Polyamory

[BvBPL]

Where polyamory involves not merely having multiple sexual partners, but being in a relationship with multiple people, I’d hazard the greatest difficulty is in sharing emotional and relationship intimacy with multiple people. Sharing physical and sexual intimacy ain’t easy, but I think the work of being in a relationship is much more demanding. Being in a dyadic relationship requires a lot of work; adding more people exponentially increases the effort required.

Which is why I think multiple casual partners is probably more sustainable. That arrangement can exist even within a committed relationship pairing; an open marriage-type situation where emotional fidelity is expected even as sexual exclusivity is not. Of course, sexual contact tends to invite emotional connections, so watch out for that.

As ever, mileage may vary. However, avoid thinking that adding additional people to a relationship can be used as a fix for the core relationship. The problems of a relationship are rarely cured by the addition of more people.

And what is love anyway?

It’s what I’ve been searching for. Baby, don’t hurt me, no more.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That's why you're not into polyamory.

That's a bit of a cop out answer to be honest. You kind of need to explain why it's irrational, not just define thinking that doesn't align with yours as irrational.

 

[rah]

If everyone is a consenting adult, whatever.
The only real surprise is their lack of protection under the law. Gays are allowed to marry but the same legal protection is not available to those that desire multiple partners.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If everyone is a consenting adult, whatever.
The only real surprise is their lack of protection under the law. Gays are allowed to marry but the same legal protection is not available to those that desire multiple partners.

Legal asset distribution/government control of this would be non-trivial, speaking in purely practical/logistical terms. It's already an issue in relationships that mostly follow monogamy, with some already-unfair outcomes. Adding scaling complexity to this will not make the outcomes more consistently fair.

Imagine the court arguments over who the "primary partner" was for resource purposes, who gets child support, who has to pay it, etc.

Though there's something to be said for completely removing the government aspect of marriage entirely, since in principle there's no legitimate need for the government to manage that at all. You could still have shared asset laws if you really wanted, in fact those could be strictly simpler/more fair than what goes on with divorces right now.

 

[civvver]

You know what, it's fine, if you want to do it do you. I don't care. Maybe it works out. But let's not pretend it's the norm. Most people like cake. If you don't, some people will call you crazy, I won't cus it's subjective and in the end does it really matter? You don't like cake and that's fine. But you have to admit most people do and not liking cake is considered the outlier.

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

I second this.

It just bothers me when people push stuff like well you're only not polyamorous because society has conditioned you to be monogamous and you just aren't be true to yourself and you're too insecure to accept it. That's a load of bunk. I'm monogamous cus it's in my nature just like it's in most people's nature to seek out one partner at a time.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I'm greedy and I'm the jealous type.

yeah, understood, but why say it with such indignation, like it's something you're incredibly proud of?

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

please explain how it is irrational, especially if (1) you are informed of it and have a saying in it (2) it's double-protected, condom and pill.

It just bothers me when people push stuff like well you're only not polyamorous because society has conditioned you to be monogamous and you just aren't be true to yourself and you're too insecure to accept it. That's a load of bunk. I'm monogamous cus it's in my nature just like it's in most people's nature to seek out one partner at a time.

because it's in your nature like it's in most peoples nature? lmao. how would you know what your "nature" is anyway? It's not like we have an inherent understanding of it, lest we wouldn't need Biology or any science.

you're monogamous because you never change a running horse. you're monogamous because it's less complicated, because it's easier, and most importantly, because virtually everyone else is. I am monogamous for the same reason. don't kid yourself with any biological bullcrap, the reason monogamy is essentially uncontested are practical and cultural (which does not make them less valid).

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 $%^&.

exactly. 100% agree.

 

[Akka]

please explain how it is irrational, especially if (1) you are informed of it and have a saying in it (2) it's double-protected, condom and pill.

