61–70 of 296 posts
The word swinger wasn't mentioned once. Probably because the swingers are just quietly enjoying their lives under the radar.
Swinging is a very clear example of ENM.
21% of Americans have experimented with consensual non-monogamy at some point in their lives, far more than two decades ago Not only do I not believe that statistic, but the footnote citation seems to be broken. I've never seen a poly relationship make it past 10 years and I've never seen a poly relationship without significant issues that you wouldn't see in a monogamous relationship. Furthermore, there simply isn't…
Not everyone (or even necessarily anyone in a family) works full time, and not everyone who works, full-time or otherwise, works in an institution at arm’s length from the family, so even at the basic premises your argument about constraints suffers from false generalization problems. Observing that polyamorous family structure is suboptimally suited for a dystopian proletarian life in some extreme capitalism assumptions is accurate, but note that that the same observation has been made by many about monogamous relationships.
> Even if you perfectly split your free eight between two people,
Why are you assuming splitting time? A person can interact with more than one other person at a time.
> god forbid you have a commute or a kid.
Seems that in many ways having kids in a poly family would be easier than a monogamous nuclear family. The only problem I see with commutes is that a poly family unit is going to be forced into more complicated commute-optimization trade-offs (OTOH, the probability of having viable commute-sharing with at least one other partner is also higher, so there’s plusses and minuses on that front, too.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Polyamory may literally just mean "Many loves" but I think we can all agree that we are not in a polyamorous relationship with our parents or close friends The level of partnership doesn't have to be sex, but being real sex is the thing that most often differentiates romantic partnerships from other close relationships
> but being real sex is the thing that most often differentiates romantic partnerships from other close relationships I don't actually agree. I think "willingness and continued intention to follow this person and live with them ever still, including the sacrifices that come along with it" tends to be something that connects more with relationships traditionally seen as romantic. It's something that would separate a v…
The word swinger wasn't mentioned once. Probably because the swingers are just quietly enjoying their lives under the radar.
I think it might also be because "Swinging" is a word from a previous era and some/many of the young LGBTQ+ people are against learning from their elders. Swinging is a very clear example of ENM.
21% of Americans have experimented with consensual non-monogamy at some point in their lives, far more than two decades ago Not only do I not believe that statistic, but the footnote citation seems to be broken. I've never seen a poly relationship make it past 10 years and I've never seen a poly relationship without significant issues that you wouldn't see in a monogamous relationship. Furthermore, there simply isn't…
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"
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…
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 connections that might have been really enjoyable.
But...
I've known a fair number of people in poly/open/etc relationships over the years and they tend to be inherently unstable, even moreso than trad monogamy. Like you said, often one person wants more exclusivity.
Also... let's be totally honest. One partner is almost always going to have more access to sex and love outside the relationship. Either they are more attractive, more assertive, or simply have more free time, or any other number of reasons. So the "openness" never seems to work out in a totally equal and/or equitable way.
They also seem to run into the problem of time and energy. In the abstract, love and sex are not zero-sum games. But a person only has so much energy and so many free hours in a week. So in practicality, yeah. It does become a bit zero-sum.
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'…
I might be poly for the right people at the right time, but I'm not currently. However, I'm definitely CNM for life because all I want is to talk it out!
Well, that, and occasionally hook up with other people
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only issue is that when you get what you want, you might be convincing your partner(s) to settle for something they want less. Perhaps the mindset of "best I can get" and finding an acceptable compromise is the way to go.
I truly believe that it is possible to be in a relationship where both people's "best I can get" is "me and my partner are both getting what we want", like you can love someone in a way in which your own preferences recalibrate to be compatible with theirs. Not sure if this is a state everyone can reach, or would want to, but I'm quite sure it's attainable for lots of people. (Aside, I have some friends who are bad a…
They'll say "I want X", but they'll feel they have
to provide a good reason for it to be taken seriously,
e.g. "I want to eat dinner early tonight because it
messes up my sleep when we eat late".
On one level this could be a really bad sign (either about the relationship, or just one person's self esteem) where a person can't just want something. They have to "justify" it.
On the other hand, I don't know if that's necessarily bad?
Like, if we always eat dinner at 7ish and now you want to eat at 5pm I feel it's just natural that I'd want to know why? Because we probably had reasons for eating at 7pm, and maybe I want to kind of weigh them against everything else? Because maybe I can't take my lunch break at work until 3pm, so eating dinner at 5pm really sucks for me. etc. etc etc etc
And if two people's desires are
incompatible, both will happily
compromise to find a way to make
them compatible again
But what is the point of eating together? Is it really the act of forking nutrients into our mouths... or is it spending time together? Maybe we can just chill out and talk at 5pm. You can eat... and I'll just hang out and we can talk about our day or watch some netflix or w/e.
I probably have just always picked shitty partners but in my experience that kinda happy compromise problem-solving attitude seems so rare. kudos to you for that attitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the more I glimpse American culture, the happier I am that I was not born there. >I wasn't terribly happy with that response, and she broke up with me a week later my brother in Christ, you should've broken up with her on the spot.
> my brother in Christ, you should've broken up with her on the spot After she told me she wanted to be with me for life? I had hoped the poly issue was going to be in the past I was in my early 20s, I was in love, she was my second girlfriend, who happened to be my high school crush, "the one that got away" but I got a second shot with her and took it, I was living the dream How that relationship ended screwed me up…
well, as you saw, it wasn't really the case, was it? I don't mean to rub salt into the wound, but she's been fucking that guy long before that conversation with you.
I'm glad to hear that it had all worked out for you in the end. never second-guess your decision to reject that suggestion.