|
A friend of my wife's is going through relationships and she keeps bringing up that every guy she's meeting these days is claiming to be polyamorous. She wants an exclusive relationship so it's been bothersome to her that so many of these dudes are running amok.
I did a little surfing on the internet and found this, indeed, is a trend these days.
Here are my initial thoughts to people that are claiming to be polyamorous.
Disclaimer: This is going to come off as super judgmental and critical. But these are just my unfiltered thoughts and reflections. Feel free to stab back at me in the comments below.
1. You're a sexual shit head with a great excuse now for your noncommittal ways
2. You're afraid of commitment, that's all. You're probably not polyamorous
3. It'll be awesome when your heart is broken again by a woman/man also in many relationships; and that's when you'll learn you're not actually polyamorous. This will be awesome because the pain should kickstart your emotions to consider other options, and show you the value of commitment and 1-1 relationships
4. You probably don't want kids. And you probably don't want marriage. So if that's the case, I guess your relational state will work for you if you find like-minded people
5. You should never have kids because children greatly benefit from dedicated parents to raise them
6. If you were raised by individuals preferring exclusive relationships, you will undoubtedly be in much turmoil as your current behaviors contradict the way you were raised, thus increasing the chances for volatility in your own relationships, thus perpetuating a fucked up relational track record, thus you need many partners to sustain any type of connection with the people around you as all of your relationships are shit/shallow
7. You probably come from a broken family and have some relationship trauma in your life
8. You're probably not ugly, so you can actually attract many partners. But you're relying on your attractiveness as your social currency and not learning how to dive deep with your emotions and character as your social currency
9. Deep, committed relationships are a key part of our maturity/transformation. Our committed partners are a mirror reflecting back to us our character. Yes, we can find these things in our friends and family too but so much of our efforts will go into our lovers and by not achieving deep connection it's a missed opportunity to change for the better
Edit: removed 1 thought/reflection as the judgement made was too harsh. added a disclaimer.
 
|
Yikes not kidding about the judgmental and critical part... I know I couldn't do polyamory personally but people are wired different ways. Given the rampancy of cheating, I guess one good side of declaring to be polyamorous is that they are honest up front rather than crushing someone who was invested in their constancy.
Also I question if monogamy is truly such a bedrock of character. Across the huge diversity of cultures that have existed, it seems like many if not most allowed for or at least forgave polyamory. I don't know, maybe I'm just disillusioned from seeing so much divorce and couples in deeply unhappy relationships.
|
On May 30 2019 03:51 Starlightsun wrote:
Yikes not kidding about the judgmental and critical part... I know I couldn't do polyamory personally but people are wired different ways. Given the rampancy of cheating, I guess one good side of declaring to be polyamorous is that they are honest up front rather than crushing someone who was invested in their constancy.
Also I question if monogamy is truly such a bedrock of character. Across the huge diversity of cultures that have existed, it seems like many if not most allowed for or at least forgave polyamory. I don't know, maybe I'm just disillusioned from seeing so much divorce and couples in deeply unhappy relationships.
Hey Starlightsun, yah I come off like a super asshole in this post. It's almost more of a rant than a reflection... I try not to be like that in my personal relationships...
Studies show (in many cultures) that men have always been more prone to less monogamous relationships due to the fact that we are not rearing children and we can bounce from a relationship with less strings attached. Women that have kids also change more drastically than men do emotionally, as their negative emotions heighten, which helps in raising children.
Yah know if humans were like deer where when we are born we could right away run, eat, shit and do all the basic necessities of life - right out of the womb - I believe we would be a fully polygamous species. But due to the fact that our children benefit so much from dedicated parents; a monogamous culture will always be perpetuated within our societies/species.
Studies also show that men in polygamous cultures can become quite violent because women are only drawn to the most suitable mate. And therefore most women are drawn to only a few men. And the men that can't find a mate become violent. Think of bulls fighting to be the top of a herd of cows. But if the losing bull had a gun, he'd probably just kill that motherfucker and bang all the cows anyways.
|
On May 30 2019 02:31 mewithoutDrew wrote:
1. You're a sexual shit head with a great excuse now for your noncommittal ways
2. You're afraid of commitment, that's all. You're probably not polyamorous
Open dating does not involve lack of commitment. Open marriages and deep pair bonded relationships exist just fine in this framework.
On May 30 2019 02:31 mewithoutDrew wrote:
3. It'll be awesome when your heart is broken again by a woman/man also in many relationships; and that's when you'll learn you're not actually polyamorous. This will be awesome because the pain should kickstart your emotions to consider other options, and show you the value of commitment and 1-1 relationships
How, exactly, is your heart going to get broken? This needs elaboration. Additionally, hearts are broken consistently and regularly doing traditional dating. Most relationships end, and many, perhaps more than half, of even marriages do.
But most importantly, why is there an assumption or idea here that your heart will be broken BECAUSE of open dating?
On May 30 2019 02:31 mewithoutDrew wrote:
4. You probably don't want kids. And you probably don't want marriage. So if that's the case, I guess your relational state will work for you if you find like-minded people
False and false. The two are perfectly compatible.
On May 30 2019 02:31 mewithoutDrew wrote:
5. You should never have kids because children greatly benefit from dedicated parents to raise them
Agree first part about dedicated parents. You're acting for some reason like dating open precludes having dedicated parents. Odd.
On May 30 2019 02:31 mewithoutDrew wrote:
6. If you were raised by individuals preferring exclusive relationships, you will undoubtedly be in much turmoil as your current behaviors contradict the way you were raised, thus increasing the chances for volatility in your own relationships, thus perpetuating a fucked up relational track record, thus you need many partners to sustain any type of connection with the people around you as all of your relationships are shit/shallow
Have not had this problem, despite coming from a very traditional family. My relationships have been anything but volatile. I don't need many partners, and almost none of my relationships are shallow, outside of some purely sexual ones.
On May 30 2019 02:31 mewithoutDrew wrote:
7. You probably come from a broken family and have some relationship trauma in your life
Baseless assumption. Literally nothing backing it. I know lots of people in open relationships, and they run the gamut. Many come from good families and backgrounds. I had stellar parents and a good childhood and have dated open before highly successfully.
On May 30 2019 02:31 mewithoutDrew wrote:
8. You're probably not ugly, so you can actually attract many partners. But you're relying on your attractiveness as your social currency and not learning how to dive deep with your emotions and character as your social currency
False. Both then and now, after a year or two college phase of being a little obsessed with "sowing the royal oats" I have always focused and been primarily interested in deep relationships. The same is true in my friendships with guys. I don't have tons of acquaintances, I have a handful of very close, very deep long lasting friendships.
On May 30 2019 02:31 mewithoutDrew wrote:
9. Deep, committed relationships are a key part of our maturity/transformation. Our committed partners are a mirror reflecting back to us our character. Yes, we can find these things in our friends and family too but so much of our efforts will go into our lovers and by not achieving deep connection it's a missed opportunity to change for the better
I am inclined to agree. This, however, has nothing to be do with open relationships.
|
Now, let's talk about monogamy's track record. It's....shaky.
The majority of relationships end, in other words, they fail. Usually someone is hurt. 85% of the time this is initiated by the woman. Women generally choose when a relationship ends, for better or worse.
