"...Through things like our schooling, mass media and our families, we've been taught to fear solitude and learned to try and possess others to numb this fear. But it is also at these very same institutions where we learned about good and evil. And these things aren't separate.
There's a fundamental link between our moral education and every misguided lesson about love and desire that we subject others to -- it's all cut from the same big cloth. Taken together, people use these teachings every day to run from anything fluid and ambiguous in life."
- Relationship Communism: An Infantile Disorder - An antimoralist critique of The Relationship Anarchy Discussions (RAD) Content Library
Did you know as of 2016, the rate of divorce is 40% in Canada and over 50% in the US? Nirel Marofsky eloquently explores the limitations, boundaries, and mainstream culture of monogamy. This TedTalk is under 20 minutes, and explains the social contexts, political motivations and origins, and potential future of dating and marriage within monogamism in western culture~
The concept and commonly upheld belief that monogamy is the only socially acceptable and politically recognized union. It carries with it the bias and prejudice against non-monogamous individuals which persists systemically, institutionally, culturally, academically, interpersonally, and legally. This ideology is centered on the belief that monogamy is superior in comparison to all forms of non-monogamy.
Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection...
The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it. [...] Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.
That’s one reason why progressives who reject the case for legal polygamy often don’t really appear to have their hearts in it. They seem uncomfortable voicing their objections, clearly unused to being in the position of rejecting the appeals of those who would codify non-traditional relationships in law. [...] They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.
In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It’s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?
Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.
The marriage equality movement has been both the best and worst thing that could happen for legally sanctioned polygamy. The best, because that movement has required a sustained and effective assault on “traditional marriage” arguments that reflected no particular point of view other than that marriage should stay the same because it’s always been the same. In particular, the notion that procreation and child-rearing are the natural justification for marriage has been dealt a terminal injury. [...] And rightly so.
But the marriage equality movement has been curiously hostile to polygamy, and for a particularly unsatisfying reason: short-term political need. Many conservative opponents of marriage equality have made the slippery slope argument, insisting that same-sex marriages would lead inevitably to further redefinition of what marriage is and means. See, for example, Rick Santorum’s infamous “man on dog” comments, in which he equated the desire of two adult men or women to be married with bestiality. Polygamy has frequently been a part of these slippery slope arguments. Typical of such arguments, the reasons why marriage between more than two partners would be destructive were taken as a given. Many proponents of marriage equality, I’m sorry to say, went along with this evidence-free indictment of polygamous matrimony. They choose to side-step the issue by insisting that gay marriage wouldn’t lead to polygamy. That legally sanctioned polygamy was a fate worth fearing went without saying.
Many argue that polygamous marriages are typically sites of abuse, inequality in power and coercion. Some refer to sociological research showing a host of ills that are associated with polygamous family structures. These claims are both true and beside the point. Yes, it’s true that many polygamous marriages come from patriarchal systems, typically employing a “hub and spokes” model where one husband has several wives who are not married to each other. These marriages are often of the husband-as-boss variety, and we have good reason to suspect that such models have higher rates of abuse, both physical and emotional, and coercion. But this is a classic case of blaming a social problem on its trappings rather than on its actual origins.
After all, traditional marriages often foster abuse. Traditional marriages are frequently patriarchal. Traditional marriages often feature ugly gender and power dynamics. Indeed, many would argue that marriage’s origins stem from a desire to formalize patriarchal structures within the family in the first place. We’ve pursued marriage equality at the same time as we’ve pursued more equitable, more feminist heterosexual marriages, out of a conviction that the franchise is worth improving, worth saving. If we’re going to ban marriages because some are sites of sexism and abuse, then we’d have to start with the old fashioned one-husband-and-one-wife model.
Most dispiriting, and least convincing, are those arguments that simply reconstitute the slippery slope arguments that have been used for so long against same sex marriage. “If we allow group marriage,” the thinking seems to go, “why wouldn’t marriage with animals or children come next?” The difference is, of course, consent. In recent years, a progressive and enlightened movement has worked to insist that consent is the measure of all things in sexual and romantic practice: as long as all involved in any particular sexual or romantic relationship are consenting adults, everything is permissible; if any individual does not give free and informed consent, no sexual or romantic engagement can be condoned.
