291–296 of 296 posts
Richard Dawkins made the same point about humans being roughly between polyamory and monogamy 20 years ago in the Ancestors Tale (and others likely made the points before that). And the evo-psy people have been saying all these points for similarly long...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Having a threesome with your partner and your best friend already qualifies I don't think it does qualify any more than having a one night stand between two single people implies that they are dating This seems to be ignore that Poly implies a relationship, not just sex
How many threesomes with their partner and their best friend would someone have to have before they're polyamorous?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For our ancestors, not being choosy about sex had very serious consequences. (It still might.) It’s “wild” to you that 3 million years of evolution is working as intended?
3 million? You may have missed some classes in school
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't super happy with that example, it's vaguely based on something that happened to me recently but I can't quite remember what happened well enough to make it sound compelling. But I do notice this phenomenon of "justifying one's preferences" in people pretty regularly. When it happens, it sounds odd... like it stands out as insecure, but they seem to not be aware it's odd at all.
I'll add: I guess the way this usually manifests is not that a person gives reasons at all , but rather that they seem to give too many reasons. Like offhandedly saying "I feel like doing this" is normal. But going on about the reasons, making sure they're very clear and crisp and agreed upon by everybody is more like the aberrant/degraded thing I'm talking about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
If someone truly loves their partner, wouldn't they be happy that their partner is getting more of what they need? Even if that is more sex? 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 im…
both partners fully give themselves to each other,
and 100% seek the happiness of their partner.
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?
That doesn't seem remotely realistic or healthy. (Sex certainly doesn't work that way)
Your partner's happiness should be pretty damn high on your list, obviously... and I think there are times when it should come before your own happiness... but literally 100% them and 0% you? Yeah no I don't see how that could work in a literal practical sense, much less how it would be a good idea.
My relationships have been varying degrees of successful, I guess, but...
What I always have believed? A good relationship is synergistic: 1+1=3. You are the best version of yourself thanks to them, and vice-versa. But that's way different to me than each person being 100% focused on the other with no regard for themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The quote isn't about "Poly" it's about non-monogamy. Having a one night stand with a stranger while simultaneously having a partner is not monogamy.
See, you can say that but if it's treated as a one time thing and actually stays a one time thing, then probably the two people in the couple aren't going to go around calling their relationship "non-monogamous"
"Try a threeway once" fits the billed description of "experimented with consensual non-monogamy" pretty exactly.
Whether the people involved continue to define their relationship as non-monogamous is irrelevant.