Polyamory

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

well, sex with other people that is

marcos, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 15:32 (nine years ago) link

I think I also just like the reliability of the monogamous relationship, like after a long day of work you know that the same person you love will be there waiting for you instead of wondering whether she'll be somewhere else or whether you're going somewhere else.

Sure, but this seems like precisely the kind of thing that people inclined towards polyamory could work out with each other. Ground rules, comfort zones, this-but-not-that, these days but definitely not these days. Actually I think these can be really strengthening to the primary relationship because they reaffirm that the time you do spend together is by choice and desire, not out of habit, that this coming-home-to-each-other is a core value in the relationship that you aren't willing to trade off, etc. These things take different shapes of course - I don't believe all poly people have a 'primary' person but this is the version that clicks the most for me.

I do agree with j's take on The Ethical Slut - I haven't read it since 2000 or so (similar deal, was dating a poly person, somewhat more hippy-ish, less intellectually oriented, and carefree than me) and found it exciting but frustratingly glib and granola. But if it's clicking for a HOOS then the more the merrier! I actually think the core point can probably be usefully extracted from the title - you want to have multiple romantic relationships, okay, there are ethical and not-ethical ways to do that, just as there are ethical and non-ethical ways to be monogamous. The process of chipping away at your own biases/tendencies IS thorny, because it rides the edge between a conscious attempt to unspindle parts of your psyche from what amounts to a lifetime of this is what you want and this is the only way people can be happy together, and forcing yourself to do/think things that bottom-line, aren't really you. But to the extent that it's the former, hey, why not?

Doctor Casino, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 16:04 (nine years ago) link

The 'primary partner' is also a phenomenon.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 16:06 (nine years ago) link

reaffirm that the time you do spend together is by choice and desire, not out of habit

Choice and desire are fickle and fleeting, which to me is part of the point of commitment. I mean, do I want to worry about whether getting ill or having a crisis I need to deal with will coincide with what my primary partner desires at that particular moment? Spending time with any person for long enough will inevitably feel like habit some of the time.

₴HABΔZZ ¶IZZΔ (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 16:14 (nine years ago) link

if spending time enough with someone gets to being a habit without you wanna kill them or they you, cash in

dn/ac (darraghmac), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 16:16 (nine years ago) link

imo one of the worst positions from which to entertain polyamory / becoming more notionally polyamorous is basically one where your aim would be, 'i can be ok with this'.

it seems like one form of an ideal would work best when both partners have, in some sense, needs to give as well as to get that exceed the bounds of conventional monogamy. kind of an exuberant/overflowing amorousness. and give -to others-. if the main ask is that you somehow give your partner more of what they need insofar as you accept/ok their giving/getting from others, it seems hard not to be constrained to conceptualize that in terms of your deficiencies. and it seems to be a stretch to really think of that as 'giving' to your partner, as one might be inclined to think. but a lot of our thinking around close relationships tells us that we are doing a kind of giving when we modify our own feelings or behavior to allow them to act on their freedom or independence from us. that may be true in a sense, but i don't think it has, i wanna say, the same effect on the overall economy of the relationships in which you are both enmeshed. the balance (not in terms of debts but in terms of intensity and volume and direction, more like harmoniousness) of giving-and-getting.

j., Wednesday, 4 June 2014 16:30 (nine years ago) link

Sometimes I think my biggest problem in relationships is that I just really don't give a shit about the idea of them kissing or doing anything else with anybody else, but they *want* me to care (and/or don't want me to do things with other people). I've just always been wired this way or something, sometimes I feel like an alien, bystanders demanding that you should feel awful and bummed out about something that you don't actually.

