|
On May 30 2019 12:04 L_Master wrote:
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.
Yeah I was describing the first and only other time I'd ever heard of polyamory, which wasn't all that long ago. I guess regardless of whether they're actively screening each other's partners or not, I see a lot of potential for inequality where one person or the other is going to be more able/willing to have partners outside of the relationship. It seems to me, in that case, that one person would be getting the short end of the stick. But maybe some people truly don't care about that.
That being said, I don't think it's correct to condemn all people doing polyamorous relationships, or think that they must be "shitheads" or "damaged goods." It's definitely not for me, and not for OP or his wife's friend obviously, and that's fine. It's probably not for most people. But I'm also not gay, being gay isn't for most people, and it's okay for the people who are gay to be gay. As long as there's no rape involved (partners are consenting and of appropriate age), I don't think it's necessary or healthy to get worked up about other people's relationships.
As for OP's wife's friend, the men she's meeting have no more obligation to be monogamous than she does to be polyamorous. Being honest about it with her is the right thing to do, and she can keep looking for a man who's interests more closely align with her own.
|
On May 31 2019 01:32 UsedEgg3 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 12:04 L_Master wrote:
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.
Yeah I was describing the first and only other time I'd ever heard of polyamory, which wasn't all that long ago. I guess regardless of whether they're actively screening each other's partners or not, I see a lot of potential for inequality where one person or the other is going to be more able/willing to have partners outside of the relationship. It seems to me, in that case, that one person would be getting the short end of the stick.
When both people have the number of partners they want, this is not getting the short end of the stick even if that's 2 for one person and 8 for the other. They both have exactly what they want.
If one partner has more was able to find more partners, that's just how it goes. It would be like complaining that two partners both train for a run and one is able to run a 20' 5k and the other runs a 17' 5k. It's not equal, but it's not related to the relationship and neither partner is at fault for it.
I can't imagine someone getting upset because their partner runs faster than them, or is better at music, or better at planning, or any other skill.
In this case, you'd essentially be getting upset because your partner has either lower standards than you, or is more attractive on the dating market than you. Both of which would be absolutely ridiculous to be upset about.
|
Canada11349 Posts
I don't think 50% success rate has been true for a long time, if ever.
It comes from comparing annual marriages to annual divorces. But it doesn't account for serial divorces... which is actually quite bad. I think if you are on your third marriage there's a 75% chance it will end. And by serial divorces, we're talking six marriages ended- Hollywood alone jacks the divorce numbers per person.
When you account for demographics, then I believe you find the Boomers were particularly divorce-'happy' and the numbers are down consistently on either side of that generation.
|
On May 31 2019 09:23 Falling wrote:
I don't think 50% success rate has been true for a long time, if ever.
It comes from comparing annual marriages to annual divorces. But it doesn't account for serial divorces... which is actually quite bad. I think if you are on your third marriage there's a 75% chance it will end. And by serial divorces, we're talking six marriages ended- Hollywood alone jacks the divorce numbers per person.
When you account for demographics, then I believe you find the Boomers were particularly divorce-'happy' and the numbers are down consistently on either side of that generation.
Yea, you can look at the numbers a few different ways. I've seen it broken down the way you are describing and in those cases best case percentages for demographics were like 25%. With all case being more like 30-40%.
Which is...still really bad. That becomes even more true when we throw in cheating stats.
Where open appeals is that it "fixes" one of the biggest issues in marriage: sexual boredom/variety, jealousy, and cheating. All of those vanish in an open frame. They are no longer an issue. That's powerful.
Sex is definitely NOT everything in a marriage, but its effects are far reason. Removing many of those really helps all areas of the relationship.
Moreover, open relationships generally end MUCH less bitterly than traditional ones.