Progressives have always flattered themselves that time is on their side, that their preferences are in keeping with the arc of history. [...] I think it’s time to turn the question back on them: given what you know about the advancement of human rights, are you sure your opposition to group marriage won’t sound as anachronistic as opposition to gay marriage sounds to you now? And since we have insisted that there is no legitimate way to oppose gay marriage and respect gay love, how can you oppose group marriage and respect group love?
I suspect that many progressives would recognize, when pushed in this way, that the case against polygamy is incredibly flimsy, almost entirely lacking in rational basis and animated by purely irrational fears and prejudice. What we’re left with is an unsatisfying patchwork of unconvincing arguments and bad ideas, ones embraced for short-term convenience at long-term cost. We must insist that rights cannot be dismissed out of short-term interests of logistics and political pragmatism. The course then, is clear: to look beyond political convenience and conservative intransigence, and begin to make the case for extending legal marriage rights to more loving and committed adults. It’s time.
The bolded passages are especially important. So many of people’s complaints/conscerns about full marriage equality are actually about sexism and male domination. They look at patriarchal cultures and assume that that’s how it has to work here. Yes with gender equality, their arguments are rendered absurd.
Centennial Park is a great example. What makes them different from other Fundamentalist Mormons? The prerogative is on the woman to choose her husband. They’re still a patriarchal, heterosexist community, where political and religious authority is held by men, but that one simple change has made them significantly different from other Fundamentalist Mormon communities.
Now imagine how much better those relationships could be if they were secular, queer, and completely gender-equal in social roles and economic power? That’s what we’re arguing for, not just Mormon or Islamic polygyny. We want a secular system of marriage based on gender equality, and that includes the numbers and genders of partners. If gender equality weren’t a possibility, then I wouldn’t argue for full marriage equality at all, or anything like it. I’d pack up my blog and leave. But I do think it’s possible, and that’s why it’s worth fighting for.
Just so people understand who it is that’s being dragged through the mud:
This family runs a charity for young cancer patients going through treatment. They provide technology to help divert them from their problems, and to provide them with an online support network. In this video, James is showing a kid the charity’s Minecraft server, where members of the charity, donors, and other cancer patients can interact and build together. They also host servers for other games. This gives these kids the opportunity to interact with a community of people who know exactly what they’re going through.
They started this charity because one of James’ sons went through cancer himself. It inspired James to help other kids going through the same thing. Now that son has been stripped from a loving home and placed with an abusive parent who was barely present in his life.
We are often asked what we do. Sometimes it is because people don't understand the nature of childhood cancer. Others don't understand the nature of the online-gaming world. We... we're a little different.
We know that the world can be a hostile and dangerous place, and the internet, being at the crux of modern society, is no exception. At the Cube Server, we aim to change the world. We believe in upholding three core values, "Be friendly, cause no grief, and always do what is best for the community." Because of this, we have a thriving, online community that works together without regard to race, religion, gender, nationality or sexual orientation, making us one of the few, safe corners on the internet.
We also support those among us who are suffering the worst, providing high-end laptops to children with life-threatening illnesses. We give them a window to the world, and a connection to our safe, thriving, global community, helping alleviate their suffering during their time of greatest adversity.
We also support education and the development of the resources we want to see used to make the world better. To achieve these goals we provide scholarships to aspiring software engineers and grants to independent developers who are seeking to create software that is innovative and community focused.
Yes, this is quite an endeavor, but we don't stop there. We also provide social support to youth of the general public. Through our network of volunteers, we seek to help stop bullying, to be a source of hope during difficult times, to promote healthy self-esteem and to help prevent teen suicides.
Polyamorous relationships are uncommon, but new research suggests that the stigma of these relationships decreases with increasing familiarity.
Could you juggle multiple romantic relationships at one time — if each of your partners knew about the others? How about setting up your household as a triad, rather than a couple? And what do you think of people who do such things? Chances are, the more you know about the relationship style called polyamory, the more accepting you are of such setups, according to new research. The findings echo what psychologists know about how people respond to gays, lesbians and other sexual minorities: The greater the familiarity, the less severe the stigma.
