207 réponses à ce sujet

[cronshaw]

Of course it is. And a lot of them end. My point is why is it that we don't say they ended because of monogamy even though quite often the reason they end is because one person decides they want to be with someone new? 

 

If a poly person breaks up... people always presume it is because of poly... even though it may just be because they drive the other person/s nuts (i.e. they end up doing annoying things like supporting the templars in DA2)

 

This doesn't make any sense. The only reason you could say a relationship ended because of monogamy is if one of the people in the relationship wanted to be in a non-monogamous relationship, not just because they wanted to be in a different monogamous relationship. 

[cronshaw]

 

Yeah, it is funny how after one group has been given their relationships recognized other people want their rights recognized too. I believe similar arguments were made in regard to giving women and non-whites the vote. If you give one the vote others will ask for it (that order depends on which country you are from).  

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, because heaven forbid someone may be annoyed that you are playing with their feelings. If you are wanting drama then playing with someones emotions is a good way to do it. The objections to Anders was generally homophobic nonsense from male players that didn't want to acknowledge homosexuals or are upset that homosexuals are attracted to them. If a man is attracted to you and you aren't interested in them, you turn them down... simple. Women do this all the time. Likewise saying that you have x relationship to prevent you from entering into y relationship is silly. It is like all the women in bars who feel forced to say "I have a boyfriend" in order to turn down a proposition. If a woman or man doesn't want to be with person x they shouldn't have to give another person as a reason... they may just not want to be with that person... or maybe they just don't want a relationship. 

 

 

 

The majority of relationships that break up are monogamous ones. But no one says when a monogamous couple breaks up that it was "because of monogamy" but they presume that if a poly person breaks up with their partner or partners that it must be because it was poly? In DA:O you can break up with characters and you can break up several times... one of the reasons why it occurs is because you are forced to choose one person over another. Knowing there are feelings you have for someone, which may represent an important part of you that you can't act on because you are with someone else leads to cheating and breaking up all the time in mono relationships. Most TV soap operas have this occur... because it is so common. I have seen poly relationships work and not work... I have seen mono relationships work and not work... It would be pretty rich for me to claim that it is inherent in either to succeed or fail when both occurs. 

 

 

 

And the majority of relationships that succeed are monogamous ones. 

[movieguyabw]

Ah but it does, well not one in particular, but you would love both less than you would love just one. It also means you give less to your husband/wife and are often forced to choose. Then again that's a foreign territory for me, I'm not one of the people that can love altruistically so having a child is something I would do. 

 

 

 

Of course, you can make that argument, but it all comes back to how much the relationship means to you. 

 

 

 

Fair enough if quality time is something valued greatly by the person. 

 

 

 

What are you talking about? Evil characters always exist in any setting. If we did't have a main character in that role doesn't mean that they don't exist in Thedas. Demons actually are evil, because that's what evil is about - selfishness and getting what you want regardless of how it affects others, and that is what they do. 

 

When I say evil, I also say so just for people to understand what I am talking about, I don't believe in the concept of good and evil per se, but it's just something other people are familiar with, an umbrella term to describe some things. 

 

Well, I'd disagree on your definition for what 'evil' is; but that's more of a discussion on the nature of evil, which is a rather complicated discussion and really warrants its own thread.  Suffice it to say, I view "evil" (in fiction, of course) more as having the express intention of doing harm to others.  (Joffrey would be evil; whereas the Desire Demon you meet in the Circle Tower, who has given the templar the illusion of the family he's always wanted, would not imo)  What you're describing sounds more 'mercenary' to my ears.  Point is, "evil" is a rather subjective term; everyone's going to have their own opinions on the matter.  As for having a character with a mercenary-type personality; well, we'll have to wait and see.  I still think the Iron Bull will be right up your alley, but we won't really know until the game comes out. 

 

Regardless, I think we've cannibalized this topic enough with this discussion. 

 

 

Back on topic:

 

*sigh* just so you guys know, you're proving the homophobes right.

 

"Once we have gay marriage/relationships, what's to stop marriage/relationships with multiple partners! Blah, hate, hate, hate, blah."

                                                                                       ^

Not my opinion, I just don't like seeing people like that have any legitimate reason to say they were/are right.

