do you believe in monogamy? do you practice it?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
if not, why?
do you believe humans are designed to remain faithful to one person or do you think this is something 'imposed' upon us by modern society?

is monogamy a part of relationships that should be 'worked at' or are we barking up the wrong tree and everyone should just mate then do 'whatever'?

why do i sound like a really bad essay question?
i have no idea. lack of sleep?

donna (donna), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 06:10 (twenty-two years ago)

basically no longer, and no.

a little more expanded, I don't believe we are "designed" for monogamy any more than we are designed for any other false social construct.

Here in the western, judeo-christian, world monogamy is often presented as the only viable option which I think contributes largely to our high rate of failure at personal realtionships.

That said, me personally, nah, I don't really do monogamy too well.

Texas Sam (thatgirl), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 06:17 (twenty-two years ago)

I think false social constructs are the most classic thing ever, so I do practise it.

Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 07:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Or to expand: I think emotionally you can have a whole rainbow of concurrent attractions and bonds, but practically (including but not limited to the fact that its the most 'accepted' kind of relationship) monogamy works very well, when it does.

Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 07:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes & Yes. Well I definitely believe in the idea of it & intend to practise it.
monogamy works very well, when it does.
Tom is OTM here

Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 07:49 (twenty-two years ago)

tom otm.

toby (tsg20), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 08:26 (twenty-two years ago)

What Tom said. I see people everyday who I could fall in love with / sleep with / rut like rhinos in a muddy river with, but I'm 100% faithful to Emma.

X post w/toby.

Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 08:29 (twenty-two years ago)

The key phrase is "when it does" though - clinging to something that isn't working for the sake of a principle or ideal would be a monumental staggering lead-booted dud, if indeed anyone did this. Do they?

Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 08:46 (twenty-two years ago)

"for the sake of monogamy as a principle or ideal" that should say

Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 08:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I practice it, but I'm not sure if I believe in it.

Dan I., Wednesday, 30 July 2003 08:55 (twenty-two years ago)

I believe that it exists; I practise it (one day I hope to stop practising and do it for real hoho); I don't believe in it as an overarching ideology though.

Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 09:03 (twenty-two years ago)

do you mean monogamy as opposed to bigamy or poligamy, or as opposed to random infidelity?
i believe in monogamy and i practise it, but i can't be sure i'll stay all my life without tasting something else. i'll try, but sometimes it's hard to stay true.

joan vich (joan vich), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 09:12 (twenty-two years ago)

*patiently waits for dave q to post here*

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 09:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I believe in it. Actually I have a table made out of it.

thoth (Jake Proudlock), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 10:52 (twenty-two years ago)

i'd like to know how all of ilx's vegetarians and vegans feel about forced social constructs. (alternately: jim crow to thread.)

i'm sympathetic to tom's point of view (and thus his parrot crowd), but obviously my life has made some changes in the last month or so, changes i wouldn't have made if i didn't feel sympathy towards "the other side" as well. but as always, i'm shying away from ilx threads where my opinion will differ from the majority and i really don't give a fuck about explaining myself.

strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 11:46 (twenty-two years ago)

you will go to hell for not explining to yrself.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 11:48 (twenty-two years ago)

here's my explanation: fuck you, i won't do what you tell me.

strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 11:59 (twenty-two years ago)

You have to say it a few times and start screaming at the end, it'll be real intense

Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 12:03 (twenty-two years ago)

My p.o.v. is very hard to be unsympathetic to, since it amounts to "if [x] works then [x] is good", i.e. I was saying the same thing on the poly thread.

I guess the unsympathetic bit might be my general feeling that complacency is a good thing too - i.e. if you've found something that's working for you, don't worry too much if you've not tried the alternatives.

As for forced social constructs, I am a great believer in the easiest option. But I don't really think they're always classic. ILX is one for one thing.

Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 12:05 (twenty-two years ago)

now swearing like that means you will go to hell. unless you confess and ask god for forgiveness.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 12:06 (twenty-two years ago)

As for forced social constructs, I am a great believer in the easiest option.

boy, we really have ruined your country, haven't we?

julio, get me an old priest and a young priest.

strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 12:15 (twenty-two years ago)

don't you have a local church?

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 12:17 (twenty-two years ago)

i want fine imported british priests.

strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 12:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I think I'd make a good priest. And once they remove the belief bit I yet might.

Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 12:20 (twenty-two years ago)

we don't have 'fine' priests anymore as ppl don't go to church in here. I thought yanks were a bunch of religious nuts?

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 12:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Yep. It's all religious nuts and failed monogamists here. And guns -- lots of guns.

Hurlothrumbo (hurlothrumbo), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 12:27 (twenty-two years ago)

By "here", I meant in my apartment, of course.

Hurlothrumbo (hurlothrumbo), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 12:27 (twenty-two years ago)

We could all learn a thing or two from bonobos.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 12:32 (twenty-two years ago)

don't forget the wellfare mothers and teenage runaways.

nick that's no way to talk about your parents.

strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 12:33 (twenty-two years ago)

ooh ooh aaah aaah

nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 12:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Hmmm... I believe in monogamy at least in a sort of temporary sense. I can't promise I'll always feel that way, but for now it seems right.

If you look at my life in terms of relationships, I've been monogamous for the past 14 years. By that I don't mean I was having sex at age 11, just that I've moved from one relationship to the next over the years and remained faithful to whichever partner I was with at the time. If I felt like straying or if the other person thought about it (or cheated on me, blah), we ended it. But I'm sure that's not how everyone works.

And I understand how some relationships go through problems you have to work through, but I also think that sometimes people get so caught up in trying to reenforce their monogamous bond that they sacrifice their happiness. I can't imagine what would have happened had my parents stayed together any longer for the sake of the kids. I think they'd both be miserable (and make us miserable too).

I've been with NA for, let's see..., 4 years and 9 months or so. And just being with him still seems very right.

Sarah MCLUsky (coco), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 12:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh, I just realized... I didn't mean to make it sound like I'm ALWAYS in a relationship unless I find someone else interesting enough to end the first relationship. Lots of relationships end JUST BECAUSE. Though, it is true I've probably spent more time in relationships than out of them...

Sarah McLusky (coco), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 12:58 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm also a serial monogamist to a ridiculous degree. I don't know if it's force of habit or what. My b/f and I met ten years ago next month. I was theoretically in a long distance relationship that I wanted to break off at the time, and I wouldn't sleep with new b/f until I had broken up with old one. In the beginning, current b/f and I had a theoretically open relationship but neither of us took advantage of it. Four years into it, I start having some serious issues with my sexuality and we break up. I beg him to take me back a year or so later. (I still count that year as being together; he charmingly refers to it as the 'interregnum.' Fucking Latin majors.) It's all worked out and only gotten better every day since. When it works, it works big time for me.

I also have so little patience for the fucking around involved in dating.

teeny (teeny), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 13:04 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm monogamous.
Felt this way all my damn life.
That's my cross to bear.

Sympathetic, though,
to the ones who don't buy in--
Boys, girls, do yr thing

(as for eating meat:
social constructs don't mean shit.
I shine from within)

Haikunym, Wednesday, 30 July 2003 13:14 (twenty-two years ago)

I practice monogamy; been with the same person for coming up on ten years. It definitely has serious drawbacks, but I just think of it as a kind of utopian experiment -- there's no way to find out how close you can get to someone unless you commit to total devotion for life.

Which is not to devalue other experiments or ways of living -- polygamy/polyamory, or total free love, or chastity/solitude are all just ways of testing human relations, and each requires its own discipline. This discipline is the unassailable ingredient as far as I'm concerned, regardless of choice -- if you can't maintain an experiment or a search, you lose the opportunity to truly learn from it.

Hurlothrumbo (hurlothrumbo), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 13:30 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm a serial monogamist. When I was young I would only touch Sugar Puffs. After flirtations with Special K and then Sultana Bran I settled permanently on Weetabix and have been faithful ever since. (I did have a brief fling with pop tarts, but it was never consummated, so in my opinion it didn't count.

thoth (Jake Proudlock), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 15:02 (twenty-two years ago)

I was monogamous for over twenty years, and it was okay. I was happy with my wife, and while I didn't see any reason why my having sex with anyone else would be wrong, it was clearly going to upset her, reasonably or not, so I didn't. (Not that many people were throwing temptation in my way, mostly, so it mostly wasn't difficult.) I have no idea why sexual fidelity is important to most people, but I only ever gave it as a favour really, not as something I thought made sense.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 19:27 (twenty-two years ago)

I think sexual fidelity/monogamy are incredibly important. They are trust and respect issues; however a relationship works best if you have two monogamists together, because they will agree on this. I am a monogamist, and when I am in a relationship I practice it. I will now stop talking.

