I can't shake the idea that non-monogamy is a way of hedging bets, breakups surely hurt less if you're not putting all your eggs in one basket. I feel like I get more out of a relationship the...
I can't shake the idea that non-monogamy is a way of hedging bets, breakups surely hurt less if you're not putting all your eggs in one basket. I feel like I get more out of a relationship the more I put into it, and there's no way I could put in as much time and affection into multiple romantic partners. If I'm being honest with myself I don't even value all my platonic relationships anywhere near equally and definitely still have a best friend.
I also think peoples attitudes to relationships are a bit Freudian, at least in my experience most peoples views on marriage are shaped by their parents marriage. I truly believe two people can be in love with each other and stay happy and faithful for their entire lives, my friends who have divorced parents rarely agree. I wonder if this has been studied?
As an aside, while I think consensual non-monogamy is perfectly fine and shouldn't be stigmatized, the fringe evangelists who claim that humans aren't "supposed to be" monogamous, claiming some evolutionary-psychology nonsense about bonobos or whatever, are morons. A. Because (like most ev-psych) the science behind this idea is shaky at best, and B. Because what humans are "supposed to be" is a useless idea, we will always be shaped by culture, there is no "neutral culture" the same way there is no such thing as "not having an accent".
It's a bit funny that on one hand you say that people aren't naturally this or that way and on the other open your comment with the accusation that polyamory is about hedging your bets, as opposed...
It's a bit funny that on one hand you say that people aren't naturally this or that way and on the other open your comment with the accusation that polyamory is about hedging your bets, as opposed to people just doing what feels natural to them.
Why can't hedging your bets be something that feels natural? I don't see the contradiction here? My point is it's a fallacy to suggest what's natural is better or moral.
Why can't hedging your bets be something that feels natural? I don't see the contradiction here?
My point is it's a fallacy to suggest what's natural is better or moral.
My feelings more or less mirror yours. I think eliminating stigmas of non-monogamy (subsequently de-identifying monogamy as "the one true choice") is important. I think there's many places to land...
My feelings more or less mirror yours. I think eliminating stigmas of non-monogamy (subsequently de-identifying monogamy as "the one true choice") is important. I think there's many places to land on the monogamy/polyamory spectrum, and having it de-stigmatized could probably strengthen a lot of relationships. Once you shatter the "monogamy is superior and thus the default" notions, things like cheating become less of a problem provided there is genuine mutual consent about dating multiples.
And said consent might actually be fostered if the default isn't the narrative that is sold to us from a young age. I think a lot of the problems come from having this deeply ingrained narrative that:
Love at first sight is a thing (it's probably just lust).
Marriage is forever and eternal (glares at lots of religions).
Because of those first two, the slightest slip-up in fidelity is a grievous unforgivable error.
I don’t think the idea of love at first sight really interferes with the idea of polygamy because you could just experience it with multiple people at the same time, although I do agree that the...
I don’t think the idea of love at first sight really interferes with the idea of polygamy because you could just experience it with multiple people at the same time, although I do agree that the entire concept of “love at first sight” is pretty much bs.
But when you say “the slightest slip up in fidelity”, are you referring to cheating? Because I think that’s a bit more than just a simple slip up, your pretty much ruining the integrity of a relationship in my opinion.
I agree that "humans" aren't supposed to be any particular kind of way, especially due to our culture, but I want to highlight that I think individual people may be naturally happier in monogamous...
I agree that "humans" aren't supposed to be any particular kind of way, especially due to our culture, but I want to highlight that I think individual people may be naturally happier in monogamous or non-monogamous relationships.
Maybe - but there are plenty of ways people can have a monogamous relationship to reduce the likelihood or intensity of heartbreak. CNM is just a more socially complicated technique in that regard.
I can't help but shake the idea that non-monogamy is a way of hedging bets, breakups surely hurt less if you're not putting all your eggs in one basket.
Maybe - but there are plenty of ways people can have a monogamous relationship to reduce the likelihood or intensity of heartbreak. CNM is just a more socially complicated technique in that regard.
It is very rare for a group of humans to share a unique characteristic without many of its members implicitly denying the validity of different choices. This happens in pretty much every group....
It is very rare for a group of humans to share a unique characteristic without many of its members implicitly denying the validity of different choices. This happens in pretty much every group. The content of their beliefs almost doesn't matter for this behavior to occur.
IMO there's a kind of vicious paradox to a breakup that you suffer the heartache of losing the person who normally helps you through your heartache. I'm not polyamorous but I find that the idea of...
breakups surely hurt less if you're not putting all your eggs in one basket
IMO there's a kind of vicious paradox to a breakup that you suffer the heartache of losing the person who normally helps you through your heartache. I'm not polyamorous but I find that the idea of an SO helping you through the pain of an unexpected dumping feels surprisingly right.
