Welcome to Gaia! ::

There are just plain greedy bisexuals, but I'm not advocating that. I'm just saying, is there really anything wrong with wanting to be with someone based on their personality, and let the sexuality fall where it may?

I don't think their is anything wrong with that. But I think it really depends on the person and how they feel about it if they think its wrong or not.

Prove it, or you're just babbling through a keyboard.


No, but the argument that the phenomena of polyamory, polygamy, and bisexuality are *not* limited to our culture (as shown by those anthropology texts) does undercut your notion that they are somehow "ghastly" in any objective sense. Your own sources paint these phenomena as predating monogamy, though I think that's a bit of an ethnocentric assertion from Freud which neglects the way societies adapt to varying situations.


Lulz. You're funny. xd You are the only one here who thinks polyamory, polygamy, or bisexuality is an oxymoron. You're going to have an uphill battle proving any of that with your outdated sources. That goes doubly so for your assumption that anything mentioned needs "correction".

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I think I see how the "no bisexuals are polygamists" thing works.

I think, traditionally, polygamy implies a heterosexual marriage with multiple partners, but the multiple male or female spouses generally do not sleep with each other, just the single male or female spouse. Which isn't bisexuality.

Still, there are cases of, for example, a man married to a woman married to a woman (i.e. the woman has both a husband and a wife) and since this involves marriage... isn't that polygamy?

Beggars can't be choosers.

Neither of those is a true oxymoron, they can exist with each component entity having a differing frame of reference.

An oxymoron cannot exist, it is simply not feasible outside of the realm of ideas.

Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth was written by her advisor, Derek Freedman, and published five years after her death. Basically, he went behind her, interviewed some of the same people she did, who acknowledged treating Mead as the gullible idiot in the village, and other issues with her work. Enough questions remain about *both* Freeman and Mead's work that the field has abandoned both individuals' work on the subject.

Tell that bit about polyamory to my friend Pops, whose situation you described as "ghastly". Tell that bit about polygamy being junior to a fundamentalist Mormon who disregards the law in favor of his prophet's original teachings. And tell that bit about bisexuality to a neuroscientist. All will laugh at you.

And regardless of your now refined position, you have yet to deal with evidence.

Polyamory is depicted in movies - "which man do I choose?" Or we may look among real life swingers and wife swappers, for whom one partner just leads to a stale sex life. My self-described monogamous friend Richard talks openly of dating more than one person at once, then dropping the rest when one gets particularly serious. The stereotypical male fantasy of "having sex with two women at once" is another example, alongside Pops. Male Elephants and Baboons only hang around the female herds when its mating season, and they don't have their eye on one female in particular if you understand my meaning. All these examples are, to one extent or another, polyamory.

Ageing Samoans have little impact upon the actions of Manus children. Not that her perfectly reasonable methodology has any bearing upon the purpose of the study of anthropology- which of course was wholly the topic at hand.



Pops being easily amused is not any sort of argument, he simply doesn't know any better.
Does this charming Mormon honestly believe that Joseph Smith invented marriage and in a polygamous manner? Surely polygamy cannot come about before the invention of monogamy.
What fool of a neuroscientist is this? Honestly this matter is neither his business nor his field.



This has ever been my position, the absurdities have not been introduced by myself.

None of that is polyamory, that is sexual promiscuity and lasciviousness. Stating that elephants and baboons are not terribly romantic hardly figures into discussion, I have no sensible idea of why they formed a part of your contribution.

Its actually a known hazard in Anthropology some of your "objects of study" will make jokes at your expense. Bedouin groups are known for telling unwary Anthropologists that they are to be welcomed with this high honor, the special honored soup - eyeball soup. So the Anthropologist, not wanting to be rude, will eat it - meanwhile the Bedouin are hiding behind a tent, trying to contain their laughter to a level where they won't get caught. The only defense for it is to observe how that people joke before directly interacting with the people, or at least accounting that pattern in your analysis. This is where her methodology fell short.


Pops would be amused at your presumptuousness. You would tell him how to live, just like any proselytizer, and rationalize it away as something based in objectivity.

The example of the Mormon polygamist wasn't that Joseph invented polygamy, but that his concept of God decrees that marriage should be conducted in this way - which will involve love for all of his partners.

The neuroscientist? That was an analogy. You behavior is consistent with someone that would try to use Phrenology, a laughable pseudoscience, to try to refute modern Neuroscience.

You might need a Dictionary, sweetie.

The baboons and elephants? They're there as an example of polyamorous behavior in the Animal Kingdom, outside of human social constraints. It's perfectly natural.

Filthy Arabs still cannot influence the simple fact that doctor Mead was fully and properly informed of the nature and purpose of anthropology as is the pertinent issue here.



Pops is far too easily amused, is he in some way markedly deficient of character or wit?

That fails to address the point that monogamy is senior to polygamy. Certainly there are people who favour polygamous relationships or that will even hold claim to polyamory but claims of vested interest hold little water.

Perish the thought- they are both worth next to nothing in the human sciences. Such is the nature of being fundamentally the same discipline.



Human social constraints being natural and the apparence of monogamous relationships in the animal kingdom aside, one cannot have polyamory without amor; the dictionary fails in it's oversimplification.