Again, point here is not that open is inherently better. Its that monogamy may not be the greatest system, and open is a reasonable alternative and response to this. It's not some system by guys who wanna sow the oats and say fuck commitment.
|
I'm less offended by people cheating in closed monogamous relationships than people using made-up words to justify their.lifestyle. Like they're the first people in history to discover sleeping around. Some sort of hubris. Or it's a kind of insecurity to need that. Like basically you don't know who you are but you see a "community" all doing the same thing so it makes it okay. In such an important part of life people should be thinking for themselves, stuff like this is the pendulum swinging against sexual repression but it seems to be equally poorly thought out.
|
On May 31 2019 14:58 oBlade wrote:
I'm less offended by people cheating in closed monogamous relationships than people using made-up words to justify their.lifestyle. Like they're the first people in history to discover sleeping around. Some sort of hubris. Or it's a kind of insecurity to need that. Like basically you don't know who you are but you see a "community" all doing the same thing so it makes it okay. In such an important part of life people should be thinking for themselves, stuff like this is the pendulum swinging against sexual repression but it seems to be equally poorly thought out.
You obviously didn't read any of this discussion, including the OPs blog post. You literally saw "polyamory" in the title and proceeded to posted some knee jerk comment that shows you absolutely do not understand the issue at all.
Open relationships, as a concept, have nothing to do with sleeping around. Sure, some people will claim "open relationship" in order to sleep around, but this is a small minority and isn't really what's being discussed, which is the challenges monogamy presents, and how open relationships tackle some of those challenges for people who's primary relationship desire is for a deep, lasting pair-bonded relationship and in some cases, kids.
If you'd like to contribute, join the discussion. Posting a knee jerk reaction unrelated to the topic at hand is obnoxious and unhelpful.
EDIT: This is a curiosity question. Are you genuinely more angered by people using some made up words than you are about telling their partner that they are committed to them, promising them something, and then breaking that promise in a way that is deeply hurtful and leaves wounds and lack of trust that can easily last months or years?
|
United Kingdom10443 Posts
I don't see anything wrong with polyamory, as long as all parties are aware of what they are getting into and what the rules/boundaries of the relationship is.
Someone feel free to correct me here but I feel that the line gets blurry where someone says they are "polyamorous" when really they are just looking for casual hookups.For these people they are less likely to have open/serious discussions with their respective partners and that's when people feel betrayed or get feelings hurt.
I have no idea about raising children or the statistics involved so I can't contribute to that discussion but my 2 cents is that in today's modern society it is practical and not a big deal to have multiple relationships.
From an even more personal viewpoint I think marriage is outdated and pointless, i'm glad that divorce laws are being relaxed here. You should be with people because you want to, not because the cost of leaving is too high.
|
Yes, I genuinely am, because infidelity is a mistake people have been making for centuries which is human and can be made up for, or destroy a relationship, which while tragic is nonetheless part of life which I can ultimately accept. I'm not angry that people cheat in the world any more than that people die. But someone defining themselves as "polyamorous" strikes me as naive, and attention seeking, and quite low on the progression of sexual maturity, and actually. You should never put identity before actual relationships. This is narcissistic.
I'm dead serious.
I think you have a higher opinion of their actual motives than I do. Basically I don't think a hippie trend based on birth control and STD control would have figured out human sexuality and relationships to any level that thousands of years of thought hasn't, and you misunderstand me, I think the saddest thing is them lying to themselves that they know what they're doing.
People unfortunately accept this when women say it because they're immediately thinking about sexual liberation, oh she's so open or modern, but when a man says it it sounds obviously like baloney. A "polyamorous" man is what, one who embraces the oldest evolutionary strategies for male reproduction? Or someone who's broadcasting how many women he can handle? The arrogance to identify something like that, it's like someone calling themselves a genius. Usually implies the opposite. Comes off as begging for scraps to me. Look at single people thinking of themselves as "poly." What's that even mean. You're mono, not even dual yet. Did they talk to their partner? Right, what partner. Hope you can see where I'm coming from. It would be like identifying as "engaged" because you want to get married. It does not make logical sense to me.