― Doctor Casino, Wednesday, June 4, 2014 6:06 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah, this is something that was a problem for me in previous relationships. I never really gave a fuck what my partners did with anyone else but I felt restricted to monogamy because that was the socially acceptable thing. I never cheated on anyone but I always felt like it was because I was fulfilling some kind of social contract, not because I didn't want to sleep with other people, and in the time leading up to meeting my gf I'd pretty much started to believe monogamy is bullshit. Finding someone who was even more enthusiastically anti-monogamy than me was revelatory and I finally felt like I could have a relationship on the terms I wanted.

uppers epilepsy sh@kedown (The Reverend), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 19:42 (nine years ago) link

Btw the "commitment" thing is a total red herring, I feel way more committed to my gf than any person I've been monogamous with. Just because we sleep with (and in her case, have a relationship with) other people, doesn't mean we aren't deeply committed to each other. We both recognize that we want to be together for the rest of our lives and have talked about possibly having a child and making other long-term commitments.

uppers epilepsy sh@kedown (The Reverend), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 19:46 (nine years ago) link

yep, there is a big difference between physical fidelity and emotional committment

sleeve, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 20:42 (nine years ago) link

Rev if this isn't too personal a question, what's your strategy for raising children as a person in a polyamorous realtionship? I ask not for puritanical reasons but logistical ones; raising a child with one other person sometimes feels difficult and I am curious if you're talking about expanding your circle or if you'd keep the child-rearing as a thing between the two of you, or something else. It's not a question that would come up in a monogamous relationship with no divorce (which is the context both my wife and I come from so we have no practical experience with blended families or step- relationships) and I'm curious about your thoughts on how to navigate it, because I'm a ho for interpersonal logistics.

On-the-spot Dicespin (DJP), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 20:46 (nine years ago) link

interesting choice of phrasing there

It's not honestly something I've given too much thought to, but she already has a kid (from her ex-husband, not her other current partner). I don't currently help raise her daughter at all, (I'm across the country most of the time at this point and I don't intend to anyway unless invited to do so, but that's basic dating a person with a kid stuff, nothing to do with polyamory), but her other partner who she's been with for much longer does help with her kid. She's always been open with her kid about the nature of her relationships. But I imagine the child-rearing for our own kid would mostly be between me and her unless things drastically changed between us. She has some ideas about raising kids as part of some extended radical queer family and ehhh I'm not as into that idea personally, but we've already had that conversation.

uppers epilepsy sh@kedown (The Reverend), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 20:57 (nine years ago) link

Ugh, could this thread be deindexed?

uppers epilepsy sh@kedown (The Reverend), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 20:57 (nine years ago) link

I think I also just like the reliability of the monogamous relationship, like after a long day of work you know that the same person you love will be there waiting for you instead of wondering whether she'll be somewhere else or whether you're going somewhere else.

that isn't monogamy, that's "I'd be so happy to keep your dinner warm" 1950s suburban style traditionalism.

sarahell, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 21:53 (nine years ago) link

not necessarily--in my experience there's an emotional comfort that comes from predictable contact that doesn't require any of the trappings of "suburban style traditionalism" to manifest.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 21:56 (nine years ago) link

I go home and cook the dinner, that's why she's waiting for me.

ie that's projection imo s

dn/ac (darraghmac), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 21:57 (nine years ago) link

I think I also just like the reliability of the monogamous relationship, like after a long day of work you know that the same person you love will be there waiting for you instead of wondering whether she'll be somewhere else or whether you're going somewhere else.

that isn't monogamy, that's "I'd be so happy to keep your dinner warm" 1950s suburban style traditionalism.

― sarahell, Wednesday, June 4, 2014 5:53 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Um, no it isn't.

₴HABΔZZ ¶IZZΔ (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 21:58 (nine years ago) link

Also "be there waiting for you" = shorthand for "or will be coming home to you later." I happen to have longer work hours than my wife. Some nights she has classes and comes home later than me. You're being overly literal.

₴HABΔZZ ¶IZZΔ (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:00 (nine years ago) link

Sorry, just responding to the "after a long day of work (she) will be there waiting for you" -- maybe too literally? But it really conjures up this 50s suburban imagery. But the thing is -- people have lives outside of committed monogamous relationships. They have friends, hobbies, jobs ... maybe instead of sitting around at home, they go out with friends, they visit family, etc. Monogamy can be equally unpredictable, even without sexual infidelity.

sarahell, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:03 (nine years ago) link

Sorry - but your life sounds really dull, Hurting.

sarahell, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:04 (nine years ago) link

You're projecting an awful lot onto what I said.

