| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 9/25/2006 1:54:10 AM |
Maybe it is just the guy in the TV show that is a ****head.
You have to realize that they aren't going to go out and find a compeltely functional poly group with likeable people to star in a show. Likeable and functional makes for terrible television. They are going to find a good villain(the man) that the audience can easily hate, who will instigate loads of drama.
Basically if this person is on TV, you can almost be sure that he is one of the worst examples of the type of person he is representing. | |
|
| |
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 2/19/2007 12:41:15 PM | I came across this article on polyamory today published in a popular scientific journal. I think it gives a very balanced view of what it's all about, and several psychologists weigh in on the advantages and disadvantages, and some of the motivations, etc. It certainly helps clear up some of the misconceptions about it.
From issue 2559 of New Scientist magazine, 07 July 2006, page 44
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125591.800 | |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 1/10/2008 8:29:37 AM | OK, this is really sad. I did a search for threads on polyamory, and THIS is what comes up!?? So now we can't get a decent discussion going on polyamory, because it would be redundant....yet this description has nothing to do with true polyamory AT ALL.
Sigh...frustration of frustrations....guess I'll just keep looking. | |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 2/25/2008 1:03:41 PM | Hat's off to the Toronto Star, Canada's biggest circulation newspaper for picking up the "Washington Post's", full page article on the recent Poly Living Convention, covered extensively by the WP's staff writer, Monica Hesse.
http://www.thestar.com/living/article/305282
This is balanced, main-stream journalism addressing the whole concept of an alternative approach to marriage and relationships as they are evolving in today's world.
The Star may well attract some 'letters-to-the-editor' type flack from their more conservative readers, most of whom probably have difficulty trying to cope and wrap their minds around the whole concept of this alternative lifestyle .... But, at least the Star's editorial decision makers should be applauded and congratulated, for having the 'guts' to run this story in its entirity.
Spread the word - Poly Goes Main Stream!
M. | |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 3/31/2008 8:02:29 AM |
open committed relationships make no sense to me adn are, in fact, a contradiction in terms
This is only a contradiction to individuals who embrace or have been conditioned to function using dualistic thinking. Dualistic thinking is rooted in the modernist concept of either/or, black/white, up/down, without consideration of other possibilities that may have equal validity and equal influence.
In contrast to dual or binary thinking, there is the concept of multiverse and the knowledge that there is either/or/other, revealing that there may also be an "and".
Relationships are defined by the individuals in the relationship and not by those who are outside of the relationship. Those in the relationship establish their standard operating procedures (SOPs) and just like organizations, those SOPs must be renegotiated as the organization changes and evolves. Thus, commitment will be defined differently in a poly relationship from how it may be defined in a dyad. While they may share some components of a general component of commitment, it appears at times that the term "commitment" is being in appropriately exchanged for the terms "trust" and "fidelity".
There are different forms of trust and fidelity and just as commitment is defined by those in the relationship, so are trust and fidelity.
ACP | |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 3/31/2008 8:12:40 AM | | once i'm in a committed relationship with someone (have agreed to see each other exclusively) then that's it for me, i'm a one man woman and could only be with a one woman man.. "open" relationships are not for me | |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 3/31/2008 8:22:44 AM | Modern, not twenty year old, theory is that it is in fact unnatural ( in an evolutionary sense ) for women to be monogamous because biologically we're built to easily handle more than one lover in a day whereas guys kind of easily 'peter out' 
I think though that social mores/ideals have had a massive impact on biological imperatives and so most people tend to want to 'mate for life' as some species of animals do. There's nothing wrong with that but if it's wrong for you, then just find other people who want the kind of relationship you do. I believe the problem arises when a poly-whatever person gets messed up with a mono-whatever person.
'Slutty' is a derogatory term often used by the opposite sex of another to reveal their jealousy that the other person can and does get laid more often than themselves Slutty men and women just want to share their body with too many people, so while they gain sex there's a trade off in how they're percieved I guess. Personally, I don't care. If some guy is easily had and willing to let anyone climb all over him, I wouldn't be interested in him myself but I wouldn't call him a name and I don't think I'm a better human being. I just can't relate to that mindset.
