(no subject)

[novapsyche]

mr_quackenbush, a fine poet, is having a discussion about polyamory in his journal, here. I'm not very well versed in formal logic or constructing formal arguments, so I fear my objections to his post are going to be dismissed. Yet, I still wanted to make my views known, as I respect his opinions.

Edit: mr_quackenbush has given me permission to reproduce portions of our discussion.

mr_quackenbush: here's the argument.

1.) For a great many people, when he or she finds someone he or she loves has had sexual intercourse with someone else, it causes them pain.

2.) some people have experienced emotional trauma that leads them to cognitively devalue their own right to sexuality and happy romantic relationships, and as a result will not report accurately about their own feelings to a romantic partner, or even to themselves.

3.) it is possible for such people to be polyamorous and have polyamorous relationships.

Therefore, even if an agent S is emotionally equipped to be polyamorous, S can never be sure that S's having sex with someone other than a specific partner is not causing a specific partner pain for no good reason and by way of actions that S can control.

Therefore, polyamory is unethical.

now, obviously there are exceptions to some of my premises. obviously, there are people that S has less of a responsibility toward no matter how much they feel about you. someone S doesn't love, for example, or someone that S is only seeing casually and who hasn't informed S of the depth of her feelings for him. so lay that aside in the evaluation of the argument and assume that this is a case, not an uncommon one, where S is in a committed and mutually loving relationship with a specific partner P who fits the description laid out in premises 1, 2, and 3 above.

tell me, are there holes in this?

novapsyche: The problem is you could substitute "monogamous" for "polyamorous" in your argument and come to the same conclusion. Your thesis doesn't explain anything.

mr_quackenbush: the same argument doesn't apply to monogamy at all, by definition.

novapsyche: You're missing my point.

1.) For a great many people, when he or she finds someone he or she loves has had sexual intercourse with someone else, it causes them pain.

2.) some people have experienced emotional trauma that leads them to cognitively devalue their own right to sexuality and happy romantic relationships, and as a result will not report accurately about their own feelings to a romantic partner, or even to themselves.

3.) it is possible for such people to be monogamous and have monogamous relationships.

Therefore, even if an agent S is emotionally equipped to be monogamous, S can never be sure that S's having sex with someone other than a specific partner is not causing a specific partner pain for no good reason and by way of actions that S can control.

Therefore, monogamy is unethical.

Because as you've written hypothesis #1, "has had" can mean any time in the past. I've known many people (and I'm sure you have, too) who find out how many partners their current SO has had in the past and get irrationally upset.

Also, there are actually people (*gasp*) who do not get jealous just because their partner has sex with someone else. What do you think of swingers, for example? Some people are more threatened by the idea of one's partner getting emotionally intimate with someone else. Sex is not the end-all be-all of fidelity and devotion in a relationship.

#2, as someone else here has already said, requires one to be unreasonably telepathic. The key here is communication. Polyamory requires all partners to be honest with others involved. If one can't be honest about how one feels about a given situation or established guideline, then perhaps polyamory isn't for that one person.

As far as #3 goes, your argument necessarily disposes everyone into two neatly dichotomous groups, monogamous and polyamorous. That's all fine and good, except for those who could go either way, depending on one's current partner. There have been people I've been involved with that wouldn't be able to handle being poly, so with them I would happily be monogamous. Also, there have been times in my past where I identified as monogamous and would not have been happy in a poly relationship. There is a spectrum, IMO. It's at least [not] as cut and dried as you're making things out to be.

mr_quackenbush: i'd be willing to ammend my first premise to include a clause requiring that the sex be during the course of the romantic involvement, because i took that to be implied.

as far as the telepathy thing goes, i think we owe eachother in general more than that argument allows. that's a much longer conversation i'm not particularly interested in having at this point.

re: your third point, that's why i directed my argument against the behavior rather than against people. there are lots of actions that in the greatest variety of cases will not cause harm. It's the possibility of damage that makes the behavior unethical and irresponsible. i have a really hard time telling adults that how they conduct themselves romantically is a matter of social concern, but i do think that there are cases like this one where specific behaviors can be singled out as carrying unacceptable risks.

Comments

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Oh. Well, isn't that rude of me to link to a friends-only post.

I'll see if he'll allow me to post relevant stuff here.

[mr-quackenbush.livejournal.com]

of course! i think you're the bees knees. quote me all you like.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

The bees knees? I don't think I've ever been called that. Thank you. :) And thanks for your permission.