I'm new here. I'll start off by explaining why I think polyamory works in Equestria, but not in the real word. Short answer: Gender ratio.

Long answer: There are a lot more women then men in Equestria. So if they were monogamous, there'd be a lot of lonely women. But in our world, the number of men and women are about equal. So if we were polygamous, there'd be a lot of lonely men. But it's worse then that: A lot of those lonely men would become … problems:

You think fighting for oil was bad, imagine the men of the world fighting for women! That's what would happen, if there weren't anywhere near enough women for all the men. There'd be violence, rapes. Countries would go to war to kill off their excess men. It'd be mess! That's probably why monogamy was invented in the first place, so that there'd be enough women for all the men.

So polyamory's fine for the Ponies. But I think it would be a very bad idea, if we tried it!

Edit: I figured this was a group about a polygamous Equestria. In other words: A shipping group, where three or more ponies are shipped together. Not a pro real-world-polygamy group!

Guess this isn't the group for me then. Someone want to point me to a shipping group, where three or more ponies are shipped together? One that's not pro or anti real-world-polygamy?

6970254

Thus demonstrating a profound ignorance of what polyamoury actually is, and how it's practiced in the real world.

Actually, polygamous societies ARE extremely violent.https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2017/12/19/the-link-between-polygamy-and-war

6970274
If I'm ignorant, educate me. Point me to successful polygamous societies, that have overcome the gender ratio problem.

6970254
There are two problems with your assumptions.

First off, by pointing out the gender ratio you are kind stating that the only viable relationships are male/female, with each male having one female partner. This completely excludes LGBT+ individuals who might choose to pursue this type of lifestyle.

Beyond this, you also make the assumption that the only viable polyamorous relationship is a male courting several females. This is not even remotely true. For example, I am a woman with two male partners.

6970254
The gender ratio idea has been pretty much debunked by this point. As the show moved forward we saw more stallions presented more often. And in greater numbers as well. So there is that.

A polygamous relationship is based in all members contentment and honestly that is usually a problem when one believes that they could fear the approaching abandonment of one member.

The idea of polygamy working in Equestria is because they are more related to real horses that live in herds all together. Polygamy and harem relationships befall in the love of each and one of the members which is not easy to do but pleasant to achieve.

6970291
And if you're looking for successful societies with healthy polyamory, then just look to the LGBT+ communities of any sizable city in any western country. I know it's quite common in places like Seattle, New York, and San Francisco.

6970363
That is interesting Gara. I knew nothing about this.

6970254
There... is so much wrong with this that it's hard to know where to start. But I'll try.

1. You assume that an entire society would be polyamorous by default, rather than that the idea would be that people can love one, or many, as they want to.
2. You equate polyamory - individuals of both genders being open to sexual/emotional relationships with multiple individuals of either gender - with polygamy - the practice (often coercive) of one man having multiple wives. The latter would be likely to match up with what you suggest, but the former leaves freedom for multiple males to be in the same herding group as multiple females, eliminating the problem that you have suggested.
3. A society doesn't have to be polyamorous in order to accept people who are.
4. And here's the big one - we already live in a polyamorous society, albeit one tainted by shame, guilt, deceit, and rage. Approximately 72% of relationships will experience an episode of infidelity. That's a number that's remained pretty standard throughout known study of the subject, across cultures, and everything else. Which means that approximately 72% of relationships are already non-monogamous, but they mask it behind lies, deceit, guilt, shame, and an expectation that this should destroy the relationship. How many of those relationships would remain content if both partners had the freedom to explore outside attractions, or at least weren't encouraged to believe that having outside attractions is a sign that the relationship is flawed? Hard to know - but it's certainly not zero! Given that freedom, that reduction of guilt, who knows how many otherwise happy households could be salvaged, even improved? Unfortunately, we really can't tell.

Polygamy on Earth is generally practiced in religious societies where women are still treated as property: fundamentalist LDS and some Islamic societies, for example. Higher status men get more wives, and lower status men are exiled. This is bad for a dozen obvious reasons.

This phenomenon also has nothing to do with polyamory. Polyamory is just love between multiple people, and it works perfectly fine for many of us. It isn't based upon social contracts. It's something that arises in a free society for people who have lower barriers to love.

I honestly don't get monoamory (I find nothing wrong with it, mind you). Why would loving someone be dependent upon restricting their sexual freedom? Sex and romance aren't the same thing, and healthy long-term relationships are based on a foundation of friendship, not sex.

Sometimes by polyamory people specifically mean maintaining a strong long-term relationship with more than one person, which is harder to make work. But I've seen those work too.

By either definition, if you really have a good relationship, you shouldn't have to worry about losing that person to somepony else. You should know how much you mean to them and know it extends beyond sex.

6970321
I'm aware that polyamory, in principle, can be something other then one man and multiple women. But it usually isn't! It's almost always one man and multiple women.

And yes, not everyone is usual (it'd be a pretty boring world if everyone were). There will always be some people who do multiple men/one women, multiple men/multiple women, or something. But my original post was about if polyamory became the norm in society, if it became widespread. Not a few unusual people.

6970363

And if you're looking for successful societies with healthy polyamory, then just look to the LGBT+ communities of any sizable city in any western country.

Unfortunately, the statistics on LGBT people are pretty grim (higher STD rates, lower life expectancy, etc.). I don't think you're helping your case, by pointing to the Western LGBT sub-culture.

But there's another problem with your example: You're pointing to a sub-culture, a minority of unusual people within a larger society. I'm asking for a successful society (modern or historic), where polyamory is the norm and not the exception, that's avoided the problems I've listed in my original post.

"A few unusual people"? Wow you're a charmer.

6970545

"A few unusual people"? Wow you're a charmer.

I'm unusual. My family is unusual. Half my friends are unusual. I don't want to live in a world where everyone is usual!

That better?

No not really. You opened up with some embarrassingly ill thought out tripe and you carried it forward into being insulting and dismissive. I'm not really interested in your too-late "oh me too" attempt at sounding less shallow.
I mean, keep your little show going. I'm sure you're just minutes away from convincing all the poly people about how impossible their lives are.

6970516
Alright my dude, I tried answering your question.

But honestly, why did you come to our group with such an asinine little question? Like honestly, did you ask it in the hope that we'll see the light and move onto your incel ideology? Like you've done nothing but come into a poly space and demand that we justify our existence to you.

So how about you take your trash opinions and fuck off somewhere else.

6970254

I'm going to go ahead and lock your thread since it's pretty obvious that you're either trying to troll the group, or you're ignorant about this topic and intent on lashing out at people aligned with it.