# Why are romantic relationships the only relationships that 'should' be exclusive?



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

If a person can have more than one friend and equally value each friendship or a parent can have more than one child and love all their children the same amount, then why is it so important to have only one exclusive romantic partner? 

Having several friends who each enrich our lives in their own unique way is considered to be emotionally healthy. The same applies to every other type of relationship, parents, children, siblings, even pets, having more than one is never considered a problem, apart from romantic relationships. Why is this so different? 

Surely if any relationship is so important that it should have its own rules, it should be the parent-child relationship, since a life has been created which needs guidance and security to become a healthy adult. 
If a child feels jealous about the arrival of a new sibling, it's viewed as something the child needs to get over. Nobody ever says that you should only have one child because having two will create feelings of jealousy and inadequacy in the children or if you truly love your child then one should be enough. 

If someone told you that you can't have more than one friend if you value the friendship, it would be seen as ridiculous and very immature. 

So apart from monogamy being the norm, most likely because religion has dictated it for hundreds of years, why is it not considered unhealthy to expect one person to meet all your romantic emotional and physical needs?


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> If a person can have more than one friend and equally value each friendship or a parent can have more than one child and love all their children the same amount, then why is it so important to have only one exclusive romantic partner?


For what it's worth I don't think you can hold all friends at the same level nor feel the same amount of kinship to all your children equally. That doesn't mean you can't have more than one friend, but I think one will know you and be closer to you than the others. You can have more than a single child but I wouldn't believe a parent who says they don't have a favorite.

That being said, for most people the question of exclusivity comes from the norms we're conditioned with in society, remove that and there's no reason why you should have only one of any kind of person in your life.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

android654 said:


> For what it's worth I don't think you can hold all friends at the same level nor feel the same amount of kinship to all your children equally. That doesn't mean you can't have more than one friend, but I think one will know you and be closer to you than the others. You can have more than a single child but I wouldn't believe a parent who says they don't have a favorite.
> 
> That being said, for most people the question of exclusivity comes from the norms we're conditioned with in society, remove that and there's no reason why you should have only one of any kind of person in your life.


Ftr, I have two children and I don't have a favorite. I didn't think it was possible to love two children equally until I actually had two, but it definitely is.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I tend to think this is something each of us has to figure out for ourselves.

I have a broad circle of people whom I consider to be friends, but only two people who I consider closer than that. The first is my wife, the other is my best male friend. 

As for monogamy and whatnot, I do not think I would be as good of a partner if I spread myself too thin in that area. Maybe I just don't know any better, but my wife and I are happy to keep things exclusive, and I see no reason to change this arrangement.


----------



## bluedoom (Dec 23, 2012)

Well for starters although people aren't perfect,they want to feel special. Having someone who can put up with your flaws, and still love your qualities, who is willing to sustain the relationship makes you feel kind of special.

My assumption in a polygamous relationship is that one does not necessarily have to put up/come to terms with their partner's flaws/ deficits, or even try to work around them . Say I like girl A for her out-going personality, I can like girl B for her quiet, nurturing disposition. Say girl A spent too much time out at social gatherings and wasn't much of a person who would spend time alone with me. In a monogamous relationship I would try to have a good communication with girl A so that she understands I need more alone time with her. If there's good understanding between the couple, then an obstacle is overcome and the bond becomes stronger and feels more special.

But in this polygamous scenario I'm getting my quiet time with girl B, why would I need to try and change girl A's personality? As long as I'm getting what I want emotionally, there's no reason for me to try and change girl A. Only difference is there's no 'stronger' bond formed because I didn't overcome any obstacle.

Now I'm aware that either of the girls could be both out-going and sensitive to my personal needs or w/e(but then why have people who have the same qualities? Just sounds weird to me). But here I was just portraying two different people whose personalities had different qualities that I would admire. Obviously in real life there will be greater diversity and the world is neither black nor white, but gray, but my point stands the same- if you don't pass hurdles the bond doesn't grow or at least feel stronger.

Ofc this is only my opinion and what I think of polygamy. I don't think its bad or horrible but I just don't see how you could form a strong interpersonal relationship as you possibly could in monogamy. Ofc I'm not factoring in stuff like having two girls with very similar personalities but looks turn me on in different ways, or many other combinations of such. My reasoning could be very much flawed, haha. You can love your friends for their peculiar qualities too, so then there must be just something more to romance than just personal qualities I suppose. Its a very thin line between friendship and romance haha.


----------



## Waiting (Jul 10, 2011)

Have u seriously rationalized that in your mind


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Waiting said:


> Have u seriously rationalized that in your mind


I haven't rationalized it, no. I'm asking.


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

Neverontime said:


> If a person can have more than one friend and equally value each friendship or a parent can have more than one child and love all their children the same amount, then why is it so important to have only one exclusive romantic partner?


I guess fear. Fear of losing the person you love. 

But if a person leaves you because he/she had a romance with another person, then your relationship wasn't really good enough. Still, that's always the case with young, undeveloped relationships. They are vulnurable and perhaps it is wise to protect them with a temporary monopoly on sex and intimacy.

But when you have a good, strong and stable relationship... well then I don't really see why you should limit eachother from having positive relationships and experiences with other people. 


My significant other is allowed to have any kind of relation with any kind of person she wants, and I trust her to know that she won't get into anything destructive. And who am I to forbid? All I can say what my feelings are and I don't have anything against it - I want everything good for her. Love is good. Relations are good. It develops us. I am not afraid that I would lose her. I know I won't. And she won't lose me just because I have loving relationships with other persons than her. 

We are autonomous persons, we stay together because our relationship is great, not because of any rules. And our relationship only get better when we have full respect for eachother and can be reasonable about anything.


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

I may have several friends, but I only have one "best friend." I'm also her only "best friend." Couldn't that be considered exclusive? If I had this intimate a relationship with everybody, not only would it be emotionally tiring, it would also cease to be intimate. It would lose its special-ness so to speak. Same goes for me and my boyfriend.

Not to mention, for me, it takes a REALLY long time to build a close, trusting relationship. Doing that with multiple people would wear me out.


