Elliott Ford Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 unlike the polyamorous, for monogamous people a single partner can satisfy their desires and needs. A single partner could satisfy my needs and desires - but i'd feel really selfish and guilty for expecting / needing them to. I have A LOT of emotional needs and previous (monogamous) relationships have ended in me being dumped by partners who cannot cope with me. I'm hyper-emotional, I have mood swings etc - and they couldn't cope. My current primary possibly could - but i refuse to expect hir too. I think what other people might get out of having close friends as well as a relationship is what i get out of also having a girlfriend. Basically my girlfriend is a friend for whom i developed romantic feelings. On discovering that these feelings were mutual, i asked my partner's permission to have another relationship. Sie said i could, everyone's happy :) Link to post Share on other sites
Hallucigenia Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 I think even for monogamous people, depending on how broadly you define "desires and needs", one partner isn't expected to do it all. Obviously monogamous people aren't sleeping with other people or being all lovey-dovey with other people, but they still get emotional fulfillment out of friendships, career, spirituality if they're into that, hobbies, and so on... right? Link to post Share on other sites
happylife Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 unlike the polyamorous, for monogamous people a single partner can satisfy their desires and needs. A single partner could satisfy my needs and desires - but i'd feel really selfish and guilty for expecting / needing them to. I think there is nothing wrong with expecting people to satisfy your needs and desires. your needs may be too much for some people to cope with. but it's their problem. not yours. you are entitled to get your needs met. if they can't handle it and get all grumpy, they are not worth your love. I am one of those people who believe polyamory is inherent. I don't think it's simply a chosen lifestyle. we are just wired differently. so I believe that anybody who wants to be with you must understand it's not like you're looking for additional partners because the current one is not good enough. it's just that "the need which is completely satisfied when a monogamous person finds a lover is not satisfied when a polyamorous person finds a partner"* and it's absolutely not your partners' fault. just like asexuals are not sexually attracted to anyone no matter how sexy they are. and they should try to accept this big part of who you are if they want to stay with you. you should not let anyone confine you in a small cage with vain hopes of "taming" you. you can choose to have a monogamous relationship with a monogamous person at a given point in time. but that doesn't mean you are denying who you are and willing to let the monogamous person manipulate you. you are happy when you are in polyamorous relationships. nobody has the right to keep you from pursuing what makes you really happy. I am expecting the same from other people. I am hoping people will accept me for who I am and not accuse me of being selfish when I refuse to allow my husband to have sexual relationships with others until we agree to divorce, if I am not satisfying his sexual needs. because some people can but some people can't. I am just one of the latter group. *from the magazine Xero <http://www.xeromag.com/fvmonopoly.html> Link to post Share on other sites
happylife Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I think even for monogamous people, depending on how broadly you define "desires and needs", one partner isn't expected to do it all. Obviously monogamous people aren't sleeping with other people or being all lovey-dovey with other people, but they still get emotional fulfillment out of friendships, career, spirituality if they're into that, hobbies, and so on... right? yes, right. ^_^ Link to post Share on other sites
AVENCakes Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 I am one of those people who believe polyamory is inherent. I don't think it's simply a chosen lifestyle. we are just wired differently. I agree. My partner is monogamous, and couldn't even handle me being in a poly relationship. I... don't really understand monogamy any better than I do sexuality. It's quite possible my partner's known about polyamory longer than I have and doesn't see anything wrong with it, and I was just as bombarded by the idea that there's the One, and everyone has A soulmate, etc as anyone else- there's no reason for either of us to be like this other than that it's just how we are. Like so many things- there are different degrees of polyamory/monogamy, some poly people can't be happy iwth only one person, others can be happy either way. Some monogamous people can't be happy with their partner dating anyone else, others are perfectly happy like that so long as their partner is responsible adn the relationship is healthy. Link to post Share on other sites
happylife Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 I was just as bombarded by the idea that there's the One, and everyone has A soulmate, etc as anyone else- there's no reason for either of us to be like this other than that it's just how we are. as for me, it's not really some kind of belief that there has to be only one person for me, it's more like when one person comes into my heart it gets completely filled up so no one else can come in once it's already occupied and starts to feel warm when thinking about growing old together. Like so many things- there are different degrees of polyamory/monogamy, some poly people can't be happy iwth only one person, others can be happy either way. Some monogamous people can't be happy with their partner dating anyone else, others are perfectly happy like that so long as their partner is responsible adn the relationship is healthy. the point I wanted to make is no one should be judged based on their polyamory or monogamy. I believe the degree of polyamory/monogamy is also biologically determined so the only and best thing you can do is to respect one's decision because some people can be happy with their partner dating someone else or asking them not to date anyone else, but others can't. I think, in this case, it's not to be connected with the intensity of love, the degree of patience and devotion, the level of open-mindedness, etc. it all comes down to acceptance again.. I guess. Link to post Share on other sites