 

I doubt polygamous relationships will be occurring in Dragon Age. Mostly because:

 

A. They'd be too easy to fall into. People have enough trouble falling into unintended romances(I'm looking at you, Anders!) Imagine someone who did not want to have multiple romances(but wanted to flirt to see the ensuing drama) suddenly find themselves in a relationship with both companions. Awkward. It would be a good learning experience for the player, though. You never know how open-minded a person you flirt with can be. Not open-minded enough, and sometimes, TOO open-minded.

 

B. Require far too much in the way of resources to meet the demand for such content. A one-off threesome is one thing, like with Isabela in DA:O, and again in DAII. But to make it a full-on relationship, you'll need a great deal of dialogue and additional cutscene work to make that kind of content good. And Bioware does have high standards for this kind of thing. If they can't make it good, they won't do it. They made that mistake with DAII, and look what happened.

 

C. It would be more difficult to provide for that situation in the epilogues, and latter in Dragon Age: Next. There's already so much in the Keep. We don't need to include a set of plot flags like that, making additional flags for each character and different dialogue when/if you meet them again.

 

I mean, put it all together, they might as well make another romance entirely. And in the end, I think that would please more fans than adding polygamous relationships would. Personal opinion there, with little to back it up in the way of facts. Come to think of it, you can say that about my entire post to this point. Regardless, it's where I stand.

 

Plus, from personal experience, I've seen polygamous relationships between people I know go up in smoke. Open relationships and even swinging I've seen succeed to some degree, but polyamory, not so much. They just never seem to end well for anybody. Normal relationships are hard enough to maintain as it is, with the feelings of two people to account for. Adding another person into the mix just increases the chance of the whole thing blowing up in everyone's faces. This something I have personally observed, not just conjecture.

 

So the devs have to create not just one but two NPCs who are not only ok with a polygamous relationship to start with, but don't subsequently develop issues with such an arrangement. This, I think, would be too hard to do with the kinds of complicated character Bioware creates. They would have to have two characters developed specifically for this kind of thing. And Bioware had already said that they create the character first, make them fascinating in their own right, before they determine their romance status, if any. Then they have to invest the resources for such an outcome to occur, and will have to provide for that play choice for as long as they import the previous decisions of the PC.

 

I don't see that happening.

 

Well, for the first point - I don't see what it really matters if they go "hey, look, see!  We told you it's a slippery slope!  Now people are marrying more than one person!  Oh, the humanity!!"  Way I see it, as long as all parties are able to give consent, it really shouldn't be anyone else's concern who dates/marries whom.     I understand you just don't want to see their whole smug "I told you so!" responses; but in truth, it's already started happening - and I don't think the "I told you so"s are really affecting much.

 

A couple months ago there was an article in the paper regarding 3 Massachusetts women who married each other.  My grandfather's (who is ridiculously conservative) response was "This world's gone crazy!"  My response:  "Oh, cool."  Everyone else's?  *shrug*  I don't know.  I haven't heard a thing about it since, and doing a quick google search for the article, the most recent thing I find is from April.  You'd think that if this hit the news stands that those out there who are very homophobic would have made a huge deal about this, but again, I've heard nothing.  Maybe I'm just out of the loop, and there has been a lot of discussion of this, or maybe everyone who would normally say something just thinks that this is a one-off thing and not worth their time.  Point is, if people did say "I told you so!!" they didn't say it too loud, or too often.

 

 

A.  Not necessarily.  I'm sure a conversation will be triggered much like with Mass Effect, where the 3 of you will discuss what's going on - and as always, with Bioware romances, you'll have the option of saying "no thanks" if that's not something you want.

 

B.  Perhaps.  This seems to be the biggest issue with something like this, at least from my perspective.  Still, I don't think much content needs to be added.  Most Bioware romances only have a few scenes to them, anyway.  It's just a matter of making sure there are 3 variants of each of those scenes (if they're going for something like an Ashley/Liara/Shepard threesome approach)   Bioware's idea of having a couple who you could get into a relationship with would be significantly less work, though, and probably is more plausible.

 

C.  I don't see how this'll make the epilogues much more difficult, personally.

 

As for the rest - well we are talking about for future titles, not Inquisition.  (I only say this because it seems like you're trying to say it'd be too much work on top of what they've already done.)

