Polyamory

FRED HALE SR. · 09-20-2011, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

My understanding isn't necessarily that it involves having sex buddies on the side (which is an open relationship), and is more about 3+ people being involved together. I knew a couple who gave it a shot and they were both equally involved with the third person they brought into their relationship.

Personally, I don't want to have romantic/emotional/financial responsibility to more than one person at a time, which is the most logical argument against it that I can think.

Sounds like it would be a bit odd to me also. I guess on the bright side you would always have a mediator in the relationship. I can't imagine how draining that would be on the psyche to deal with somebody elses **** besides your old lady.

I guess we'll have to wait on 333 for an update on the merits of polyamoral relationships.

Paedantic Basterd · 09-20-2011, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR.

Sounds like it would be a bit odd to me also. I guess on the bright side you would always have a mediator in the relationship. I can't imagine how draining that would be on the psyche to deal with somebody elses **** besides your old lady.

I guess we'll have to wait on 333 for an update on the merits of polyamoral relationships.

And on top of that, I imagine being impossible to completely eradicate jealousy. Even if it comes down to small things, like an imbalance in favours, gifts, dates, time spent together, etc.

CanwllCorfe · 09-20-2011, 12:58 PM

I looked into it, which I should have before, and it's really an unusual concept. Being in love with multiple people enough to be in a relationships with all of them at one time seems so... bizarre. So far I've only really genuinely liked one girl, and I don't think I do anymore. Whatever works for you I guess?

Paedantic Basterd · 09-20-2011, 01:00 PM

I dislike so many people that it seems impossible that I would be enamoured by more than one at a time.

CanwllCorfe · 09-20-2011, 01:06 PM

I know! Same here.

SATCHMO · 09-20-2011, 01:38 PM

I think more than anything polyamory, versus an open relationship, enlarges the context of love based relationship. I don't think polyamory is for every relationship, even if both parties involved subscribe to the polyamorous ideology, but we have a tendency to approach relationships almost contractually, as if to say, Here are my expectations of you: you will provide for my emotional needs and have me as your exclusive sex partner. You will love me as I love you and any depth of emotion that you feel for another individual shall not meet or exceed that which you feel for me, and you will give me a majority share of your time and attention, as I will do the same for you. through these agreements our relationship will be defined and the breech of any of the aforementioned terms will nullify the contract.

hip hop bunny hop · 09-20-2011, 01:54 PM

Quote:

I realize that simply realizing this is a step to change the monotonous lifestyle I've led; however, what of morals and ethics? Sure, they were man-made, too. Isn't that what ultimately drives the monogamous relationship? I don't know if I can believe anyone that says they've never thought about being with another while seriously or casually involved with someone else. You can call it unfair. I call it realistic.

Throughout the entire course of human history, only two types of formalized sexual relationship have come about naturally: monogamy & polygamy. Seeing that this spans the all continents, all types of society structures (gatherer & hunter, kingdoms, republics, etc.), and all ethnic groups, it would be foolish to discount it out of hand.

Yeah, there are polyamorous communities. There are also communities devoted to celibacy. Both types of communities are largely founded on ideas, and have not come about by themselves.

I imagine there's good, evolutionary, reasons for this patriarchal tilt. Among other items, it has been established that women (at what I'll euphemistically call the peak of her cycle) prefer men with traits that tend to characterize high levels of testosterone; a deep voice, developed muscles, etc. That they prefer them to the exclusion of other traits (notably intelligence) when they're most fertile is important. So perhaps men who let their girls see other guys are percieved as effeminate.

Thom Yorke · 09-20-2011, 02:10 PM

I can understand polyamory from a sexual standpoint, but I wouldn't be able to relate to it in any way from a romantic standpoint, especially if it means everyone being involved together like some here have mentioned. Part of the whole appeal of being intimate with someone for me is that it's a connection with a single person. Maybe some have the emotional capacity (if that's the right word) for it, but I definitely don't.