strawberry:3 Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 i know that when i was dating i was praying to god to make him either cheat on me so i would have 'a better excuse' to break up, or so he could harrass her with all the sexual stuff so i could reconnect with the emotional relationship we had Link to post Share on other sites
ColBrandon Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 no relationship is ever totally rationally and reasonable and based on open communication and respect. QFT! Link to post Share on other sites
kitchenwitch Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 I'm in an open relationship (I could very well identify as poly, but she doesn't). She's sexual, and every once in a while, she likes to have sex. Doesn't bother me. Every once in a while, I like to go hiking all day. She hates hiking. I hate sex. I could go either way, though -- poly or monogamous. Link to post Share on other sites
happylife Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 no relationship is ever totally rationally and reasonable and based on open communication and respect. QFT! I can understand what the quote means. too well actually. it becomes more evident when a monogamous relationship has one sexually unfulfilled individual in it. personally, I would rather my husband had sex with others without telling me anything about it. officially I couldn't ever give consent though as a wife I'd feel guilty and responsible so.. I would probably pretend I haven't noticed he's been having sex with someone else or just try to get used to the awkwardness in my marriage life the sex outside the relationship brings.. also I suppose the monogamous husband wouldn't feel quite comfortable having an open conversation with me about his sex life with the other woman especially if he still loves me, I know this may be very very hard for asexual polyamorous people to understand. this is one of the striking differences between monogamous relationships and polyamorous ones: the latter is solidly based on integrity, compassion, and respect and includes endless process of negotiations, whereas the former often lacks all of them when sex outside the relationship happens. in this sense, I think the statement "no relationship is ever totally rationally and reasonable and based on open communication and respect." is poignantly true, if it was made by a monogamous person. Link to post Share on other sites
ColBrandon Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 I know this may be very very hard for asexual polyamorous people to understand. this is one of the striking differences between monogamous relationships and polyamorous ones: the latter is solidly based on integrity, compassion, and respect and includes endless process of negotiations, whereas the former often lacks all of them when sex outside the relationship happens. in this sense, I think the statement "no relationship is ever totally rationally and reasonable and based on open communication and respect." is poignantly true, if it was made by a monogamous person. Oh for heaven's sake. Polyamory is awesome! Monogamy sucks! There are good monogamous relationships that are "solidly based on integrity, compassion, and respect and include endless process of negotiations", and I'm sure that there are many lousy, unhappy polyamorous relationships: ALL people are flawed. Link to post Share on other sites
happylife Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 I know this may be very very hard for asexual polyamorous people to understand. this is one of the striking differences between monogamous relationships and polyamorous ones: the latter is solidly based on integrity, compassion, and respect and includes endless process of negotiations, whereas the former often lacks all of them when sex outside the relationship happens. in this sense, I think the statement "no relationship is ever totally rationally and reasonable and based on open communication and respect." is poignantly true, if it was made by a monogamous person. Oh for heaven's sake. Polyamory is awesome! Monogamy sucks! There are good monogamous relationships that are "solidly based on integrity, compassion, and respect and include endless process of negotiations", and I'm sure that there are many lousy, unhappy polyamorous relationships: guess I've made the mistake of overgeneralizing things. actually, I was going to add "in the context of sex outside the relationship" to the end of the last sentence in my last post. but too late to edit it.. could that make my post come across as less overly generalized and insensitive? still, yeah, overgeneralized.. some people may be able to make their relationships work by actively communicating with their partners, though it wasn't so easy for them to do. ALL people are flawed. yes, we are. all flawed. so we produce flawed products too often. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 There are good monogamous relationships that are "solidly based on integrity, compassion, and respect and include endless process of negotiations", and I'm sure that there are many lousy, unhappy polyamorous relationships: ALL people are flawed. Indeed. Sometimes when I read remarks by people talking about polyamory, it sounds like they're trying to sell something, or pushing a religion of some sort. I don't mean it can't work, because obviously many people enjoy successfull relationships of that sort. But it's not a panacea for anything that's wrong with a relationship, and it certainly isn't a panacea for problems between a sexual and an asexual. The comment, "You should try polyamory!" is beginning to have the same ring as the famous statements, "You should try sex with a woman/a man! (choose one)" or "You just haven't met the right person!" or "You're just a late bloomer!" Link to post Share on other sites