I tend to date one person at a time and not very often, because I hate 'dating' per se. I prefer meeting someone through similar interests and then going from there versus trolling for men. But again, if another woman wants to be a Playgirl, more power to her  | |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 3/31/2008 8:48:15 AM | I saw a bit of that show "My Husband's 3 Wives" that airs on TLC, and so I came in search of this post. I also thought maybe I could get some advice from real people like that. Referring to the situation of the TV show; one man, three wives. They don't sleep with each other, he just sleeps with all of them (I assume not at the same time).
In this situation, the guy waited until after his first marriage (only legal one) to tell his wife that he didn't see staying mono (why get married then?) and that he would probably cheat on her. While she was away in the military, he met another woman. And rather than leaving, this woman (who must have self-esteem issues) stayed. (Personally, I'd have had the marriage anulled right after he told me that he couldn't see being mono...that's the sort of thing you tell someone sooner). What's worse is that there are children being raised in that environment. Where is CPS?
Poly relationships may look like this in that the male only sleeps with one woman at a time. There are others where the male may sleep with all of the women, women may sleep together and be in a relationship as well, or the male may sleep with another male if that is an aspect of their relationship. Depending on how those in the poly relationship have defined fidelity, they have sexual partners outside the group and date outside the group as well.
As far as the male's ethics, I agree that waiting to inform his primary partner (the one who has certain protections under the laws of the state) until after their legal contractual agreement is questionable. If the new partner objected, she had the opportunity to change that circumstance if she desired (assuming she is of legal age and feels free to leave). If she stayed, then I presume that she did not object. If additional women came into the relationship, she, as the primary partner likely had a part in the decision-making process of who would be invited into their relationship of those secondary partners.
That children are involved is of no consequence. It is not illegal to have children with multiple partners. It is not illegal to have multiple partners cohabitating, even if some of those partners have a stated recognized partnership. It is not illegal to rear children in such a home or for children of different partners to cohabitate in such an environment.
As long as there is no risk of danger to the child's well-being; they receive the health care services, they are fed, clothed, safely housed, and receive the education that they are required to obtain under the laws of their state, why would anyone need to contact CPS?
These types of relationships are not abusive to children. They may be less abusive than the relationships of serial monogamists. It may be an interesting study.
Poly is wrong on so many levels (in my mind). It is hard enough to make a relationship between two people work, let alone more. I figure that if one person isn't enough for you, then they aren't the right person, so break it off. Obviously the person doesn't care how it hurts the other person (and believe me, it does...even if on a subconscious level) to feel "not good enough" to be the only one. Many the other partner of the poly couples handle that by finding their own #2, I guess. NOT A SOLUTION! I think poly stems from intimacy issues or something. If one dumps you, you'll still have one (or more) to fall back on. The more people you date, the less time you have to spend with each one, so you don't get sick of them as quickly (perhaps why some poly "relationships" last longer than mono ones).
You are correct when you state that it is wrong..."in your mind" and it is not wrong in the minds of others. Relationships tend to fail for a great many reasons, not necessarily other relationships. Perhaps they fail because people feel imprisoned, restrained, and inhibited from meeting their needs. It is not unusual to be under the hypnosis that one individual will meet all of another person's needs and yet that myth continues to be perpetuated despite the common knowledge that the belief is fiction.
Feeling "not good enough" is a personal issue and is rooted in the individual who is not only feeling, they are also talking trash to themselves. Those individuals are in denial and attempting to rationalize how the myth that one individual can meet every need of another person must be true--yet it is a myth that sets relationships up for failure. Rather than intimacy issues, such feelings have much to do with personal issues related to self-worth.
I just don't understand AT ALL. I can't get my mind around it. To me, love means that you adore the other person, and you should always think of their thoughts and feelings before you make a decision. So, bringing another man home is obviously not going to bode well for your current bf/hub's confidence, or their importance to you.
Perhaps you cannot get your mind around it due to how you have been socialized and the dominant themes you have accepted as being "the way". What makes you believe that a person cannot adore more than one person at a time? What makes you think that a person isn't always thinking of the thoughts of their partners and their feelings as they make decisions? Poly's don't simply bring another partner home and say "deal with it". Partners are involved in the process of bringing in other partners. While some relationships may have been negotiated to function as you describe, not all poly relationships function in this manner. As I stated earlier, relationships are negotiated between those in it. It is for them to determine how the relationship will best function for them. It is also for those in the relationship to renegotiate the functioning of the relationship as it evolves. It is not for those outside of the relationship to determine how it will be constructed or how it will function.
