71–80 of 296 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many threesomes with their partner and their best friend would someone have to have before they're polyamorous?
That's probably up to whatever the couple thinks, and has no universally correct answer It just seems absurd to suggest that a monogamous couple who has one single threesome, one time, and then never again, is now "non-monogamous" forever
A related concept is if you suck dick are you gay?
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 is healthier than the pervasive "ownership" mental model, because we both very much are aware that we have human and animal desire, and understand that the commitment is freely given. We don't get mad at each other for being attracted to other people, and feel no jealousy, we would feel betrayed if the other broke the commitment, because we were promised something by the other.
The idea that monogamy is the default in relationships outside of marriage is a very new thing in US culture. There was a time, not so long ago, when the point at which monogamy began was marriage, or for some, engagement. Needing to define being single in over convoluted terms like "polyamory" is a bit ridiculous.
I've always been very casual about these things with partners. Some can't handle it, they're jealous by nature or something. Usually, being clear "we aren't committed until we talk about that and commit" is a pretty easy to digest thing for people, even if they default to the opposite usually.
On a less personal note, it's no coincidence I think that the most successful cultures in the world were and are monogamous by social expectation. Polyamorous social structures are not conducive to responsibility with regard to rearing children, and are more often than not to leave women in a difficult position. As such, women expect commitment from men where there are few options to prevent pregnancy. That's not to say anything about the spread of disease. Jealousy is still a problem, and leads to conflict. Polygamous social structures, the second most successful of the reproduction/sex oriented social structures, lead to swathes of unmarried men, and you get rejections from the tribe, hostile takeovers, warlike cultures designed to dispose of the men who will not hope to reproduce. Monogamy is the stable arrangement and it shows. Other more exotic complex social arrangements tend to be very niche, small tribal groups relegated to basically Africa, and don't scale well.
I think if young people want to have fun, do it, be clear, if someone doesn't like it that's their decision to not participate. But slapping labels on it like it's some revolution in sexual dynamics is silly. Be prepared to outgrow your exploration, read the allegory of Chesterton's fence to understand why.
Pretty good article. I think everyone could do with a little less pathologization of a lot of human behaviour. My wife has suggested in the past that we have another wife so that we can have more children[0]. I'm amenable to the idea but the logistics of this seem hard to me: our finances are fused, our desires are mostly unified, and it took me many years to find someone with whom this was easy to do. A two-party ma…
Also, she wants the children she raises to be hers, the shared responsibility thing doesn't appeal to her, and the potential rivalries between women and their respective children just aren't conducive to raising healthy people, which is ultimately the goal of all of this. Maybe she will change her mind one day. Maybe it could be made to work. I'm not dead set on it and am happy with the status quo.
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…
For a lot of people though, the desire for children is there, strong, and comes from somewhere else, almost like it comes from somewhere deeper like a soul or something. I know that's true for me. My goal with my relationship, and well before that when I was shopping, was about family for most of my adult life. It seems this is out of fashion these days and people figure it out late. Hedonistic pleasure is fleeting, creating amazing people can go on literally forever if done correctly, it is an ambition and achievement unto itself, and is rewarding in a way science doesn't yet understand, to be a little facetious.
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'…
The poly vs open distinction is interesting because (anecdotally) I see some variation there between gay and lesbian relationships—it seems like gay dudes are more likely to be in a door-ajar couple, whereas the throuples I know are usually groups of lesbians! Conversely, I don't see many poly gay dudes or door-ajar lesbian couples, and lesbians might be more monogamous on average.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Disgust is an interesting response to this experience. I encourage you to reframe your thoughts in "is they consenting adults?" and then "is this hurting anyone?" if the answers are "yes they're adults and they're not hurting anyone", I encourage you to mind your own business :) Gay people aren't "shoving things in your face" when they kiss, or can be seen holding hands, or have representation in a book or movies bec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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". This is really interesting. 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 han…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You ... might be the out-of-touch one here. This culture is pretty common all over the country these days (although definitely most prevalent in the big metro areas).
[flagged]