Elliott Ford Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 There are good monogamous relationships that are "solidly based on integrity, compassion, and respect and include endless process of negotiations", and I'm sure that there are many lousy, unhappy polyamorous relationships: ALL people are flawed. Indeed. Sometimes when I read remarks by people talking about polyamory, it sounds like they're trying to sell something, or pushing a religion of some sort. I don't mean it can't work, because obviously many people enjoy successfull relationships of that sort. But it's not a panacea for anything that's wrong with a relationship, and it certainly isn't a panacea for problems between a sexual and an asexual. The comment, "You should try polyamory!" is beginning to have the same ring as the famous statements, "You should try sex with a woman/a man! (choose one)" or "You just haven't met the right person!" or "You're just a late bloomer!" Polyamory, as a lifestyle, isn't for everyone. Some people are built to be poly, others to be mono, some can do either. ANY relationship is affected by the people (and personalities) involved. I really don't like it when people suggest that introducing a third person into an otherwise mono relationship will solve all the couple's problems - that just isn't fair to anyone involved. Other people i know who identify as polyamorous are jealous of what i have - two loving partners who don't feel jealous of eachother. They always seem to try being mono for too long before they admit to being poly, either ruining the relationship they've built up or allowing themselves to feel that they have to stay monogamous for the sake of the person they love. I believe that i managed to get into the situation i'm in because i was totally honest with everyone involved that i am poly. I've had more relationships since meeting my primary than i ever had before hir. And i'm very grateful to hir for that :) Link to post Share on other sites
ColBrandon Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 The comment, "You should try polyamory!" is beginning to have the same ring as the famous statements, "You should try sex with a woman/a man! (choose one)" or "You just haven't met the right person!" or "You're just a late bloomer!" Yes. If the "poly orientation" were common we would see a lot less of the carnage wrought by sexual jealousy in literature, the divorce courts and the evening news. From my own situation, I can well understand the appeal of a polyamorous solution to a failing a/s relationship, but the great majority of us have the burden of jealousy and the "uniamorous orientation" to carry. I feel like I've wound up on one end of an accidental "vee" relationship and guess what? It ain't working for any of us. Link to post Share on other sites
Angel_eyes Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 yea i cant imagine being poly..... it sounds good in theory but i would just beso jealous i love being the center of my bfs world :D Link to post Share on other sites
Olivier Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 The comment, "You should try polyamory!" is beginning to have the same ring as the famous statements, "You should try sex with a woman/a man! (choose one)" or "You just haven't met the right person!" or "You're just a late bloomer!" Yes. If the "poly orientation" were common we would see a lot less of the carnage wrought by sexual jealousy in literature, the divorce courts and the evening news. From my own situation, I can well understand the appeal of a polyamorous solution to a failing a/s relationship, but the great majority of us have the burden of jealousy and the "uniamorous orientation" to carry. I feel like I've wound up on one end of an accidental "vee" relationship and guess what? It ain't working for any of us. Off topic, ColBrandon's formation of the word "uniamorous" made me realise that "polyamorous" is one of those strange words where someone has tacked a Greek prefix onto a Latin base. It should really be either "multiamorous", or "polyphilic". Still it's not the only one: "quadriplegic" should be "tetraplegic" by the same logic, but English doesn't do logic. Also, I wonder how much of the "mono/uni-amorous/philic orientation" is a (worthy, valid, almost inescapable) societal construct, born of the necessities of funding childrearing. Libertine behaviour has, in literature and real life, for the longest time been associated with the sort of wealth that renders those necessities irrelevant - from Roman orgies, to Arabian harem courts, to the sexual foibles of the British aristocracy, to modern American playboyism. (And I'm not equating poly lifestyles with decadence, just speculating on why there may be a societal pushback against it). Link to post Share on other sites