I've also noticed this trend. I'm non-monogamous, have been so for a while, and most of the people who I've dated (or talked to and are also polyamorous) fall somewhere within the broad...
I've also noticed this trend. I'm non-monogamous, have been so for a while, and most of the people who I've dated (or talked to and are also polyamorous) fall somewhere within the broad spectrum(s) of LGBTQA+. My current partner is trans, and though I identified as straight for a long time, I'm currently discovering that may not be quite so true.
Anyway. I think the overlap here has a simple explanation: LGBTQA+ people, by and large, are forced to think outside societal norms because of their own 'otherness'. If society rejects you and calls you unnatural, it becomes a bit easier to hear about another unnatural thing and not immediately dismiss it.
I think polyamory isn't for everyone. But it would be suitable for WAY more people then there are actually engaged with it. The 'problem' here is that usually people will just dismiss it as something weird, and thus probably bad, probably a sex thing, probably drama, that's not what the movies tell me, let's just move on and never really sit down and think about that. LGBTQ+ people are already used to... Not having that luxury.
(In a similar vein, I'm finding that my current... Ambiguity towards my sexuality is much easier to handle since I've been used to having 'unnatural' relationships, so I guess it works both ways.)
My experience mirrors a lot in the above but I also want to point out because it organized the relationship a bit too (also did a bit of kink), communication is super incentivized. My current...
My experience mirrors a lot in the above but I also want to point out because it organized the relationship a bit too (also did a bit of kink), communication is super incentivized.
My current partner and I are settled and not open anymore but the communication factor has built the best relationship I've ever had with little spots of disagreement but because of the bases, we check in, organize ourselves and discuss it and keep discussing it if it needs to be.
One thing missing from this discussion so far, and one I have been thinking on lately, is how much of relationship style can be attributed to immutable aspects of our identity? One may say you...
One thing missing from this discussion so far, and one I have been thinking on lately, is how much of relationship style can be attributed to immutable aspects of our identity? One may say you have to choose to commit to a non monogamous relationship as a choice, and so it is an aspect we control. But then I say, what about bisexual folks? They can be in a relationship that appears "straight" to outsiders (and that is their choice to have that relationship), but that doesn't erase the aspect of themselves that still feels attraction for genders similar to their own. And so I wonder, is there a meaningful distinction between the repression a gay man may feel partnered with a woman versus a non monogamous person may feel partnered with a monogamous person?
And just as sexuality isn't purely about sex, relationship style isn't either. I think it's reductive to think that everyone experiences connection, relationships, and love the same way. In the context of sexuality, we, as a society, are coming around to the idea that love is still valid, even if in a form we don't personally experience.
How will society's views on alternative relationship styles shift over time? Will we view them as something we choose, or something that is a part of us? I hope that either way folks become more accepting, but even in this post, I'm seeing folks punch down on people different than themselves.
I apologize if any of my parallels are inappropriate. If they are offensive, please help me understand why.
The concept of relationships as an orientation is not new! It's discussed frequently among non-monogamous folks. I don't know where I land on it fully, but I am someone who's very comfortable in...
The concept of relationships as an orientation is not new! It's discussed frequently among non-monogamous folks. I don't know where I land on it fully, but I am someone who's very comfortable in non-monogamy. I think I'm more naturally inclined towards it - I'm not a jealous person, I form multiple strong attachments, and I am inclined to engage in multiple romantic/sexual relationships at the same time. I also think my mom, who grew up in an era pre-HIV and thus didn't have the same level of serial monogamy quite as enforced in the dating sphere, would likely have been polyamorous had this been an option for her.
Does that make it genetic? Maybe but probably it's more just a combination of my personality, my security in attachment, those sorts of things.
This may seem off the wall, but a theory that has been stewing in my brain lately has been polyamory as it relates to the housing crisis, and the idea that perhaps a contributing factor to the...
This may seem off the wall, but a theory that has been stewing in my brain lately has been polyamory as it relates to the housing crisis, and the idea that perhaps a contributing factor to the acceptability of non-monogamous relationships or the willingness to explore such relationships is in part due to the fact that it is no longer feasible for two people to purchase a house by themselves. The so called American dream is disappearing in front of us, and people are looking for alternatives.
This is, of course, a bit of a stretch, and is not to say that it is a primary driver in the motivations of people seeking non-monogamy. I simply find the juxtaposition of the housing crisis and the rise or vogueness of non-monogamy to be... interesting.
