# Polyamory



## Chickadee (Oct 13, 2012)

Polyamory is also murky waters for me. At a point I was seriously considering (as a monogamous person) whether if I were in the situation, whether I could accept a polyamorous person. I think it could work if you are a type of person that breaks social rules (like what society thinks is right) and you don't feel badly when you, or you enjoy it. Otherwise, the question that pops into my mind is "don't I deserve someone devoted to me?". I don't know if polyamorous people have that question in their mind, but definitely in a poly/mono relationship that would come up. I think it would work with a poly/poly - although not being poly myself, I have my doubts as to whether in the long run it would be a good idea. An argument for it is that parents do love all of their children, even though there are multiple children, which means that logically, you can't just say you can't love two people at the same time. You can. 

I've recognized that I am not emotionally healthy/secure enough for that type of relationship, though. I think it has to be something each individual has to evaluate on their own. The way I define love is someone I can be very close to and share my feelings with openly. However, I have a natural barrier against most people getting that close. I value the opinion of strangers and society as a whole, so allowing myself to be in a situation where others would judge me for my personal life and no one person to truly call my own... it just doesn't sit well with me. But I don't believe monogamy is for everybody.


----------



## Sapphyreopal5 (Jun 11, 2012)

nleseul said:


> But on the other hand, it makes my relationships feel more secure if I know that, if my partner needs support or sex or anything else and I'm not available to offer it, she has the option of getting what she needs from someone else. It reinforces the idea that she's with me because she _wants_ to be with me, not because she's _dependent_ on me and me alone.
> 
> Being someone's sole source of support is pretty horribly overwhelming, and not something that I think most humans are really equipped to deal with. That's why almost any counselor will tell you that having friends and activities outside of your relationship is healthy. Polyamory is, in a lot of ways, just a logical extension of that.


So wait, by your logic people are in one-on-one relationships because they _need_ that person, not because they _want_ to be with that person? If you can't offer the support your partner's needs and say "oh well they can go to others for it because I'm not available ATM", then don't have one. IMO that's just [email protected]$$ing your efforts in relationships, which is kind of absurd if you ask me. Not everyone's sexual needs can be met _every_ time they are "in the mood" regardless whether or not they are single, sorry. It just doesn't happen. Also, by your logic it should be perfectly acceptable for people in relationships to have sex with whoever whenever. If you choose to have an _open_ relationship with someone, that's your personal choice but it's not for everyone or most people as you may say.

I can see your point that it can be overwhelming to be in a relationship but that's just part of the wonderful package of love. If you are the only source of comfort someone has emotionally speaking (in other words, they don't have _friends_), THAT is a problem (but is NOT the case in healthy one-on-one relationships, which you seem to be implying IS the case in many monogamous relationships). However, the purpose of a one-on-one relationship (or any type of relationship of the sort) is not to be someone's *only* source of comfort and love but rather be their (or a) *primary* source. 

If you personally choose to engage in that lifestyle, so be it. It's your life, not mine. However, your statement seemed to have been you trying to suggest against one-on-one relationships, which I think is ludacris. Furthermore, your argument seems to suggest having a multiple-person relationship means less effort on your part in taking care of someone else when in reality it is _more_ work not less. The effort might sound less focused on one person (and it is), but your efforts are more sprawled out and you have multiple people to worry about not just one anymore. 

To just go on saying many humans aren't equipped for that is somewhat correct, but that's with any type of relationship really (friendships, family, etc.). It is said that it takes a community to raise a child. We're not talking about parenting here but the point is that we're meant to get help from several people, not just one person. Does that mean we need to have multiple lovers to be happy (and that most aren't meant for just one-on-one relationships)? For some, sure but not for most or all as you seem to be implying. 

Again, if you choose to engage in a polyamorous relationship, that's your choice. Your reasoning for it however is something I disagree with on so many levels. Some people aren't meant for one-on-one relationships, others are perfectly content in them. What is right for you is all on your hands to decide, but to go on assuming it's not for "most" people is a pretty outlandish statement.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Particulate said:


> But why not? I'm not demanding that you start sleeping around en masse but what makes you prefer a single partner?


Simplicity.


----------



## Chickadee (Oct 13, 2012)

Sapphyreopal5 said:


> I can see your point that it can be overwhelming to be in a relationship but that's just part of the wonderful package of love. If you are the only source of comfort someone has emotionally speaking (in other words, they don't have _friends_), THAT is a problem (but is NOT the case in healthy one-on-one relationships, which you seem to be implying IS the case in many monogamous relationships). However, the purpose of a one-on-one relationship (or any type of relationship of the sort) is not to be someone's *only* source of comfort and love but rather be their (or a) *primary* source.


I just want to point out that in polyamorous relationships there is often a "primary" or a person who they offer most of their love/respect - and then "secondaries/tertiaries" beyond that.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Erbse said:


> Simplicity.


Relationships are never simple, no matter how many people are involved in them.


----------



## Sapphyreopal5 (Jun 11, 2012)

Chickadee said:


> I just want to point out that in polyamorous relationships there is often a "primary" or a person who they offer most of their love/respect - and then "secondaries/tertiaries" beyond that.


As I said, if someone decides to participate in a polyamorous relationship, that's their business. I have said it from the start it's not for me for my own reasoning. The point I was trying to make in response to the poster I was replying to is that they were making it sound as though they were arguing _against_ one-on-one relationships due to not wanting to be an _only_ source of comfort. I was trying to get at the point stating that being in a one-on-one relationship doesn't mean that only one person can comfort you (you generally speaking).

To me, it sounded like they were opposed to one-on-one relationships because of it requiring more effort than a multiple person relationship which is inaccurate IMO (and sounded like an excuse for not being there for a SO/being "lazy" in a way). It also sounded as though they were against one-on-one relationships because they didn't want to fully deal with someone's problems and figured if they were in a polyamorous relationship, it would make it more okay if they were "unable to be there for them".

I do agree that there probably is a "primary" person to run to in a polyamorous relationship; however, for ME personally, I would prefer one-on-one (one is enough for me). It all depends on the people involved, mentality, personal values, etc. For me, I think that having multiple partners is unnecessary and is even kind of impractical but that is me. If you need a support group, you don't need extra partners to do that IMO.

Sorry to go on this rant when you were just pointing that out. I do see your point is what I'm trying to get at I suppose.


----------



## entpIdeas (Jun 6, 2011)

Particulate said:


> Very valid points, those are the main things that make things convoluted.And your avatar distracted me for a solid 5 minutes because I floppin' love Homeland.


Homeland is awesome.Polyamory is heart wrenching. I'm finished with it. Forever.


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

Chickadee said:


> I just want to point out that in polyamorous relationships there is often a "primary" or a person who they offer most of their love/respect - and then "secondaries/tertiaries" beyond that.


i do the same thing with my children.

no, but really, that has to be one of the most horrifying things i've ever read on here.


----------



## Chickadee (Oct 13, 2012)

Reicheru said:


> i do the same thing with my children.
> 
> no, but really, that has to be one of the most horrifying things i've ever read on here.


Huh? Why is that so? It makes sense that someone might love one person more than another and create rules/boundaries with that person. I'm not polyamorous myself, and I'm sure it doesn't apply to all of them, but it's definitely common in those relationships. A tertiary in one relationship might be a primary in another relationship. I don't really see it as horrifying, just different.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

I really enjoy the concept of polyamory. I'd like to say I practice it except for the sexual intimacy. I've tried to be polyamorous before, spoke to all involved parties etc. but circumstances didn't work out.