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

it's all about the individual person.
a romantic relationship, if desired to last, takes a lot of care, and having more than one seems a bit overwhelming for me.
i actually know plenty of non-monogamous people who have very exciting and emotion-filled relationships with multiple people at once. they have the emotional room for more than one person and desire a different dynamic than I do. 
all that's needed for a healthy non-monogamous relationship is completely open communication, total honesty, and the desire to be non-monogamous.

I'm pretty incapable of seeing anyone other than the guy I love, because I love him so much, everyone else pales in comparison.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

Speaking solely for myself, I find the idea amusing that I would ever find more than one person at any one time to be suitable romantic partner material. I have different standards than most, and few people meet them. If I found one who did, I'm unsure why I would be interested in anyone else.

Secondly, I'm selective about what I reveal about myself to people; I do not like being vulnerable, and as relationships require one making one's self vulnerable to one's partner to an extent, I would never do so to more than one person at a time; and, as experience has made it oh-so-clear to me, there are not that many people worthy of my trust as is required in a relationship, and there would never be more than one person at a time I would trust to that extent. (Hmm, look at that. Norms and/or religion have nothing to do with my reasons.)

Other people are free to be in non-monogamous relationships if they wish. They just won't be in them with me. But as there are other fish in the sea, I'm sure they won't have any problem finding someone to accomodate them.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Master Mind said:


> Speaking solely for myself, I find the idea amusing that I would ever find more than one person at any one time to be suitable romantic partner material. I have different standards than most, and few people meet them. If I found one who did, I'm unsure why I would be interested in anyone else.
> 
> Secondly, I'm selective about what I reveal about myself to people; I do not like being vulnerable, and as relationships require one making one's self vulnerable to one's partner to an extent, I would never do so to more than one person at a time; and, as experience has made it oh-so-clear to me, there are not that many people worthy of my trust as is required in a relationship, and there would never be more than one person at a time I would trust to that extent. (Hmm, look at that. Norms and/or religion have nothing to do with my reasons.)
> 
> Other people are free to be in non-monogamous relationships if they wish. They just won't be in them with me. But as there are other fish in the sea, I'm sure they won't have any problem finding someone to accomodate them.


Do you say that your standards high because you have particular criteria that a potential partner has to meet or because you just don't find many people attractive?


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> Do you say that your standards high because you have particular criteria that a potential partner has to meet or because you just don't find many people attractive?


My standards have nothing to do with, say, some number on a rating system denoting subjective level of physical attractiveness.

After being in relationships, those that didn't work brought to my attention what I didn't want in a partner, and thus also what I _did_ want in contrast. I now know what I want (or what I wanted when I was interested in relationships), so there is absolutely no reason to enter into a relationship with someone who doesn't have what I'm looking for. And most people have different conceptions of relationships than I do to begin with, meaning we're going to be on completely different wavelengths as to just what a relationship entails and what is or isn't acceptable in a relationship. I think the institution of relationships is broken, which is one reason why male-female relations are so screwed up.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Master Mind said:


> My standards have nothing to do with, say, some number on a rating system denoting subjective level of physical attractiveness.


I asked because your reasons for not wanting to be in a non-monogamous relationship explain why you don't believe that you would want more than one person. They don't extend to why you wouldn't be ok with your partner having other romantic relationships. So I wondered if your criteria included monogamy or if there were more reasons than you stated. Of course, I understand if you would rather not say what they are.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> I asked because your reasons for not wanting to be in a non-monogamous relationship explain why you don't believe that you would want more than one person.


It's not what I "believe," it's what I know. Whether your intent or not, it's condescending, as it implies that maybe I would be okay with it if I only "gave it a chance." (People have used this approach before, and I don't get why people want to be able to do whatever it is they want, yet they feel compelled to try to "convince" other people who aren't doing what they are to do it too.) Many people don't know themselves (many try to _escape_ themselves via whatever their preferred method of choice is), but I'm not one of those people. I've had women come on to me when I was in a relationship (for some reason, this always seemed to happen more often when I was in a relationship than when I was single), and there was the opportunity to do something if I was so inclined, and my partner wasn't there at the time. But it wasn't, and each time I let them know in no uncertain terms that I was already in a relationship.



Neverontime said:


> They don't extend to why you wouldn't be ok with your partner having other romantic relationships. So I wondered if your criteria included monogamy or if there were more reasons than you stated. Of course, I understand if you would rather not say what they are.


I'm a one-woman man and she should be a one-man woman. If she isn't, then we aren't compatible, and there are over 7 billion other people on the planet. No skin off my back. People can do what they want, it just won't be with me. I posted some weeks ago that I wanted someone in a relationship who would treat me the same way I treated her, but experience has shown me that's an unrealistic expection due in part to the differing views on relationships.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Master Mind said:


> It's not what I "believe," it's what I know. Whether your intent or not, it's condescending, as it implies that maybe I would be okay with it if I only "gave it a chance." (People have used this approach before, and I don't get why people want to be able to do whatever it is they want, yet they feel compelled to try to "convince" other people who aren't doing what they are to do it too.) Many people don't know themselves (many try to _escape_ themselves via whatever their preferred method of choice is),


I said 'believe' because nobody actually 'knows' what they will do in the future, not because I think anything in particular about your situation. 

I'm not trying to convince you to do the same as me either, I've never been in a non-monogamous relationship. I really don't care what other people are doing, I'm interested in why they're doing it. 



> but I'm not one of those people. I've had women come on to me when I was in a relationship (for some reason, this always seemed to happen more often when I was in a relationship than when I was single), and there was the opportunity to do something if I was so inclined, and my partner wasn't there at the time. But it wasn't, and each time I let them know in no uncertain terms that I was already in a relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a one-woman man and she should be a one-man woman. If she isn't, then we aren't compatible, and there are over 7 billion other people on the planet. No skin off my back. People can do what they want, it just won't be with me. I posted some weeks ago that I wanted someone in a relationship who would treat me the same way I treated her, but experience has shown me that's an unrealistic expection due in part to the differing views on relationships.



