Healthy Polyamory is Possible Only in a Healthy Society  

VisualViolet 59F
30 posts
12/31/2005 3:31 pm

Last Read:
3/5/2006 9:27 pm

Healthy Polyamory is Possible Only in a Healthy Society

I'd very much appreciate input as to what you think about my understanding of the link between anarchy and polyamory as expressed below.

In unhealthy societies, marked by physical and emotional violence relationships are unhealthy because people's ability to love, receive love and express love are inhibited and stifled at best, crippled at worst.

As the mode of expression of love derives from a higher and more noble Spiritual/Moral source the likelihood that its expression will be healthy in a sick society is proportionately reduced.

The base is nothing other than the noble that is imperfectly expressed in a world too brutish and cruel to bear the sublimity.

Therefore, those who would practice true polyamory, that is the giving and receiving of profound and intimate love from as many people as one can, are also driven by the desire to make the world generally better. They are driven by the desire to create the conditions within which that love can live.

All manners of emancipation must exist together. Polyamory cannot be fully expressed without anarchy. It's something like taking the B complex of Vitamins; you can't just take one, you need the whole complex.


rm_Foucault31 46M
1 post
1/7/2006 12:05 pm

An unhealthy society corrupts ALL philosophies - not just one such as polyamory. Systems of government, or non-government, such as anarchy, communism or capitalism are not fundamentally flawed in and of themselves - its the corruption in the human society that becomes entrenched in the govermental structure.

Anarchy, like its immature sibling democracy, is something that must flow from a fundamental change in the society. It is too fragile a thing to survive naturally.

Likewise polyamory in its full form is something so open to abuse, so easily tainted by the smallest drops of jealousy and possesiveness, so without checks and balances, that in even the most perfect society I can imagine as an extension of our own, I believe it is doomed to collapse.

Foucault


VisualViolet 59F
10 posts
1/9/2006 1:48 am

Thanks for your input, Foucault. I have considered the points that you raise at length and in depth. The problems have been treated in my writings on both the topics of Polyamory and Anarchy. Partial solutions have been offerred in my writings.

I cannot put any solutions into practice alone. A cadre of very dedicated people who are capable of not only apprehending, but handling and maintaining, the sublimity that both authentic Polyamory and authentic Anarchy hold out the promise of is essential. They will form the nucleus of a Polyamorous Kibbutz.

Being PC is not my way. I'll come right out with what I see out there. There are a lot of weirdos and wannabes who are soi-disant "Polyamorists" and/or "Anarchists". Our first order of business is to redeem these noble ideologies from those who sully and degrade them to the level of fetishes, hedonism, empty sloganeering and baffoonery.

Impatience is the progenitor of cynicism, Foucault. Leave your nanoseconds time frame for expectations in the lab. It is not appropriate or applicable to what I am doing. What I am talking about will take years to initiate and thousands of years to perfect.

My husband, who is a very wise man, says: When we fully accept and internalize the reality that we are eternal, we we understand that the most essential trait we must develop is patience.

I should like your permission to recopy the important points you raise elsewhere, anonymously, in the form of:

An interlocutor observed:____________________. I responded: ___________.

More of your input is most welcome.


rm_DrB1962 54M
4 posts
1/28/2006 6:19 pm

I a looking for someone to start a dating website for official concubines, that is women in physical/emotional relationship with one man at a time, no marriage required. When she wants to move on, just says it's time to quit...a way of connecting to someone without the cumbersome links of marriage. Have I found this with 'visual violet'?


Become a member to create a blog