₴HABΔZZ ¶IZZΔ (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:06 (nine years ago) link

I am responding to what you said!

sarahell, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:07 (nine years ago) link

I'm not sure where you got from my post that we don't have jobs, never go out, don't have friends, don't visit family, don't have hobbies, as though I literally meant the same exact job-home routine every day.

₴HABΔZZ ¶IZZΔ (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:08 (nine years ago) link

dull can be pretty fun though.

xp

festival culture (Jordan), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:09 (nine years ago) link

yeah yeesh sarahell

j., Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:09 (nine years ago) link

Wait so is this thread not about me

polyphonic, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:09 (nine years ago) link

pretty sure Hurting wasn't meaning he literally comes home from work every day to a partner that is sitting on the couch anticipating his arrival, but was more making a broad statements about routines, but ymmv

Neanderthal, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:11 (nine years ago) link

xxp - it sure sounded like you meant the same exact routine every day. That is the appeal you were attempting to convey, right? Also, based on other things you posted in this thread. Lots of people are boring. It doesn't mean you are deficient as a human being. Just own up to your boring-ness.

sarahell, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:11 (nine years ago) link

lol that isn't how it read at all.

Neanderthal, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:11 (nine years ago) link

considering your user name ...

sarahell, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:12 (nine years ago) link

I think I also just like the reliability of the monogamous relationship, like after a long day of work you know that the same person you love will be there waiting for you instead of wondering whether she'll be somewhere else or whether you're going somewhere else.

He never said home; we wait for each other at the pub tbh

kinder, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:13 (nine years ago) link

The larger point still stands -- just because a couple is monogamous, doesn't mean that their lives are routine and just because a couple is poly, doesn't mean they aren't.

sarahell, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:15 (nine years ago) link

considering your user name ...

― sarahell, Wednesday, June 4, 2014 6:12 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

http://media.giphy.com/media/eruN8g7BhO4uc/giphy.gif

Neanderthal, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:16 (nine years ago) link

sarahell you are literally the only person who read it that way

k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:16 (nine years ago) link

xp don't think "routine" was the point, the point I got in the context of the discussion was that you don't have to make a special appointment

kinder, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:17 (nine years ago) link

I think the thing that is the most salient to me (and what struck me as traditionalism) is the consistency of "waiting for one another" -- when plenty of couples I know don't have those routines. The other person will have things come up, make spontaneous plans with other people, etc.

sarahell, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:17 (nine years ago) link

you've heard of figurative language, right?

k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:18 (nine years ago) link

well that's you then, no need to project so much onto what was a completely innocuous comment xp

j., Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:19 (nine years ago) link

xp - the phrase "fuck off douchebag" rings a few bells for me, so yes

sarahell, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:19 (nine years ago) link

so glad we're discussing this

kinder, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:20 (nine years ago) link

xp j - it was innocuous! I am not saying that there's anything wrong with it! I am just saying it is traditional and a bit boring "to me" -- not that there is anything wrong with it.

sarahell, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:21 (nine years ago) link

polyanomie

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:21 (nine years ago) link

xp, oh does it really? Good then. Fuck off, douchebag.

₴HABΔZZ ¶IZZΔ (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:22 (nine years ago) link

That it doesn't jibe with my experience or that of most of my friends. However, I imagine it is probably how the vast majority of people are.

sarahell, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:22 (nine years ago) link

the less fun people

k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:22 (nine years ago) link

That must feel nice and comfy and smug to think

₴HABΔZZ ¶IZZΔ (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:23 (nine years ago) link

not you or your friends, though

k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:23 (nine years ago) link

got it

k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:23 (nine years ago) link

it doesn't seem that wise to be calling out people's relationships or lives for being boring in the middle of an actual decent discussion of polyamory, but now that we know you're a bold risk-taker couldn't you just let it lie and stop trying to own your overstep? xxxxxp

j., Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:23 (nine years ago) link

To be perfectly honest though, yeah my life is more routine now with a child. But having a two-year-old run up to you like a maniac when you walk in the door and say a new completely ridiculous thing every night has not gotten boring yet.

₴HABΔZZ ¶IZZΔ (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:30 (nine years ago) link


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