The Polyamorous (Many Loves) Lifestyle

[BigShoeStu]

I was reading the comments in the thread titled The Swinging Lifestyle and was going to comment on Polyamory there, but I feel being Poly is different from being a Swinger. I am curious to know if anybody that reads this is, or has practiced, Polyamory?

Polyamory, literally meaning "many loves". Different from swinging because it is about building a loving and sexual relationship with more than just one partner with "love" taking precidence over sex. People that practice Polyamory must have an amazing resistance to jealousy. I read a book on this called, Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits. It described being poly as different from Swinging because it is primarily based on LOVE, not sex. The book describes the different levels and ways of being Poly. From the groups of three or more loving partners all together loving one as deeply as the other to a couple that loves each other deeply yet had a loving and sexual relationship apart from each other. Completely honest and open about it too. No cheating, no lies, which is obviously the only way something like this could work.

I personally have not practiced polyamory, but I must admit I did find it very appealing. What appealed to me most is the thought of having one person you love that shares some of the same interests that you do, then having the freedom to find another person, or persons, to love that share the same interests as you do which are different from your other partner. I don't know. It sounds pretty unrealistic to live happily ever after with this kind of lifestyle, but hey, apparently it's happening and working for some people.

Has anyone here tried this? Does anybody know people that have tried this? I would like to hear opinions regarding this subject.

Regardless, the book makes for one interesting read.

[Chanileslie]

I had a very dear friend who very much wanted me and my children to join him and his wife and children in their lives. And although I cared deeply for this friend, I was not prepared to make that step. Mainly because no matter how much I cared for my friend and his wife, I think for me there would be a bit of jealousy. Now, if I could have gone into the relatioinship with another man so that there were an equal number of males to females, I don't think the jealousy would have been as great. Quite frankly, I can't think of a better way to have a family other than a large loving commune with many people supporting each other and their children. I think it would be an ideal situation.

Of course with polyamory (as with any relationship) one must consider one's partners' feelings on the subject, and if all partners are not comfortable with the idea then it should not be pursued otherwise it would be disasterous, I think.

[Ladyhawk]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BigShoeStu

Polyamory, literally meaning "many loves". Different from swinging because it is about building a loving and sexual relationship with more than just one partner with "love" taking precidence over sex.

IMO, if love truly took precedence over sex, one would not need multiple partners. Wouldn't "deeply loving" one person and being "deeply loved" in return, be sufficient? If not, then which love is it that takes precedence? The love with Partner # 1, Partner # 2 or what's behind Door # 3?

The book describes the different levels and ways of being Poly. From the groups of three or more loving partners all together loving one as deeply as the other to a couple that loves each other deeply yet had a loving and sexual relationship apart from each other. Completely honest and open about it too. No cheating, no lies, which is obviously the only way something like this could work.

Question: Does this book condone/encourage marriage or is this proposed as primarily communal in structure?

What appealed to me most is the thought of having one person you love that shares some of the same interests that you do, then having the freedom to find another person, or persons, to love that share the same interests as you do which are different from your other partner.

Different from your other partner? Or, do you mean, different from your other partners? What happens to your first partner when you've found someone else? What if he/she isn't as quick to find your replacement? What happens when your new partner loses interest in you after you've burned your bridge with partner # 1? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me....


Regardless, the book makes for one interesting read.

I'm sure it is, Big Shoe and I'm not trying to make light of your inquiry. Like I said, I've got no problem with polygamy except with people who try to paint it as something it isn't. Personally, I don't need to be "deeply loved" by multiple men. I find the one in my life more than sufficient. And, I'm incapable of deeply loving more than one man in my life. That kind of love only comes around once in a lifetime, if you're lucky.

Polyamory just sounds like a fancy phrase for having your cake and eating it, too! And, if you can find several men and women who share your views, are not the jealous type, who practice safe sex, have their emotions in check and are prepared to be dumped for long periods of time, more power to you.

Good luck!

[Abdul Alhazred]

How does 'polyamory' differ from polygamy?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BigShoeStu
[B]IMO, if love truly took precedence over sex, one would not need multiple partners. Wouldn't "deeply loving" one person and being "deeply loved" in return, be sufficient? If not, then which love is it that takes precedence? The love with Partner # 1, Partner # 2 or what's behind Door # 3?

Typically, people love many people anyway. They may love their parents, their relatives, their children, their spouses. They may have general love for all of humanity or substantial portions thereof.

This is not to assert that polyamory, as it is promoted, actually works. However, the common arguments against it don't make much sense, either.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by epepke


Typically, people love many people anyway. They may love their parents, their relatives, their children, their spouses. They may have general love for all of humanity or substantial portions thereof.

This is not to assert that polyamory, as it is promoted, actually works. However, the common arguments against it don't make much sense, either.

Hi, Epepke;

If polyamory involves loving multiple partners with the same regard as one loves children, friends, family members, humanity etc., then I totally agree with you! However, the kind of love we bestow on these people doesn't usually translate into having sex with them. So, I'm believe that the kind of love being promoted by polyamory is defined differently. I suppose success is possible. But, for all this "love takes precedence over sex" talk, I've got a sneaking suspicion that if sex were removed from the equation (as it is with family member scenario) no one would even pay polyamory or polygamy a second glance.....

;)

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
How does 'polyamory' differ from polygamy?


Not sure, but if I'm reading BigShoe correctly, I think polygamy promotes marriage to multiple partners while polyamory simply promotes involvement with multiple partners.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
How does 'polyamory' differ from polygamy?

In 'polyamory' you also have to tell them you love them.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


Hi, Epepke;

If polyamory involves loving multiple partners with the same regard as one loves children, friends, family members, humanity etc., then I totally agree with you! However, the kind of love we bestow on these people doesn't usually translate into having sex with them.

That's fine, but in which case, it's really about the sex, isn't it? It's really about "deeply loving one person and having sex with that person," not "deeply loving one person" which is what you said. Or maybe "deeply loving one person given a particular kind of 'love' which implies sex, but I'm not going to say 'sex' because it just isn't done."

One of the things I dislike about the concept of polyamory, other than the fact that it's an ugly half-Latin and half-Greek word like "television," is the fact that it pretends to be talking about love when it's really talking about sex and living together, something a lot like marriage but obviously non-legal.

However, the detractors of polyamory don't seem to fare any better. People will go on and on about love, but they hardly ever mention the sex unless pressed (which is why I challenged you). Love is a fine thing, and so is sex, and love with sex is a fine thing as well, but I think that the concept of "love" is so bandied about, and people are so afraid of talking about sex, that it leads to bad mental health.

For the record, I also consider it heinous when Robert Plant sings about "every inch of my love" when he is obviously singing about his weenus. But this is a weird culture full of euphemisms so that you can get your songs played on the radio, or get your posting accepted on JREF, or whatever.

[Ladyhawk]

Sounds like we're more in agreement than not, Epepke. Like I said, take sex out of the equation and polyamory is no more attractive than joining a pen-pal club....:)

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
How does 'polyamory' differ from polygamy?

Polygamy is specifically a man with mulitple wives. Polyamory is a more general term. Polyandry is specifically a woman who has multiple husbands - this type of behavior generally happened in areas where resources were scarce, and it tended that a woman would be wed to several brothers or closely related males.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


Hi, Epepke;

If polyamory involves loving multiple partners with the same regard as one loves children, friends, family members, humanity etc., then I totally agree with you! However, the kind of love we bestow on these people doesn't usually translate into having sex with them. So, I'm believe that the kind of love being promoted by polyamory is defined differently. I suppose success is possible. But, for all this "love takes precedence over sex" talk, I've got a sneaking suspicion that if sex were removed from the equation (as it is with family member scenario) no one would even pay polyamory or polygamy a second glance.....