Many polyamorous people have made the "a monogamous household raising kids? In this economy?" And many of us from related subcultures (in my case LARP, queer, and D&D as well as polyamorous) have...
Many polyamorous people have made the "a monogamous household raising kids? In this economy?"
And many of us from related subcultures (in my case LARP, queer, and D&D as well as polyamorous) have longed for the ability to live communally in some way shape or form. But none of us have the income to move and pull that off.
I have a hard time believing this article was written with seriousness. There's a reason that monogamy has been the de facto standard for generations of people. Because it brings stability. Not...
I have a hard time believing this article was written with seriousness. There's a reason that monogamy has been the de facto standard for generations of people. Because it brings stability. Not just to the people in it, but to our entire society. There are newish relationship descriptors that say "I want to do what I want with whomever I want" but imho these are not healthy relationships: Everyone I have observed holding that view strongly (including some in my own family) comes from a background where they have been deeply hurt in their own lives, often as children, and that hurt comes out in their sex life and adult relationships. But its normal to seek affirmation and acceptance for their choices which translates to promoting and seeking affirmation for relationships that end up unhealthy and inherently unstable in the long run. Which is why the marquee trait is that they dont last and a life of unstable relationships is not a happy one.
A 'mainstream' example of this is the reality show 'Sister Wives' which started off 13 years ago as a somewhat titillating expose into the forbidden world of polygamous 'marriage' - but it has now devolved to reveal that this polygamous marriage is a cautionary example of instability, jealousy and dysfunction as the main character has gone from four wives down to one who is still with him, but even that relationship seems shaky. And these are people who have every reason to try and promote their message as a polygamous marriage was core to their religious beliefs AND they were being paid well to show it working to the rest of the world. The writing was on the wall from the very beginning.
Embarrassing on a site like tildes full of counterculture to hold a societal standard as golden on its own and then justify it with anecdotes and entertainment TV to paint all polyamorous...
There's a reason that monogamy has been the de facto standard for generations of people
Embarrassing on a site like tildes full of counterculture to hold a societal standard as golden on its own and then justify it with anecdotes and entertainment TV to paint all polyamorous relationships as the result of childhood trauma. These are the kinds of arguments people used to make against homosexual relationships.
Obviously polyamory doesn't work without secure attachment. Monogamy doesn't either. The difference is that monogamy hides insecure attachment by engendering codependency whereas polyamory will fail spectacularly and fast.
Interesting that tildes is full of couterculture? I have only seen a bit of that and have been quite pleased that ALL views seem to be welcome here as long as they are presented respectfully....
Interesting that tildes is full of couterculture? I have only seen a bit of that and have been quite pleased that ALL views seem to be welcome here as long as they are presented respectfully.
"monogamy hides insecure attachment by engendering codependency" Could you explain what you mean by that?
Unrelated to this subject, you are one of the most aberrant individuals here in terms of worldview and politics. That is not to say you don't belong, because every time (except maybe this one, but...
Unrelated to this subject, you are one of the most aberrant individuals here in terms of worldview and politics. That is not to say you don't belong, because every time (except maybe this one, but again, not my fight) you've participated in a thread, you have been respectful and shown intellectual humility, and I appreciate seeing your point of view. However, people definitely see you as an outlier in a sea of individuals who are generally further left or progressive than you. I hope you continue hanging out here, but I feel like it'd be doing you a disservice to say you "fit in". Like you said, this is place for honest conversation, not a hug chamber for social democrats.
Thanks. I definitely dont shy away from controversial debate, in fact it's a good part of the reason I'm here. Don't really care to find a sea of people who think the same as me, the interwebs...
Thanks. I definitely dont shy away from controversial debate, in fact it's a good part of the reason I'm here. Don't really care to find a sea of people who think the same as me, the interwebs don't need another echo chamber - only that I get to share my views respectfully like everyone else without being chilled or cancelled. And to be honest, I've found far more respect for my generally conservative views here than I ever did after 10 years on 'that other site that shall not be named'. At least here people present cogent, intellectual arguments and not just quick regurgitated quips for the most karma.
Not counter-culture for its own sake, but I would say the vast majority of people here have found that our default culture is deeply wrong in many ways. I want to make it clear that if you're here...
Not counter-culture for its own sake, but I would say the vast majority of people here have found that our default culture is deeply wrong in many ways. I want to make it clear that if you're here to learn I'm more than happy to educate, just that this a website where cultural norms are expected to stand on their own merit.