About 2/3 of urban marriages fail. The most optimistic statistics from the best age groups and demographics have marriages ending between 25% and 35% of the time. In other words, from older, educated, stable groups the best you can hope for is a 65%-75% success rate. From the general population, you have around a 50% chance of making it to the 25 year mark in a marriage.
Any way you cut it, these are dismal numbers. To say that monogamy, or at least or current version of it, is a "good system" is not born out in data. From there, we can move on to cheating:
20%-25% outright admit to cheating when surveyed. Fucking 80% say they would cheat if they knew they wouldn't get caught. These numbers almost certainly skew low, as they are negative things to admit, and it's a known psychological trend for people to report themselves more virtuous than they are, but even at face value, that's pretty horrible. Overwhelmingly majority want to cheat, At least 1 in 5 to 1 in 4 HAVE cheat. Attempts at good estimates of actual cheating rates usually run between 40% and 70%.
Take this stat with the marriage stat. You just cannot, cannot possible look at these numbers and say that monogamy is a good, successful way of dating for people. Maybe you can say it's the best we've got. But it's not working well. Going beyond that, think of all the marriages you know or have seen. How many of those were genuinely happy, low in drama, and just consisted of two people that were obviously and clearly thriving and made better by each other. I can't think of many. Sure, if you ask them they will say it's worth it or was worth it...but if you look at how happy they are, it's not pretty. Most people in marriages are not particularly happy and have regular drama and tension and fighting.
There is also, generally speaking, a major sex issue in relationships. Women are biologically hard wired, at least that's what current evidence is suggesting, to lose interest in their men over time. "Post nuptial shutoff" is, on several forums I visit, the single largest thread on these forums. They are of varied topics, from running to news to golf to business. This isn't a coincidence. Women, after about 2-7 years, usually around 3, typically experience a dramatic decrease in their desire to have sex with their long term partner. This doesn't happen in every relationship, but it happens in many. Ask your married friends about this and see where their sex is at, and how often their wife genuinely seems to want it, versus them having to basically beg for it.
Anyway, this just scratches the surface. It's not really a post to say monogamy or traditional dating is bad. It IS a post to make it clear that traditional dating is not working very well either, and to help you understand why there has been this rise in other dating styles...and it's primarily because people are looking around, seeing that monogamy isn't working that well and not making lots of people happy, and saying "hey, this isn't working. Let's try something else".
|
On May 30 2019 05:02 mewithoutDrew wrote:
Studies also show that men in polygamous cultures can become quite violent because women are only drawn to the most suitable mate. And therefore most women are drawn to only a few men. And the men that can't find a mate become violent. Think of bulls fighting to be the top of a herd of cows. But if the losing bull had a gun, he'd probably just kill that motherfucker and bang all the cows anyways.
I have read this. This is possibly one of the better arguments for monogamy, but it still isn't really in conflict with an open system. The concern here is less desirable males. They only have access to less desirable females. I think, perhaps naturally, perhaps culturally, most people still desire pair bonded relationships. Dating open, the less desirable females might indeed be able to sleep with average or above average males...however, these males would be unlikely to date them, having better options themselves. So....they might get laid, but they wouldn't get that pair bonded relationship they desire, still leaving opportunity for the less desirable males.
I guess the biggest problem I'm having is that all your arguments are acting like open relationships are in some fashion incompatible with commitment and pair bonding.
|
The biggest hurdle for many people seems to be accepting that commitment =/= sexual exclusivity. Given the cultural heritage of western civilization, with its traditions and norms, serial monogamy is probably the most stable system?? Gives leeway to have sex with a wide variety of different partners throughout your life without breaking the illusion that commitment and sexual exclusivity goes hand in hand(and thus causing lots of confusion for many), but still accepting that pair bonding is easiest in an environment where sexual exclusivity is expected in a relationship.
|
On May 30 2019 09:21 Aocowns wrote:
The biggest hurdle for many people seems to be accepting that commitment =/= sexual exclusivity. Given the cultural heritage of western civilization, with its traditions and norms, serial monogamy is probably the most stable system?? Gives leeway to have sex with a wide variety of different partners throughout your life without breaking the illusion that commitment and sexual exclusivity goes hand in hand(and thus causing lots of confusion for many), but still accepting that pair bonding is easiest in an environment where sexual exclusivity is expected in a relationship.
Serial monogamy does not go well with having a family though. Family units, from everything I have read, have better outcomes for goods than other methods. Now, this might relate to how culture views non traditional arrangements and many other factors, but currently a family unit appears to be best for raising children.
|
On May 30 2019 09:24 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 09:21 Aocowns wrote:
The biggest hurdle for many people seems to be accepting that commitment =/= sexual exclusivity. Given the cultural heritage of western civilization, with its traditions and norms, serial monogamy is probably the most stable system?? Gives leeway to have sex with a wide variety of different partners throughout your life without breaking the illusion that commitment and sexual exclusivity goes hand in hand(and thus causing lots of confusion for many), but still accepting that pair bonding is easiest in an environment where sexual exclusivity is expected in a relationship. Serial monogamy does not go well with having a family though. Family units, from everything I have read, have better outcomes for goods than other methods. Now, this might relate to how culture views non traditional arrangements and many other factors, but currently a family unit appears to be best for raising children.
When I say serial monogamy that's with the expectation of the relationship lasting significantly longer once a family unit has been established, I suppose that should've been added. Serial monogamy until that "itch" and curiosity that many feel is outweighed by their desire for family and belief that their current partner is the best provider of long term happiness and stability.
Which I suppose is the system that young 20s right now would find themselves in if it wasnt for the fact that so many people can't decide whether they want sexual exclusivity or lots of sex with lots of people? I swear my age bracket(young 20s oslo) has so many people that at least want to seem like they're fucking around a lot, so they're causing confusion and sending mixed signals and making people insecure in their relationships, and no one's calling any bluffs or going all in cus its still not clear which side the coin will land
EDIT: As for the kinda red pill interpretation that a culturally accepted system of open relationships leads to the majority of women centering around high value men, then eventually settling for lower value men when their own value goes down - I suppose that's a pretty real concern? I haven't done any reading on that so for me its just a thought experiment that I would guess pans out that way.
Honestly dude just let darwin sort it out and legalize and normalize prostitution so the "lower value" population can get off too
|
On May 30 2019 09:40 Aocowns wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 09:24 L_Master wrote:On May 30 2019 09:21 Aocowns wrote:
The biggest hurdle for many people seems to be accepting that commitment =/= sexual exclusivity. Given the cultural heritage of western civilization, with its traditions and norms, serial monogamy is probably the most stable system?? Gives leeway to have sex with a wide variety of different partners throughout your life without breaking the illusion that commitment and sexual exclusivity goes hand in hand(and thus causing lots of confusion for many), but still accepting that pair bonding is easiest in an environment where sexual exclusivity is expected in a relationship. Serial monogamy does not go well with having a family though. Family units, from everything I have read, have better outcomes for goods than other methods. Now, this might relate to how culture views non traditional arrangements and many other factors, but currently a family unit appears to be best for raising children. When I say serial monogamy that's with the expectation of the relationship lasting significantly longer once a family unit has been established, I suppose that should've been added. Serial monogamy until that "itch" and curiosity that many feel is outweighed by their desire for family and belief that their current partner is the best provider of long term happiness and stability. Which I suppose is the system that young 20s right now would find themselves in if it wasnt for the fact that so many people can't decide whether they want sexual exclusivity or lots of sex with lots of people? I swear my age bracket(young 20s oslo) has so many people that at least want to seem like they're fucking around a lot, so they're causing confusion and sending mixed signals and making people insecure in their relationships, and no one's calling any bluffs or going all in cus its still not clear which side the coin will land
So to raise a child to decent age takes at least 15 years of actual parenting. Plus usually 1-5 years of dating beforehand. That's a 15-20 year relationship. At best, half make it to 25 years. So at 15 or 20 years maybe 2/3 might make it. Still terrible odds.
