VisualViolet 59F
30 posts
1/9/2006 11:53 am

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


One day I went to a petting zoo wherein there were many species of birds. I looked at them in wonder as I realized that the bird Kingdom is the living embodiment of the cosmic play on the sublime and the ridiculous.

I saw that some species of birds are far on the sublime end, while others are far on the ridiculous-looking end and most combined both to one extent or the other.

Many great Kingdoms are like that. Polyamory is one of them.

I tend to resonate with the sublime in Polyamory, that is, the still more multifarious unfolding of the generations it can yield; the far deeper ability to express love it affords us; the opportunity to overcome our baser emotions and the emancipation it holds out to us.

Polyamory can, and indeed has, been expropriated by those who make it ridiculous - nothing more than just another fetish, just another perversion. They are currently the majority of people who practice Polyamory.

The base is nothing other than the noble being but into practice bythose not Spiritually/Morally prepared to apprehend the sublime and respond to it with sacred awe.

I think that Polyamory is worth the effort required to redeem itfrom those who debase it and who alienate the just plain folks whoare now suffering in unsatisfying relationships who might benefit from what Polyamory, responsibly and nobly practiced, has to offer.

rm_muffin162 56M
763 posts
1/9/2006 2:08 pm

Disagreed, most birds mate for life nothing to do with polyamory.

EroticTantra 57M

1/9/2006 2:41 pm

Those of us who were around when Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart coined the term "polyamory", prefer to practice a style of non-monagamy based upon honesty and communications.

There are creatures in the animal world that practice forms of polyamory. Most noteably the Bonobo monkeys, Pan paniscus, pygmy chimpanzees.

VisualViolet 59F
10 posts
1/10/2006 5:19 am

"In terms of sociocultural evolution, we are already seeing transition vis a vis the mainstreaming of civil unions. But as the definitions for relationships change, humans also undergo biological change. With the advent of nanotechnology and genetic engineering, we are entering the Golden age of human civilization, if and only if, we are able to relinquish the fetters and confinements of the status quo."

Clearly, the nuclear family that starts with a vow of "till death do we part" has proven itself stifling at best, wholly untenable at worst, and many are looking for alternatives. For too many the nuclear family proved to be "till bored to death do we part".

Polyamory will, as a matter of course, allow for a vastly increased enrichment of the gene pool. It is, however, controlled. Polyamory is not the random mating practiced by some species.

Why do you think that nonotechnology and genetic engineering are bringing us to *the* Golden Age of civilization? It is an evolutionary leap, to be sure, but there are unimaginable frontiers beyond that. Biotechnology and genetic engineering are but one step forward, not any sort of apex of achievement.

Humans appear to be a species the individuals of which are at vastly different levels of evolution. This seems to have been true for hundreds of thousands of years of our existence during which various species of proto-Humans existed concomitantly and apparently mated. We do not all leap forward at the same time, and this is well. Those who change only reluctantly mitigate the effects of those who would have a revolution every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Those who would speed up evolution urge the laggards on. We balance each other so that progress is assured, but not so rapid as to be extremely unstable.

rm_hunkadelicus 47M

1/23/2006 12:56 pm

I'm from California and believe in Polyamory... does that make me a "Cal-Poly"?

VisualViolet 59F
10 posts
1/24/2006 8:34 am

"I'm from California and believe in Polyamory... does that make me a "Cal-Poly"?"

Maybe Poly-Tech ;0)

rm_hunkadelicus 47M

1/25/2006 2:39 pm

I'll settle for "Calpolytech"... Californian polyamorist technician.

A quik note here... I spoke with a female friend yesterday briefly on the subject of Polyamory. Her conclusion was that she thought Polyamorists were immature since they can't seem to love only one person. This seems to be the general consensus of people's opinions in the states. You and I both know what really influences people's opinions, yet... I can turn the argument around and say 'we can love as many as we choose to love'. Why would that be considered immature? Who said we can ONLY love one person? God? If so... then why do Holy scriptures of various tribes speak of God loving those even outside the respective tribe? Rhetorical of course. I already know the answer to my question and am resolute in my approach to loving. I'd like to know what you think and/or say to those that see loving more than one person as being fallacious.


VisualViolet 59F
10 posts
1/25/2006 5:02 pm

Hi, Matt:

Actually, I have considered the fact that Polyamory for many young people may be nothing more than childish hedonism.

I think that young people need to feel that they are the one and only for someone. They need to have their uniqueness reinforced in that way.

As we get older we realize that we can find many unique people, each special in his or her own way and we don't need the ego trip of thinking that someone thinks that we are totally unique in every way in Humanity.

In my early writings on Polyamory I wrote that we become mature enough to handle read Poly sometime in our thirties on the average. Before then we seem to need the one and only thing, but milage varies on that and it may be purely cultural.

One of the most balanced Polyamorists I know discovered his and his wife's Polyamory when they were in their early 60s.

There is another woman on AdultFriendFinder who writes about Polyamory. I stopped her posts here because she was posting nothing more than links to her blog and basically making this blog an ad for hers, but one of the many things that she says on her blog that are noteworthy is: "Love can be multiplied, but never divided".

She talks about how the love we feel for each of the people we love is wholly a world in itself and that it is impossible to built that relationship with anyone else.

I forgot her name. If I come across her profile again I'll mail you her info.

Become a member to create a blog