Do you know any women who admit to sleeping with over 100 men? (experiences, feeling)

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Well I assumed you knew that I was talking about monogamy as a constant lifestyle choice, not an exact count of how many sexual partners you've had in your entire lifetime.

No - I assume you were talking about exactly what you said you were talking about. That everyone should be able to attain full sexual satisfaction with just one partner. And this is a contention you simply have refused to back up in any way except by repetition of it.

The fact is that not only have you not backed up the claim - but the fact there are bisexuals in the world who maintain they can not achieve satisfaction unless both sides of their sexuality is satiated - instantly puts a question mark over that baseless claim you have made.

Unless you want to tell such people they are simply wrong in what they know about themselves. In which case your fundamentalist opinion on this matter was described well by the user after me. So I will merely paste his words here again: So no matter what you're told by people about what they need to be sexually satisfied, your opinion won't change. Yes, people who know themselves, their lives, what they want and need... what they think and say about their own lives will not convince you that your opinion about them is incorrect. That is an inflexible opinion, and rather rude as well (telling people what they think about themselves is wrong).

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Once more, there was no "backpedaling" involved.

Slapping the word "opinion" on to it and acting like this should somehow modify my responses to you is back pedalling in my view. You expressed a view. I am merely showing how that view has no basis and hence fails. You slapping the label "opinion" on it changes nothing. You either won't pay attention to this, don't know what this means, or are just trying to be difficult.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

But I already gave my reasoning. You do not accept it, for somewhat vague reasons of your own. That's fine. But don't pretend I haven't explained myself.

You hae neither explained yourself nor given your "reasoning". What you have given is a contention that there is some kind of "ideal" - and you have backed this up with the contention that we should all be able to attain sexual satisfaction with one person. You have backed up neither contention - explained the reasoning behind neither contention - and have in fact done little but a failed attempt to shift the burden of proof by suggesting I need to evidence the opposite of your outright assertions.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Funny how you call me Mr. Misrepresentation here. I never said the potential for everything to go wrong increases.

Well this is a very good exmaple of why I call you Mr. Misrepresentation. Because I never once suggested you DID say this. Anywhere.

The point which you are (likely pretending) to miss is that by highlighting some things you think (without evidence) have a higher potential to go wrong - you are not looking at everything.

If you want to claim the potential for things to go wrong is higher in such relationships then you DO need to look at everything. I am suggesting you are not - but are instead cherry picking the things you personally (arbitrarily and with no basis) think have a higher potential to go wrong.

And I am simply saying you should look at the whole picture and see that it is like a set of radio equalisers. Maybe some potentials go up - but others go down - and for your contentions on this thread to hold - you need to show not only an over all increase - but a significant one - and thus far you have not shown _any at all_.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Are you going to stop being vague anytime soon

Your lack of understanding does not equate to my being vague. The failing is yours not mine.

You are throwing out general things you claim the potential for harm increases in. I am merely responding in kind. The one being vague here is you. You jsut throw out categories (like STD and Infedelity) and merely assume the potential for harm or hurt increases. An assumption you back up with little more than hot air.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Because the "bigger picture" does not address the polyamory itself.

It does. You are the one claiming that the potential for harm goes up in those relationship types. So looking at the big picture of what harms go up - down - or remain the same speaks DIRECTLY to your claim - regardless of how desperately you want to distance yourself from it.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

You haven't given me a single example of something a polyamorous relationship can contain that a monogamous relationship cannot

Nor am I requred to to back up the points I am actually making about your baseless contention on this thread.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Moreover, since I am not making claims that I am correct, I am not in the least obligated to prove myself correct.

Ah yes - straight back to hiding behind your little label of "opinion" with which you cop out of backing up a single thing you ever say. You just throw out nonsense - fueled by your anti sex agenda that we have seen on many threads now from porn to even nudity - and then cop out of backing up a shred of that nonsense by screaming "opinion" and running for the door.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

When you typed "Mr. Misrepresentation has returned I see", tell me... were you looking in the mirror?

No - as I just showed it is you. You. And no one else but you - engaged in consistent misrepresentation of my positions - words - and views. Nor am I the only one you try this one as I have seen by following the threads you recently ran away from - usually with a parting accusation at the person you were running from that bore no resembelence to reality whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

My opinion (without quotes, because that's all it is and all I ever claimed it to be) does not require "support".

And the same cop out again. You really like that record on that record player.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

And now I have people telling me it's incorrect or that it "fails", while presenting exactly as much objective evidence as I have done - zero.

