# Which types of girls will accept polygamy?



## ahmadwehbe (Aug 28, 2016)

I believe those ideal MBTI matchings were done with monogamous relationships in mind, where each partner is active in each others life. 

But I'm polygamous, so I don't trust this INTJ + ENFP thingy at all. I only want sex at least twice a day and then be left alone in between sex sessions. Like, I don't even want to hear about her day, at all. Perhaps troubles...yes, so I can fix them, but I couldn't care less about gossip, small talk, chit chat, rumors etc. Maybe when I'm eating... or during sex, but NOT when I'm busy alone timing. 
The rule for polygamy is of course this: as long as my lust is satisfied, then I'm fine. However, if she can't keep up, then I'll find another one that will balance out the gap. 

Which MBTI would accept this kind of relationship? Would it work with any Introvert? Or will it only work with other INTJ, INTP? Perhaps even ENTJ and ENTP would accept it as well? Since they'll be busy with work themselves? 

*Remember though, this is for LONG term relationship, so she has to love and enjoy this kind of deal as much as me. So she has to see the logic with it and accept it 100%. *


----------



## mhysa (Nov 27, 2014)

i don't think it has anything to do with MBTI at all. if you were to get like, ten people who would enjoy an arrangement like that, i'd bet money that it'd be a diverse range of types. 

i think seeking out partners based on MBTI is dumb anyway though.


----------



## Aladdin Sane (May 10, 2016)

Mail order bride from Thailand! xo


----------



## stormgirl (May 21, 2013)

I am going to attempt to speak for the majority of “feeler” females, and say that they are not likely to wish to be your sex toy for the afternoon, especially since you have made it clear you have no interest in being bothered outside of sex or building an emotional connection. 

I don’t know which types(s) are more likely to enjoy poly relationships, but most feelers I know both male and female prefer a relationship that involves sharing and friendship, and not just sex. 

If you are just seeking to get off with no further connection or conversations, I recommend either escorts, or buying yourself a real doll. They don’t care about you, or want to hear about your day either.


----------



## Aladdin Sane (May 10, 2016)

stormgirl said:


> If you are just seeking to get off with no further connection or conversations, I recommend either escorts, or buying yourself a real doll. They don’t care about you, or want to hear about your day either.


But mail order bride is cheaper in the long term. :wink:


----------



## Elisa Artista (Aug 23, 2016)

Ne doms aren't known for their loyalty or love of routine, so I could see some ENFPs and ENTPs being more likely than average to involved in multi-partner relationships or threesomes. Submissive and likely unhealthy Feeler types maybe. I could envision an ENTJ or ESTP alpha female being attracted to such an arrangement for a time. I lean toward asexuality more than polyamory personally, but I would like to eventually find a worthwhile monogamous relationship. For most INTJs loyalty is very important. I'd rather be alone than with some disloyal and uninterested.


----------



## Flamme et Citron (Aug 26, 2015)

Even open relationships involve love and care for the partner, a lot of trust and honesty about sexual needs. But that's not what you want, you want free hookers. Maybe look into swinging. The women will already have a relationship and fullfil their emotional needs with their husband. But even with swinging you will still need to adapt to the couples' needs, fantasies and boundaries, sex isn't a solo activity.


----------



## ahmadwehbe (Aug 28, 2016)

I don't think relationships should be based on love and emotions. Many speak about love, but end up hating each others after a while and fight a lot. So I don't really trust it when someone mentions that they need love from a relationship. I doubt such a person even knows what they want in life. I believe they're just following some sort of social design for how things should be and how they should act and react. 

Love develops over time, it is autonomous, it goes up and down. However, if a partner is a good person, then you'll always love them even if you breakup. Why would I break up with someone I love? Well, even if we love each other, that doesn't mean the relationship is working out for both us. Then you separate, no need to cause drama, it's only a break up. Yet people make a big thing out of it and start hating each other. That just means their love was conditional, in other words, FAKE. 
I have no issues breaking up and then getting back together after a while under new conditions or whatever. This behavior should be the norm. 

Anyways, I'm not after hookers, slaves, swinging or whatever silly things some of you are saying. I'm after a serious romantic relationship with multiple female partners. Also, as mentioned in my first post, there are restrictions:

Lets say I'm together with someone who wants sex 20 days a month.
Then I could find another who only wants it 10 days a month. 
And perhaps 4 years later, they want to reduce sex by half. 
This means I can find a third woman that wants sex 15 times a month. Or perhaps three more, each who want sex 5 days a month. 

It's not about having a harem of women, no, I want them to enjoy the relationship as well. 

Which MBTI would love this kind of relationship? A life long relationship with stable sex, emotions and openness?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

ahmadwehbe said:


> I don't think relationships should be based on love and emotions. Many speak about love, but end up hating each others after a while and fight a lot. So I don't really trust it when someone mentions that they need love from a relationship. I doubt such a person even knows what they want in life. I believe they're just following some sort of social design for how things should be and how they should act and react.
> 
> Love develops over time, it is autonomous, it goes up and down. However, if a partner is a good person, then you'll always love them even if you breakup. Why would I break up with someone I love? Well, even if we love each other, that doesn't mean the relationship is working out for both us. Then you separate, no need to cause drama, it's only a break up. Yet people make a big thing out of it and start hating each other. That just means their love was conditional, in other words, FAKE.
> I have no issues breaking up and then getting back together after a while under new conditions or whatever. This behavior should be the norm.
> ...


It does sound like you're looking for a harem though, really. "Good" person is subjective too. 

You want unconditional love and yet you don't think that people should need love from a relationship 

(Even if women don't require love, many are still romantic to some degree, need excitement and/or dependability (flexibility too)... and it doesn't sound like you're able to offer these things either with the set up you're describing. Sounds more like you just want to juggle and pencil women in to_ your_ allotted strict time frame... i.e. it's all about you).


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

There's no mbti type for this. 

You won't be able to get relationships to revolve around your sexual needs, unless you're very rich. If you do find such women, then you can become very rich selling your secret to the many other men who would think this set up is ideal.


