This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Saturday, February 14, 2009

In Monogamy/Monoamory Natural?

I liked this post by Steve Pavlina. He announced that he's switching from a monoamorous relationship with his wife to a polyamorous relationship?

He's also careful to make the distinction between polygamy and polyamory. Polygamy is being married to multiple people. Polyamory is having multiple sexual partners.

The State does not recognize polygamy and other non-traditional marriage contracts. Homosexual marriage is the most common "non-standard marriage" publicly discussed. There is no alternate free market legal system, so if you want an enforceable marriage contract, you must get a State-licensed marriage. The State gives some legal perks to married people. The most common ones are:

  1. If you get employer-paid health insurance, you can add your spouse to your plan.
  2. If one spouse works and the other does not, then you pay a lower taxation rate than if unmarried. If both people work, then you might pay a higher taxation rate!
  3. If you die, your spouse may inherit your property without paying estate taxes. Estate taxes can be dodged by investing in physical gold and silver.
  4. If you are incapacitated, your spouse may make legally binding decisions for you. For example, if you're declared brain-dead, your spouse may order your life support disconnected.
There are some downsides to being legally married:
  1. If your spouse racks up huge debts, you can be personally liable for that debt.
  2. If you are accused of tax evasion/resistance, your spouse can also go to jail. This is of concern to an agorist.
  3. If you get divorced, the State imposes a huge cost. The State generally gives the mother custody of children over the father. The State generally orders the man to make payments to the woman.
Hopefully, I should be able to avoid the above downsides now that I've attained higher awareness. I'm getting better at screening for "partner not insane" (by FSK standards). I would have been SOL if I'd started getting interested in free market economics and my wife was a parasitic type who wasn't willing to support me.

The State regulates marriage. This prevents a lot of innovation in the interpersonal relationship department. If a group of people want to live together polygamously/polyamorously, they may find themselves the victim of State violence, as occurred in Texas. State enforcers uses violence to crack down on people who form non-traditional relationships. If polygamy is so bad, then why does the State need to violently interfere with people who choose such a lifestyle?

I liked the solution that Steve Pavlina chose. He decided to keep his State-recognized marriage to his wife, while pursuing other partners.

The only real risks with multiple sexual partners are:
  1. unwanted pregnancy
  2. sexually transmitted diseases
Both can be minimized/eliminated if you screen your potential partners properly and take appropriate precautions.

One fake risk is "If I have another partner, it'll ruin my relationship with my current partner!" This is an aspect of pro-State brainwashing. When dancing, you learn faster if you have multiple partners. When playing Contract Bridge, you learn faster if you have multiple partners. Shouldn't the same be true for interpersonal relationships?

I liked this quote:
The message of hurt is this: Despite what’s happened, can you still respond with love?
This is an aspect of pro-State brainwashing. "Other people did bad things to me. Therefore, I should do bad things to other people."

I believe I can still be openminded, despite my horrible abuse by the State and the psychiatry/death industry. For example, I could take the Unabomber approach to the psychiatry industry, but that would ultimately accomplish nothing. Agorism is a much better strategy for resisting the State. "People who resist the State always resort to violence!" or "The only way to resist the State is with violence!" is a common evil fnord.

Even though I've had bad experiences, I judge each new employment opportunity independently. Perhaps unreasonably, I assume "I'm going to be treated fairly this time!", until I have evidence to the contrary. I also judge each new person independently. Of course, if someone told me "My job is a psychiatrist!", my retort would be "Oh, so you're a murderer!", and they probably wouldn't be openminded about it. I'm getting better at screening new friends. I also mention less controversial ideas before mentioning the less mainstream ones, so I can judge people's reactions. For example, "How do you feel about the $700B banking industry bailout?" or "Did you notice that the Federal Reserve is really a price fixing cartel?" comes before "Taxation is theft!"

The problem with marriage is that it pushes relationships into the realm of law, and that’s a huge no-no because that runs contrary to conscious choice. Just to be clear, I’m referring to legal law here, not divine law. Coupled with societal pressure, marriage applies an inappropriate form of force to relationships.

I liked Steve Pavlina's observation on the evils of the State. However, he has not yet gone all the way and said "The State is 100% immoral! Taxation is theft!"

State regulation of marriage distorts the interpersonal relationship market.

Erin once told me that Wiccans use the phrase “as long as our love shall last.”

That's a better wedding vow than "I promise to stay with you until you die!" If you promise to stay with your partner unconditionally no matter what, then what incentive is there for your partner to treat you fairly? My preferred wedding vow would be "I promise to stay with you unless you start acting like a crazy *****!"

Another interesting problem with monogamy is that, after you perfect the skill of meeting a good partner, you only use it once. Rather than going with the "swinging" strategy of having as many partners as possible, a sounder strategy might be to have a primary partner and a few secondary partners.

I also liked this quote:

Although social conditioning may encourage us to believe that men are more sexual than women, the truth is that women enjoy sex at least as much as men do.

It’s unfortunate that a man who gets a lot of sex is lauded as a stud, while a woman who does the same is shunned as a slut. That sort of social conditioning is really lame — it’s totally out of alignment with Truth and Love.

This is an indication of pro-State brainwashing. If you brainwash people so that "Optimal male behavior is X." and "Optimal female behavior is not X.", then you guarantee that most people will be unhappy. It is easier for the bad guys to control an unhappy person than people who are well-adjusted and confident.

About 1000 years ago, a Christian scholar (Thomas Aquinus?) figured out "If political and religious leaders teach the average person to be uptight about sex, then it will be easier to control them." According to some sources, that is when the average person started being taught unhealthy attitudes about sex.