I'd have to say when so many people cheat, polyamory is a far superior concept to me. It is the deceit in cheating that is so bad to me. I'd rather look into making a monogamous arrangement polyamorous if my partner were thinking of connecting with someone else.

I don't know if I could practice polyamory within a committed relationship without lots and lots of communication, boundary-setting etc. I kind of like the dash of possessiveness to be found in a monogamous relationship at this stage of my life.


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

I've actually been in a polyamorous relationship with an INTP and an INFJ. It was a disaster if ever there was one.

One of the first major obstacles you have to overcome is jealousy and insecurity. That alone is difficult enough. After that, there's always one lover who is preferred over the other, so the other essentially gets screwed over. It's very difficult to balance affection. It's just as difficult to lie and pretend there's balance. So the under preferred mate usually has to cope with rejection, which is even more difficult if one hasn't overcome the jealousy and insecurity problem. I'm a naturally private person, so making myself vulnerable and building up trust to someone else is difficult enough.

Will not do again. Kudos to any of you who can make it work.


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

android654 said:


> Sociology, psychology, anthropology and biology all suggest that pair bonding is a new invention to us and community is a more important factor to the natural human condition. Just saying.


Certain standards of hygiene, wearing clothing, and levels of sanitation are new inventions to humanity, and you don't see anyone complaining.

Except maybe nudists :laughing:


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

DeductiveReasoner said:


> Certain standards of hygiene, wearing clothing, and levels of sanitation are new inventions to humanity, and you don't see anyone complaining.
> 
> Except maybe nudists :laughing:


All I'm saying is that romantic relationships are still new, and they take a lot of figuring out. It's not something that comes naturally. If it did, people wouldn't have this high level of dysfunction and problems involving all kinds of relationships, we're still learning about them.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

android654 said:


> Relationships are never simple, no matter how many people are involved in them.


My point exactly.

No good in complicating them any further than need be.


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

Chickadee said:


> Huh? Why is that so? It makes sense that someone might love one person more than another and create rules/boundaries with that person. I'm not polyamorous myself, and I'm sure it doesn't apply to all of them, but it's definitely common in those relationships. A tertiary in one relationship might be a primary in another relationship. I don't really see it as horrifying, just different.


because i would really, really hate to be that "tertiary," as though i deserve less love & respect. how devaluing.

DeductiveReasoner's post illustrates exactly what i mean.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Reicheru said:


> because i would really, really hate to be that "tertiary," as though i deserve less love & respect. how devaluing.
> 
> DeductiveReasoner's post illustrates exactly what i mean.


I think the whole point is that there are enough people involved so everyone has a primary/secondary/tertiary person to fill those slots. The whole premise is for everyone to have several someones to fulfill all of their needs.


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

android654 said:


> I think the whole point is that there are enough people involved so everyone has a primary/secondary/tertiary person to fill those slots. The whole premise is for everyone to have several someones to fulfill all of their needs.


i get that, but it'd be nonsensical to pretend it wouldn't hurt at all to be placed at third- or fourth-best by someone you may very well have as your 'primary'/#1/favourite lover and want so much more with who doesn't see you as worth that much, no matter how much validation you may get from other lovers.


----------



## Sonny (Oct 14, 2008)

On paper in theory it's ideal imo, to be able to create different forms of bonds with multiple partners who in turn have their own unique relationships. 

In reality a relationship with one person and their emotions and needs is hard, more people being involved adds more difficulty so it takes more effort.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Reicheru said:


> i get that, but it'd be nonsensical to pretend it wouldn't hurt at all to be placed at third- or fourth-best by someone you may very well have as your 'primary'/#1/favourite lover and want so much more with who doesn't see you as worth that much, no matter how much validation you may get from other lovers.


I get what you're saying, but I think you're making the mistake of seeing things only from your perspective. I agree, it's not something I could get involved with, it's certainly not for me. However, there are people who can separate those things that make a relationship, compartmentalize people. There are a lot of married couples who have boyfriends and girlfriends on the side, they go for sex, fun or whatever else their husband or wife can't provide, then come back together. So the issue of not being loved enough sounds like it would be relegated to those who probably aren't suited for a polyamorous relationship in the first place.


----------



## TheProcrastinatingMaster (Jun 4, 2012)

I don't really have an opinion on it, if that's what works for you, go for it.
Actually that's my opinion on pretty much everything, as long as it isn't harming others, or if it is harming them, with their consent.


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

android654 said:


> I get what you're saying, but I think you're making the mistake of seeing things only from your perspective. I agree, it's not something I could get involved with, it's certainly not for me. However, there are people who can separate those things that make a relationship, compartmentalize people. There are a lot of married couples who have boyfriends and girlfriends on the side, they go for sex, fun or whatever else their husband or wife can't provide, then come back together. So the issue of not being loved enough sounds like it would be relegated to those who probably aren't suited for a polyamorous relationship in the first place.


maybe so, but i have previously read accounts by people (epsecially women) who have grown up where polyamory is the norm and still suffer through a great deal of unnecessary rejection, jealousy and hurt, so i remain unconvinced. it is human nature to desire reciprocation. rejection is universal; also human nature.

as for compartmentalising sex and love/whatever - that kind of fear of intimacy doesn't strike me as at all healthy or secure. just avoidant.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Reicheru said:


> as for compartmentalising sex and love/whatever - that kind of fear of intimacy doesn't strike me as at all healthy or secure. just avoidant.


In theory, it is rather that you feel so much love and attachment that you must share/experience it with more than one person. It is not so much that you have to compartmentalize, but that you're overflowing.

When I tried to make it work, looking back, in my own case it was more like fear of intimacy. Playing with two people meant I didn't have to get too wrapped up in either one. But the theory behind poly is not like that.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

#1) First let me say this is a subject I studied for while when I was in the global studies program and I find it very interesting. I don't promote it, nor say it's wrong. So I apologize for the TL;DR post. Most of which is copy/pasted from another thread, same topic.

#2) OP - It doesn't sound like you are talking about polyamory. It sounds like you are experiencing more of an "open" relationship scenario with people. Though details were spare so not sure. But there is a difference, even if romantic feelings are involved. The difference is very much in the verbal commitment (titles) and boundaries set therein.(imo)

So for anyone interested: 
In order for a polyamorous relationship to *work*, in theory, 
(work in bold because that is what it would entail) 
*
* all parties*_ have to be incredibly emotionally DEPENDENT & MATURE. _
Which is BY & FAR ... a - rare thing. Sorry. But it is. 

People spend an awful large amount of time pandering each others weaknesses and insecurities, rather than using friction to heal and grow (psychologically, emotionally, spiritually) This is a process of development is in itself, a spectrum. Just as sexual preference is a spectrum like phenomenon. So *intention must be clear*. Why you are choosing such a lifestyle? Every person involved has to align their wants in that regard. Not to mention the respect of each others emotional, sexual and psychological needs. Purpose should be defined and communication is of the utmost importance - which, unfortunately, is a rare phenomenon in it's productive form. so sad 

Are their religious implications involved? Is it to raise a family? much like the Mormon philosophy or is it purely for personal emotional fulfillment? Sexual? Is it the sharing of a man/woman or is it a unified situation. Would it alternate. 