Paedantic Basterd · 09-20-2011, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom Yorke

I can understand polyamory from a sexual standpoint, but I wouldn't be able to relate to it in any way from a romantic standpoint, especially if it means everyone being involved together like some here have mentioned. Part of the whole appeal of being intimate with someone for me is that it's a connection with a single person. Maybe some have the emotional capacity (if that's the right word) for it, but I definitely don't.

I can understand it. The same way that all of our friends are unique, provide us with unique personalities, and bring out differing aspects in us. We don't limit ourselves to a single friend, nor do we deny the possibility that we can be very good friends with more than one person. I can see this translating easily to romance; what's to say only one person can contain all of the qualities that attract you? What's to say only one person has an emotional relationship to offer you?

I think everyone here has probably had more than one previous companion. What if you'd just happened to meet two of those at the same time, rather than at separate moments in your life?

Thom Yorke · 09-21-2011, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I can understand it. The same way that all of our friends are unique, provide us with unique personalities, and bring out differing aspects in us. We don't limit ourselves to a single friend, nor do we deny the possibility that we can be very good friends with more than one person. I can see this translating easily to romance; what's to say only one person can contain all of the qualities that attract you? What's to say only one person has an emotional relationship to offer you?

I think everyone here has probably had more than one previous companion. What if you'd just happened to meet two of those at the same time, rather than at separate moments in your life?

Being in a relationship is way different than a simple friendship though, and is much more emotionally taxing. It's not that only one person can contain all of the qualities that attract you, but more the commitment of limiting yourself to one person that builds the relationship. Again, I can definitely understand it from a purely physical standpoint, but when you bring intimacy and romance into the picture in more than one serious relationship, or in some big group romance thing, it's just bizarre to me. And paying for dates would be a bitch.

09-20-2011, 12:58 PM	#13 (permalink)
CanwllCorfe Quiet Man in the Corner Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Pocono Mountains Posts: 2,480	I looked into it, which I should have before, and it's really an unusual concept. Being in love with multiple people enough to be in a relationships with all of them at one time seems so... bizarre. So far I've only really genuinely liked one girl, and I don't think I do anymore. Whatever works for you I guess? __________________ Your eyes were never yet let in to see the majesty and riches of the mind, but dwell in darkness; for your God is blind.

09-20-2011, 01:06 PM	#15 (permalink)
CanwllCorfe Quiet Man in the Corner Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Pocono Mountains Posts: 2,480	I know! Same here. __________________ Your eyes were never yet let in to see the majesty and riches of the mind, but dwell in darkness; for your God is blind.

09-20-2011, 01:00 PM	#14 (permalink)
Paedantic Basterd Music Addict Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 5,184	I dislike so many people that it seems impossible that I would be enamoured by more than one at a time.

09-20-2011, 01:38 PM	#16 (permalink)
SATCHMO Al Dente Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 4,708	I think more than anything polyamory, versus an open relationship, enlarges the context of love based relationship. I don't think polyamory is for every relationship, even if both parties involved subscribe to the polyamorous ideology, but we have a tendency to approach relationships almost contractually, as if to say, Here are my expectations of you: you will provide for my emotional needs and have me as your exclusive sex partner. You will love me as I love you and any depth of emotion that you feel for another individual shall not meet or exceed that which you feel for me, and you will give me a majority share of your time and attention, as I will do the same for you. through these agreements our relationship will be defined and the breech of any of the aforementioned terms will nullify the contract.

09-20-2011, 02:10 PM	#18 (permalink)
Thom Yorke Music Addict Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 1,848	I can understand polyamory from a sexual standpoint, but I wouldn't be able to relate to it in any way from a romantic standpoint, especially if it means everyone being involved together like some here have mentioned. Part of the whole appeal of being intimate with someone for me is that it's a connection with a single person. Maybe some have the emotional capacity (if that's the right word) for it, but I definitely don't.