Dr. John v. Kampen

What's wrong with polyamory?

Sunday, March 22, 2009 2:45:41 PM

polygamy, people, love, religion, Mormon, society

Not so long ago a friend of mine introduced me to his wife. For a moment I stared at him, confused. Then she was another woman than I had encountered just a few days earlier with his children. Wicked friend, trying to pull my leg? Wrong! He confessed to me to live in a polygamic relationship with consent of all involved. He tried to explain to me that his religious views had inspired him to bind two women to his life. A complicated history with some very particular elements he had never told me. A nice widow by the Balkan war had come into his life, with whom his first wife could go along very well and allowed this evolution to take place! Polygamy with a social function never really was unconventional, I realized. It however gives the man in some respect the upper hand, which in times of equality between sexes and secularism appears to cause a shift towards polyamory, love for many without the necessity to formally legalize the relation, thus marry, but avoiding rather archaic consequences of social taboos and rejection by the law. What is polyamory ?

I was reminded of this subject while reading about the intriguing case that plays these days in Utah, USA. A cult leader, Warren Jeffs, tried to have a verdict of illegal polygamy overruled. He failed. That in the state that gives home to the Mormon church of 'Jesus Christ and Latter-days Saints'. A Christian church faction that historically was in favor of polygamy, but denies this today. A denial of Matthew 5:17-18? Polygamy isn't restricted to this religious community alone. Today it is becoming a growing phenomenon in Israel as well. In modern Israel, when a wife cannot bear children or is mentally ill, the rabbis are inclined to give a husband the right to marry a second woman without divorcing his first wife.

Moreover the number of plural marriages amongst prospering Sephardic Jews is rising. The plural marriage is also known in Islam. Islam deals with this issue more clearly however and provides certain legal requirements to discourage such a practice. Christianity as such has never taken a clear stance about plural marriages, rather allowing the existence of concubines, still common practice in France. In China, the status of a man was once measured by the number of women he had – both wives and concubines. In 1949, the Communists banned the practice, seeing it as a sign of bourgeois decadence, but now, after two decades of market economy, concubines have returned – the “ernai”, meaning “second wife”. So we look at a phenomenon that is quite widespread! One wonders what is against this?

Attorney Brian Barnard has made a case in favor of polygamy. He claims that while it is a legitimate concern of the State to prevent fraudulent or coerced relationships, it has no right to prevent plural marriages amongst consenting adults. Could it two centuries ago be related to slavery, today the taboo seems directed to object against same-sex marriages and prevention of child-abuse. A twist of mind to only scare rational adult people? Should individual, personal freedom be judged by some public opinion and the moral understanding of the State? Consensus so far has never guided us to moral truths. In that light I doubt whether a change of names, from polygamy to polyamory, means a change of heart, though it pretends a difference. My guess is, that much of the 'moral resistence' is based on envy! Envy not to be able to come up for two households, being responsible for them. Or in a sense circumventing it in the less formalized polyamory. My friend is an exception: he can afford to have two wives!

John

URL movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1zSU7LjSDg

Nikola Tesla - the forgotten WizardFrom Nostradamus onto the Afterlife

Comments

Angelikiellinidata # Monday, March 23, 2009 8:54:30 PM

there is no way under the sun that I will share the man I love with another woman! NONE
if physically or intellectually I am not good enough for him there will be a line of ten more men outside my house that will appreciate me and love me and they will be waiting to have a chance!!
polyamory is for men to degrade women and have cotrol over them

Dr. John v. Kampennepmak2000 # Monday, March 23, 2009 9:21:58 PM

Amen!

scott cummingI_ArtMan # Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:03:21 PM

one thing... right off the bat. it is not for amatuers. the lady in the video kind of hints at that and gives good voice to detractors of the proposition that we have enough love to go around.

personally, i have always loved in my heart many women and men in the proper way, just a private appreciation of their qualities.

then, my philosophical principle of simplify, simplify, simplify, totally obviates multiple sexual partners. but it wasn't always my understanding.

and finally, my conclusions after having made every mistake possible, is that there is something in the word adultery which is a clue to why men should cleave (to use a lovely old world word.), to only one woman who has his considered and passionate commitment to love honor and even obey....

a·dul·ter·ate (ə-dŭltə-rāt′)
tr.v. a·dul·ter·at·ed, a·dul·ter·at·ing, a·dul·ter·ates
"To make impure by adding extraneous, improper, or inferior ingredients."

and i think the thining out of these special energys of sex is the main reason why you are just asking for trouble. unless of course you are in a society which supports one man husbanding multiple women for the reasons covered in the video. but all of the women would be forced to partial benefits of marriage.

i have so much more to say on this interesting subject.

Dr. John v. Kampennepmak2000 # Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:30:27 PM

Then do so! However: I am completely on your line. I would never ever share my wife with another. Not from a 'possessive' viewpoint, but simply because my partner is part of my life and not some appendix. I came to this subject as written: that verdict against a guy in Utah. Inspired by our always socially involved Angeliki I ventured into writing about the remarkable trend of polyamory. My British friend I hinted at is legally married with 2 women and has children from both as a matter of fact today. The story relates to some years ago, when I discovered this and he told me. It's a very respected friend btw. with very kind and caring wives. It works for him. I wouldn't like it at all. BUT: if my wife would suddenly fall in love with somebody, she may enjoy it as long as I don't know it, or not in my home! These things tend to pass in due course: neighbor's grass looks always greener from the other side, but when you're there, then it is here again. That is what this lady from the video also indicates, that these relations work for a relatively short time.
I agree with you with: simplify your life. Yes, you make it so complicated to engage in adventures. Why would you do that? I don't like it. And in any household sometimes there are 'downturns', but they will pass with a positive spirit and with forward looking and not forever grudging about things that passed.
Oh yes, so much to tell about this!