Serial monogamy also won't satisfy the itch or curiosity. Ever. It doesn't go away, as evidence by 80%+ saying they would cheat if they knew they would not get caught. Humans just aren't naturally built for monogamy. Some of us do better than others at forcing the square peg into the round hole, but in general it's not a system that works well for humans.
Monogamy works for certain groups of people, and I think the genuine best option depends on who you are:
Low sex drive/limited opportunities/Extremely career focused or goal focused: Monogamy
Typical Person: Open Relationship*
Super high sex drive/not interested in pair bonding: Spin plates, e.g. mass FBs
*I really believe you kill a huge part of the actual monogamy problems if you do a proper open relationship. When I say "proper" I mean that you have ONE pair bonded emotional relationship. Then maybe you have an occassional FB on the side that is truly just a FB. You don't date this person(s). You don't really spend time with them. It's a purely sexual relationship.
Dating multiple people, from what I have seen, is always messy. I have never, ever seen that be not drama packed and end nuclear. I've seen lots of successful open relationships done what I dubbed the "proper" way.
|
On May 30 2019 09:51 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 09:40 Aocowns wrote:On May 30 2019 09:24 L_Master wrote:On May 30 2019 09:21 Aocowns wrote:
The biggest hurdle for many people seems to be accepting that commitment =/= sexual exclusivity. Given the cultural heritage of western civilization, with its traditions and norms, serial monogamy is probably the most stable system?? Gives leeway to have sex with a wide variety of different partners throughout your life without breaking the illusion that commitment and sexual exclusivity goes hand in hand(and thus causing lots of confusion for many), but still accepting that pair bonding is easiest in an environment where sexual exclusivity is expected in a relationship. Serial monogamy does not go well with having a family though. Family units, from everything I have read, have better outcomes for goods than other methods. Now, this might relate to how culture views non traditional arrangements and many other factors, but currently a family unit appears to be best for raising children. When I say serial monogamy that's with the expectation of the relationship lasting significantly longer once a family unit has been established, I suppose that should've been added. Serial monogamy until that "itch" and curiosity that many feel is outweighed by their desire for family and belief that their current partner is the best provider of long term happiness and stability. Which I suppose is the system that young 20s right now would find themselves in if it wasnt for the fact that so many people can't decide whether they want sexual exclusivity or lots of sex with lots of people? I swear my age bracket(young 20s oslo) has so many people that at least want to seem like they're fucking around a lot, so they're causing confusion and sending mixed signals and making people insecure in their relationships, and no one's calling any bluffs or going all in cus its still not clear which side the coin will land So to raise a child to decent age takes at least 15 years of actual parenting. Plus usually 1-5 years of dating beforehand. That's a 15-20 year relationship. At best, half make it to 25 years. So at 15 or 20 years maybe 2/3 might make it. Still terrible odds. Serial monogamy also won't satisfy the itch or curiosity. Ever. It doesn't go away, as evidence by 80%+ saying they would cheat if they knew they would not get caught. Humans just aren't naturally built for monogamy. Some of us do better than others at forcing the square peg into the round hole, but in general it's not a system that works well for humans. Monogamy works for certain groups of people, and I think the genuine best option depends on who you are: Low sex drive/limited opportunities/Extremely career focused or goal focused: MonogamyTypical Person: Open Relationship*Super high sex drive/not interested in pair bonding: Spin plates, e.g. mass FBs*I really believe you kill a huge part of the actual monogamy problems if you do a proper open relationship. When I say "proper" I mean that you have ONE pair bonded emotional relationship. Then maybe you have an occassional FB on the side that is truly just a FB. You don't date this person(s). You don't really spend time with them. It's a purely sexual relationship. Dating multiple people, from what I have seen, is always messy. I have never, ever seen that be not drama packed and end nuclear. I've seen lots of successful open relationships done what I dubbed the "proper" way.
Yeah I suppose the more we talk I'm just gonna align more and more with you. But I'm not sure where you land on this in reality vs in theory? Cus the reality as i see it is that the culture we've been handed down does not do well with a system of open relationships, and there's gonna be a looong terrible period of confusion and mismatched expectations vs desires, and as it is many just aren't emotionally and mentally equipped to handle that transition smoothly. It requires a LOT of honesty, both in being honest with yourself not to mention your partner(s). Not seeing this honesty come naturally to people, and there's still a very clear preference(or at least expectation) for sexual exclusivity as far as I can tell.
And then that desire for sexual exclusivity tends to spike super hard once you find a person that you pair bond sufficiently with, at least it does for me. I don't know if that's just a common immature psychosexual quirk of humans or based in biology though
|
Yeah, uh, I don't know if people are automatically "shitheads" or "from a broken home" because they do something you don't like. I think that attitude is more indicative of being a shithead than claiming to be polyamorous.
Your wife's friend doesn't have to date polyamorous dudes, and they don't have to change themselves up to suit her preferences either. It's probably really good that they don't. I don't know, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me.
I can imagine that a polyamorous relationship ends up skewed heavily in favor of one partner or another, so it's not something I would ever participate in myself. My best friend told me about his girlfriend's best friend being into a dude who was in a polyamorous relationship, and I guess the way it works is that she had to hang out with the dude's girlfriend a few times and basically do like a series of job interviews to see if she was allowed to bang this dude. She got turned down, and supposedly this polyamorous girl never approves anyone for her boyfriend even though he was letting her bang like 3 or 4 other dudes at the time. I told my buddy that the girlfriend was definitely a bitch in that scenario, and I kinda felt bad for the dude, but I was also a little angry at him for letting himself get walked on like that, and my buddy said he felt the same way about it.
Anyway, I wouldn't be so angry about this being a thing. I'm never gonna do it, you're never gonna do it, nobody has to do it if they don't want to, and if they do, it's not really your problem.
