very few species mate for life. Albatross and penguins do. Our closest relatives the Bonobos are polyamorous and have sex all the time, often as transactions. If one has more food than another then she or he will trade some for a sexual act.

We are creatures but we are not the same as animals. The term animal is used to differenciate between us humans who are far superiour in intelligence and thought.

If it's natural, why are you married not meeting different women every other day?

 

[Robert]

As you said, the primitive societies were matriarchal. When societies advanced, they took the natural patriarchy, which is what biology and nature wants us to be.

Biology and nature don’t ‘want” anything.

I don’t think that the Abrahamic religions are more advanced than the pagan ones. Arguably less so, considering what ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt achieved long before the one-god-no-goddess cults uplifted the masculine and suppressed the feminine.

 

[Robert]

Has there been any experiment done to support this view?

tribalism is not taught, it comes natural.

You were making natural vs artificial constructs. human rights is also an artificial human construct, but you will not call it artificial, will you?

Watch them play together, and you will see with your own eyes

 

[CricketCartoons]

Biology and nature don’t ‘want” anything.

I don’t think that the Abrahamic religions are more advanced than the pagan ones. Arguably less so, considering what ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt achieved long before the one-god-no-goddess cults uplifted the masculine and suppressed the feminine.

"want" may not be the right word, but biology and nature has decided that the male will be physically stronger than the female, and the female will have a womb to give birth to a child and mammary glands to nurse it. That doesn't make females inferior, just that it naturally gives rise to patriarchy, as the female needs protection and needs to stay at home.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Watch them play together, and you will see with your own eyes

So you concede that when kids have no understanding, and playing is the only thing they want, they don't see race of the other kid. But the world is run by adults, not kids, and adults know better.