I think the most difficult thing for me, would be having to swallow the emotional upheaval of having to actually hear a co-wife being pleased and knowing they are cuddling etc. jealously set aside, I feel it would cause a "hurt" feeling. I have however met people in successful relationships with 2 women as best friend (co-wives) or at least it was presented as successful. And I've read the same with regards to one woman, 2 husbands. So I'm not saying it couldn't work. Just that it would be an incredible amount of work! And again, I think the dynamic of sharing or unified makes the work WORK; different but intense regardless.
_
* I think the biggest concern imo, would be the psychological capacity to handle a relationship like that of all people involved. you would HAVE to be very secure in yourself and be emotionally independent. To be emotionally independent you have to know yourself in a way that might not come naturally to your"type" or experiences in life thus far - not implying this pertains to whomever reading this specifically but it is important to realize many people are stuck in the "finding themselves" phases of life that we all go through. And that wherever you are on that path is okay. * Please don't consider, finding yourself, in this type of relationship situation. again, just a general statement. not meant for anyone in particular. Remember: Growing old is mandatory, Growing up is optional. Your age has nothing to do with this. 

A man/woman would have to be completely confident in their partner that they would be able to emotionally and psychologically be able to handle everything prior to such an agreement because to subject someone to it (manipulate them into it) w/out the strength and willingness of all the emotional implications is psychologically *abusive*. Sadly, there are many women who subject themselves to psychological abuse in it's many guises for the love of a man. And unfortunately their are manipulative men(and women) who take advantage of that, OR WORSE - who may indeed delude their own perception of a situation so as relieve themselves of responsibility and thereby any shame and guilt. 

A man who chooses this life style with clean intentions - more power to you. It's hard enough to maintain respect and keep your woman happy and to (most important) know how to lead a relationship and / or family. Adding a whole other dimension to that is a challenge I am not sure anyone would be able to maneuver w/out some hurt and disappointments. Women also underestimate how their unhappiness effects the men who love them (another one of those personal opinions of course. I don't have outdoor plumbing so this is a bit of an assumption). So again, communication is imperative which isn't gonna happen w/ someone who doesn't want to "rock the boat" and ironically, it's generally a passive person who finds these relationships the most attractive. and in regards to the "leading" portion of this broadcast, even if their are 4 people involved, there are going to be those who do the leading and those who do the nurturing; despite that all parties should be grown up enough to lead and nurture their own being. Sociologically speaking, it's gonna happen. So no, utopia hippie hairy armpit idealist la la land, peace, love, let's get jiggy wit.it. we are all the leader is flat out delusional. imo. 

People I feel, do not want to recognize just how much men / women(people) experience love differently and I feel this needs to be understood and respected at the forefront. Not something to address only when problems arise. The idea that they love differently put aside, each person is unique in where they lie on that metaphorical spectrum, and so each persons experience of love and their place w/in a loving multi-person relationship is yet another factor to consider and respect, with delicate care. 

Some women have a more masculine energy, some men have more of a feminine energy (this is not to say they are less of a man and that they don't like women. But rather, the preference to "nurture" their partner over "protect" and typically they pair themselves w/ a woman w/ a more masculine energy who tends to be more of the emotionally "protective" type vs. "nurturing" ... 

The socioeconomic shift in our society (western society) has left us with so many positive things, but unfortunately it has left us w/ a negative blur of "roles" and I feel people have a tendency to find it more difficult to find their "place" w/ in the regard. Note: I don't believe in confined boxes (roles) but I think it would be absurd to not see the benefit of knowing one's place. When you are in a work environment everyone has a job/responsibility. I know some people will scream, "Boo! On Gender Roles!" but that is NOT what I am getting at here. And so with the idea of "place", there is yet another angle to view and consider when finding a partner (much less a second). Let alone to make sure you aren't the cliche dude trying to have your cake and eat it too whilst trying to get two women you love to "go with it" so you don't have to choose. So douchey.

* I think this is a "trendy" idea in the recent as people are much less inhibited to express and explore their sexuality which is not a bad thing, but the reality is, people primarily address their own personal needs and wants before other people. To fall in love, and choose to work to keep that flame alive ... is to put someone else's wants and needs before your own. And both people do this, resulting in a successful ever growing unity (whether married or not, commitment is there.) SO now add the second ... More times than not I feel people convince themselves that this is something they would like for humbler reasons other than the reality that they just might like an "open" relationship. 

I guess it's like, I have more respect for the girl in porno than the prostitute because she isn't sneaking around and hiding it. So if an open relationship is what you're after, don't pose it as something it isn't (such as a polyamory committed relationship(s) between multiple people) This of course could be nothing more than a personal semantic differentiation of terms and implications (applications thereof) ... whatever. I'm rambling :tongue:

Being all "counselor/protective" I can't help but to encourage people to think about the pit-fall possibilities, prior to entering such a complicated abstract entity (relationship). This is important. People are not objects, they have thoughts and feelings beyond your own. Think of their long term future and how it will effect them as well as you.

LOL! Okay! I'm DONE! INFJ Lecture done. *please press stop and turn tape over* jk! :tongue:


_


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

sparkles said:


> In theory, it is rather that you feel so much love and attachment that you must share/experience it with more than one person. It is not so much that you have to compartmentalize, but that you're overflowing.
> 
> When I tried to make it work, looking back, in my own case it was more like fear of intimacy. Playing with two people meant I didn't have to get too wrapped up in either one. But the theory behind poly is not like that.


That's still compartmentalizing. When I'm with you, I'm with you, when I'm with her, I'm with her. I don't see how this kind of set up would be good for someone who is uncomfortable with intimacy. This kind of setting seems to increase intimacy, making it more convoluted than a one on one relationship. Fuck buddies, now that's ideal for people who aren't comfortable with intense intimacy.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

android654 said:


> That's still compartmentalizing. When I'm with you, I'm with you, when I'm with her, I'm with her. I don't see how this kind of set up would be good for someone who is uncomfortable with intimacy. This kind of setting seems to increase intimacy, making it more convoluted than a one on one relationship. Fuck buddies, now that's ideal for people who aren't comfortable with intense intimacy.


Because you can go through the intimate motions without really connecting if you're skilled enough at that. You can feel depths of feelings without really committing to the person emotionally. 

I don't know if I can put it into words but for me, it was a way to get out of true intimacy. It was a way to go through the motions and not worry about heartache because, after all, I had two people I was interested in who were reciprocating and aware. I had a primary and a secondary. But it was all gloss without substance.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

I don't mean to offend anyone or anything but scanning through some of the other comments here. I'm wondering, do people realize that if you are emotionally unavailable, you are a good candidate for fuck buddy / open relationship styles. Not a polyamorous relationship. 

Polyamorous would be a sharing or unified committed bond between more than 2 people regardless of gender. Therefore, you have to be emotionally secure and independent (thereby emotionally available) to those around you. obviously physical intimacy is in there too. but the emotional unavailability people are talking about here excludes a successful polyamorous relationship to ever happen. imo, i guess ...


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

sparkles said:


> Because you can go through the intimate motions without really connecting if you're skilled enough at that. You can feel depths of feelings without really committing to the person emotionally.
> 
> I don't know if I can put it into words but for me, it was a way to get out of true intimacy. It was a way to go through the motions and not worry about heartache because, after all, I had two people I was interested in who were reciprocating and aware. I had a primary and a secondary. But it was all gloss without substance.


That's just it, I don't know how you can feign an emotion without knowing it in some fashion. Also, in my own estimation, most relationships are all gloss with little substance.



Ningsta Kitty said:


> I don't mean to offend anyone or anything but scanning through some of the other comments here. I'm wondering, do people realize that if you are emotionally unavailable, you are a good candidate for fuck buddy / open relationship styles. Not a polyamorous relationship.


I don't think you'll offend anyone, that's pretty accurate.