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

This has got to be a troll lmao


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Dude, read The Truth", by Neil STrauss.

He delved into this lifestyle after sex therapy. From my own reading of the book it as glamorous as it sounds.

https://www.neilstrauss.com/the-truth/



> A lack of commitment, too much commitment, a poorly chosen commitment, and misunderstandings about commitment have led to murders, suicides, wars, and a whole lot of grief.
> 
> 
> They have also led to this book, which is an attempt to figure out where so many people go wrong, again and again, when it comes to relationships and marriage—and if there’s a better way to live, love, and make love.
> ...


----------



## kittenmogu (Jun 19, 2014)

I think what you're looking for is more along the lines of "friends with benefits," because all you're interested in is sex. Glad I could clarify that for you.


----------



## Wild (Jul 14, 2014)

ahmadwehbe said:


> *Remember though, this is for LONG term relationship, so she has to love and enjoy this kind of deal as much as me. So she has to see the logic with it and accept it 100%. *


Question: would the girls be allowed to have sex with other guys too if they wanted to?


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

fun ones


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Um yeah

Estp here I see we are leading almost in the poll coming in 2nd

Let me just speak for myself no in a SERIOUS relationship thats a no. I can entertain plenty of various scenarios in a hypothetical when I am single. Yes I can be hard to tie down in a relationship when I am single. Sure I date alot when single. But no not if I am in love with the person (which is rare -you see at 32 I have only been IN LOVE (not loved but in love) 3 times.) No when I am IN LOVE with a person I would not entertain that idea. Its an easy idea to entertain when single and leave as an option maybe in an uncommitted relationship. (yes I would consider it in that scenario and I have before). 

But no I would not consider a serious relationship with that on the table.

Also I would never consider a serious relationship with someone who puts a value on my obedience and leverages that in a question about love. (Gee how loving). Or someone who would rather just cover more square footage of stand bys and has an easy come easy go sentiment about relationships. I date with a flippant attitude. But I do not enter a serious relationship that lightly. For me in a serious relationship its quality not quantity. 

Anyways the types I have seen who tend to be the most experimental with matters of the heart and relationship terms (when in a serious relationship, not single) from my own life experience and observations are ENFxs


----------



## Wild (Jul 14, 2014)

Sensational said:


> Um yeah
> 
> Estp here I see we are leading almost in the poll coming in 2nd
> 
> ...


It's dumb that Se doms are leading this. I'm pretty sure even in MBTI we're known for being jealous. Why the hell would that line up with polygamy?

Not that most Ne doms would be okay with it, but I'd think Ne would have a way higher correlation with this sort of thing. Especially since one of their key traits is open-mindedness attached to a most pronounced fondness for "new, shiny objects". 

People are just thinking "omg Se doms are sluts, so that would totally correlate to being okay with something like polygamy!" I won't deny that we probably do get around more than most other types, but not that way. But I just checked again, and now Ne doms are beating us, lmao.


----------



## Elisa Artista (Aug 23, 2016)

The difficulty with this is it can't be friends with benefits, because he doesn't even want the friendship. I have trouble envisioning a long-term sexual relationship without friendship. I think it would naturally develop overtime for at least one party.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Wild said:


> It's dumb that Se doms are leading this. I'm pretty sure even in MBTI we're known for being jealous. Why the hell would that line up with polygamy?
> 
> Not that most Ne doms would be okay with it, but I'd think Ne would have a way higher correlation with this sort of thing. Especially since one of their key traits is open-mindedness attached to a most pronounced fondness for "new, shiny objects".
> 
> People are just thinking "omg Se doms are sluts, so that would totally correlate to being okay with something like polygamy!" I won't deny that we probably do get around more than most other types, but not that way. But I just checked again, and now Ne doms are beating us, lmao.


I totally agree :happy: with everything you said.


----------



## Mmmm (Jul 6, 2012)

Nope not ever! I think what you are looking for is a prostitute not a "relationship".


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Elisa Artista said:


> The difficulty with this is it can't be friends with benefits, because he doesn't even want the friendship. I have trouble envisioning a long-term sexual relationship without friendship. I think it would naturally develop overtime for at least one party.


If his finances are in order and he has a lot of wealth. Then maybe a 'Gold Digger', if he has enough wealth to spare, then it probably wont matter to him as long as he gets the sex and they get what ever they want money wise and wealth wise.

Look at Hugh Heffner (God Bless Him).


----------



## MolaMola (Jul 28, 2012)

You can't have your cake and eat it too, OP. lol.

Enviado desde mi SM-G920V mediante Tapatalk


----------



## ahmadwehbe (Aug 28, 2016)

Wild said:


> Question: would the girls be allowed to have sex with other guys too if they wanted to?


No, that's called polyandry. I'm not interested in such women. However, if she isn't happy with me, then we can talk things out and see if it can be fixed, otherwise we can separate and try again later in the future. She can date others after our separation, it's not my business anyways. As long as she doesn't sleep around and such then she is always welcome back.


----------



## ahmadwehbe (Aug 28, 2016)

stormgirl said:


> I am going to attempt to speak for the majority of “feeler” females, and say that they are not likely to wish to be your sex toy for the afternoon, especially since you have made it clear you have no interest in being bothered outside of sex or building an emotional connection.
> 
> I don’t know which types(s) are more likely to enjoy poly relationships, but most feelers I know both male and female prefer a relationship that involves sharing and friendship, and not just sex.
> 
> If you are just seeking to get off with no further connection or conversations, I recommend either escorts, or buying yourself a real doll. They don’t care about you, or want to hear about your day either.


But I do want an emotional relationship, except, I don't want it to be forced, like, "oh we're together, WE HAVE to follow guidelines for how a couple should behave". No thanks. Instead, I want something natural, something that comes gradually with time. Those kind of emotions last a life time.