 

Also, most relationships in general, I've noticed, don't really last.  Quite a lot of them end, and usually poorly, for one reason or another.  People grow and change, and drift apart; regardless of the type of relationship between them.  So I wouldn't say it's necessarily fair to single out polyamorous relationships as ones that are doomed to failure. 

 

I've heard it said that humans are not naturally monogamous creatures.  We don't find one partner and stick with them for the rest of our lives.  We go through changes throughout our lives and seek out partners who fit with where we are at any given point; and it's these connections which help us grow and allow us to continue to change.  And I'm inclined to agree with that.  If it so happens that at one point in time you develop a close, intimate relationship with a couple, as opposed to a solitary person, then so be it. 

[cronshaw]

I've heard it said that humans are not naturally monogamous creatures.  We don't find one partner and stick with them for the rest of our lives.  We go through changes throughout our lives and seek out partners who fit with where we are at any given point; and it's these connections which help us grow and allow us to continue to change.  And I'm inclined to agree with that.  If it so happens that at one point in time you develop a close, intimate relationship with a couple, as opposed to a solitary person, then so be it. 

 

We aren't naturally clothed creatures either, or naturally toilet using creatures. "Natural" is one of the most loaded words in the English language.

[andar91]

I saw this thread out of the corner of my eye, and I thought it said, "Pokemon in Bioware Games" and I was mystified.

[movieguyabw]

We aren't naturally clothed creatures either, or naturally toilet using creatures. "Natural" is one of the most loaded words in the English language.

 

*shrug*  point still stands - we go through phases in our lives.  Get into and out of relationships.  Few relationships last from childhood sweethearts to retirement home without an interruption.  Saying that "x relationship usually fails, and thus shouldn't be implemented" is neglecting the fact that every type of relationship usually fails.  How many relationships have you been in your life?  How many are still going?

[cronshaw]

*shrug*  point still stands - we go through phases in our lives.  Get into and out of relationships.  Few relationships last from childhood sweethearts to retirement home without an interruption.  Saying that "x relationship usually fails, and thus shouldn't be implemented" is neglecting the fact that every type of relationship usually fails.  How many relationships have you been in your life?  How many are still going?

I'm not saying anything should or shouldn't be implemented. And I have no data on which type of relationship fails more often than another. Furthermore i think that would be an absurd reason to include or not include something in a story. My issue is particular to the use of the word "natural" which is a weaselly word used when people want to give their argument an air of legitimacy without actually earning that legitimacy with logic. I'm also not saying you were doing any of that since you seemed to be quoting something you saw somewhere else. This is more about my personal distaste for the word than anything else. It's use makes a whole bunch of assumptions that I find philosophically distasteful.

[notouchy]

The majority of relationships that break up are monogamous ones. But no one says when a monogamous couple breaks up that it was "because of monogamy" but they presume that if a poly person breaks up with their partner or partners that it must be because it was poly? In DA:O you can break up with characters and you can break up several times... one of the reasons why it occurs is because you are forced to choose one person over another. Knowing there are feelings you have for someone, which may represent an important part of you that you can't act on because you are with someone else leads to cheating and breaking up all the time in mono relationships. Most TV soap operas have this occur... because it is so common. I have seen poly relationships work and not work... I have seen mono relationships work and not work... It would be pretty rich for me to claim that it is inherent in either to succeed or fail when both occurs. 

 

 

 

 

Of course most relationships that fail are monogamous. This is because most relationships throughout modern(and sometimes even ancient) history are monogamous(or at least supposed to be). We humans(both male and female) tend to be pretty territorial over who we sleep with. Monogamy is an effective way to combat this territorial behavior, marriage even moreso. So when cheating occurs, the breakdown of the relationship can quickly follow. But this is not the only reason for a relationship failing, and many times there is a litany of symptoms of a poor relationship that can actually lead up to cheating. There's anger, there is neglect, there is stress, there is sickness/health issues, there is money. These are only some causes.

 

When two people get together, any one of these things can cause the breakdown relationship to fail, and when combined with one another they can cause a great deal of social and emotional destruction. This is the risk you take when getting involved with another person. It's part of the reason marriage exists. It's is to make it harder for your partner to just up and quit. It is a social and cultural incentive to work through the problems in your relationship rather than just run away because they are too hard to deal with. The social stigma of divorce, though less harsh than it was in years past, is still substantial enough to give a person pause before dumping their partner because they just don't want to deal with them anymore.

