Polyamory

[TheMeInTeam]

Back when I was still doing the relationship stuff it was definitely monogamy, expected of both.

I make no value judgment on how other people prefer to live in this regard. It does seem that most people can't handle polyamory well emotionally, but it also seems that "all" would be incorrect.

and around 50% of people at some point cheat on their spouse. Sad. We are not noble creatures. We are not by nature a monogamous species. But if people want to do polyamory, I guess it's fine. If enough of people do it, there will be unknown societal consequences. One would be that the most desireable mates will have lots of weehee, and the less diserable ones will have even less of it, probably. How will that effect child rearing, who knows.

If you go far enough back in human history it was probably monogamy that was the stranger concept.

That cheating stat is one I knew and it was sobering when I first learned of it. Even more so when I first experienced it. I've yet to cheat on anybody else, one of the things I can take pride in with regards to relationships.

Engaging in multiple casual relationships is much more reasonable.

It certainly fits social norms better, but it has its own pitfalls and doesn't quite offer the same things as either monogamy or polyamory can in principle with established relationships.

Granted in practice it might be hard to tell the difference for some people.

 

[civvver]

Our culture just isn't set up for it so good luck finding participants. Me personally not into it. I also think having children would get pretty complicated. What if you have kids with 3 different women, who also have kids with other men? Now you want to discuss with partner one, rules abc, but partner 2 says nah we do xyz, and her other partner says no it's none of that it's lmnop. How do you resolve? With traditional parenting you only need 2 people to agree on stuff.

Also the divorce rate is already super high cus man it's hard living with someone and compromising on stuff, sacrificing, not getting your way all the time. Adding a 3rd or 4th person into the mix, I don't see how that improves things. So maybe if it's casual and you don't all live together. I find it really hard to think 4 people could share finances and cooking and cleaning duties and all that and not have huge disagreements all the time. Maybe if they were more like roommates only.

 

[rah]

It would have to be more of a commune.

 

[Syno]

You're viewing it through a traditional monogamous lens there, @civvver, and that may be why you're tripping up on the idea.

RE: child-rearing, though, it's often somewhat similar to the monogamous model wherein there's the core parents and then the extended support system. Only in this situation the support system is made up of close-by partners instead of distant relatives.

It's very difficult to wrap your head around, and accept it, if you've never been exposed to it. It helps a lot if you're exposed to the idea early on, even if it's not for you. Like with most things, really.

(All the partners living together probably falls into the uncommon category, IME, but not unheard of. As @rah implies, more of a commune situation where everyone is close together but not necessarily under the same roof is more common.)

It is disappointing to see so many otherwise intelligent people here believe the "just a bunch of people being unfaithful and sleeping around, not taking intimacy seriously" trope.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I feel with every day alive less and less faithful in monogamy, less faithful even that it is in principle a good idea or should be a cornerstone of any society. It's unfulfilling in many ways. But still I cling to it, and cling to it harder. Not only is my love too great, even not seeing my partner for more than 6 months and being presented with opportunities I just couldn't do it, morally. I think even worse for me would be the idea that my partner / primary gets railed by some ***hole. I just could never cope with it, it'd destroy me. I know that it's in the end pretty meaningless and maybe even a silly thing to find offensive. I am even doubtly hypocritical, in that I won't see women as a thread and wouldn't see my partner having sex with a woman as cheating. some old patriarchal stuff still hidden deep inside me.

It is disappointing to see so many otherwise intelligent people here believe the "just a bunch of people being unfaithful and sleeping around, not taking intimacy seriously" trope.

disappointing, yes. but not surprising in the slightest. rah and civvver comments were pretty much exactly what I figured they'd be.

 

[civvver]

You're viewing it through a traditional monogamous lens there, @civvver, and that may be why you're tripping up on the idea.

RE: child-rearing, though, it's often somewhat similar to the monogamous model wherein there's the core parents and then the extended support system. Only in this situation the support system is made up of close-by partners instead of distant relatives.

It's very difficult to wrap your head around, and accept it, if you've never been exposed to it. It helps a lot if you're exposed to the idea early on, even if it's not for you. Like with most things, really.