Anyway, what I mean by that is that in a polyamorous relationship, insecurity will not work. Insecure attachment styles (anxious, avoidant, etc) do not hold up to polyamory. If you cannot have one strong, secure relationship where you feel loved and give love, there's no way you can have multiple. These are those dysfunctional relationships you talk about, I have no doubt that you've seen lots of people in polyamorous relationships that were deeply dysfunctional, just using polyamory as a way to avoid commitment and hide from the fear of loss. Cheating in monogamy is often coming from a similar place, where they are afraid of being left alone and must always have a backup.
When person A in a monogamous relationship is not securely attached to person B, while the relationship is still dysfunctional it is often dysfunctional silently, or relatively quietly. Take the classic archetype of a jealous wife that sabotages her lecherous husband's interactions with other women - this is an example that happens all the time in our society, and is the result of the wife not feeling secure in her relationship with her husband. In a polyamorous context this is a relationship that is bound to fail, loudly and spectacularly, as he will inevitably sleep around and she will not be able to cope. However this is a common trope because monogamous relationships like this can continue to exist, albeit dysfunctionally. She will remain jealous and he will continue to be blissfully unaware of what needs she's not having fulfilled. But because they are monogamous, the jealousy problem is avoided even if it's still lurking under the surface.
It's probably unfair to say that monogamy engenders it, because I know many monogamous people who are very good at communicating their needs. Maybe less 'monogamy engenders codependency' and more 'monogamy can hide insecure attachment caused by our societys tendency to push people into codependency.'
Hey so I've been polyamorous for my entire adult post-college life, over two decades now. And while I've found both positive and negative experiences there, I have no history of childhood sexual...
Hey so I've been polyamorous for my entire adult post-college life, over two decades now. And while I've found both positive and negative experiences there, I have no history of childhood sexual abuse, physical abuse, or other major trauma. I'm an adult seeking positive and healthy relationships and having what seems to be the average amount of success in finding them. The armchair diagnosis is unnecessary and shortsighted.
While most polyamorous and ethically non-monogamous people would exclude religious fundamentalism based, unequitable polygamy from their subset of relationship style or orientation. Even if we allow it, I'd say that using any one example of a reality TV show relationship as a gold standard is short-sighted. Otherwise monogamous relationships are all abusive garbage by those standards.
I also think that assuming monogamy is a natural default or a traditional "good" and not an external societal imposition ignores multiple cultures with different relationship norms, and ignores the massive influence of Abrahamic religions and Western culture through colonialism. Humanity may trend in particular ways and many, even most, people may be happier in a monogamous pairing, however most people in the US are serial monogamists rather than true monogamists (and even that dating behavior is a drastic change from pre-HIV behavior when you'd easily date several people, even concurrently, until you went steady/got pinned/etc. )
Something isn't worthy just because it's traditional, nor do things become tradition because they're inherently better than the other options. People have been non-monogamous, ethically or otherwise, for the entire length of time that monogamy has existed.
Pretty sure its a branch of the same tree of polyamory. There were very clear discussion about boundaries, time spent with each other, sexual relationship, how to handle conflicts, whats ok and...
Pretty sure its a branch of the same tree of polyamory. There were very clear discussion about boundaries, time spent with each other, sexual relationship, how to handle conflicts, whats ok and not ok to share with each other, finances, scheduling, task distribution, and mutual support of everyone involved. There were rules, boundaries, open communication (in the beginning) You may call it patriarchal oppression but in the beginning the women involved most definitely did not see it that way. I believe two of the four wives actually came to the main character and asked him if they could join his relationships. They had agency. And still do, as they are now leaving. So whats missing that makes it significantly different from a polyamorous relationship?
Bingo. But even if it were, it's a reality show. I suspect there are some happy polygamist people out there. But not finding them on TLC isn't a surprise.
Bingo. But even if it were, it's a reality show. I suspect there are some happy polygamist people out there. But not finding them on TLC isn't a surprise.
I’m polyamorous (currently in a mono relationship), and I utterly disagree with you. I’ve never been abused, also. The unhealthiest relationships I know have all been monogamous; and poly ones are...
I’m polyamorous (currently in a mono relationship), and I utterly disagree with you. I’ve never been abused, also.
The unhealthiest relationships I know have all been monogamous; and poly ones are consistently some of the healthiest ones.
I would maybe advise not basing your opinion of a whole sexual culture on a tv show.
Not really. Getting laid is easy, open grindr or tinder or go to a bar and be sociable. The hard part of nonmonogamy is doing so while also having strong secure attachments.
Not really. Getting laid is easy, open grindr or tinder or go to a bar and be sociable.
The hard part of nonmonogamy is doing so while also having strong secure attachments.
It's why I don't really bother with it too much. I do hierarchal poly (otherwise known as an 'open relationship') because it works for me, I need to know that I'm someone's #1 and vice versa, and...
