“How many lovers are too many?” This is the question that interested me this afternoon when I skimmed through many articles in the Economist. I asked myself whether one would be enough to have a healthy relationship. The answer would be more than enough, but those who think that my idea is conventional may approve with the following story.
According to the article, “LOVE AND POLYAMORY”, it introduce a new term of love, called “Polyamory”. It means having many partners and they also know, trust and accept one another. As it sounds incredulous, this has happened mostly in America, where there are more than half a million of polyamorists so far. Their idea of love is that so long as their partners is love and give their enough time, they are happy to keep this relationship healthy as long as possible. Furthermore, they think that monogamy is quite absurd because they have the right to make themselves happy and unsurprisingly most of them are atheists. When asked about jealousy, polyamorists say that they can handle this very well. This may due to their unselfishness. However, many sceptics posit the notion of pregnancy whether polyamorous relationship is justified for potential children. As a result, one of polyamorists claim that these children need attention and love which such children would stand a good chance of being surrounded by many adults or too many.
After I read this article, this makes me feel upset by a harsh reality about children’ psychological well being from which I think that polyamorists just do what it favours them by taking an advantage over children’s innocent and incompetence to be able to distinguish what is good and bad for them as we read it in the article that they think that they “”genuinely” provide everything that children may need and want. How could they possibly know what children who can barely talk tell what they like? It is undeniable that we all try to impose our ideas and belief, based on experience, background and so forth, on children. This is a common occurrence.
Although I always think that it is morally wrong to have more than one partner at a time, it would be fine as long as polyamorists will not cause any harm or damage to both society and individuals and in fact, every society have this kind of relationship, but we would rather keep it than publicise it because there are too many hypocrites in our society than we realise.
Last but not least, I look forward to hearing from you guys’ responses and I, honestly, think that this article would be an alternative for those who prefer “Gig” relationship!
References
Catherine,N.(2010). LOVE AND POLYAMORY.Intelligent Life. Retrieved July 4,2010 from http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/catherine-nixey/big-love-polyamory
I thought that the article itself, which is well worth reading, as well as Petch's response to it, brought up a lot of interesting questions.
ReplyDeleteSo I'm also looking forward to seeing what sort of responses it gets.
I like this. One partner is enough for me. Sometimes one is even too many.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Petch that it is immoral because it is against one of five precepts in Buddhism in which I believe. And I think the relationship is very sensitive, so if you do not understand or play with, it will cause you to die from the depth of misery. However, I extremely think opposite that human is kind of animal which has to increase population, so polyamory will be acceptable if we become extinct.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne soul-mate is enoght for most people, me also. However, I don't agree with what Petchy said in his article that "I always think that it is morally wrong to have more than one partner at a time" (Petch, ¶4) because Isalamics male are able to marry with upto 4 wife, and they don't think that it's morally worng at all. That's why I think whether such issue is morally wrong or not is based on personal culture, personal view, and peosonal experience.
ReplyDeleteBook's support for his idea that polyamory is immoral is similar to a comment by Taey on Tarn's post "Dealing with Life and Death".
ReplyDeleteIs the fact that something is against Buddhist teaching (or the teaching of Christianity, or Hinduism, or Islam, or Olympianism, or or some other religion) a good reason to think that it is immoral?
From his last sentence, I think that we can infer Tum's answer to my question: he agrees with Book. I like Tum's use of Islam as a supporting example, but it's his last sentence that tells us his answer.
What do others think about religious teaching being a reliable guide to moral right and wrong?
What would Stephen Law say?
What would I say?
Tum,
ReplyDeleteLet's me add something about Isalamic beliefs, male could have other wives when he get the permission from the first one.
When Petch mention that "most of them are atheists." (¶2) Let me have other idea about whether it is morally wrong for this behavior. Then I don't think this behavior is morally wrong for them but it sounds they do lack of common sense. If they are atheists, they might believe in Buddhism. Apparently they are not, because Buddhism might improve their spirit to be good and lower their lust.... So could I infer that they don't believe in anything?