----------



## Chickadee (Oct 13, 2012)

Reicheru said:


> because i would really, really hate to be that "tertiary," as though i deserve less love & respect. how devaluing.
> 
> DeductiveReasoner's post illustrates exactly what i mean.


That is understandable, but I know a tertiary who really likes being a casual tertiary and not having to commit to that particular person in a primary sense, he has his own primary and he is happy as a tertiary too. I think it depends on the person. I wouldn't be happy as a tertiary either, but I think some people could be.


----------



## bromide (Nov 28, 2011)

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I couldn’t deal with having an emotional connection on that level with more than one person. As an extremely introverted person who prefers to have only a couple close friends (who I sometimes neglect for months), I would find it emotionally exhausting and physically draining to invest myself in multiple romantic relationships. There’s also the fact that actual attraction is a very rare thing for me, so the likelihood of knowing more than one person at a time that I’d want to engage in a relationship with (or even just have sex with) is just about nil. I also wouldn’t want a partner who was polyamorous, because it wouldn’t be fair to me. I wouldn’t want to invest myself emotionally into someone who was splitting their time between me and one or more other people. I don’t have any problems with people who appreciate polyamorous relationships, but it sounds like an incredible pain in the ass to me.


----------



## Chickadee (Oct 13, 2012)

bromide said:


> I can’t speak for anyone else, but I couldn’t deal with having an emotional connection on that level with more than one person. As an *extremely introverted person who prefers to have only a couple close friends (who I sometimes neglect for months), I would find it emotionally exhausting and physically draining to invest myself in multiple romantic relationships.* There’s also the fact that actual attraction is a very rare thing for me, so the likelihood of knowing more than one person at a time that I’d want to engage in a relationship with (or even just have sex with) is just about nil. I also wouldn’t want a partner who was polyamorous, because it wouldn’t be fair to me. * I wouldn’t want to invest myself emotionally into someone who was splitting their time between me and one or more other people*. I don’t have any problems with people who appreciate polyamorous relationships, but it sounds like an incredible pain in the ass to me.


I feel almost exactly the same way... Monogamy is comfortable to me because I have very few very close friends - I am drained around lots of people, and I feel like the intimacy I give is reserved for a select few. In other words, I don't have an inclination to share my love with multiple people. I don't think it's physically impossible, but I think for me, it is a big deal if I would do anything for someone. It's rare I would find someone in a place like that in my heart, and my morals and personal beliefs reserve only one place on a romantic level for someone to fill.


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

Reicheru said:


> i get that, but it'd be nonsensical to pretend it wouldn't hurt at all to be placed at third- or fourth-best by someone you may very well have as your 'primary'/#1/favourite lover and want so much more with who doesn't see you as worth that much, no matter how much validation you may get from other lovers.


This is exactly what it's like. Well, for me at least.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

nleseul said:


> You'll find plenty of arguments on that (and even without getting into the complicated question of whether there's any such thing as "human nature"). As stereotypical as it is right now, I'd suggest looking at _Sex at Dawn_ by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha, which goes into the biological, ethnographic, and archaeological evidence that human sexuality had very little to do with pair bonding until very recently (when intensive agriculture created the idea of property and relegated both women and land into that category).
> 
> To me, it's human nature to love, and even more human to love more.


It's also human nature to get jealous. Men get jealous because they want to make sure the woman in question is carrying their offspring, and women get jealous because they want to make sure their man hangs around to help raise the offspring.

Anti-monogamy arguments seem like the height of absurdity to me when the human brain doesn't reach maturity until the late teens, we aren't cats or rodents or bears, it only makes logical sense for men to ensure the education and well-being of their offspring well past the age of two, I think that argument is a load of crap, seeing that human beings have such high cerebral development.


----------



## Drewbie (Apr 28, 2010)

*What are your thoughts on polyamory?*

Polyamory works very well for me and my partners. Largely, I think, because we shun normal relationship models and do only exactly what makes us comfortable. There is a considerable lack of jealousy in our relationships. We talk about our relationships a lot so there is no ambiguity or discomfort. The relationships I have are so completely individual I couldn't imagine how having two or more relationships could be spreading myself too thin or taking away from the other. My relationships intensely intimate to me and are also easier than breathing. I wouldn't be in them if our relationship model was a struggle to maintain. My relationships though are atypical even among those who practice polyamory. I was lucky enough to not only find people who were willing to say "fuck 'legitimate' relationship models, I am only going to do what I want" but that those people were compatible with and wanted the same things as me.

Those are my thoughts regarding polyamory and myself. On the whole I don't really give a fuck. I do think people would be better off if as a whole we disregarded what intimate relationships 'should be' and focused on relationships we actually want.


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

sparkles said:


> In theory, it is rather that you feel so much love and attachment that you must share/experience it with more than one person. It is not so much that you have to compartmentalize, but that you're overflowing.
> 
> When I tried to make it work, looking back, in my own case it was more like fear of intimacy. Playing with two people meant I didn't have to get too wrapped up in either one. But the theory behind poly is not like that.


i was responding to another poster's quote about married people who seek sex from anyone besides their married partner, whom they later return to for security/whatever else, in which case it IS compartmentalisation.

nonetheless, i don't find that theory very satisfactory. replace the word "love and attachment" with "lust and excitement" and it makes more sense.



Chickadee said:


> That is understandable, but *I know a tertiary who really likes being a casual tertiary* and not having to commit to that particular person in a primary sense, he has his own primary and he is happy as a tertiary too. I think it depends on the person. I wouldn't be happy as a tertiary either, but I think some people could be.


because their expectations/emotional investments/committments more or less match up.

and what happens when they _don't_ match up? when you feel more for that person, more than for just a tertiary, when the other person doesn't? and you look upon their primaries and whatnot, wondering why that isn't you, why you don't deserve that much love/respect...?


----------



## nleseul (Oct 12, 2012)

Chickadee said:


> I just want to point out that in polyamorous relationships there is often a "primary" or a person who they offer most of their love/respect - and then "secondaries/tertiaries" beyond that.


I know of a reasonable number of poly people who refuse to use the primary/secondary categorization because they don't like the idea of imposing hierarchies on their relationships. 

Even among people who do use it, it doesn't mean what people are hearing it to mean. It's not a measure of how much you care about a partner. It's a measure of how practically connected your lives are and how much your decisions impact that partner. If you and partner A live together, are legally married, and have four kids together; and you and partner B see each other in person twice a year and communicate online most of the time, then any decisions you make about moving or changing jobs are going to affect partner A a lot more than partner B. That doesn't, however, necessarily mean that you care any less about partner B than partner A. 

Also, these are descriptive, after-the-fact labels. No one who knows what they're doing starts out saying "I want a boy primary, and then a boy secondary and a girl secondary, and three more fuck-buddies of any gender." You don't plan what your network is going to look like beforehand and look for people who fit into those "slots." You just meet people, see what style of relationship works for each particular person and how it fits into the rest of your network, communicate about it a whole bunch, and only apply labels once you see how it all sorts out, if ever. And there's nothing saying you can't have two or more "primaries," if that's what works for you and the people you love. 

Also, I've never heard anyone seriously talk about "tertiary" relationships, except possibly as a synonym for "fuck-buddy." Most poly people I know of, if they use that division at all, only talk in terms of "primary" and "secondary."