It's why I don't really bother with it too much. I do hierarchal poly (otherwise known as an 'open relationship') because it works for me, I need to know that I'm someone's #1 and vice versa, and at least that 1:1 relationship isn't too much of a scheduling nightmare.
I can't imagine having multiple very serious relationships. I just don't think I could do it. However it seems to work for some people with different priorities from me, so more power to them!
I've been successful in the short term, a few times it wasn't right for me, a few times distance was the killer, and a few times I bailed because the other person wasn't ready. I don't think I'd...
I've been successful in the short term, a few times it wasn't right for me, a few times distance was the killer, and a few times I bailed because the other person wasn't ready. I don't think I'd be as happy without emotional attachment.
I also have a "primary" partner because I'm also his caretaker and there's no way to fully pull that "priority" apart. (I also sort of hate the labels of polyamory/ENM because like, IDK why I have to have a kitchen table) but I think the values of non-hierarchal polyamory are where I fall.
The scheduling joke also applies to adults playing D&D which makes me laugh.
Just a heads up that jokes as a top level comment are generally frowned upon here on Tildes, and typically get labeled as Noise (which your top comment was, BTW). The reason for that is because if...
Just a heads up that jokes as a top level comment are generally frowned upon here on Tildes, and typically get labeled as Noise (which your top comment was, BTW). The reason for that is because if jokes at the top level are not actively discouraged they tend to eventually drown out all the substantial discussion (as has happened on Reddit), since jokes take less effort to produce, and are faster to consume/vote on. Whereas more thoughtful and substantive comments often take far more time to write and for others to read and consider before being voted on.
Yeah, I actually agree here. Reddit feels way too supersticial with all the edgy-cool oneliners drowning out any deeper debate. So it's not like I thought that this fora were in need for more...
Yeah, I actually agree here. Reddit feels way too supersticial with all the edgy-cool oneliners drowning out any deeper debate. So it's not like I thought that this fora were in need for more shallow content, and posted my comments with that goal in mind.
Still, when I saw the post title, my first througth was "Okay, this gotta be a joke post". So when I clicked in and saw that it wasn't and that every reply were just as serious in nature, it just felt ... I dunno, a little unatural I guess. So I decided that if no one else would make that very stupid joke, then by Golly, I would.
I can't shake the idea that non-monogamy is a way of hedging bets, breakups surely hurt less if you're not putting all your eggs in one basket. I feel like I get more out of a relationship the more I put into it, and there's no way I could put in as much time and affection into multiple romantic partners. If I'm being honest with myself I don't even value all my platonic relationships anywhere near equally and definitely still have a best friend.
I also think peoples attitudes to relationships are a bit Freudian, at least in my experience most peoples views on marriage are shaped by their parents marriage. I truly believe two people can be in love with each other and stay happy and faithful for their entire lives, my friends who have divorced parents rarely agree. I wonder if this has been studied?
As an aside, while I think consensual non-monogamy is perfectly fine and shouldn't be stigmatized, the fringe evangelists who claim that humans aren't "supposed to be" monogamous, claiming some evolutionary-psychology nonsense about bonobos or whatever, are morons. A. Because (like most ev-psych) the science behind this idea is shaky at best, and B. Because what humans are "supposed to be" is a useless idea, we will always be shaped by culture, there is no "neutral culture" the same way there is no such thing as "not having an accent".
It's a bit funny that on one hand you say that people aren't naturally this or that way and on the other open your comment with the accusation that polyamory is about hedging your bets, as opposed to people just doing what feels natural to them.
Why can't hedging your bets be something that feels natural? I don't see the contradiction here?
My point is it's a fallacy to suggest what's natural is better or moral.
My feelings more or less mirror yours. I think eliminating stigmas of non-monogamy (subsequently de-identifying monogamy as "the one true choice") is important. I think there's many places to land on the monogamy/polyamory spectrum, and having it de-stigmatized could probably strengthen a lot of relationships. Once you shatter the "monogamy is superior and thus the default" notions, things like cheating become less of a problem provided there is genuine mutual consent about dating multiples.
And said consent might actually be fostered if the default isn't the narrative that is sold to us from a young age. I think a lot of the problems come from having this deeply ingrained narrative that:
Love at first sight is a thing (it's probably just lust).
Marriage is forever and eternal (glares at lots of religions).
Because of those first two, the slightest slip-up in fidelity is a grievous unforgivable error.
I don’t think the idea of love at first sight really interferes with the idea of polygamy because you could just experience it with multiple people at the same time, although I do agree that the entire concept of “love at first sight” is pretty much bs.