There is no requirement to. Given your position is unsupported by anything - it fails. There is no requirement to evidence the opposite. The same as the people who claim there is a god. We can simply point out their claims are based on nothing at all. End of. We do not need to evidence the LACK of existence of god. A Philosophy 101 starter course on the burden of proof would not go amiss - were you to find the time to attend one.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Ditto. My entire point is that I am not convinced any person needs polyamory to be sexually satisfied

No your point was there is a sexual "ideal" and I am merely pointing out that this is a baseless contention you have offered - and have then run away from under the flag of "opinion".

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

We already had this discussion. I think it should be considered synonymous, as it is the only (dare I say) measurable factor.

What awful reasoning you present here. A measure that is a crap measure for the thing being observed "Should" be used for no other reason than you personally can not think of a better one? I am glad you are not a scientist is all I can say.

Orgasm is - once again - not a useful measure of sexual satisfaction. For many reasons. Many of them already listed on this thread from the fact that people can have many orgasms and still not be satiated - to the fact that raped women can orgasm during the experience and they found it neither pleasurable nor satisfying.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

when there are objective ways of determining what the human body needs

And there is one of the foundational reasons that you come out with such nonsense as using orgasm to measure human sexual satisfaction. You measure it merely - and solely - as "what the human body need" as if human sexual satisfaction is solely physical. You forget and ignore the mental element here entirely. People have these mental "needs" as well as the physical ones.

And the additional fact is the body "needs" nothing of the sort. So you are doubley talking nonsense here. The body "needs" oxygen - energy - and so forth. The body does not "need" sex - sexual release - orgasm - or any of that.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I don't think my opinion nor reasoning for that opinion could be any clearer...

It could not be any less so - as I keep pointing out. It is one baseless contention being supported by a second baseless contention. That is literally all you have given us.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

It's silly to be asked for support of an opinion, while those offering factual statements offer none

Which - as usual from you just before you retreat from a thread - is a complete and total misrepresentation of what has been happening.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I'll hold out for one more post from monumentus and give my reply, in the (perhaps vain) hope he won't accuse me of "running away"

I would not accuse you of doing it until you do it. Assuming you do not do it, I will not. I am only in the habit of calling spades: spades. I do not call things that are not spades "spades" - nor something that is about to be a spade until such time as it is one.

[Vic 2.0]

Alrighty. Last post.

Originally Posted by timberline742

Most people I know that are poly aren't poly for sexual reasons.

That is the only inherent difference between polyamory and the alternatives, though, sexual relations with more than one person. I've been asking all along for other things that it necessarily means and the closest I've gotten is "intimacy with more than one person". But since one can have intimacy with several people without having sex with them (unless that is the kind of intimacy we're referring to, which again just points out that sex is the sole difference), I can think of no other purpose for choosing this lifestyle over monogamy. And no one's presenting any other purpose either.

Originally Posted by timberline742

It isn't the sexual satisfaction that is the issue.

If not, it begs the question "Why?" all the more.

Originally Posted by timberline742

And no, "getting everything you want" isn't synonymous with "satisfaction".

That's pretty much what I was saying all along.

But like I said, the point was that it's not something people need so much as want. That's why I personally feel it isn't ideal to take on the additional potential for things to go wrong (physically and/or emotionally) for benefits that do not seem exclusive to polyamory in the first place. I really would've thought you or monumentus would've been able to give me something along these lines!

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Well I assumed you knew that I was talking about monogamy as a constant lifestyle choice, not an exact count of how many sexual partners you've had in your entire lifetime.

Originally Posted by monumentus

No - I assume you were talking about exactly what you said you were talking about. That everyone should be able to attain full sexual satisfaction with just one partner. And this is a contention you simply have refused to back up in any way except by repetition of it.

Well, I have "backed up" my "contention" (aka explained by opinion, lol), but your reply here doesn't make sense. I was trying to have a give and take with you concerning the definition of "monogamy" for the purposes of our discussion. But you must've let your passion for the subject in general distract you from this...

Originally Posted by monumentus

The fact is that not only have you not backed up the claim -

No claim has been made! But thank you for confirming I really should quit this thread (You're not paying attention to anything anyway).

Originally Posted by monumentus

but the fact there are bisexuals in the world who maintain they can not achieve satisfaction unless both sides of their sexuality is satiated - instantly puts a question mark over that baseless claim you have made.

It being my own personal opinion and nothing more means a question mark has been there all along. What's more, I'm the one who put it there, long before you sought to "educate" me... with assertions (such as polyamory reducing some vague risks? "And of all the things that can go wrong having more people REDUCES some too.") backed up by nothing, ironically enough. Lol. So again, this really boils down to me giving my opinion (when asked for it, mind you), stating explicitly that I know it's just my opinion, and getting challenges to "support" said opinion... and then you and others making actual claims and not being expected to support them with anything more than assertion. That's the discussion, in a nutshell.