Orbit (Orbit), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 20:24 (twenty-two years ago)

I practice nonogamy.

Leee (Leee), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 20:31 (twenty-two years ago)

yes, monogamy is socially imposed but it would be just as bad if polyamory was imposed on us all. different things work for different people. i haven't been especially good at practising monogamy and i don't know if thats because i'm not cut out for it or if its cos i've gotten involved with the wrong people.

The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 20:32 (twenty-two years ago)

monogamy is good in theory and all but i'm exceptionally bad at it. possibly for different reasons to some.

electric sound of jim (electricsound), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 22:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Can I just ask, what do you guys think of open relationships? My bf at the moment was previously in one. Do you think this puts less stress on a relationship? I suppose it would be more justifiable if the relationship you are in is not particularly that serious? I don't know. Of course this doesn't have much relation to the question proposed. Your thoughts anyway, if any.

Lovester (Lovester), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 23:26 (twenty-two years ago)

You want my thoughts? NO Pagan Humping Circle!

Orbit (Orbit), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 23:28 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm just avoiding relationships these days. I have boyfriends (emphasis on plural) and make sure any new mates know this.

Texas Sam (thatgirl), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 23:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Monogamy works because most people are into it. I might find it funny that people like to ban other people from touching the willies and fannies of yet other people, but my life would no doubt be funny to dozens of strangers. And a deal's a deal.

Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 23:38 (twenty-two years ago)

I dated the same guy all through high school. I've been dating my current boyfriend off and on for almost four years. I'm mad about the manogomy, though I do sometimes think I'm missing out. But then I see my friends who are ho's and stuff and they don't seem all that happy with it.

jewelly (jewelly), Thursday, 31 July 2003 00:39 (twenty-two years ago)

ilx in being all dumb shocker

strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 31 July 2003 00:43 (twenty-two years ago)

jess in self parody shocker

electric sound of jim (electricsound), Thursday, 31 July 2003 00:44 (twenty-two years ago)

ilx in being all dumb shocker

Ooo, yummy, another thread critic! Someday I hope you guys get paid lots of money for the service you provide all us witless message board users.

jewelly (jewelly), Thursday, 31 July 2003 00:46 (twenty-two years ago)

actually i get paid (uh marginally) already, but thanx. (are you new?)

strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 31 July 2003 01:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I think of monogamy as a very non-utopian social compromise -- one that I ultimately support -- that has taken on the aura of a sacred moral value. I think it IS a sacred moral value for people who agree to it, i.e. if two people enter a relationship with the understanding that it's supposed to be monogamous, violating that is a serious moral breach. I don't feel that monogamy is somehow *objectively* moral, i.e. for everyone. If there are people who say they are able to comfortably exist in non-monogamous relationships, I tend to take their word for it. Although when it comes to raising children I am still a sketptic about polygamous relationships and the like, although I'm not saying it can't possibly be done right.

my jaw left (Hurting 2), Friday, 31 October 2014 18:19 (eleven years ago)

i am monogamous and i generally support people engaging in whatever kind of arrangement they want

marcos, Friday, 31 October 2014 18:31 (eleven years ago)

i think the thrust of the question is more, 'if i am committed to social justice should i be trying to be less hung up on monogamy?'

croot, i wonder if comparisons would help you with your question

you could also ask

1) can you value conventionally gendered relationship roles on a personal and/or societal level and still be a supporter of social justice?

(man mows the lawn, woman cooks the dinner, etc)

2) can you value conventional heterosexuality on a personal and/or societal level and still be a supporter of social justice?

with (1) you can imagine ppl saying, for themselves and their partners, 'we found an arrangement that works for us' as far as fairness goes - maybe they just happen to be fine with being the lawn-mower, the dinner-cooker, etc., whether they compensate for that in less traditionally gendered ways elsewhere or not. but at the same time, fully insisting that apportionment of responsibilities, burdens, roles in the relationship ought to be freely determined by both parties and equal to their satisfaction, as should be true for everyone.

