Wednesday, March 20, 2019

The Difference Between Polyamory And Affairs

Can a person have multiple close friends at the same time?  Anyone who believes otherwise is entirely in error.  Nevertheless, many people who would quickly affirm that having close friendships with multiple people simultaneously does not have to cheapen those friendships are willing to say that having multiple romantic partners simultaneously somehow degrades those relationships.  What is true of one is true of the other, contrary to this common hypocrisy, and thus it follows from the possibility of enjoying multiple deep friendships at once than it is certainly possible to enjoy multiple romantic and marital relationships at once.

There is a fairly widespread belief that polyamory and adultery can be interchangeable words, not because all adultery is polyamorous, but because all polyamory is regarded as adulterous.  Polyamory involves the consent of a person's spouse in the sense that a polyamorous relationship is not conducted behind the back of their spouse, as well as in the sense that adultery by nature involves extramarital sexual behaviors (though this does not include the use of erotic media or sexual flirtation), whereas polyamory can involve plural marriages.  Polyamorous marriages cannot be adulterous because adultery can only occur when a married person has extramarital sex.

There is no genuine betrayal in polyamory, although it is often characterized as if it is, at best, one spouse voluntarily permitting the other party to romantically or sexually betray them.  This misperception is due not to rationalistic or genuinely Biblical ideas (the Bible obviously permits polyamory in itself), but to cultural conditioning and personal jealousy.  The concept of polyamory does not contradict spousal fidelity in any way, for there is nothing about having multiple spouses that means one of them must be neglected, trivialized, or emotionally wounded.

An affair, unlike mere polyamory, is initiated by someone either with the goal of secrecy, lest the person's spouse find out, or against the will of a spouse.  Affairs are inherently adulterous because one party is actively betrayed by the other.  Adultery, by definition, can only be sex that one partner in a committed relationship has with another partner to whom he or she is not committed.  This is the key difference between polyamory and adultery, and it is not difficult to distinguish the two.  Marital commitment to two or more people does nothing to violate or degrade the commitment between the original husband and wife, whereas adultery shows a disregard for stable commitment.

Conservative social forces, both in a religious and generic secular sense, are responsible for cultivating a culture where various nonsinful forms of romantic and sexual expression are arbitrarily considered taboos.  Polyamory is just one of multiple examples of nonsinful romantic/sexual processes or acts that have been demonized by irrational minds.  Certainly, polyamory is not something that every couple desires or would find favorable.  It is still a legitimate, non-adulterous option for people who are so inclined.


5 comments:

  1. Adultery is definitely not a double standard (Hosea 14:14), but why would Paul forbid polyandry, bindings women from marrying again until their husband dies (Romans 7:2)?

    The Jews never believed in polyandry. There isn't a single ancient Israelite polyandrous woman in the Bible or history, except maybe the Samaritan woman at the well, but she's probably a multiple divorce victim. Matthew 22:28 also proves they never practiced it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure if you saw my reply on the post with the original comment, but I'm slowly getting the chance to read your comments one by one with everything going on. I might not even get to read the one below this until tomorrow or later.

      Adultery doesn't have a double standard because an act could only be of the same moral nature no matter the gender of someone doing it. There is no Hosea 14:14, so I'm not sure which verse you meant to reference there. Paul is a New Testament author, and if the New Testament contradicted the Old Testament, the latter could be true without the former, but not the other way around. However, Paul is clearly focusing on a married woman having sex with other men she is not married to, because he keeps focusing on the marital bond itself. Her husband and other people she is not married to are in view.

      What the Jews practiced or what might or might not have been a historical norm has nothing to do with the fact that Mosaic Law does not condemn polyandry, and thus it is permissible on Christian morality (Deuteronomy 4:2). That is plainly irrelevant.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for replying cooper! The verse in question was Hosea 4:14.
      I still see Paul forbidden women from marrying again until their husband is dead, bound to death. I'm open to change, but I don't see it yet. I'm also wondering why soldiers were commanded to marry their women so no other man could take them if they died (Deut 20:7)? If polyandry was okay, why would this be a problem?

      Delete
  2. It's interesting to note that concubines like Hagar, Ziplah, and Bilah weren't wives. They were just incubators who were used to make children for their mistress. They could be given to the husband for sex because they were property, so they might not evens have consent. They always blamed women for childlessness so they'd never let her have sex with a servant to raise a child for her husband. They had to do it after the husband died (Levirate marriage)

    If you don't believe me l, have a look at Hammurabi's law 144:
    "If a man take a wife and this woman give her husband a maid-servant, and she bear him children, but this man wishes to take another wife, this shall not be permitted to him; he shall not take a second wife."

    ReplyDelete