Polyamory Is Pro-Family

Sponsored Content

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

Comments

  1. Wirbelwind says:

    No.
    Why complicate things when you can simply live with extended family (grandparents, uncles, etc.) that are not romantically involved with you in whatever combination ? It is MUCH more stable.

    • @wirbelwind It’s near impossible to describe one huge category of relationships as more or less stable than another huge category. Ultimately, how stable a relationship is depends on the communication skills, self awareness and commitment of the people involved. Speaking for myself, I haven’t seen one branch of my family in over a decade, due to disputes that erupted after my grandmother’s death. If they’d been directly involved in my upbringing, it would have been the equivalent of a very nasty divorce.

      Meanwhile, obviously, there are romantic relationships that have survived for almost the entire lives of.the people involved, and remained healthy through all manner of challenges. If the goal is to raise children in happy, healthy, stable families, then poly families which meet that criterion ought to be included.

    • Anthony Zarat says:

      “Why complicate things …”

      Because they want to. Why NOT? You think our current “system” (what a joke) is better than his?!? Do you know how many parents an American child has? The average American child has 1.63 parents at any given instant (1.49 parents at adulthood). Given how much better children do with 2 parents, compared to 1, it is not hard to imagine that (possibly) children would do even better with 4 parents.

      • “Because they want to.”

        It may be much more than a want.

        Similar to same sex relationships, there is evidence that some or many people are genetically inclined toward polyamory. Thus, it may not be just a choice; rather, they way they are from birth.

  2. Anthony Zarat says:

    Be ready. Few people will understand you (which does not matter, I don’t understand you either), and even fewer will accept you (which does matter, and by the way you have my full acceptance and support).

    One question …

    If you are going to break bonds, why not break them all? The real liberation is when the parent-child relationship is independent of the parent-parent relationship. For example, why can’t four men agree to:
    (i) contribute equally to a child’s genetic make-up (25% each), and
    (ii) contribute equally to a child’s financial support (25% each), and
    (iii) contribute equally to a child’s physical care (1 week out of 4 each)?

    There is no practical reason why crossing over cannot occur two (or more) times, instead of once. Done right, this means that genetically a child can have 2,4,8,16,32, etc parents (any power of two) using (almost) existing technology. With improvements, non-binary fractions should also be possible.

    Add in an artificial womb (coming soon!) and you have the technical capability to totally separate the parent-parent relationship from the parent-child relationship. A child could have 4 fathers who are colleagues and friends, but who are simultaneously in emotional relationships with other persons (presumably, women, or even something more exotic …)

    • Interesting theory on the mechanical womb. What about the contact the the developing child has with the mother through the term of the pregnancy. I do think it is a mistake to believe that a child does not benefit in any way from being inside a real live woman. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of thought about the baby’s well being in this theory of yours.

  3. wellokaythen says:

    The title of an article once again overstates the case in the article. I don’t think polyamory is inherently “better” for childraising or inherently more “pro-family” than other arrangements. NOR do I think it is inherently bad for childraising or inherently more “anti-family” (whatever that could possibly mean.) I didn’t get the sense that the author was saying that polyamorous cohabitation is automatically ideal for raising children, just that in his experience it has some great benefits to raising kids.

    Seems to me like with any of the people in your house, the atmosphere depends on the people themselves more than the arrangement among them. A wonderful single parent could be much better than six totally dysfunctional parents, while six people in a polyamorous relationship could be much better than two horrible parents in a completely monogamous but dysfunctional marriage. Or, two loving parents could be in the ideal situation for their own family, with no need to increase or decrease their numbers.

    • Justin Cascio says:

      Sounds like you’re overstating the case, wellokaythen, because the title doesn’t say “better” or “more,” just “pro,” as opposed to “anti.” It isn’t inherently better, but as Micah Schneider points out, having more loving people around to do the child rearing is pretty great. You’re right, the parents have to be functional and loving. There is a lot that can go wrong, actually. There’s something to be said for redundancy.

  4. Watch two episodes on showtime of their reality show on polyamory. It doesn’t work.

Speak Your Mind