with (2) you find maybe a much greater comfort w/ ppl saying, 'i fully support non-traditional or unconventional forms of sexuality, w/ no stigmatization, full recognition by society, etc', while still saying, 'but for me, personally… hetero is the way to go'. with a kind of 'natural' (in terms of 'feels right to me', 'intuitively', etc) justification that isn't thought to need to be accountable to legacy notions of gender

but in terms of commitment to effecting changes in the more widespread adoption/acceptance of alternatives, you will get people saying, on the basis of a commitment to social justice, 'maybe what is comfortable for you is a problem, and you should try washing some more fucking dishes'. but many fewer people saying, 'maybe what is comfortable for you is a problem, and you should be experimenting more with your normo sexuality'.

j., Friday, 31 October 2014 18:53 (eleven years ago)

yes, one must possess multiple sexual partners to truly appreciate the struggles of the less fortunate

Darin, Friday, 31 October 2014 19:58 (eleven years ago)

practice is such a funny term in this context

lol @ the implication that non-monogamous relationships are somehow more just/fair

Οὖτις, Friday, 31 October 2014 20:20 (eleven years ago)

maybe it's just the people I know/the circles I travel in but all the polyamorous people I've ever come into contact with were self-absorbed assholes/never saw any "open" relationship that lasted more than a few months and/or didn't end with someone feeling deeply resentful/mistreated

Οὖτις, Friday, 31 October 2014 20:22 (eleven years ago)

monogamy's no walk in the park either and happiness is not guaranteed but I just lol at the suggestion that there's something inherently wrong or unfair about it as a general concept

Οὖτις, Friday, 31 October 2014 20:23 (eleven years ago)

I don't really think of monogamy as intended to be a "guarantor of happiness" anyway, that seems fundamentally different from the purpose. "minimizer of sadness" maybe.

my jaw left (Hurting 2), Friday, 31 October 2014 20:32 (eleven years ago)

"Optimizer of happiness/sadness ratio"

my jaw left (Hurting 2), Friday, 31 October 2014 20:32 (eleven years ago)

And also "you can't be a true fighter for social justice while practicing monogamy" just sounds like something a selfish partner would say to guilt you into an open relationship.

my jaw left (Hurting 2), Friday, 31 October 2014 20:33 (eleven years ago)

I'm into monogamy because I only have time for one person in my headspace/schedule, dear god. If I had to juggle TWO of them, when would I do what *I* want??

Orson Wellies (in orbit), Friday, 31 October 2014 20:35 (eleven years ago)

also wtf at j automatically conflating monogamy with heterosexuality upthread

Οὖτις, Friday, 31 October 2014 20:37 (eleven years ago)

maybe it's just the people I know/the circles I travel in but all the polyamorous people I've ever come into contact with were self-absorbed assholes/never saw any "open" relationship that lasted more than a few months and/or didn't end with someone feeling deeply resentful/mistreated

― Οὖτις, Friday, October 31, 2014 4:22 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

what about the straight people you know?

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 31 October 2014 20:37 (eleven years ago)

I believe in monogamy like I believe in civilization: it's a construct that's only tenable to the extent that all involved parties are willing to work at making it tenable. Same with polyamory. I'm doing pretty well with monogamy these days.

Thereby Creating Humor (Old Lunch), Friday, 31 October 2014 20:38 (eleven years ago)

what about the straight people you know?

these *were* straight people! my homo friends run the whole gamut - committed monogamous couples w kids, confirmed bachelors completely uninterested in long-term relationships, lonely singles lookin for partners, etc. but I don't think I've ever known any gays/lesbians in poly relationships. again, maybe it's just the circles I travel in, but where I live you'd think I would've run into some successful ones if they were such an awesome alternative to monogamy.

Οὖτις, Friday, 31 October 2014 20:42 (eleven years ago)

love hearing straight guys in committed mono relationships get "annoyed" at polyamorous people

mattresslessness, Friday, 31 October 2014 20:49 (eleven years ago)

literally no one is saying it's better.

mattresslessness, Friday, 31 October 2014 20:50 (eleven years ago)

whose annoyed

Οὖτις, Friday, 31 October 2014 20:51 (eleven years ago)

all the polyamorous people I've ever come into contact with were self-absorbed assholes

Oh word?