;)

It is possible to love more than one person in a sexual manner. Also, polyamory focuses more on stable loving relationships that are a source of support and love, and sex doesn't always play into that although it can. Sex is not the most important part in a relationship, and never should be. Of course, sex and love are often confused in this culture, and many equate one to other.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Sounds like we're more in agreement than not, Epepke. Like I said, take sex out of the equation and polyamory is no more attractive than joining a pen-pal club....:)

Actually, I would have to disagree with you completely. Take the sex out of the equation, and you should still have a loving relationship that is supportive as any other.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


Actually, I would have to disagree with you completely. Take the sex out of the equation, and you should still have a loving relationship that is supportive as any other.

But, you can already have that without polyamory. In fact, many people do. So, without sex, what does polyamory offer that our everyday relationships don't?

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


It is possible to love more than one person in a sexual manner.

Equally? I doubt it. To varying degrees, perhaps. But, I think we have to be precise when we say loving "more than one person in a sexual manner" as opposed to "loving sex with more than one person".

Also, polyamory focuses more on stable loving relationships that are a source of support and love, and sex doesn't always play into that although it can.

Stable? I'm curious to know in what way. How can multiple partners, any of whom can have a change-of-heart during any time during this kind of relationship, provide a sense of stability? Variety, definitely. Stability....hmmmmm....

Sex is not the most important part in a relationship, and never should be. Of course, sex and love are often confused in this culture, and many equate one to other.

Agreed.

Edited to add:
Sex is often an expression of love...hence, perhaps, the "confusion'?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Chanileslie
It is possible to love more than one person in a sexual manner. Also, polyamory focuses more on stable loving relationships that are a source of support and love, and sex doesn't always play into that although it can. Sex is not the most important part in a relationship, and never should be. Of course, sex and love are often confused in this culture, and many equate one to other.


Please explain to the peasant Mediterannean. :)

Can we say that polyamory is what Mormons practice for example? I think that I have mentioned in the forum some friends of mine, a man and two women with children from previous marriages that live together and of course they are sexually related too.They do not advertize their lifestyle but I am a close friend and I know what is going on. They seem really happy to me.I have never discussed the issue with the three of them together but I have discussed it with each one of them in private.They have interesting opinions. Of course the two women are not the same characters. One is more tolerant and mor submissive ( at least this is how she appears to me).

What I appreciate most in those people is that they do not try to persuade me that they are doing the right thing and they do not wish to be protected by legislation. They do not expect the state to recognize polyamory relationships.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by BigShoeStu

I personally have not practiced polyamory, but I must admit I did find it very appealing.

I don't know. It sounds pretty unrealistic to live happily ever after with this kind of lifestyle, but hey, apparently it's happening and working for some people.

For whatever it's worth, the exact same argument can be made for monogamy . ;)

[BigShoeStu]

What I learned and respect so much about the book, Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits, is that it wasn't like some rule book of "this is how it is and this is how to do it". It describes many different examples of being Poly. It talked about married couples that fall in love with another person and ask them to join their family. There are no limits or regulations stating it can only be X number of people and there must be an X to Y ratio of men and women plus everybody involved must be straight, gay or bisexual. It doesn't limit the sex between individuals or even the sexual preferences. It could be a male couple that bring in another male as easily as it could be a straight (or bi) male/female couple that bring in one more males or females, straight or bi.

As for sex, it doesn't even have to be between all of the individuals. It described successful "families" of several straight, gay and bi individuals which only had sex between certain individuals within the "family". But everybody "loved" everybody and a new individual would be invited into this family only if everybody agreed on it.

[BigShoeStu]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


For whatever it's worth, the exact same argument can be made for monogamy . ;)
I couldn't agree with you more, Ladyhawk. I never felt "LIFETIME" monogamous relationships or marriage was a realistic lifestyle (which statisticly isn't for more than half the population). Hey, I know it works for some, but I don't feel it works for me. I mean, how in the hell can someone really predict another single individual is going to be "right" for them 'til death do they part?

[Ladyhawk]

BigShoe;

If this appeals to you so much, then, why ask anyone's opinion? Try it for yourself. Not too many of us here seem to have a whole lot of experience with polyamory, so, we're probably falling short on the practical advice front :(

Still, I would only recommend that you closely examine why you would find this arrangement to be the most appealing and most suited to your lifestyle. If you're seeking stability, I don't think you'll find it here anymore than in a monogamous relationship and for the exact same reasons. People grow and change and who they love today may not be the one they love tomorrow. Polyamory seems to offer a 'backup' for these instances, but that's all and it could be a temporary backup at that.....

Ultimately, your sucess in any relationship, whether singular or multiple in partners. comes down to what you are willing to give and take on a regular basis. And, I would caution that if you think it's difficult to explore, share and enjoy your life and love with only one person, doing the same with multiple people can hardly be any easier.

Again, good luck to you!
Edited to correct typo

[Abdul Alhazred]

Here's what I'm thinking:

1) Polygyny: One man, more than one woman.

2) Polyandry: One woman, more than one man.

3) Polygamy: Either of the above.

Based on my limited knowledge of anthropology:

Polygyny (which most people think of simply as polygamy) is practised by Muslims, Fundy Mormons, some African tribes, Jews in ancient times, others.

Polyandry is practised by Tibetans, but with the restriction that the multiple husbands are brothers. (Who else?)

4) Polyamory: Any of the above when practised by people with modern sensibilities. ;)

[BigShoeStu]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
BigShoe;

If this appeals to you so much, then, why ask anyone's opinion? Try it for yourself. Not too many of us here seem to have a whole lot of experience with polyamory, so, we're probably falling short on the practical advice front :(
I'm asking for opinions because I'm looking for different points of view. I must say since I've started reading and participating in this forum I have enjoyed everybodies opinions on whatever subjects. You all really know how to get the cogs turning in my head. I love that!

As for polyamory, I don't know if it's for me. Would I try it? Sure! I'll try damn near anything! I do think being poly would be even more difficult than most other lifestyle choices though. To be honest, I haven't quite figured out what works for me. I see too many flaws in traditional choices, but unfortunately, most of the population doesn't seem to acknowledge or respect that there ARE other choices. That we DON'T HAVE to do things the way most of the rest of the world is trying to do it.

As for me - What I have figured out is that I must accept the reality that I don't know what works for me so I am going to continue enjoying my life to it's fullest and be open to any and all opportunities that present themselves - Whether they work or not.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



Please explain to the peasant Mediterannean. :)

Can we say that polyamory is what Mormons practice for example? I think that I have mentioned in the forum some friends of mine, a man and two women with children from previous marriages that live together and of course they are sexually related too.They do not advertize their lifestyle but I am a close friend and I know what is going on. They seem really happy to me.I have never discussed the issue with the three of them together but I have discussed it with each one of them in private.They have interesting opinions. Of course the two women are not the same characters. One is more tolerant and mor submissive ( at least this is how she appears to me).

What I appreciate most in those people is that they do not try to persuade me that they are doing the right thing and they do not wish to be protected by legislation. They do not expect the state to recognize polyamory relationships.

I am not sure exactly what you want me to explain. The fact that love and sex are often confused? Well, some people think that sex means love - he had sex with me so he loves me. Some people think that love between adults should automatically lead to sex if they are in a relationship - if you loved me, you would have sex with me. A relationship from my perspective is two or more people who care about each other and are there to support each other - to me that is a relationship; now if that relationship contains sex, well great, if not, I will not love the person(s) any less although I may be sexually frustrated if that/those person(s) insist(s) that I not seeks sexual gratification outside the relationship. Love does not equal sex and sex does not equal love although love and sex are not mutually incompatible.

Do I think polyamory should be protected under the law? No, but then I don't think marriage should be overseen by the goverment either, but until such time as the government stops butting it's nose into the marriage business, all forms of marriage between consenting adults should be legal and have the same protections otherwise that is just bigotted. What two or more consenting adults choose to do with their lives is nobody's business but their own.

Do I think polyamory is for everyone? No, but then again, nothing is universally for everyone.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


But, you can already have that without polyamory. In fact, many people do. So, without sex, what does polyamory offer that our everyday relationships don't?

