171–180 of 296 posts
Fantastic article, but as a monogamous married father of 4, I think the author misses the fundamental point of all relationships... And the point of life itself: Reproduction. The primary drive of every living creature from whales to amoeba is to procreate. Having children is WHY we have a sex drive and an urge to have relationships in the first place. Tons of studies show children require stability in the relationsh…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well said, monogamy is a structure for producing a stable child rearing environment — and by relation a stable society. It is entirely consensual where arranged marriages no longer take place. I have no issues how people screw each other but monogamy has a purpose, and if your purpose is to raise a stable family your odds are best if you pursue monogamy.
Monogamy is one such structure. It seems very tied to the modern idea of the "nuclear family." There are others. Having an extended family all living together is another. Tribes where children are raised communally is another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that we have this limit and our age, 3 if her health permits. If we could parallelize, one could imagine twice that+.
If you don't mind me asking, how many are you starting with now? Because three is a lot. And if you're starting from 0 or 1 today, I can't imagine you actually want six.
I think people who like ideas like polyamory have misconstrued notions about what monogamy is, which is a general cultural problem in western societies these days. I don't own my partner and she doesn't own me. I give myself freely to her and she does the same. It's not about expectation, but commitment. I promise her she's the only one for me, despite my very human desires, and she promises me the same thing. This i…
It's not for everyone and it takes a lot communication (and low levels of jealousy) but it seems to work well at providing the structure and stability of marriage without forcing the full sexual exclusivity that some find constricting.
I liked this, but I feel like it glosses over a significant dynamic that discolors both sides of the mono/poly split, which is "people not living the life they want". Not that it's literally "coercive" -- they're not being forced to be in that relationship in any real sense. But the dynamic I often observe (well, infer from observations) is that a person would really like to monogamous or polyamorous (or a different…
I've kind of wondered this over the years myself. The downsides of being in a rigidly-defined monogamous relationship are all kind of obvious, I think. Most people do not experience love or attraction as zero-sum games: you can have a "crush" or whatever on Person B without diminishing your feelings for Person A. So a person in a monogamous relationship is going to miss out on some positive physical and emotional con…
I honestly don't know the answer to this question.
I've heard the optimal form of monogamy is when both partners fully give themselves to each other, and 100% seek the happiness of their partner. I was taught this in a religion. I can't logically understand it though. I can't imagine being happy or maintaining my own identity without spending at least a portion of my energy on myself.
I haven't been successful in relationships though, so what do I know? Is that just a religiously inspired fantasy, or can a real relationship work that way?
There is one issue that I have with this article and most discussions around polyamory. That is mixing in open relationships and poly. There is a massive difference between, you can do whatever sexually you want and dating other people. There is an emotional difference. Myself, I am in an open relationship but I know that what I consider poly is a line I do not wish to cross. I know that just it is not for me. I don'…
What does “door ajar” mean? I have seen several references to it but no definition.
It's wild that we can't differentiate lust and love, committed relationship and meaningless sex. That's the main thing I get from the confusion in the article and the confusion in the comments here about what even defines polyamory. It sounds to me like who you have sex with is the main and only thing that defines a relationship? Can people that wait to have sex until marriage ever be considered polyamorous while unm…
It can be difficult to differentiate between those, because you can have meaningless sex in a committed relationship and meaningful sex in a non-committed one. I have sex with several of my close friends because the difference between platonic love and romantic relationship is not very clear in my mind. And I've had relationships that are very close and intimate where I haven't had sex with them because while some of…
no, I don't think this is true. The older I get the more I think there's real wisdom in being very careful about who you have sex with.
It will have meaning, whether you want it to or not, and it will be negative meaning like regret if you are not very careful.
Sex is extremely dangerous and it is only safe to engage in it with someone you know well and trust, and trust isn't to be given lightly. You will be at your most vulnerable with your partner, both during the act and potentially afterwards due to the hormonal effects and emotional effects as well as the potential physical consequences. "Safe sex" is a lie.
I don't think in the age of birth control that everyone needs to wait until marriage but we have gone very far in the other direction and I really wish someone had told me when I was younger that I would remember all of my partners in vivid detail, especially the ones I wish I could forget.
No, there is really no such thing as meaningless sex.