|
On May 30 2019 09:59 Aocowns wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 09:51 L_Master wrote:On May 30 2019 09:40 Aocowns wrote:On May 30 2019 09:24 L_Master wrote:On May 30 2019 09:21 Aocowns wrote:
The biggest hurdle for many people seems to be accepting that commitment =/= sexual exclusivity. Given the cultural heritage of western civilization, with its traditions and norms, serial monogamy is probably the most stable system?? Gives leeway to have sex with a wide variety of different partners throughout your life without breaking the illusion that commitment and sexual exclusivity goes hand in hand(and thus causing lots of confusion for many), but still accepting that pair bonding is easiest in an environment where sexual exclusivity is expected in a relationship. Serial monogamy does not go well with having a family though. Family units, from everything I have read, have better outcomes for goods than other methods. Now, this might relate to how culture views non traditional arrangements and many other factors, but currently a family unit appears to be best for raising children. When I say serial monogamy that's with the expectation of the relationship lasting significantly longer once a family unit has been established, I suppose that should've been added. Serial monogamy until that "itch" and curiosity that many feel is outweighed by their desire for family and belief that their current partner is the best provider of long term happiness and stability. Which I suppose is the system that young 20s right now would find themselves in if it wasnt for the fact that so many people can't decide whether they want sexual exclusivity or lots of sex with lots of people? I swear my age bracket(young 20s oslo) has so many people that at least want to seem like they're fucking around a lot, so they're causing confusion and sending mixed signals and making people insecure in their relationships, and no one's calling any bluffs or going all in cus its still not clear which side the coin will land So to raise a child to decent age takes at least 15 years of actual parenting. Plus usually 1-5 years of dating beforehand. That's a 15-20 year relationship. At best, half make it to 25 years. So at 15 or 20 years maybe 2/3 might make it. Still terrible odds. Serial monogamy also won't satisfy the itch or curiosity. Ever. It doesn't go away, as evidence by 80%+ saying they would cheat if they knew they would not get caught. Humans just aren't naturally built for monogamy. Some of us do better than others at forcing the square peg into the round hole, but in general it's not a system that works well for humans. Monogamy works for certain groups of people, and I think the genuine best option depends on who you are: Low sex drive/limited opportunities/Extremely career focused or goal focused: MonogamyTypical Person: Open Relationship*Super high sex drive/not interested in pair bonding: Spin plates, e.g. mass FBs*I really believe you kill a huge part of the actual monogamy problems if you do a proper open relationship. When I say "proper" I mean that you have ONE pair bonded emotional relationship. Then maybe you have an occassional FB on the side that is truly just a FB. You don't date this person(s). You don't really spend time with them. It's a purely sexual relationship. Dating multiple people, from what I have seen, is always messy. I have never, ever seen that be not drama packed and end nuclear. I've seen lots of successful open relationships done what I dubbed the "proper" way. Yeah I suppose the more we talk I'm just gonna align more and more with you. But I'm not sure where you land on this in reality vs in theory? Cus the reality as i see it is that the culture we've been handed down does not do well with a system of open relationships, and there's gonna be a looong terrible period of confusion and mismatched expectations vs desires, and as it is many just aren't emotionally and mentally equipped to handle that transition smoothly. It requires a LOT of honesty, both in being honest with yourself not to mention your partner(s). Not seeing this honesty come naturally to people, and there's still a very clear preference(or at least expectation) for sexual exclusivity as far as I can tell. And then that desire for sexual exclusivity tends to spike super hard once you find a person that you pair bond sufficiently with, at least it does for me. I don't know if that's just a common immature psychosexual quirk of humans or based in biology though
Bolded I think is culture. There have been many different systems in different cultures aside from monogamy that have worked for other societies. I think we just get taught this narrative of "you need to find 'the One' and that person is 'yours'". If you have that mindset and can't kill it, you can't do open relationships of any kind. There will be jealousy, and that will destroy the relationship.
I was raised that way, but quickly came to the realization that such a way of thinking was logically ridiculous, and was able to eliminate that from myself. That's the sticking point for almost all guys when it comes to open. They just can't get over the idea of another dude having sex with "their" girl. Keyword: "their". Other cultures don't have this problem, just western ones with the monogamy narrative.
As for the rest, their probably will be confusion and a rough period. Let those that want to date open, date open. I, right now, believe logically it's a better system for most people, as I laid out above. If I am right about that, people will adopt it, and there will be more examples of it working, and working well. People will see this, see how poorly many monogamous relationships go and start considering it and slowly the mindset will shift.
Sure, there will be lots of shitty open relationships full of drama and jealousy at first because people will be doing them wrong, or not doing a good job of having the correct mindset for such relationships...but it's not like the monogamous track record on jealousy, drama, bitterness, or breakup rates is rosy. I honestly don't see it being dramatically worse, especially since it will be all out in the open as it happens....rather than "aww we had this great relationship until MY FUCKING HUSBAND SLEPT WITH 10 GIRLS BEHIND MY BACK".
|
On May 30 2019 11:24 UsedEgg3 wrote:
preferences either. It's probably really good that they don't. I don't know, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me.
I can imagine that a polyamorous relationship ends up skewed heavily in favor of one partner or another, so it's not something I would ever participate in myself. My best friend told me about his girlfriend's best friend being into a dude who was in a polyamorous relationship, and I guess the way it works is that she had to hang out with the dude's girlfriend a few times and basically do like a series of job interviews to see if she was allowed to bang this dude. She got turned down, and supposedly this polyamorous girl never approves anyone for her boyfriend even though he was letting her bang like 3 or 4 other dudes at the time. I told my buddy that the girlfriend was definitely a bitch in that scenario, and I kinda felt bad for the dude, but I was also a little angry at him for letting himself get walked on like that, and my buddy said he felt the same way about it.
The biggest problem I see with the open relationship conversation is that nobody has a clear idea of what an open relationship is. There are tons of versions I here, and when I hear them from most people they are all TERRIBLE dating ideas. I think this is at least 80%, perhaps even 99% of why many people think open relationships are a joke.
So, to my mind, what you're describing is another ridiculous train wreck of an open relationship. The relationship doesn't "skew one way". Both people are free to see whoever they want, as it aligns with their needs. If one party has 6 other people on regular rotation and the other sees one person once a month....that's not skewed. They both have the right amount for their needs.
Done correctly, the pair bonded partner comes first. You don't see FBs if your pair-bonded partner wants your company or needs you. But let's face it, everyone has lots of free time. More than enough time to have a 45' shag with a FB a few times a week without ever taking time away from your pair bonded partner. If you never have 30' or an hour of free time to yourself on a regular basis you are either WAYYY to into your partner or your partner just totally controls your life.
So that eliminates the issue of "skewed".
Then, in the situation described above there is this just asinine idea of the guys pair-bonded partner screening the other half of the pair bond's partners before he has sex with them, which is just ridiculous. If this is what was happening, and the girl was banging other dudes and the guy was just saying yes, then yea like many guys he was being controlled by his girlfriend, which isn't healthy.
|
On May 30 2019 05:02 mewithoutDrew wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 03:51 Starlightsun wrote:
Yikes not kidding about the judgmental and critical part... I know I couldn't do polyamory personally but people are wired different ways. Given the rampancy of cheating, I guess one good side of declaring to be polyamorous is that they are honest up front rather than crushing someone who was invested in their constancy.
Also I question if monogamy is truly such a bedrock of character. Across the huge diversity of cultures that have existed, it seems like many if not most allowed for or at least forgave polyamory. I don't know, maybe I'm just disillusioned from seeing so much divorce and couples in deeply unhappy relationships. Hey Starlightsun, yah I come off like a super asshole in this post. It's almost more of a rant than a reflection... I try not to be like that in my personal relationships... Studies show (in many cultures) that men have always been more prone to less monogamous relationships due to the fact that we are not rearing children and we can bounce from a relationship with less strings attached. Women that have kids also change more drastically than men do emotionally, as their negative emotions heighten, which helps in raising children. Yah know if humans were like deer where when we are born we could right away run, eat, shit and do all the basic necessities of life - right out of the womb - I believe we would be a fully polygamous species. But due to the fact that our children benefit so much from dedicated parents; a monogamous culture will always be perpetuated within our societies/species. Studies also show that men in polygamous cultures can become quite violent because women are only drawn to the most suitable mate. And therefore most women are drawn to only a few men. And the men that can't find a mate become violent. Think of bulls fighting to be the top of a herd of cows. But if the losing bull had a gun, he'd probably just kill that motherfucker and bang all the cows anyways.