It is about having an economically and emotionally supportive relationship. Ones relationship with ones spouse is different than ones relationship with ones friend, it is closer and one is more dependent on a spouse than a friend. I expect more from my spouse than I do from my friends. For example, I can reasonably expect my spouse to help me with my children, I can not reasonably expect my friends to do that, not to say that they may. I also rely on my spouse to help pay the bills and support our family, but I don't expect my friend to do the same. I feel a marrital relationship (or a committed relationship) allows one to be more intimate. I expect certain behaviors from my spouse that I would not reasonably expect from a friend. I expect my spouse to drop everything and be with me if I am hurt or upset, while although it would be nice, I don't expect my friends to drop everything for me as they have their own lives. It comes down to sharing ones life with other people on an intimate level, which isn't always sexual.

My question to you, what is marriage? Is marriage only for sexual purposes? Or should there be more to a marriage?

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


Equally? I doubt it. To varying degrees, perhaps. But, I think we have to be precise when we say loving "more than one person in a sexual manner" as opposed to "loving sex with more than one person".

I think equally as one can love ones children equally, why can not someone love more than one adult equally? I can have equal sexual desire for more than one person, and I can love those people equally for who they are.

Originally posted by Ladyhawk

Stable? I'm curious to know in what way. How can multiple partners, any of whom can have a change-of-heart during any time during this kind of relationship, provide a sense of stability? Variety, definitely. Stability....hmmmmm....

Stable as in not just there for the sex, and not going to leave just because sex isn't a major part of the relationship. Not a one night stand, not a dating at will situation, but committed to that relationship.

As for a change of heart, heck in a monogamous relationship, people can have a change of heart. Many don't.

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


Edited to add:
Sex is often an expression of love...hence, perhaps, the "confusion'?

I wouldn't agree with this at all. I don't think sex is ever an expression of love. It is an expression of lust. And mutual desirability. And I think this is where the confusion between sex and love comes in. They are seperate entities - not incompatible, but not the same. Love really has nothing to do with sex, and by thinking that these two items are integerally connected is confusing lust with love.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Here's what I'm thinking:

1) Polygyny: One man, more than one woman.

2) Polyandry: One woman, more than one man.

3) Polygamy: Either of the above.

Based on my limited knowledge of anthropology:

Polygyny (which most people think of simply as polygamy) is practised by Muslims, Fundy Mormons, some African tribes, Jews in ancient times, others.

Polyandry is practised by Tibetans, but with the restriction that the multiple husbands are brothers. (Who else?)

4) Polyamory: Any of the above when practised by people with modern sensibilities. ;)

Yep, you are correct. I got it wrong (darn it, it is one of the questions I missed on my cultural anth final when I was in college!)

I think Polyamory is the term used currently to seperate itself from the perceived nastiness that is associated with the word polygamy.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


I think equally as one can love ones children equally, why can not someone love more than one adult equally? I can have equal sexual desire for more than one person, and I can love those people equally for who they are.

So, if I understand you correctly, you're not likely to love one person more than another? Hence, there is no threat, at least on your part, of not being able to maintain loyalty to multiple partners. Is that a fair assessment?


Stable as in not just there for the sex, and not going to leave just because sex isn't a major part of the relationship. Not a one night stand, not a dating at will situation, but committed to that relationship.

Again, I ask. How is this any different from monogamy? What does polyamory offer that monogamy doesn't? And, how committed can you be to a relationship if you're involved in several at the same time. Please, let's not confuse polyamory with the love we feel for children and family. I think we're all adult enough here to face that we're dealing with a more intimate form of love as involves polyamory. Again, if we weren't, polyamory wouldn't exist.

As for a change of heart, heck in a monogamous relationship, people can have a change of heart. Many don't.

Actually, more than 50% do have a change of heart, per the current divorce rate. That's why I see success with multiple partners on the same level to be just as unattainable.

I wouldn't agree with this at all. I don't think sex is ever an expression of love. It is an expression of lust. And mutual desirability. And I think this is where the confusion between sex and love comes in. They are seperate entities - not incompatible, but not the same. Love really has nothing to do with sex, and by thinking that these two items are integerally connected is confusing lust with love.

I respectfully disagree with you here. Perhaps I'm the odd one out, but I've never been able to have a long-term sexually satisfying relationship with someone I didn't love. Period. When younger, I engaged in some recreational sex which definitely was based on lust or curiousity and nothing else. I believe, as you pointed out, that sex can certainly exist without love. They are not always integrated. This is definitely true. But, speaking for myself, sex for me is definitely an expression of my love. Case in point. I can go without sex, as I'm sure most can, for a long time. I can go without love for a long time. (And have). But, I can't go without sex with the man I love for very long at all. :D Why do you suppose that is?

Sex without love is fine. Sex, with love, is incomparable to the former.

But, thanks for your candor and honesty. I don't read and post these threads so much in an effort to convince others of my point of view as I do to see if others can convince me of theirs. As Big Shoe pointed out, there have been some very honest perspectives here and I think we're all a little more educated for it.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


4) Polyamory: Any of the above when practised by people with modern sensibilities. ;)
Yep, you are correct. I got it wrong (darn it, it is one of the questions I missed on my cultural anth final when I was in college!)

I think Polyamory is the term used currently to seperate itself from the perceived nastiness that is associated with the word polygamy.

I get it. If Unitarian 'polyamorists' called themselves 'polygamists', the picket fences around their front lawns would create 'compounds' and the Feds would show up with murder in mind. :p

'Unitarian' would be said in the same breath with 'David Koresh'. :p

Polygamist == primitive savage or fundamentalist pazuki.

Polyamorist == the next stage of human evolution.

Wouldn't want it myself, but that's personal taste.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk

So, if I understand you correctly, you're not likely to love one person more than another? Hence, there is no threat, at least on your part, of not being able to maintain loyalty to multiple partners. Is that a fair assessment?

I think love is love - you either do or you don't. I am not quite sure why people want to put gradients in love as if it were some mountain that leads to greater love or a ski resort or something.


Originally posted by Ladyhawk

Again, I ask. How is this any different from monogamy? What does polyamory offer that monogamy doesn't? And, how committed can you be to a relationship if you're involved in several at the same time. Please, let's not confuse polyamory with the love we feel for children and family. I think we're all adult enough here to face that we're dealing with a more intimate form of love as involves polyamory. Again, if we weren't, polyamory wouldn't exist.

I'm not claiming that polyamory offers anything different that monogamy other than a choice to have more than one life partner.

Originally posted by Ladyhawk

Actually, more than 50% do have a change of heart, per the current divorce rate. That's why I see success with multiple partners on the same level to be just as unattainable.

Actually, I believe the rate of divorce is actually around 40% not 50%, and the rate decreases with second marriages. I think if one is living in a manner that ensures ones happiness be it monogamy, polyamory, celibacy, or singlehood success rates will increase.

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
I respectfully disagree with you here. Perhaps I'm the odd one out, but I've never been able to have a long-term sexually satisfying relationship with someone I didn't love. Period. When younger, I engaged in some recreational sex which definitely was based on lust or curiousity and nothing else. I believe, as you pointed out, that sex can certainly exist without love. They are not always integrated. This is definitely true. But, speaking for myself, sex for me is definitely an expression of my love. Case in point. I can go without sex, as I'm sure most can, for a long time. I can go without love for a long time. (And have). But, I can't go without sex with the man I love for very long at all. :D Why do you suppose that is?

I don't know, maybe it is because you love having sex with him. :D

I think we will have agree to disagree on this point. I do think there is some confusion of sex with love.

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Sex without love is fine. Sex, with love, is incomparable to the former.

I wouldn't disagree too much with that, but I would think that has more to do with the initmacy one shares. I wouldn't say that I don't prefer to have sex with my spouse, I do. I would rather have sex with him than anyone (not that I am having sex with anyone else or even contemplating doing so), but I think it is because we are close and it is just one more way we can share each other. Of course, we are also attempting (unsuccessfully, sadly) to procreate, so that may have something to do with it as he is the only one who can supply his half of the necessary genetic material. :D

But that said, I would still love him even if we were not able to have a sexual relationship. And because I respect him, I would probably forego having sex all together because it would cause him pain, and the last thing I would ever want to do is cause him pain.