(All the partners living together probably falls into the uncommon category, IME, but not unheard of. As @rah implies, more of a commune situation where everyone is close together but not necessarily under the same roof is more common.)

It is disappointing to see so many otherwise intelligent people here believe the "just a bunch of people being unfaithful and sleeping around, not taking intimacy seriously" trope.

Well if that's the case and you're not living together how's it not just an open relationship or casual dating or whatever?

 

[rah]

I've been happily married to one woman for over 30 years. Couldn't conceive of doing it any other way.
I had a girl friend when I was younger that had more open tendencies. It didn't sit well with me then and wouldn't today.

 

[Syno]

Well if that's the case and you're not living together how's it not just an open relationship or casual dating or whatever?

There are plenty of monogamous couples who don't live together. Even if they're married. Why is there a specific model that must be adhered to with set behaviours?

Polyamory is not having an open relationship or casually dating in the same way you living with your wife is not having a roommate.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

It is disappointing to see so many otherwise intelligent people here believe the "just a bunch of people being unfaithful and sleeping around, not taking intimacy seriously" trope.

Must be my age. Or Rah's age. Or maybe we were raised differently. Or maybe we're just sticks in the mud? Wet blankets? Fuddy duddys?

I'm sorry, but I don't want to have to guess who my partner is with at any given time. I also don't want her falling in love with someone else. I'm greedy and I'm the jealous type. I also couldn't do that to another person as I feel that it cheapens the existing relationship. I mean, if you have a poly relationship, which one of you is the meal ticket? Who likes/loves who best?

Sorry not for me. I'll go without love before I would enter into a poly relationship. Call me an old fashioned lapsed Catholic if you like, but monogamy is the only thing for me.

 

[Syno]

Must be my age. Or Rah's age. Or maybe we were raised differently. Or maybe we're just sticks in the mud? Wet blankets? Fuddy duddys?

I'm sorry, but I don't want to have to guess who my partner is with at any given time. I also don't want her falling in love with someone else. I'm greedy and I'm the jealous type. I also couldn't do that to another person as I feel that it cheapens the existing relationship. I mean, if you have a poly relationship, which one of you is the meal ticket? Who likes/loves who best?

Sorry not for me. I'll go without love before I would enter into a poly relationship. Call me an old fashioned lapsed Catholic if you like, but monogamy is the only thing for me.

Wanting to be monogamous and only monogamous is fine. I probably align closer to that than I do polyamory, at least when it comes to the "ideal partnership". I've been a secondary partner in the past and it was alright, but it's not something I'd actively seek or necessarily be open to if I had a primary partner unless something surprising happened.

That said, the framing associated with your position is where I think it falls short, because it assumes ulterior/negative motive as an inherent aspect of the partnership. It seems to boil it down to a meat equation, which doesn't make sense because polyamory is an alternative to monogamy, and monogamy isn't presented like that at all. People think of it as love, as having a life partner (or the pursuit of one). But make it plural and suddenly you have a harem of loose partners who believe getting down and dirty is the key and love and trust is just whatevs.

I can see why you'd consider it a possibility that that is what polyamory is; after all, there are people in this very thread who lament their unwillingness to be poly because they'd love to bang multiple people (lads, you want an open relationship, not a polyamorous relationship). Yet, you work with divergent opinions and personalities on a daily basis, so you should be uniquely armed with the capability to not poison the well, so to speak, about the subject in its entirety.

The mechanics of a poly relationship, a healthy one, are relatively similar to that of a monogamous relationship. It's just not limited to "only one." Although I will more than readily admit that it is far more difficult than a monogamous relationship because a healthy poly relationship requires people with healthy perspectives on intimacy, and in our world that's exceedingly and disappointingly rare. It's also not really something I'd offer as advice to anyone unless they were specifically in a situation where they loved more than one person and were falling apart over it because they thought monogamy was the only option available to them.

Edit: I was also raised to consider strict monogamy the rule, and deviance from it to be considered a heinous offense. But I was exposed to alternatives right when I became an adult, and it's something I stumbled into learning about. I'm also young, relatively speaking, at the ripe old age of 25.