Oh well a blog is a good place to be an asshole and have strong opinions. Better than venting it on people in real life. That's interesting that those studies exist. I'd ask for them but to be honest I'm too lazy to slog through that much reading (and probably wouldn't understand anyway), so I'll take your word for it. The arguments make sense though and it's stuff I've never really thought about before so thanks for that.
|
On May 30 2019 11:56 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 09:59 Aocowns wrote:On May 30 2019 09:51 L_Master wrote:On May 30 2019 09:40 Aocowns wrote:On May 30 2019 09:24 L_Master wrote:On May 30 2019 09:21 Aocowns wrote:
The biggest hurdle for many people seems to be accepting that commitment =/= sexual exclusivity. Given the cultural heritage of western civilization, with its traditions and norms, serial monogamy is probably the most stable system?? Gives leeway to have sex with a wide variety of different partners throughout your life without breaking the illusion that commitment and sexual exclusivity goes hand in hand(and thus causing lots of confusion for many), but still accepting that pair bonding is easiest in an environment where sexual exclusivity is expected in a relationship. Serial monogamy does not go well with having a family though. Family units, from everything I have read, have better outcomes for goods than other methods. Now, this might relate to how culture views non traditional arrangements and many other factors, but currently a family unit appears to be best for raising children. When I say serial monogamy that's with the expectation of the relationship lasting significantly longer once a family unit has been established, I suppose that should've been added. Serial monogamy until that "itch" and curiosity that many feel is outweighed by their desire for family and belief that their current partner is the best provider of long term happiness and stability. Which I suppose is the system that young 20s right now would find themselves in if it wasnt for the fact that so many people can't decide whether they want sexual exclusivity or lots of sex with lots of people? I swear my age bracket(young 20s oslo) has so many people that at least want to seem like they're fucking around a lot, so they're causing confusion and sending mixed signals and making people insecure in their relationships, and no one's calling any bluffs or going all in cus its still not clear which side the coin will land So to raise a child to decent age takes at least 15 years of actual parenting. Plus usually 1-5 years of dating beforehand. That's a 15-20 year relationship. At best, half make it to 25 years. So at 15 or 20 years maybe 2/3 might make it. Still terrible odds. Serial monogamy also won't satisfy the itch or curiosity. Ever. It doesn't go away, as evidence by 80%+ saying they would cheat if they knew they would not get caught. Humans just aren't naturally built for monogamy. Some of us do better than others at forcing the square peg into the round hole, but in general it's not a system that works well for humans. Monogamy works for certain groups of people, and I think the genuine best option depends on who you are: Low sex drive/limited opportunities/Extremely career focused or goal focused: MonogamyTypical Person: Open Relationship*Super high sex drive/not interested in pair bonding: Spin plates, e.g. mass FBs*I really believe you kill a huge part of the actual monogamy problems if you do a proper open relationship. When I say "proper" I mean that you have ONE pair bonded emotional relationship. Then maybe you have an occassional FB on the side that is truly just a FB. You don't date this person(s). You don't really spend time with them. It's a purely sexual relationship. Dating multiple people, from what I have seen, is always messy. I have never, ever seen that be not drama packed and end nuclear. I've seen lots of successful open relationships done what I dubbed the "proper" way. Yeah I suppose the more we talk I'm just gonna align more and more with you. But I'm not sure where you land on this in reality vs in theory? Cus the reality as i see it is that the culture we've been handed down does not do well with a system of open relationships, and there's gonna be a looong terrible period of confusion and mismatched expectations vs desires, and as it is many just aren't emotionally and mentally equipped to handle that transition smoothly. It requires a LOT of honesty, both in being honest with yourself not to mention your partner(s). Not seeing this honesty come naturally to people, and there's still a very clear preference(or at least expectation) for sexual exclusivity as far as I can tell. And then that desire for sexual exclusivity tends to spike super hard once you find a person that you pair bond sufficiently with, at least it does for me. I don't know if that's just a common immature psychosexual quirk of humans or based in biology though Bolded I think is culture. There have been many different systems in different cultures aside from monogamy that have worked for other societies. I think we just get taught this narrative of "you need to find 'the One' and that person is 'yours'". If you have that mindset and can't kill it, you can't do open relationships of any kind. There will be jealousy, and that will destroy the relationship. I was raised that way, but quickly came to the realization that such a way of thinking was logically ridiculous, and was able to eliminate that from myself. That's the sticking point for almost all guys when it comes to open. They just can't get over the idea of another dude having sex with "their" girl. Keyword: "their". Other cultures don't have this problem, just western ones with the monogamy narrative. As for the rest, their probably will be confusion and a rough period. Let those that want to date open, date open. I, right now, believe logically it's a better system for most people, as I laid out above. If I am right about that, people will adopt it, and there will be more examples of it working, and working well. People will see this, see how poorly many monogamous relationships go and start considering it and slowly the mindset will shift. Sure, there will be lots of shitty open relationships full of drama and jealousy at first because people will be doing them wrong, or not doing a good job of having the correct mindset for such relationships...but it's not like the monogamous track record on jealousy, drama, bitterness, or breakup rates is rosy. I honestly don't see it being dramatically worse, especially since it will be all out in the open as it happens....rather than "aww we had this great relationship until MY FUCKING HUSBAND SLEPT WITH 10 GIRLS BEHIND MY BACK".
I'd like to point out that there are several cultures that ended up at the same point as monogamy with different systems in regards to "owning" another person's sexuality. Many cultures in which the male is dominant, ie a patriarchal culture,turned out this way to some extent. India is the first one that comes to mind. It'd be funny to see if the same was true if the genders' power position was reversed throughout history in different cultures.
