Is polyamory just a feel-good euphemism for adultery?

[drew70]

Okay, so I see a few poly kids, and Isabeau. I know Drew attends Gatherings, as I met him at NEST, but not with his wife.

I'm not seeing a lot else. Anyone home?

For those that DON'T know, I'm married. I hosted gatherings for nearly a decade. Through several partners. All consented to my hosting these events. Longest-term partner attended MOST of them. I'm out to them all.

Fidelity is a grand topic. Drew lauds Isabeau. May I take, from this, that you both communicate your interest, and your participation in this forum, and with other tickling partners, and that you both DON'T find this tickling thing to be sexual in the SLIGHTEST? I ask, as it seems quizzical. The poly kids are negotiated. The openly-kinked are out and open with their partners. I'm not hearing this from you, Drew and Isabeau, and I'm curious, since you're both participating in this end of this thread, whether or not this is something your partner would be able to discuss, with me, in a phonecall?

I know, Drew, for instance, that you've talked with my wife, as you saw her at the same NEST at which you saw me.

It's very easy to point fingers, kids. The poly kids are open about things with their partners. If you are, good on you. If you're not, then who's crossing the lines in this thread's initial topic?

Adultery. Playing outside of your relationship.

I return us to the topic - Is polyamoury just a feel-good euphemism for adultery?

I find this topic very interesting. If you're not polyamourous, you're judging kinks like folks judge tickling, which makes you just as much fun as the folks that call US weird, freakish, etc. If you ARE, do you feel that you're adulterous?

I've been serially monogamous, within a kinked relationship, and open about sexual play (BDSM, etc.) and my partner, though not into me rolling out and getting naked with others intimately all the time, had NO issue with gatherings. Played at mine. I have the videos. 😉 We weren't traditional polyamourous partners. I never considered her cheating when she played, or adulterous. Wouldn't consider my wife adulterous if she'd negotiated that kind of relationship ahead of time. Even today.

I welcome the discussion of this topic again, as I'm hearing a LOT of good polyamoury support, but no logic or thinking that shows otherwise.

Do feel free to ignore my desire to know things. I ask intimate truths. I expect no answer, but would welcome what answers I get.

Well, it isn't the first time somebody tried to suggest my lone attendance at gatherings constituted at best an inclinination towards polyamorous play, and at worst outright adultry. It's a pretty cheap shot either way but still ineffective. I don't know what goes on at the west coast gatherings but I can assure you the NEST gatherings are not orgies. Not even close. My wife doesn't accompany me because she has no interest. When I do attend, I drive down just for the Sunday event. I don't stay at the hotel. I do participate in tickle play, but I keep my pants on. When I do get strapped down for tickling, it's not sexual. I don't feel up my ticklers nor do they tickle any private parts. We're all just friends having fun. Sorry if that lets the air out of some grand point you were trying to make.

This thread was not opened in judgement, but merely to invite discussion on the topic. To hear if people agree or disagree and the reasons for their points of view. Mine is that polyamory among singles wouldn't be considered adultery because there is no marital fidelity to consider; but among married people it would be adultery by definition. That's just my point of view. This thread is about discussion, not finger-pointing.

Adultery. Playing outside of your relationship.

Interesting definition you have. So, if I play golf with my boss, or play cards with the neighbors, that's adultery? What would you call playing a game of solitaire? Masturbation? Clearly a better definition is in order.

Adultery - a married person having sex with a partner other than her/his spouse.

What the "poly kids" miss out on is that singular commitment and devotion to another. That feeling of being unique and singularly special in the eyes of your spouse. Now for those that have no interest in that, then poly is the way to go, and I wish them the best. But there is an inconsistancy when a monogamous marriage is combined with polyamorous relationships. It's like saying, "Honey, I'm devoted and committed to you alone, but I'll also be fucking around with HER from time to time." It's something I could never do, but that's not to sit in judgement or point fingers at anybody who does. Having a wide diversity of values and preference makes our society an interesting one.

 

[LindyHopper]

Since I refuse to ever again be in a relationship where I would be dominated, manipulated, or controlled I know that I will probably never be married again.