But when you say “the slightest slip up in fidelity”, are you referring to cheating? Because I think that’s a bit more than just a simple slip up, your pretty much ruining the integrity of a relationship in my opinion.
I agree that "humans" aren't supposed to be any particular kind of way, especially due to our culture, but I want to highlight that I think individual people may be naturally happier in monogamous or non-monogamous relationships.
Maybe - but there are plenty of ways people can have a monogamous relationship to reduce the likelihood or intensity of heartbreak. CNM is just a more socially complicated technique in that regard.
It is very rare for a group of humans to share a unique characteristic without many of its members implicitly denying the validity of different choices. This happens in pretty much every group. The content of their beliefs almost doesn't matter for this behavior to occur.
IMO there's a kind of vicious paradox to a breakup that you suffer the heartache of losing the person who normally helps you through your heartache. I'm not polyamorous but I find that the idea of an SO helping you through the pain of an unexpected dumping feels surprisingly right.
I've also noticed this trend. I'm non-monogamous, have been so for a while, and most of the people who I've dated (or talked to and are also polyamorous) fall somewhere within the broad spectrum(s) of LGBTQA+. My current partner is trans, and though I identified as straight for a long time, I'm currently discovering that may not be quite so true.
Anyway. I think the overlap here has a simple explanation: LGBTQA+ people, by and large, are forced to think outside societal norms because of their own 'otherness'. If society rejects you and calls you unnatural, it becomes a bit easier to hear about another unnatural thing and not immediately dismiss it.
I think polyamory isn't for everyone. But it would be suitable for WAY more people then there are actually engaged with it. The 'problem' here is that usually people will just dismiss it as something weird, and thus probably bad, probably a sex thing, probably drama, that's not what the movies tell me, let's just move on and never really sit down and think about that. LGBTQ+ people are already used to... Not having that luxury.
(In a similar vein, I'm finding that my current... Ambiguity towards my sexuality is much easier to handle since I've been used to having 'unnatural' relationships, so I guess it works both ways.)
My experience mirrors a lot in the above but I also want to point out because it organized the relationship a bit too (also did a bit of kink), communication is super incentivized.
My current partner and I are settled and not open anymore but the communication factor has built the best relationship I've ever had with little spots of disagreement but because of the bases, we check in, organize ourselves and discuss it and keep discussing it if it needs to be.
One thing missing from this discussion so far, and one I have been thinking on lately, is how much of relationship style can be attributed to immutable aspects of our identity? One may say you have to choose to commit to a non monogamous relationship as a choice, and so it is an aspect we control. But then I say, what about bisexual folks? They can be in a relationship that appears "straight" to outsiders (and that is their choice to have that relationship), but that doesn't erase the aspect of themselves that still feels attraction for genders similar to their own. And so I wonder, is there a meaningful distinction between the repression a gay man may feel partnered with a woman versus a non monogamous person may feel partnered with a monogamous person?
And just as sexuality isn't purely about sex, relationship style isn't either. I think it's reductive to think that everyone experiences connection, relationships, and love the same way. In the context of sexuality, we, as a society, are coming around to the idea that love is still valid, even if in a form we don't personally experience.
How will society's views on alternative relationship styles shift over time? Will we view them as something we choose, or something that is a part of us? I hope that either way folks become more accepting, but even in this post, I'm seeing folks punch down on people different than themselves.
I apologize if any of my parallels are inappropriate. If they are offensive, please help me understand why.
The concept of relationships as an orientation is not new! It's discussed frequently among non-monogamous folks. I don't know where I land on it fully, but I am someone who's very comfortable in non-monogamy. I think I'm more naturally inclined towards it - I'm not a jealous person, I form multiple strong attachments, and I am inclined to engage in multiple romantic/sexual relationships at the same time. I also think my mom, who grew up in an era pre-HIV and thus didn't have the same level of serial monogamy quite as enforced in the dating sphere, would likely have been polyamorous had this been an option for her.
Does that make it genetic? Maybe but probably it's more just a combination of my personality, my security in attachment, those sorts of things.
This may seem off the wall, but a theory that has been stewing in my brain lately has been polyamory as it relates to the housing crisis, and the idea that perhaps a contributing factor to the acceptability of non-monogamous relationships or the willingness to explore such relationships is in part due to the fact that it is no longer feasible for two people to purchase a house by themselves. The so called American dream is disappearing in front of us, and people are looking for alternatives.
This is, of course, a bit of a stretch, and is not to say that it is a primary driver in the motivations of people seeking non-monogamy. I simply find the juxtaposition of the housing crisis and the rise or vogueness of non-monogamy to be... interesting.
Many polyamorous people have made the "a monogamous household raising kids? In this economy?"
