Re: ROMANTICIZING NOTHING | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Deb Smyre (dsmyreprimenet.com) | |
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 17:53:36 -0600 (MDT) |
Deb wrote: >>To say that polyamory is innate or instinctive is a >>weak argument, since resisting our instinctive urges >>(to murder, for example) is what supposedly separates >>us from lower animals. Silva Wilson <silvawilson [at] yahoo.com> responded: >To compare loving more than one person with murder >seems ludicrous and outright frightening. >And "lower" animals? I need say nothing more... Since my statement seems to have been misinterpreted, I'll attempt to clarify. Someone indicated they felt polyamory was instinctive, and acting on this instinct was a justification for a poly lifestyle. In other words, it itches, poly people scratch it, and then say the itch justifies the scratching. Our sexual urges are instinctive, but civilized humans learn to control and even repress these urges in order to maintain peace and structure in their lives. For example, we learn to remain celibate for a variety of reasons (clergy, premarital purity); we learn to repress urges for family members (incest) or for someone under age 18 (pedophilia, statutory rape); most of us learn to control urges for someone else's mate (adultery). Generally, we don't scratch every itch because to do so would cause serious problems in our society. So, to offer a justification for polyamory that says, essentially, we're scratching it because it itches, is a weak argument. My earlier reference to murder was _not_ a direct comparison to polyamory, but rather an example of an instinct that we dare not scratch. Deb
-
Re: ROMANTICIZING NOTHING Fred H. Olson, October 23 1999
- Re: ROMANTICIZING NOTHING Stuart Staniford-Chen, October 23 1999
- Re: ROMANTICIZING NOTHING Deb Smyre, October 23 1999
- Re: ROMANTICIZING NOTHING Deb Smyre, October 24 1999
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.