Polyamory

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (514 of them)
I feel a little reactionary now for preferring monogamy on a kneejerk immediate level, but like I said there's no reason at all to be against living or loving this way, and who knows, it could happen to me at some point.

g--ff c-nn-n (gcannon), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:15 (twenty years ago) link

first off it probably WILL take away from yr. time together, but then so would it if she took up bowling -- the question is how much, and how many emotions there are to go round.

second, "giving" for the sake of it = classic, but with expectation of even partial future repayment = dud.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:36 (twenty years ago) link

i feel you sterl, you know this.

jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:38 (twenty years ago) link

I don't know that it was hetero-sexist and I didn't mean it to be; for some reason I don't find the polyamorous thing as strange in a queer context because in cases like that (gay multiple-relationships)the people I've known have treated it less like "commitment among many" than "no commmitement at all." The three-in-a-relationship thing I've witnessed has always been one guy and a few women and at least one of the women has always been jerked around. Sorry if that sounds sexist, that's how it played out (the guy was pretty sexist himself). I'm sure there are exceptions.

anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:50 (twenty years ago) link

Jess FWIW I reckon you've got the right attitude on the moving thing (probably on the poly thing too, I wouldn't know since I have a hard time being selfless enough for one person in my life let alone more) - Isabel and I spent about 3 years fretting because of a similar looming life-decision that would doom us to unhappiness or break-up etc etc and lo and behold when the time came we just compromised and were very happy.

Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 18 July 2003 06:39 (twenty years ago) link

thanx. btw tom, i mailed you re. the nylpm email (the answer was yes) but it bounced back. (why am i up still and posting to this thread?)

jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 18 July 2003 06:56 (twenty years ago) link

(Hmm wonder if that's happened to other people. Fucking hotmail. Ta Jess!)

Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 18 July 2003 07:05 (twenty years ago) link

The potential I saw was something like in "Gregory's Girl" where at some level there's the acceptance that a choice is just the result of circumstance, but no worse for that. I guess I didn't think of it as all at once or how can a person do something that questions what is natural. What I was thinking of was really the other way around: it was to show how what is conventional is just that. For example, if you had a crush on someone and went to a party because that person would be there but realized later that you'd missed the opportunity of a lifetime because you were so focussed on that one person, then that would be a pity.

youn, Friday, 18 July 2003 07:08 (twenty years ago) link

Does it count if it's all with members of the same band?

duh, Friday, 18 July 2003 07:19 (twenty years ago) link

Does it count if they're just different dialects?

dork, Friday, 18 July 2003 07:20 (twenty years ago) link

i think i must be very stupid because it seems like jess is telling us all something that is happening in his life and everyone is understanding what it is but i am reading the thread and i dont actually know what is happening. i can see what is being implied but thats about it.

gareth (gareth), Friday, 18 July 2003 09:41 (twenty years ago) link

ditto

mark p (Mark P), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:03 (twenty years ago) link

I was kind of confused too, but I always assume I'm stupid and/or missing something.

Larcole (Nicole), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:05 (twenty years ago) link

I get the impression (as did we all) he's moving and unsure if she will, but I don't know why it's on a polyamory thread. Good luck J anyway, though.

Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:07 (twenty years ago) link

Well I think there is a bit that is in my impression that you are leaving out of the "as did we all" impression!!

Ally (mlescaut), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:08 (twenty years ago) link

The bit about the Catholic?

Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:09 (twenty years ago) link

Um...

1. Jess revives thread.

2. Somebody says "Only Ms Laura of anyone here can really talk about poly"

3. Jess replies "Why do you think I revived the thread?"

implication is J is now in a poly relationship. I think the implication is strong enough that it didn't need dot-joining and anyway this is a thread about polyamory *in theory* so if anyone doesn't want to give details that's up to them!

Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:10 (twenty years ago) link

Oh, I thought he wanted Ms Laura to talk about it. I'm not after details.

Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:13 (twenty years ago) link

I AM (shocker)

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:14 (twenty years ago) link

Oh, I thought he wanted Ms Laura to talk about it. I'm not after details.

My sleep deprived brane is not processing things the way it should, and that's what I thought as well. Details are not necessary.

Larcole (Nicole), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:15 (twenty years ago) link

Thank you for stating it explicitly, Tom. Haha wtf people? You all need more coffee.

(I love how everyone is just talking like jess isn't going to come read this in a bit?)

Ally (mlescaut), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:22 (twenty years ago) link

Stupid question alert!

In a polyamorous relationship aren't all 3 people (or more??) supposed to be in love with each other. Person A loves Person B. B loves C, C loves A...? I have nothing against it, really, but it seems like a rather rare situation that these people would all happen to love each other somewhat equally...

I have mentioned I had a friend in high school who didn't start dating until college - and his first relationship involved two other people - a new girlfriend and her at-the-time ex. He moved in with the two of them. He said he did things with her but he and the other dude were just like really close friends or something...

In the end, my friend married her and the other guy is - supposedly - out of the romantic picture.

Sarah McLusky (coco), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:25 (twenty years ago) link

Coffee isn't helping! I spelled metal as "mettle".