I'm definitely sorry that you had a bad experience, but I'll say for myself, as a married person, that I've never felt dominated, manipulated, or controlled. Marriage doesn't have to mean those things - you just have to find the right person. 🙂

I also think for the most part, that most aren't meant to be with one person for life. Even in the longest of marriages, many have survived adultery. They simply chose to stay together. I watch one of my sisters and her husband cheat on each other constantly, yet celebrate 25 years of marriage. I personally find it disturbing, but they're still together right?

I wonder sometimes about marriages like that one. One question that comes to mind for me is, "Is it a good thing that they're still together?" I don't tend to admire keeping a marriage going when both people would be happier without it. I don't think staying together out of some sense of marital obiligation warrants a pat on the back. But I guess the more important questions are, "Are they happy together?" "Why are they cheating?" And do they know about each others' affairs? What do they think of them?

There are marriages where the couple has "an agreement," that one or both partners is allowed to do XYZ with someone else outside of the marriage. And I wonder whether such couples are "potentially poly," meaning if they had ever heard of poly as an alternative lifestyle choice, that they might embrace it, instead of feeling like what they're doing is shameful and has to be done on the down-low. Or maybe such couples just aren't the ones that could share their activites that openly and honestly with each other. I certainly believe that poly is very different than adultery with permission, but I do wonder whether couples who do the latter could do the former if they only knew it was an option.

...a huge part of marriage of any kind is never ever judging or hurting your loved one. I thought your partner was always to be your soft place to fall, the one who understands when the rest of the world doesn't. My hubby would die before ever calling me names or insulting me in any way, or putting down my kinks or any other interest of mine; he never has in the 14 yrs we've been together, even the ones he doesn't share he respects. Meanwhile, married couples that vowed to love and honor and cherish one another, but constantly break the last two and often all three of those vows with all kinds of bile and vitriol, are considered more 'commited' if they're monogamous. That makes my head just spin, and frankly it ain't right.

I think the concept of commitment is defined by sex instead of more important behaviors way, way too often. But perhaps that's just me...

Nope, not just you - I agree completely. It's bizarre to me that couples who lie, criticize, and do all manner of things to hurt each other are considered more "devoted" than poly couples who are really good to each other. "I don't have sex with anyone else" simply does not equal "I love and cherish you." That much is obvious from looking at millions of unhappy monogamous marriages, and by looking at a few happy poly ones. Anyone who says we don't understand "that feeling of being unique and singularly special in the eyes of your spouse," simply hasn't been there. Sometimes I just marvel at my luck in this life, that I could meet someone who loves me so much, and understands me, and is so secure in our love for each other that we can share it with others. I can't think of anything else so unique and singularly special. (Hi honey, I love you! )

 

[Bagelfather]

What is known

but I can assure you the NEST gatherings are not orgies.

DVNC, there were orgies at our gatherings, how come you didn't tell me, I'm so going to kick your ass when you come out here next time, and Lindy is going to hold you down because I'm old and nearsighted!

BTW Drew that doesn't mean there isn't sexual energy, it just is not acted upon in many cases. When I played with NS and introduced her to tickling as a form of power exchange there was a LOT of sexual tension. However, I didn't let it go to that boiling point because it was not appropriate for the situation.

Not even close. My wife doesn't accompany me because she has no interest.

Straight up question in these situations to ask someone who goes to NEST or other functions, does your partner know what goes on? Have any of you who go to these without the other person not told the other what happens and what you plan to do?

Drew, did you tell your wife that you may tickle other people or have yourself tied down and tickled by someone. That you would let other people (men and or women) touch you in a way not necessarily intimate but in a way some might interprest as such.

A hug or handshake is NOT comparible to being bound and tickled for periods of time (FYI). Having sex with someone or touching genetalia is not the same as tickling. However, each could be seen as a problem with the partner. If I was with someone I'd have to tell them or not be with them. Poly relationships involve communication and honesty. It isn't for everyone.

A person can say it isn't cheating in their mind. Is it cheating in your partner's mind? That is the important question to ask if the partner is not aware then how can he or she give approval? If you don't ask for the partner's approval then you are hiding something because you know your partner will see it as wrong, and thus in your partner's mind it is cheating. Therefore you know to at least half of the relationship what you are doing is wrong, and thus cheating on them. If you aren't cheating, and you feel you are not, then tell your partner the truth.