Fair enough, I understand a bit more now.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

I don't care how other people approach things...If there's a mutual understanding and both people are ok with polygamy in the relationship, whatever. But for me, I couldn't love more than one person. When I love someone, I want to give it all to them, I want them to be special. I want to be theirs and I want to make them mine. I can't imagine having more than one person like that, I just can't. So it's hard for me to understand how anyone could have a meaningful relationship like that, but I can't imagine all polygamists don't care about meaningful relationships. 
A friend is never gonna be on the same level as a romantic partner. My partner is my best friend


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Because they are mine! *throws teddies out of the cot*

Maybe it is social conditioning but if I were to get in a relationship again, or at some point marry I don't want my partner sleeping with other people or see other people romantically. Because to me, that isn't a relationship. I like to be the only person that they would treat that way. It makes me feel special (without the sparkles).

For myself personally, I couldn't and wouldn't be able to keep up a polygamous relationship based on that fact that I keep emotional attachments to people. Once one person has my attention in that way, any advances from anybody else will just be ignored and sometimes I am even oblivious to them.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

DeductiveReasoner said:


> I may have several friends, but I only have one "best friend." I'm also her only "best friend." Couldn't that be considered exclusive? If I had this intimate a relationship with everybody, not only would it be emotionally tiring, it would also cease to be intimate. It would lose its special-ness so to speak. Same goes for me and my boyfriend.
> 
> Not to mention, for me, it takes a REALLY long time to build a close, trusting relationship. Doing that with multiple people would wear me out.


Research study from a journal: Polyamorous people have greater levels of intimacy

No, having a "best friend" doesn't mean you only have one friend. The definition of exclusive means only having one. And yes, you'll probably like one romantic partner more than the two others, but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy them the way you enjoy your non-best friend.

Trust requires a lot of effort - true. Polyamory (multiple romantic partners) actually promotes trust building and makes it easier (according to the above article).

Many people (not all) are monogamous because of fear of being alone. They don't have the ability to be content and happy within themselves so they need to have an exclusive relationship to feel secure. This only hurts them from developing their emotional health and sense of self-security or confidence.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

You Sir Name said:


> it's all about the individual person.
> a romantic relationship, if desired to last, takes a lot of care, and having more than one seems a bit overwhelming for me.
> i actually know plenty of non-monogamous people who have very exciting and emotion-filled relationships with multiple people at once. they have the emotional room for more than one person and desire a different dynamic than I do.
> all that's needed for a healthy non-monogamous relationship is completely open communication, total honesty, and the desire to be non-monogamous.
> ...


If someone can have an emotionally fulfilling life with multiple romantic partners, then you can too. We're not cut from a different cloth. 

Many people who make that last claim are just stuck in the common social paradigm (or narrative if you prefer) of monogamy. I'm not saying you are, but lots of people only "think" that because that's what they're supposed to think without actually putting in the time to challenge that assumption. Just food for thought.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Neverontime said:


> It seems to be directly linked to feelings of security/insecurity then? I've already mentioned that I've only been in monogamous relationships, but still from experience I've found that more freedom = more security.


Hmm I think that jealousy is a feeling that happens when a person feels that what he/she wants is threatened by the presence of other, so that is why when there's more freedom and less expectations, a person would not really have much to lose and therefore wouldn't feel jealous. But for monogamous people, they tend to want to build a family and life along with their life mate, and if their life mate ever gets interested in someone else and loses interest in them, what they have been building would be destroyed. Not to say that it should be about limiting what our partner wants or desires (limiting their interest and affection towards other people), but rather about finding someone else who wants the same things (that only by exclusivity can achieve). So they would accept that not everyone wants exclusivity, but can be hurt if their partners decided to have this commitment but end up wanting something else.



Neverontime said:


> I have a tendency not to be satisfied until I've ironed out all the inconsistencies I perceive around an interesting idea. I forget that others aren't always _that_ interested.


Maybe this is a "N" thing (I noticed you have NF)? To want to analyze every detail clearly.  (I'm also NF lol)

Although the problem is that even thought monogamous people knows what it is, it's not always easy to explain it clearly in words.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Villainous said:


> I actually don't believe in cognitive functions/type dynamics as described by Jung (Fi, Te, etc.) I posted a documentary video of a research who did brain imaging of different personality types and the functions seem to be a lot more complex and different than the way it's been described so far (again with Fi, Te, etc.)


I've no idea how you perceive them so I can't say that they are more complex and different than your understanding of them. Although, I do think that they more complex than what is generally believed, yes.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

AriesLilith said:


> Hmm I think that jealousy is a feeling that happens when a person feels that what he/she wants is threatened by the presence of other, so that is why when there's more freedom and less expectations, a person would not really have much to lose and therefore wouldn't feel jealous.


Relationships are extremely vulnerable to subtle guilt manipulation tactics. I realised that I've done this in the past myself without being aware at the time what I was doing. When I realised that it's actually a very fine line between 'loves small sacrifices' and attempts to control, I stopped all the unreasonable expectations and I found that I felt more secure about relationships in general. That's what I meant by freedom and security. 



> But for monogamous people, they tend to want to build a family and life along with their life mate, and if their life mate ever gets interested in someone else and loses interest in them, what they have been building would be destroyed. Not to say that it should be about limiting what our partner wants or desires (limiting their interest and affection towards other people), but rather about finding someone else who wants the same things (that only by exclusivity can achieve). So they would accept that not everyone wants exclusivity, but can be hurt if their partners decided to have this commitment but end up wanting something else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I believe that's true, yes.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> I have a tendency not to be satisfied until I've ironed out all the inconsistencies I perceive around an interesting idea. I forget that others aren't always _that_ interested.


I'm the same way sometimes, but you haven't mentioned any inconsistencies. If you had, I would have explained them. But if you're talking about your idea of romantic love being no different than platonic love or familial love, then that's not an inconsistency


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

To be honest, I couldn't tell at some point if you were here for true curiosity and intellectual exploration, or to make a point


----------



## Kyandigaru (Mar 11, 2012)

i've never been good at sharing. Always been used to having my own shit....so this goes for men too!