|
On May 30 2019 14:12 Aocowns wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 11:56 L_Master wrote:On May 30 2019 09:59 Aocowns wrote:On May 30 2019 09:51 L_Master wrote:On May 30 2019 09:40 Aocowns wrote:On May 30 2019 09:24 L_Master wrote:On May 30 2019 09:21 Aocowns wrote:
The biggest hurdle for many people seems to be accepting that commitment =/= sexual exclusivity. Given the cultural heritage of western civilization, with its traditions and norms, serial monogamy is probably the most stable system?? Gives leeway to have sex with a wide variety of different partners throughout your life without breaking the illusion that commitment and sexual exclusivity goes hand in hand(and thus causing lots of confusion for many), but still accepting that pair bonding is easiest in an environment where sexual exclusivity is expected in a relationship. Serial monogamy does not go well with having a family though. Family units, from everything I have read, have better outcomes for goods than other methods. Now, this might relate to how culture views non traditional arrangements and many other factors, but currently a family unit appears to be best for raising children. When I say serial monogamy that's with the expectation of the relationship lasting significantly longer once a family unit has been established, I suppose that should've been added. Serial monogamy until that "itch" and curiosity that many feel is outweighed by their desire for family and belief that their current partner is the best provider of long term happiness and stability. Which I suppose is the system that young 20s right now would find themselves in if it wasnt for the fact that so many people can't decide whether they want sexual exclusivity or lots of sex with lots of people? I swear my age bracket(young 20s oslo) has so many people that at least want to seem like they're fucking around a lot, so they're causing confusion and sending mixed signals and making people insecure in their relationships, and no one's calling any bluffs or going all in cus its still not clear which side the coin will land So to raise a child to decent age takes at least 15 years of actual parenting. Plus usually 1-5 years of dating beforehand. That's a 15-20 year relationship. At best, half make it to 25 years. So at 15 or 20 years maybe 2/3 might make it. Still terrible odds. Serial monogamy also won't satisfy the itch or curiosity. Ever. It doesn't go away, as evidence by 80%+ saying they would cheat if they knew they would not get caught. Humans just aren't naturally built for monogamy. Some of us do better than others at forcing the square peg into the round hole, but in general it's not a system that works well for humans. Monogamy works for certain groups of people, and I think the genuine best option depends on who you are: Low sex drive/limited opportunities/Extremely career focused or goal focused: MonogamyTypical Person: Open Relationship*Super high sex drive/not interested in pair bonding: Spin plates, e.g. mass FBs*I really believe you kill a huge part of the actual monogamy problems if you do a proper open relationship. When I say "proper" I mean that you have ONE pair bonded emotional relationship. Then maybe you have an occassional FB on the side that is truly just a FB. You don't date this person(s). You don't really spend time with them. It's a purely sexual relationship. Dating multiple people, from what I have seen, is always messy. I have never, ever seen that be not drama packed and end nuclear. I've seen lots of successful open relationships done what I dubbed the "proper" way. Yeah I suppose the more we talk I'm just gonna align more and more with you. But I'm not sure where you land on this in reality vs in theory? Cus the reality as i see it is that the culture we've been handed down does not do well with a system of open relationships, and there's gonna be a looong terrible period of confusion and mismatched expectations vs desires, and as it is many just aren't emotionally and mentally equipped to handle that transition smoothly. It requires a LOT of honesty, both in being honest with yourself not to mention your partner(s). Not seeing this honesty come naturally to people, and there's still a very clear preference(or at least expectation) for sexual exclusivity as far as I can tell. And then that desire for sexual exclusivity tends to spike super hard once you find a person that you pair bond sufficiently with, at least it does for me. I don't know if that's just a common immature psychosexual quirk of humans or based in biology though Bolded I think is culture. There have been many different systems in different cultures aside from monogamy that have worked for other societies. I think we just get taught this narrative of "you need to find 'the One' and that person is 'yours'". If you have that mindset and can't kill it, you can't do open relationships of any kind. There will be jealousy, and that will destroy the relationship. I was raised that way, but quickly came to the realization that such a way of thinking was logically ridiculous, and was able to eliminate that from myself. That's the sticking point for almost all guys when it comes to open. They just can't get over the idea of another dude having sex with "their" girl. Keyword: "their". Other cultures don't have this problem, just western ones with the monogamy narrative. As for the rest, their probably will be confusion and a rough period. Let those that want to date open, date open. I, right now, believe logically it's a better system for most people, as I laid out above. If I am right about that, people will adopt it, and there will be more examples of it working, and working well. People will see this, see how poorly many monogamous relationships go and start considering it and slowly the mindset will shift. Sure, there will be lots of shitty open relationships full of drama and jealousy at first because people will be doing them wrong, or not doing a good job of having the correct mindset for such relationships...but it's not like the monogamous track record on jealousy, drama, bitterness, or breakup rates is rosy. I honestly don't see it being dramatically worse, especially since it will be all out in the open as it happens....rather than "aww we had this great relationship until MY FUCKING HUSBAND SLEPT WITH 10 GIRLS BEHIND MY BACK". I'd like to point out that there are several cultures that ended up at the same point as monogamy with different systems in regards to "owning" another person's sexuality. Many cultures in which the male is dominant, ie a patriarchal culture,turned out this way to some extent. India is the first one that comes to mind. It'd be funny to see if the same was true if the genders' power position was reversed throughout history in different cultures.
Yea, monogamy works pretty well in a heavily patriarchal society, and is part of why 75 years ago monogamy was a pretty decent system. Of course, it's also a pretty raw deal for women. As we move more towards gender equality, dating apps, loss of privacy, etc. more issues have been exposed and have cropped up. Monogamy was also extremely powerful for forming society, obvious family benefits but more importantly it was critical to the rise of nations for lineage and diplomacy reasons.
I know there are some polyandrous cultures, but I'm not sure how many matriarchies have existed culturally or what relationship systems have arisen from those. It would be interesting to know. It would also be interesting to know if, in a matriarchical society that was sufficiently isolated long enough, there exists a decrease in dimorphism.
|
On May 30 2019 14:22 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 14:12 Aocowns wrote:On May 30 2019 11:56 L_Master wrote:On May 30 2019 09:59 Aocowns wrote:On May 30 2019 09:51 L_Master wrote:On May 30 2019 09:40 Aocowns wrote:On May 30 2019 09:24 L_Master wrote:On May 30 2019 09:21 Aocowns wrote:
The biggest hurdle for many people seems to be accepting that commitment =/= sexual exclusivity. Given the cultural heritage of western civilization, with its traditions and norms, serial monogamy is probably the most stable system?? Gives leeway to have sex with a wide variety of different partners throughout your life without breaking the illusion that commitment and sexual exclusivity goes hand in hand(and thus causing lots of confusion for many), but still accepting that pair bonding is easiest in an environment where sexual exclusivity is expected in a relationship. Serial monogamy does not go well with having a family though. Family units, from everything I have read, have better outcomes for goods than other methods. Now, this might relate to how culture views non traditional arrangements and many other factors, but currently a family unit appears to be best for raising children. When I say serial monogamy that's with the expectation of the relationship lasting significantly longer once a family unit has been established, I suppose that should've been added. Serial monogamy until that "itch" and curiosity that many feel is outweighed by their desire for family and belief that their current partner is the best provider of long term happiness and stability. Which I suppose is the system that young 20s right now would find themselves in if it wasnt for the fact that so many people can't decide whether they want sexual exclusivity or lots of sex with lots of people? I swear my age bracket(young 20s oslo) has so many people that at least want to seem like they're fucking around a lot, so they're causing confusion and sending mixed signals and making people insecure in their relationships, and no one's calling any bluffs or going all in cus its still not clear which side the coin will land So to raise a child to decent age takes at least 15 years of actual parenting. Plus usually 1-5 years of dating beforehand. That's a 15-20 year relationship. At