----------



## Perhaps (Aug 20, 2011)

Drewbie said:


> *What are your thoughts on polyamory?*
> 
> Polyamory works very well for me and my partners. Largely, I think, because we shun normal relationship models and do only exactly what makes us comfortable. There is a considerable lack of jealousy in our relationships. We talk about our relationships a lot so there is no ambiguity or discomfort. The relationships I have are so completely individual I couldn't imagine how having two or more relationships could be spreading myself too thin or taking away from the other. My relationships intensely intimate to me and are also easier than breathing. I wouldn't be in them if our relationship model was a struggle to maintain. My relationships though are atypical even among those who practice polyamory. I was lucky enough to not only find people who were willing to say "fuck 'legitimate' relationship models, I am only going to do what I want" but that those people were compatible with and wanted the same things as me.
> 
> Those are my thoughts regarding polyamory and myself. On the whole I don't really give a fuck. I do think people would be better off if as a whole we disregarded what intimate relationships 'should be' and focused on relationships we actually want.


This is essentially what I came here to post. My partners and I realize we've taken an unconventional approach to things, but it works, and we're happy, and that's all that matters.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

fourtines said:


> It's also human nature to get jealous. Men get jealous because they want to make sure the woman in question is carrying their offspring, and women get jealous because they want to make sure their man hangs around to help raise the offspring.


I used to think the same actually, but as it turns out, it is indeed shaped by society.

Think about it. If you had a fridge that was stocked with food, and you knew it would eventually empty out, you'd always want to restock it. You'd no doubt worry about it. You'd work to make sure you never ran out of food. What if you knew, and it was guaranteed to you that your fridge would always be full? The nature of your attachment and possessiveness to these kinds of things would diminish. You would hardly ever worry about these things. I'm sure no one would have any problem in this case to share their food with anyone, because they know that the food would always be there.

Jealousy happens when you worry that something is going to be taken away from you. But when that thing is guaranteed to always be there, there's no longer the need to be jealous. When learning this at first, I was shocked. It seemed so natural for me to be possessive of my partner, after all they're mine and no one else's. I'm taking this philosophy class on Utopian Thought, and I learned that for 500 years, the city of Sparta was living in polyamory *and people were perfectly fine with it*. Anyone could be with anyone, and you were always guaranteed to have a sexual partner whenever. So there was no need to be possessive of anyone, because that person would always be there, and would always be available for you. Bonds were formed, like love and friendship - but without any jealousy of any kind. 

The question was offspring was solved by having the offspring taken care of by everyone. No one knew whose child this was, they were raised by the community. Every citizen of Sparta had the duty to take care of the "public" offspring. So yeah. My point is, characteristics like jealousy are very much shaped by how society is constructed. Right now, since everything is oriented towards nuclear families and monogamy, we find it hard to accept the fact that people were actually okay with things like that. But they were, and at no point was sharing a partner a problem.


----------



## Chickadee (Oct 13, 2012)

Reicheru said:


> because their expectations/emotional investments/committments more or less match up.
> 
> and what happens when they _don't_ match up? when you feel more for that person, more than for just a tertiary, when the other person doesn't? and you look upon their primaries and whatnot, wondering why that isn't you, why you don't deserve that much love/respect...?


If they don't match up, you move on or make it work for you, I guess. I don't know from personal experience, but I would assume if you are unhappy, you find something that does make you happy. One thing I admire about people in these types of relationships is that they seem to be very open and trusting of one another. If they are unhappy, they usually tell the other person and try to make it right. I'm sure jealousy exists like any other relationship. I keep thinking about a family structure on this discussion. Brothers and sisters manage to share their parents' love (sure, with jealousy here and there) but it's not like having an only child is more emotionally healthy for your children. I think love can be shared, but society's rules about exclusivity make it difficult in romantic relationships. I have a high regard for today's society's general rules about exclusivity because it works for me.
@nleseul - I don't doubt that, but what I meant by that statement was that the hierarchies do exist for some people. You can still have a "primary" lover - it doesn't _have_ to be equally shared by all. To be honest I'm just making observations here and there. I have no real experience in these types of relationships, although I know some who do have them. I know enough to know it won't work for me and that it does make other people happy.


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

Chickadee said:


> I keep thinking about a family structure on this discussion. Brothers and sisters manage to share their parents' love (sure, with jealousy here and there) but it's not like having an only child is more emotionally healthy for your children. I think love can be shared, but society's rules about exclusivity make it difficult in romantic relationships. I have a high regard for today's society's general rules about exclusivity because it works for me.


and would you say picking a favourite child, let alone giving them labels, would be acceptable or at all healthy? would you have a primary/first child, a secondary son and a tertiary daughter who you have less love/respect for?

children are not spouses as far as attachment goes and to confuse the two in terms of how many we can have would be a bad idea. however, both children and spouses have self-esteem in common, and rejection and devaluation is one surefire way to destroy that.

as for the rest of your post - i'm sure that kind of rejection wreaks havoc on many people, especially when it's coming from somebody who supposedly "loves" them.


----------



## Chickadee (Oct 13, 2012)

Reicheru said:


> and would you say picking a favourite child, let alone giving them labels, would be acceptable or at all healthy? would you have a primary/first child, a secondary son and a tertiary daughter who you have less love/respect for?
> 
> children are not spouses as far as attachment goes and to confuse the two in terms of how many we can have would be a bad idea. however, both children and spouses have self-esteem in common, and rejection and devaluation is one surefire way to destroy that.
> 
> as for the rest of your post - i'm sure that kind of rejection wreaks havoc on many people, especially when it's coming from somebody who supposedly "loves" them.


I think if you are insecure about how much someone loves you and it means a great deal to you to be the favorite and to know you are loved in your heart regardless of what your significant other(s) say, polyamory is probably not for you.

Also, I think someone mentioned a while back that they don't use the terms "primary/secondary/tertiary", so if you don't like the labels/favoritism, by all means don't do it. Even so, the invisible question hanging in the air, "am I as loved as the others", can cause pain to certain types of people, I would imagine. But I wouldn't believe everyone looks at relationships through the same glass. I'm willing to believe that there are people who feel very little jealousy (or are proactive and trusting of their partners) and can handle it.

EDIT: And I am going to stop myself here :laughing: it feels very weird talking about something that I am making observations on and going into hypothetical mode compared to real actual experience.


----------



## JoanCrawford (Sep 27, 2012)

Particulate said:


> But why not? I'm not demanding that you start sleeping around en masse but what makes you prefer a single partner?


Jealousy.


----------



## MelissaC (May 23, 2012)

I'm interested in polyamory in an abstract sense.

I'm currently seeing a guy who has a serious girlfriend with the mutual understand that she is his "primary". It's fascinating to observe myself move, think, and feel within the circumstances, and it has led to many interesting conversations between us regarding society's views of romanticism somehow equaling ownership and other such things. 

This isn't a set-up I want to continue indefinitely (in fact I don't see it going on much longer), but I've definitely grown through it. It's nice to have a deep connection with someone without there being any labels or expectations superimposed upon it. I don't think there's a limit to the amount of affection or love a person is capable of feeling or expressing. It isn't something that has to be rationed out.

But then, I've never been deeply in love and so have no understanding of it as an all-consuming feeling. To be honest I'm not sure I want to experience it as such.

I imagine in the future I may get married, be monogamous for a while, then reach a mutual agreement with my husband to have "secondaries". Maybe.


----------



## jdbullet23 (Jan 25, 2012)

Honestly ... I'd be willing to try it. I can't see myself staying in multiple relationships; I like the thought of having one woman to go home to, to love and sleep next to and go places with. But polyamory is perfectly fine. I can actually see how it could be fulfilling to other people. Just like some people prefer not to get married, some people prefer to be in committed relationships with multiple people. The relationship would be just as valuable to the people involved if all of them were completely cool with it. And I'm ok to try anything once.