 

Monogamy is not easy. In fact, it's incredibly difficult. A committed relationship, in my opinion, is the most rewarding challenges anyone can ever attempt. But invariably the hardest. I admire a moderately happy 30-year marriage more than I do a Super Bowl ring, or the climbing of Mount Everest. The dedication and hard work that goes into a relationship like that can take everything you have mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually.

 

So why, in the name of all that is holy, would you want to double up on that kind of challenge? When you do this, you are increasing the chances for a great deal of hurt and anger. No matter how open a relationship is, you're still going to get hurt if your 'partner' wants to spend Christmas Eve with his/heryour other 'partner'. Or he/she takes him/her out to dinner one night, even if it's the only night you're off of work the whole week. Or if on a night you're feeling really horny, he/she decides to visit his/her other, other half.

 

When you have feelings for someone you're not in a relationship with, it is a test of your relationship. It is a test to see if you really love the person enough not to act on them. It is a test to see if you are truly committed to making what you already have work. Failing that test speaks a great deal about the strength of your relationship. So having a relationship with multiple people, where all parties are aware of what is going on, in my opinion is a weak relationship from the start. At least one party has already admitted that they do not wish to confine their affections to one person, no matter how deserving that one person is of their love and devotion. No matter how much he/she deserves to have that kind of loyalty.

 

THAT is why every polygamous relationship I have personally observed has failed. There's been a propensity of one party feel like they are a third wheel, left out or simply ignored over the favoring of another part of the relationship. So they stray out to someone else more willing to give them the attention they feel they deserve. Or they strike out at another member over what amounts to children fighting over a toy.

 

Now let me be clear: I'm not here to judge you, or your relationship with your significant other(s). I don't know you, I don't know who you are with or what they are like. It isn't my place to say anything about what your relationship is like.

 

But in my opinion, polygamist relationships are weak by the very nature, and do not work in the long run. Again, this is based on what I've seen. I have seen monogamist relationships break down, just as you have. But I've yet to see the love, dedication and devotion of the many long-lasting monogamous relationships I've seen be equaled by those with more than two people. And I highly doubt I never will.

 

This is why I disagree with this kind of relationship being accepted as normal, it is why I highly doubt any culture will accept the normalcy of a long-lasting, committed polygamous relationship. It is also why I don't think Bioware will be able, or willing, to portray one in their games. The story and characterization loops they would have to jump through to make it believable, along with the practical problems with implementing it within the gaming system itself, makes it a high-cost, little-reward feature they are unlikely to put in.

I've heard it said that humans are not naturally monogamous creatures.  We don't find one partner and stick with them for the rest of our lives.  We go through changes throughout our lives and seek out partners who fit with where we are at any given point; and it's these connections which help us grow and allow us to continue to change.  And I'm inclined to agree with that.  If it so happens that at one point in time you develop a close, intimate relationship with a couple, as opposed to a solitary person, then so be it. 

 

That kind of life has no appeal to me personally. I can understand why it appeals to others, but to me it is a very lonely way to go through life. I want my wife to know who I was ten/twenty/thirty/fifty years ago, and I want to know what she was like. I want to see the changes in her, and I want her to see the changes in me. Every wrinkle, every slowed step, every changed political opinion, everything. My (very wise)mother once asked my sister when she and her husband were having relationship issues, "Hon, do you want to be married to the version of *Jim* you married twelve years ago?" My sister's response, after a moment of thought, "No! I want MY *Jim*!". It made my sister realize that all the changes her husband had gone through, the very things that she was complaining about, were changes she had gone through with him. And she was not the woman he had married twelve years ago, either. So they fell in love all over again, with all of their shared faults and flaws.

 

That's the kind of relationship that I want.

 

And the majority of relationships that succeed are monogamous ones. 

Also this. Very much this.