best, half make it to 25 years. So at 15 or 20 years maybe 2/3 might make it. Still terrible odds. Serial monogamy also won't satisfy the itch or curiosity. Ever. It doesn't go away, as evidence by 80%+ saying they would cheat if they knew they would not get caught. Humans just aren't naturally built for monogamy. Some of us do better than others at forcing the square peg into the round hole, but in general it's not a system that works well for humans. Monogamy works for certain groups of people, and I think the genuine best option depends on who you are: Low sex drive/limited opportunities/Extremely career focused or goal focused: MonogamyTypical Person: Open Relationship*Super high sex drive/not interested in pair bonding: Spin plates, e.g. mass FBs*I really believe you kill a huge part of the actual monogamy problems if you do a proper open relationship. When I say "proper" I mean that you have ONE pair bonded emotional relationship. Then maybe you have an occassional FB on the side that is truly just a FB. You don't date this person(s). You don't really spend time with them. It's a purely sexual relationship. Dating multiple people, from what I have seen, is always messy. I have never, ever seen that be not drama packed and end nuclear. I've seen lots of successful open relationships done what I dubbed the "proper" way. Yeah I suppose the more we talk I'm just gonna align more and more with you. But I'm not sure where you land on this in reality vs in theory? Cus the reality as i see it is that the culture we've been handed down does not do well with a system of open relationships, and there's gonna be a looong terrible period of confusion and mismatched expectations vs desires, and as it is many just aren't emotionally and mentally equipped to handle that transition smoothly. It requires a LOT of honesty, both in being honest with yourself not to mention your partner(s). Not seeing this honesty come naturally to people, and there's still a very clear preference(or at least expectation) for sexual exclusivity as far as I can tell. And then that desire for sexual exclusivity tends to spike super hard once you find a person that you pair bond sufficiently with, at least it does for me. I don't know if that's just a common immature psychosexual quirk of humans or based in biology though Bolded I think is culture. There have been many different systems in different cultures aside from monogamy that have worked for other societies. I think we just get taught this narrative of "you need to find 'the One' and that person is 'yours'". If you have that mindset and can't kill it, you can't do open relationships of any kind. There will be jealousy, and that will destroy the relationship. I was raised that way, but quickly came to the realization that such a way of thinking was logically ridiculous, and was able to eliminate that from myself. That's the sticking point for almost all guys when it comes to open. They just can't get over the idea of another dude having sex with "their" girl. Keyword: "their". Other cultures don't have this problem, just western ones with the monogamy narrative. As for the rest, their probably will be confusion and a rough period. Let those that want to date open, date open. I, right now, believe logically it's a better system for most people, as I laid out above. If I am right about that, people will adopt it, and there will be more examples of it working, and working well. People will see this, see how poorly many monogamous relationships go and start considering it and slowly the mindset will shift. Sure, there will be lots of shitty open relationships full of drama and jealousy at first because people will be doing them wrong, or not doing a good job of having the correct mindset for such relationships...but it's not like the monogamous track record on jealousy, drama, bitterness, or breakup rates is rosy. I honestly don't see it being dramatically worse, especially since it will be all out in the open as it happens....rather than "aww we had this great relationship until MY FUCKING HUSBAND SLEPT WITH 10 GIRLS BEHIND MY BACK". I'd like to point out that there are several cultures that ended up at the same point as monogamy with different systems in regards to "owning" another person's sexuality. Many cultures in which the male is dominant, ie a patriarchal culture,turned out this way to some extent. India is the first one that comes to mind. It'd be funny to see if the same was true if the genders' power position was reversed throughout history in different cultures. Yea, monogamy works pretty well in a heavily patriarchal society, and is part of why 75 years ago monogamy was a pretty decent system. Of course, it's also a pretty raw deal for women. As we move more towards gender equality, dating apps, loss of privacy, etc. more issues have been exposed and have cropped up. Monogamy was also extremely powerful for forming society, obvious family benefits but more importantly it was critical to the rise of nations for lineage and diplomacy reasons. I know there are some polyandrous cultures, but I'm not sure how many matriarchies have existed culturally or what relationship systems have arisen from those. It would be interesting to know. It would also be interesting to know if, in a matriarchical society that was sufficiently isolated long enough, there exists a decrease in dimorphism.
the raw deal for women was patriarchy, not monogamy. If an increasingly gender equal society moves towards open relationships(as in the sexual, social and political liberation of women means a move towards open relationships), couldn't that suggest that women are inherently more suited to open relationships than men are? Or partial to it to some extent, rather.
|
On May 30 2019 14:40 Aocowns wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 14:22 L_Master wrote:On May 30 2019 14:12 Aocowns wrote:On May 30 2019 11:56 L_Master wrote:On May 30 2019 09:59 Aocowns wrote:On May 30 2019 09:51 L_Master wrote:On May 30 2019 09:40 Aocowns wrote:On May 30 2019 09:24 L_Master wrote:On May 30 2019 09:21 Aocowns wrote:
The biggest hurdle for many people seems to be accepting that commitment =/= sexual exclusivity. Given the cultural heritage of western civilization, with its traditions and norms, serial monogamy is probably the most stable system?? Gives leeway to have sex with a wide variety of different partners throughout your life without breaking the illusion that commitment and sexual exclusivity goes hand in hand(and thus causing lots of confusion for many), but still accepting that pair bonding is easiest in an environment where sexual exclusivity is expected in a relationship. Serial monogamy does not go well with having a family though. Family units, from everything I have read, have better outcomes for goods than other methods. Now, this might relate to how culture views non traditional arrangements and many other factors, but currently a family unit appears to be best for raising children. When I say serial monogamy that's with the expectation of the relationship lasting significantly longer once a family unit has been established, I suppose that should've been added. Serial monogamy until that "itch" and curiosity that many feel is outweighed by their desire for family and belief that their current partner is the best provider of long term happiness and stability. Which I suppose is the system that young 20s right now would find themselves in if it wasnt for the fact that so many people can't decide whether they want sexual exclusivity or lots of sex with lots of people? I swear my age bracket(young 20s oslo) has so many people that at least want to seem like they're fucking around a lot, so they're causing confusion and sending mixed signals and making people insecure in their relationships, and no one's calling any bluffs or going all in cus its still not clear which side the coin will land So to raise a child to decent age takes at least 15 years of actual parenting. Plus usually 1-5 years of dating beforehand. That's a 15-20 year relationship. At best, half make it to 25 years. So at 15 or 20 years maybe 2/3 might make it. Still terrible odds. Serial monogamy also won't satisfy the itch or curiosity. Ever. It doesn't go away, as evidence by 80%+ saying they would cheat if they knew they would not get caught. Humans just aren't naturally built for monogamy. Some of us do better than others at forcing the square peg into the round hole, but in general it's not a system that works well for humans. Monogamy works for certain groups of people, and I think the genuine best option depends on who you are: Low sex drive/limited opportunities/Extremely career focused or goal focused: MonogamyTypical Person: Open Relationship*Super high sex drive/not interested in pair bonding: Spin plates, e.g. mass FBs*I really believe you kill a huge part of the actual monogamy problems if you do a proper open relationship. When I say "proper" I mean that you have ONE pair bonded emotional relationship. Then maybe you have an occassional FB on the side that is truly just a FB. You don't date this person(s). You don't really spend time with them. It's a purely sexual relationship. Dating multiple people, from what I have seen, is always messy. I have never, ever seen that be not drama packed and end nuclear. I've seen lots of successful open relationships done what I dubbed the "proper" way. Yeah I suppose the more we talk I'm just gonna align more and more with you. But I'm not sure where you land on this in reality vs in theory? Cus the reality as i see it is that the culture we've been handed down does not do well with a system of open relationships, and there's gonna be a looong terrible period of confusion and mismatched expectations vs desires, and as it is many just aren't emotionally and mentally equipped to handle that transition smoothly. It requires a LOT of honesty, both in being honest with