207 réponses à ce sujet

[KainD]

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

 

It is. You always have to choose priorities, and if you care about many people you screw some to not screw others.

[Dean_the_Young]

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.

 

Now this is just bizarre. There are a great number of things I have never experienced that I am quite confident I know enough about to make a judgement on based on the experiences of other people.

 

It's like a great part of growing up: realizing that you don't have to repeat every stupid mistake someone else does to realize that some decisions are riskier than others.

 

 

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

 

Congrats to you. You are quite privileged.

[Dean_the_Young]

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.

 

He never made a claim of absolutes, though. So why are you arguing as if he had?

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

But, in this case, he also has reference to a great deal more successful homosexual relationships of other people than successful polyamory.

 

When trends observed are similar to trends inferred from other sources, observation is a useful confirmation device.

 

 

 

Why is your external observation valuable though?

 

Because he's an adult.

 

More specifically, he's an adult with the emotional maturity, awareness, personal experience, and a history of interpersonal interaction and observation of the relationships of others to fall back on. This isn't necessarily a given for an adult, but by all indications and the observation of a separate adult I can vouch that he's certainly composing himself with a respectable level of maturity.

 

Meanwhile, you're not even 19. Which has nothing to do with the intelligence of your arguments, but everything to do with your opportunities to be exposed to and observe relationship dynamics outside your own sphere. His observations of the reasons why relationships fall apart, and the application to polyamory, are far more valuable than your relative inexperience with relationships between adults.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

But did you notice the word you dropped there? Plenty. There aren't plenty- or at least, there aren't even as many as the social awareness of successful homosexual relationships provides.

 

Of course, you're arguing off of passion right now- you have no evidence to support a claim that polyamory relationships are no less stable than monogomous. There is no data.

 

But that doesn't mean your position wins by default either. In the lack of data, inference from reasoning is one of the next best things. He has provided a simple rational for his prediction: that the challenges of monogamous relationship are multiplied when more relationships are added, and that the added risk factors increase instability. This is a sound argument, and one backed by personal observation.

 

Your argument that polyamory is no less stable, on the other hand... amounts to a personal experience, and no reasoning as to why those factors wouldn't increase instability.

 

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?

 

 

No.

 

For one, your advocacy comes at a cost to others. Resources used to establish and expand polyamory relationships are resources that can't be used elsewhere. They either come at the cost of monogamous romances, or they come at the cost of non-romance content. As someone who doesn't care about Bioware romances in general and would be just as happy playing the celibate heroine as the raunchy casanova, making more romance costs would likely be at my cost.

 

For a second, opinions on advocacy is never the sole purview of the self-identified advocates in anything approaching a free society. For the same reason that criticism deserves to be protected and considered in other field, advocates can not claim an unquestionable authority simply by virtue of identifying with a group regardless of the merit (or lack thereof) of their opinions.
 

 

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

 

Not really.

 

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

 

Certainly it should. That's what equal rights mean: his opinion is as valid as yours, even if it disagrees with you. His opinion is neither oppressing or directly harming you, and he is under no obligation to support your prejudices and biases (as all interests ultimately are).

 

Of course, this is also a silly statement in the context of what is most definitely not the real world.

 

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?

 

That is not true at all. If you can't think of people whose sexual tastes and desires are left unfulfilled by Bioware, you are charmingly innocent in the deep world of sexual fetishes and interests.

 

And, to answer your question, quite likely so. Unless, as Bioware devs as noted, it was a polyamory only relationship, and even then. Adding a polyamory is a cost: the cost will come from somewhere. Video game budgets aren't entirely zero-sum arrangements, but select categories (like, say, romance) frequently are.

 

 

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.

 

That is far too subjective an experience to claim as anything more objective and a strictly personal opinion.

[Samahl]

Now this is just bizarre. There are a great number of things I have never experienced that I am quite confident I know enough about to make a judgement on based on the experiences of other people.

 

It's like a great part of growing up: realizing that you don't have to repeat every stupid mistake someone else does to realize that some decisions are riskier than others.

