Seems to me it's only degrading if you're "forcing" them -- I mean, if everyone in the relationship is happy to share, then what's the problem?
You can say it's not for you -- or you can say it doesn't fit your definition of [romantic] love -- but since the word is commonly used with very similar meaning in non-exclusive contexts ("I love my family") and none of the dictionary definitions (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love) seem to imply exclusivity (with 1a2, "attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers" seeming the closest to the usage we're discussing), I don't think you can say that polyamory violates it universally, or that it can only be used in a way which implies exclusivity.
And if everyone in it is a consenting and informed sentient being (consenting to what? having more than one person love them (by their definition)? how terrible!), I don't think you can say it's screwing anyone over either.
Seems to me that one would be screwing someone over more by forcing oneself to choose between them and someone else: "Oh, sorry, you're a great person and I'd really like to love you forever, but I've decided you're inferior to X over here, so I love them forever instead."
"Lazy" also doesn't make sense; it's more work to keep multiple close relationships going.
I suspect that there may be hard-wiring involved, here; some people may be inherently monogamous. Others clearly are not, and it's not just a matter of people being exploitative -- or else poly people would always be trying to hook up with mono people, rather than with other poly people.
And now you probably hate me, so I should stop rambling. (I've got plenty of conservatives I could be alienating; shouldn't waste it on real people whom I'd rather not...)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
But....
on 2009-01-23 05:38 pm (UTC)You can say it's not for you -- or you can say it doesn't fit your definition of [romantic] love -- but since the word is commonly used with very similar meaning in non-exclusive contexts ("I love my family") and none of the dictionary definitions (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love) seem to imply exclusivity (with 1a2, "attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers" seeming the closest to the usage we're discussing), I don't think you can say that polyamory violates it universally, or that it can only be used in a way which implies exclusivity.
And if everyone in it is a consenting and informed sentient being (consenting to what? having more than one person love them (by their definition)? how terrible!), I don't think you can say it's screwing anyone over either.
Seems to me that one would be screwing someone over more by forcing oneself to choose between them and someone else: "Oh, sorry, you're a great person and I'd really like to love you forever, but I've decided you're inferior to X over here, so I love them forever instead."
"Lazy" also doesn't make sense; it's more work to keep multiple close relationships going.
I suspect that there may be hard-wiring involved, here; some people may be inherently monogamous. Others clearly are not, and it's not just a matter of people being exploitative -- or else poly people would always be trying to hook up with mono people, rather than with other poly people.
And now you probably hate me, so I should stop rambling. (I've got plenty of conservatives I could be alienating; shouldn't waste it on real people whom I'd rather not...)