I'm not trying to dismiss individuals or whitewash real questions about fidelity and commitment and and so on but I believe people are being misled by an organism, a trend, or something, which out of anybody's control. To me it's all a new name to an old face. 40 years ago people just said, swinger. Now that sounds like something a 60 year old person would say, and it's associated with when people actually got married, so to me polyamory is just this generation's version.
|
One thing I don't understand at all is why are people so obsessed with how other people choose to live? Why is it even any of your business whether someone wants to submit to your idea of monogamous relationships or not? If you - or some "friend" who however may as well be just a convenient device for the OP to detach themselves from the topic - don't like the choices of sexuality that some people make then what about just not dating them? If there is one thing here that is definitely not mature, it is thinking that everyone has to conform to your idea of sexuality.
Yes, yes, the monogamous relationship is the traditional way of our society ... and we live in the fucking 21st century, which is the point in time when we finally realized that also people who do not want to follow the "traditions" dictated by the majority of the society, have equal rights. As much as it is noone's business what gender of partner someone chooses, it's also noone's business how many of those he wants, as long as the whole deal is between consenting adults (and, let me add, the same should hold for whether those are related or not, despite the widespread dark-agey stigma associated with that).
|
I am not 100% sure what people are even talking about here, are you talking about polyamorous relationships or open relationships, the former implies that there is a web of intimate relationships between multiple partners, while the latter in theory is a commited relationship between two people while they are sexually non-monogamous.
I feel like people mix these here a little so it gets a little confusing.
In general i agree with opisska here (who would have known!), traditional moral structures of any form aren't inherently superior, it's time for people to contemplate on all kinds of things which are seen as a given and figure out if it's really all that "wrong" to live life differently. Now this doesn't mean that one has to engage in anything one doesn't want to obviously, but the judgement is perplexing.
|
On May 31 2019 17:43 oBlade wrote:
Yes, I genuinely am, because infidelity is a mistake people have been making for centuries which is human and can be made up for, or destroy a relationship, which while tragic is nonetheless part of life which I can ultimately accept. I'm not angry that people cheat in the world any more than that people die.
Lots of people, probably most, cheat. Over 80% say they would cheat if they knew they wouldn't get caught. At least 1 in 5 outright admit to having done so. Real rates are estimated between 40% and 70%. Why do so many people cheat? If monogamy was a great system, I think we would expect cheating rates to be much lower. Maybe 10% maximum, probably lower.
But someone defining themselves as "polyamorous" strikes me as naive, and attention seeking, and quite low on the progression of sexual maturity, and actually. You should never put identity before actual relationships. This is narcissistic.
I'm dead serious.
If I understand correctly, you seem to be taking offense to people calling themselves something. I have dated open, and probably will again. I've never called myself an "open dater" or "polyamarous". I know what you mean by people doing that, but in my mind, eh who cares. If someone wants to call themselves an alligator that just doesn't matter to me.
I don't think I'm currently swayed that calling yourself an alligator, a spaceship, or polyamorous is somehow worse than making a promise to them, a very significant promise at that, and then breaking it. I guess I value integrity far more than I care about what people call themselves. One causes harm, the other is innocuous. Silly perhaps, a bit ridiculous, but innocuous. If you can make some argument about why someone calling themselves "poly", which we agree is silly, is quite harmful, then I would begin to see where you're coming from.
quite low on the progression of sexual maturity
This is your statement that's bothering me the most. What is that? I've never come across "progression of sexual maturity" anywhere in literature or normal discussion. It genuinely sounds like something you made up.
What is this? What does it mean? What research and evidence backs it up?
I've already posted and discussed plenty of statistics and evidence that show how poorly, in general, monogamy is working for society as a whole, even if you take the heavily optimistic numbers like Falling did. Taking the more pessimistic numbers it almost seems a trainwreck. Those kind of numbers don't represent progression, they represent evidence of a system that doesn't work well.
I think you have a higher opinion of their actual motives than I do. Basically I don't think a hippie trend based on birth control and STD control would have figured out human sexuality and relationships to any level that thousands of years of thought hasn't, and you misunderstand me, I think the saddest thing is them lying to themselves that they know what they're doing.