1) You said it, "if".
2) Please explain how it is more rational to have much more complex relationships which tend to run contrary to what the vast majority of people can stomach.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

You know what, it's fine, if you want to do it do you. I don't care. Maybe it works out. But let's not pretend it's the norm. Most people like cake. If you don't, some people will call you crazy, I won't cus it's subjective and in the end does it really matter? You don't like cake and that's fine. But you have to admit most people do and not liking cake is considered the outlier.

why are you saying this, what does it achieve? are you trying to cast people like @Tee Kay as outsiders or weirdos? because that is exactly what it sounds like. "well, you can totally be a weirdo if you want, but it's still weird ya know! you HAVe to admit that!" wow, thanks

 

[yung.carl.jung]

1) You said it, "if".
2) Please explain how it is more rational to have much more complex relationships which tend to run contrary to what the vast majority of people can stomach.

I never made that claim, but you did make the opposite claim. I don't even personally think they're more rational in any way. talk ****, get hit.

all the IFs that I added are I think pretty normal for any polyamorous relationship, they should be the basis of our discussion, because polyamory is not simply "sleeping around", and I don't want for you to make arguments in bad faith. I get the feeling you don't have any rational arguments at all, and if that is the case just admit it and let's move on.

 

[Syno]

You know what, it's fine, if you want to do it do you. I don't care. Maybe it works out. But let's not pretend it's the norm. Most people like cake. If you don't, some people will call you crazy, I won't cus it's subjective and in the end does it really matter? You don't like cake and that's fine. But you have to admit most people do and not liking cake is considered the outlier.

I second this.

It just bothers me when people push stuff like well you're only not polyamorous because society has conditioned you to be monogamous and you just aren't be true to yourself and you're too insecure to accept it. That's a load of bunk. I'm monogamous cus it's in my nature just like it's in most people's nature to seek out one partner at a time.

Who is arguing this? I'm pretty much the only person who specifically gave a lengthy response to what you said earlier in the thread and I don't believe I said polyamory is the norm, that it should be the norm, or that you specifically should give it a go. Even the people who gave more general replies with support aren't saying that polyamory is the ideal or norm, just that pursuing the baked-in cookie-cutter approach as dictated by culture isn't necessarily the objectively correct path.

I'm pretty much fully on board with the idea that it's rare and difficult to make work. I just don't think that means it's inherently heinous or immoral. You're more than welcome to say "Not for me." about it, but why does that have to come alongside severe negative judgement for the concept itself?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

You're more than welcome to say "Not for me." about it, but why does that have to come alongside severe negative judgement for the concept itself?

because many people are inherently upset when someone challenges a fundamental aspect of their worldview:

"god may not physically exist and the bible is not to be taken literal"; "turns out monogamy is not the only imagineable form of human partnership"; "having children might be morally questionable". any of these we have discussed at length of CFC ticket a lot of people off. asking daring questions is often the most effective way to tick people off.

when you believe deeply that god may not be depicted a caricature can make you into a murderer. when you believe deeply that race is a reality, anyone who calls it a construct is an indoctrinated science-denier to you.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

asking daring questions is often the most effective way to tick people off.

Is Obama a Kenyan insurgent terrorist?
Did that slut deserved to get raped?

The failure mode of clever is asshat and there is a fine line between daring questions and being an absolute **** just trying to stir the pot.

Edit: This comment isn't aimed at you personally in any way. I just used your comment as a jumping off point to make my own.

 

[Akka]

I never made that claim, but you did make the opposite claim.

Not exactly. I asked how it was more rational to go with polyamory, as the initial claim was that "people aren't rational enough to be polyamorous", which imply that polyamory is a more rational situation.
Why are you jumping at me for asking the question instead of at the initial claim ?

I don't even personally think they're more rational in any way. talk ****, get hit.

Well, maybe read more closely then.

all the IFs that I added are I think pretty normal for any polyamorous relationship

If you need to add more "if" and constraints, it means that it's a harder kind of relationship to keep, so here is your answer to how it could be more rational to be monogamous.
Not that relationships are very rational to begin with, anyway.

I get the feeling you don't have any rational arguments at all, and if that is the case just admit it and let's move on.

I get the feeling you're awfully defensive, especially considering how you're lashing back at several persons.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Is Obama a Kenyan insurgent terrorist?
Did that slut deserved to get raped?

The failure mode of clever is asshat and there is a fine line between daring questions and being an absolute **** just trying to stir the pot.

those are pretty leading questions, don't you think? they already imply an answer.

Not exactly. I asked how it was more rational to go with polyamory, as the initial claim was that "people aren't rational enough to be polyamorous", which imply that polyamory is a more rational situation.

