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.
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".
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 09:21 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 09:21 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 09:21 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.
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 09:21 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.
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 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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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?
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 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 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.
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.
All words are made up. Monogamous is a word some people made up at some point. Reality changes and vocabulary changes to accommodate it.
Personally I can't believe people would have problems with honesty in a relationship. As if saying sorry I won't date you if you want to be sexually exclusive is somehow worse than keeping that part of you hidden get married and have kids and then have some secret affair before shit comes out; your marriage explodes because you've been dishonest about your needs and then have traumatized kids that can't build healthy relationships because some people thought monogamous was a real word that is associated with good people.
On June 02 2019 00:31 Uldridge wrote: 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?
To me it's just always been the end goal. The person I'd marry would be my best friend. The first person I want to tell anything about where good, bad or just boring. Someone who will be there no matter what. Someone who will just know how I'm feeling without even having to ask. They'd be the person who I can just be myself around and not be judged. Eventually they'll just know everything about me. Which is a very tedious thing and time consuming.
A lot of what I listed can only be applied to one person. You can truly only have one best friend. Whether you like it or not, someone will always come to mind first when you want to share something. It's the core reason why I don't understand people who are polyamorous. I can't see how people can be wired differently in this or why wouldn't you just tell that stranger on the street what is it that's on your mind. I just can't think that this can work with more than two people. There will always be a person I turn to first and I'd feel horrible for the other person who didn't. I'd feel like I was cheating them.
On June 02 2019 00:31 Uldridge wrote: 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?
To me it's just always been the end goal. The person I'd marry would be my best friend. The first person I want to tell anything about where good, bad or just boring. Someone who will be there no matter what. Someone who will just know how I'm feeling without even having to ask. They'd be the person who I can just be myself around and not be judged. Eventually they'll just know everything about me. Which is a very tedious thing and time consuming.
A lot of what I listed can only be applied to one person. You can truly only have one best friend. Whether you like it or not, someone will always come to mind first when you want to share something. It's the core reason why I don't understand people who are polyamorous. I can't see how people can be wired differently in this or why wouldn't you just tell that stranger on the street what is it that's on your mind. I just can't think that this can work with more than two people. There will always be a person I turn to first and I'd feel horrible for the other person who didn't. I'd feel like I was cheating them.
But why would that best friend necessarily have to be a sexual partner? Different people fulfill different roles in your life. It seems a lot of pressure to put on a single person to be all things in one. I think even in happy marriages often times the partners spend time apart with friends and share parts of themselves that they wouldn't with their spouse.
Well, for me, I don't like the entire favoring one person over another because I know for a fact there's a dime dozen literally everywhere. Edit: I have to clarify. Obviously there will be more attraction or less depending on the person and you'll have automatic preferences. I just like to believe that there are enough people for me to love and spend time with because I know there are a substantial amount of people that meet my criteria.
I can understand committing to 1 person to turn to, though, but that's just not the way I'm wired.
The concept of a best friend becomes muddied at a certain point. There might be a person you meet that aligns almost perfectly with you, but for me this doesn't necessarily mean you need to commit to that one person. It just means that you can figure out more easily what the person needs when they need it and that that person can help you when you need it. Support becomes easier because you understand each other more easily than you do other people. It's something that seems analogous of the path of least resistance.
Also there's more than one way to look at how you want to 'bond' with other people. For me it's providing emotional support, nurturing personal and financial growth, meeting physical needs, etc. And I feel I can do that for more than one person instead of focusing on that one person.
On June 02 2019 00:31 Uldridge wrote: 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?
To me it's just always been the end goal. The person I'd marry would be my best friend. The first person I want to tell anything about where good, bad or just boring. Someone who will be there no matter what. Someone who will just know how I'm feeling without even having to ask. They'd be the person who I can just be myself around and not be judged. Eventually they'll just know everything about me. Which is a very tedious thing and time consuming.