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

lycanized said:


> I'm the same way sometimes, but you haven't mentioned any inconsistencies. If you had, I would have explained them. But if you're talking about your idea of romantic love being no different than platonic love or familial love, then that's not an inconsistency


I never said that it was 'no different' and I still see it as an inconsistency. I don't trust others people's judgements unless they make sense to me.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

lycanized said:


> To be honest, I couldn't tell at some point if you were here for true curiosity and intellectual exploration, or to make a point


I said what I was here for.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> I never said that it was 'no different' and I still see it as an inconsistency. I don't trust others people's judgements unless they make sense to me.


You actually did say it wasn't different, though
And to me, it is. That's why it's not an inconsistency. The things that go for a romantic relationship are not necessarily gonna go for a familial relationship, or a platonic loving friendship. At least, that's how I am, therefore it's not an inconsistency to me. If it was, I'd know. You just got frustrated when I tried explaining why they are different to me, which is why I started saying not everyone is gonna think or feel the same way
You're replying to me like I can't understand wanting things to make sense...Which I can, but what you want is for me to have the pov that all personal relationships are the same, which they aren't for me. If you want to know why I think they're not the same or are incomparable in regards to exclusivity, if you want me to try my best to explain that more, I can. But you didn't ask, so it doesn't seem you're doing much digging if you really want to understand


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> I said what I was here for.


I know you said...in your first posts, you seemed genuinely curious. But when you started getting frustrated was when i started questioning it


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

Just had an interesting thought in the shower. As an ENTJ, I'm a bit idealistic and tend to see the possibilities of the future and how systems can be improved. I guess I have this vision where everyone is happy, open, trusting, secure and has the option of connecting with anyone they want, sleeping with anyone they want, and has the entire world as a support network (basically abundant in anything they want like positive emotions or even just straight up sex without any emotion). I guess I practice and advocate non-monogamy and criticize monogamy because I see it as a way of reaching that vision, which may or may not be a way to do it.

...wait a minute, I'm an ENTJ, forget that last part I'm probably right :wink:

Though I do plan to test my idea and plan on trying monogamy again in a few years to see what's up.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

lycanized said:


> You actually did say it wasn't different, though
> And to me, it is. That's why it's not an inconsistency. The things that go for a romantic relationship are not necessarily gonna go for a familial relationship, or a platonic loving friendship. At least, that's how I am, therefore it's not an inconsistency to me. If it was, I'd know. You just got frustrated when I tried explaining why they are different to me, which is why I started saying not everyone is gonna think or feel the same way
> You're replying to me like I can't understand wanting things to make sense...Which I can, but what you want is for me to have the pov that all personal relationships are the same, which they aren't for me. If you want to know why I think they're not the same or are incomparable in regards to exclusivity, if you want me to try my best to explain that more, I can. But you didn't ask, so it doesn't seem you're doing much digging if you really want to understand


My words were 'they're not *that* different' and I don't believe that you can change my perspective on that any more than I can change yours. Sometimes it's necessary to agree to disagree and I think this is one of those times. 



lycanized said:


> I know you said...in your first posts, you seemed genuinely curious. But when you started getting frustrated was when i started questioning it


I can't control your perception of my motives beyond me stating what they are.
I would probably have found it less frustrating if I was trying to make a point.


----------



## Trinidad (Apr 16, 2010)

Villainous said:


> I'm really curious as to whether extroverts correlate higher with non-monogamy than introverts. I also bet NTs are most likely to live a non-monogamous lifestyle (as opposed to SJs who would probably be the most monogamous).


Ha, I'm ISTJ, one of the least likely types to be polyamorous according to your 'rules' 



Neverontime said:


> I would have expected to find something along the lines of more Fi and Ti types to be non-monogamous but you fucked my theory up.


There might be a correlation with Fi, I imagine Fe to comform more easily to the general consensus. Also, Ti types tend to make their own rules based on internal logic, so non-monogamy may be higher amongst IXTP's as well.
Mind you, I'm just guessing here and don't mean offence to anyone.



Neverontime said:


> It {intimacy} seems to be directly linked to feelings of security/insecurity then? I've already mentioned that I've only been in monogamous relationships, but still from experience I've found that more freedom = more security.


That's what I've found as well. I can't deal with clinginess or being claimed in any way. I am my own person and highly value my freedom and independence. If I am with someone it's because I _want _to be and my partners feel the same way. I don't care what they do when I'm not around as long as they're honest and safe about it.

On the other hand some couples are attached to the hip and have to do everything together: 'We' can't make it to your party, 'we' have to do laundry, 'we' have to walk the dog. It creeps me out, but they probably find security in that, so less freedom = more security in their case.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> My words were 'they're not *that* different' and I don't believe that you can change my perspective on that any more than I can change yours. Sometimes it's necessary to agree to disagree and I think this is one of those times.
> 
> I can't control your perception of my motives beyond me stating what they are.
> I would probably have found it less frustrating if I was trying to make a point.


I don't want to change your perspective, but I thought mine would be interesting since you were asking for peoples' perspectives in this thread...You are asking people why, and I tried explaining why. But it doesn't make sense to you because you just believe that all relationships should be comparable when to me, they aren't. Relationships are inherently personal so it's all about how each person approaches them. For me, they are not comparable. If they are for you, then that's fine. But for me, exclusivity in a romantic relationship definitely does not mean exclusivity should be used in other relationships. No one has to agree to disagree if it's about exploration, but you were getting frustrated when I explained why I don't think every type of relationship is comparable rather than exploring that. I don't care what's right or wrong, though. That's just how it started to feel less like exploration and more like making a point.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

lycanized said:


> I don't want to change your perspective, but I thought mine would be interesting since you were asking for peoples' perspectives in this thread...You are asking people why, and I tried explaining why. But it doesn't make sense to you because you just believe that all relationships should be comparable when to me, they aren't. Relationships are inherently personal so it's all about how each person approaches them. For me, they are not comparable. If they are for you, then that's fine. But for me, exclusivity in a romantic relationship definitely does not mean exclusivity should be used in other relationships. No one has to agree to disagree if it's about exploration, but you were getting frustrated when I explained why I don't think every type of relationship is comparable rather than exploring that. I don't care what's right or wrong, though. That's just how it started to feel less like exploration and more like making a point.


