Polyamory or Monogamy?

[CynthiaCypher]

It is not more valid, it is just as valid.

You're obsessed with this idea of extra. but okay, let's go with it.

Fifteen people fall in love with each other and trust each other. (Let's just ignore how big that number is and how unlikely that is) Fifteen people then make vows to each other. They share their lives, they build up solid relationships, they prove their loyalty, they talk through issues.

How is that any less trustworthy, just because of the numbers involved?

And I never intended to suggest it was better, they should be treated the same.

Let us say that there is a 1 in 3 chance in any given relationship (monogamous or polyamorous) that infidelity will occur. Does not the risk of infidelity increase when you add additional partners to any relationship?

 

[Alceste]

I am not the one expounded "magic" here.

Actually, you are. Nobody has suggested there is any magic involved in establishing and communicating non-traditional relationship boundaries but you.

Which says a lot about you, and nothing about polyamorous people.

 

[Nymphs]

Let us say that there is a 1 in 3 chance in any given relationship (monogamous or polyamorous) that infidelity will occur. Does not the risk of infidelity increase when you add additional partners to any relationship?

No, not at all. Why do you think it would?

 

[Alceste]

What part of Polyamory that demands extra partners the a one on one does not demand are people missing here?

Polyamory doesn't demand extra partners.

 

[kashmir]

It is not more valid, it is just as valid.

You're obsessed with this idea of extra. but okay, let's go with it.

Fifteen people fall in love with each other and trust each other. (Let's just ignore how big that number is and how unlikely that is) Fifteen people then make vows to each other. They share their lives, they build up solid relationships, they prove their loyalty, they talk through issues.

How is that any less trustworthy, just because of the numbers involved?

And I never intended to suggest it was better, they should be treated the same.

If you cant fill the desires of one person, how can you fill the desires of 15?
Someone will always need someone else.

One on one works that out and does not bring in new people, with new needs to fill in all the desires of the rest.
They listen and grow together.
That is what responsibility means.

Polyamory is flawed and circular and thank you for the thread.
Plus it falls back on the fact Polyamory admits, they cant even make it work with one on one.
Its a snowball to hell that will never end.

gotta run.

stress, if one cant fill the desires and needs of one person or get that from one, you wont get full needs and desires from 15.
15 persons have now added even more desires and needs.

night all, we are all friends here, I hope.

night

 

[HexBomb]

Let us say that there is a 1 in 3 chance in any given relationship (monogamous or polyamorous) that infidelity will occur. Does not the risk of infidelity increase when you add additional partners to any relationship?

Not if it is in 1 in 3 relationships as opposed to one-in-three people cheating, sure. But that completely deletes the human element, and what makes various relationships work, and various people cheat.

By that logic, since high earners are statistically more likely to cheat, no one should date someone who makes above a certain income. That number, however, often obscures personality traits and habits of high earners that make cheating more likely. At the same time, men who make less than their spouses are five times more likely to cheat. Statistically, marriages are most faithful is men make 25% more than their partners. So should everyone marry according to income bracket, as opposed to emotion if they want fidelity?

 

[Nymphs]

Polyamory doesn't demand extra partners.

No it does not. If there is another partner, the more the merrier is what I say.

 

[Nymphs]

If you cant fill the desires of one person, how can you fill the desires of 15?
Someone will always need someone else.

That's kind of the point.

No one can fill every single need for another person, it is just not going to be possible. Compromise is always going to happen. As my husband said it best:

We don't try to be everything for each other anymore, we just try to be everything we are for each other.

Polyamory is flawed and circular and thank you for the thread.

You haven't been able that prove that, yet again.

Polyamory admits, they cant even make it work with one on one.

No one has said that. Please STOP making up ideas that aren't even true. Polyamory can work with one on one or more than one.

f one cant fill the desires and needs of one person or get that from one, you wont get full needs and desires from 15.
15 persons have now added even more desires and needs.

Wrong again.

 

[HexBomb]

If you cant fill the desires of one person, how can you fill the desires of 15?
Someone will always need someone else.

One on one works that out and does not bring in new people, with new needs to fill in all the desires of the rest.
They listen and grow together.
That is what responsibility means.

Polyamory is flawed and circular and thank you for the thread.
Plus it falls back on the fact Polyamory admits, they cant even make it work with one on one.
Its a snowball to hell that will never end.

gotta run.

stress, if one cant fill the desires and needs of one person or get that from one, you wont get full needs and desires from 15.
15 persons have now added even more desires and needs.

night all, we are all friends here, I hope.

night

You're assuming that polyamory is all about needs and desires again. Stop doing that. Relationships are not all about sex. You're also assuming that polyamory starts as one on one and needs to bring in more people. That is not always the case. Relationships can start as four or three, and stay that way, where everyone is happy and fulfilled, and can't imagine bringing on a new partner any more than they can imagine growing another arm.

You're making a judgement call that isn't fair.

Goodnight, though.

 

[Alceste]

I'd say that it's the expectation that people must define fidelity by very narrow parameters. Monogamous couples don't even have a unified definition of what fidelity means....no friends of the opposite sex? No hugging? No flirting? No emails? No lunch dates? No porn? No strip clubs or Chippendales? Every couple does best when they communicate well and respect boundaries - which typically evolve into other variations as time goes on.