A lot of what I listed can only be applied to one person. You can truly only have one best friend. Whether you like it or not, someone will always come to mind first when you want to share something. It's the core reason why I don't understand people who are polyamorous. I can't see how people can be wired differently in this or why wouldn't you just tell that stranger on the street what is it that's on your mind. I just can't think that this can work with more than two people. There will always be a person I turn to first and I'd feel horrible for the other person who didn't. I'd feel like I was cheating them.
But why would that best friend necessarily have to be a sexual partner? Different people fulfill different roles in your life. It seems a lot of pressure to put on a single person to be all things in one. I think even in happy marriages often times the partners spend time apart with friends and share parts of themselves that they wouldn't with their spouse.
Just to present a view: I married my best friend. We got together somewhat randomly, started making out before we even talked to each other much, turned out we are a really great fit (which seems super unlikely, as we are both quite incompatible with majority of people) and we became better friends than I would ever imagine people can be. I had never had sex with anyone else, so it's hard for me to judge, but it would just feel soooo weird having sex with someone who is not as close to me.
But why would that best friend necessarily have to be a sexual partner? Different people fulfill different roles in your life. It seems a lot of pressure to put on a single person to be all things in one. I think even in happy marriages often times the partners spend time apart with friends and share parts of themselves that they wouldn't with their spouse.
I'm going to spend so much more time with my spouse than any other person. I'll be sleeping next to her hopefully every night. Sharing multiple meals together, cuddling on the couch watching whatever, going shopping, reading to each other, etc. If that person isn't my best friend, we won't make it. What you described as a happy marriage, isn't one to me. I want to get to know every part of my future wife and I hope she feels the same about me. If I can't let myself be completely vulnerable around her, we aren't ready to get married yet or maybe even shouldn't. We just have different views on marriage is. Which is probably why divorce rates have been steadily climbing.
Well, there are also people who get off by watching their SOs get screwed by other men/women. I could never understand that, it's basically a murder scenario to me.
Humans are weird creatures man. I wish things were as simple as that Rammstein song called Pussy.
On June 02 2019 00:31 Uldridge wrote: 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?
To me it's just always been the end goal. The person I'd marry would be my best friend. The first person I want to tell anything about where good, bad or just boring. Someone who will be there no matter what. Someone who will just know how I'm feeling without even having to ask. They'd be the person who I can just be myself around and not be judged. Eventually they'll just know everything about me. Which is a very tedious thing and time consuming.
A lot of what I listed can only be applied to one person. You can truly only have one best friend. Whether you like it or not, someone will always come to mind first when you want to share something. It's the core reason why I don't understand people who are polyamorous. I can't see how people can be wired differently in this or why wouldn't you just tell that stranger on the street what is it that's on your mind. I just can't think that this can work with more than two people. There will always be a person I turn to first and I'd feel horrible for the other person who didn't. I'd feel like I was cheating them.
So everything in the bolded is 100% stuff I agree with. This is all stuff you should have in an open, pair bonded relationship. The other people you see are just sex partners, and they are always secondary to your actual girlfriend/pair-bond/wife.
On June 03 2019 04:16 Uldridge wrote: Well, for me, I don't like the entire favoring one person over another because I know for a fact there's a dime dozen literally everywhere. Edit: I have to clarify. Obviously there will be more attraction or less depending on the person and you'll have automatic preferences. I just like to believe that there are enough people for me to love and spend time with because I know there are a substantial amount of people that meet my criteria.
I can understand committing to 1 person to turn to, though, but that's just not the way I'm wired.
The concept of a best friend becomes muddied at a certain point. There might be a person you meet that aligns almost perfectly with you, but for me this doesn't necessarily mean you need to commit to that one person. It just means that you can figure out more easily what the person needs when they need it and that that person can help you when you need it. Support becomes easier because you understand each other more easily than you do other people. It's something that seems analogous of the path of least resistance.
Also there's more than one way to look at how you want to 'bond' with other people. For me it's providing emotional support, nurturing personal and financial growth, meeting physical needs, etc. And I feel I can do that for more than one person instead of focusing on that one person.
First, I do agree with you strongly that you can do support and bond with multiple people. Much of what you say is indeed, something I know you can do as a person. That said...