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
But, thanks for your candor and honesty. I don't read and post these threads so much in an effort to convince others of my point of view as I do to see if others can convince me of theirs. As Big Shoe pointed out, there have been some very honest perspectives here and I think we're all a little more educated for it.

I think communication is always good. I think it is how we grow as individuals and eventually as a society.

[Captain Trips]

All I know for sure is this: in the time we've been married, my wife has had several boyfriends, who have since become friends. (Friends of mine, too, btw. Makes sense, the kind of guy she goes for should logically be similar to me, no?) And, although I haven't had any girlfriends since marriage, she wants me to keep looking.

It doesn't make a difference to me, as I know we have committed our lives to each other. Nothing is breaking that committment. So why should I be upset (jealous) if she has something going on the side? I know she has chosen me to be her life partner.

Jealousy is only the desire to own another person, to be the only person they care about. I guess you could say that polyamory is a grown-up way of looking at things, while mono-amory is the childous act of wanting to control something. Jealousy has no place in my life.

What was the saying a couple of decades ago? "If you love something, let it go. If it comes back to you, it's yours. If not, it never was."

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Captain Trips

I know she has chosen me to be her life partner.

No she hasn't. She's chosen you to be one of the partners in her life. There's a difference.

Jealousy is only the desire to own another person, to be the only person they care about.

Exaggeration. Jealousy is fear...fear of loss. Not a desire of ownership of anyone or anything.

I guess you could say that polyamory is a grown-up way of looking at things, while mono-amory is the childous act of wanting to control something. Jealousy has no place in my life.

What was the saying a couple of decades ago? "If you love something, let it go. If it comes back to you, it's yours. If not, it never was."

Odd quote when you consider that the "If it comes back to you, it's yours" part implies the ownership thing that you cited is the fault of jealousy. And as far as polyamory goes, everything I've read here seems to convey that "it never was" from the beginning...

But, first off, a sincere welcome to the forum, Captain!

I don't think monogamy is a 'childish' approach and I certainly don't think polyamory is 'grown up'. Far from it, actually. Polyamory, to me, sounds more like indulging childish needs. The kid in a candy store philosophy, y'know. Gimme, gimme, gimme, I want them all. How polyamory can be a grown-up way of looking at things eludes me. As I've said previously, if you and your wife are happy with this lifestyle, that's a wonderful thing and I wish you both happiness. It's just that, throughout all the posts I've read, I've picked up a selfishness on the part of people who embrace polyamory. Sounds to me like they're (dare I say it) too immature to make any kind of real committment to a life partner and that they're fearful of being alone. Hence, multiple partners seems to imply a reduction of that risk. But, that's just perception on my part so I'll go back to the stats. If there is a 40-50% divorce rate on the part of traditional monogamous couples, what is it that seems to convince polyamorists that there is some inherited success with multiple partners? Remember, we're not talking open marriage, (which sounds like what you and your wife have) or swinging. As I understand it, polyamory seeks to maintain long-term relationships with multiple lovers. If a person is incapable of maintaining a healthy and loving relationship with one person, I just can't see how they can do it with several people.

You say jealousy has no place in your life. I'm curious to know if you would feel the same way if your wife decided that one of her boyfriends was better suited to her as a "life long partner" than you. I agree that jealousy is an evil animal that rears its head to destroy a relationship. I just don't think that doing things to promote jealousy in a relationship is going to get rid of it.

Please understand that I'm not criticizing your relationship or anyone else's. I just think people try to advertise polyamory and swinging to be something they're not. And, I still can't understand why polyamorists and/or swingers opt for marriage when it seems the last thing they want is committment to one person. Unless , of course, it's the financial advantages????

At any rate, welcome again and every wish for continued success in your marriage!

[Ladyhawk]

On this thread, as well as the other ongoing thread around the "Swinging Lifestyle", there is an almost frightening omission of concern for the transmission of STDs. I can't think of anything that might destroy a relationship (or one of several relationships) faster than for one to learn that they are the receipient of an STD via a liason they had nothing to do with personally....

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
On this thread, as well as the other ongoing thread around the "Swinging Lifestyle", there is an almost frightening omission of concern for the transmission of STDs. I can't think of anything that might destroy a relationship (or one of several relationships) faster than for one to learn that they are the receipient of an STD via a liason they had nothing to do with personally....

This is probably because the discussion was not about STD's and the transmission thereof. The discussion was about other lifestyle choices.

One must be responsible when engaging in sex with a new partner and use protection although that is not fullproof against some STD's such as Herpes, but it is the best we can do in any sexual situation - whether we choose to be monogamous or not. Of course, if you are planning on being with this person in a sexual manner for a long period of time, and you feel uncomfortable with that person's sexual history, then perhaps it would be best for you both to go for testing and share your results.

I think STD's are more of a concern in the Swinging lifestyle than the Polyamorous mainly due to the fact that polyamory emphasizes stable relationships, not casual sex.

[Sundog]

The following is observation, not opinion:

Over the years I've had many acquaintences and friends who were into either polyandry/polyamory or swinging. Believe it or not, over the years, the "swingers" were FAR more likely to stay together than the "polyamorous" groups, each of which to my memory exploded like an atom with one too many protons in it.

I think the reason is simply that the swingers like to have fun but at the end of the day, in general, want their love to be a personal thing between them. When this isn't true, couples break up. Simply my observations.

[Ladyhawk]

Sundog;

Based on just a few documentaries or other cable specials I've seen on "swinging", there may just be some merit to your observations.

Part of the reason might be that the 'swinging' couples engage in the lifestyle together and not outside of their relationship. One documentary I saw showed a couple who only wanted to have sex in front of other couples but they did not want to swap partners. A lot of swingers also seem to prefer involving others on a one-time or short term basis only....that is, not forming permanent bonds with other individual swingers.

Maybe this is one of the clearer differences between swinging and polyamory since the latter seems to involve developing multiple relationships with others on a more permanent basis.


:)

[BigShoeStu]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


I don't think monogamy is a 'childish' approach and I certainly don't think polyamory is 'grown up'.
I feel monogamy (especially in "marriage") is an unrealistic expectation fueled by control issues, fear, jealousy, insecurities and love. I feel polyamorous relationships have little room for fear, control issues, insecurities and absolutely no room for jealousy. Successful poly relationships are more fueled by love and trust above anything else. I know, I know, love and trust can create successful monogamous relationships as well. I just think that if a person, any person, commited to monogamy that has absolutely no issues regarding control, fear, jealousy and insecurities already has the heart of a polyamorous person. A "non-practicing poly" if you will. That's what I like so much about Captain Trips. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Captain: He's not out on the prowl actively seeking other women to fall in love with. I think he is very happy with his situation of being only with his wife, regardless of her having other boyfriends. As far as I'm concerned, he is currently practicing monogamy, but he has the heart and spirit of a polyamorous man. That's not to say he won't meet anyone else in the future to be with. If he had any of the above issues I metioned earlier, there is no way his marriage with his wife would work. If he denied her access to loving other men (fear/control/jealosy/insecurities), that would build up resentment and anger in his wife that could damage, if not destroy, their relationship. If my assumption is correct, Captain, then kudos to you! I envy your relationship and your (and your wifes) ability to ovecome the issues of control, fear, jealousy, etc.. Most people in this world seem incapable of what you have accomplished.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


This is probably because the discussion was not about STD's and the transmission thereof. The discussion was about other lifestyle choices.

I think STD's are more of a concern in the Swinging lifestyle than the Polyamorous mainly due to the fact that polyamory emphasizes stable relationships, not casual sex.

I agree, Chani , and should probably clarify what I meant. What I meant was that I was surprised that more people hadn't raised the increased risk for STD transmission as a reason not to engage in swinging or polyamory. In this day and age, I'm just surprised that more people didn't raise it as a concern.