 

[kis123]

How can someone be your rock, to the point that you'd be lost without them, and still call you 'sick'?

I ask because to me, a huge part of marriage of any kind is never ever judging or hurting your loved one. I thought your partner was always to be your soft place to fall, the one who understands when the rest of the world doesn't. My hubby would die before ever calling me names or insulting me in any way, or putting down my kinks or any other interest of mine; he never has in the 14 yrs we've been together, even the ones he doesn't share he respects. Meanwhile, married couples that vowed to love and honor and cherish one another, but constantly break the last two and often all three of those vows with all kinds of bile and vitriol, are considered more 'commited' if they're monogamous. That makes my head just spin, and frankly it ain't right.

I think the concept of commitment is defined by sex instead of more important behaviors way, way too often. But perhaps that's just me...

Bella

And this is the exact reason I will never marry again! I was always told that your spouse is supposed to be your best friend. Strangers in the street knew more about me than he ever will, even after knowing of my existence for 18 years! I couldn't share confidences or intimate details of my life because he would wield therm as a weapon in an argument. If you want to knock the wind right out of me, use my confidences to hurt me in a disagreement! He was more concerned about winning than how I would be hurt, and will never share with another living soul they way I tried to share with him---ever again!! I have learned never to trust anyone and no one person knows significant information about me-only stuff I really don't mind having exposed. No one close to me knows about me or TMF and they NEVER WILL!

So that's what marriage has taught me-to be better off by myself! I do have someone in my life right now who is much better for me, but that carries its share of problems because he's never been in a serious relationship before. We're trying to work through things one step at a time, but he keeps me at bay. Maybe he doesn't want anything serious-I don't really know. I'll guess I'll enjoy the good times until I go back to school, then slowly move myself on. I do believe in seasonal relationships, and this just might be another one of them. He's a good man, I just don't know if he's the right one for me.

Sorry to have gotten so far off topic. I don't think a poly relationship works for me, but the traditional definitely does NOT work.

 

[dvnc]

LOL! Drew, silly man... Ya know me better than this. I don't SUGGEST anything. I say or do not.

As for whether or not you feel my written illustration is 'cheap' and attempt to paint it as such, that's a bit of a pity-me scene, man. Anyone who believed such a concept believed it long before you stated such. Again, man, silly.

As pointed out already, gatherings ARE sexually charged. Your interest in tickling is a sexual interest, as you've stated and implied previous, and good on you for it. Most here have a sexual aspect to this. Clearly, by your statements in response to my question, you can restrain this entirely. Props, man. Many can't, and it's good to know you stand on that end of things. Means you're walking the talk. Many can. I can. Was a LOT tougher at the first gatherings, but like the excitement of dancing in our youths, things change when you've danced a lot.

Again, like dancing or kissing, it's HOW a body handles themselves. If you wife heard about you slow-dancing after knowing you were OBVIOUSLY aroused by slow dancing, how would she react. Is this cool with her? Is this something you negotiated ahead of time? The poly kids do. Many of us who don't practice polyamoury do negotiate as well.

And yet some CAN'T. Some folks have themselves at my age in a marriage with kids who are near graduating or already graduated, realizing they denied themselves this, and WANT to try it before leaving this rock.

Are those people 'adulterous'? The poly kids aren't, IMHO, as poly kids negotiate. As Bella indicates, "cheating" is still the same for them as for the monogamous folks - playin' outside of your defined relationship.

The vitriol and aggression in your respect (your use of "your grand point" amongst other comments) argument style of response shows a clear emotional response. Thought this was discussion and observation. If your perception of my response was "ineffective" then why gratify a supposed 'attacker' with such an obvious rise to your perceived insult?

Now remember me, man. If I wanna say "you suck" I'll say it? When have I been terribly delicate? Sensitive? Demure? Not I, brer. You've SEEN me post in too many places now, for too long. Should know better. I mean to imply NOTHING about you, personally or professionally.

As I read your response, your posted question - "Is polyamory just a feel-good euphemism for adultery" - you appear to have no issue with in in the response to me. OTOH, you're a capable and astute user of the language, and yet you put the phrasing thusly? It's pointed. Lateral. Negatively-phrased to that group.