"Then I don't think this behavior is morally wrong for them" (Nid, @ July 5, 2010 9:23 PM)
ReplyDeleteDo you mean that something (anything at all) is morally OK if the person doing it believes that it is OK?
That seems to be what you are saying, and I think it's the same idea that Pu and Book have stated on other discussions.
Some of the information on thesis statements that you are reading this evening (on the handout from class) also seems to me to be relevant to this question.
My point is: when I found that they are atheists, it make me infer from them that they don't believe in God or "something superior" or even "supernatural being". So I think kind of morally thing might not fit for them or could judge them. And I don't say that it is OK, or morally OK when the mainstream of people's think is not. So I think "for them" they do lack of common sense for this behavior. Whenever, common sense mean basic knowledge or judgement that we need to help us live in a rational ways.
ReplyDeletePeter, I think I make you confused, from the first comment I post I think in their context that most of them are atheists. When God is not exist, so what point to talk about morally thing, doesn't it? ??
ReplyDeleteIf people care and considerate enough for their lovers, this problem will never be occur. However, if they think only of themselves this problem is just a starting point.
ReplyDeleteI think this may be an obvious drawback of being atheist. Because they have nothing to believe in, they have less lesson of respect and unconditional contribution. Everything they decide mostly depended on their desire and satisfaction.That's why polyamory is totally their choices.For me, monogamy is my last and only answer.I think it is a kind of test that reflect your sacrifice for your love ones. In one's life, I accept, there are many distractions that we hardly avoid. If you can survive from those temptations, you will find your relationship essential and precious. But if not, maybe it is time to reconsider whether your present partner is actually your true love.
ReplyDeleteDoes religion have anything at all to do with being moral or immoral?
ReplyDeleteWhat does our current reading in Quest say about this? Do you agree with the main idea of "The Anthropological View of Religion"? Do you think that the author believes in any god or gods?
Is Apple's idea that since atheists "have nothing to believe in, they have less lesson of respect and unconditional contribution" true or false? Why do you think that?
What do we need to do to decide this true/false question? Why?
Why are all the alternative sorts of support not solid evidence for an answer, whether true or false?
What is or is not solid support for an idea we have is something that we should be thinking about all the time, for example, for an essay about a main character in Lord of the Flies.
And while I was having my morning shower just now (not a detail you would normally include in your academic writing), it occurred to me that questions concerning the connection between religion and morality might provide useful insights for those writing an essay on Piggy this week. And vice-versa, that Piggy might be a useful example to help us clarify our ideas on these questions.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I often think about what I've been reading and writing when I'm doing tasks that leave most of my brain free to multi-task, but generally not when I'm talking with someone; I cannot, for example, have an intelligent conversation and listen to music at the same time, and, getting back to Apple's latest post, if it's music I like playing in the background, it's usually a distraction. Although I can skim for notes or points to remind me of something I'm already familiar with, it's even more impossible to simultaneously read and listen to someone, or to both read and take part in an intelligent discussion. I doubt that anyone's brain is up to that sort of multi-tasking.
Appleeeeeeeeeeeeee
ReplyDeleteI think I should ask you to be my consultation.
Anywhere and anytime, Mr.Rata.
ReplyDeleteHope my advices worth listening and do not make you more insane like me.
where's Ple's suggestion? I couldn't found such advice at all. :P
ReplyDeleteI can't agree with you more Tum. I can't find my comment either. I've already posted it but now it disappears. I don't know there is something wrong with the system or someone hate me enough to remove my comment.(if it is the last one, could you please identify yourself)
ReplyDeleteThanks ple
ReplyDeleteI think no one hates you.
Don't be sad because you still have ..... you know who
P'tum please fill in the blank
Now,I change my mind. I believe no one hates me but I feel that I begin to hate someone around here instead.
ReplyDeleteI am kidding
ReplyDeleteLittle, sweet Apple