And many of us from related subcultures (in my case LARP, queer, and D&D as well as polyamorous) have longed for the ability to live communally in some way shape or form. But none of us have the income to move and pull that off.
I have a hard time believing this article was written with seriousness. There's a reason that monogamy has been the de facto standard for generations of people. Because it brings stability. Not just to the people in it, but to our entire society. There are newish relationship descriptors that say "I want to do what I want with whomever I want" but imho these are not healthy relationships: Everyone I have observed holding that view strongly (including some in my own family) comes from a background where they have been deeply hurt in their own lives, often as children, and that hurt comes out in their sex life and adult relationships. But its normal to seek affirmation and acceptance for their choices which translates to promoting and seeking affirmation for relationships that end up unhealthy and inherently unstable in the long run. Which is why the marquee trait is that they dont last and a life of unstable relationships is not a happy one.
A 'mainstream' example of this is the reality show 'Sister Wives' which started off 13 years ago as a somewhat titillating expose into the forbidden world of polygamous 'marriage' - but it has now devolved to reveal that this polygamous marriage is a cautionary example of instability, jealousy and dysfunction as the main character has gone from four wives down to one who is still with him, but even that relationship seems shaky. And these are people who have every reason to try and promote their message as a polygamous marriage was core to their religious beliefs AND they were being paid well to show it working to the rest of the world. The writing was on the wall from the very beginning.
Embarrassing on a site like tildes full of counterculture to hold a societal standard as golden on its own and then justify it with anecdotes and entertainment TV to paint all polyamorous relationships as the result of childhood trauma. These are the kinds of arguments people used to make against homosexual relationships.
Obviously polyamory doesn't work without secure attachment. Monogamy doesn't either. The difference is that monogamy hides insecure attachment by engendering codependency whereas polyamory will fail spectacularly and fast.
Interesting that tildes is full of couterculture? I have only seen a bit of that and have been quite pleased that ALL views seem to be welcome here as long as they are presented respectfully.
"monogamy hides insecure attachment by engendering codependency" Could you explain what you mean by that?
Unrelated to this subject, you are one of the most aberrant individuals here in terms of worldview and politics. That is not to say you don't belong, because every time (except maybe this one, but again, not my fight) you've participated in a thread, you have been respectful and shown intellectual humility, and I appreciate seeing your point of view. However, people definitely see you as an outlier in a sea of individuals who are generally further left or progressive than you. I hope you continue hanging out here, but I feel like it'd be doing you a disservice to say you "fit in". Like you said, this is place for honest conversation, not a hug chamber for social democrats.
Thanks. I definitely dont shy away from controversial debate, in fact it's a good part of the reason I'm here. Don't really care to find a sea of people who think the same as me, the interwebs don't need another echo chamber - only that I get to share my views respectfully like everyone else without being chilled or cancelled. And to be honest, I've found far more respect for my generally conservative views here than I ever did after 10 years on 'that other site that shall not be named'. At least here people present cogent, intellectual arguments and not just quick regurgitated quips for the most karma.
Not counter-culture for its own sake, but I would say the vast majority of people here have found that our default culture is deeply wrong in many ways. I want to make it clear that if you're here to learn I'm more than happy to educate, just that this a website where cultural norms are expected to stand on their own merit.
Anyway, what I mean by that is that in a polyamorous relationship, insecurity will not work. Insecure attachment styles (anxious, avoidant, etc) do not hold up to polyamory. If you cannot have one strong, secure relationship where you feel loved and give love, there's no way you can have multiple. These are those dysfunctional relationships you talk about, I have no doubt that you've seen lots of people in polyamorous relationships that were deeply dysfunctional, just using polyamory as a way to avoid commitment and hide from the fear of loss. Cheating in monogamy is often coming from a similar place, where they are afraid of being left alone and must always have a backup.
When person A in a monogamous relationship is not securely attached to person B, while the relationship is still dysfunctional it is often dysfunctional silently, or relatively quietly. Take the classic archetype of a jealous wife that sabotages her lecherous husband's interactions with other women - this is an example that happens all the time in our society, and is the result of the wife not feeling secure in her relationship with her husband. In a polyamorous context this is a relationship that is bound to fail, loudly and spectacularly, as he will inevitably sleep around and she will not be able to cope. However this is a common trope because monogamous relationships like this can continue to exist, albeit dysfunctionally. She will remain jealous and he will continue to be blissfully unaware of what needs she's not having fulfilled. But because they are monogamous, the jealousy problem is avoided even if it's still lurking under the surface.
It's probably unfair to say that monogamy engenders it, because I know many monogamous people who are very good at communicating their needs. Maybe less 'monogamy engenders codependency' and more 'monogamy can hide insecure attachment caused by our societys tendency to push people into codependency.'