This sounds like advocating for relationships with multiple people, perhaps even loving multiple people. I question whether or not one can truly love more than one person, I really do. You'll always have one person you like or prefer more than the others and there WILL be other significant people in your life competing for your attention.
That competition for attention always causes problems. When you're close to people and dating them, it's going to bother you when you want to spend time with someone else, but you're second to a different person and don't get to spend the time or closeness you desire. You'd basically have to be perfectly matching everyone's desired closeness and intimacy perfectly, which just isn't realistic.
I'm pretty involved with open relationships and such things, and I've never, ever heard of this working for a long time (let's say 10+ years) and being low drama. I've met a few cases where couples are still "together", but one or both parties are consistently unhappy and very high drama.
On June 02 2019 00:31 Uldridge wrote: 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?
To me it's just always been the end goal. The person I'd marry would be my best friend. The first person I want to tell anything about where good, bad or just boring. Someone who will be there no matter what. Someone who will just know how I'm feeling without even having to ask. They'd be the person who I can just be myself around and not be judged. Eventually they'll just know everything about me. Which is a very tedious thing and time consuming.
A lot of what I listed can only be applied to one person. You can truly only have one best friend. Whether you like it or not, someone will always come to mind first when you want to share something. It's the core reason why I don't understand people who are polyamorous. I can't see how people can be wired differently in this or why wouldn't you just tell that stranger on the street what is it that's on your mind. I just can't think that this can work with more than two people. There will always be a person I turn to first and I'd feel horrible for the other person who didn't. I'd feel like I was cheating them.
But why would that best friend necessarily have to be a sexual partner? Different people fulfill different roles in your life. It seems a lot of pressure to put on a single person to be all things in one. I think even in happy marriages often times the partners spend time apart with friends and share parts of themselves that they wouldn't with their spouse.
Just to present a view: I married my best friend. We got together somewhat randomly, started making out before we even talked to each other much, turned out we are a really great fit (which seems super unlikely, as we are both quite incompatible with majority of people) and we became better friends than I would ever imagine people can be. I had never had sex with anyone else, so it's hard for me to judge, but it would just feel soooo weird having sex with someone who is not as close to me.
Why?
You've presumably hooked up before and that didn't feel weird at all. Maybe it sucked, maybe it didn't, but most people I know that are attractive enough and social enough to have social experiences have some excellent memories of sexual adventures that rank pretty high up on some of their best/most exciting/most fun life memories. We are wired to enjoy sex as humans. This is obviously in your case since you were being sexual with your wife before you'd even talked much.
Inherently, you have no problems being sexual with someone you don't know well.
So, what's the issue? Probably, it's societal conditioning. I suspect you either can't picture it as an honest thing or you know/suspect in the back of your head your wife wouldn't approve, or that society wouldn't approve, or something similar and it's giving you a weird vibe. This is all your conditioning though, and logically I have yet to hear a solid defense of such thoughts (assuming your wife was okay with such a relationship, lots of obvious reasons why it would be bad if your wife wasn't okay with it).
But why would that best friend necessarily have to be a sexual partner? Different people fulfill different roles in your life. It seems a lot of pressure to put on a single person to be all things in one. I think even in happy marriages often times the partners spend time apart with friends and share parts of themselves that they wouldn't with their spouse.
I'm going to spend so much more time with my spouse than any other person. I'll be sleeping next to her hopefully every night. Sharing multiple meals together, cuddling on the couch watching whatever, going shopping, reading to each other, etc. If that person isn't my best friend, we won't make it. What you described as a happy marriage, isn't one to me. I want to get to know every part of my future wife and I hope she feels the same about me. If I can't let myself be completely vulnerable around her, we aren't ready to get married yet or maybe even shouldn't. We just have different views on marriage is. Which is probably why divorce rates have been steadily climbing.
I'm inclined to agree more with you, that holding back things from your partner isn't a good thing, although it's not uncommon either from fear of hurting the relationship, upsetting or angering a partner, or various other reasons.
