Polyamory
Sunday, August 27, 2017

What is it

In most if not all modern Western societies, monogamy is the dominant form of romantic relationship. In polyamorous or "open" relationships, however, each person is free to love multiple partners at once. Just as our friendships are non-exclusive, advocates of polyamory believe our romantic relationship should be too. So why do so many people find polyamory distacteful, or even despicable? Is it immoral to love more than one person at a time? Or is our society's commitment to monogamy simply a fossil of tradition that could one day be obsolete? The Philosophers welcome back Carrie Jenkins from the University of British Columbia, author of What Love Is: And What It Could Be.

Get Philosophy Talk

Radio

Sunday at 10am (pacific) on KALW 91.7 FM Local Public Radio, San Francisco

Podcast

Individual downloads via CDBaby and iTunes. Multipacks and The Complete Philosophy Talk via iAamplify

 

Comments (5)


Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Wednesday, August 9, 2017 -- 3:26 PM

Polyamory

So, where does this come from? I understand monogamy; polyandry; polygamy and queerness. Polyamory sounds like, what's the word? Libertine (-ness) ? Not very convincing. We used to say people were promiscuous if they were of that persuasion. Is this the new defense of that animalistic behavior? Sorry. I don't get it... I have a writers group meeting to enjoy now...
Neuman.

Laura Maguire's picture

Laura Maguire

Monday, August 14, 2017 -- 9:38 AM

Tune in to the show and see

Tune in to the show and see if you change your mind!

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Friday, August 18, 2017 -- 8:01 AM

Anarchy

Hi, Laura!
I was trying to log in to comment on the upcoming anarchy show (first aired in 2015, while I was incommunicado). Could not get in, so tried this avenue instead. Hope my comment gets posted, here goes: In this late dispensation of the human epoch, it seems to me that the anarchy thing has been tried, either intentionally or unintentionally, and found wanting. I know--- this is excruciatingly old-fashioned. But let's look at my assertion, historically and logically (if such is possible in our rationalistic world). Before there was government, there was anarchy. Fast forward to the emergence of religion and there was still repression and murder, but some semblance of order and even civilization was arising from the mire of human cruelty. Argue if you will for or against religious influence, it began to exert a level (forced) of humanity, theretofore unknown. Complexity began to rear its' ugly head, and, even with the reservations of the Church, science and technology emerged and began to further improve the human condition. Now, let's say that anarchy had ruled from pre-religious and pre-scientific times until now. Where do we suppose we would be? Certainly not on the moon; and, probably not even in outer space. Maybe not even here. And that is succinctly my point. If we have no form of governance, we have little impetus towards self-restraint.

Laura Maguire's picture

Laura Maguire

Friday, August 18, 2017 -- 9:19 AM

Hi Harold,

Hi Harold,

There does indeed seem to be a problem with comments on that page. Someone is looking into it right now, so hopefully we'll get it fixed soon. Thanks for letting us know!

Laura

Laura Maguire's picture

Laura Maguire

Friday, August 18, 2017 -- 10:27 AM

It's fixed now!

It's fixed now!

Carrie Jenkins, Professor of Philosophy, University of British Columbia

Researched By

Jack Herrera

Upcoming Shows

27 August 2017

Polyamory

In most if not all modern Western societies, monogamy is the dominant form of romantic relationship. In polyamorous or "open" relationships, however...

03 September 2017

Anarchy: Utopian Dream or Dystopian Nightmare?

Anarchism says there's no need for a state, that it would be better to have a society without central government. Anarchists dislike the often heavy...

10 September 2017

Post-Truth Politics

You've probably heard about the dangerous effects of fake news, and the spread of sensational and targeted falsities. But what about "legitimate"...