If a person cannot accept such a relationship, cannot live within this type of relationship, or want to be a part of such a relationship, they should refrain from those potential partners.
As I stated previously, I don't care for the individual's ethics in not pre-informing his partner of his non-monogamy and that is not the norm for polyamorous relationships.
ACP | |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 3/31/2008 9:11:25 AM |
Typical Girl wrote: Yup. Agreed. Especially if there
are unforseeable events in one date's life that would
otherwise leave you with nothing to do on a perfectly
viable Friday night!!
And some men invite 2 or 3 ladies on the same date.
If one doesn't show up, the date still goes on just fine. | |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 3/31/2008 9:41:47 AM |
From the New Scientist article referenced above...
But as a mating strategy, poly may not be any better than monogamy; a person's reproductive success may diminish if there is less pressure to be exclusive. "Jealousy is probably fitness enhancing," Barash says. A more jealous male is likely to stick closer to his mate and prevent her from getting impregnated by other males. "A good look at human biology does not support polyamory any more than it supports monogamy," he says.
I think I disagree with the first statement about reproductive success diminishing... Much female mating behavior is designed to encourage male competition, and you can't get much more down to that than in a poly situation where sperm competition is necessarily intense. By definition, albeit it in a rather restricted use of the term, the woman's reproductive success would seem to be increased, not diminished, because the resultant child carries the winner's genes. To the extent that the losing males stick around and continue to provide resources to the woman and the child, their reproductive success is diminished -- greatly, to zero in fact. They become omega males whose genes, and the behavior which goes along with them, are quickly weeded out of the population. This is why polyamory is extremely rare. Only marginal males with no better options will accept the arrangement in the first place, which then casts doubts on whether the female is really getting the best male genes after all. Perhaps that's the original basis for the statement in the article. | |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 3/31/2008 9:49:50 AM | poly pal wrote: Right Fishbill. Since the failure rate for
traditional relationships is 2 out of 3, I think they may
be a major reason for many broken homes and kids.
The research data I've studied seems to indicate the failure
rate for traditional marriages is 75%.
(About half of marriages end in divorce, and about half of
the marriages that end in death weren't providing significant
levels of fulfillment, intimacy or love.)
New Scientist: But as a mating strategy,
poly may not be any better than monogamy; a person's
reproductive success may diminish if there is less pressure
to be exclusive. "Jealousy is probably fitness enhancing,"
Barash says. A more jealous male is likely to stick closer to
his mate and prevent her from getting impregnated by other
males.
I think it's the opposite. Jealousy enhances the reproductive
success of an inferior man by limiting his wife's access to superior men.
New Scientist: Biologist Joan Roughgarden,
at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, goes further.
"Polyamory won't last. The likelihood of being able to successfully
raise children in that context is very limited. My guess is that it's not
an evolutionary advance, but a liability."
Over the course of human evolution (4.5 million years) only
during the last 2000 years has monogamy been the norm.
Polyandry is the ideal female reproductive startegy because
it allows a woman to use alpha males (who don't need to provide
in order attract high quality sex partners) to move her gene line
into the future, and have genetically inferior men take care of her
and her children in exchange for sex. The trick is to time sex with
her husband when she's least likely to get pregnant, and with the
father(s) during fertility peaks.
| |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 3/31/2008 11:57:21 PM | "One man woman"
"One woman man"
In this instant gratification inspired society, the aforementioned is getting harder to find... | |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 5/1/2008 8:25:32 AM | | i date alot of differant women i said date not sleep with them.you have to be very clear to each of them so there isnt any deluision are anything.i date model types i stopped for a while because i thought down to earth lets be honest average looking girls would be easier to date boy was i wrong.the hi maintance women do have there problems but with the average one you deal with low self asteem alot of them have been hurt and most have alot of trust issues back to the models for me lets face it i am not dr.phil nor do i have the time are patients to be . | |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 7/24/2008 10:09:57 AM | | i'm a serial monogamist, but anything that goes on between two or more consenting adults that does not involve the abuse of animals or children is perfectly okay in my book. | |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 7/24/2008 10:14:11 AM |
he Sacred Path of Polyamory em
"sacred path"?? that's too funny.
i like how all kinds of pervs try to justify something by calling it "sacred". why don't you just say, i'm really horny and i have a really short attention span and get it over with? come on. | |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 7/24/2008 1:04:39 PM | Huh, I see that you've posted about that Deborah Taj Anapol person in a few threads. Would that happen to be you?