 

[Farm Boy]

'm sorry, but I don't want to have to guess who my partner is with at any given time. I also don't want her falling in love with someone else. I'm greedy and I'm the jealous type. I also couldn't do that to another person as I feel that it cheapens the existing relationship. I mean, if you have a poly relationship, which one of you is the meal ticket? Who likes/loves who best?

Sorry not for me. I'll go without love before I would enter into a poly relationship. Call me an old fashioned lapsed Catholic if you like, but monogamy is the only thing for me.

Seems pretty normal. The concept seems pretty gross to me, either personally or getting the sloppy seconds. I think it's fine if other people do it, though it seems pretty fraught and like it makes problems that I don't think are particularly great. But then that's the game. Sexually self-restricted people tend to sexually self-restrict and attempt to find like minded partners. Non-sexually restricted people gravitate towards each other, and the less scrupulous of them present falsely on occasion to widen their pool to people who would normally weed them out.

 

[Narz]

All I know is my nature, which is that I love women and that attraction to a particular female doesn't change make my feelings towards her sistren. Like when I walk around a neighbor I want to pet all the cats. Some cats are skittish & won't let me, others will come up to me purring & I'll sit down on the sidewalk and bond with them.

When I go home my cat is still my cat & I don't devote resources to the other cats nor allow them into my home or my heart (well a little into my heart, like I got very sad when my neighbor's cat got run over ). It feels like an orientation & not something I can change. I can use discipline to not act on it of course but it's something I doubt will ever change.

I don't think I would enjoy swinging, too risky and I do want a primary partner who I can trust & who will trust me. I just want to have my cake & also have some other cakes. If my partner is going thru a hard time & wants me to be monogamous during those times or expresses a preference that I not be with so-and-so a person I would respect that. Likewise I would want similar respect given to me. I find the idea of my partner being with other men gross but I'd be willing to deal with that feeling if I had trust that she holds me in the highest esteem & that she would be careful (both physically & emotionally).

People fall out of love with or without being in relationships with others and I'd imagine fantasizing about someone else from within a marriage could be as harmful or even more so than being with someone else. When you fantasize you get your ideal partner, when you actually get with someone you realize everyone has their flaws.

Most of my opinions on the matter are speculative. I've never had an ethical polyaromous relationship (at least not a serious/long one).

 

[Narz]

Seems pretty normal. The concept seems pretty gross to me, either personally or getting the sloppy seconds.

I find it repulsive to think about but probably it would increase one's sperm count. IIRC something like 95+% of sperms are fighter-sperms not pregnant-making sperms, which puts to question to fidelity of the fairer sex.

 

[Farm Boy]

Eh. Or all those peaceful premonogo prewarfare preagricultural societies somehow managed to select for more penetrative control in reproduction than is generally present currently along with grasping stress fractures on fossil record wrists along with those incredibly close-knit are cooperate-or-die social structures. But that's not particularly popular around here nor in fantastically good taste to really speculate about. And it would be just speculation. It's rarely just one thing or the just one other thing. And somewhat beside the point regardless. Just seems gross regardless of fidelity or the nature of sploogers. Might be as simple as numbers. Only need one, the rest can really do something else, anything else remotely useful, and it'd be a net benefit.

 

[H4run]

Alright I'll make a claim. A committed Polyamory it is more healthy psychologically and physiologically than a hypocritical monogamy. It's a lot better than the scenario like one of the partner screwing around with another person behind his/her partner back, then went home normally do it with their partner the next morning while already get infected by STD. Btw guy, that is true story.

The partner will be feel less cheated if they talk over it, then hiding it while maintaining the false image of monogamy. I never cheat in my life, the most henious things that I do in relationship is my ex went to me after finding me from social-media (friendster), telling me I screwed her life, and extort me for a nice closure, while she was already engaged. I'm wrong, but that's a fake monogamy in action, she should share her thought to her fiance first and find the consensual solution.

 

[Narz]

Eh. Or all those peaceful premonogo prewarfare preagricultural societies somehow managed to select for more penetrative control in reproduction than is generally present currently along with grasping stress fractures on fossil record wrists along with those incredibly close-knit are cooperate-or-die social structures. But that's not particularly popular around here nor in fantastically good taste to really speculate about.

I don't care about popular or good taste. My curiosity overrides that.