Well, maybe read more closely then.

If you need to add more "if" and constraints, it means that it's a harder kind of relationship to keep, so here is your answer to how it could be more rational to be monogamous.

I get the feeling you're awfully defensive, especially considering how you're lashing back at several persons.

yes it is indeed a harder relationship to keep, which is what almost everyone ITT has argued, it's not even contested. I added two "IFs" so that people wouldn't strawman polyamory into sleeping around, I stated that earlier. this only has to do with people's flawed vision of the concept, not with the difficulty of polyamory itself. it is almost self-evident that these agreements are needed for most people to have a functioning relationship. one could easily misconstrue monogamy as the patriarchal oppression of women, but that would be a strawman, too.

uhh, what? I did read your post correctly, you said: "Please explain how it is more rational to have much more complex relationships" and I said, paraphrased: "I won't, because I don't believe that personally." seems very clear cut to me..

I'm the one who opened the discussion, I wasn't responding to anyone, but rather being offensive, if anything. but yeah, nice psychoanalytical retort, maybe try it one someone else

you don't really give ANY answer or make ANY further claim, you're just being passive-aggresive and snide towards me. which is cool, but doesn't really get you anywhere.

I'll just take from this that you do not actually want to make the claim "monogamy is more rational" (otherwise you would've had supported it by now) and bring this to an end.

 

[Akka]

yes it is indeed a harder relationship to keep, which is what almost everyone ITT has argued, it's not even contested. I added two "IFs" so that people wouldn't strawman polyamory into sleeping around, I stated that earlier. this only has to do with people's flawed vision of the concept, not with the difficulty of polyamory itself. it is almost self-evident that these agreements are needed for most people to have a functioning relationship. one could easily misconstrue monogamy as the patriarchal oppression of women, but that would be a strawman, too.

uhh, what? I did read your post correctly, you said: "Please explain how it is more rational to have much more complex relationships" and I said, paraphrased: "I won't, because I don't believe that personally." seems very clear cut to me..

I'm the one who opened the discussion, I wasn't responding to anyone, but rather being offensive, if anything. but yeah, nice psychoanalytical retort, maybe try it one someone else

you don't really give ANY answer or make ANY further claim, you're just being passive-aggresive and snide towards me. which is cool, but doesn't really get you anywhere.

I'll just take from this that you do not actually want to make the claim "monogamy is more rational" (otherwise you would've had supported it by now) and bring this to an end.

Don't know who you're answering because it's a lot of gibberish without any link to what I said. Feels like you're just ranting about something else that I have no clue of.
In any case, it certainly seems to trigger you and I've no interest in something so frenzied, so well, have fun raging by yourself.

 

[Syno]

When in doubt, say the other person is triggered so you can feel emotionally superior at all times.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

When in doubt, say the other person is triggered so you can feel emotionally superior at all times.

To be fair it can be pretty annoying to have posts quoted and responses that don't address what was quoted and/or misrepresent them. Common practice here and elsewhere, too. Saying a non-response is "triggered" isn't the worst language I've seen in response to such conduct.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Don't know who you're answering because it's a lot of gibberish without any link to what I said. Feels like you're just ranting about something else that I have no clue of.
In any case, it certainly seems to trigger you and I've no interest in something so frenzied, so well, have fun raging by yourself.

I directly responded to every point in your post, was a precise and short as can be, I even went as far to directly quote you, so if anything this is just denial on your part. feel free to feel superior anyway I didn't know it was 2012, I don't even remember the last time I saw someone reply with "u mad lol"

 

[Akka]

I directly responded to every point in your post, was a precise and short as can be, I even went as far to directly quote you, so if anything this is just denial on your part. feel free to feel superior anyway I didn't know it was 2012, I don't even remember the last time I saw someone reply with "u mad lol"

See what said @TheMeInTeam
Also, I don't answer "u mad lol" to feel superior or whatever, just that I'm not in the mood and have no interest to put effort in a discussion when there is so much perceived agressivity. Interpert that as you will, I'm done.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

yeah, understood, but why say it with such indignation, like it's something you're incredibly proud of?

You're mistaking my tone. I'm not proud of it. It's a character flaw for God's sake.