----------



## Michael Nihil (Sep 21, 2012)

Not for me.


----------



## garmypoo (Feb 5, 2012)

Yay Poly! Yes, it is deliciously exciting, annoying, scary, fun, sad, and enlivening! There are many good books (e.g. Opening Up) and websites out there with all sorts of definitions and labels and ideas... There is possibly even a meetup type group right in your very own town with some colorful people that get together to discuss, support, date, and eat tofu curry etc...

So while polyamory definitely doesn't "fix" a broken monogamous relationship, it can be an alternative to the ever popular and socially acceptable serial monogamy (which also is loving multiple people but sequentially instead of overlapping).

Personally, I've been traveling down the poly path for the past 6 months or so and have learned a lot about myself, relationships, and others... Not that it matters particularly, but I'm a little bit older, reasonably stable (very stable for an ENFP haha ), not promiscuous, introspective, self-aware, and I try to surround myself with people who are good and who can be a positive influence on me...

My anecdotal experience delving into poly:
1) OMG! I'm such a bad person! Oh wait, no I'm not, reprogram my thinking by reading lots of books and 'alt' perspectives e.g. S. Asher Hanley's _Different: My Experiences as an Intersexed Gay Boy_ which appears in revolutionary voices a multicultural queer youth anthology.
2) OMG! This is great! There are so many cute girls out there! I'm so full of hope again in life! I've lost that sense of despair!
3) OMG! This is terrible! Hey why aren't any of those girls into poly, or are they just not into me? Its more confusing now...
4) OMG! There are actually a few poly people in town! I've made some friends, but the mutual attraction hasn't worked out.
5) I settle down and just get back to doing what I like to do and things seem to be slowly sorting themselves out...

Anyway... If you want to do some fun research just search for polyamory on OkC and strike up conversations with random people, my favorite hobby...


----------



## TWN (Feb 16, 2012)

In he last 6 months Ive grown fond of the idea of a poly relationship. I think it an be fulfilling as long as you have partners that get along with each other, and make sure jealousy wont be an issue. Some people get into the poly life because they are insecure and want to have their hand held 24/7.

Im looking forward to being involved in a 1 woman/2 men triad.

Seems fun.


----------



## Ladyintricate (Oct 24, 2012)

I totally get why it seems like it wouldn't work and like it would be too much work and you would be making yourself too vulnerable. These are the issues I still wrestle with. I will try to make my long story shorter...basically I am an ENFJ female in a polyamorous relationship with 3 othe people. I have been married to my husband for more than 10 years (we are both 33 and got married young) and am also in a relationship with a wonderful guy and woman. Those two are engaged and we have been having this closed "quad" relationship for about 6 months now...friends with then for about 5 years. 

Anyways, now that you know my background I can tell you that I never wanted a polyamorous relationship until it happened to me. I am a very monogamous lady and felt I was quite straight as well...however, I fell in love with these other two people in addition to my husband. It's not easy, for sure, but I don't want to end something wonderful just because it is unconventional. 

I think it is possible to have a good poly relationship, but that this is very different from a "F buddy."


----------



## Ladyintricate (Oct 24, 2012)

JoanCrawford said:


> Jealousy.


I definetely understand! I have had issues with being jealous of my husband before our polyamorous relationship started and still occasionally have that problem. We deal with it with communication and mutual respect and love. I honestly think that everyone has their own limit and their own configuration that works for them. I believe that if This was not a closed relationship and a committed one then I would not be able to be in it. I also think the "quad" or 4 people (incidentally I really hate the word quad) aspect works much better for me than the typical "triad." The relationship tat we have never leaves one person on their own when two are on an "alone date." 

Probably naive of me, but I really do think it works because we all love eachother. Better together than apart!


----------



## JoanCrawford (Sep 27, 2012)

Ladyintricate said:


> I definetely understand! I have had issues with being jealous of my husband before our polyamorous relationship started and still occasionally have that problem. We deal with it with communication and mutual respect and love. I honestly think that everyone has their own limit and their own configuration that works for them. I believe that if This was not a closed relationship and a committed one then I would not be able to be in it. I also think the "quad" or 4 people (incidentally I really hate the word quad) aspect works much better for me than the typical "triad." The relationship tat we have never leaves one person on their own when two are on an "alone date."
> 
> Probably naive of me, but I really do think it works because we all love eachother. Better together than apart!


Oh yes, and I would never look down on couples that go into polyamorous relationships, because I know that different people have different social/emotional dynamics. I guess I am just the controlling type in the relationship, so it wouldn't work very well for me.


----------



## Particulate (Sep 21, 2012)

JoanCrawford said:


> Oh yes, and I would never look down on couples that go into polyamorous relationships, because I know that different people have different social/emotional dynamics. I guess I am just the controlling type in the relationship, so it wouldn't work very well for me.



After reviewing this thread I was starting to worry about the number of people citing jealously as their primary deterrent away from polyamory but I realize now that I'm just looking at things from my own perspective. You make a solid point, the sense of control is a major player for how relationships function and in that sense I take an exceedingly laid back approach to my own arrangements. Granted I take interest in what they're doing and their lives but I don't make any real "demands" of them. I don't require them to really be involved in my life in any way that doesn't directly appeal to them.

It's not so much an issue of control so much as it is of connection. It seems that from your partners you look for a more integrated experience, for you to share a life together. Whereas with mine I try to plan for how my life will intersect with theirs.


----------



## Ladyintricate (Oct 24, 2012)

garmypoo said:


> My anecdotal experience delving into poly:
> 1) OMG! I'm such a bad person! Oh wait, no I'm not, reprogram my thinking by reading lots of books and 'alt' perspectives e.g. S. Asher Hanley's _Different: My Experiences as an Intersexed Gay Boy_ which appears in revolutionary voices a multicultural queer youth anthology.
> 2) OMG! This is great! There are so many cute girls out there! I'm so full of hope again in life! I've lost that sense of despair!
> 3) OMG! This is terrible! Hey why aren't any of those girls into poly, or are they just not into me? Its more confusing now...
> ...


Your "anecdotal experience" made me laugh! I think that is the typical response of a lot of people! Poly was kinda thrown at me in a big and unexpected way with my relationship, so I went through a few extra steps and skipped some. I definetely did 1 and am at 5 now, though. :wink:


----------



## EmileeArsenic (Jun 8, 2012)

I can't speak for anyone else, for me, knowing that my guy could be/is saying, thinking and doing the same things with someone else would kill the specialness of the relationship for me and would make it seem inauthentic and like I was part of a test group or something. I wouldn't be able to enjoy it. 

I've a friend who is polyamorous, and he seems to enjoy it. If that's his thing and the others involved are all ok with it, cool. I just couldn't do it.

Plus, it's difficult enough for me to find one guy I'm interested (I'm pretty much considering myself demisexual at this point) in and attracted to. I wold be exhausted trying to uphold a relationship with more than one guy at a time, and I'm not bisexual, so women are out for me.


----------



## Trinidad (Apr 16, 2010)

bromide said:


> I can’t speak for anyone else, but I couldn’t deal with having an emotional connection on that level with more than one person. As an extremely introverted person who prefers to have only a couple close friends (who I sometimes neglect for months), I would find it emotionally exhausting and physically draining to invest myself in multiple romantic relationships. There’s also the fact that actual attraction is a very rare thing for me, so the likelihood of knowing more than one person at a time that I’d want to engage in a relationship with (or even just have sex with) is just about nil. I also wouldn’t want a partner who was polyamorous, because it wouldn’t be fair to me. I wouldn’t want to invest myself emotionally into someone who was splitting their time between me and one or more other people. I don’t have any problems with people who appreciate polyamorous relationships, but it sounds like an incredible pain in the ass to me.