I know them, so I don't think so. As I acknowledged, you have a percentage of men out there that just want to have sex with lots of women, either total casual encounters or very casual dating where you don't plan to let a person in close to you. These are usually men of around 25 and under, especially college aged. Pretty normal, given that is how men are biologically wired, and the societal structure (college, partying, etc.) promote that relationship style.
To be clear, as long as it's done honestly, there is NOTHING wrong with dating this way. It does not harm people (assuming you didn't lie or mislead to sleep with them). To be clear though, men like this that call themselves poly I don't care about. If you're against it, I believe you don't have any evidence or rationale for why it's bad...but it's NOT what I am talking about. If you think men doing this are immature, that's your opinion, but when I discuss open relationships I am not talking about these men. I'm talking about men that want, above all else, a deep, committed, pair-bonded relationship.
Most men however, after about 25, and certainly by 30, move away from this and want a serious pair-bonded relationship. Whether due to innate nature or cultural conditioning, most people desire and are satisfied by having a deep relationship with another partner. Excluding our "horny college student" segment of the population you primarily have men looking for pair bonding with another partner. Most go the monogamous route because they are conditioned by society to do so. A smaller percentage of them look around, say "huh, monogamy doesn't seem to be working out too great" and try something different, enter open dating.
but when a man says it it sounds obviously like baloney. A "polyamorous" man is what, one who embraces the oldest evolutionary strategies for male reproduction? Or someone who's broadcasting how many women he can handle? The arrogance to identify something like that, it's like someone calling themselves a genius.
It most certainly does not come off as baloney. A polyamarous man (like you, I dislike this term though) is one who looks around and says "hmm, monogamy doesn't appear to be working very well for most people. They usually end up divorced, are regularly cheated on, end up in relatively sexless or low sex marriages, and generally seem to be a whole hell of a lot less happy than your typical single guy. Maybe there is a better way to do things?"
Questioning the world around you and looking for a better way does not sound at all like baloney. It sounds like someone trying to be intelligent and rational about an issue (even if they ultimately draw incorrect conclusions).
It's not someone broadcasting how many women they can handle. Most guys I know dating open don't even talk about it or mention that, and many of them don't "handle" many other women. Oftentimes it's 1 or 2 other women seen a couple times a month or less. Again, we are NOT talking about horny college fratboys trying to run up the notches in their belt.
That's not someone who wants an open relationship...that's someone who wants to fuck as many women as he can.
Usually implies the opposite. Comes off as begging for scraps to me. Look at single people thinking of themselves as "poly." What's that even mean. You're mono, not even dual yet. Did they talk to their partner? Right, what partner. Hope you can see where I'm coming from. It would be like identifying as "engaged" because you want to get married. It does not make logical sense to me.
Sure, this is silly. I agree with you. It's really the same as if someone came up and told me they though of themselves as an alligator or a TRex. Wierd. I don't understand it. But still doesn't matter. If someone wants to call themselves a TRex...I really, really, really don't care. It's utterly innocuous and has zero effect on my life.
I'm not trying to dismiss individuals or whitewash real questions about fidelity and commitment and and so on but I believe people are being misled by an organism, a trend, or something, which out of anybody's control. To me it's all a new name to an old face. 40 years ago people just said, swinger. Now that sounds like something a 60 year old person would say, and it's associated with when people actually got married, so to me polyamory is just this generation's version.
It's very different. 40 years ago there wasn't a major problem with monogamy, at least in the US. Patriarchy was alive and well. Most marriages were successful because the wife leaving the husband was both heavily societally shunned and financially very risky. Husbands had much greater control over their wives, which, while a shitty deal for women, allowed monogamy to work well. Husbands could more or less compel wives for sex, wives couldn't leave, etc. etc.
I'll admit I'm not well versed on this history, but my understanding is that a swinger of 50 years ago is just someone who wanted to have alot of sex, similar to the stereotypical college fratboy of today. I don't think swingers were looking around and swinging as a reaction to how generally bad monogamy is.
