your description of your attitude as one of “full-blown endorsement of polyamory” and
your characterization of the main obstacle to polyamory, jealousy, as “‘immaturity’ and ‘neediness’”, and as morally objectionable, insofar as it is associated with “the idea of owning another’s sexuality.”
Ha! Those are very good reasons to have that impression.
Instead of ‘endorsement’ I should have said that I adopted polyamory.
As for the second point, I’ll try to clarify my position in a later draft.
I will note that among the Bay Area rationalists I usually find myself being the one who has to defend the idea that non-polyamory might be good for some people, in the face of those who basically equate ‘rational relationships’ with ‘polyamorous relationships.’ :)
Hmmm. Not an implication I intended.
I got that impression from
your description of your attitude as one of “full-blown endorsement of polyamory” and
your characterization of the main obstacle to polyamory, jealousy, as “‘immaturity’ and ‘neediness’”, and as morally objectionable, insofar as it is associated with “the idea of owning another’s sexuality.”
Ha! Those are very good reasons to have that impression.
Instead of ‘endorsement’ I should have said that I adopted polyamory.
As for the second point, I’ll try to clarify my position in a later draft.
I will note that among the Bay Area rationalists I usually find myself being the one who has to defend the idea that non-polyamory might be good for some people, in the face of those who basically equate ‘rational relationships’ with ‘polyamorous relationships.’ :)