scott cummingI_ArtMan # Wednesday, March 25, 2009 12:14:58 AM

hear hear. you have put it very well. "And in any household sometimes there are 'downturns', but they will pass with a positive spirit and with forward looking and not forever grudging about things that passed."

this is very important in a relationship which has passed the obstacles of time and occasional peccadillos due to various accidents and weakness of not just the flesh but the heart itself.

and this also touches on the marriage vows being meaningful and sacred. it is built into the highest concept of marriage; that we might forgive each other even; that each would be a helpmeet to the other. but that is hard. and it's hard because it goes to the instinctive in us. instinct is powerful. more powerful than anything my little brain decides i should do. yes it is jealousy. and possessiveness is not a function of the conscious self. rather it is embedded in thousands of years of habituation and is totally instinctive.

free love is almost as archaic a dream as altruism. i'm not speaking about ideals, but reality. a being may be able to transform his reactive behavior with a lot of work. but he would have also then to be responsible for all the repercussions of his experiment.

Dr. John v. Kampennepmak2000 # Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:04:06 AM

What can I add? There is 'temptation' and there is 'self-restraint'. Yes, there even is 'escapism', fugitivity for the hard reality - often nearly a disease. Imagine you are on a business trip, your wife is at home. After a visit to the bar you return to your room to find a nice, dark haired lady in bed that softly says: 'Hi...!' Would you apologize and run out of your room to inspect the number on the door? Or would you rather go & sit at the other side and with a soft voice and a smile ask her if she 'perhaps had taken the wrong room?' What now if she says: 'no'?
Of course this has nothing to do with the theme itself, nevertheless it gives our female readers a fairly correct impression of the difficulties in a male's life! And I have not even brought to bear the phenomenon of 'hyper-sexuality', which is a true disorder from which about 15% of men suffer. After many journeys and as many 'temptations' I indeed found the golden bullet (for myself): "Well, I am not interested in sex!" This always raises eyebrows first, the next second however the desillusion is there and game is over. It works. For as far as my friend (and his wife) took care of this widow in accordance with both their convictions it's -tmho- morally/ethically Ok. When it is living separately together for sex I put some ???? up and ask myself if there is nothing else in their minds. When it is "back to the 60's" and the "communes", the flower-power kibbutzim, I do raise my eyebrow... Escapism. Bottomline: everybody may do things in consent and harmony, that I must not do. That decision is mine. Even many 'laws' only have statistical value...

scott cummingI_ArtMan # Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:18:28 AM

i think the only thing you have missed is that this is all on one level. to transcend the automaton which is us, as we are, we need to find a better reason for existence than survival and procreation. desires necessarily are built into our complexity to ensure the perpetuation of the human race.

that and materialism is the raison d'etre of the modern man. on another level which is more mystical, everything is grist for the mill. every impression in this fleeting life can be used for growth of something which is not of this crass existence. art points to it. revelation given to some individuals, now historic and believeable because of the trusted general acceptance of their idealism. truths like 'treat people as you would like them to treat you' have been in the collective consciousness for milleniums and still we, the human race destroy innocent people all over the world for reasons no one seems to be able to pinpoint.

Dr. John v. Kampennepmak2000 # Wednesday, March 25, 2009 2:58:22 PM

Yes, a 2-dimensional, horizontal thinking in many ways appear to dominate our lives. The struggle for life and survival of the fittest is a bugging factor, as well as a fantasy. I have often wondered where these "standards for life", this set of 10 or so basic rules for society, reflected upon in religious expressions, come from. More so remarkable while the convictions ascribed to these rules in fact didn't exist as we now known them 2.000 years ago and most certainly they were not written then. I see a lot in Jung's collective unconsciousness indeed. Of course there is this animal instinct, a primitive behavior to procreate, in us and it always was and will be. However Jung indicated the difference between personal and transcendental, collective unconsciousness. What we experience of the world today is rather different though from the experiences people made in the 15th-16th century. That were islanders, where we are a mass-production. A lot of knowledge from the Naissance of our time (from 14th century upwards) has become invalid these days and contributes, to my opinion, to the Great Confusion that holds this world in its grip, even seems destroy it. Envy and greed, the differences between haves and have-nots, lay at the basis of our current problems - envy being a prominent factor. The resulting stupidities reflect in our society. Where does the inconsistent imagery that we all carry with us of this world, wherever we live, come from then? The prejudices for instance. Ever asked yourself why the history of India doesn't fit the history of Western-Europe? Why the Chinese history doesn't fit to the Russian and African, or Jewish history with its origins? The same reflects in the unconscious and notions we get from this "forcing" the unconsciousness to some 'collective' consciousness by indoctrination. It remains difficult to change the mindset and replace the ambiguity of words by a clear, common perspective for a world as it was originally intended: to be a paradise instead.

Angelikiellinidata # Wednesday, March 25, 2009 6:56:52 PM

this is the only subject that I find men talk more than women would

we will just say : NO!!!!

Dr. John v. Kampennepmak2000 # Wednesday, March 25, 2009 8:12:10 PM

I disagree, because it depends on the surplus of men, resp. women, Angeliki. In Spain there is a light surplus of women, the consequence is obvious. In China the reverse where one now seeks solutions to import women. Holland: 35.000 Polish women entered since 2001. The inequalities lead to social tensions. Not to be wiped aside for policymakers. That you and I hold a different opinion doesn't away with that in a macro-social view.