Polyamory or Monogamy?

[Gjallarhorn]

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

If I view black people as lazy smelly wife-stealers, does that make it not an insult?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

If I view black people as lazy smelly wife-stealers, does that make it not an insult?

It makes you a racist. And yes that would be an insult because it isn't true. Any person who devotes their life to a sensualist and hedonistic lifestyle is by definition decadent as per Webster's definition. So is Webster's insulting them?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

It makes you a racist. And yes that would be an insult because it isn't true. Any person who devotes their life to a sensualist and hedonistic lifestyle is by definition decadent as per Webster's definition. So is Webster's insulting them?

No, Webster's is not insulting. You are by your misattribution for the sake of demeaning others by spreading falsehoods.

Seriously, grow up.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

No, Webster's is not insulting. You are by your misattribution for the sake of demeaning others by spreading falsehoods.

Seriously, grow up.

And suggesting that because I am monogamous I am somehow less ethical and less able to communicate, that somehow I am a lesser being is not demeaning and insulting? In what world?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

And suggesting that because I am monogamous I am somehow less ethical and less able to communicate, that somehow I am a lesser being is not demeaning and insulting? In what world?

So, it's fine to fight bigotry with bigotry?

Somehow this makes your stances on feminism make even more sense.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So, it's fine to fight bigotry with bigotry?

Maybe I was mistaken and spoke out of anger. I am sorry.

 

[Alceste]

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.

I'm doing it to amuse myself, and hopefully others with similar comic sensibilities.

 

[kashmir]

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.

relationships are about needs and desires, I am not just talking about sex, your assuming I am.

I don't get it, polyamory is about extra people, that's it whole point.
Why are people trying to use double talk to get around that?

If one on one satisfied them, they wouldn't even be polyamorists.
The person in the other thread even admitted it, said that they could never be happy with just one partner.

 

[kashmir]

And suggesting that because I am monogamous I am somehow less ethical and less able to communicate, that somehow I am a lesser being is not demeaning and insulting? In what world?

That is exactly what they have to do to justify polyamory.
As for insulting behaviors, they are getting more and more insulting about it.

polyamory finds new people to fill in the gaps, that is its whole point.
Yes, there could be a case where everyone is happy, every ones emotions are filled.
If so, good for them.
I don't how they all can remain complete.

Forgive the crude example.
Joe is missing something that Mary cant give him, instead of growing with Mary, they both agree to find someone to add to the relationship.
This new person may or may not fill the needs of Mary, and may not have their needs filled as well, a new person is added.
This is a healthy relationship setting?

Its like saying "you don't understand me, I will find someone who does"
This is what they call communication that one on one is lacking?

If people continue to attack me rather than explain, then you will be ignored.
Saying that I am an idiot isn't helping you explain.

 

[Nymphs]

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.

*high five*

I love meeting other married poly women -- it's a breath of fresh air.

 

[Nymphs]

I have no respect for the decadent.

How is being polyamorous decadent? Do you think being gay is decadent?

 

[Nymphs]

It makes you a racist. And yes that would be an insult because it isn't true. Any person who devotes their life to a sensualist and hedonistic lifestyle is by definition decadent as per Webster's definition. So is Webster's insulting them?

Then you clearly don't understand polyamory. Would you like the definition again? I've provided it at least three times in this thread alone.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Then you clearly don't understand polyamory. Would you like the definition again? I've provided it at least three times in this thread alone.

I have an idea what polyamory is about. It is when you are in love with more than one person and sometimes that entails having a sexual relationship with more than one person. It is that simple.

Polyamory at least to me is not swinging, though I think many of you are confusing the two.

 

[kashmir]

I am having trouble understanding the claims that polyamory has better communication than one on one.

The way I see it, one on one must have better communication because they don't have to fill gaps with extra people, one on one communicates and fills those gaps themselves.

 

[HexBomb]

polyamory finds new people to fill in the gaps, that is its whole point.

No it isn't. It's saying I love YOU and I love YOU and my life wouldn't be complete without either of you. You're assuming it's all about addition and not starting out that way again.

I don't how they all can remain complete.

Just because you don't know doesn't mean it can't happen. It's like all those girls in high school who insist you can't have more than one best friend.

Why are people trying to use double talk to get around that?

We're not trying to get around it, we're trying to point out that it isn't 'extra.' It's not saying 'I don't love you anymore, so I'm going to bring January in and shag her.'

The person in the other thread even admitted it, said that they could never be happy with just one partner.

And just because one person is that way doesn't mean all poly people are that way. Many people have said they couldn't remain celibate and faithful to a dead spouse. That doesn't mean my father can't do it.

polyamory finds new people to fill in the gaps, that is its whole point.

No it isn't.

Joe is missing something that Mary cant give him, instead of growing with Mary, they both agree to find someone to add to the relationship.
This new person may or may not fill the needs of Mary, and may not have their needs filled as well, a new person is added.
This is a healthy relationship setting?

That's only one kind of polyamory. Let me give you another example.