Refer to my last argument on bisexuality vs polyamory. It hasn't changed. One is a sexual "preference" and one is a sexual preference.

Originally Posted by monumentus

Unless you want to tell such people they are simply wrong in what they know about themselves.

I didn't say they were wrong, I said I'm not convinced, and part of the reason I'm not convinced is that no one (including anyone on this thread) has been able to identify for me a benefit in polyamory that cannot be attained in monogamy (minus having sex with more than one person, of course, which is something I'm not allowed to "focus in on", as your protest indicated). "Intimacy with more than one person" was the best any of you could do, and when I talked of how anyone can have intimacy with multiple people without having sex with them, I got no argument. If by "intimacy", we are talking exclusively of sexual intimacy, then it brings us back to apparently finding no benefit in polyamory (besiding sex with more than one person) that cannot be attained in monogamy.

Further, what I know about the human body is that it can relieve sexual tension and/or orgasm without multiple partners, which I made very clear in the beginning was the definition I pinned on "sexual satisfaction" (I know this because people quickly disagreed). Recently, I decided to concede that "sexual satisfaction" may be defined as "getting everything you want (in the sexual realm)", and then I still came up with the conclusion that getting everything you want is not needed either so the whole conversation over semantics was pointless.

Originally Posted by monumentus

Slapping the word "opinion" on to it and acting like this should somehow modify my responses to you is back pedalling in my view.

Well your view is wrong. Since I presented my opinion as just an opinion at the very start, there was no backpedaling whatsoever. There was me having an opinion you didn't like, and thassit.

And yes I did explain it with reasoning. I explained that I saw adding sexual partners as adding potential for things to go wrong (STDs [not only are there more people to bring STDs in, there are more people to be infected by whoever should do so], unwanted pregnancy, emotional/relationship problems) and how I figured no one really needed multiple sexual partners to be sexually satisfied, in defining "sexual satisfaction" as I did, as orgasm/relief of sexual tension. And I might've replaced it with another definition but oddly enough no one presented me with one! They just rejected mine. That my definition was rejected, though, doesn't mean I didn't explain myself!

But you keep calling the opinion a "claim", which would probably explain why you don't think I've given any support for my opinion - you simply want more. Well before I even think about changing my opinion, so do I. I know that compared to objective evidence, my reasoning ain't **** (again, the entire cause for me to aptly label it "opinion"). But frankly, compared to my reasoning, assertion presented without evidence, reasoning or even a specifying of what could in theory make said reasoning wrong? Worth even less, IMO.

Originally Posted by monumentus

The point which you are (likely pretending) to miss is that by highlighting some things you think (without evidence) have a higher potential to go wrong - you are not looking at everything.

You're not giving me anything else to look at, for the third time now. You have yet to specify what you think could make a higher number of sexual partners... present a lower chance for STDs, unwanted pregnancies, emotional/relationship problems. Nothing.

Originally Posted by monumentus

And I am simply saying you should look at the whole picture and see that it is like a set of radio equalisers. Maybe some potentials go up - but others go down -

Yes, you've given that claim already. But you've yet to specify which "potentials" "go down".

Originally Posted by monumentus

Your lack of understanding does not equate to my being vague. The failing is yours not mine.

Ah. See? I give an opinion and am expected to prove it correct; you make a claim and are not expected to even clarify what it is you are talking about. Again, more verification I need to move on to conversations in which the people I'm giving to... give back!

Originally Posted by monumentus

You jsut throw out categories (like STD and Infedelity) and merely assume the potential for harm or hurt increases. An assumption you back up with little more than hot air.

As I said before, I've at least explained why I believe the potential for STDs, unwanted pregnancies, emotional problems (e.g., jealousy, a feeling of not "measuring up", no pun intended, lol) go up in polyamory. But it's precisely because I don't have anything more that I present it as an opinion, not a claim (as you have done).

And again, I did not say or suggest that polyamory increases the chance of infidelity. I told you this in my last post to you, which I guess you didn't slow down enough to read and comprehend.

Originally Posted by monumentus

You just throw out nonsense - fueled by your anti sex agenda

Lol. No wait, I haven't finished typing up my "Sex of any kind is bad" post yet. Stay tuned.

Originally Posted by monumentus

and then cop out of backing up a shred of that nonsense by screaming "opinion" and running for the door.

I backed up my opinion as well as any opinion (that isn't trying to make something illegal) needs backing. You, on the other hand, have not backed up your claims with anything at all. If I'm "running for the door", it's to escape what for all I know could be infectious hypocrisy of the highest level!

Originally Posted by monumentus

And there is one of the foundational reasons that you come out with such nonsense as using orgasm to measure human sexual satisfaction. You measure it merely - and solely - as "what the human body need" as if human sexual satisfaction is solely physical. You forget and ignore the mental element here entirely. People have these mental "needs" as well as the physical ones.