Ah okay, I see your point. I replied to your post when I was getting frustrated although it wasn't so much about the content of your post specifically, but an accumulation of posts that were stating similar views without an adequate explanation. I guess assumed yours would be the same because I was already in that frame of mind. My bad, I apologise.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

lycanized said:


> I don't want to change your perspective, but I thought mine would be interesting since you were asking for peoples' perspectives in this thread...You are asking people why, and I tried explaining why. But it doesn't make sense to you because you just believe that all relationships should be comparable when to me, they aren't. Relationships are inherently personal so it's all about how each person approaches them. For me, they are not comparable. If they are for you, then that's fine. But for me, exclusivity in a romantic relationship definitely does not mean exclusivity should be used in other relationships. No one has to agree to disagree if it's about exploration, but you were getting frustrated when I explained why I don't think every type of relationship is comparable rather than exploring that. I don't care what's right or wrong, though. That's just how it started to feel less like exploration and more like making a point.


Yet, you still didn't explain why you want it exclusive. That is, 



> I just know that monogamy is what feels best for me from my current perspective and I feel like my emotions are to be directed to one person and if I involved any other person, they would get hardly anything.


Fair enough, but you also say a romantic relation is not the same as a platonic friendship. 
Would you say emotions are involved in a platonic relation? And do you mean with 'exclusivity', no platonic relationship either (aside from the romantic relationship). If not, how can I reconcile this with the quote above? 

You also say it's 'the same' as your sexual orientation. I have tried both orientations because sometimes I felt some kind of attraction to men too. (For instance I could find one man more attractive than another, or I clearly wasn't completely indifferent to it) I would be all right with it if I was, so I was not struggling with it. And by experiencing it, I eventually I found out at which point the attraction stops. 

You didn't need to try both to know what you want. Isn't it somewhat counter-intuitive to say you need to deeply overthink it (look inside) to come to the conclusion what your sexual orientation (attraction) is? Perhaps you mean to say you needed to know what you don't want? (e.g. overthinking the ramifications of)


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

mimesis said:


> Yet, you still didn't explain why you want it exclusive. That is,


I have actually. I'm not sure what else I need to say. Everyone is different. Maybe some people don't need that intensity, but I do and that's how my emotions are, they are focused on one person, not many. 





> Fair enough, but you also say a romantic relation is not the same as a platonic friendship.
> Would you say emotions are involved in a platonic relation? And do you mean with 'exclusivity', no platonic relationship either (aside from the romantic relationship). If not, how can I reconcile this with the quote above?


And yeah, there are emotions involved, but different emotions. What I want in a friendship is different than what I want in a romantic relationship. I'm not looking for something complete, for one. 



> You also say it's 'the same' as your sexual orientation. I have tried both orientations because sometimes I felt some kind of attraction to men too. (For instance I could find one man more attractive than another, or I clearly wasn't completely indifferent to it) I would be all right with it if I was, so I was not struggling with it. And by experiencing it, I eventually I found out at which point the attraction stops.
> 
> You didn't need to try both to know what you want. Isn't it somewhat counter-intuitive to say you need to deeply overthink it (look inside) to come to the conclusion what your sexual orientation (attraction) is? Perhaps you mean to say you needed to know what you don't want? (e.g. overthinking the ramifications of)


I spent a few weeks to a couple of months thinking about it. I considered different possibilities with both men and women and how it would make me feel, things like that. I mentally placed myself into the situations because I was a loser of a little high school student and I had no friends and no possibilities of making any friends. The important thing is that it's not a limitation, but it's just what I think I am


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Kyandigaru said:


> i've never been good at sharing.


Thats something that made me think on the exclusive thing and not being exclusive. Why? because I share and have no problem, and regarding partners (love partners or SO as some call it) well, I never, really never have considered the fact that someone belongs to me or the opposite (not saying you said it, your post just reminded me of it). I never use the word "mine" on relationships and I hate when people refer to me as "mine", my this my that...


*Besides people confuse loyalty with fidelity* (or faithful).

A lot of people are exclusive with their mates WHILE THEY ARE NOT LOYAL in one or many aspects of life. Difficult to explain...


----------



## HonestAndTrue (Oct 25, 2012)

changos said:


> I never use the word "mine" on relationships and I hate when people refer to me as "mine", my this my that...


Are you talking exclusively about "romantic" relationships? Will you use "my" when referring to a family member such as my mom, my brother, or my cousin? If there is no belonging, no "my", is there even a relationship?

This is where romantic relationships are exclusively monogamous because they do involve belonging, specifically ownership of the other person. In a romantic relationship you do not own your own body, but you give your body to the other, one other. And in turn they give their body to you. Since you can only give your body once there cannot be a third person in a romantic relationship.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Trinidad said:


> That's what I've found as well. I can't deal with clinginess or being claimed in any way. I am my own person and highly value my freedom and independence. If I am with someone it's because I _want _to be and my partners feel the same way. I don't care what they do when I'm not around as long as they're honest and safe about it.
> 
> On the other hand some couples are attached to the hip and have to do everything together: 'We' can't make it to your party, 'we' have to do laundry, 'we' have to walk the dog. It creeps me out, but they probably find security in that, so less freedom = more security in their case.


I guess so. I admit that I find it difficult to imagine not losing my sense of self in that kind of set up. But then I like doing things by myself, I understand some people don't enjoy their own company very much. 

I also don't like the idea of someone spending time with me for any other reason than them wanting to, at that moment. I certainly don't want them to be dependent on me. If things don't work out, I want to know that they have other people and things in their life beside me to fall back on. I'd rather be loved than needed and I don't believe that genuine love needs to be so conditional.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

@*strangestdude*, I'm glad that there are more people who are more objective and respects both sides, of either monogamy or non-monogamy.




Dan E said:


> I don't know about you, but I consider it very unhealthy to expect _anyone _​outside myself to satisfy my needs, emotional or physical.