 

This has nothing to do with what I said. Unless you're trying to characterize polyamory itself as a "stupid mistake" (and one that a monogamous person would have the authority to characterize as such), in which case, your anti-poly views are probably too deeply rooted for me to do anything about it.

 

Congrats to you. You are quite privileged.

 

It was a counterpoint to notouchy's "poly relationships are weak and end badly all the time", not... whatever it is you're trying to say.

 

Seriously, way to derail.

[Dean_the_Young]

This has nothing to do with what I said. Unless you're trying to characterize polyamory itself as a "stupid mistake" (and one that a monogamous person would have the authority to characterize as such), in which case, your anti-poly views are probably too deeply rooted for me to do anything about it.

 

You're getting carried away with yourself, and missing the point as a result.

 

People can learn from things without directly experiencing them personally. Experience is, in many respects, transferable. You can learn from the mistakes of others (such as how a relationship can end badly) without repeating them yourself. You can learn much about discrimination and its various forms without being a specific discriminated minority. You can apply lessons learned from one source to a context you have not been a part of and make reasonably informed decisions.

 

If you ever go into the military, this is the concept behind basic training. Basic training is a conditioning process in which people who have never been in a battle are prepared to meet minimum standards of ability the first time they are in a battle. Experience is great, but building on the experience of others to learn things in advance is what all training and education are.

 

Polyamory was not being characterized as a stupid mistake. The increased risk factors of polyamory (shared with, but more present than in monogamous relationships) were the stupid mistakes being referenced.

 

 

It was a counterpoint to notouchy's "poly relationships are weak and end badly all the time", not... whatever it is you're trying to say.

 

notouchy never claimed poly relationships end badly all the time. As for countering that they are weak- well, your argument that you have to experience it to judge it is less than compelling.

 

Seriously, way to derail.

 

No derail. You just misunderstood it.

[Samahl]

Dear lord, the fallacies abound.

 

The only reason I brought up my parents in the first place was because notouchy acted as if his anecdotal evidence was grounds enough to exclude poly romances from future BioWare games. It's all meaningless on a grand scale, but the very fact that I can easily match his claim illustrates the futility of using anecdotes in this particular situation.

 

Speaking of evidence though, there are cultures that happily polyamorous (or at least polyandrist), with no immediate negative societal consequences, and potentially, a net benefit.

 

In any event, if love is a manifestation of time spent and actions taken, and not simply a state of being, the logic then goes that introverted people, who prefer to limit their social interactions overall, are less capable of love than extroverted people, who are the opposite. If my father wasn't polyamorous, it's unlikely he'd spend significantly more time with my mother, simply because she is introverted, and would not have the energy to entertain him much more than she already does. And yet, somehow, their bond would be inherently stronger than any number of other relationships they could be having in addition to maintaining their own.

 

I'm failing to see the logic here.

[Abraham_uk]

This is a point that I know some people will misinterpret.

 

I'm cool with polyamorous characters.

It's another unexplored sexuality that sadly has lots of misconceptions attached to it.

I'm not sure about making every romanceable character polyamorous.

 

In Dragon Age 2 all the characters were bisexual.

I'd rather have a mixture of different sexual orientations that have the entire cast one sexuality.

 

 

The point I'm making is, have variety.

Some homosexual, some bisexual, some heterosexual, some heterosexual.

I know people are going to complain "ugh this is just pandering". Well not if they're fleshed out well written characters.

 

No one is asking people to be okay with every sexuality under the sun.

It's all about choice. Polyamorous people do exist, and well how many games provide options that reflect this?

[Abraham_uk]

A plead to moderators.    (There is no pleading emoticon).

 

Please don't lockdown this thread.

This is an interesting topic.

I personally have learnt a lot.

 

I've encountered people who are homosexual, bisexual and transgender.

This is the first time that I have encountered a polyamorous person.

 

As someone who has been narrow minded about what polyamorous relationships and polyamorous people are like, this thread has been educational.

Some of the discussion is very heated and at times personal, but in the end of the day we're having a discussion about it.