Also I understood like 10% of what you said there. What's a monogo?

And it would be just speculation. It's rarely just one thing or the just one other thing.

Iirc it is just one thing for most of sperms, they don't impregnate they just fight. Even the shape of the phallus is designed to scoop out rival sperm.

And somewhat beside the point regardless. Just seems gross regardless of fidelity or the nature of sploogers. Might be as simple as numbers. Only need one, the rest can really do something else, anything else remotely useful, and it'd be a net benefit.

Still the ratio makes you wonder.

 

[Farm Boy]

Meant as "premonogomous."

Monogamy, if we want to be speculating, theoretically(and it's theoretically) functions as to increase male buy-in in the reproductive game directly. Therefore increasing input in created children and decreasing competition for creation of said children.

I generally disdain Garden of Eden utopian fantasies that think everything was hunky dory before agriculture and the creation of "stuff" to fight over, thinking that simply because people actually needed each other to literally notstarve that they wouldn't exert naked(literally) force upon each other. Particularly in an era where childbirth complications were more fatal and would skew gender ratios towards more heavily male, unless there was some input like violence or accidents that would skew it back at least as hard as the functionally dangerous natural proclivity to screw without any sort of advanced fertility control.

The ratio you're talking about, which I've never heard about but am happy to presume as true for speculation(why not, on a lark), isn't something I would put overmuch value into. Assuming a copulation's worth of sperm are relatively light on the protein input, testicles and brains are relatively high on the protein precedence, and individual sperm are relatively worthless past the amount required to get one to fertilization(being routinely shunted and all to freshen the pot), the rest could selection-positive exert any marginal support role so long as it would be at all usefulenough to select for high rates of low biological investment replication(so long as the presumed "fighter-sperms" or whatever have an estimated greater than 1:1 competitive rating against "scoring" sperm. Like I said, never heard of this, just rolling with base concept. I'm somewhat dubious, truth be told, given the relatively complexity of intercepting/killing/hindering something against the relative simplicity of target saturation.

 

[Akka]

It argues that polyamoury doesn't work for most people, because most people are too insecure and irrational to deal with their partner sleeping with someone else.

Because it's "rational" and "secure" to let your partner sleep with someone else ?

 

[Mise]

I don't see why that would be irrational.

That's why you're not into polyamory. Anyway, that's not logically opposed to the statement/argument made by the video. The video argues that people can't do it because they aren't rational enough. That can be true irrespective of whether or not polyamory is rational or is believed rational by its participants.

I mean, the reason why I wouldn't be into it is because I would be incredibly upset. The emotional response comes first. I wouldn't even think about it beyond that - it would feel horrible, and I know it would feel horrible, and I don't really need a reason to say no to it beyond that. I don't think I have or care to have any "rational" reason why I wouldn't want my partner sleeping with someone else. I'm sure I could come up with a few if I tried -- betrayal of trust, breaking of marriage vows, "how will we explain this to the kids", or whatever -- but none of those things are the reason I want my partner not to sleep with other people. I want my partner not to sleep with other people because I would feel incredibly hurt and upset. The emotion comes first, the emotion has primacy, not the rationality.

The reason I can't do it has nothing to do with rational reasoning about trust and raising kids, the reason I can't do it is cos I would feel like $%^&.

 

[Tee Kay]

I find the distinction between monogamy and polyamory unhelpful. I mean first of all it's not even comparing apples to apples, one is about who you make a commitment to and the other is about who you love. And what is love anyway? What's what? What is anything?

There's only what works for different people and people need to be open and honest about what they want in love and relationships. What I tend to find with some polyamorous relationships is that they kinda expect it to just... work, and that's never the case. As for the people who pursue the off-the-shelf traditionally-mandated ideal of strictly monogamy, I think most of them are kidding themselves if they think that's what's really going to fulfil them.

And there will always be trade-offs. I think, well I'm pretty sure I am, polyamorous, but I've decided I'm not able to commit myself to more than one life partner, so while we have an open relationship, any other sexual partner I have cannot be more than a friend. But that's not being "untrue" to myself. I contain multitudes, being polyamorous is not a substitute for having a personality. I find what I have really rewarding and fulfilling, and that's what matters.