If we don't have needs of other people, then why interacting with other people at all? Monogamy and non-monogamy wise. But maybe you mean our main happiness not depending on other people?

It's healthy to need to interact with other human beings, emotionally and/or sexually. It's just not healthy if our happiness depends largely on that.


----------



## Waiting (Jul 10, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> You're a muslim... Are you against forms of relationships other than monogamy?



Most others yes, not all.

If there is a reason you're mentioning me being a Muslim then say it, otherwise, it's insulting because it seems like you're throwing it there out like a disclaimer or something.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Waiting said:


> Most others yes, not all.
> 
> If there is a reason you're mentioning me being a Muslim then say it, otherwise, it's insulting because it seems like you're throwing it there out like a disclaimer or something.


Besides the fact that it isn't true what @_strangestdude_ suggests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Waiting said:


> Most others yes, not all.
> 
> If there is a reason you're mentioning me being a Muslim then say it, otherwise, it's insulting because it seems like you're throwing it there out like a disclaimer or something.


Muhammad had multiple wives. And you and I both know it is permissible in Islam.

You stated that the OP was rationalizing (meaning trying to give reasons why they wanted to do something that was wrong) non-monogamy and it seemed extremely hypocritical knowing traditional islam's perspective.

So you are OK with polygyny, but not polyandry or polyamory?


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

mimesis said:


> Besides the fact that it isn't true what @_strangestdude_ suggests.
> 
> Legal status of polygamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What do you think I was suggesting? 

In the doctrine of Islam polygyny is legal (if you dispute that please research into the Quran, Hadith, and Ijma and prove me wrong). 

Many muslims themselves will tell you that most muslim majority countries don't practice shariah.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)




----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> What do you think I was suggesting?
> 
> In the doctrine of Islam polygyny is legal (if you dispute that please research into the Quran, Hadith, and Ijma and prove me wrong).
> 
> Many muslims themselves will tell you that most muslim majority countries don't practice shariah.


Actually I don't know what you suggested, I guess it would have been better if you made your point more clear.

As far as polygamy is/was allowed, it comes with duties as well. I was told this rule was introduced because of a massive women surplus, due to the many wars that were fought. It was a pragmatic solution at the time, in protection of the women, as strange as it may sound.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

mimesis said:


> Actually I don't know what you suggested, I guess it would have been better if you made your point more clear.
> 
> As far as polygamy is/was allowed, it comes with duties as well. I was told this rule was introduced because of a massive women surplus, due to the many wars that were fought. It was a pragmatic solution at the time, in protection of the women, as strange as it may sound.


I used to be a muslim, I've heard that rationalization before for allowing polygyny, *but not* polyandry. Polyamory (which the OP was discussing) allows both men and women (or transsexuals) to have more than one romantic partner.

If someone wants to practice non monogamous relationships I don't have a problem with it, I just found his objection hypocritical when Islam allows polygyny.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> I used to be a muslim, I've heard that rationalization before for allowing polygyny, *but not* polyandry. Polyamory (which the OP was discussing) allows both men and women (or transsexuals) to have more than one romantic partner.
> 
> If someone wants to practice non monogamous relationships I don't have a problem with it, I just found his objection hypocritical when Islam allows polygyny.


I'm not saying I agree to it, but it's a viable explanation and like patriarchy *at the time*, a good solution *for the time being*, in finding social equilibrium in a changing society. 

And that's basically what we are up to, in modern day society, finding a new equilibrium based on gender equality and individual freedom (and individuation for that matter, as well as re-elaborating on social constructs and structures, family law, division of labor/care etc.)


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

mimesis said:


> I'm not saying I agree to it, but it's a viable explanation and like patriarchy _at the time_, a good solution _for the time being_, in finding social equilibrium.


That doesn't explain why it's a timeless injunction (to be allowed in law) in Islam. 

There are a lot of discrepancies like that, they use a specific historical context to explain the formation of an injunction, but then fail to explain why it's a timeless ordinance even though context has changed.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> That doesn't explain why it's a timeless injunction (to be allowed in law) in Islam.
> 
> There are a lot of discrepancies like that, they use a specific historical context to explain the formation of an injunction, but then fail to explain why it's a timeless ordinance even though context has changed.


Well, that's how it goes, and people forget about why things are the way they are, they just comply to the rules which are held as 'universal' and 'eternal', and sometimes mimic (>mimesis) the myths that support them. 

Like with values. We 'feel' something is right or wrong, but often can't explain why (because it's often very complex). But a simple example, it's clear for everyone that it's not good to 

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.”

Since it also means you are protected from harm as well. This is a form of social contract. (exchange freedom (by submission/subordination) in exchange for protection/security) In this case we also understand the text is outdated and not to be taken literally.

But values are very much connected to 'power' and values can serve as an instrument of institutional oppression. That's also why people quickly feel oppressed or under attack as soon as you ventilate a different point of view or value.


----------



## Waiting (Jul 10, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> Muhammad had multiple wives. And you and I both know it is permissible in Islam.
> 
> You stated that the OP was rationalizing (meaning trying to give reasons why they wanted to do something that was wrong) non-monogamy and it seemed extremely hypocritical knowing traditional islam's perspective.
> 
> So you are OK with polygyny, but not polyandry or polyamory?


I don't like the way your coming at me. I don't know any other way to say it then that. You need to stop.

As for what I agree with, in certain circumstances I believe polygyny is permissible, however, most people do not fit into those circumstances, nor are they capable of maintaining them. The majority of Islamic scholars apparently agree on this and that is why polygyny, while permissible, is strongly discouraged. There isn't a need for me to say much more than that, because it explains why the majority of Muslim men are only interested in monogamy or only participate in monogamy even if they want another wife. I will say this, strange dude, are u aware that Islam imposed a strict limit upon polygyny when in Judaism and Christianity before it, there was none- a man could marry indefinitely? 

If you post in a way trying to do "this" again, i am not going to respond to you. _We both know_ what im talking about.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Waiting said:


> I don't like the way your coming at me. I don't know any other way to say it then that. You need to stop.


This is a discussion forum, if you don't like me then use the ignore button and/or don't respond to me. The choice is yours.