Both "monogamy" and "polyamory" are stupid ideas and I've found it's better to be committed and permissive and communicative and flexible

fgti, Friday, 31 October 2014 20:52 (eleven years ago)

otm

mattresslessness, Friday, 31 October 2014 20:52 (eleven years ago)

sure I can get with that

Οὖτις, Friday, 31 October 2014 20:53 (eleven years ago)

Oh word?

my city is full of jerks

Οὖτις, Friday, 31 October 2014 20:54 (eleven years ago)

I've found it's better to be committed and permissive and communicative and flexible

emotionally too

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 31 October 2014 20:55 (eleven years ago)

Every poly arrangement/open relationship I've known has split up because one member feels their license-to-screw-around precludes any feelings-of-being-left-out in their partner. Partner feels left out, arrangement dissolves. As for monogamous relationships, the typical incapacity for affairs is incredibly frustrating also.

fgti, Friday, 31 October 2014 20:56 (eleven years ago)

lol @ the implication that non-monogamous relationships are somehow more just/fair

also wtf at j automatically conflating monogamy with heterosexuality upthread

obviously i was not; i was associating widespread conceptions of normatively sanctioned forms of relations with others, with the one cruet asked about presumably because he was concerned about its normative status

there is certainly thinking afoot in pro-poly circles that ethical non-monogamy can be less un-rewarding un-satisfying emotionally limiting etc for people whose attachment styles, sexual or emotional needs, etc aren't readily satisfied within the bounds of serially monogamous relationships. i don't think it's much of a leap from there to thinking that a prejudicial attitude toward the status of monogamy or non-monogamy can contribute to the unhappiness of people who would be better off ahem loving freely.

j., Friday, 31 October 2014 20:57 (eleven years ago)

I can only guess that the unspoken assumption lurking behind the question is that valuing monogamy somehow requires one to condemn all other approaches to relationships, but that is a shallow and baseless assumption to make, so I'm thrown back to believing crüt is just pulling our legs.

oh no! must be the season of the rich (Aimless), Friday, 31 October 2014 20:57 (eleven years ago)

hi dere I have had four separate poly relationships that lasted well over a year, both parties had other partners in each case, all but one are current friends

j otm about the snooty behavior of poly folks, I was guilty of that when younger

sleeve, Friday, 31 October 2014 20:59 (eleven years ago)

xp so the justness / fairness problem arises not so much on the level of individual relationships (you could always say, take it or leave it, there, if your partner said 'i've been thinking…'), as at the level of the social costs/benefits/permissions of engaging in other forms of relationship that would, in a sense, allow for a better overall distribution and provision of the goods of being-in-relationships

j., Friday, 31 October 2014 20:59 (eleven years ago)

"Snooty behaviour" ime usually comes from the difficulty in talking about >1 relationships, and finding that line between "I am telling you useful information" and "I am bragging".

fgti, Friday, 31 October 2014 21:03 (eleven years ago)

I guess it'd be >2 actually, I haven't found a good term

fgti, Friday, 31 October 2014 21:04 (eleven years ago)

'weird'

j., Friday, 31 October 2014 21:15 (eleven years ago)

nb i didn't mean to imply that i would ever condemn any individual or group for being non-monogamous. "some of my best friends are polyamorous" etc. i'm not pulling anyone's leg (intentionally) so much as i keep running into a wall when i think about my emotional & sexual desires and personal experiences vs. the bigger picture of humanity & sexual politics. (shocker!) i have a lot of feelings and hangups but i don't know what they are and i don't know how to express them. i think maybe i have just had a string of bad luck with people who have different expectations than i do and it's made me feel inadequate. i don't really know what i'm asking so that's why my post made zero sense but i definitely appreciate the feedback.

example (crüt), Friday, 31 October 2014 21:22 (eleven years ago)

as someone with zero experience with poly relationships, I would imagine there HAS to be some crazy power dynamics going on there. like open relationships must be more advantageous for some people than others

Darin, Friday, 31 October 2014 21:25 (eleven years ago)

as someone with zero experience with poly relationships,

mattresslessness, Friday, 31 October 2014 21:30 (eleven years ago)

fortunately monogamous relationships don't have crazy power dynamics

NOT THAT THIS IS A FUNCTIONING BINARY

The Falun Gong Show (Noodle Vague), Friday, 31 October 2014 21:34 (eleven years ago)

u must be a hit at parties mattresslessness

quarter pound cronenburger, Friday, 31 October 2014 21:35 (eleven years ago)