Larcole (Nicole), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:27 (twenty years ago) link

No, not at all Sarah. A can be going out with B who can be going out with C but there's no need to for A to be going out with C as well.

RickyT (RickyT), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:28 (twenty years ago) link

So A & C just have to be ok with the situation for it to be polyamory?

I just finished my coffee, Larcole. It's obviously not helping me either!

By the way, by saying I think it would be a rare situation, I didn't mean to imply that I don't think it's possible...

Sarah MCLUsky (coco), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:32 (twenty years ago) link

Oh shit now the Jess thing seems so fucking obvious! Just the top of the revival, argh

Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:33 (twenty years ago) link

"That goes in there/And that goes in there/And that goes in there/And that goes in there/And then it's over"

Jarvis Cocker (Dan Perry), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:34 (twenty years ago) link

That seems obvious now too!

Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:35 (twenty years ago) link

Thinking about it I'm well aware it's possible to have feelings for several people so if anyone can actually translate that into real life and make it work they get a big thumbs up from me - less unrequited love = less bad records for one thing!

Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:36 (twenty years ago) link

Exactly Sarah. Saying that, the A - B - C - A situation actually isn't all that rare outside het circles (where its obv impossible) though the strength of the bonds may vary.

RickyT (RickyT), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:38 (twenty years ago) link

this is confusing!

gareth (gareth), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:43 (twenty years ago) link

It's like algebra.

Ally (mlescaut), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:43 (twenty years ago) link

That's why I couldn't really be polyamorous, I suck at math.

Larcole (Nicole), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:44 (twenty years ago) link

To be successful at polyamory, you need to suck at *CENSORED*.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:46 (twenty years ago) link

monogamy is not a dirty word, Dan

oops (Oops), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:47 (twenty years ago) link

Which body part is the monogamy?

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:49 (twenty years ago) link

this one *grabs crotch*

Andrew Dice Clay (nickalicious), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:13 (twenty years ago) link

HANDS OFF MY MONOGAMY, CLAY

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:19 (twenty years ago) link

Polyamory seemed to be dizzyingly popular in my town about a year or so ago. Loads of people were doing it (although they tended to be the I-mask-my-self-hatred-by-overcompensating-sexually types).

I have observed a few of these relationships and found that it is RARELY a completely mutual arrangement. It is generally one partner that pushes for it and ends up reaping the "benefit", while the other partner is generally a more reserved type who has been convinced there is something wrong with them for not being immediately in agreement with it (or suggesting it themselves).

That said, I'm sure there are people out there who are honestly, genuinely making it work, but from what I've seen (admittedly not everything) polyamorous relationships are too tainted by insecurity (the very thing they think they are doing away with) for me to take seriously. Again, this is probably just the people I've met ...

fields of salmon (fieldsofsalmon), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:27 (twenty years ago) link

My experiences with poly have made me feel kinda dirty and wrong, but this might have to do with the fact that what my ex at the time referred to as "polyamory" was really more like mindless polygamy, like it was an excuse to have sex with as many people as she wanted, regardless of whether or not she actually cared for them, nevermind if I cared for them.

On the other hand, I think an honest and open polyamorous relationship (especially if it's based on BEING IN LOVE rather than nymphozilla cock addiction) could be very quite wonderful, especially on wherein the love is shared mutually between "A, B, and C"...A loves B & C, B loves A & C, everyone's honest and straight-up. I've seen this work, and it can be a quite beautiful thing.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:31 (twenty years ago) link

Why stop at three, though?

Chris P (Chris P), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:34 (twenty years ago) link

Oh god, I really should write something substantial about this. Too much sodding work though. For now:

FoS, everything you talk about seems to be from a mono -> poly transition scenario. This is naturally a big step, and fraught with difficulties, but IME is not how most poly relationships start. It's much more usual that all parties at all stages know there is a poly-potential relationship going on, and things develop organically from there.

RickyT (RickyT), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:34 (twenty years ago) link

True enough ... I think there are also some people who don't respect themselves enough to say "No! Poly is not for me!" and subsequently extricate themselves from a relationship where the other partner is going for a Poly. They just go on feeling hurt and shitty because they think this is "their only chance" or whatever ...

fields of salmon (fieldsofsalmon), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:38 (twenty years ago) link

ha ha i am blushing now, you dickheads

teach me to be subtle

jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:39 (twenty years ago) link

Someone needs to write a song called "Nymphozilla Cock Addiction".

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:41 (twenty years ago) link

jess, dan's post illustrates how NOT to be subtle!

Ally (mlescaut), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:41 (twenty years ago) link

ally, DAN illustrates how not to be subtle

jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:42 (twenty years ago) link

just seen this.

Ms laura has talked abt this in quite a lot of detail in other threads. she does have periods where she doesn't post much etc so er, if its urgent or something, an email might be required etc.

I think I have the same sort of reaction as jess: the catholic in me would react against it but since I've buried that (but it is still there, deep in me) I think it is something i would consider if it ever came up.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:44 (twenty years ago) link

You were being subtle.

Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:46 (twenty years ago) link

JESS I mean, God, learn to type

Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:47 (twenty years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.