You seem to want to present a value-judgement, but don't like it when people question your reasoning.



> As for what I agree with, in certain circumstances I believe polygamy is permissible, however, most people do not fit into those circumstances, nor are they capable of maintaining them. The majority of Islamic scholars apparently agree on this and that is why polygamy, while permissible, is strongly discouraged. There isn't a need for me to say much more than that, because it explains why the majority of Muslim men are only interested in monogamy or only participate in monogamy even if they want another wife.


My point for originally writing to you was that I considered your post hypocritical. Seeing as Islam allows polygyny I consider it hypocritical for you to object to polyamory - which unlike polygyny doesn't discriminate against women.



> I will say this, strange dude, are u aware that Islam imposed a strict limit upon polygamy when in Judaism and Christianity before it, there was none- a man could marry indefinitely?


Contrasting Islam with Christianity and Judaism doesn't make it any more or less justifiable to me. I used to be a muslim and I've read all these justifications before.



> If you post in a way trying to do "this" again, i am not going to respond to you. _We both know_ what im talking about


I know you are a muslim, and you tried to criticize the OP's exploration of Polyamory as rationalization. I know that Islam allows polygyny so I considered your post hypocritical. If someone else I knew was a muslim had made the same post I'd call them out on it, pure and simple. 

You're taking this too personally.


----------



## Waiting (Jul 10, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> That doesn't explain why it's a timeless injunction (to be allowed in law) in Islam.
> 
> There are a lot of discrepancies like that, they use a specific historical context to explain the formation of an injunction, but then fail to explain why it's a timeless ordinance even though context has changed.


Let me give you an example of why this works as a timeless injunction. This is not a story this is my current situation, so I am not attacking you right now as you've done to me, though surely you will deny that, though really you didn't fool many. I married a Muslim woman who lives 7000 miles away from me. I met her right here on perC and through our conversations things developed over 7 or 8 months until we were able to get married through a video conference with an Imam. The situation is difficult and realistically, it is possible that i never get to be with my wife in person. I married her knowing this, because she is a righteous woman and because women here in America, where i was born and raised for 24 years by a loving non Muslim mother. (and father separately when i was younger, divorce at age 3.) 

You and many others seem to have averse opinions to monogamy and limited polygyny.(bad punctuation coming because i speak like i think) It doesn't make sense to me though, how according to your posts, your OK with your partner, whom you have no real commitment, nor obligation to, goes off to the club at night because she wants to have "fun" by getting drunk and rubbing her butt on random guys genitals for a few hours, hoping she finds a "hot one" wearing all the latest ed hardy attire, goes home with him, gets banged by lets PRETEND only 50 other people, (because when he has sex with her, she essentially has now had sex with everyone he has and obviously, this spiderwebs out from each of those people and so on, any incurable STD's or whatever are now hers) so now, she could very easily have an STD and if she hasn't been drinking, maybe she would have been a little more rational and a little less horny, and said no when the guy was on top of her and said i don't have a condom. But its ok as long as she tells you? You can say its not like that, but seriously, it is. I live here. Sure there are some girls that are a bit more conservative, but they are FAR less, and how many people have they slept with by age 20 regardless? how many times have they fell for the flowers on valentines and the late night phone calls and "i love you's" only to find out the guy wasn't serious, he didn't want a REAL commitment, he just wanted some guaranteed sex for a while until he got bored with it, and hell, maybe he even fooled HIMSELF into thinking he loved her for a while after having sex with her on their 3rd date. This is the way this country is. 

anyway. back to my story. (i apologize for my language at some points to anyone reading this, forgive me please.)
This is why i married my wife knowing i may never see her. Sometimes as a result of our distance I start to get sad, its not easy and i obviously want to be with her. SHE has reminded me multiple times, that i can take another wife, one who lives near me, so that i would not feel so badly. Now in this situation, it is certainly a logical solution, because i can not currently be with my wife, nor should i divorce her because she is a wonderful and good woman. I don't want to do that though, because #1 I'm not interested in it, i only want my current wife. #2 if i were to take another wife, i would have to provide SEPARATE housing for both, support both financially, and divide my time equally between them. I'm not capable of any of those things. 

This in my opinion is an example of how it applies to a modern day situation with a different context and why I'm not interested in it.
As for my rant, i could have been more tasteful, but I'm being realistic.

(done posting on this thread)


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Waiting said:


> Let me give you an example of why this works as a timeless injunction. This is not a story this is my current situation, so I am not attacking you right now as you've done to me, though surely you will deny that, though really you didn't fool many.


Like I said you're not special, if another person who I know was a muslim objected to polyamory I would call them a hypocrite too. Your post was on the first page of this thread and I addressed it knowing that you were being a hypocrite.



> You and many others seem to have averse opinions to monogamy and limited polygamy.(bad punctuation coming because i speak like i think)


Nope. I've explicitly said that if someone isn't comfortable with monogamy then they should respect their integrity, and that I respect them. Re-read my second post in this thread, I've explicitly stated that a couple of times..

I disagree with only allowing polygyny (like you agree with as a muslim) because it discriminates against women.



> (done posting on this thread)


 A large part of your post was a self righteous rant against people who have multiple sexual partners in your country, however I wish you luck in your long distance relationship. 

I hope you can see your hypocrisy regarding supporting polygyny, but being against polyamory (which doesn't discriminate based on gender). 

But if I see you displaying blatant hypocrisy again then I'll call you out on it, so you might want to put me on ignore.


----------



## Gantz (Sep 24, 2012)

My ideal relationship would be one where I have a strong emotional bond with my significant other, however sex with other people is not off the table for either of us. I see sex as being purely recreational, so the notion that you can only ever do it with one person at a time seems foreign to me. As far as having multiple loving relationships goes, I'm open to the idea and I'd (somewhat reluctantly) let my partner do it if they wanted to, however perhaps because society has drilled the concept of monogamy into my head, I might have difficulty doing it myself. My mixed feelings on this come from the fact that I don't mind if he/she wants to go out and have fun with other people, but the idea of sharing his or her love kind of puts me off. As much as I hate the idea of society influencing my opinion, it's clear to me that it's happened here, thus the cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Waiting (Jul 10, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> A large part of your post was a self righteous rant against people who have multiple sexual partners in your country, however I wish you luck in your long distance relationship.
> 
> I hope you can see your hypocrisy regarding supporting polygyny, but being against polyamory (which doesn't discriminate based on gender).
> 
> But if I see you displaying blatant hypocrisy again then I'll call you out on it, so you might want to put me on ignore.