You are right, of course, when you say that couples who are in any kind of sexual relationship, monogamous or polygamous, should be responsible and get tested....regularly. I think, however, it goes to follow that by increasing the number of sexual partners one has, one also increases their risk of exposure. Having to rely on the integrity of multiple partners is more difficult than being in a monogamous relationship (translate: when sex is exclusive between the two).

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by BigShoeStu

I feel monogamy (especially in "marriage") is an unrealistic expectation fueled by control issues, fear, jealousy, insecurities and love. I feel polyamorous relationships have little room for fear, control issues, insecurities and absolutely no room for jealousy. Successful poly relationships are more fueled by love and trust above anything else. I know, I know, love and trust can create successful monogamous relationships as well.

Which is it, Big Shoe? Monogamy is "unrealistic", "fueled by control issues" or is it "successful", fueled by love, just like poly relationships? You need to define your stance here a little more clearly. Sorry, but I kinda take your words as an insult to my successful monogamous relationship.

And, if you maintain that relationships with one person inevitably involve "fear, jealousy, control issues, insecurity and love" than what do you think vaccinates polyamoristic relationships from these same demons? After all, each constitutes involvement with human beings and we all know how predictable they are... ;)

I've posed this question several times, in an effort to understand the joys (if you will) of polyamory, and yet no one seems to be able (or willing) to answer it. I'll try once more. If one cannot be fulfilled and jealousy free, and rid of control issues, and invulnerable to fear with one person, how can they possibly expect to be the same with multiple people? What is it about polyamory that would make these obstacles disappear?

Most people in this world seem incapable of what you have accomplished.

Yeah. Makes you wonder why, doesn't it?

[BigShoeStu]

First, I must say, I have learned a great deal from this thread and want to thank you all for your opinions and observations.

Next, Ladyhawk, I'm sorry :(. I meant no offense to you in what I said earlier about monogamy. I can see how my statement stereotyped monogamy and that wasn't fair or respectful. I was unaware I had written it that way and I hate stereotyping!

Successful monogamous relationships happen all the time and more power to the couples that manage them over the rest of their lives. I think it is a truly beautiful thing when it works the way it's "supposed" to. But I can't shake the question in my head - Isn't a monogamous relationship only deemed successful by it's end result of love and happiness 'til death do you part? What may be working for you both today may not work in the future. How can you know?

I have certainly seen my share of friends and loved ones in monogamous relationships and marriages that would seem to have what it takes to last forever. Unfortunately, some didn't and ended. Some others are currently going down the drain, but a few others are currently still going very strong and still give me the impression they will last forever, but again I have to ask, how can you know?

Ladyhawk, I would also like to say kudo's to you too! Please believe me when I say, I also envy your relationship. I envy any relationship that is currently working for anyone be it swingers, poly's, serial monogomists and commited lifetime marriages.

As I have read this entire thread I keep hearing a voice saying, "Different strokes for different folks". How true is that? We are a forum of similar thinking folks when it comes to skepticism, but still have many differences when it comes to other issues. I think it's about respecting the fact that monogamy, swinging or polyamory may work for some, but not for others and respecting each individuals (or couples) choice.

Last, Ladyhawk, I thought it was a rhetorical question, but if you insist, here is my attemp at an answer:
To make some, any or all the obstacles disappear (control/fear/jealousy/insecurity), it is within the person and/or couple to make them disappear, if possible. Not the lifestyle or "lovestyle" they choose. Wasn't that the point you were trying to make? :) If so, I agree wholeheartedly.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by BigShoeStu

Ladyhawk, I'm sorry :(. I meant no offense to you in what I said earlier about monogamy. I can see how my statement stereotyped monogamy and that wasn't fair or respectful. I was unaware I had written it that way and I hate stereotyping!

No prob.

But I can't shake the question in my head - Isn't a monogamous relationship only deemed successful by it's end result of love and happiness 'til death do you part? What may be working for you both today may not work in the future. How can you know?

Good questions! To answer: there is a difference between monogamy and marriage. The 'death til you part' thing is marriage and a relationship can be monogamous without including marriage. As for the second part of your question, you can't know and that's exactly my point. Polyamory has no more guarantee of continued happiness than monogamy does. In fact, perhaps less because there are the feelings of multiple people to consider vs. just one.

I have certainly seen my share of friends and loved ones in monogamous relationships and marriages that would seem to have what it takes to last forever. Unfortunately, some didn't and ended. Some others are currently going down the drain, but a few others are currently still going very strong and still give me the impression they will last forever, but again I have to ask, how can you know?

Comparatively, how many successful polygamous/polyamorous relationships do you know of in contrast? I'd have to guess there are even fewer since it's not as popular. I guess the problem is, Big Shoe, we don't know. It's all dependent on making the right choices and how much work and devotion we are each willing to contribute to our relationship(s) that ultimately make them successful.

Last, Ladyhawk, I thought it was a rhetorical question, but if you insist, here is my attemp at an answer:
To make some, any or all the obstacles disappear (control/fear/jealousy/insecurity), it is within the person and/or couple to make them disappear, if possible. Not the lifestyle or "lovestyle" they choose. Wasn't that the point you were trying to make? :) If so, I agree wholeheartedly.

Absolutely! In this, we concur. And, I meant no disdain for your opinions as I know you are in the investigatory phase when it comes to polyamory. I am a cynic at times and I do not base my conclusions purely from traditional upbringing, teachings or even experience. It's just that if someone is going to do a 'sell' job on polyamory (as some have), and then chastise the values of those who embrace monogamy, then I am compelled to challenge them and ask for proof that their choice is more successful. So far, no one seems to have done that. I've determined that the reason for this is that the needs of people who enter into open marriages, swinging or polyamory are quite different from those who prefer monogamy and that this is where the gap in understanding lies. One lovestyle isn't "better" or more reliable than another since this thread has taught me that we each define a successful relationship differently.

Viva la difference!

:D

[epepke]

Originally posted by Chanileslie
Polygamy is specifically a man with mulitple wives. Polyamory is a more general term.

Um, no. Polygyny is specifically a man with multiple wives. As you said, polyandry is a woman with multiple husbands. Polygamy is either polygyny or polyandry. (And, yes, the early Mormons did practice polyandry as well as polygyny.)

The thing is that, when you look at the Human Relations Area Files, by counting individual cultures, polygamy is most common, followed by monogamy, which is still pretty popular, with polyandry a distant third. Group marriage is quite rare, apart from the Inuit.

The Inuit have an interesting take on this; if two people have had sex, then they're married. Forever. Viewed through this lens, and also given the high rates of children born into a marriage who had a father not the husband, and the practice of divorce, I think it is pretty reasonable to declare that polyamory is de facto the most common pattern in the US and Europe. At minimum, it isn't any less accurate of a label than "monogamy" is.

It also needs to be pointed out that unless you've just been through a war (such as when Paraguay briefly legalized polygamy after the War of the Triple Alliance), while a culture may ostensibly have polygyny and not polygamy, you can be pretty sure that there's something else going on informally to make it work out in the end.

[Ladyhawk]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by epepke


The thing is that, when you look at the Human Relations Area Files, by counting individual cultures, polygamy is most common, followed by monogamy, which is still pretty popular, with polyandry a distant third.

Is it possible to identify, Epepke, what %age of the more common polygamy is polygyny vs polyandry? Just curious....

The Inuit have an interesting take on this; if two people have had sex, then they're married. Forever. Viewed through this lens, and also given the high rates of children born into a marriage who had a father not the husband, and the practice of divorce, I think it is pretty reasonable to declare that polyamory is de facto the most common pattern in the US and Europe. At minimum, it isn't any less accurate of a label than "monogamy" is.

