I've got at least three ideas why secularists should embrace polyamory. They're in no particular order of importance or seriousness. Feel free to add suggestions. Any document about polyamoroy should be a WIKI anyway, lest it be antithetical to it's own subject. Or, if you prefer, this idea has room for more love.
First and foremost there is the divorce rate amongst monogamous heterosexuals. Standard married people are dropping like flies, matrimonially speaking. Here in the US the divorce rate is close to half. Half of all marriages end in a discussion over who gets the house and the kids and who gets stuck with the broken down, mismatched bedroom furniture. Divorce takes down a larger percentage of married couples than the Black Plague folks.
So here's the thing: Polyamory makes you communicate. You think it's hard reading your spouses mind now? Try having two! Polyamory just doesn't happen without communication. Some churches make you take a little compatibility quiz before you can reserve the chapel for the big day. But when a polyamorist asks you on a date, it usually comes along with a handful of links to websites with dozens of ways to skin one under-fed cat named "Communication." The strong silent types will never make it in this game. These people may talk too damn much, but most relationship experts agree that communication is the best way to avoid having to decide who gets car, and who gets the cat. That's right buddy. Put on the kettle, give that poor cat some friskies, and let's talk.
Secondly there's the concept of economic velocity, something I first learned here. Now this is a concept that can work even for traditional families if you understand it, but it really takes off when there are more pay-checks under one roof. Put simply for the purposes of polyamory, when more people share expenses and family responsibilities, you get ahead. My own take on this idea is all about leftovers. I throw away a lot of leftovers. Oh, I mean well, and I do eat some of them. But inevitably, there comes a day when opening the refrigerator is accomanied by the Indian Jones theme song, and I have to go in with a pistol and bull whip to clean house. And here's the thing: I paid for that stuff that once was food. I also paid for that dish I just dropped because it seemed to contain a victim of one Kali's worshipers.
So if there are more people hanging around to pay for the food and eat the leftovers, we're all getting more out of our money. More people to help pay the mortgage; more people at home to eliminate day-care costs; more people at the dining room table means you buy in bulk and take better advantage of sales and so on. Since financial woes are also known to be a leading cause of divorce, this also ties back into our first item.
Lastly, there is strength in numbers my friends. Sure, multiple partners might seem like a wacky idea on the surface, but let's take a look at another wacky idea that took advantage of this principle and see where it got them. Yep, that's right, I'm talking about the Mormons. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knockin' 'em as a people. After all, they gave us Donnie, Marie, and Orgazmo, right? But Mormonism does contain some rather wacky ideas. Principally, the founding of the religion is based on a claim that one John Smith was shown some golden tablets by an angel named Moroni and used a couple of stones called the Urim and the Thummim to translate the Book of Mormon from said tablets, which only Smith's close friends and family ever saw.
Uh-huh.
Personally, I think Smith found a pair smooth river-bed stones that reminded him of his wife's ass, and she caught him having a religious moment which he explained away by calling it just that.* I suspect many religions have similar roots, but this is the only one I have a working theory for. So Smith goes about founding a religion and while he was at it, he decided to secure the opportunity to have the ass of that pretty young thing down the way by giving the green light to polygamy for his flock. (We've already established that he was a randy guy.) Then, after being chased out of two states ahead of angry mobs with guns, they ended up in Utah, and they now run the place. That's reproductive power that can't be denied people. Now I know many of you reading this will point to global populations and say we shouldn't be having so many babies, but I hasten to point out that those with much less ecological conscience than we happy few are out-breeding us like lemmings who can't wait to get to the cliff. Trouble is, they're going to take us over the edge with them!
Of course, all of these very well thought out arguments don't even scratch the surface of spicing up your sex life. Hey, Smith isn't the only randy guy with whacky ideas out there. So let's all pony up to the couples bars and get it together! Because together, we'll be unstoppable!
* Now before you insist I'm going out on a limb here, let's remember that internet porn wasn't widely available in Smith's time, and even now that it is, some folks are STILL fornicating with their livestock.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Polyamory is one of those things that - at least in my experience - sounds good in theory, but tends to run into trouble in practice.
That's not to say that it can't be done, and done well. It's just that... well... look at it this way: finding someone with whom you're compatible, with whom you communicate effectively, can be quite difficult. You seem to be suggesting that the solution is to make it more difficult, under the theory that doing so will force people to learn to communicate better. But communication is not the only problem; all the communication in the world won't save you if you lack at least basic compatibility.
And, honestly, almost every time I hear someone sing the praises of polyamory, it's because they're dissatisfied with their current partner (but not quite dissatisfied enough to just, y'know, leave). That's not to say that polyamory doesn't work, just that I get suspicious when people start talking about it a cure-all for the difficulties of two-person marriage. The poly relationships which seemed to work best were formed not because the participants thought polyamory was the best or most progressive form of marriage per se, but because the particular people involved found that it fit their needs. (I feel like I ought to be able to articulate that difference better, but that seems to be the best I can do.)
Anyway, there's a counterpoint.
Post a Comment