Of course, all of that can be true for an open relationship or marriage as well, but I do agree those are desirable traits for any committed, pair-bonded relationship.
It's not why the divorce rates are climbing though. Divorce rates are climbing because monogamy is unnatural to humans and very much against or base instincts and biological wiring. They climb because our society is no longer so patriarchical, and women can comfortably divorce a man when she wants. 75 years ago she would have been left with very little, no source of income, and been rather shunned. Nowadays, at worst she is likely to get half of what the man has, and is significantly more likely to be involved in the labor force. Social pressure around divorce is also drastically less, and is occasional encouraged.
On May 30 2019 02:31 mewithoutDrew wrote: 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.
As a recently married man who has a transgender woman friend who says she's polyamorous, here's my hot take on these 9 points with a conclusion at the end.
1. What is a "sexual shit head"? Are you a prude? people do what they want. Maybe they're polyamorous, maybe they like to fuck and they don't want to commit, either way you're being needlessly judgmental, go back to worrying about your business.
2. Maybe? Either way, their call.
3. You wish harm to come people's way because you dislike the way in which they label their noncommital "issues"? Good man.
4. So not wanting marriage is a bad thing. Noted.
5. You should never have kids because the speed at which you decided that it'd be great for people to have their hearts broken because they're not committed to someone like you are (or aren't currently planning to) makes me feel like you're an angry person unfit to be a dad. Also if your kids turned out to be sexually atypical that might be shitty for them.
6. Lots of people have a lot of sexual partners, this is not 1850, man.
7. My trans friend comes from a good loving family. She plays videogames with her dad. She's very close to her mom. But I guess it kinda feels good to hope they're fucked up. Fuck those people who won't have a steady relationship with your wife's friend, right? They're shit. Right?
8. A lot of people have a lot of sexual partners. They're often shallow relationships. That's their choice.
9. Deep relationships are the choice you and I have made. But being incredibly patronizing to people who haven't followed in your glorious, superior footsteps. My Lord.
You are incredibly judgmental and I would use very harsh language if it was allowed. Grow up.
On June 02 2019 00:31 Uldridge wrote: 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?
To me it's just always been the end goal. The person I'd marry would be my best friend. The first person I want to tell anything about where good, bad or just boring. Someone who will be there no matter what. Someone who will just know how I'm feeling without even having to ask. They'd be the person who I can just be myself around and not be judged. Eventually they'll just know everything about me. Which is a very tedious thing and time consuming.
A lot of what I listed can only be applied to one person. You can truly only have one best friend. Whether you like it or not, someone will always come to mind first when you want to share something. It's the core reason why I don't understand people who are polyamorous. I can't see how people can be wired differently in this or why wouldn't you just tell that stranger on the street what is it that's on your mind. I just can't think that this can work with more than two people. There will always be a person I turn to first and I'd feel horrible for the other person who didn't. I'd feel like I was cheating them.
But why would that best friend necessarily have to be a sexual partner? Different people fulfill different roles in your life. It seems a lot of pressure to put on a single person to be all things in one. I think even in happy marriages often times the partners spend time apart with friends and share parts of themselves that they wouldn't with their spouse.
Just to present a view: I married my best friend. We got together somewhat randomly, started making out before we even talked to each other much, turned out we are a really great fit (which seems super unlikely, as we are both quite incompatible with majority of people) and we became better friends than I would ever imagine people can be. I had never had sex with anyone else, so it's hard for me to judge, but it would just feel soooo weird having sex with someone who is not as close to me.
Why?
You've presumably hooked up before and that didn't feel weird at all. Maybe it sucked, maybe it didn't, but most people I know that are attractive enough and social enough to have social experiences have some excellent memories of sexual adventures that rank pretty high up on some of their best/most exciting/most fun life memories. We are wired to enjoy sex as humans. This is obviously in your case since you were being sexual with your wife before you'd even talked much.
Inherently, you have no problems being sexual with someone you don't know well.