This isn't the same circumstance, though, is it? In the scenario you describe, children are certainly born out of wedlock and the divorce rate is high. But, don't most of these instances involve one partner leaving the relationship (or never completely culiminating it) for another person? That is, my understanding of polyamory is that it proposes becoming involved in several relationships simoultaneously and that these relationships are primarily love based, not sexually based. If polyamory is more accurately defined by the situation you outlined, it sounds like the practice doesn't need a seperate label since it's just what we've always referred to as , playing the field .....isn't it?

con2:

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by epepke


Um, no. Polygyny is specifically a man with multiple wives. As you said, polyandry is a woman with multiple husbands. Polygamy is either polygyny or polyandry. (And, yes, the early Mormons did practice polyandry as well as polygyny.)


Yes, I did correct that earlier. Go back and read where I caught my mistake.

Also, I don't think the Mormons practiced Polyandry at all, and if it did happen it was very rare and not spoken about.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk Is it possible to identify, Epepke, what %age of the more common polygamy is polygyny vs polyandry? Just curious....

Per instance or per culture? Thinking back to my first anthropology course in 1978, at that time there were something like five cultures where polyandry was the dominant form of marriage, as opposed to many hundreds where polygyny was the dominant form.

Per instance, when both are acceptable by the culture, would probably be less skewed, but probably still in favor of polygyny. Men are the ones that nearly all cultures choose to get killed in war, after all, so they are going to be in relatively short supply.

[quote]This isn't the same circumstance, though, is it? In the scenario you describe, children are certainly born out of wedlock and the divorce rate is high. But, don't most of these instances involve one partner leaving the relationship (or never completely culiminating it) for another person?

I'm being strict about the meaning of "polyamory" here. Of the people who get divorced, a fairly large number don't stop loving their divorced partners with the same kind of love they had when they were married, which means still in a sexual way. They just don't act on it any more. (Well, most of them don't.)

That is, my understanding of polyamory is that it proposes becoming involved in several relationships [i] simoultaneously and that these relationships are primarily love based, not sexually based. If polyamory is more accurately defined by the situation you outlined, it sounds like the practice doesn't need a seperate label since it's just what we've always referred to as , playing the field .....isn't it?


From what I've been able to glean from the polyamory newsgroups, it's possible to be polyamorous while being situationally in a monogamous relationship. Just like it's possible to be gay even if you haven't had sex with a member of the same sex in 20 years.

[Sundog]

I'm quite polyamorous myself. Just not at the same time.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Chanileslie
Also, I don't think the Mormons practiced Polyandry at all, and if it did happen it was very rare and not spoken about.

No, you're at least partially wrong about this. It was fairly rare, but it did happen, and it's been talked about plenty. A google search for Mormon Polyandry will produce a fair number of hits.

[MLynn]

Originally posted by BigShoeStu

I feel monogamy (especially in "marriage") is an unrealistic expectation fueled by control issues, fear, jealousy, insecurities and love. I feel polyamorous relationships have little room for fear, control issues, insecurities and absolutely no room for jealousy. Successful poly relationships are more fueled by love and trust above anything else. I know, I know, love and trust can create successful monogamous relationships as well. I just think that if a person, any person, commited to monogamy that has absolutely no issues regarding control, fear, jealousy and insecurities already has the heart of a polyamorous person.

I pretty much agree with you, Stu. But polyamorous relationships could involve major ego issues. Although I'm a one-guy gal, it's probably because I can only keep track of one person at a time.

By the way, I like your new avatar - I'm working my way towards my own. It's not easy bein' a new kid on the Forum.....

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by epepke


I'm being strict about the meaning of "polyamory" here. Of the people who get divorced, a fairly large number don't stop loving their divorced partners with the same kind of love they had when they were married, which means still in a sexual way. They just don't act on it any more. (Well, most of them don't.)

Oh, honey...you don't know some of the divorced folks I do!


From what I've been able to glean from the polyamory newsgroups, it's possible to be polyamorous while being situationally in a monogamous relationship. Just like it's possible to be gay even if you haven't had sex with a member of the same sex in 20 years.

Not sure I get the connection. If you're gay and don't have sex, you're a celibate , not polyamorous. And, by strict definition, you can't be in a monogamous relationship if you're involved in multiple relationships. You're pretty much one or the other. Unless, of course, you're referring to the monogamous relationship as the primary one where household is set up together, etc. In that case, if there are still relationships outside of that, I think we refer to it as "whoring around"...not polyamorous...;)

[Ladyhawk]

One other question? How long do these polyamorous relationships last? I mean, are people still doing this when they're 50, 60 years old? Or, do they settle back into the more traditional mongamy by that time....??

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by epepke


No, you're at least partially wrong about this. It was fairly rare, but it did happen, and it's been talked about plenty. A google search for Mormon Polyandry will produce a fair number of hits.

It may have happened, but I think church doctrine is very specific in stating that a man may take multiple wives, not the other way around. I am just saying that it was not a church supported practice.

Darn, now I have to find my copy of the D&C and Pearl of Great Wisdom.

After a brief internet search, it appears that the D&C (The Doctrines and Convenants) specifically states that a man may have mulitple wives (law of the priesthood - women are not permitted in the LDS church to become part of the priesthood), but a woman who is wed who takes other men to her bed is comitting adultery. That is how I recall we were taught in church as well. Of course, Polygamy in all its forms was banned by the church in the 1890's, and is now an excommunicable offense.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
One other question? How long do these polyamorous relationships last? I mean, are people still doing this when they're 50, 60 years old? Or, do they settle back into the more traditional mongamy by that time....??

Among those I know who tried it, it never lasted. That was some years ago, however. It was taken as an article of faith that of COURSE love could work between more than two people.

I don't understand the concept from the word go. To me, it's simply self-evident that you cannot love two people romantically at once.

Part of what keeps me going every day is the knowledge that there is at least one person in the world to whom I am the most important person on Earth. I couldn't deal with being "one of the guys". Not out of jealousy, I have none. I just want to devote my life to one person and have her do the same, and I can't imagine any other romantic topology.

[Ladyhawk]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sundog


Among those I know who tried it, it never lasted. That was some years ago, however. It was taken as an article of faith that of COURSE love could work between more than two people.

There is probably a lack of reliable, long term research to prove one way or another, but I tend to think polyamory isn't very 'long term'.

I don't understand the concept from the word go. To me, it's simply self-evident that you cannot love two people romantically at once.

Tend to agree with you. I don't really think polyamory is half as much a concept as it is a half-baked justification to be promiscuous.

Part of what keeps me going every day is the knowledge that there is at least one person in the world to whom I am the most important person on Earth. I couldn't deal with being "one of the guys". Not out of jealousy, I have none. I just want to devote my life to one person and have her do the same, and I can't imagine any other romantic topology.

With you on this one, too, although I certainly respect the rights of any individual(s) who prefer this 'lovestyle'. I just think that anyone who looks to polyamory to excuse them from having to work at a relationship or who falsely believe it's a carte blanche to be happy forever is gonna be in for a rude awakening. IMO, anyway.

[MLynn]

Originally posted by Sundog

I don't understand the concept from the word go. To me, it's simply self-evident that you cannot love two people romantically at once.

Part of what keeps me going every day is the knowledge that there is at least one person in the world to whom I am the most important person on Earth. I couldn't deal with being "one of the guys". Not out of jealousy, I have none. I just want to devote my life to one person and have her do the same, and I can't imagine any other romantic topology.

You seem to be a different kind of man. Most of the hetero men I've talked with want to have as many women as possible before they die. I'm impressed.....

[Schizobunny]

Personally this does not appeal to me, but it a person's own life and they should be able to do what they want.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Oh, honey...you don't know some of the divorced folks I do!

Probably. Blogs excepted, I try to avoid stupid people whenever possible.

Not sure I get the connection. If you're gay and don't have sex, you're a celibate , not polyamorous.

Strictly speaking, "celibacy" refers to a lack of marriage, not a lack of sex.

Metaphors can always be misinterpreted. I am drawing a distinction between polyamory as a "lifestyle" and polyamory as a personal characteristic.

I remain hetereosexual even when my penis is in my trousers. I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by epepke


Strictly speaking, "celibacy" refers to a lack of marriage, not a lack of sex.