Hence you get the responses you get.

Adultery is a term with more than one usage, clearly. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adultery comes many. Extramarital, which for poly kids is a failed concept, as they negotiate, and OUTSIDE that negotiation it's JUST as adulterous. "Without consent," which also excludes consentual poly activity. Could go on, but those who dig that scene can follow the link and see where your definition lacks a bit. Colloquialism doesn't carry full definition.

Assumed, btw, is that the polyamourous miss out on the feeling of commitment. You assume this from a point of complete lack of understanding about their world. Sounds like the folks that describe ticklephiles as creepy when they don't dig our ways, man. Again, I ain't into getting peed on, but them kids are encouraged to find their bliss, so long as I don't have to participate, and no one's harmed without consent. The polyamourous that play consentually, like the ticklephiles that play consentually, aren't adulterous.

Thus you and I disagree. So? Don't mean much. We have disagreed before. So be it. I respect you none the less.

Do try to show some respect. Where you can't, silence is going to show better for you, man. You can post better. Seen it.

Well, it isn't the first time somebody tried to suggest my lone attendance at gatherings constituted at best an inclinination towards polyamorous play, and at worst outright adultry. It's a pretty cheap shot either way but still ineffective. I don't know what goes on at the west coast gatherings but I can assure you the NEST gatherings are not orgies. Not even close. My wife doesn't accompany me because she has no interest. When I do attend, I drive down just for the Sunday event. I don't stay at the hotel. I do participate in tickle play, but I keep my pants on. When I do get strapped down for tickling, it's not sexual. I don't feel up my ticklers nor do they tickle any private parts. We're all just friends having fun. Sorry if that lets the air out of some grand point you were trying to make.

This thread was not opened in judgement, but merely to invite discussion on the topic. To hear if people agree or disagree and the reasons for their points of view. Mine is that polyamory among singles wouldn't be considered adultery because there is no marital fidelity to consider; but among married people it would be adultery by definition. That's just my point of view. This thread is about discussion, not finger-pointing.

Interesting definition you have. So, if I play golf with my boss, or play cards with the neighbors, that's adultery? What would you call playing a game of solitaire? Masturbation? Clearly a better definition is in order.

Adultery - a married person having sex with a partner other than her/his spouse.

What the "poly kids" miss out on is that singular commitment and devotion to another. That feeling of being unique and singularly special in the eyes of your spouse. Now for those that have no interest in that, then poly is the way to go, and I wish them the best. But there is an inconsistancy when a monogamous marriage is combined with polyamorous relationships. It's like saying, "Honey, I'm devoted and committed to you alone, but I'll also be fucking around with HER from time to time." It's something I could never do, but that's not to sit in judgement or point fingers at anybody who does. Having a wide diversity of values and preference makes our society an interesting one.

 

[tklcouple]

Holy Cow!

Holy Cow! What a lot of responses!

It seems to me that there are with relationships a cultural context so my persepective comes largely from the context of American culture of the 20th and 21st century.

First I echo with the "live and let live" philosophy. As an American, if it invlolves competent, consenting adults and produces an agreeable situation then so be it. While I personally do not believe in polygamy, as an American I believe it unconstitutional for the government to tell the people that this practice is illegal. That said I am not a US Supreme Court judge so my opinion on this issue is simply that - just an opinion.


That said I have found that when one does enter into what one intends to be a lifelong monogamous relationship the choice of the partner and the timing of such a choice is critical. All too often we make totally the wrong choice (I did that once!). Who teaches us how to choose a partner and when (and even IF to choose one at all)? Dr. Phil? Neil Clark Warren with 29 proven dimensions of compatability? Aunt Tilly the matchmaker? Your drinking buddy everybody affectionately calls "Worm"? We have lost the resources in our culture that used to guide us in that venue - as evidenced by the 53% divorce rate in America. The reason for the divorce rate is not that simple of course but this is invariably part of the picture.