I mean, given that he's said he hasn't had sex with anyone but his wife, you have something solid to go on here, clearly explaining why he feels the way he does. When all of your sexual experience is colored by it being with the most important person in your whole life, that kinda changes things, doesn't it? Plus, I would say conflating making out with "being sexual" to be kind of a leap. You're making a lot of assumptions here, in basically trying to debunk someone's experience.
On June 09 2019 09:08 L_Master wrote: So, what's the issue? Probably, it's societal conditioning. I suspect you either can't picture it as an honest thing or you know/suspect in the back of your head your wife wouldn't approve, or that society wouldn't approve, or something similar and it's giving you a weird vibe. This is all your conditioning though, and logically I have yet to hear a solid defense of such thoughts (assuming your wife was okay with such a relationship, lots of obvious reasons why it would be bad if your wife wasn't okay with it).
Societal conditioning surely can't explain all of it. Some animals mate for life. Others mate more freely. Others even practice non-binary sexuality, including polyamory, like we do. You can't exactly point at penguins and give them crap for not challenging their societal conditioning, when they pair up in a long-term one-on-one bond.
I guess my point is, humans have proven they're capable of a great many things, but ultimately what someone chooses is what they're happiest with. I haven't personally seen a poly relationship that's panned out super healthily, in my experience. It's a relatively recent thing as far as I can tell for it to be this accepted, as I've only heard of it a couple years back, so there's still a pretty small sample size of people willing to brave those waters. Plus you have shitty people who will try to claim they're poly to justify being a shitty human being who can't respect their relationships properly(I say this because my GF has told me of at least one such person). It's very difficult to maintain a healthy poly relationship. Exponentially more so than a monogamous relationship. It isn't an easy fix for anything, quite the opposite. It requires everyone involved to be honest and open and respectful to everyone else involved, and to establish and respect very important boundaries. But I think, given those fledgling problems, it could be worse for those who think polyamory is for them. Ultimately, it's different strokes for different folks. Not everyone is gonna eventually be poly, it just won't work that way. And that's fine.
hi, after reading the whole thread, i feel like it should have its own glossy poster and we should all be wearing little name tags (something like + Show Spoiler +
) and the posts should all start their "testimonies" with something like:
"hi i'm françois, and i'm a typing addict"
then u guys would retort "hi françois" and feeling accepted and in the company of a collective i feel safe with .. i would continue from there:
"i got 2 kids and married my wife 15 years ago, we are happy and non judgemental people who live and let live.. and yes, i'm a pig that would like nothing more than to climb on every single girl/guy/group that i fancy .. but i don't i'm also so passionate that i could show/share my all to many more than one other human, .. and my mate/wife is not as open (or more like: she was bullied into not being able to trust anyone.. and i too often turn off all my "social filters" or even am not able to turn them back on ..etc) and i feel fine accepting her terms at the cost of mine! while she does (presumably) the same"
.. at this point i would break down and crumble in a pit of sudden uncalled for depression, trying to encompass all the ins and outs of what i have just said and ask the audience:
"Does that make me crazy or just a closeted polyamorous dude?
.. is my relationship doomed from either? will it have to fail just because we (my wife and i) checked the wrong "arrangement" of boxes?
i think we agree that we don't think so, we are not doomed.. we just think we got lucky"
then it would cue the tldr: (any type of) freedom is a thing you struggle/fight for forever.. never something you win (and get to keep forever.. no no! no such thing as forever, ever!) .. .. life is also choice and the struggle is as much the goal than the end, we get lucky is all we get... <3
That competition for attention always causes problems. When you're close to people and dating them, it's going to bother you when you want to spend time with someone else, but you're second to a different person and don't get to spend the time or closeness you desire. You'd basically have to be perfectly matching everyone's desired closeness and intimacy perfectly, which just isn't realistic.
I'm pretty involved with open relationships and such things, and I've never, ever heard of this working for a long time (let's say 10+ years) and being low drama. I've met a few cases where couples are still "together", but one or both parties are consistently unhappy and very high drama.
Wait. I'm confused. Isn't this evidence that open relationships don't really work- contrary to your position?