Well, "commonly" speaking, celibacy refers to abstention from sex.

Metaphors can always be misinterpreted. I am drawing a distinction between polyamory as a "lifestyle" and polyamory as a personal characteristic.

I remain hetereosexual even when my penis is in my trousers. I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept. [/B]

Please. The last statement is elmentary and you know it. My questions were not around how one could be heterosexual and be polyamorous. That's a given. I asked you, based on your statement, how one could be monogamous and polyamorous at the same time; especially if we're resorting to strict definitions. If polyamory, by your definition, is a personal characteristic, than so must be monogamy. I simply asked you to provide an example, if you could, of how one could be both. You didn't.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
I asked you, based on your statement, how one could be monogamous and polyamorous at the same time; especially if we're resorting to strict definitions. If polyamory, by your definition, is a personal characteristic, than so must be monogamy. I simply asked you to provide an example, if you could, of how one could be both. You didn't.

OK. But what I am trying to point out, apparently with little success, is that the term "polyamory," as used by the polyamorous community as best as I have been able to describe it, can refer either to actual activity or to proclivity.

One can love, even in a specific sexual kind of way, say, three people without actually rubbing genitalia against more than one of them for days, weeks, months, years, decades, or even a lifetime.

This seems to me a simple assertion, trivial even, and I don't see why it should be the suubject of conroversy.

[Ladyhawk]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by epepke


One can love, even in a specific sexual kind of way, say, three people without actually rubbing genitalia against more than one of them for days, weeks, months, years, decades, or even a lifetime.

Agreed. And, based on your description, I'm at a loss to see how polyamory is any different than the standard family and friend relationships we all experience each day. Unless, of course, you allow for the sex thing which everyone says is not the basis for polyamory, but seems to be the only distinguishing factor.

This seems to me a simple assertion, trivial even, and I don't see why it should be the suubject of conroversy.

I think the controversy lies in the fact that polyamory tried to present itself as something new; some forward thinking approach to love and life. It isn't. It's older than Aesop. It's a label people invented in order to make their lifestyle (or lovestyle) seem more reasonable. Relationships with multiple partners, without committment of any kind, where no partner is held in higher regard than another and where both sex and love are casual in nature is called , IMO, playing the field . That's all. It doesn't need a new label.

Still, you and many here have made some good points to the contrary and I think it comes down to how each of us defines love personally. Some feel that polyamory is more liberating than monogamy and that monogamy automatically involves a sense of fear and need to possess another person. Speaking only for myself, my monogamous relationship has only given to me, not taken anything away and has liberated me in my approach to life. Maybe my experience is a unique one, but I doubt it.

At any rate, to each his own. Everyone is entitled to pursue happiness to the beat of their own drum. I hope each of us finds it. :)

[Abdul Alhazred]

So how do y'all check in on the gay marriage question? I say OK to gay marriage, but what if three gay men want to get married?

I can agree with the conservatives that this whole business will open a can of worms. I can disagree about whether the can of worms should be opened.

My principle: Any number of men from zero on up, with any number of women from zero on up, as long as I don't have to pay for it with my taxes!

Horror of horrors! :p

[epepke]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
[QUOTE]Originally posted by epepke
Agreed. And, based on your description, I'm at a loss to see how polyamory is any different than the standard family and friend relationships we all experience each day.

I don't see that it is, all that much.

Except that in polyamory as a proclivity, rather than necesseraly as a deed, it it possible to admit to still loving or even being in love with former lovers to one's current lover or to express a theoretical attraction to someone else without automatically having a volcano erupt.

An awful lot of people outside of polyamory expect their current lovers to adopt an attitude of hatred or at least studied indifference toward former lovers and word things very carefully.

This may not be aparrent to you because, at least in my experience, it's generally women who go ballistic over this sort of thing.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by epepke


This may not be aparrent to you because, at least in my experience, it's generally women who go ballistic over this sort of thing.

And you, apparently, haven't paid attention to my previous posts since I fail to see where I've gone "ballistic" as you put it. In fact, I think I've been pretty diplomatic in my approach; allowing that, even though I don't see the merits of polyamory, I'm open to the fact that it may work for some. And, so far, you seem to agree with my assessment that there really is no difference in polyamory and just playing the field. It's the same thing.

Unlike you, I didn't find it necessary to attack you on a personal level to make my point.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


And you, apparently, haven't paid attention to my previous posts since I fail to see where I've gone "ballistic" as you put it. In fact, I think I've been pretty diplomatic in my approach; allowing that, even though I don't see the merits of polyamory, I'm open to the fact that it may work for some. And, so far, you seem to agree with my assessment that there really is no difference in polyamory and just playing the field. It's the same thing.

Unlike you, I didn't find it necessary to attack you on a personal level to make my point.

Actually there is a big difference, if one is playing the field then one is not looking for a long term commitment and that is not what polyamory is about. Polyamory is about long term commitments.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
And you, apparently, haven't paid attention to my previous posts since I fail to see where I've gone "ballistic" as you put it.

Gah!

I didn't accuse you of going ballistic here! Unless you're going ballistic now.

I'm talking about people going ballistic in the context of sexual relationships. Which, as far as I can tell, you and I don't have. At least, I think that I would probably notice it if we did have one, as I tend to notice those things.

I'm talking about those moments in a sexual relationship, like the one where a woman first asks "Do you think she's cute?" which to a man is on the order of "All stations alert! All hands on deck! Supercomputers online. Inter-sexual cross references open and active. Generate correct answer, or you're doomed. Doomed! DOOMED, I TELL YOU!"

You know, that's the best scene in Woody Allen's Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sex

For the record, I'm willing to admit that men probably pull similarly heinous crap, but I don't sleep with men, so I don't know much about it, OK?

Unlike you, I didn't find it necessary to attack you on a personal level to make my point.

Ooh, booga booga!

[Ladyhawk]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by epepke


I'm talking about people going ballistic in the context of sexual relationships. Which, as far as I can tell, you and I don't have. At least, I think that I would probably notice it if we did have one, as I tend to notice those things.

See? You didn't notice. You're a typical male. Afraid of committment. You're crazy about me and you know it! Now stop playing so hard to get...

I'm talking about those moments in a sexual relationship, like the one where a woman first asks "Do you think she's cute?" [b]which to a man is on the order of "All stations alert! All hands on deck! Supercomputers online. Inter-sexual cross references open and active. Generate correct answer, or you're doomed. Doomed! DOOMED, I TELL YOU!" You know, that's the best scene in Woody Allen's Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sex

How profound. Quoting a guy who makes jokes about women who say stupid things to guys. Wow. How credible.

For the record, I'm willing to admit that men probably pull similarly heinous crap, but I don't sleep with men, so I don't know much about it, OK?

Allow me to educate you. 1997, summer. One of my best friends. Beautiful person. Husband put her in the hospital with a broken jaw, ribs and concussion. Coz he thought she was attracted to someone else. She wasn't, by the way. They're divorced now, naturally. But, hey, you know how insecure women are. She probably said something to deserve it.

A little advice. Before you get on your high-horse about how much more liberated, sensible and free-thinking men are and how women are the only ones who have jealousy and insecurity issues, you remember that little story, ok?

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


Actually there is a big difference, if one is playing the field then one is not looking for a long term commitment and that is not what polyamory is about. Polyamory is about long term commitments.

Fine. But, anyone who thinks that polyamory is somehow magically immune to jealosy is being, IMHO, quite naive. Many of us have long-term (lifetime) loving relationships with our relatives but we can still be jealous of them. We have long-term loving relationships with our dearest friends and jealousy still rears its head from time to time. Guess it depends on how you define long term. I just don't see 'polyamorous' people still being together after 20 years. And while monogamy is not immune to jealousy either, I've seen a lot more monogamous relationships still in tact after 20 years than I've seen polyamorous ones. A LOT more....