In addition, a lifelong monogamous relationship is a lot of hard work! There is a lot of compromise, sacrifice, and just plain every day effort. Who tells you this when you are single? If so, would we listen anyway? We have, especially in our youth, lost any and all respect for the wisdom of those who have gone before us in our attempt to be a nation of "rebels" (the popular American identity, especially since the 1960s cultural "revolution"). One of the side effects is having the constant reinvention of the wheel so to speak with every generation as they each refuse to give any creedence to anyone apart from themselves (remember "don't trust anyone over 30?"). So to live in a nation of citizens who make adolescent mistakes throughout adulthood is practically predictable.

Monamorous, polyamorous, magnanimous, or whatever so long as it works for you, good for you! While I happen to have a belief in monogamy, I also believe in the respect for the differences of others in this area.

Just my uncolicited $0.02,

Professor Tkl

 

[stloldg]

YEAH!!!!!!, WHAT HE SAID 😕

Holy Cow! What a lot of responses!

It seems to me that there are with relationships a cultural context so my persepective comes largely from the context of American culture of the 20th and 21st century.

First I echo with the "live and let live" philosophy. As an American, if it invlolves competent, consenting adults and produces an agreeable situation then so be it. While I personally do not believe in polygamy, as an American I believe it unconstitutional for the government to tell the people that this practice is illegal. That said I am not a US Supreme Court judge so my opinion on this issue is simply that - just an opinion.


That said I have found that when one does enter into what one intends to be a lifelong monogamous relationship the choice of the partner and the timing of such a choice is critical. All too often we make totally the wrong choice (I did that once!). Who teaches us how to choose a partner and when (and even IF to choose one at all)? Dr. Phil? Neil Clark Warren with 29 proven dimensions of compatability? Aunt Tilly the matchmaker? Your drinking buddy everybody affectionately calls "Worm"? We have lost the resources in our culture that used to guide us in that venue - as evidenced by the 53% divorce rate in America. The reason for the divorce rate is not that simple of course but this is invariably part of the picture.

In addition, a lifelong monogamous relationship is a lot of hard work! There is a lot of compromise, sacrifice, and just plain every day effort. Who tells you this when you are single? If so, would we listen anyway? We have, especially in our youth, lost any and all respect for the wisdom of those who have gone before us in our attempt to be a nation of "rebels" (the popular American identity, especially since the 1960s cultural "revolution"). One of the side effects is having the constant reinvention of the wheel so to speak with every generation as they each refuse to give any creedence to anyone apart from themselves (remember "don't trust anyone over 30?"). So to live in a nation of citizens who make adolescent mistakes throughout adulthood is practically predictable.

Monamorous, polyamorous, magnanimous, or whatever so long as it works for you, good for you! While I happen to have a belief in monogamy, I also believe in the respect for the differences of others in this area.

Just my uncolicited $0.02,

Professor Tkl

 

[natural tickler]

The question to me is are you really happy if you have to go outside the relationship to get what you want??

My thing is, if your partner cannot supply you with happiness, then go find another partner. Simple. Cannot make it any clearer

 

[Redmage]

The question to me is are you really happy if you have to go outside the relationship to get what you want??

Sure. Wanting one person (and having that person) doesn't mean that you can't/won't want another. Different people offer different things.

I certainly wouldn't have stayed with my wife Michele for over 25 years if she didn't make me happy.

 

[lk70]

The question to me is are you really happy if you have to go outside the relationship to get what you want??

My thing is, if your partner cannot supply you with happiness, then go find another partner. Simple. Cannot make it any clearer

You don't have to drop the first partner just because you're adding a second one, you know.

So much emphasis is being placed on sexual behavior as the defining apex of a relationship. How sad is that? Sex is fun, sex is great, sex is AWESOME but (for me anyway), it is NOT the driving force in any intimate relationship I have. You know, it was once, for about 7 months and man was I miserable. I didn't even know how miserable I was. Great sex with someone with whom I had nothing else in common- someone who in fact was exactly the kind of person I don't usually even want to be around. Madness.

I can get intellectual and emotional stimulation from people other than my SO, why can't I get sexual stimulation from someone else? Why does sex have to be different from the other pieces of a relationship? I'll tell you I'm going to be far more threatened if I'm aware of my partner forming an emotional and intellectual bond to someone else than if he's enjoying a few hours of physical pleasure with someone else. And if I'm going to find stimulation of any kind with someone other than my SO, why can't he find it too? And if we can find it with the same people, BAM, a match is made in heaven. Two are better than one and it may just be that for some people, 4 is better than 2.