creut, that sounds kind of like why i spent some time thinking about non-monogamy, aside from just general speculation abt ~timely social phenomena~. i seem to be monogamous in my bones but i had three serious relationships in a row in which at least the idea of non-exclusivity was floated, or something more serious than that. people in their twenties, ugh. and i was really torn between just saying ~~no way~~, and trying to be ok with it for intellectual reasons, since in principle i didn't see why it should be a problem (my circumstances were weird, i never really had to entertain the idea of my sexual partner being non-monogamous, at best having other kinds of relationships). i was troubled by the idea that my attachment style, one person at a time, little real motive to even get out and have the possibility of relating to lots of others, was very ~male~, in the way that men can be so presumptive about what is theirs. so i thought maybe being more ok with something that was not a standard monogamous romantic relationship was something i should work at. and work at for others; because i was with women who were happy with me at the time but were kind of chronically dissatisfied with the ways they were expected to have relationships.

it didn't really go anywhere for me because my heart just wouldn't buy it. but i have a lingering question about it because i know i'm just not the kind of person who feels like everything is in balance, if i'm relating to few people but my partner is relating to lots (in a more intimate way); and the only way to explore that seems to be to try more to relate to lots of people myself, to see if i could come up with my own way to compensate for possibly feeling 'left alone' by a partner. but i don't know if i'll ever go for that, or care to try.

j., Friday, 31 October 2014 21:35 (eleven years ago)

Most of my >2 relationships have been in gayworld and therein the power dynamics are pretty chill. I read, statistically, that 50% of all participants in poly arrangements are gay men (compared to 4% of the general pop.) so maybe the gays have no place in this thread except to high-five each other

http://www.alternet.org/sex-amp-relationships/open-relationships-reduce-jealousy-12-surprising-facts-about-non-monogamy?page=0%2C0

fgti, Friday, 31 October 2014 21:36 (eleven years ago)

my ex-boyfriend was poly-amorous. Problem is I wasn't

quarter pound cronenburger, Friday, 31 October 2014 21:38 (eleven years ago)

u must be a hit at parties mattresslessness

― quarter pound cronenburger, Friday, October 31, 2014 3:35 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i usually do well at small parties with friends. one basic rule i've learned is, don't pretend to be anonymous.

mattresslessness, Friday, 31 October 2014 21:40 (eleven years ago)

"as someone with zero experience with poly relationships,"

yeah, I threw this in to acknowledge that I didn't have knowledge of how this worked and was just curious, but A+ to you for following along

"fortunately monogamous relationships don't have crazy power dynamics"

mind would definitely be more complicated if I started fucking everybody

Darin, Friday, 31 October 2014 21:48 (eleven years ago)

fgti's link v amusing in its conflicting conclusions and un-sourced claims

Οὖτις, Friday, 31 October 2014 21:49 (eleven years ago)

fair enough and yes i'm sure throwing gender into the equation doesn't make it any easier. xp

mattresslessness, Friday, 31 October 2014 21:50 (eleven years ago)

and its psychology today links

xp

Οὖτις, Friday, 31 October 2014 21:51 (eleven years ago)

I'm into monogamy because I only have time for one person in my headspace/schedule, dear god. If I had to juggle TWO of them, when would I do what *I* want??

― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Friday, October 31, 2014 4:35 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is a key point btw

example (crüt), Friday, 31 October 2014 22:12 (eleven years ago)

it is difficult even for bill paxton

$0.00 Butter sauce only. No marinara. (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 31 October 2014 22:19 (eleven years ago)

xxp lol I didn't notice

fgti, Friday, 31 October 2014 22:46 (eleven years ago)

I'm into monogamy because I only have time for one person in my headspace/schedule, dear god. If I had to juggle TWO of them, when would I do what *I* want??

yeah it seems like it would have to be one's primary hobby. on the other hand, if your significant other were going off to spend time with someone else, think about how many free nights you'd have to yourself?

festival culture (Jordan), Friday, 31 October 2014 22:53 (eleven years ago)

ftr that would happen like once every few months in my relationships, not on any kind of regular basis

both myself & my partners were pretty good about not abusing the privilege, classic "primary partner" stuff

sleeve, Friday, 31 October 2014 23:02 (eleven years ago)

if it's only about time and headspace management, there are probably no 'monogamous' relationships because people have other passions like taxidermy

$0.00 Butter sauce only. No marinara. (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 31 October 2014 23:26 (eleven years ago)


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