Because that second paragraph is exactly what I would predict. I'm sure polys can run the experiment, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if my hypothesis would be proved correct that it is an inherently unstable relationship because of the following premise: humans are, by nature, jealous. I've heard enough stories where a couple might think they can handle an open relationship- but one partner is far more successful at getting additional action, leading the less successful one to resent the whole thing. Or alternatively, where the couple is supposed to sign off on each others extra-marital partners, but where, let's say the wife, gets her action, but refuses to sign off on anyone for her husband because none of them are 'good enough for him'.
Y'all can run the experiment for yourselves, but I predict once you introduce that third wheel (or fourth or fifth), the relationship is a ticking time bomb (unless one of the partners is a pushover and instead lives in resentment).
Well, let me give you an example from practice, specifically my own fucking marriage. We never claimed to be "polyamorous", but my wife's sex drive was always bigger than mine, so she started seeing another guy and fucking him intermittently. Eventually, this evolved to a stable thing, when she would live with me, but occasionally spend time with him. At first I didn't like it so much, but looking back, that was mainly because I was conditioned by the society. I obviously really disliked seeing them together, because it was kinda gross, but anything happening in my absence turned into not being a problem after all.
I knew the guy right off the start (we were all classmates in college) but during time, I started to like him more. The fun thing is that eventually, they sort of "broke up", but I remained good friends with the guy and now he works for me part time and I stay at his place when I am in Prague. My wife still talks to him, but she lives 600 kms away and they don't really see each other (the main reason for the "breakup" was that he wasn't interested enough to do the journey once in a while).
Anyway, the point is that human relationships may work out in any shape or form, as long as people are willing to step outside the constantly repeated bullshit we are being shoveled with 24/7. You do not have to get batshit crazy when your partner has sex with another person. I personally found out that it really isn't the sex what I care about the most, but the everyday attention and availability and this was, during the years of the parallel relations, always given to me in priority by my wife and that's really what mattered.
We seem to assume here that the longevity of a relationship is an indicator of its quality, and a corollary to that assumption is that polyamorous relationships don't last and therefore it's a lesser experience for people who have that kind of sexual practice.
Isn't the assumption flawed in the first place? There are a lot of people who prefer non-commital relationships, polyamorous or not. Some people prefer short and sweet and they enjoy life better with partner sexual partners that come and go, no pun intended.
That competition for attention always causes problems. When you're close to people and dating them, it's going to bother you when you want to spend time with someone else, but you're second to a different person and don't get to spend the time or closeness you desire. You'd basically have to be perfectly matching everyone's desired closeness and intimacy perfectly, which just isn't realistic.
I'm pretty involved with open relationships and such things, and I've never, ever heard of this working for a long time (let's say 10+ years) and being low drama. I've met a few cases where couples are still "together", but one or both parties are consistently unhappy and very high drama.
Wait. I'm confused. Isn't this evidence that open relationships don't really work- contrary to your position?
Because that second paragraph is exactly what I would predict. I'm sure polys can run the experiment, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if my hypothesis would be proved correct that it is an inherently unstable relationship because of the following premise: humans are, by nature, jealous. I've heard enough stories where a couple might think they can handle an open relationship- but one partner is far more successful at getting additional action, leading the less successful one to resent the whole thing. Or alternatively, where the couple is supposed to sign off on each others extra-marital partners, but where, let's say the wife, gets her action, but refuses to sign off on anyone for her husband because none of them are 'good enough for him'.
Y'all can run the experiment for yourselves, but I predict once you introduce that third wheel (or fourth or fifth), the relationship is a ticking time bomb (unless one of the partners is a pushover and instead lives in resentment).
Depends on what you mean by definition. I stated strongly that open relationships, in which people try to have deep pair-bonded relationships with more than one person absolutely DO NOT work, in so far as I've observed and heard about.
What does work, and very well, IF you have the right mindset, is an open relationship with multiple partners but only one pair bond. This is what I've been discussing and explaining the entire time.
I've heard enough stories where a couple might think they can handle an open relationship- but one partner is far more successful at getting additional action, leading the less successful one to resent the whole thing. Or alternatively, where the couple is supposed to sign off on each others extra-marital partners, but where, let's say the wife, gets her action, but refuses to sign off on anyone for her husband because none of them are 'good enough for him'.