ColBrandon Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Also, I wonder how much of the "mono/uni-amorous/philic orientation" is a (worthy, valid, almost inescapable) societal construct, born of the necessities of funding childrearing. I suspect that the "mono/uni-amorous/philic orientation" is a biological construct, born of the necessities of funding childrearing in a hunter-gatherer's world of scarce food supply. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Also, I wonder how much of the "mono/uni-amorous/philic orientation" is a (worthy, valid, almost inescapable) societal construct, born of the necessities of funding childrearing. Libertine behaviour has, in literature and real life, for the longest time been associated with the sort of wealth that renders those necessities irrelevant - from Roman orgies, to Arabian harem courts, to the sexual foibles of the British aristocracy, to modern American playboyism. (And I'm not equating poly lifestyles with decadence, just speculating on why there may be a societal pushback against it). Your use of "playboyism" was telling (although probably not deliberate). Liberatine behavior has been indulged in by men, almost never by women, and that hasn't anything to do with the pressures of motherhood. Wealthy aristocratic women almost never raised their children themselves or cooked meals, etc. However, that freedom from home and hearth didn't mean they had sexual freedom, as their men did. Freedom, not foibles. Link to post Share on other sites
Olivier Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Your use of "playboyism" was telling (although probably not deliberate). Quite deliberate. Like you, I'm under no illusions that the phenomenon of playboyism was steeped in gender equality. Libertine behavior has been indulged in by men, almost never by women, and that hasn't anything to do with the pressures of motherhood. Wealthy aristocratic women almost never raised their children themselves or cooked meals, etc. However, that freedom from home and hearth didn't mean they had sexual freedom, as their men did. Freedom, not foibles. Indeed. So I wonder if advances over the last half-century in women's economic and sexual autonomy will lead to a greater societal acceptance of polyamory. If all concerned have the choice and ability to stay financially independent, then that brings an added layer of flexibility and freedom over a situation where women were forced into dependency. The male control dynamic that that enabled may well be one of the chief reasons people find poly arrangements unpalatable. Also, I wonder how much of the "mono/uni-amorous/philic orientation" is a (worthy, valid, almost inescapable) societal construct, born of the necessities of funding childrearing. I suspect that the "mono/uni-amorous/philic orientation" is a biological construct, born of the necessities of funding childrearing in a hunter-gatherer's world of scarce food supply. I agree, but I'm just wondering to what extent that could be eroded in societies that are only distantly acquainted with scarcity, as it has been in just about every obscenely wealthy subculture in history. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 I doubt if greater freedom will lead to greater or more frequent expression of polyamory. What we (Olivier and I) were talking about were men being able to have outside relationships but women were not. We weren't talking about a pair and a third person, or three single people, having a polyamorous relationship. That latter is entirely up to people's desires (literally, I guess), not the approval of society. Although it's hard to conduct without the at least tacit approval of society, approval doesn't mean that more people will wish to engage in it. People's emotions will still be the same; jealousy and lack of self-confidence and desire for possession and control over another person will still hold sway. In sum, I think the desire for and the ability to conduct a polyamorous relationship wherein all three people agree to it and are friendly at least depends upon personality, not freedom. The ability to conduct outside relationships, and thus at least one partner will have two separate parternships, is more related to freedom. It's likely that many of the women in the 18th century would have liked to have tried outside relationships if they could, but it's not necessarily as likely--or even likely--that they would have liked to be good friends/partners with their husbands' mistresses. Nor would the husbands wish to share their wives with friends, probably. Link to post Share on other sites
happylife Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 I wonder how much of the "mono/uni-amorous/philic orientation" is a (worthy, valid, almost inescapable) societal construct, born of the necessities of funding childrearing. the institution of monogamous heterosexual marriage is certainly a social construct. although societal pressures can silence dissenting minorites, I doubt they can have control over one's romantic desires. Libertine behaviour has, in literature and real life, for the longest time been associated with the sort of wealth that renders those necessities irrelevant - from Roman orgies, to Arabian harem courts, to the sexual foibles of the British aristocracy, to modern American playboyism. (And I'm not equating poly lifestyles with decadence, just speculating on why there may be a societal pushback against it). there have always been men who needed more sex than other fellow males throughout history. if you only want sex, you may be able to get it anywhere anytime without having to form romantic partnerships with the women you have sex with. on the other hand, as I understand it, ideally and if practiced properly, polyamory involves loving, committed, romantic relationships (with multiple people that are conducted concurrently). though money could get you as many women as you need and as much sex as you want, you wouldn't be guaranteed to be able to buy human emotions and true love with it. Link to post Share on other sites
Dolorous Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 My asexual girlfriend once suggested it, thinking I'd jump at the chance. I think she'd be silently hurt and our relationship would suffer if I were to seek out sex with someone else. Also I'd feel horribly guilty and likely wouldn't allow myself to enjoy the experience. But I did think about taking her up on that offer once when I was sexually attracted to a male acquaintance. I changed my mind, deciding that a meaningful relationship with her is much more valuable than the easy gratification of sex with anyone else. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.