----------



## ahmadwehbe (Aug 28, 2016)

Veggie said:


> It does sound like you're looking for a harem though, really. "Good" person is subjective too.
> 
> You want unconditional love and yet you don't think that people should need love from a relationship
> 
> (Even if women don't require love, many are still romantic to some degree, need excitement and/or dependability (flexibility too)... and it doesn't sound like you're able to offer these things either with the set up you're describing. Sounds more like you just want to juggle and pencil women in to_ your_ allotted strict time frame... i.e. it's all about you).


I get sex, she gets sex. I think the playing field is pretty equal there. Both get what they want. I think just the fact that I chose to spend time with her is enough proof that I like/love her. Otherwise I don't really bother much with people at all. So for me, spending time together is the greatest love I can give. However, I don't want to base my sexual relationships on feelings. I want them to be set in stone such as having a stable sex life. I think that is good enough for a long lasting relationship. Emotions etc can grow from there, if the person is someone worth it. But let's say she is dumb, well, I can still have sex with her, and perhaps I'll pity her and guide her if she is grateful for the extra time I invest in her. 

Today's relationship "design" just seems so unnatural to me, too forced, too fake. I want it to be raw, realistic without fairytale expectations.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

ahmadwehbe said:


> No, that's called polyandry. I'm not interested in such women. However, if she isn't happy with me, then we can talk things out and see if it can be fixed, otherwise we can separate and try again later in the future. She can date others after our separation, it's not my business anyways. As long as she doesn't sleep around and such then she is always welcome back.


Ooh, then you should have specified you meant polygyny and not polygamy. ENTP ladies are mostly out of the picture too, sorry. Unless it's convenient for her to go along with your relationship structure (like too busy to find other mates).


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

Aladdin Sane said:


> Mail order bride from Thailand! xo


The shipping fees are too much for heavy packages. :tongue:


----------



## ahmadwehbe (Aug 28, 2016)

kittenmogu said:


> I think what you're looking for is more along the lines of "friends with benefits," because all you're interested in is sex. Glad I could clarify that for you.


Not 100%, but yeah pretty much, friendly relationships with lots of hot sex but still serious enough to be a life long relationship. 

I think once we get rid of religious bigotry and social structures and just look inside ourselves and be honest about what we want, then we will be on the correct path of life.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Good luck finding women who are ok with you sleeping with others but they are not allowed to.


----------



## ahmadwehbe (Aug 28, 2016)

Anyways, according to my own research, then money is the key factor to make it all work. 

I mean, if I have a big mansion and offer free food, clothes and housing, then that would make me "the perfect guy" for the majority of women. Also, even if they're just gold diggers and don't really love me, so what? As long as they sign the paperwork then they can't do much to hurt me, I'll just take it court and have them pay me money for breaking our agreement. That should scare them enough into obedience, plus they would lose free food, clothes and housing. 

I already have a few girls that are my "pets" but they are extroverted, it drains me too much. I was just hoping more introverted girls would come forward and express how good polygamy would have been for them. That it would have been perfect for them, because then they don't have to force themselves into socializing more than what they feel like. They don't have to deal with whatever made up rules society has about relationships, no unnecessary expectations but with the privilege of having a stable sex life and an open and honest life long partner. No deceiving, cheating, lies or anything like that. I thought women dream about such a man? 

I think this polygamy thing and having to be obedient really filters out a lot of women. But I bet the same women wouldn't mind once money is involved. However, I'd prefer to find women who see the logic of my ideas, because then we will at least have a mutually intellectual relationship as well. Whereas the gold-digger could be a crazy person or part of a mafia or whatever.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Yo dude, like seriously, this is me, read my posts and see my views. But seriously dude, what the actual f**k.
But erm good luck if you think you can pull it off.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

ahmadwehbe said:


> Not 100%, but yeah pretty much, friendly relationships with lots of hot sex but still serious enough to be a life long relationship.
> 
> I think once we get rid of religious bigotry and social structures and just look inside ourselves and be honest about what we want, then we will be on the correct path of life.


If all that you have is sex holding you together, you won't have a life long relationship. Body parts start to sag and get less appealing; addiction to the throes of passion mean sex with just the same person grows routine.

Your way has been tried many times, over many many years. It either fails, or causes grave harm to others, which the proponents seek to sweep under the rug with false grandiloquence.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

ahmadwehbe said:


> I get sex, she gets sex. I think the playing field is pretty equal there. Both get what they want. I think just the fact that I chose to spend time with her is enough proof that I like/love her. Otherwise I don't really bother much with people at all. So for me, spending time together is the greatest love I can give. However, I don't want to base my sexual relationships on feelings. I want them to be set in stone such as having a stable sex life. I think that is good enough for a long lasting relationship. Emotions etc can grow from there, if the person is someone worth it. But let's say she is dumb, well, I can still have sex with her, and perhaps I'll pity her and guide her if she is grateful for the extra time I invest in her.
> 
> Today's relationship "design" just seems so unnatural to me, too forced, too fake. I want it to be raw, realistic without fairytale expectations.


In my opinion what you describe does sound unrealistic.

It sounds cold and business like and by the book to me. I could personally see it working for a casual relationship(s), but I don't see how genuine intimacy would blossom from it.

Intimacy generally requires that you proceed to go deeper and deeper with a partner, and I'd imagine your arrangement would stunt that a bit, if not entirely. There isn't a lot of room for spontaneity if you're only "scheduled" for specific days. You're stuck at that plateau too, as changing it up would mess with the dynamic and scheduling with your other ladies.

Say one wants to go on vacation or something. Or a family or work function requires a date on another day or night. Now you're dealing with potential drama if attempting to remain flexible cuts into quality time with another partner(s) if they were really depending on seeing you for whatever reason, as you wouldn't be consistently meeting _their_ needs.

If those sorts of arrangements are out of the question, then you're limiting your avenues for bonding and really getting to know the person in various settings (making it difficult to gauge if they're a "good" person (again, subjective) or really getting a fuller picture of who they are as a person period).