[movieguyabw]

That kind of life has no appeal to me personally. I can understand why it appeals to others, but to me it is a very lonely way to go through life. I want my wife to know who I was ten/twenty/thirty/fifty years ago, and I want to know what she was like. I want to see the changes in her, and I want her to see the changes in me. Every wrinkle, every slowed step, every changed political opinion, everything. My (very wise)mother once asked my sister when she and her husband were having relationship issues, "Hon, do you want to be married to the version of *Jim* you married twelve years ago?" My sister's response, after a moment of thought, "No! I want MY *Jim*!". It made my sister realize that all the changes her husband had gone through, the very things that she was complaining about, were changes she had gone through with him. And she was not the woman he had married twelve years ago, either. So they fell in love all over again, with all of their shared faults and flaws.

 

That's the kind of relationship that I want.

 

 

Well the statement wasn't meant to imply a lifestyle - more to point out that most relationships don't actually last forever.  If your relationship does, that's fantastic, and props to you for making it work.  But with regards to most people, the first person they date most likely won't be the person they spend the rest of their lives with.  And there's nothing wrong with that, either.

 

It was meant as a response to your comment about how in your experience most polyamorous relationships fail.  My point was that most relationships in general fail. 

[Samahl]

It's so fun reading all these comments by monogamous people about how they think polyamory is inherently flawed, even though they haven't actually ever been in any poly relationships, and their experience with it is limited to external observation.

 

Meanwhile, my two moms and dad have been together since I was in middle school (almost 19 now).

[notouchy]

Well the statement wasn't meant to imply a lifestyle - more to point out that most relationships don't actually last forever.  If your relationship does, that's fantastic, and props to you for making it work.  But with regards to most people, the first person they date most likely won't be the person they spend the rest of their lives with.  And there's nothing wrong with that, either.

 

It was meant as a response to your comment about how in your experience most polyamorous relationships fail.  My point was that most relationships in general fail. 

 

A fair point, sir. Sorry if I came off as hostile. A little blowover from the previous reply in that post. I agree that the chances of anyone going from their first relationship to marriage without a few stepping stone relationships is in the 'fairly slim' category. I've only met one person who married, and is still married to, the only person they ever dated.

[Heimdall]

It's so fun reading all these comments by monogamous people about how they think polyamory is inherently flawed, even though they haven't actually ever been in any poly relationships, and their experience with it is limited to external observation.

 

Meanwhile, my two moms and dad have been together since I was in middle school (almost 19 now).

That's great, but it doesn't mean their external observation doesn't have merit.

[movieguyabw]

I'm not saying anything should or shouldn't be implemented. And I have no data on which type of relationship fails more often than another. Furthermore i think that would be an absurd reason to include or not include something in a story. My issue is particular to the use of the word "natural" which is a weaselly word used when people want to give their argument an air of legitimacy without actually earning that legitimacy with logic. I'm also not saying you were doing any of that since you seemed to be quoting something you saw somewhere else. This is more about my personal distaste for the word than anything else. It's use makes a whole bunch of assumptions that I find philosophically distasteful.

 

A ) my original comment was in response to someone else, who *did* say that poly-romances should be neglected because they tend to fail; which is why I brought it up in my explanation of the post.

 

B ) I actually tend to agree with you in terms of the word 'natural'.  However, as you pointed out, I was referring to something I had heard; and was explaining the reasoning behind it.  In this particular case, the word is being used moreso to point out the usual process of relationships (people meet, they connect, they date, they grow apart they break up) and not so much a statement that "if we were living in nature, we would not be monogamous" or anything like that.

 

Of course, there are plenty of times where the argument of "it's natural" is in fact warranted; I think we agree though that at times it's over, or inappropriately used. 

[notouchy]

It's so fun reading all these comments by monogamous people about how they think polyamory is inherently flawed, even though they haven't actually ever been in any poly relationships, and their experience with it is limited to external observation.

 

Meanwhile, my two moms and dad have been together since I was in middle school (almost 19 now).

 

I've never been in a homosexual relationship. I've observed several that work. Is my external observation still not enough to determine that homosexual relationships can work?

 

Also, I said 'weak'. I didn't say 'flawed', nor did I say they can never possibly work under any circumstances. Clearly, in your case, they can. I still think they are weaker than monogamy.

[movieguyabw]

I've never been in a homosexual relationship. I've observed several that work. Is my external observation still not enough to determine that homosexual relationships can work?

 

Witnessing that all of the polyamorous relationships around you have failed doesn't give you enough data to determine that polyamorous relationships can not work (or are somehow inherently "weaker", as you put it).  It only tells you that the ones you've witnessed have failed.