Y'all can run the experiment for yourselves, but I predict once you introduce that third wheel (or fourth or fifth), the relationship is a ticking time bomb (unless one of the partners is a pushover and instead lives in resentment)
None of this is what I'm talking about. Whoever is getting more "action" doesn't matter. Neither of you care. It's not about getting more or less, and if you're worried about something like that, you're not the type of person that would be suited for an open relationship. You're having occasional extra partners to fill the natural human urge for variety, and to alleviate sex pressure in the relationship. It's not about having "more", it's about being satisfied. Resenting my girlfriend if she was more successful at finding sexual partners than me would be as ridiculous as resenting my guy friend because he was better with woman than me, or because he was better than running at me, or anything else. If that's causing any issue in the relationship, the problem is your own feelings.
If you have issues with jealousy...open relationships are NOT for you.
"Signing off" on partners is beyond ridiculous and just doomed to fail.
As someone who dates and has dated open, it's not remotely a ticking time bomb whatsoever. It's a low drama relationship done right, that in my experience alleviated some of the major issues with monogamy.
On June 14 2019 19:28 Djzapz wrote: We seem to assume here that the longevity of a relationship is an indicator of its quality, and a corollary to that assumption is that polyamorous relationships don't last and therefore it's a lesser experience for people who have that kind of sexual practice.
Isn't the assumption flawed in the first place? There are a lot of people who prefer non-commital relationships, polyamorous or not. Some people prefer short and sweet and they enjoy life better with partner sexual partners that come and go, no pun intended.
I do like your thinking, but I think most people generally prefer or express to prefer a deep pair bonded relationship. For those that don't, that's perfectly fine in my mind if you're honest and upfront, but I think most people are looking for that deep relationship as well.
But the key point is that open relationship are 100% compatible with longevity and stability.
That competition for attention always causes problems. When you're close to people and dating them, it's going to bother you when you want to spend time with someone else, but you're second to a different person and don't get to spend the time or closeness you desire. You'd basically have to be perfectly matching everyone's desired closeness and intimacy perfectly, which just isn't realistic.
I'm pretty involved with open relationships and such things, and I've never, ever heard of this working for a long time (let's say 10+ years) and being low drama. I've met a few cases where couples are still "together", but one or both parties are consistently unhappy and very high drama.
Wait. I'm confused. Isn't this evidence that open relationships don't really work- contrary to your position?
Because that second paragraph is exactly what I would predict. I'm sure polys can run the experiment, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if my hypothesis would be proved correct that it is an inherently unstable relationship because of the following premise: humans are, by nature, jealous. I've heard enough stories where a couple might think they can handle an open relationship- but one partner is far more successful at getting additional action, leading the less successful one to resent the whole thing. Or alternatively, where the couple is supposed to sign off on each others extra-marital partners, but where, let's say the wife, gets her action, but refuses to sign off on anyone for her husband because none of them are 'good enough for him'.
Y'all can run the experiment for yourselves, but I predict once you introduce that third wheel (or fourth or fifth), the relationship is a ticking time bomb (unless one of the partners is a pushover and instead lives in resentment).
Yeah it really is a ticking time bomb. My brother was hooking up with a married chick and her husband knew about it and didn't do anything about it. But as you would expect, he hates my brother and it caused a lot of friction in their marriage. He stopped seeing her but they still talk from time to time and they don't really talk anymore due to it. Doubt that marriage will last much longer.
I guarantee that for every one relationship you find that this works fine, thousands (probably more) don't. Most humans can't handle it.
That competition for attention always causes problems. When you're close to people and dating them, it's going to bother you when you want to spend time with someone else, but you're second to a different person and don't get to spend the time or closeness you desire. You'd basically have to be perfectly matching everyone's desired closeness and intimacy perfectly, which just isn't realistic.