It doesn’t surprise me that a few people have asserted that I’m interested in polyamory because I just want to go out and sleep with lots of women, consequences be damned.

Suppose it turns out that, by hanging out with a woman for 6 months, I can cure her of her pro-State brainwashing. If that turns out to be true, then do I have an obligation to cure as many women as I can? Of course, a woman needs a certain level of openmindedness first, to be considered.

He also makes a big error:

If I wanted to be selfish, I’d keep all of my discoveries and realizations to myself, so I’d have a competitive advantage over others. But that would pull me out of alignment with Oneness, so it makes no sense to go that route.

Actually, Steve Pavlina now blogs as his full-time job. He actually is being selfish by promoting his ideas, because then he can profit from them instead of taking a wage-slave job.

I profit from my blog primarily in the form of reader feedback. For example, other people write "FSK, I took anti-psychotic or anti-depressant drugs, and also found them incredibly damaging." That reinforces my decision to ignore the advice of my psychiatrist/murderer. Now that I'm starting an AdSense experiment, I'm working towards financial gain, but not so much yet. It would be nice to be able to blog as a full-time source of income, and not be dependent on a wage slave job. I'm growing my blog's traffic at a rate of 10%-20% per month, so any AdSense revenue should also grow at a rate of 10%-20% per month. Extrapolating over a few years, I should have a profitable business eventually.

Steve Pavlina says he's accused of being selfish by switching to polyamory. If you can help someone else feel more self-confident by hanging out with them, then you can be selfish and help other people at the same time! That is the whole point of agorism or a real free market, which is "Help other people and show a profit at the same time!"

Obviously polyamory is a subject that can polarize people, but causing controversy isn’t my goal here. I’m living my life in the way I feel is best, and I’m honestly sharing my growth experiences along the way. I know many people are helped by this sharing process. A few lives have even been saved by it — no joke.

Steve Pavlina says that people have a strong emotion reaction when polyamory is discussed. This is an indication of pro-State brainwashing. That is an indication that polyamory may be worth an experiment.

I'm currently single. I'm focusing on "Find one partner and cure her of her pro-State brainwashing." before trying anything else. It's hard to find suitable candidates. I wonder how long I would need to be with someone, to cure them of their pro-State brainwashing? Pro-State brainwashing isn't just realizing "Taxation is theft!" It's also subconscious/emotional conditioning, which can only be explained in person.

In "The Dog Whisperer", a problematic dog can be helped by hanging out with a pack of well-behaved dogs. Humans should have the same behavior. A pro-State brainwashed human can benefit by hanging out with a (mostly) sane person. It's much easier to have someone else explain something to you, than figuring it out on your own the hard way. It would be nice to have a "pack" of well-balanced humans the same way that the "Dog Whisperer" has a pack of well-balanced dogs.

In the present, I have a big problem. Other people are normally with a pack of insane pro-State trolls. If I only hang out with someone a little, that is insufficient to cure them. When they're surrounded by pro-State trolls, they will forget whatever I taught them. They will start to feel uneasy around me, because I'm challenging their pro-State brainwashing. Their pro-State troll friends will say "Don't hang out with FSK. He is a loser." A "follow the pack" mentality makes a world filled with pro-State trolls a stable (unstable?) fixed point. It's like a dog who is well-behaved when the "Dog Whisperer" is around, but misbehaves other times because the owners don't change their behavior. Most people are "owned" by the pro-State trolls around them, making it hard for them to crack their pro-State brainwashing.

In most State-licensed groups of humans, the leader has his authority backed by State violence. This means that the most skilled human usually isn't the group leader. In a pack of wolves/dogs, if the alpha wolf loses his credibility, then the other wolves will form a new pack or start following a new leader. In humans, the leader has his authority backed by the State. If I think my employer is being a ****head, State violence prevents me and a couple of other people from starting a new pack/business.

I consider it proven that "A monopolistic State is evil!" For the same reason, is it evil to say "There should be a single human who satisfies most/all of your physical and emotional needs!" All monopolies are inherently evil, even if the people involved have good intentions.

I liked Steve Pavlina's decision to keep his State-licensed marriage while pursing other partners. That seems like a sensible approach.

I haven't made a decision either way, but I'm seriously considering "Monogamy/monoamory is not a natural human behavior. It is an aspect of pro-State brainwashing." There are many evil fnords saying "Monogamy/monoamory is desirable!". That makes me suspect the opposite is actually true.


F. E. Huginn said...

Watch first 4 videos, there Johnny Soporno very nicely and thoroughly explains how polyamory is the only natural and healthy way of having relationships

Tristan said...

Both are natural. To try and raise one style of relationship above another is absurd.

Some of us really do prefer monogamy, others prefer polyamory.

True, there is prejudice against poly, and much of it originates with the state and authority, but to then conclude that poly is more natural somehow is like saying mixed-race relationships are more natural and same race relationships are not natural because the state impeded the former.

Fight against prejudice against poly and I will join you.
Try to claim monogamy is unnatural then I will fight against you.

The only natural thing is that which people freely choose.

The only moral relationship is that based upon consent.

I don't care what your relationship is, so long as its freely chosen and all parties consent. Be poly, monogamous, faithful to multiple partners or able to have sex outside your established relationships, or anything else people can think of and agree to.

fritz said...

I will chose monogamy personally. For me its the only way to really get close to the one you love. Sure it was fun when I was single to have different partners.

I might be insecure, But I couldn't imagine being ok with my lady banging other guys or girls. When the chips were down, I wouldn't feel like I could totally trust her.

But like you said. To each his own. The problem comes when the judgement begins. Once you begin to judge others, Believe in your labels, Is when you remove your self from reality.


This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at