Schedules change (and therefore clash), too. People get promotions, they relocate, family issues arise, they get sick, they take up new interests... the more tightly you "book" yourself, the more difficulty I'd think you'd have keeping your set-up's long term and committed. 

Plateaus equal predictability and therefore boredom for some people too. Long term relationships generally require some effort in keeping the spark alive, in keeping the sex hot. Otherwise it might not be worth having anymore, especially if the relationship is basically centered around it (i.e. you aren't really talking about your lives, you aren't a partner in other life actitivies, etc).

Polyamory might be an option, but it's gonna require more compromise and it wouldn't be as "you" centric. (I personally think these set-ups sound even more exhausting than good ol' monogamy... but that's just me). I think what you're describing is really more polyamory anyway, as I don't think you're planning on marrying all of these women, but usually polyamory requires a bit more of a group mentality.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> Look at Hugh Heffner (God Bless Him).


None of those relationships truly lasted long term though, they all left when he launched their careers or they were ready to pop out kids, and some of those women have gone on to blast him and share intimate details with the press.

Since OP wants this "real" condition free love Hugh's arrangements wouldn't really satisfy that.

I think Hugh Hefner's in a monogamous relationship now anyway, with a woman who left him after an engagement initially. He's like ninety something (right?) though, so I assume she decided waiting for a bucket kick was worth biding her time for, lol.


----------



## Wild (Jul 14, 2014)

ahmadwehbe said:


> Anyways, according to my own research, then money is the key factor to make it all work.


Yeah, because what you seem to want are prostitutes. 

You say you don't want a relationship involving emotions - okay. You want a polygamous relationship where you fuck and spend a minimal amount of time with each other. You're just not going to find women that are okay with that, even if you find women who were brought up in a religion that practices polygamy. 

Even if you have like 3 chicks that are all willing to be in a polygamous relationship with you, they're all going to want your time, they're going to fight for it, and they're going to be jealous of each other - so you're going to have _much_ more emotional drama to deal with. You'd have way more luck just finding a girl whose sex drive matches yours, but if you want it to be a relationship, feelings _will be involved_.

But even then, you say you want a relationship where A) you don't have to spend much time with each other and B) it's not based upon feelings, but a stable income of sex.

*You don't want a real relationship, dude*. Real relationships don't work this way; there's just no way that your plan is ever going to work smoothly with someone who loves you, because it's unfair and functions under the assumption that women will be complacent and let you do whatever you want while not expecting the same treatment - and they won't. If you want a setup like this, you need to find some fuck buddies or an escort.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Wild said:


> Even if you have like 3 chicks that are all willing to be in a polygamous relationship with you, they're all going to want your time, they're going to fight for it, and they're going to be jealous of each other - so you're going to have _much_ more emotional drama to deal with.


I've heard women defend polygamy before, but they were coming at it from the perspective of wanting the sister wives and the lifestyle more so than the man (so jealousy might not so much be an issue there if he's half irrelevant). They were more extraverted, social instinct types from what I got.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

ahmadwehbe said:


> Not 100%, but yeah pretty much, friendly relationships with lots of hot sex but still serious enough to be a life long relationship.
> 
> I think once we get rid of religious bigotry and social structures and just look inside ourselves and be honest about what we want, then we will be on the correct path of life.





ahmadwehbe said:


> They don't have to deal with whatever made up rules society has about relationships, no unnecessary expectations but with the privilege of having a stable sex life and an open and honest life long partner. No deceiving, cheating, lies or anything like that. I thought women dream about such a man?


Committing yourself to one man and a stable sex life with him, with that at the center of the relationship, is only the "dream" if the sex doesn't suck. 

A lot of foreplay is psychological. If you've snuffed out avenues for spontaneity and excitement, if you aren't someone they think they could depend on for when general life happens - outside of a strict schedule, if you're limiting your opportunities to bond as people... that sex sounds mediocre, at best.

One of Hugh Hefner's girlfriends went on to say in a tell all that she had to be incredibly drunk or high to sleep with him, and that she just lay there wishing for it to be over.

I think this has less to do with indoctrination than you seem to think...


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Veggie said:


> I've heard women defend polygamy before, but they were coming at it from the perspective of wanting the sister wives and the lifestyle more so than the man (so jealousy might not so much be an issue there if he's half irrelevant). They were more extraverted, social instinct types from what I got.


I don't see the link between extroversion, social instincts/intelligence and jealousy here.

I think any type can suffer from Jealousy, social or unsocial, and its up to the jealous person to learn to control it or not.


----------



## Tortoise20 (Aug 12, 2016)

stupid ones


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> I don't see the link between extroversion, social instincts/intelligence and jealousy here.
> 
> I think any type can suffer from Jealousy, social or unsocial, and its up to the jealous person to learn to control it or not.


These particular women seemed to be more extraverted types with a social instinct. (Granted, this was just a convo on a message board ages ago, so they may not have even actually existed. I used to go SJW feminist on these set-ups, so I was trying to be more open minded, lol. I do remember coming away from it though thinking, hmm, well I guess it could make sense under that mentality).

Jealousy isn't going to be as much of an issue if you aren't emotionally invested in the relationship itself.

They were interested in specifically how the arrangement would work with children, though. They liked the communal aspect of the idea of sister wives and child rearing. Marriage to them was more about the social benefits than it was a connection with their partner, so minimizing those responsibilities but gaining otherwise was attractive to them.


----------



## soop (Aug 6, 2016)

Good luck "bro" try finding someone who doesn't have any languages in common with you.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

I think this thread is a troll, but suspending disbelief for a moment, one way what the op is proposing could be done is by using a sugar daddy dating service like this one

https://www.seekingarrangement.com/

I've read that many college age women and women in need of financial assistance use this site and are willing to trade companionship for financial aid...the relationships don't sound like they are long term, but college is 4 years so you can get some mileage out of it and always "re-up" when graduation bells ring


----------



## Riven (Jan 17, 2015)

Bisexual girls, I think, although I'm not sure if they'd refuse because of societal norms or it causes commitment issues.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Riven said:


> Bisexual girls, I think, although I'm not sure if they'd refuse because of societal norms or it causes commitment issues.