[Samahl]

A person who is not oppressed will never fully comprehend what it's like to be oppressed, no matter how much they witness it. It's too subtle, and on too large of a scale. I am of the opinion that this applies to polyamory as well. Your argument that complex matters like this are simply understood as long as one is privy to secondhand experiences is less than convincing itself.

[Samahl]

I'm not sure about making every romanceable character polyamorous.

 

Certainly not. Many people aren't interested in/able to handle being poly anyway, whether that be because of how ingrained monogamy is in the collective social conscious, or because most people just aren't poly. At least some representation would be great though.

[Abraham_uk]

A person who is not oppressed will never fully comprehend what it's like to be oppressed, no matter how much they witness it. It's too subtle, and on too large of a scale. I am of the opinion that this applies to polyamory as well. Your argument that complex matters like this are simply understood as long as one is privy to secondhand experiences is less than convincing itself.

I don't know if you're replying to something I said or something someone else said.

 

I agree that full comprehension will not be achieved by non oppressed groups. Partial comprehension however is a huge improvement over zero comprehension. The end goal is to understand how we can be oppressive towards each other in our attitudes. To see the bigotry that lies within us and fight it. No one should ever fully comprehend what it's like to be oppressed, as this requires being oppressed in the first place.

[Samahl]

I was replying to Dean, not you. You're fine. (◕‿◕✿)

 

EDIT: To clarify, someone who is not oppressed can certainly sympathize with an oppressed person's struggles, and they can try to grow and learn not to be oppressive, but it will never match up to somebody else's lived experience.

[Dean_the_Young]

A person who is not oppressed will never fully comprehend what it's like to be oppressed, no matter how much they witness it. It's too subtle, and on too large of a scale. I am of the opinion that this applies to polyamory as well. Your argument that complex matters like this are simply understood as long as one is privy to secondhand experiences is less than convincing itself.

 

This is a strawman- I'm not saying complex matters are simply understood. Nor have I argued that a person who is not oppressed will fully comprehend what it is like to be oppressed.

 

What I am arguing is that things can be understood without direct experience. Understanding is a measure of degrees: that some things will be understood more with direct experience does not mean it can not be understood enough without direct experience to make an informed, reasonable contribution to consideration.

 

Which, if we want to get painfully blunt here, applies to you as well. You are not a part of a long-term polyamory relationship you have cited. You are not even old enough to have been a part of a long-term polyamory relationship yourself.  You are an outside observer, and have significantly less adult romantic experience (poly or mono) than many of the people in the thread, some of whom have been in relationships longer than you have been an adult. At the same time, you can also be a victim of being too close to a subject, emotionally and intellectually, to view it with the objectivity of an outsider's perspective.

 

None of which disqualifies you or your opinion. Your argument is as sound as the logic it relies on- nothing more, and nothing less.

 

But claiming that you must participate in an activity to have a valid opinion of the activity is, shall we say, less than convincing. On its own logic, on its application in other contexts, and in the context of you, the outside observer to a polyamory.

[HK-90210]

A person who is not oppressed will never fully comprehend what it's like to be oppressed, no matter how much they witness it. It's too subtle, and on too large of a scale. I am of the opinion that this applies to polyamory as well. Your argument that complex matters like this are simply understood as long as one is privy to secondhand experiences is less than convincing itself.

 

So if you end up disagreeing with the oppressed, you're always going to get a "You just don't get it".

 

It's a very slippery slope you walk when you discount someone's opinion. A civilian can't give an opinion on war because they've never been in combat. A virgin can't give an opinion on sex because they've never had it. An atheist can't give an opinion on church because they've never gone to one.

 

Soon, the only person you'll ever be qualified to understand is yourself.

[Samahl]

I never said they're disqualified from an opinion. When it comes to issues of representation in games, I believe it is the developer's moral obligation to pay more attention to the people who are actually affected by said representation, especially if that representation has the potential to do more harm than good.

 

I didn't even say my opinion was more valuable than notouchy's - I literally said that I could "match his claim", not supersede it.