At any rate it seems that polyamory (being in 'commited' relationships with more than one person at the same time) is becoming more and more trendy. Haven't heard much about how things work out long term though, but from what I've seen, the people involved don't really seem to think too much about long term... | |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 7/24/2008 1:09:21 PM | As a married Bi-sexual woman, I don't see a problem with it. the key is honesty. You have to be completely open, you have to be completely honest. You also have to be very confident in your partner.
My husband and I both beleive that Monogamy is hard. I can't see myself being with ONLY him (physically) for the rest of my life and he is the same.
Sex is sex. What you do withyour body is yours to do. The heart the sould, the mind...well, that cal all be shared with just that one person for life, yes. The body, it's a different story...at least for us it is. | |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 7/24/2008 1:15:57 PM | Sex is sex. What you do withyour body is yours to do. The heart the sould, the mind...well, that cal all be shared with just that one person for life, yes.
From what I understand "it's not about the sex dude". That's a direct quote from one of my poly friends. He loves his girlfriend and he loves his other girlfriend. The first one is the 'primary' though and lives with him.
I mean. It sounds fun, I guess, but sounds like it could get very complicated.
Also I could probably deal with another lady in my significant other's life way better than another dude, but maybe I'm just unenlightened or something. | |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 7/24/2008 1:18:43 PM |
Where is the fine line between single and slutty?
Single = no sex.
Slutty = lots of sex.
I'd say the line is "sex" :P | |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 7/26/2008 6:04:27 AM |
open relationships are discussed during the dating stage... not after marriage. that was just wrong.
i mean real, accepted, trusting open relationships.
Not necessarily. It is discussed prior to doing anything but my husband and I have to been together for 15 years and this is new for us. I know lots of couples that decide to open their relationship long after getting married because by that point you have trust and strong communication. There is nothing wrong with that. | |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 1/20/2009 1:59:45 AM | here are some of my opinions on polyamory
The subject gets a lot of grief. Lots of people know of incidents of how they or someone else tried it and it was a disaster. I should remind readers that we all know many people who tried monogamy and it turned out to be a disaster. The divorce and dating industries are testament to that. Therefore, we cannot really give any weight to that argument against it. Every time people connect, there is a potential for difficulty. The style of connection has nothing to do with it.
There is nothing slutty about polyamory. To think that there is is, is to misunderstand the term. Many folk, are defensive against polyamory. But when you read what they have to say, they seem to be talking about something that is not polyamory. It is refreshing to come upon a post that actually reflects an understanding of the term.
I define proper polyamory as multiple long term relationships without ownership, expectation, control, manipulation or jealous grief. Basically people enter long term relationships all the time. Polyamorous individuals may decide to include sexual intimacy in some of their relationships. Friendships continue even when sexual contact does not.
It takes emotional maturity, self awareness, and real love to manage a polyamorous lifestyle. Not everyone has that.
polyamory is the shizzle
| |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 1/20/2009 4:28:46 AM | I suppose there are people out there who can exist happily in a polyamorous relationship. Personally, I can't imagine a more soul destroying scenario.
I didn't realize that single and slutty were on some parallel.
Dating, and it's terms, have to be mutually determined between you and your love interest, and will be different for every couple.
Well, you just KNOW that MY phone rings off the hook, of course! *primps hair* | |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 1/20/2009 4:40:59 AM | For "me," there is only one right and perfect person. But then, I don't share nice with others. There is no way I can "love" more than one person, not romantically. That spot in my heart is reserved for one person alone. To try and divide that between more than one person would lessen it, make it less important, less special. It would be meaningless, if someone told me he loved me, and then went and told someone else he loved her too.
It's not like the love I have for my children, which increased to accomodate each child I had. I know people love to say "you can love more than one person...you love your kids, and your mom, don't you?" Whatever. Those are not the same kinds of love as romantic/intimate love. | |
|
| open/dating/polyamory relationships
Posted: 1/20/2009 7:39:52 AM | | There's nothing wrong with people who openly date and are honest about it. What's wrong is people pretending they're exclusive. | |
|
Home
login 