Basically, at the end of it, to me it seems like you just have a really big issue with people fucking around, e.g. having casual sex. I'm still not sure you understand how poorly monogamy works, in general, or what advantages open relationships offer.
|
On May 31 2019 21:23 opisska wrote:
One thing I don't understand at all is why are people so obsessed with how other people choose to live? Why is it even any of your business whether someone wants to submit to your idea of monogamous relationships or not? If you - or some "friend" who however may as well be just a convenient device for the OP to detach themselves from the topic - don't like the choices of sexuality that some people make then what about just not dating them? If there is one thing here that is definitely not mature, it is thinking that everyone has to conform to your idea of sexuality.
Is this really a surprise though, or is more rhetorical? People, in general, form and associate in groups based on their beliefs. We, as a species, generally feel threatened and upset by beliefs that conflict with our own. People easily see them as dangerous or bad...and it's not hard to condemn things you believe are dangerous or bad.
I agree it's a shame people do that, but it is rather the base human state. Only with logic and reasoning does one override that, and even then as humans we are on the whole pretty shit at being logical and rational, and on top of that logic and reasoning aren't really taught anywhere in society or in grade school, so it's just not something most people learn, and it's absolutely a skill that has to be learned. Lots of very intelligent people out there that are very irrational and have no grasp of logic.
|
There's so much to unpack when discussing human sexuality. Biological aspects, psychological aspects (which flow from the biological ones) and then the societal ones.
I don't know which to give most weight to, or if to just kind of assemble them all together and see which works best. I think if you'd do a deep delve into what kind of species we actually are (and then more specifically in the realm of sexuality), you'd just throw your hands up in the end and claim to be none the wiser. However, I'll try to give some of my thoughts here.
Humans are not traditionally pair bonding or tournament species, we're kind of in the middle (a hybrid of you will), which can explain why so many different cultures adopt (and have adopted) so many different sexual schemes. Polyandry, polyggyny, monogamy, random orgies, etc. have all been happening since before the Romans, which is traditionally the start of Western civilization.
Thinking about the things I've heard from Robert Sapolsky'slectures on human sexuality and how we tend to form societies, it's mostly what needs to fix necessities in our surroundings. More competition is reflected in scarcer recourse distribution, less competition is reflected in wealthy resource distribution (classic Chimp and Bonobo societies), but obviously don't neglect the biological tendencies that have formed due to forming a closed off species (or i.e. tribe, race, culture) because of that physical constraint/freedom.
You'll get crossing over of cultures, mixing of preferences once you amalgamate those different cultures into a multicultural framework because, guess what, people tend to be curious and like to know new things and like to trade and like to exchange information. But we also like to fight and compete and have some form of conflict.
Monogamy can be deduced from our Christian-feudal ways of living. Everything is divided, everyone is constantly in competition, everyone is an individual that needs to fight for their resources (up to entire cultures, which culminated in WW I, WW II, etc.). Obviously this can also be reflected in other cultures that become relevant on a global scale, but it seems to be much less this way when societies become secluded and smaller.
Like I've said, for us, monogamy is a natural result from the way we've dealt with ourselves in other people and our surroundings in the last millennia. Focusing too much on different resources makes you prone to be left with nothing, that's why we tend to be protective of our shit, including our partner.
Presently there is no such need for this way of living and the erosion of the influences the Christian-feudal paradigm makes it possible to look at alternatives. Multiculturalism and the richness of resources we have, while keeping competition in place will definitely give a rise in conflict in the way people look at the world. I think people will become less and less unified as more and more perspectives on how to form "micro-societies" (the way people look at the world, the way people want to form relationships etc.) form. This can be a problem, but is out of the scope of this post.
However, polygamy is not something that can be concluded on a can or can't work conclusion when viewed from a certain reference point. It's just a way of organizing yourself as a human related to other humans, which is definitely possible given the right conditions and the right mindset and if that's shared and clear for those other humans. There just need to be guidelines in what polygamy is as its presently thought of and how it's best navigated in.