"If people know even one gay person that they like in their life — a friend, a relative — their attitudes are much more favorable," said study researcher Traci Giuliano, a psychologist at Southwestern University in Texas. Likewise, the study found that "the more aware people were of polyamory, the more positive their attitudes were," Giuliano told Live Science.
It's unclear how many people identify themselves as polyamorous, but a 2013 study in the journal Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy estimated that between 4 percent and 5 percent of people in the United States are involved in some sort of consensually nonmonogamous relationship. What's clear is that polyamory is moving out of the underground, with shows like Showtime's "Polyamory: Married & Dating" bringing the lifestyle to a broader audience. However, polyamory remains stigmatized: A 2013 survey of nearly 4,000 polyamorous people found that 28.5 percent had personally experienced discrimination because of their relationship style.
Giuliano was interested in researching this stigma in part from personal experience. Though she is not polyamorous, Giuliano is in a relationship that can seem unfamiliar to some people. She is "not generally attracted to women," Giuliano said, but she fell in love with and is married to a woman. "This is just so confusing to people," she said. But once people get to know her, she added, they are generally accepting and tolerant.
She said she wondered if the same familiarity effect might benefit polyamorous people. For the study, she and her colleagues gave 100 people between ages 18 and 63 an online survey about their understanding and attitudes toward polyamory. The researchers found that 60 percent of the respondents knew what the term meant, and 30 percent personally knew someone who had been or was in a polyamorous relationship. People's perceptions of the polyamorous individuals were somewhat negative, however. Polyamorous people were seen as being particularly promiscuous, as having high sex drives and as participating in unsafe sex. (The latter is particularly untrue, Giuliano noted, as a basic tenant of polyamory is communication about sexual practices. A 2012 study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine found that polyamorous people are actually better about protecting themselves against sexually transmitted infections than are nominally "monogamous" people who cheat on their partners.)
Unsurprisingly, the people in the study who reported having more traditional and religious values were less accepting of polyamory, Giuliano said. The next step was to see if those attitudes would budge. In a second survey, the researchers recruited 196 people, 18 to 79 years old. A third of the participants read a brief definition of polyamory and then answered questions; another third got a longer, more in-depth description of polyamory. A final third saw a definition and then were encouraged to think about the pros and cons of monogamy in their own lives. The people in the group that read the in-depth definition as well as those in the thought-exercise group exhibited more positive attitudes toward polyamory afterward, the researchers reported. The results show that people's perceptions can change, Giuliano said. "There are things that we can do to improve people's attitudes," she said.
Lessening the stigma of polyamory is a good thing, Giuliano said. She said she'd next like to study how particular facets of polyamorous relationships lessen such stigma. Perhaps people are open to polyamory only up to a certain number of people in the relationship, or if it involves people of only certain sexual orientations, for example, she said. "These people are here," she said of those who practice polyamory. "They're not going anywhere, and they're going to suffer from prejudice and discrimination."
Monogamous individuals might also have something to learn from polyamorous people, Giuliano added, even if one partner seems like plenty: Polyamorous ideals demand that partners maintain open communication, negotiate their boundaries and are treated as equals. "All relationships can benefit from mutual trust, respect, and open and honest communication," Giuliano said.
The researchers reported their findings online Jan. 30 in the journal Psychology & Sexuality.
"How Polyamory Became More Mainstream than Peanut Butter: From Scandalous to Swank in Ten Years Flat":
When the histories are written of how the polyamory movement sprouted and grew and changed the world's assumptions about relationships — as I think is becoming inevitable — the list of people in our time who made it happen will certainly include Cunning Minx, the indefatigable creator of the Polyamory Weekly podcast. She's been hard at it for ten years this spring. She is not only entertaining and a fine listen, she's smart, forthright, and an exemplar of our best attitudes and values. In recent years she's branched out into giving seminars and classes, and last year she published perhaps the best short book for poly newbies: Eight Things I Wish I'd Known About Polyamory Before I Tried It and Frakked It Up. Last weekend she gave the keynote talk at Loving More's Rocky Mountain Poly Living conference in Denver. She spoke on the movement's history and future. I wished I was there, and maybe you did too.