I don't approach my marriage that I demand extra partners. As someone who identifies as a bisexual woman, I am attracted to who I am attracted to. It took a while to identify that as a healthy attribute of my psyche rather than being ashamed of it.

Likewise, when my husband and I began discussing polyamory in the beginning, we discovered we found ourselves attracted to other people but were too gun-shy to bring it up in the fear of damaging our marriage. Not to mention fear of jealousy, fear of rejection, and the fear of abandonment.

It was a conscious decision on our part to face those fears together, rather than trying everything we could to avoid it.

It works for us. Our conversations don't expect everyone to be like us, but we feel closer when we truly feel like two independent people who share their entire lives together. It helps us to feel interdependent, more than anything. Not two halves making a whole, but two whole people together creating something bigger.

But mono folks? It's what works for you, and that's awesome-sauce.

I have had a similar evolution with my husband. He's naturally inclined to be poly already, whereas I was more of a serial monogamist who ended all my previous relationships, mainly because they felt too confining. Trying to live up to other people's expectations really weighed me down, especially when they're not well communicated. And I found that most of those guys (and myself) didn't know HOW to communicate about such things - the whole exercise was full of tripwires and emotional hot buttons.

Anyway, over the years, I've more or less come around to his way of thinking. I don't want to confine him, and I don't want to be confined. I don't worry about losing him, or lying / cheating / deception, because we've gotten really good at talking about our boundaries.

We started out monogamous, then we shifted our boundaries to a bit of romance, dating, kissing, etc. with people we really wanted to do those things with, internet flings, etc. Now I'm at a stage where I could probably accept practically anything as long as it's ethical, responsible, and happens with the consent of all involved, etc.

And all this has occurred without either of us ever having had the opportunity to actually DO any of the things we would permit with anyone else. We've only been with each other for years, with the exception of a few internet flings, a cuddle with a friend and a couple of memorable kisses.

But the practice of regularly revisiting our boundaries to find out where they sit at any given time has changed how we feel about each other and our relationship - for the better.

Also, he's still around because his expectations and desires are reasonable, flexible and well communicated, not unspoken, fixed and oppressive.

 

[Alceste]

Let us say that there is a 1 in 3 chance in any given relationship (monogamous or polyamorous) that infidelity will occur. Does not the risk of infidelity increase when you add additional partners to any relationship?

I don't agree that the risks are the same. The very definition of "poly" is that the relationships are ethical, responsible, and occur with the consent of everyone involved.

Plus who's gonna "cheat" who isn't trying (and failing) to cope with expectations they find too confining? If your partner is poly, you don't sneak out and cheat, you say "Darling, would it be alright with you if I slept with ____?"

 

[dust1n]

Which one is more natural? And why?

Seeing how "nature" constitutes to whole of the universe, whatever happens in the universe is obviously natural, because unnatural things could not happen in nature.

 

[Vinayaka]

Which one is more natural? And why?

I don't think there is a standard answer, just as there is no standard answer on sexual orientation. To a gay person, that's natural. To a hetero, that's natural.

So 'nature' varies from person to person, on this, and many other things. I voted what is natural to me, which is monogamy. But that doesn't mean for a minute that the other choices aren't natural for others. I probably should have put 'neither'.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I don't agree that the risks are the same. The very definition of "poly" is that the relationships are ethical, responsible, and occur with the consent of everyone involved.

Plus who's gonna "cheat" who isn't trying (and failing) to cope with expectations they find too confining? If your partner is poly, you don't sneak out and cheat, you say "Darling, would it be alright with you if I slept with ____?"

There you go with the magical thinking again. Somehow polys are more ethical and responsible than us mere mortal. So how can I buy a ticket to Planet Disney? And how is the oxygen up there?

 

[Alceste]

There you go with the magical thinking again. Somehow polys are more ethical and responsible than us mere mortal. So how can I buy a ticket to Planet Disney? And how is the oxygen up there?

As I say, good communication only looks like magic to those who don't know how to do it.

I'd say you and kashmir are providing a hilarious and rather ironic example of the communication skills of the average monogamy devotee, especially when juxtaposed against the posts of all us happily married poly women.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

As I say, good communication only looks like magic to those who don't know how to do it.

I'd say you and kashmir are providing a hilarious and rather ironic example of the communication skills of the average monogamy devotee, especially when juxtaposed against the posts of all us happily married poly women.

Sorry for being mortal.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sorry for being mortal.

It's not about that. It's about being understanding. I'm not poly, but I understand it and respect those who are! I don't spread falsehoods and misconceptions about it!

 

[CynthiaCypher]

It's not about that. It's about being understanding. I'm not poly, but I understand it and respect those who are! I don't spread falsehoods and misconceptions about it!

I have no respect for the decadent.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I have no respect for the decadent.

Yeah, go ahead with your meaningless insults for things you don't understand at all. I have no idea why anyone even bothers replying to you.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Yeah, go ahead with your meaningless insults for things you don't understand at all. I have no idea why anyone even bothers replying to you.

It's not an insult. It's how I view people who engage in that behavior. They are sensualist.