Actually, you being unavailable/neglecting people for months at a time makes you potentially very suited to be someone's secondary partner 

Not saying you should, don't worry.


----------



## bromide (Nov 28, 2011)

Trinidad said:


> Actually, you being unavailable/neglecting people for months at a time makes you potentially very suited to be someone's secondary partner
> 
> Not saying you should, don't worry.


Heh I get what you're saying and why, but as someone who identifies as demi, I find that idea about as appealing as spending a torrid weekend with Ayn Rand's bloated corpse.


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

pinkrasputin said:


> However as I've said before, I wouldn't dismiss poly_andry_, where a few good men put all their focus and attention on one woman-me. It's just hard to find that many men with that level of vulnerability and devotion. :tongue:


It would be a financially advantageous arrangement. Theoretically I think I could do it if the woman was amazing and she had the ability to make me feel incredibly special and secure.


----------



## Trinidad (Apr 16, 2010)

kaleidoscope said:


> I'm taking this philosophy class on Utopian Thought, and I learned that for 500 years, the city of Sparta was living in polyamory *and people were perfectly fine with it*. Anyone could be with anyone, and you were always guaranteed to have a sexual partner whenever. So there was no need to be possessive of anyone, because that person would always be there, and would always be available for you. Bonds were formed, like love and friendship - but without any jealousy of any kind.
> 
> The question was offspring was solved by having the offspring taken care of by everyone. No one knew whose child this was, they were raised by the community. Every citizen of Sparta had the duty to take care of the "public" offspring. So yeah. My point is, characteristics like jealousy are very much shaped by how society is constructed. Right now, since everything is oriented towards nuclear families and monogamy, we find it hard to accept the fact that people were actually okay with things like that. But they were, and at no point was sharing a partner a problem.


That's very interesting! Do you have a source for this? I tried Googling, but all I can find is the homosexual aspect, where high-status men took boys as their lovers, sometimes sexual, oftentimes not.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

@_Trinidad_

Look up Lycurgus & utopia ^^


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

In my experience polygamy has never actually devalued anyone, rather it has given me a more realistic view of who they are. Everyone freely recognizes that there is big difference, but in practice rarely accommodates for it. I’ve found my regard for people during polyamory to be somewhat similar to that of people after infatuation has worn off. Realism isn’t romantic and so it is less appealing to many. However, it’s the best way to avoid complications and getting hurt. It is also the best way to accurately predict long term partners. If I’m making judgments on people based on their actual individual value rather than infatuation, desperation, or social programming, then I am making far better judgments. So, if dating multiple people enables me to see them as they are without as much infatuation (though there is always some), I’ll take a loss of romanticism over complication and painful endings.

I owe polygamy for my quick development of a swift ability to demarcate relationships that are based simply on mutual needs from relationships from those that are based on deep connections. This is a skill I now have that I could generalize to monogamy if I ever choose to (I probably won’t because I don’t see monogamy in my future, but the take home point is that I would recommend that everyone at least try a polyamorous lifestyle, especially in their youth) True, I would have eventually learned this from monogamy, but it would have been a much longer and painful process. Not to mention dating multiple people at once gives one more condensed experiences and an idea of interplay between different personalities on a deep level (between you and your partner, and between your partner and other partners). I knew more in my early 20s about relationships than many I’ve observed dating in their mid-lives.

Lack of putting a person on a pedestal had security benefits as well. Losing someone I really cared about was made far easier by the fact that I was emotionally involved with someone else. And losing people I did not care about was made easier as well; having only one option can cause one to inflate the importance of a particular individual. Instead, I did not fret the loss of certain people because my emotional security made it easier to realize they were selfish and deceptive, rather than truly valuable.

Having multiple points of comparison served to highlight the differences in personality between partners as well. Besides separating need based relationships from real connections, it allowed me to better appreciate individuals for their true personalities (of course, stripping away the fluff caused by exclusivity and socially aided cognitive dissonance helped as well). If done right, polyamory can allow for a powerful depth of intimacy for those who actually deserve it, protection against those who don’t, and far less risk of heartbreak.

So far I’ve described it as if it were easy. Is it actually easier than monogamy? That depends on the individuals involved and responsible ground rules. Here is what has worked for me. For one, I have always put more loyalty in the partner I have been with longer. I do not believe in leaving one partner for another, rather I think the original relationship should fall under its own weight if it must. A different person may highlight areas in which you are unhappy with in your original relationship, but infatuation with a new person should never be the reason for leaving something you had prior. I recognize that infatuation can cause bias, and so I initiate this rule to counteract that. My next rule is I will always take the side (if I must take sides) against the person forcing an unreasonable ultimatum or trying to cause a division. Some may think that these are understandable human behaviors that should be worked around, but I believe them to be incredibly selfish and a sign of weak character and poor morality. I will not tell a partner “it’s them or me”. I will leave the situation if it is not healthy before I try to impose my will on another. 

Polyamory can be easier, that is if you recognize certain human traits and have a good filter. We are talking about relationships, something we place huge importance in. You do not let random infatuations or people that are enticing but trouble makers into a relationship with people you care about. If you want to date low class individuals, that is your cross to bear. However, do not expose them to the core group which you claim is important to you.

Keeping certain people out of a polyamorous relationship isn’t a very difficult concept for me; I’ve come to view jealousy as quite immature and a bit of a negative comment on one’s character, on top of a potent turn-off. If one exhibits jealousy, I am instantly less attracted to them. They can hold onto what Disney movies and romantic comedies have rammed into their heads from childhood; I am not compatible with them and will go my own way. I expect them to take that maturely and do the same. I recognize that there are sure to be legitimate reasons for some individuals to avoid polyamory, but I have yet to see anything come close to a legitimate defense of jealousy. It is a terrible emotion. Accurate judgments make for an easier life than blind acceptance.

I’ve come to realize that nobody can completely meet the needs of another. Even a large group of people cannot likely completely meet the needs of one. There is more to meeting needs than giving someone what they ask; there is exploring them in depth and finding out what they really want, or just throwing interesting experiences at them and seeing what sticks. All of this said, one is more likely to have their needs met in an intimate group than with one partner (unless one of their needs is a very specific relationship configuration). There is a greater variety of support, and far more flexibility. For example, a relationship of 4 individuals, 2 extraverts and 2 introverts, could be very successful. They could all spend a moderate amount of time with one another, but when the introverts tired of too much socialization they could retreat to their private areas while the extroverts kept pace with each other. You do not frequently see this in monogamous relationships; explicit rules sometimes need to be stated for individuals with stark contrasts such as these, and feelings are often hurt.

I take issue with those who say that polyamorous relationships are a means of avoiding intimacy. Which idea of intimacy? The one that it is finite and you must hold someone only to yourself to become fully bonded with them, or the one that it is infinite and close relationships are more of a factor of good mate selection than exclusivity? Intimacy is obviously somewhere in the middle as opposed to absolute.


----------



## MelissaC (May 23, 2012)

Manhattan said:


> I take issue with those who say that polyamorous relationships are a means of avoiding intimacy. Which idea of intimacy? The one that it is finite and you must hold someone only to yourself to become fully bonded with them, or the one that it is infinite and close relationships are more of a factor of good mate selection than exclusivity? Intimacy is obviously somewhere in the middle as opposed to absolute.