Huh? How's bisexuality related to what he wants?


----------



## Riven (Jan 17, 2015)

Red Panda said:


> Huh? How's bisexuality related to what he wants?


Two girls getting it on is hot, but I'm not sure how viable it is in the long term.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Riven said:


> Two girls getting it on is hot, but I'm not sure how viable it is in the long term.


That's not what he's saying tho.


----------



## Riven (Jan 17, 2015)

Red Panda said:


> That's not what he's saying tho.


OK then. I only intended to go through this forum quickly though.


----------



## Communal Soap (Jul 6, 2014)

It sounds like you're looking for a concubine rather than polyamory. I'm not poly, but a relationship that involves multiple people isn't the same as one that isn't based on emotions. Monogamous people just want sex all the time and polyamory frequently does involve love. Their not really related things.

I've had an extremely unpleasant experience dating a poly ISFJ, but it shouldn't really be that related to type. People that are better at handling relationships are probably better at handling multiple though. I don't think it would really work without a lot of emotional maturity because of jealousy and just that many more opportunities to be shitty.


----------



## 7rr7s (Jun 6, 2011)

Not sure about girls, but there was an INFP on here who was in a poly relationship with a couple girls. Dude also kind of looked like Urkel though and said there were problems and it was kind of stressful on all of them.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Tho the poll has evened out a bit. I still cannot believe that based on the poll people read the op and thought "yeah of all the mbti, entp and estp females would be the biggest suckers for this guys utopia". 

I would be more apt to participate in a minaj then what the op is discussing for the record.


----------



## Flaming Bassoon (Feb 15, 2013)

Sensational said:


> I would be more apt to participate in a minaj then what the op is discussing for the record.


Lol this is a "Minaj"










This is a ménage à trois (threesome):


----------



## bruh (Oct 27, 2015)

Some religious women are very obedient to this idea, some actually want


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Tortoise20 said:


> stupid ones


...or the kind one has to inflate first.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

ahmadwehbe said:


> No, that's called polyandry. I'm not interested in such women. However, if she isn't happy with me, then we can talk things out and see if it can be fixed, otherwise we can separate and try again later in the future. She can date others after our separation, it's not my business anyways. As long as she doesn't sleep around and such then she is always welcome back.


LOL.

pretty one sided aren't you.

T's are more likely to share. Maybe an emotionally repressed INTP, possibly a horny desperate INTJ. 

INFJ is the least likely to actually be wiling to share. They'd consider it, they'd be friends, but they wouldn't do it.

INFP second least likely. They won't even consider it.


----------



## Scarlet.Black (Jan 6, 2016)

ahmadwehbe said:


> Not 100%, but yeah pretty much, friendly relationships with lots of hot sex but still serious enough to be a life long relationship.
> 
> I think once we get rid of religious bigotry and social structures and just look inside ourselves and be honest about what we want, then we will be on the correct path of life.





ahmadwehbe said:


> Anyways, according to my own research, then money is the key factor to make it all work.
> 
> I mean, if I have a big mansion and offer free food, clothes and housing, then that would make me "the perfect guy" for the majority of women. Also, even if they're just gold diggers and don't really love me, so what? As long as they sign the paperwork then they can't do much to hurt me, I'll just take it court and have them pay me money for breaking our agreement. That should scare them enough into obedience, plus they would lose free food, clothes and housing.
> 
> ...


So what you want is someone who has only needs which you can handle, someone who has no power/control over you or any demands and she shoud also love you for these same reasons. And the thing is that even that doesn't give her any value as individual in your eyes since you want to put her in the same situation with another weak-willed women in your life. Am I right? I have grown up with a pack of many big dogs so I understand how to control the pack. I am the one who give them food and shelter, I tell them what to do, I expect my dogs to never question my leadership and I never beg. Someone with one dog can ask but if I let any of my dogs (40-70 kilos per dog) to think that they have a change to stay in my pack without respecting my will/rulez I am in deep shit. See pack of dogs always want to protect their own pack (and leader) from anything that harm their mental balance - animals are driven by fear - so it's important to make sure that my dogs can't sense any fear from my behalf. I would both loose the control of my dogs but also show that I am unsure about my capability to protect them from others.

Do you see any similarity between my leadership and your expectations for relationship?





ahmadwehbe said:


> But I do want an emotional relationship, except, I don't want it to be forced, like, "oh we're together, WE HAVE to follow guidelines for how a couple should behave". No thanks. Instead, I want something natural, something that comes gradually with time. Those kind of emotions last a life time.


I also love my dogs but I have no false beliefs about their feelings for me. They are animals and I am their leader. But yes - they adore me their whole life.




ahmadwehbe said:


> No, that's called polyandry. I'm not interested in such women. However, if she isn't happy with me, then we can talk things out and see if it can be fixed, otherwise we can separate and try again later in the future. She can date others after our separation, it's not my business anyways. As long as she doesn't sleep around and such then she is always welcome back.





ahmadwehbe said:


> I get sex, she gets sex. I think the playing field is pretty equal there. Both get what they want. I think just the fact that I chose to spend time with her is enough proof that I like/love her. Otherwise I don't really bother much with people at all. So for me, spending time together is the greatest love I can give. However, I don't want to base my sexual relationships on feelings. I want them to be set in stone such as having a stable sex life. I think that is good enough for a long lasting relationship. Emotions etc can grow from there, if the person is someone worth it. But let's say she is dumb, well, I can still have sex with her, and perhaps I'll pity her and guide her if she is grateful for the extra time I invest in her.
> 
> Today's relationship "design" just seems so unnatural to me, too forced, too fake. I want it to be raw, realistic without fairytale expectations.



This is great way of keeping your leadership. I agree. For example I leave rebelling dogs outside or just cut all contact with them for a moment. Nothing works better than total repudiation for animal who's whole happiness depends on you.

