I dont understand why manogomy is so common?

[Hobbes∞]

Lol. Poly folk are more mature?? That's hilarious. I've not seen that to be true and I've known a lot of poly folk in my life.

ExactIy :lol:

And a fair amount of emotionaI maturity (no matter how much of a siIIy dork one is) is necessary to maintain *any* heaIthy reIationship, regardIess of whether one is innateIy poIy or innateIy mono (*waves team mono fIag ehe, aII happy and fuII of butterfIies because I am about to oficiaIIy become someone's girIfriend in 1 minute* - yes we are counting down :P)

What an unbearably long minute

*Pukes a little* Im so happy for you :P

*scratches first of many tallies in Puke Notebook* hmhm, thanks ^_^

[Tarfeather]

2. Yes, you did. Right here:

I think most people aren't emotionally mature enough to be able to deal with poly. That's just the way of things. You severely restrict your "dating pool". But personally, I don't consider it much of a restriction, because I'd not be willing to enter a relationship with someone who lacks that level of maturity to begin with. Among those people I'm interested in, it's much more likely that they're okay with poly, and actually among the people I've been in a relationship with, 100% of them were fine with poly (granted, that's like a 3 out of 3, but still..)

*sigh* Humans.. No, Skullery, when I say that most people lack the maturity to be able to deal with poly, I do not imply that all people who live poly are automatically more mature than everyone else. That is your interpretation of it, not the actual content of my statement, nor would I say such a thing.

3. You've never had a poly relationship so you should probably stop acting like you have. Calling yourself poly and practicing polyamory are two very very different things. I can call myself an astronaut if I want, but it doesn't mean I can speak from astronautical experience. You like to proclaim yourself any number of things in order to act like you have some sort of inarguable evidence of your nonsense. But again, proclaiming you're xyx and actually living it... two very different things. Pretty much guaranteed I've seen real life poly relationships in far greater detail and depth than you, despite your bullshit claim that you've had three poly relationships.

If you say so..

[Sally]

Even with currently having only one partner, me and my partner are still poly. The point is, if either of us were to have another partner, it would not change our relationship.

How do you know that?

[Tarfeather]

Even with currently having only one partner, me and my partner are still poly. The point is, if either of us were to have another partner, it would not change our relationship.

How do you know that?

Hm, technically I do not know. The correct way to phrase that statement would be to say: I'm doing my best to make sure the romantic interests I have don't interfere with each other. Whether I will always be successful in this, I can not know.

[Nidwin]

@Fairystuff

Ive read several times that apprently manogomy is not natural to humans so im very confused as to why the majority choose to live this way?

This means that we can already debunk that stuff you've read several times as this thread shows us that homo sapiens sapiens are diverse enough to have actually a spectrum from monogamy folks to polygamy folks. In this case the "is not natural to humans" was used (not by you Fairystuff but by others) with a very specific agenda to presumely invalidate monogamy amongst homo sapiens sapiens.

I can't see polygamy work for me for a couple of reasons.

What amount of time and when to spent with a second or a third partner without feeling guilty not spending that time with partner number one.

Intimacy issues. Being in a relation also means sharing very intimate stuff (good bad and horrible past and present experiences) and keep it between my partner and myself.

Same as for Serran I've never be interrested in anyone else when in a relation or interrested in one specific girl/woman. For me it always was "it's her and that's it".

[Tarfeather]

Please stop using the word "polygamy" as if it were interchangable with "polyamory". That word has a very certain meaning, and is actually somewhat incompatible with the ideals of the polyamory subculture I've interacted with. You should understand the distinction if you want to contribute to this discussion in a meaningful way.

In this case the "is not natural to humans" was used (not by you Fairystuff but by others) with a very specific agenda to presumely invalidate monogamy amongst homo sapiens sapiens.

Unsure what you mean by "in this case". I might have missed a post, but I can't remember anyone arguing in this thread that monogamy is not "natural", other than OP.

[Nidwin]

I may be wrong (English not my mother tongue) but this thread (OP) is about monogamy vs polygamy questioned by Fairystuff because Fairy thought because having read it somewhere (else?) "that apprently manogomy is not natural to humans". I don't mix anything up and I didn't use anything as if it were interchangable as I didn't wrote anything about polyamory in the first place. I do very well understand the difference, if needed but, I repeat again, OP didn't ask about polyamory but about monogamy vs polygamy.

I've quoted with @Op and answered to Fairy's question just beneath it for the "in this case".

[Tarfeather]

It's rather problematic that monogamy refers to both a cultural phenomenon, as well as an individual lifestyle. I feel we could have a clearer discussion if we were to distinguish between the two, as they are rather different concepts.

[Guest]

Even with currently having only one partner, me and my partner are still poly. The point is, if either of us were to have another partner, it would not change our relationship.

How do you know that?

Because Tarfeather lives in a world above us, where he knows everything, predicts all with 100% accuracy, and most DEFINITELY never falls prey to bias, social pressure, or psychological traits the rest of us mere humans do.

[Sally]

Even with currently having only one partner, me and my partner are still poly. The point is, if either of us were to have another partner, it would not change our relationship.

How do you know that?

Because Tarfeather lives in a world above us, where he knows everything, predicts all with 100% accuracy, and most DEFINITELY never falls prey to bias, social pressure, or psychological traits the rest of us mere humans do.

Ah. Tar's as good a god as any, I guess.. :lol:

[Guest]

Even with currently having only one partner, me and my partner are still poly. The point is, if either of us were to have another partner, it would not change our relationship.

How do you know that?

Because Tarfeather lives in a world above us, where he knows everything, predicts all with 100% accuracy, and most DEFINITELY never falls prey to bias, social pressure, or psychological traits the rest of us mere humans do.

Ah. Tar's as good a god as any, I guess.. :lol:

Meh. None of you subjectivity-bound meatbags is good enough for that job. Not even Tar (I do think there are tons and tons of choices for that position who would be way, way worse than him... but yeah, of course he'd still f*** it up. :p ).

[OutsideObserver]

Even with currently having only one partner, me and my partner are still poly. The point is, if either of us were to have another partner, it would not change our relationship.

How do you know that?

Because Tarfeather lives in a world above us, where he knows everything, predicts all with 100% accuracy, and most DEFINITELY never falls prey to bias, social pressure, or psychological traits the rest of us mere humans do.

Ah. Tar's as good a god as any, I guess.. :lol:

Meh. None of you subjectivity-bound meatbags is good enough for that job. Not even Tar (I do think there are tons and tons of choices for that position who would be way, way worse than him... but yeah, of course he'd still f*** it up. :P ).

I vote we bring back Aten. Curse you, Horemheb!

[Fairystuff]

Please stop using the word "polygamy" as if it were interchangable with "polyamory". That word has a very certain meaning, and is actually somewhat incompatible with the ideals of the polyamory subculture I've interacted with. You should understand the distinction if you want to contribute to this discussion in a meaningful way.

In this case the "is not natural to humans" was used (not by you Fairystuff but by others) with a very specific agenda to presumely invalidate monogamy amongst homo sapiens sapiens.

Unsure what you mean by "in this case". I might have missed a post, but I can't remember anyone arguing in this thread that monogamy is not "natural", other than OP.

I actually never argued that monogamy isnt natural, I asked why people say it isnt, i have read it in several places and heard it from several people and yet monogamy is lets say very common.

[RK800]

Some folks are monogamous, some aren't. Just the way it is. Personally I wish polyamory was more accepted than it is (I think the increasing number of folks saying they're in an "open relationship" and it being accepted is a step in the right direction).