 

On the flipside, witnessing that all of the homosexual relationships around you have succeeded does not give you enough data to say that every homosexual relationship will be successful.  It only tells you that the ones you've witnessed have succeeded.

 

[Samahl]

I've never been in a homosexual relationship. I've observed several that work. Is my external observation still not enough to determine that homosexual relationships can work?

 

Also, I said 'weak'. I didn't say 'flawed', nor did I say they can never possibly work under any circumstances. Clearly, in your case, they can. I still think they are weaker than monogamy.

 

Why is your external observation valuable though? There are plenty of gay people who can confirm that their relationships work just fine. Similarly, there are polyamorous people who can confirm that their love lives are no less stable than the average monogamous person's.

 

I assume that it's mostly poly people who even want this representation in the first place. Shouldn't we be listening to them instead of monogamous people who aren't affected in the slightest?

 

EDIT: Also, your argument works just as well for people who think there shouldn't be non-straight options.

[Myusha123]

I don't think anyone's suggesting a lover's orgy. As fun as that may be to some people.

More so, two open-minded love interests in the same group, who don't mind each other and don't mind 'sharing.'

Like if we had to look at DA2 for example; Isabela and Merrill seem like they'd be an alright pair if you had to go this route potentially. Isabela and Fenris seem like a secondary option. Any other option tends to pair up people who dislike each other, or wouldn't share. 

And given the minor complexity behind such a relationship I think it'd just change some dialogue here or there, maybe another scene. It doesn't necessarily even have to be as fulfilling if Bioware wants. Maybe a tally system for which love interest you go to first after a mission to talk or something. Other might get jealous and break it off. 

Just sayin' there's alot of potential in something ventured, not alot if you don't consider it. Sides Bioware has been doing it's best to consider all orientations, even Asexual which has been deemed by some people as a myth. If that doesn't tell you about the direction they're heading, then it's best to reevaluate. 

[Abraham_uk]

 

 

That kind of life has no appeal to me personally. I can understand why it appeals to others, but to me it is a very lonely way to go through life. I want my wife to know who I was ten/twenty/thirty/fifty years ago, and I want to know what she was like. I want to see the changes in her, and I want her to see the changes in me. Every wrinkle, every slowed step, every changed political opinion, everything. My (very wise)mother once asked my sister when she and her husband were having relationship issues, "Hon, do you want to be married to the version of *Jim* you married twelve years ago?" My sister's response, after a moment of thought, "No! I want MY *Jim*!". It made my sister realize that all the changes her husband had gone through, the very things that she was complaining about, were changes she had gone through with him. And she was not the woman he had married twelve years ago, either. So they fell in love all over again, with all of their shared faults and flaws.

 

That's the kind of relationship that I want.

 

Also this. Very much this.

 

Aww. You are a very sweet person.

I don't know anything about polyamorous relationships though I can't see why they can't live up to that beautiful description of yours.

 

Anyway, whoever you're with is probably a very lucky person.

[notouchy]

Why is your external observation valuable though? There are plenty of gay people who can confirm that their relationships work just fine. Similarly, there are polyamorous people who can confirm that their love lives are no less stable than the average monogamous person's.

 

I assume that it's mostly poly people who even want this representation in the first place. Shouldn't we be listening to them instead of monogamous people who aren't affected in the slightest?

 

EDIT: Also, your argument works just as well for people who think there shouldn't be non-straight options.

 

So we should only listen to people who have every reason to support this kind of option? Also, 'not affected in the slightest'? There's a finite amount of resources when a company makes a game. All sorts of people play it, not just polys. Should my opinion be the be all and end all of discussion? No. Same goes for the other side, though. Anyone who plays Bioware games has a stake in this debate.

 

Personally, I would love it if Bioware allowed the PC to have children with an opposite-sex LI(And not just the OGB. That was creepy). But in order to do that, they would have to take away resources from another part of the game that other people besides me enjoy. And in terms of the story they were telling, it wouldn't make much sense. I know I am very much a minority. Not very many Dragon Age players get a kick out of the game featuring children, like I do. So the devs save that kind of thing for headcannon. And I applaud them for it.

 

My guess is that we have exhausted this conversation. I'm not likely to change your opinion, you're are not likely to change mine. So long, and God Bless.