The difference between me and you is that I am able to understand what makes my dogs happy and what makes them sad/stress out. You don't really seems to understand the difference between woman and dog. While dogs mostly only need, security and something to do to be happy women need something else too. Emotional and equality. As long as you treat them like dogs which they aren't they will never be happy and they will never be appreciative toward you. 

So the one with fairytale expectations sadly is you. The faster you understand the logic behind human behaviour the faster you build better relationships. I wish you good luck since I always appreciate good alphas!


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

"Which types of girls will accept polygamy?"

The wrong types.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

smiles.....

i make a prediction, and two lovely NF's back me up!!!!


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

The ugly, cheap and desperate type. Also the type that will complot with the other gfs/wives, kill you then split your belongings.


----------



## Scarlet.Black (Jan 6, 2016)

drmiller100 said:


> smiles.....
> 
> i make a prediction, and two lovely NF's back me up!!!!


You know I could say 'yes' just to see if a guy could handle me. But honestly after the first time I open my mouth the offer is usually off the table. I tried to get to know INTJ with this kind of attitude for some years but it always end up me talking and him staring me neither with sad puppy eyes or with hurt pride and anger in his eyes. I really tried to connect with him (I was madly in love with him since he reminded me so much of men in my family and we had a lot in common) but I don't think that INTJ can match with NF before they have learn communicate about their feelings. I believe that's the reason they often end up with ESFP since ESFP+INTJ couple can made it work without ever really understanding each other. My parents are INTJ+ESFP and it's almost comic how little they understand each other after being together more than 30 years.

So IMO "the type" OP is looking for is ESFP without undeveloped Ni. 

And it isn't polyamory that bothers me but the thing that he doesn't seem able to accept his own or other's feelings and the fact that his plan isn't good enough. 




L'Enfant Terrible said:


> The ugly, cheap and desperate type. Also the type that will complot with the other gfs/wives, kill you then split your belongings.


That's true  I always wonder why people don't see it coming! I mean if you choose a person who always hide behind someone else's back and always choose to back up the one who is in charge why do think that they would be loyal to you based on anything else than your status? It's sound quite romantic and idealistic belief in my eyes. 

Sooooo... OP is a little bit too romantic... :typingneko:

ps. I was thinking about ugly personality... not ugly face.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Scarlet.Black said:


> You know I could say 'yes' just to see if a guy could handle me. But honestly after the first time I open my mouth the offer is usually off the table. I tried to get to know INTJ with this kind of attitude for some years but it always end up me talking and him staring me neither with sad puppy eyes or with hurt pride and anger in his eyes. I really tried to connect with him (I was madly in love with him since he reminded me so much of men in my family and we had a lot in common) but I don't think that INTJ can match with NF before they have learn communicate about their feelings. I believe that's the reason they often end up with ESFP since ESFP+INTJ couple can made it work without ever really understanding each other. My parents are INTJ+ESFP and it's almost comic how little they understand each other after being together more than 30 years.
> 
> So IMO "the type" OP is looking for is ESFP without undeveloped Ni.
> 
> ...


Agreed. Nothing about polygamy is romantic though, so I suppose that you were using sarcasm. OP is not a romantic, OP is horny, young and naive.


----------



## Scarlet.Black (Jan 6, 2016)

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> Agreed. Nothing about polygamy is romantic though, so I suppose that you were using sarcasm. OP is not a romantic, OP is horny, young and naive.


Yes and no. I think that the idea of romantic love without any romantic input means that he is expecting women's feelings just appear mystically from somewhere which in a way is naive and romantic expectation.  of cource the outcome is not romantic but for me it looks like he is trying to use his other functions to develop something that his Fi wants. And Fi is romantic function since by itself it has nothing to do with realities.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Scarlet.Black said:


> Yes and no. I think that the idea of romantic love without any romantic input means that he is expecting women's feelings just appear mystically from somewhere which in a way is naive and romantic expectation.  of cource the outcome is not romantic but for me it looks like he is trying to use his other functions to develop something that his Fi wants. And Fi is romantic function since by itself it has nothing to do with realities.


Fi is a rational function.

Intuition Inside: Rational and Irrational Functions and Their Attitudes.

Rational functions are judging functions - Fi, Fe, Ti, Te.

Irrational functions are - Ne, Ni, Se, Si.

Fi is not romantic and is not unromantic.

Other than that, I agree.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

drmiller100 said:


> INFP second least likely. They won't even consider it.


I'm open to polyamory and actually agreed to practice it with my partner if we weren't hermits who don't meet people

but this whole one sided thing the OP wants is a no-no


----------



## INFPsyche (Nov 13, 2014)

I am the weirdest infp because I'm all for it.. As long as you let me have my fun too then let's go for it!!..

I have found this is NOT typical for my type but this is definitely 100% what I'm like and I'm definitely 100% infp.. I'm weird lol..


----------



## INFPsyche (Nov 13, 2014)

ahmadwehbe said:


> No, that's called polyandry. I'm not interested in such women. However, if she isn't happy with me, then we can talk things out and see if it can be fixed, otherwise we can separate and try again later in the future. She can date others after our separation, it's not my business anyways. As long as she doesn't sleep around and such then she is always welcome back.


Fuck i was turned on until this post.. .. no thanks party pooper.. haha.. 

If there are no emotions to the relationship why can't she do what she wants??.. what does it matter??.. this is the part that sucks. Sex without the constant commitment is awesome and I'd love all i can get but I'd have to go off too in my own direction.. I don't know why you wouldn't 'allow' this???.. *snort* sounds ridiculous.. Especially for someone who doesn't 'care' what the other person is doing or is emotionless towards her. doesn't make sense.. .. Sounds like you're a confused male which is a real real turnoff.. ..