 

This is starting to become dangerously close to a "freedom of speech!" argument.

[movieguyabw]

He never made a claim of absolutes, though. So why are you arguing as if he had?

 

 

 

But, in this case, he also has reference to a great deal more successful homosexual relationships of other people than successful polyamory.

 

When trends observed are similar to trends inferred from other sources, observation is a useful confirmation device.

 

 

1. ) My post was there to point out the logical flaw in the structure of his argument - I used absolutes to make it easier to show.

 

Essentially, he was saying that many of the polyamorous relationships he witnessed failed, and that they should be neglected due to being prone to this.  Someone else said something to the affect of him not having enough information to say that that is always the case.  He responded by saying if he observed a number of homosexual relationships that worked, that would give him enough information to know that they can work.

 

The problem with those two statements is they aren't balanced; which is what I was pointing out.

 

 

Boiled down, the two statements look like this: 

 

1. If I see polyamorous relationships fail, then that implies that they are prone to failure.

2. If I see homosexual relationships succeed, then that implies that they have *possibility* of succeeding.

 

or, put another way:

 

If x, then y

vs

If a, then b *or* -b

 

 

2. )  I live in a predominately caucasian neighborhood.  Can I then infer all neighborhoods are like this?  No?

 

The results of a small sample size are not necessarily indicative of the results of the whole.

[Dean_the_Young]

Dear lord, the fallacies abound.

 

The only reason I brought up my parents in the first place was because notouchy acted as if his anecdotal evidence was grounds enough to exclude poly romances from future BioWare games. It's all meaningless on a grand scale, but the very fact that I can easily match his claim illustrates the futility of using anecdotes in this particular situation.

 

Everything is meaningless on an arbitrary large enough scale, but you misunderstanding what was being argued isn't going to get any better no matter how closely we get at it. Starting with the manner in which notouchy's anecdote was being used.

 

notouchy doesn't need to bring up any anecdotal evidence as grounds to explude a poly romance either. He doesn't need any evidence at all. The only grounds notouchy needs is a personal opinion, which he expressed. He only raised the anectode as a support for his opinion, which is perfectly valid, and your counter-raise did nothing to disprove or undermine it since his opinion was never such that a ten-year polyamory would disprove his conclusion of a trend.

 

The proper response for you at this point would have been to raise your point as a counter and agree to disagree. Differences of preferences exist based on different experiences, and this is completely alright.

 

 

 

Speaking of evidence though, there are cultures that happily polyamorous (or at least polyandrist), with no immediate negative societal consequences, and potentially, a net benefit.

 

 

...I don't think you understand what evidence would be relevant in the context of successful polyamory in the context being discussed would be. Because that was not evidence regarding the US, or particularly rigorous in its own context.

 

In any event, if love is a manifestation of time spent and actions taken, and not simply a state of being, the logic then goes that introverted people, who prefer to limit their social interactions overall, are less capable of love than extroverted people, who are the opposite. If my father wasn't polyamorous, it's unlikely he'd spend significantly more time with my mother, simply because she is introverted, and would not have the energy to entertain him much more than she already does. And yet, somehow, their bond would be inherently stronger than any number of other relationships they could be having in addition to maintaining their own.

 

I'm failing to see the logic here.

 

Possibly because you invented the argument yourself for the purpose of arguing against it.

 

Which actually would be a logical fallacy- specifically the strawman fallacy.

 

Personally I see no point in arguing further someone's strawman on a tongue-and-cheek lead in to a joke about how women are evil, but scarecrows aren't exactly known for their brains.

[HK-90210]

I never said they're disqualified from an opinion.

 

 

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?

 

Sounds kind of like you're demeaning it quite a bit, if not disqualifying it.

[cronshaw]

It is. You always have to choose priorities, and if you care about many people you screw some to not screw others.

 

You aren't talking about love, you are talking about how people choose to express love.

They aren't the same thing

[movieguyabw]

Sounds kind of like you're demeaning it quite a bit, if not disqualifying it.

