Polyamory

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (514 of them)
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

It seems to me like a lot of the problems in the thread aren't poly-specific at all, they're just built-in to human relationships and suddenly appear in stark relief when you begin thinking about what polyamory might involve so they become more noticeable.

Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:48 (twenty years ago) link

This used to be called "seeing other people". In 89.986% of cases, it's still more a signal of a dying relationship than a lifestyle change.

Less snarkily, I think we've got a couple different styles of relationship on the table for which the word "polyamory" is used (ya got yer swingers, yer open relationships, yer threesomes and moresomes, yer dawgs n' doormats) so that it becomes pretty meaningless to say whether "polyamory" works or not. It's really only ever a question of whether people in a relationship (regardless of the numbers) are happy, confortable, and fulfilled in it.

Colin Meeder (Mert), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:51 (twenty years ago) link

but IME is not how most poly relationships start

At first I thought this read, "but ILM is not how most poly relationships start." And I was like, "WHAAA??? It's not???"

Sarah MCLUsky (coco), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:51 (twenty years ago) link

Now have you and Nick considered Portland?

Chris P (Chris P), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:54 (twenty years ago) link

Tico Tico is about as OTM as you can be without shitting doubloons

RickyT (RickyT), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:55 (twenty years ago) link

i feel really ridiculous for reviving this thread now, as i have no idea why i thought ile would be a good place to air my feelings.

jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:56 (twenty years ago) link

I still don't get it.

Mandee, Friday, 18 July 2003 14:57 (twenty years ago) link

I don't think you've really aired them yet, Jess

Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:58 (twenty years ago) link

That's a vision, Ricky. (I really don't have anything to offer on this whole situation and I like Jess so I didn't want to say anything to get him embarrassed.)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:58 (twenty years ago) link

Yeah, Jess, you haven't really said anything yet. This doesn't necessarily change the fact that ILE might not be the best place to discuss whatever it is, exactly, that you want to discuss.

Chris P (Chris P), Friday, 18 July 2003 15:10 (twenty years ago) link

I'm not the best reader between the lines, but it seems pretty obvious to me what Jess is talking about.

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

Well maybe -- I can think of a few things, though, and I don't know enough about Jess and his situation to know how he and everyone else involved is reacting, and all that messy context stuff is important if you want to offer any meaningful advice or even feel sure that you're not walking away thinking it's something completely different than it actually is (Jess is thinking of running off to Philadelphia with some guy with a mullet?).

Chris P (Chris P), Friday, 18 July 2003 15:16 (twenty years ago) link

Yeah, but why doesn't he just come out and give some details, man? Who, what, when, where, why & how.. like a book report.

Mandee, Friday, 18 July 2003 15:16 (twenty years ago) link

Also: bullet charts.

(jess, ILX being dicks if you ask for advice, unsurpising!)

Ally (mlescaut), Friday, 18 July 2003 15:21 (twenty years ago) link

when come back bring piechart

mark s (mark s), Friday, 18 July 2003 15:22 (twenty years ago) link

let's just all forget i even revived this ok? maybe i can cast some custos-ian sleep spell...

jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 18 July 2003 15:23 (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.