----------



## ahmadwehbe (Aug 28, 2016)

INFPsyche said:


> Fuck i was turned on until this post.. .. no thanks party pooper.. haha..
> 
> If there are no emotions to the relationship why can't she do what she wants??.. what does it matter??.. this is the part that sucks. Sex without the constant commitment is awesome and I'd love all i can get but I'd have to go off too in my own direction.. I don't know why you wouldn't 'allow' this???.. *snort* sounds ridiculous.. Especially for someone who doesn't 'care' what the other person is doing or is emotionless towards her. doesn't make sense.. .. Sounds like you're a confused male which is a real real turnoff.. ..


Perhaps you misunderstood? 
I never said there won't be any emotions, it's just that the relationship IS NOT based on emotions. I want to build a house on something tangible, namely a strong foundation made out of steel and concrete. That's sex, strong mutual understanding about what to expect from the relationship. 
Emotions on the other hand is comparable to cotton candy, do you want to build a house on a foundation made out of cotton candy? 

Of course you can go your own direction, but not sexually. You can have male friends, I don't mind, as long as you don't cheat and as long as you fulfill your duty towards me. 

Of course I care? She is my responsibility. Again, you misunderstood, I simply said that if she isn't happy with me and we try to fix it but it doesn't work out, then we can divorce. What she does after that is none of my business, get it? She can go marry whoever she wants, or stay single, it's up to her >I don't care, it's her life< . If she wants to get back with me, then she is welcome back. 

Hope I explained it better.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

ahmadwehbe said:


> I never said there won't be any emotions, it's just that the relationship IS NOT based on emotions. I want to build a house on something tangible, namely a strong foundation made out of steel and concrete. That's sex, s
> 
> 
> as long as you fulfill your duty towards me.
> ...


Wowsers. 

Have you ever had a girlfriend? Maybe start with the basics first.


----------



## MaggieMay (Dec 27, 2014)

OP:

You talk about women like they are objects, property to be managed. You say you can't build a house of cotton candy but I disagree, the uncertainty is worth it because at least the relationship is sweet.
All I can say is this, you are unhealthy and do not understand relationships as well as you think you do. You do not understand how women work or how to bond with another human. If you ask me, I would recommend getting a pet. Build your house of iron and then tell your dog about it because the only person that could survive in a relationship like that is an animal. On the bright side, they don't care if you don't want to talk. 

You are creating something extremely unhealthy in any woman that would be okay with this; she is either naive, intrigued, or uneducated in what a healthy relationship looks like. Polygamy has only instilled worthlessness and fear into women, it only benefits men that have no business playing God or barking out orders to humans they do not care about. You strip anything human from them in the way you talk and carry yourself. I could never respect anyone who spewed out what you have. Perhaps you should find another man with such misogynistic ideals and be sure he as emotionally-incapacitated as yourself. Then it would truly be beneficial to you both. 

When you ask someone to serve you out of service and not out of love (quite different from the lust you are describing) you are asking them to only find their identity in you. To only find pleasure in a person and not in themselves or a life they create. It is the most deceitful way of thinking because it is designed to make one feel superior than their partner. To make someone feel guilt or to feel nothing at all when humans are wired for feeling. To say you do not care about their day but that you care about them is called emotional manipulation because you only care *enough* to make them think they love you when truly you are abusive. 

You are not different or God-sent or loving or healthy or a good partner. 

You are broken.


----------



## ahmadwehbe (Aug 28, 2016)

MaggieMay said:


> OP:
> 
> You talk about women like they are objects, property to be managed. You say you can't build a house of cotton candy but I disagree, the uncertainty is worth it because at least the relationship is sweet.
> All I can say is this, you are unhealthy and do not understand relationships as well as you think you do. You do not understand how women work or how to bond with another human. If you ask me, I would recommend getting a pet. Build your house of iron and then tell your dog about it because the only person that could survive in a relationship like that is an animal. On the bright side, they don't care if you don't want to talk.
> ...


You're basically telling me that I should build my relationships around women's emotional needs. How is that fair to me? I don't have emotional needs, I have friends, relatives and family for that. The only thing I want from women is sex. 

Men need sex, women need sex. End of story. My proposition is equal and fair. And since women can't have as much sex as men without damaging their organs, then women will always be unable to match my sexual drive and therefore polygamy is the solution.

Monogamy only works if both the man and woman share a similar sex drive. Why else is there so much cheating going on? They base their relationship on cotton candy fairy tales, but end up getting hit by reality. 

I can even do my work while laying down on my bed, so I'm pretty much rideable 24/7. 

But as many have mentioned, money is the key factor. Unless I find women who have grown past cotton candy fairy tales.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

ahmadwehbe said:


> You're basically telling me that I should build my relationships around women's emotional needs. How is that fair to me? I don't have emotional needs, I have friends, relatives and family for that. The only thing I want from women is sex.
> 
> Men need sex, women need sex. End of story. My proposition is equal and fair. And since women can't have as much sex as men without damaging their organs, then women will always be unable to match my sexual drive and therefore polygamy is the solution.
> 
> ...


Orgasms release hormones that promote bonding (dopamine, oxytocin) so it is highly unlikely you will be able to maintain a long term sexual relationship without eventually developing feelings, either you or the woman. 

It is also highly unlikely that you will find women who are willing to get into such a deal with you, since most people and especially women are not as emotionless as you, so they will require emotional connection. You might be able to find fuck buddies that will tolerate this deal for some time, but reality will hit hard eventually.

I agree that monogamy is not working for many people, but you have one side of the truth. It's not just about having good sex, it's about having good communication and emotional connection as well. 

I have no desire to insult you, so I'm not going to say this as an insult, but all these you are saying seem somewhat sociopathic to me.


----------



## Scarlet.Black (Jan 6, 2016)

ahmadwehbe said:


> You're basically telling me that I should build my relationships around women's emotional needs. How is that fair to me? I don't have emotional needs, I have friends, relatives and family for that. The only thing I want from women is sex.
> 
> Men need sex, women need sex. End of story. My proposition is equal and fair. And since women can't have as much sex as men without damaging their organs, then women will always be unable to match my sexual drive and therefore polygamy is the solution.
> 
> ...