Hey so I've been polyamorous for my entire adult post-college life, over two decades now. And while I've found both positive and negative experiences there, I have no history of childhood sexual abuse, physical abuse, or other major trauma. I'm an adult seeking positive and healthy relationships and having what seems to be the average amount of success in finding them. The armchair diagnosis is unnecessary and shortsighted.
While most polyamorous and ethically non-monogamous people would exclude religious fundamentalism based, unequitable polygamy from their subset of relationship style or orientation. Even if we allow it, I'd say that using any one example of a reality TV show relationship as a gold standard is short-sighted. Otherwise monogamous relationships are all abusive garbage by those standards.
I also think that assuming monogamy is a natural default or a traditional "good" and not an external societal imposition ignores multiple cultures with different relationship norms, and ignores the massive influence of Abrahamic religions and Western culture through colonialism. Humanity may trend in particular ways and many, even most, people may be happier in a monogamous pairing, however most people in the US are serial monogamists rather than true monogamists (and even that dating behavior is a drastic change from pre-HIV behavior when you'd easily date several people, even concurrently, until you went steady/got pinned/etc. )
Something isn't worthy just because it's traditional, nor do things become tradition because they're inherently better than the other options. People have been non-monogamous, ethically or otherwise, for the entire length of time that monogamy has existed.
Edit: dropped a ")"
Yeah, that's neither polyamory nor ethical non-monogamy. That is religious, patriarchal oppression.
Pretty sure its a branch of the same tree of polyamory. There were very clear discussion about boundaries, time spent with each other, sexual relationship, how to handle conflicts, whats ok and not ok to share with each other, finances, scheduling, task distribution, and mutual support of everyone involved. There were rules, boundaries, open communication (in the beginning) You may call it patriarchal oppression but in the beginning the women involved most definitely did not see it that way. I believe two of the four wives actually came to the main character and asked him if they could join his relationships. They had agency. And still do, as they are now leaving. So whats missing that makes it significantly different from a polyamorous relationship?
Bingo. But even if it were, it's a reality show. I suspect there are some happy polygamist people out there. But not finding them on TLC isn't a surprise.
I’m polyamorous (currently in a mono relationship), and I utterly disagree with you. I’ve never been abused, also.
The unhealthiest relationships I know have all been monogamous; and poly ones are consistently some of the healthiest ones.
I would maybe advise not basing your opinion of a whole sexual culture on a tv show.
That's quite a roundabout way to ask "how do I get laid"
Not really. Getting laid is easy, open grindr or tinder or go to a bar and be sociable.
The hard part of nonmonogamy is doing so while also having strong secure attachments.
Let's be for real here. The hard part is the scheduling.
It's why I don't really bother with it too much. I do hierarchal poly (otherwise known as an 'open relationship') because it works for me, I need to know that I'm someone's #1 and vice versa, and at least that 1:1 relationship isn't too much of a scheduling nightmare.
I can't imagine having multiple very serious relationships. I just don't think I could do it. However it seems to work for some people with different priorities from me, so more power to them!
I've been successful in the short term, a few times it wasn't right for me, a few times distance was the killer, and a few times I bailed because the other person wasn't ready. I don't think I'd be as happy without emotional attachment.
I also have a "primary" partner because I'm also his caretaker and there's no way to fully pull that "priority" apart. (I also sort of hate the labels of polyamory/ENM because like, IDK why I have to have a kitchen table) but I think the values of non-hierarchal polyamory are where I fall.
The scheduling joke also applies to adults playing D&D which makes me laugh.
Sorry, it was meant as joke! The headline kinda sounded like a really peculiar phrasing of how to get laid.
Just a heads up that jokes as a top level comment are generally frowned upon here on Tildes, and typically get labeled as Noise (which your top comment was, BTW). The reason for that is because if jokes at the top level are not actively discouraged they tend to eventually drown out all the substantial discussion (as has happened on Reddit), since jokes take less effort to produce, and are faster to consume/vote on. Whereas more thoughtful and substantive comments often take far more time to write and for others to read and consider before being voted on.
Yeah, I actually agree here. Reddit feels way too supersticial with all the edgy-cool oneliners drowning out any deeper debate. So it's not like I thought that this fora were in need for more shallow content, and posted my comments with that goal in mind.
Still, when I saw the post title, my first througth was "Okay, this gotta be a joke post". So when I clicked in and saw that it wasn't and that every reply were just as serious in nature, it just felt ... I dunno, a little unatural I guess. So I decided that if no one else would make that very stupid joke, then by Golly, I would.