It's easy to dismiss when you have a view of monogamy to anchor to and that's fine if monogamy works for you and you don't want polygamy in your life. That doesn't mean that the world isn't ripe to explore different types of polygamy, especially now that we're richer and more diverse than ever. We can literally extract philosophies/ways of living/.. from all over the world and we can think of new ones that suit ourselves possibly ad infinitum.
There's a reason there's an very large body of fetish, porn and swingers culture in Western society. People have been exploring different ways of experiencing sexuality for a long time and monogamy is just an aspect of it. But claiming monogamy is the way of forming relationships as humans, is simply naive.
PS Coming back to Robert Sapolsky and one of the eye opening things he said: there are Voles that are monogamous and Voles that are polygamous. Their bonding behavior is determined by the expression of certain genes. Changing the expression of the gene can swing from one behavior to the other. Since they're mammals, we share a lot of characteristics with the Vole and Robert seems to believe at least some of our bonding preferences stem from those genetics / physiological expression of genetics.
+ Show Spoiler +
It makes sense that our complex genetic diversity and diversity of expression patterns tied with diversity of resource acquisition will give rise to a complete spectrum of how you want to pair bond as a human individual.
|
Honestly I just can't understand polyamory. Maybe because I am a schizoid have different views on relationships. To me, the end goal is to share all of me with someone else and having the other person do the same. I just can't find a way it work with multiple people since you'd be sharing yourself in an intimate way with someone else. Which wouldn't be sharing all of you with someone. I found that I'm very traditional when it comes to relationships.
|
Why do you want to necessarily share yourself with just one person? You'd feel yourself too diluted?
Just trying to understand where that sentiment comes from. As I feel like I can give much more of myself to more than one person. My only conflict would be to find time lol.
Intimacy is also relative. Some people are open books and intimacy is as casual as riding a bike. I can wholeheartedly understand that you can't bear to be intimate with more than 1 person at the same time, because that's the way you are, which culminates in monogamy. But other people are wired differently, so I guess that's a way for you to understand how polyamory can work?
|
United States4883 Posts
On May 30 2019 03:51 Starlightsun wrote:
Yikes not kidding about the judgmental and critical part.
Yikes is right. I opened this thinking there would be a really well thought out response based on some deep thinking. What I got was a 2-minute jot list of things that piss off the OP.
|
On June 02 2019 01:27 EsportsJohn wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 03:51 Starlightsun wrote:
Yikes not kidding about the judgmental and critical part. Yikes is right. I opened this thinking there would be a really well thought out response based on some deep thinking. What I got was a 2-minute jot list of things that piss off the OP.
Worst part is the OP afked and didn't even come back to respond to see if he could reason well.
|
On June 02 2019 02:58 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2019 01:27 EsportsJohn wrote:On May 30 2019 03:51 Starlightsun wrote:
Yikes not kidding about the judgmental and critical part. Yikes is right. I opened this thinking there would be a really well thought out response based on some deep thinking. What I got was a 2-minute jot list of things that piss off the OP. Worst part is the OP afked and didn't even come back to respond to see if he could reason well.
People who have strong opinions that are based on irrational positions often do not have the tendency to be eager to discuss 
|
Honestly I don't think I could ever do a poly relationship. Itd just feel like I'm cheating, and I consider myself to be committed to stuff (at least the stuff I'm passionate about)
|
On June 02 2019 10:26 DeNikSSB wrote:
Honestly I don't think I could ever do a poly relationship. Itd just feel like I'm cheating, and I consider myself to be committed to stuff (at least the stuff I'm passionate about)
And there really isn't any problem with that. I am not poly either. But i don't see a problem with it for people for whom it works.
As long as everyone involved knows what's the deal and is a consenting adult, people should be able to have their relationships however they want to. This is the difference between poly and cheating. In poly relationships, people know what the setup is from the start, and agree to it. In cheating, you have a relationship agreement with another person, and then break that agreement onesidedly, and lie about it.
To me, the thing far more important than the amount of people someone has sex with is the honesty in the relationship. Honesty allows everyone involved to decide for themselves if this kind of relationship is one they want to be a part of, because they know what the relationship is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