Lie. Freudian slip. Attack. Assumption, false sincerity. False sincerity. Lie, Ok.

Enjoy your ego victory for getting me to post again btw. heres my question, if i ignore you is there any possible way i will ever be aware of your existence again?


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Waiting said:


> Lie. Freudian slip. Attack. Assumption, false sincerity. False sincerity. Lie, Ok.


Your assessment is true because you say it is?

You have the habit of making assertions without explaining your reasoning. 



> Enjoy your ego victory for getting me to post again btw.


We both have egos dude, you couldn't resist posting again because of yours. 



> heres my question, if i ignore you is there any possible way i will ever be aware of your existence again?


Ask a mod.

You might like this thread too;

http://personalitycafe.com/sex-relationships/135522-sex-before-marriage-8.html


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

Waiting said:


> I married a Muslim woman who lives 7000 miles away from me. I met her right here on perC and through our conversations things developed over 7 or 8 months until we were able to get married through a video conference with an Imam.


Seriously? This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You're an idiot. Please tell me this is a troll.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Villainous said:


> Seriously? This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You're an idiot. Please tell me this is a troll.


I don't like the guy, but that's harsh.

That kind of thing is one of the peculiarities of the muslim community (I'm an ex muslim). Marriage doesn't mean the same thing in the context of Islam, you generally marry to create love and companionship but it doesn't exist before. Meetings and conversations pre-marriage have to take in public and/or with a chaperone, which prevents deep attachments from forming due to a lack of privacy.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

> I married a Muslim woman who lives 7000 miles away from me. I met her right here on perC and through our conversations things developed over 7 or 8 months until we were able to get married through a video conference with an Imam.


People befuddle me all too often.


----------



## Traum (Jan 3, 2012)

There is a special kind of love associated with romantic relationships that you don't feel with your friends, siblings, children, or pets (hopefully).

If you really love someone as more than a hook-up, more than just someone to gain pleasure from, you can only love one, in my opinion. If you view them as your partner, the thing that completes your life.

Children and pets are subordinates, so it makes sense to me that you can love multiple.

Friends, while it is possible to have multiple friends, are still hard to keep in order. For me personally, I get jealous when a friend I consider very highly considers other people higher than me. This has led me to having about two friends, whom I talk to separately. I think it is useless to try and maintain many more friendships.

With a romantic partner, it is like a friend but even more love-intensive. I can guarentee you I care more about my fiance than anyone with 2 or more partners cares about their partners, because they cannot have the same one on one bond of 'you and me are a team.'


----------



## Conclusion (Sep 21, 2012)

Traum said:


> With a romantic partner, it is like a friend but even more love-intensive. I can guarentee you I care more about my fiance than anyone with 2 or more partners cares about their partners, because they cannot have the same one on one bond of 'you and me are a team.'


:/

There are lots of folks in open relationships on this board. How do you think this sounds to them, your claim that you care more about your partner than they do about theirs? How would you feel if I said "I can guarantee you that I care more about my partners than anyone monogamous cares about theirs, because I encourage and support them to seek intimacy outside of our relationship if that's what makes them happy rather than selfishly asking them to deny themselves that out of my own insecurity, jealousy and fear?" *smug superior subtext*

I don't say stuff like that (unless I'm trying to make a point) -- not just because I don't believe everyone who prefers monogamy does so for such reasons, but also because it aggressively devalues monogamous relationships and the people in them, and is honestly quite disrespectful. And I'd like to ask the monogamous folks on the board to show us the same respect that I show y'all.

---

EDIT: @Traum, apology accepted, and sorry if I singled you out for a slip that's honestly quite common and understandable -- but to be clear I wasn't proposing the "jealousy insecurity and fear" thing as a serious counterargument. You'll sometimes see it used as one, but I don't believe that if you ask them to deny themselves that, it's necessarily for those reasons, nor necessarily selfish, nor means you care any less.

(That said nor is seeking it necessarily cheating if your relationship is non-monogamous.  And to oversimplify a bit, while perhaps a sufficiently awesome partner could meet all my needs, if my partner doesn't I might suggest the fairer conclusion is that I need more partners for whatever reason, and not that my current partner is insufficiently awesome for me. )


----------



## Traum (Jan 3, 2012)

Conclusion said:


> :/
> 
> There are lots of folks in open relationships on this board. How do you think this sounds to them, your claim that you care more about your partner than they do about theirs? How would you feel if I said "I can guarantee you that I care more about my partners than anyone monogamous cares about theirs, because I encourage and support them to seek intimacy outside of our relationship if that's what makes them happy rather than selfishly asking them to deny themselves that out of my own insecurity, jealousy and fear?" *smug superior subtext*
> 
> I don't say stuff like that (unless I'm trying to make a point) -- not just because I don't believe everyone who prefers monogamy does so for such reasons, but also because it aggressively devalues monogamous relationships and the people in them, and is honestly quite disrespectful. And I'd like to ask the monogamous folks on the board to show us the same respect that I show y'all.


That point is valid; sorry to be rude.

I was only intending to show why I think nonmonogamous relationships aren't as caring as monogamous ones, because you can't have the same one-on-one intimacy. You never know what it's like to be someone's "only one." and to have such exclusive care.

Also, respectfully, I disagree with that counter argument. If you are in a relationship in which you have to deny yourself in urges for others then maybe you need to reconsider the strength of your relationship, and improve it. Furthermore, it isn't insecurity, jealousy, or fear, it is out of love for each other that you do not cheat.

Yes though, reviewing my comment, it was rude, and sorry about that. This is a forum for discussion about the topic, but I shouldn't have said that thing in that manner, so I apologize.


----------