yourself not to mention your partner(s). Not seeing this honesty come naturally to people, and there's still a very clear preference(or at least expectation) for sexual exclusivity as far as I can tell. And then that desire for sexual exclusivity tends to spike super hard once you find a person that you pair bond sufficiently with, at least it does for me. I don't know if that's just a common immature psychosexual quirk of humans or based in biology though Bolded I think is culture. There have been many different systems in different cultures aside from monogamy that have worked for other societies. I think we just get taught this narrative of "you need to find 'the One' and that person is 'yours'". If you have that mindset and can't kill it, you can't do open relationships of any kind. There will be jealousy, and that will destroy the relationship. I was raised that way, but quickly came to the realization that such a way of thinking was logically ridiculous, and was able to eliminate that from myself. That's the sticking point for almost all guys when it comes to open. They just can't get over the idea of another dude having sex with "their" girl. Keyword: "their". Other cultures don't have this problem, just western ones with the monogamy narrative. As for the rest, their probably will be confusion and a rough period. Let those that want to date open, date open. I, right now, believe logically it's a better system for most people, as I laid out above. If I am right about that, people will adopt it, and there will be more examples of it working, and working well. People will see this, see how poorly many monogamous relationships go and start considering it and slowly the mindset will shift. Sure, there will be lots of shitty open relationships full of drama and jealousy at first because people will be doing them wrong, or not doing a good job of having the correct mindset for such relationships...but it's not like the monogamous track record on jealousy, drama, bitterness, or breakup rates is rosy. I honestly don't see it being dramatically worse, especially since it will be all out in the open as it happens....rather than "aww we had this great relationship until MY FUCKING HUSBAND SLEPT WITH 10 GIRLS BEHIND MY BACK". I'd like to point out that there are several cultures that ended up at the same point as monogamy with different systems in regards to "owning" another person's sexuality. Many cultures in which the male is dominant, ie a patriarchal culture,turned out this way to some extent. India is the first one that comes to mind. It'd be funny to see if the same was true if the genders' power position was reversed throughout history in different cultures. Yea, monogamy works pretty well in a heavily patriarchal society, and is part of why 75 years ago monogamy was a pretty decent system. Of course, it's also a pretty raw deal for women. As we move more towards gender equality, dating apps, loss of privacy, etc. more issues have been exposed and have cropped up. Monogamy was also extremely powerful for forming society, obvious family benefits but more importantly it was critical to the rise of nations for lineage and diplomacy reasons. I know there are some polyandrous cultures, but I'm not sure how many matriarchies have existed culturally or what relationship systems have arisen from those. It would be interesting to know. It would also be interesting to know if, in a matriarchical society that was sufficiently isolated long enough, there exists a decrease in dimorphism. the raw deal for women was patriarchy, not monogamy. If an increasingly gender equal society moves towards open relationships(as in the sexual, social and political liberation of women means a move towards open relationships), couldn't that suggest that women are inherently more suited to open relationships than men are? Or partial to it to some extent, rather.
Hmm, I really don't think men are suited to it either. Men moreso because they seem to have a more powerful need for sexual variety. A man can be having mind blowing sex with his smoking wife and still crave other women. This is much rarer for women in my experience. I've dated and known lots of women who would basically stop seeing other men completely for months or years when dating a new man. Some of my FBs/Relationships wouldn't sleep with anyone even in an open relationship where they "could" (eventually they would, but often not for a year or more).
I feel like men are a little better at loving a woman for a lifetime than vice versa. 82% of divorces are initiated by females, and most are not mutual. In other words, the woman is usually done but the man still loves her. Which really is an odd dichotomy when you think about it given men's "sow the royal oats" inherent drive. It's too complicated to say if that's a "real thing" or a result of our society and typical relationships, but it would make a level of sense from a biological boredom stance. Incredibly complicated issue either way.
I think the reason for a shift to open would be for two main reasons:
1) Privacy - We are going to see more and more how common affairs/cheating are, and it's going to really shock people to their core and shake trust in monogamy
2) Equality - Marriage "worked" 50 years ago because if the wife didn't shut up and do whatever the husband wanted, well he could leave her and since she likely didn't work she was left looking at being poor and also shunned by society. Far, far more power for the man. With that gone, I think we are seeing more of the natural wiring of women coming out now.
Whether that means women are more suited to open than men are, I'm not sure. It might be that the previous system worked okay for both genders, and now both genders are moving away from it in parallel.
|
I will try to express my opinion in moderate words, as much as I am capable of doing so.
On May 30 2019 02:31 mewithoutDrew wrote:
She wants an exclusive relationship so it's been bothersome to her that so many of these dudes are running amok.
This seems to me like this girl has a problem with dealing with reality. If her reality is one where men do not want relationships, what is the common ground between those men? It is her, she is choosing men like this and then she dares to complain from reality. Girl, what do you want to happen when you pick such men? Change the grounds, don't go to Tinder or some bar, go to a library, there you might find different men. But the most important thing - do it properly, do not complain and moan. Who would not hate such a girl and try to get her her to bed and leave her as fast as possible?
On May 30 2019 02:31 mewithoutDrew wrote:
1. You're a sexual shit head with a great excuse now for your noncommittal ways
I dislike everything about this. One must examine every case before stating a judgement. So I refuse to express one without knowing any man.
On May 30 2019 02:31 mewithoutDrew wrote:
2. You're afraid of commitment, that's all. You're probably not polyamorous
Define fear of commitment first. What does this even mean? As is, this looks like an expression empty of meaning.
On May 30 2019 02:31 mewithoutDrew wrote:
3. It'll be awesome when your heart is broken again by a woman/man also in many relationships; and that's when you'll learn you're not actually polyamorous. This will be awesome because the pain should kickstart your emotions to consider other options, and show you the value of commitment and 1-1 relationships
Now, I am of the opinion that other men and women can not possibly hurt me. Only I can hurt my inner self and I can do it when I hold the wrong opinions and judgments on impressions. So if I come from this, my heart can not be broken unless I break it myself and I can apply solid reasoning in order not to do it. This leads me to my next thought - what can kickstart my desire to consider other options and think about values is my reasoning. But not how other people behave towards me. Even if they behave in a morally wrong way, that is their choice and their part. Mine is to accept in harmony with my nature and act accordingly with nature.
On May 30 2019 02:31 mewithoutDrew wrote:
5. You should never have kids because children greatly benefit from dedicated parents to raise them
Again, explain what are the benefits to those children. This is too vague, one considers a benefit to be money, another - education, third - religion. What do you mean?
On May 30 2019 02:31 mewithoutDrew wrote:
8. You're probably not ugly, so you can actually attract many partners. But you're relying on your attractiveness as your social currency and not learning how to dive deep with your emotions and character as your social currency
This assumption with no backing is absurd. Why would one need be pretty in order to attract sexual partners? Quite the contrary it seems to me, one needs to be willing to spend money on women/men to attract them. Or maybe this is just in Bulgaria, idk. I do not argue that being pretty helps but it is not the main reason.
On May 30 2019 02:31 mewithoutDrew wrote:
9. Deep, committed relationships are a key part of our maturity/transformation. Our committed partners are a mirror reflecting back to us our character. Yes, we can find these things in our friends and family too but so much of our efforts will go into our lovers and by not achieving deep connection it's a missed opportunity to change for the better
The way I see it, I wish and I am actively trying to constantly change and to be more just, more moderate, more courageous, wiser, tranquil and happy, yes. But I can only achieve it by shaping my will; not by simply having different people around me. Your claim seems ridiculous to me because it follows from it that a man who is solitary can not be good which is simply not true. There are examples of solitary virtuous people.
Oh, and I am not polyamorous and I have never been so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