 

Edit:

 

Aww. You are a very sweet person.

I don't know anything about polyamorous relationships though I can't see why they can't live up to that beautiful description of yours.

 

Anyway, whoever you're with is probably a very lucky person.

 

Thank you. We try. We both consider ourselves pretty fortunate.

 

I see plenty of reasons, personally. But to each their own. If there is one thing that polyamourous relationships have over monogamy, it's the honesty that usually comes with the territory. Never saw my friends lie about their relationships while they were involved in that scene. Lied about other stuff, sure. But not that.

[Samahl]

Your prejudice and biases should not be considered equal to the voices of people this affects in the real world, no.

 

BioWare has proven time and again that they are interested in giving everybody some baseline for romance (two per gender, per sexuality this time around). Do you really think adding an additional poly romance would somehow detract from your standard two (or four, if multisexual) monogamous options, which BioWare seems intent on preserving no matter what?

 

Also, your example is flawed, because having children would affect the story in a very meaningful way. Romancing multiple people would be as impactful as romancing one.

[Dean_the_Young]

What about the poly romance in Jade Empire? I hardly ever see that get mentioned. A male character can romance both Dawn Star and Silk Fox, and after he, er.... returns from an extended leave, he discovers that they befriended one another in his absence and are willing to share. Tada, poly romance?

 

Jade Empire had a threesome. The difference between polyamory and a threesome is the difference between a romance arc and a one night stand.

 

Polyamory is also not a harem scenario. Despite what anime may have led people to believe, a polyamory is not a love triangle in which two (or more) people are interested in the central character but don't particularly involve with eachother. A polyamory of three people is each person having a relationship with the other three, simultaneously, not in parallel. So a polyamory of three people is three relationships to be expressed (AB, BC, AC): a polyamory of four is six relationships (AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD), a polyamory of five is ten (AB, AC, AD, AE, BC, BD, BE, CD, CE, DE), and so on. Polyamory is a non-linear increase in involvement in addition to whatever work is already required for the non-poly relationship sets. Polyamory AC will need to be a different arc from MonoAC because of the presence (or not) of the other(s).

 

When Bioware hears and thinks about a polyamory relationship, they think of it in terms of an entire romance arc from the ground up. The poly-amory is going to be a relationship between A and/or B and/or C, a situation that gets more complicated and resource intensive (in scripts, dialogue, voice acting costs, and time sink) the more variables there are- and there's always the variable of the player. Every pre-existing relationship that can also be a poly would, by Bioware's view, need to be changed to reflect all potential states.

 

Bioware, for better or worse, doesn't consider romancing each character seperatly a good enough version of polyamory.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

The majority of relationships that break up are monogamous ones. But no one says when a monogamous couple breaks up that it was "because of monogamy" but they presume that if a poly person breaks up with their partner or partners that it must be because it was poly?

 

 

 

The part of me that understands how statistics works wants to cry. The rest of me, which also understands statistics, simply laughs at the attempt.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Love isn't some commodity that you only have in a limited amount. 

 

Love = Time + Money.

 

Time and Money are limited. Limited resources can not provide infinite results.

 

 

Of course, I am presuming that a woman is involved in this love. And it has long since been mathematically proven that girls are evil.

 

 

[Dean_the_Young]

We aren't naturally clothed creatures either, or naturally toilet using creatures. "Natural" is one of the most loaded words in the English language.

 

I especially laugh when it's used as a synonym for 'healthy.'

[Dean_the_Young]

THAT is why every polygamous relationship I have personally observed has failed. There's been a propensity of one party feel like they are a third wheel, left out or simply ignored over the favoring of another part of the relationship. So they stray out to someone else more willing to give them the attention they feel they deserve. Or they strike out at another member over what amounts to children fighting over a toy.

 

A particularly vicious crash and burn I once was a distant bystander to was all of that and the use of sex (and withholding it) as a weapon.

 

A and B had  a fight. B decided to punish A by refusing to have sex. A went and had sex with C. B took that about as well as would be expected.

 

 

Now let me be clear: I'm not here to judge you, or your relationship with your significant other(s). I don't know you, I don't know who you are with or what they are like. It isn't my place to say anything about what your relationship is like.

 

And for what it's worth, I thought this was a mature way of expressing your personal views, even if others might disagree with them.