 

See, personally, I read that more as them saying they're allowed to have an opinion - but when it comes to Bioware deciding whether to implement the feature or not, the people they should listen to first and foremost are the ones who it affects. 

[Dean_the_Young]

I was replying to Dean, not you. You're fine. (◕‿◕✿)

 

EDIT: To clarify, someone who is not oppressed can certainly sympathize with an oppressed person's struggles, and they can try to grow and learn not to be oppressive, but it will never match up to somebody else's lived experience.

 

On the same scale, however, people who grow up too close to a context (say, oppression- or any other culture) can frequently become too invested in and biased with the context to be objective and understand it as well.

 

There are many reasons why oppressed groups, when they come to power, repeat the same offenses and abuses, and among them is the ability to see the perspective of the non-oppressed or even the oppressors, even after they gain power. Think of the revolutionary movements that are still committed to the revolutionary mindset years or decades after they gain power and set the new status quo.

 

Of course, polyamory is a poor analogy to oppression. Polyamory is a social and cultural context, not a discriminated group on par with the notably oppressed, and so is best viewed in the lens of 'can someone understand or make judgements of a culture they are not a part of?'

 

Cultural relativism may or may not be a thing, but the concept of anthropology is almost universally accepted as legitimate.

[Samahl]

@Dean_the_Young: Ah, I see... you didn't like that I disagreed with his opinion in the way you would've preferred. All right then.

 

In this case, the western context doesn't matter - all notouchy claimed was that polyamorous relationships were inherently weaker. Not that western society wasn't capable of them, but that poly relationships overall tend to go badly compared to monogamous relationships.

 

In any event, I wasn't actually directly responding to you (I didn't bother reading through your unfunny, vaguely sexist joke argument). Rather, I addressed points that notouchy himself had raised related to the assertion that it's too difficult to divide time between your partners so that they're all satisfied. Sorry for the confusion there.

 

@CastonFolarus: That post is in line with my beliefs that "[w]hen it comes to issues of representation in games, I believe it is the developer's moral obligation to pay more attention to the people who are actually affected by said representation".

[Samahl]

There are many reasons why oppressed groups, when they come to power, repeat the same offenses and abuses, and among them is the ability to see the perspective of the non-oppressed or even the oppressors, even after they gain power. Think of the revolutionary movements that are still committed to the revolutionary mindset years or decades after they gain power and set the new status quo.

 

Do you have any examples of this? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

 

Of course, polyamory is a poor analogy to oppression. Polyamory is a social and cultural context, not a discriminated group on par with the notably oppressed, and so is best viewed in the lens of 'can someone understand or make judgements of a culture they are not a part of?'

 

I'd tend to agree that poly people (particularly straight poly people - it's a different story with queer poly people) suffer oppression to, at the very least, a lesser degree than other notable oppressed groups, but the fact is, they still cannot get married to more than one partner, and they are maligned by society in a number of ways.

[HK-90210]

See, personally, I read that more as them saying they're allowed to have an opinion - but when it comes to Bioware deciding whether to implement the feature or not, the people they should listen to first and foremost are the ones who it affects. 

 

See, personally, I agree with no_touchy's argument that anyone who plays a Bioware game is affected by it. Not in the same ways, nor always to the same degree, but everyone is affected. If this logic is sound, which I think it is, the question becomes whose content should be affected

 

@CastonFolarus: That post is in line with my beliefs that "[w]hen it comes to issues of representation in games, I believe it is the developer's moral obligation to pay more attention to the people who are actually affected by said representation".

 

And I agree with no_touchy and Dean, who argue that with the inclusion of poly content, we're ALL affected. When resources are finite, everybody loses out on something when the devs decide to add content.

 

Good ol' agree to disagree. Have a nice day.

[Samahl]

And I agree with no_touchy and Dean, who argue that with the inclusion of poly content, we're ALL affected. When resources are finite, everybody loses out on something when the devs decide to add content.

 

Probably not in any noticeable or meaningful way. As I said, you're pretty much always guaranteed at least two options at this point, no matter your gender or sexuality. You'd get the same as you'd always get (if you're straight, anyway).