Layla and Simon are friends, and they meet January and Eddie. Neither of them have been in a relationship with any of the others, but the four become inseparable, and start falling in love, confusing themselves because they feel exactly the same way about each of the others. Eventually the subject gets broached, and they decide that they are in love with each other. In order to keep the relationship working, they have to talk out all the problems that come with multiple partners, and figure out the ground rules, once they do, it's happily ever after, and everyone is happy, and could no more imagine life without any of the other three, than they could imagine taking a chainsaw to an extremity.

This is what they call communication that one on one is lacking?

No. "Here is how the relationship works: XYZ. We can each do ABC. No one can do DEF, GHI is expected of you, JKL is expected of me. Cheating is MNO."

The way I see it, one on one must have better communication because they don't have to fill gaps with extra people, one on one communicates and fills those gaps themselves.

Have you ever tried to sit down in a relationship and define what the base rules are for cheating, for jealousy, for who does what when, what happens to money, etc.? If you have, bully for you, you have great communication, as long as you revisit those and all the issues those things cause. Most people don't. Statistics show that most people feel the communication within their relationship is lacking. You can turn on the TV and watch TV for an hour and listen to two people in a relationship with five different definitions of cheating and all the reasons in the world to distrust each other. "Oh, she was talking to him on Facebook," "He has female friends." "She goes out with her girls and never tells me where they've gone." "He goes to the strip club." "She has X amount of money in her purse, I think she's a prostitute."

 

[kashmir]

The point is, I started in this thread explaining that more partners=more risks and that has merit, it has now turned into defense of polyamory where defense is not needed.

The risk is there and that is all I tried to say.

Now this has turned into their claims of having better communication.
No, they are just open to extra partners where a one on one is not open to, nor even want.

Being open to muti-partner relationships, has nothing to do with having better communication skills.
That is ridiculous.
As others have said, having multiple relationships is not super powers.

No where have I said that one on one is better than polyamory, nor have I attacked others personally.

Where is all this better communication skills if they have to attack me personally?
having trouble with that one.

 

[Alceste]

*high five*

I love meeting other married poly women -- it's a breath of fresh air.

It is! I'm really enjoying hearing all these other pro-poly perspectives and personal experiences. Go team!

 

[Alceste]

That is exactly what they have to do to justify polyamory.
As for insulting behaviors, they are getting more and more insulting about it.

polyamory finds new people to fill in the gaps, that is its whole point.
Yes, there could be a case where everyone is happy, every ones emotions are filled.
If so, good for them.
I don't how they all can remain complete.

Forgive the crude example.
Joe is missing something that Mary cant give him, instead of growing with Mary, they both agree to find someone to add to the relationship.
This new person may or may not fill the needs of Mary, and may not have their needs filled as well, a new person is added.
This is a healthy relationship setting?

Its like saying "you don't understand me, I will find someone who does"
This is what they call communication that one on one is lacking?

If people continue to attack me rather than explain, then you will be ignored.
Saying that I am an idiot isn't helping you explain.

You don't seem to have been reading any of the personal stories or the articles that have so far been provided, as you're still peddling total nonsense about how you imagine poly relationships to be.

I don't have the patience to keep engaging with you because you generally don't read or respond directly to other people's arguments. But I can recommend that you reread the thread, and this time spend a little extra time reading accounts from poly people about what being poly means to them and how it works.

 

[Alceste]

Here's a perk of being with a poly partner I didn't think of before...

A few years ago a friend who I dated decades ago invited me to make a film on the other side of the country. He'd drive me out, put me up in his flat the whole time, pay me something for my trouble, etc.

So I went, and my husband was happy for me to have such a fun project, a chance to go back to Montreal and see my old friends, etc. We missed each other, of course, but he had no issues whatsoever with me taking a road trip and living with an old flame for two months.

I feel really lucky to be with a person like that. Most of the other guys I've been with would have freaked right out about it, even though there's nothing sexual going on between me and my friend any more - that was years ago.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That is exactly what they have to do to justify polyamory.
As for insulting behaviors, they are getting more and more insulting about it.

polyamory finds new people to fill in the gaps, that is its whole point.
Yes, there could be a case where everyone is happy, every ones emotions are filled.
If so, good for them.
I don't how they all can remain complete.

Forgive the crude example.
Joe is missing something that Mary cant give him, instead of growing with Mary, they both agree to find someone to add to the relationship.
This new person may or may not fill the needs of Mary, and may not have their needs filled as well, a new person is added.
This is a healthy relationship setting?

Its like saying "you don't understand me, I will find someone who does"
This is what they call communication that one on one is lacking?

If people continue to attack me rather than explain, then you will be ignored.
Saying that I am an idiot isn't helping you explain.

1. There are many polyamorous people who are in happy, healthy relationships.

2. There are at least a few polyamorous women here who have repeatedly stated that they are happy in their relationships and that the stereotypes and generalizations about polyamory don't apply to them in any way, shape, or form.

3. Therefore, it seems rather obvious that these people know what is best for their own lives, and trying to call their personal decisions "decadent," "sensual," or any other loaded term reflects faults in the position against them that relies on stereotypes more than it reflects any faults in their decisions.

Short version: People are free to do what they are most comfortable with in their lives as long as it doesn't harm others. What is so abnormal or "decadent" about that?