I mean no disrespect to any person who embraces polyamory but, for my money, this lovestyle attracts people who are basically egotistical and shallow. They don't believe in working at a relationship so I think they try to increase their odds of not being alone by involving multiple partners. They don't want to have to work at getting to know someone or keeping their interest because that implies too much effort and a risk of failure. So, they choose what they believe to be a safe avenue. A kind of 'safety in numbers' approach. Maybe if I have 6 partners, one of them will remain constant over time. Polyamory offers less promise of security or stability than monogamy since it brings so many variables (people) into the mix that could disrupt the apple cart at any time. Proponents say sex isn't the basis, but take sex out of the equation and suddenly, it's not as attractive. If someone is incapable of loving one person and remaining loyal to them, they won't be able to pull it off with several. Most of us have a difficult time balancing one relationship with work, family and our own personal interests, let alone several. All you have to do is hope that one of your 'loving' partners doesn't love you too much or want more from you than you're willing to give. Coz if they do, someone is going to get hurt. Bank on it.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
[QUOTE]Originally posted by epepke
How profound. Quoting a guy who makes jokes about women who say stupid things to guys. Wow. How credible.

Crikey! I hope you're trying to be funny.

The scene in Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sex was really about "What Happens During Orgasm?"

It involved a Star Trek-like control room, an engine room with bare-chested guys hoisting incomprehensible machinery, and Woody Allen dresses up as a sperm in a sort-of paratrooper setting. I thought it was funny.

A little advice. Before you get on your high-horse about how much more liberated, sensible and free-thinking men are and how women are the only ones who have jealousy and insecurity issues, you remember that little story, ok?

Lighten up, OK? If you want to pick a fight, go see Rush Limbaugh or someone.

[Ladyhawk]

Epepke;

Based on your post on the P&C thread, it seems you have perceived a personal attack or some form of accusation on my part. Please point out where, in any post, I have called you any kind of name or challenged anything other than your logic. Outside of the sarcastic, "typical male ...afraid of committment, " etc, I was certain you saw that for the humorous jab it was meant to be. If not, I do apologize.

Calling me out on another thread, as it were, was not, IMO, the way to handle this. It's disrespectful to the originator of that thread. I would ask that you have the courtesy to provide said example and leave it in the yard where we're playing.....not in someone else's.

Fair enough?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Epepke;

Based on your post on the P&C thread, it seems you have perceived a personal attack or some form of accusation on my part. Please point out where, in any post, I have called you any kind of name or challenged anything other than your logic. Outside of the sarcastic, "typical male ...afraid of committment, " etc, I was certain you saw that for the humorous jab it was meant to be. If not, I do apologize.[b][quote]

Actually, I thought it was pretty funny.

[quote][b]Calling me out on another thread, as it were, was not, IMO, the way to handle this. It's disrespectful to the originator of that thread. I would ask that you have the courtesy to provide said example and leave it in the yard where we're playing.....not in someone else's.

Fair enough?

Um, WTF? Seriously, color me boggled here. I'll admit that my sense of humor is so dry that the Sahara looks like North Florida swampland by comparison. I'm willing to explain my quips if asked.

If you think you have a genuine beef, I think perhaps you could at least provide some links to give me a hint as to what you're talking about.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


Fine. But, anyone who thinks that polyamory is somehow magically immune to jealosy is being, IMHO, quite naive.

I wouldn't debate that. Some people will be jealous, some won't. It all depends on how a particular person reacts or not. There are those in monogamous relationships that are incredibly jealous of every move their partner makes and there are those who aren't.

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Many of us have long-term (lifetime) loving relationships with our relatives but we can still be jealous of them. We have long-term loving relationships with our dearest friends and jealousy still rears its head from time to time. Guess it depends on how you define long term. I just don't see 'polyamorous' people still being together after 20 years. And while monogamy is not immune to jealousy either, I've seen a lot more monogamous relationships still in tact after 20 years than I've seen polyamorous ones. A LOT more.....

I wouldn't know. It isn't really an accepted lifestyle in the US and I doubt there are many studies. I do happen to know a few polygamous people that are still together, of course they were not living in this country.

Although, judging from your comments, I wonder how many polyamorous relationships of which you have known.

Monogamy isn't for everyone nor is polyamory for everyone or even a relationship of any type. It is about choice. If you don't choose to have a polyamorous relationship there is nothing wrong with that, but it is rather short-sighted and demeaning to be insulting of others who cause you no harm, but choose a different lifestyle than you.

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
I mean no disrespect to any person who embraces polyamory but, for my money, this lovestyle attracts people who are basically egotistical and shallow.

You mean no disrespect, and then you use disrespectful and inflammatory language. It is a choice. The people I know who are polyamorous are not egotistical or shallow, and to characterize everyone who may make a different choice than you may make as such is rather small-minded.


Originally posted by Ladyhawk
They don't believe in working at a relationship so I think they try to increase their odds of not being alone by involving multiple partners. They don't want to have to work at getting to know someone or keeping their interest because that implies too much effort and a risk of failure. So, they choose what they believe to be a safe avenue. A kind of 'safety in numbers' approach. Maybe if I have 6 partners, one of them will remain constant over time. Polyamory offers less promise of security or stability than monogamy since it brings so many variables (people) into the mix that could disrupt the apple cart at any time. Proponents say sex isn't the basis, but take sex out of the equation and suddenly, it's not as attractive. If someone is incapable of loving one person and remaining loyal to them, they won't be able to pull it off with several. Most of us have a difficult time balancing one relationship with work, family and our own personal interests, let alone several. All you have to do is hope that one of your 'loving' partners doesn't love you too much or want more from you than you're willing to give. Coz if they do, someone is going to get hurt. Bank on it.

You seem to be projecting your own feelings here. Just because someone chooses a lifestyle other than your own does not mean they are unwilling to work on a relationship or fail to develop meaningful relationships. Or even look at thier relationships as a 'saftey net' in case one of their partners chooses to leave. What an absurd assumption.

As for the whole sex issue, maybe if you take sex out of a relationship that relationship is no longer attractive to you, but that may not be the case for others. Sex is not the primary reason I am in my relationship - I am there for love, support, commitment and sharing. Sex is a pleasurable perk to that relationship, but should sex cease to happen in my relationship, I will not leave my partner because I love him.

Once again, it seems that you have confused love with sex. They are not one and the same.

Loyalty is a whole other issue - one can be loyal to their relationship as it is defined.

From reading your posts, it seems to me that you believe that polyamory is an attack on your choosen lifestyle, but it isn't. It is a choice.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Chanileslie
I wouldn't debate that. Some people will be jealous, some won't. It all depends on how a particular person reacts or not. There are those in monogamous relationships that are incredibly jealous of every move their partner makes and there are those who aren't.

Indeed.

It seems odd to me to point out the possibility of jealousy as a particular problem with polyamory when in (pick a number out of a hat and multiply it by 1000) years adherents of monogamy don't seem to have come up with a workable solution, either.

As for the whole sex issue, maybe if you take sex out of a relationship that relationship is no longer attractive to you, but that may not be the case for others. Sex is not the primary reason I am in my relationship - I am there for love, support, commitment and sharing. Sex is a pleasurable perk to that relationship, but should sex cease to happen in my relationship, I will not leave my partner because I love him.

Indeed. It needs to be pointed out that even in monogamous relationships, usually, sex stops becoming an issue after a while.

My partner is prematurely post-menopausal. She can't take hormone replacement because it interferes with her migraine medications, or her anti-clotting medications, or something. Besides, she's Swiss, and as far as I can tell, that stereotype is completely accurate.

Yet I love her dearly, and she is the only woman who has shown me unconditional love and support. We've been together off and on for 18 years. She's the love of my life.

My sex drive, on the other hand, is like a cast-iron frying pan full of nitroglycerine on full heat.

Which is probably why I am attracted to swinging, when I can afford the drive to a club. It makes me happy. She knows all about it (I've taken her to clubs, too), and she's happy. So what's the big fat hairy thwacking deal?

I'd probably prefer a polyamorous relationship, but it's hard to come by. Or at least I've found it hard to come by. I've never claimed to be good at relationships.