This. 

I feel much more intimate with someone when we are moving within spheres of individual freedom than I do with someone who tries to cram and mold themselves into my sphere. When I am not pressured to be someone's "everything" I am free to both be myself and accept them as who they are, without expectations or fear of loss or judgment. 

It's an individual preference to be sure, as most people cannot fathom how you can feel closer to someone by maintaining a certain distance and boundaries and freedoms inherently unknown to monogamy. But to me love/intimacy means so much more than ownership; in fact, in my mind it's the diametric opposite.


----------



## entpIdeas (Jun 6, 2011)

There are valuable and personal gems of experiences thoughts and behaviors that are part of life. I have shared certain of those with no other person. There are also fears and pains as well as incredible joys that I keep deep inside. I came very close to sharing almost everything and if time hadn't shortened that bliss it would have been everythng. Good and bad. There was a particular man that I grew close to over a great deal of time, it was the most incredible experience I had, that trust --somehow gave life so much meaning and fulfillment.

Something inside me changed in a positive way, as though i wanted to see and do the best in the world with everything. The physical intimacy that went with it was not so much about about sex itself as it was about being that close to someone who know me that well. It was about ultimate trsust. Something that sacred (no I am not religious but for lack of a better word) is unique. it can't be recreated or mass produced. It can't be duplicated even if elements of it can be copied. I'll live with out than to ever settle for some counterfeit diluted version of it. I know authenticity. I can feel it. Polyamory is like seeing a thousand b rated movies or hearing a hundred cover songs. There is certainly value in it, but for me there never has been any substitute for perfection. If it's all anyone can get, then I would never judge what works for them. Maybe polyamory would be for me just because there might never be anything better for me again, some kinds of death have an odd way of taking things from us, who knows. I do happen to know the limits of ploy. For me they somehow lack the whole of the human soul. 

When one knows the ultimate, then all else is just settling.


----------



## Dolorous Haze (Jun 2, 2012)

I couldn't do it. I'm rarely even a_ttracted_ to more than one person at any given time. If I fall for someone they consume my entire existence...(I can become quiet obsessive. :tongue: )If I had multiple people whom I felt this way about....well I don't think it would be possible.

If I want someone, I want them exclusively, I wouldn't want anyone else in the equation. I'd become far too jealous and paranoid.

It also takes me a dreadful amount of time to form bonds with people and to become sexually attracted to them. It takes me even longer to open up to them. I wouldn't be able to form deep connections necessary for a stable relationship with multiple people at any given time. Being sexually active with more than one person doesn't sit well with me either. I'd just be uncomfortable with it and I'd be uncomfortable with my partner being polygamous as well.

I don't have anything against people who enjoy polyamory or polygamous relationships...it's just not for me and I wouldn't be comfortable dating someone who wanted me to be part of that sort of a relationship.


----------



## 626Stitch (Oct 22, 2010)

> boundaries and freedoms inherently unknown to monogamy.


Can,t you have monogamy with boundaries and freedoms?


----------



## MelissaC (May 23, 2012)

626Stitch said:


> Can,t you have monogamy with boundaries and freedoms?


Well for context what I wrote was "It's an individual preference to be sure, as most people cannot fathom how you can feel closer to someone by maintaining a certain distance and boundaries and freedoms inherently unknown to monogamy."

So I didn't mean monogamy is completely devoid of boundaries and freedoms, but rather that polyamory is composed of such that are, by definition and somewhat inadvertently, unknown to monogamy. If you're in an open relationship in which sexual exclusivity is not expected then boundaries of sorts are created. You cannot claim ownership of your partner's sexuality. There's a more distinct line separating where I end and where you begin. Take marriage vows, for example, and the ubiquitous sentiment "And two shall become one". Usually the couple will then light one candle with two (then extinguish the individual candles) or pour two containers of sand into one larger one. It's an excellent metaphor for the mingled--some may say mangled--boundaries created by a monogamous relationship.

So sure there are freedoms and such in monogamy. Ultimately, regardless of what romance culture would like us to believe, a relationship is still composed of two individuals and they're as free as they choose to be. But too much freedom and it can no longer be called monogamy.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

In reading over different people's opinions on why it would work for them, and why not, I'm wondering if it at least loosely has anything to do in part with their enneagram variant stackings. I have seen a few people say that they rarely want anyone around them anyway, so why would they connect with more than one person romantically - perhaps a popular sp/sx opinion on it. I saw a few talk about the intensity they feel for just that one special person sx (and I tend to feel that way myself), but then there are the others who are cool with poly for various reasons, there were some who didn't seem to express an intense connection at all, but just get various things out of it: so/sp, then those who can feel intensely for different people at different times: so/sx?

I mean don't get me wrong, I'm positive a lot more goes into it: upbringing, personal ethics, sex-drive perhaps.. I'm sure there are a lot of factors I can't even see. 

Anyway, I personally just don't think I would have the emotional energy it would take to maintain something like that for too long.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

MelissaC said:


> This.
> 
> I feel much more intimate with someone when we are moving within spheres of individual freedom than I do with someone who tries to cram and mold themselves into my sphere. When I am not pressured to be someone's "everything" I am free to both be myself and accept them as who they are, without expectations or fear of loss or judgment.


This. 

This is sooo me. 

I don't think this is an exclusive polyamorous mindset necessarily. I think it's a healthy mind set. I don't think an exuberant amount of jealously and possession (power imbalances) are appropriate or wise or healthy or mature. Just my opinion of course. I am not saying that relationships that have those dynamics are bad as if I'm a judge or anything. Just that they are bad for me.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

MelissaC said:


> *Take marriage vows, for example, and the ubiquitous sentiment "And two shall become one". Usually the couple will then light one candle with two (then extinguish the individual candles) or pour two containers of sand into one larger one. *It's an excellent metaphor for the mingled--some may say mangled--boundaries created by a monogamous relationship.


The very idea makes me physically ill, and I think as time goes on more people are being honest that the notion doesn't agree with them either. Sacrificing your person to exist as half of a symbiotic creature is unappealing in the worst way.


----------



## DarkWarrior (Sep 21, 2011)

android654 said:


> The very idea makes me physically ill, and I think as time goes on more people are being honest that the notion doesn't agree with them either. Sacrificing your person to exist as half of a symbiotic creature is unappealing in the worst way.


You dont sacrifice your person, simply two pieces who happen to fit each other. That's a better analogy.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Particulate said:


> What are your thoughts on polyamory?
> 
> Polyamory is the practice of maintaining intimate relationships with multiple people and in some cases multiple genders. It's not to be confused with swinging (partner exchanging) or Polysexuality (the simple attraction to other genders and sexes). Polyarmory is the actual physical fulfillment of an entire group having a relationship with one another.
> 
> I ask because it's been on my mind lately. Within those I hold dear I've found myself becoming something a spoke of relationships and its practically formed a series of tiers depending on how involved some people are. It's been on my mind because while I'm enjoying it and everyone involved seems to be having a nice time it's also becoming increasingly convoluted and murky.


It's.... something I've toyed with experimenting with. I feel like it will always break down for at least one person in the group, and it might destroy a group. 
In general, I usually see polyamory as open relationships. What you're describing, a closed network of people involved in relationships with each other, sounds more to me like Free Love. Someone once told me that their communal living setup "wasn't one of those free-love communes". Up until that point, I had no idea that those even existed as a common thing. 
I think that talking to everyone and getting them to the same page will clear up some of the murkiness, but people might bail.
The truth will set you free, right?


----------