I'm pretty involved with open relationships and such things, and I've never, ever heard of this working for a long time (let's say 10+ years) and being low drama. I've met a few cases where couples are still "together", but one or both parties are consistently unhappy and very high drama.
Wait. I'm confused. Isn't this evidence that open relationships don't really work- contrary to your position?
Because that second paragraph is exactly what I would predict. I'm sure polys can run the experiment, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if my hypothesis would be proved correct that it is an inherently unstable relationship because of the following premise: humans are, by nature, jealous. I've heard enough stories where a couple might think they can handle an open relationship- but one partner is far more successful at getting additional action, leading the less successful one to resent the whole thing. Or alternatively, where the couple is supposed to sign off on each others extra-marital partners, but where, let's say the wife, gets her action, but refuses to sign off on anyone for her husband because none of them are 'good enough for him'.
Y'all can run the experiment for yourselves, but I predict once you introduce that third wheel (or fourth or fifth), the relationship is a ticking time bomb (unless one of the partners is a pushover and instead lives in resentment).
Yeah it really is a ticking time bomb. My brother was hooking up with a married chick and her husband knew about it and didn't do anything about it. But as you would expect, he hates my brother and it caused a lot of friction in their marriage. He stopped seeing her but they still talk from time to time and they don't really talk anymore due to it. Doubt that marriage will last much longer.
I guarantee that for every one relationship you find that this works fine, thousands (probably more) don't. Most humans can't handle it.
Your example doesn't make sense.
If reading right, husband's wife was CHEATING with your brother. Of course he is going to be pissed off in that context. If it was an open relationship that line would read "her husband knew about it and didn't give a fuck". This all sounds like a failed monogamous relationship, not an open one. Obviously, if one partner massively resents the "open" aspect, it's not a mutual relationship and is in a terrible position to begin with.
Again, it's not a ticking time bomb if you do it right, and are the right kind of person suited for such a relationship. Open relationships are NOT for everyone. Hell, monogamy also is NOT for everyone. Different people are suited to different things.
Now, let me ask you this. What do you think an "open relationship" is? Depending on your answer, I might buy or accept your 1 in thousands statement. If, by open relationship, you mean one pair bonded emotional relationship with occasional other FBs on a purely sexual level, then you need to ask yourself "what evidence do I have for this belief". Likely, you don't have many. I have a great deal of experience and anecdotal evidence, and would place this number somewhere between 1 in 10 and 1 in 40. I know lots of couples and marriages that have been open and low drama for 10+ years.
Done right, this relationship works fine, similar in success to mongamous relationships (I believe around 1 in 8 or 1 in 10 work and lead to marriage, and then another 25%-65% of those also fail) so monogamy is like a 1 in 20 to perhaps 1 in 50 success rate. This is similar to what I see for open relationships that last to successful, low drama open marriages.
On June 14 2019 19:28 Djzapz wrote: We seem to assume here that the longevity of a relationship is an indicator of its quality, and a corollary to that assumption is that polyamorous relationships don't last and therefore it's a lesser experience for people who have that kind of sexual practice.
Isn't the assumption flawed in the first place? There are a lot of people who prefer non-commital relationships, polyamorous or not. Some people prefer short and sweet and they enjoy life better with partner sexual partners that come and go, no pun intended.
I do like your thinking, but I think most people generally prefer or express to prefer a deep pair bonded relationship. For those that don't, that's perfectly fine in my mind if you're honest and upfront, but I think most people are looking for that deep relationship as well.
But the key point is that open relationship are 100% compatible with longevity and stability.
I do agree that open relationships are compatible with longevity and stability but I'm saying that longevity and stability are not even standards for quality in the mind of a lot of people. Hell there are a lot of monogamous people who are afraid of commitment (or simply dislike commitment for whatever reasons they may have) and prefer to go from one conquest to another.
So OP and a few others in this thread make the assumption that because X relationships may have less longetivity and stability, they are lesser relationships according to standards that are set by themselves, rather than the participants of that relationship.
Tldr: We don't get to determine what's important in someone else's relationship.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://heathere.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Screen-Shot-2016-08-21-at-11.04.21-AM.png)
