[UUPoly-L] Love, Science & Other Subjects

[Desmond Ravenstone <desmondravenstone@yahoo.com>]

With all the responses this morning and afternoon, I thought I would address as much of the discussion as possible in one email, rather than reply one by one.  So, here goes...

If science has shown us anything about human nature, it's that one size does not fit all.  Yes, the vast majority of people benefit from consuming cow's milk, but the fact that there are people like me who can become sick from consuming milk means that we can't impose it as universal.  Likewise, while a majority of people do best in lasting monogamous relationships, that is not the case for everyone; so even when statistics indicate that long-term monogamy is good for most, a broader scientific view reminds us that it is not good for all.  No, we cannot quantify love -- but science can help us see that the ways we find and express love are as diverse as any other aspect of the human condition.

As for the reasons folks here have speculated about why some people are so opposed to polyamory ... It is tempting to "psychologize" the issues and reduce motivation to individual insecurity.  It also ignores the historical side of anti-poly arguments.  Many people who claim polyamory to be not only wrong but downright dangerous cite two specific paradigms: that of male-dominant polygyny (Mormonism, Islam, etc.), and the unfettered "free love" experimentation of the 60's and 70's (in particular, incidents in many UU congregations involving "open marriage" and swinging).

Each of these paradigms, while welcoming and encouraging plural relationships, is diametrically opposed to the other regarding the issue of control; patriarchal polygyny exhibits hierarchical control, while the Sexual Revolution was seen as anarchistic.  The "golden mean" proposed between them is one of egalitarian partnership in monogamy.  Naturally, this begs the question: "Why not egalitarian plural partners as well?"  Many anti-poly people simply refuse to believe that is possible -- but that also their Achilles' Heel.  As soon as you argue that "There are no white crows," all you need to disprove it is one white crow.  And when it comes to thriving egalitarian plural partnerships, we have many such white crows.

Desmond Ravenstone

********************

http://www.myspace.com/desmond_ravenstone