I am just curious... have you ever tried to be in a relationship with a women who you can have a great conversation with? Do you ever connect with women on intellectual level?


----------



## INFPsyche (Nov 13, 2014)

ahmadwehbe said:


> Perhaps you misunderstood?
> I never said there won't be any emotions, it's just that the relationship IS NOT based on emotions. I want to build a house on something tangible, namely a strong foundation made out of steel and concrete. That's sex, strong mutual understanding about what to expect from the relationship.
> Emotions on the other hand is comparable to cotton candy, do you want to build a house on a foundation made out of cotton candy?
> 
> ...


A woman is her own responsibility imo..

And if you were actually acting 'responsible' in this scenario you'd make sure the situation is fair or else you risk detrimentally damaging the girls emotionally. Not sure if 'responsible' is the right word here..

Again confused.. you poor poor soul.. ..


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

ahmadwehbe said:


> I can even do my work while laying down on my bed, so I'm pretty much rideable 24/7.


Priceless 

I don't know why so many have an issue with this suggestion, I mean, it's not like it's ever going to happen, sorry @ahmadwehbe , but you can't argue with the logic. It would be ideal for him.


----------



## MaggieMay (Dec 27, 2014)

ahmadwehbe said:


> You're basically telling me that I should build my relationships around women's emotional needs. How is that fair to me? I don't have emotional needs, I have friends, relatives and family for that. The only thing I want from women is sex.
> 
> Men need sex, women need sex. End of story. My proposition is equal and fair. And since women can't have as much sex as men without damaging their organs, then women will always be unable to match my sexual drive and therefore polygamy is the solution.
> 
> ...


Incorrect. 
I am telling you that you cannot have a relationship without connection and that you will find it difficult to arouse a woman in a long-term relationship without bonding with her emotionally first. Women do not bond with men they don't trust and you can never trust a man that cannot commit and a man who cannot commit is not worth having because he isn't truly yours (the same could be said vise-versa). She will not be thinking about you but rather that she is in competition for your attention, no matter what your deal is. Women are wired to connect. That is the point. 

We know you don't have emotional needs, apparantly. But SHE will. And if you want to make a relationship work both people must get their needs met which means you will have to compromise or else watch your relationship fall apart. You will have to show effort. 

If you do not understand that, you shouldn't be with any woman, regardless how willing she is. 
It is not fair if you get sex (a need of yours) but she does not get emotional connection (a need of hers). 

Monogamy works with mutual understanding and loyalty. When you can be loyal to them and put forth the effort to understand who they are and compromise and work together it will work. If you do not wish to put in effort, it will crumble. There is no excuse for cheating except for disloyalty and personal agendas. It is an act of selfishness. It has nothing to do with your partner because it is a choice to cheat. They base their relationship on words without effort is why it crumbles OR like you, they refuse to acknowledge that people are deeper than simple sex organs and need more than "deals" to be happy. 

Why would they care if you're "rideable" if you're not emotionally available? Do you know nothing about women at all? 
Money is only a key factor to shallow people. 

If you find that you do not want to connect with a woman on an intellectual or emotional level then perhaps it is not that you want one thing from them but rather that you are *threatened* by them and the only way for you to eliminate that threat, in your mind, is to use them for your personal gain.

In my opinion, polygamy is a cop-out. It's to get what you want without having to meet or be inconvenienced by the needs of another. 

But clearly, you have made your opinion about women clear. You only want them for one thing...which happens to be every woman's worst fear. 

Good luck with that.


----------



## ahmadwehbe (Aug 28, 2016)

Scarlet.Black said:


> I am just curious... have you ever tried to be in a relationship with a women who you can have a great conversation with? Do you ever connect with women on intellectual level?


Yes of course, but her emotions killed it, too self-centered. I have issues with valuing things that don't exist, so it felt as if I was choking because of her childish behavior, especially when she acts like those kids that suddenly don't speak to you because you prove their ideas to be wrong or extremely unrealistic. She lacked self-esteem as well, although she was perfect physically and intellectually. I felt she was traumatized by social pressure and social stigma, such as "women are stupid", so she felt that I was perhaps treating her as if she was stupid when I criticized her. But I've never called her stupid nor was it my intention. And I wasn't going to apologize for something that silly, so I just moved on. And she got angry because I met someone else immediately just a couple of days later and now doesn't want to talk at all. Well, duh. You either walk with me or not, it's that simple, nobody is worth waiting for. 

Anyways, she is the only woman I've ever connected with on an intellectual level... and frankly, it wasn't that impressive. Her desire to be socially accepted by friends and acquaintances made her too biased and weak to reach a higher intellectual awareness.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

ahmadwehbe said:


> You're basically telling me that I should build my relationships around women's emotional needs. How is that fair to me? I don't have emotional needs, I have friends, relatives and family for that. The only thing I want from women is sex.


It is fine you think this. Realize almost no one else does. The vast majority of people have need for emotional connection in their relationships. 

IMO, to be fair to the people in your life you should continue to tell people this about you, and let them decide if they want to be involved with you or not.

There are plenty of people who want what you want, but many more want the emotional connection. Rather than waste your time on people who will ultimately be unhappy, continue to advertise what you want and what you offer.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

MaggieMay said:


> I.which happens to be every woman's worst fear.
> 
> t.


Fascinating you get to speak for all women.


----------



## MaggieMay (Dec 27, 2014)

drmiller100 said:


> Fascinating you get to speak for all women.


It is, isn't it? *sarcasm*

Excuse me. 
A more accurate statement would have been: "...which happens to be a general concern/fear in most women's relationships..."

Better?


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

Obvious hyperbole is obvious. Why do we need to deal with these word nazis. :dry:


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Euclid said:


> Obvious hyperbole is obvious. Why do we need to deal with these word nazis. :dry:


because one fundamental argument is the OP is objectifying women, and not treating them as individuals. 

So, i pointed it out. And MaggieMay had the humor to recognize it. 

but thank you for the incarnation of Godwin's Law.


----------