Sounds legitimate. But then you can't (because you would've done it already) identify these needs (because you know it will reveal nothing monogamy + a healthy, innovative sex life and/or a few close friends cannot fulfill). Which leaves us, of course, with the added potential for problems in polyamory and no benefit exclusive to it.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I'll hold out for one more post from monumentus and give my reply, in the (perhaps vain) hope he won't accuse me of "running away"

Originally Posted by monumentus

I would not accuse you of doing it until you do it. Assuming you do not do it, I will not. I am only in the habit of calling spades: spades. I do not call things that are not spades "spades" - nor something that is about to be a spade until such time as it is one.

You have already accused me of running away, regarding threads in which I stayed with you for plethoras of back and forth arguing. It's dishonest of you to say I was running away in any of those instances. A person who is going to run away doesn't bother going round and round (and round and round ad nauseam) with someone. I have never run away, I just recognize when neither of us are going to make the other budge far sooner than you. But whatever. You will choose to call it as you choose to see it.

Have a good thread, people.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

That is the only inherent difference between polyamory and the alternatives, though, sexual relations with more than one person. I've been asking all along for other things that it necessarily means and the closest I've gotten is "intimacy with more than one person". But since one can have intimacy with several people without having sex with them (unless that is the kind of intimacy we're referring to, which again just points out that sex is the sole difference), I can think of no other purpose for choosing this lifestyle over monogamy. And no one's presenting any other purpose either.

No, it isn't. The more you post, the more it shows you don't really understand interpersonal relationships.

[NilaJones]

one can have intimacy with several people without having sex with them (unless that is the kind of intimacy we're referring to, which again just points out that sex is the sole difference)

I thought this too, until I tried poly. I thought, how is it different from having multiple close friends, plus sex? But it is. I am perhaps not articulate enough to explain it.

[Saritaschihuahua]

Posted in wrong place.

[Saritaschihuahua]

Again, all the poly-BSers: polygamy, polyandry, polyamoridiculous, swingers, and other such sex group hoppers and sexual group groper situations, are indications of either abuse going on (as when such a disturbed system is imposed on someone), or an inability to connect with one other person fully in an emotional manner (when the disturbed system is chosen voluntarily). Primarily in the latter, these are people who cannot ever have a normal, stable, 2-person relationship because it feels too intimate, and need something detaching within a relationship - another person or multiple other persons to serve as a cleaver.

[NilaJones]

Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua

Again, all the poly-BSers: polygamy, polyandry, polyamoridiculous, swingers, and other such sex group hoppers and sexual group groper situations, are indications of either abuse going on (as when such a disturbed system is imposed on someone), or an inability to connect with one other person fully in an emotional manner (when the disturbed system is chosen voluntarily). Primarily in the latter, these are people who cannot ever have a normal, stable, 2-person relationship because it feels too intimate, and need something detaching within a relationship - another person or multiple other persons to serve as a cleaver.

Yeah, just keep telling yourself that. Ignore the multi-decade poly marriages.

[JustJulia]

Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua

Again, all the poly-BSers: polygamy, polyandry, polyamoridiculous, swingers, and other such sex group hoppers and sexual group groper situations, are indications of either abuse going on (as when such a disturbed system is imposed on someone), or an inability to connect with one other person fully in an emotional manner (when the disturbed system is chosen voluntarily). Primarily in the latter, these are people who cannot ever have a normal, stable, 2-person relationship because it feels too intimate, and need something detaching within a relationship - another person or multiple other persons to serve as a cleaver.

Cool, you sound like an expert.

[Saritaschihuahua]

Originally Posted by NilaJones

Yeah, just keep telling yourself that. Ignore the multi-decade poly marriages.

I don't ignore it. In the Old Testament and throughout history, women had no rights and lived as chattel, in polygamous marriages. The Mormons did the same with women. Muslims keep women that way. Swingers have been doing this for years. These are all impersonal, detached relationships with individuals either unable to connect emotionally, or which are jealousy-ridden, and within which exclusivity of bonding is non-existent.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by NilaJones

I thought this too, until I tried poly. I thought, how is it different from having multiple close friends, plus sex? But it is. I am perhaps not articulate enough to explain it.

It is hard to verbalize, but intimacy you have with a lover or partner is different, and it just isn't the addition of sex to the equation. The emotional connection is different, the energy is different, the body dynamics and movement is different, the feelings are different, even when you're not having sex. Most people understand this. Interpersonal relationships aren't a fixed equation where you take 1 you add 2 and ok, what you have here is automatically 3. With some people it is 3, with others 0, sometimes it is 10. You know it when you feel it if you have the mental and emotional capacity to really engage with one or more person.