As I surface from my divorce and get to start figuring out what I really want, I've made a firm decision that anyone I date is going to know about this wacky passtime of mine. And with luck he'll share in it. So far so good. And I've never been happier. I see an entirely new kind of world opening up to me that I never believed possible and I sure as hell wouldn't run away from a poly situation if it seemed likely to enhance my life.

((shrugs)) I just think it would be way better if people around here (and everywhere) could just get over their judgmental attitudes about what makes other people happy. Imagine if everyone in this country were happy rather than living the lives they think they're supposed to be living? I think this habit makes for a lot of frustrated people who go through their lives snapping at people at the grocery store and cutting them off in parking lots. People who are essentially miserable in their own skins and somehow make themselves feel better about it by making negative comments about others' choices. It's done out of envy and small-mindedness I think.

For the record, I don't think that most of the people participating in this thread are the envious small minded weasels I reference above. Trouble making, argumentative rabble-rousers maybe....😀

 

[stloldg]

The question to me is are you really happy if you have to go outside the relationship to get what you want??

My thing is, if your partner cannot supply you with happiness, then go find another partner. Simple. Cannot make it any clearer

One person can never supply everything you ever want or need, take it from me I been trying for 20 years. There is always something that you want that your spouse can not provide, so the options are: 1. do without 2. Go and get it.

Personally I think that marriage is a concept used to control the woman back in the earlier centuries, to provide ownership of the woman to a man. But, now marriage is more for the ladies than for men.

I believe that marriage is a notion that out lived it usefulness; just kept alive by people that want to continue the old traditions. The perception of a family has change, no longer is it just a man and a woman; of the same race, and believes. The family have evolved past those believe and continue to grow. It’s time for America to grow with it.

The evolution of life is growing beyond all comprehension of the older populations; it’s like they’re old dilapidated dams trying to hold back the flood waters. The younger generation is throwing off the old preconceive notions of how life is to be lived. They’re doing things their way. Right or wrong they are trying; doing things at a very younger age while we’re still trying to figure out who we really are.

I say marriage should be banded until you turn 50, that’s my personal believes

 

[drew70]

BTW Drew that doesn't mean there isn't sexual energy, it just is not acted upon in many cases. When I played with NS and introduced her to tickling as a form of power exchange there was a LOT of sexual tension. However, I didn't let it go to that boiling point because it was not appropriate for the situation.

I guess I just don't have your nose to detect such things. At NEST I saw no more sexual energy than at any social gathering or party. Sexual energy exists wherever men and women coexist.

Drew, did you tell your wife that you may tickle other people or have yourself tied down and tickled by someone. That you would let other people (men and or women) touch you in a way not necessarily intimate but in a way some might interprest as such.

I honestly don't know how such a thing applies to the subject of polyamory and adultery. I'll answer your questions with hopes that you'll somehow connect it all together.

Some things I tell her, but not everything. Mostly because I don't know everything that's going to happen. At some NEST gatherings, I get strapped down and tickle tortured. At others, I don't. She knows that there is a lot of tickling that goes on at NEST, but seldom if ever asks me what transpired while I was there. IF she asks me, I'll tell her. I never stay overnight at the hotel, only because she's not comfortable with that, but she's cool with the one-day thing, so that's what I do. And if somebody else interprets this as polyamorous, adulterous, or whatever, that's all well and good, since I don't require people to agree with me.

Being married doesn't mean you have to spill your guts about every time something excites you. I don't tell my wife when Shari from the office flirts with me. I don't tell her about the hottie I saw on Interstate 270 driving a BMW convertible wearing daisy dukes and a halter. I'm sure that many of my monoamorous brothers will agree that there is such a thing as too much honesty.

LOL! Drew, silly man... Ya know me better than this. I don't SUGGEST anything. I say or do not.

As for whether or not you feel my written illustration is 'cheap' and attempt to paint it as such, that's a bit of a pity-me scene, man. Anyone who believed such a concept believed it long before you stated such. Again, man, silly.

Yes, I agree it is silly. But if you've brought up the fact that my wife doesn't accompany me to the gatherings to make a point other than adultery or polyamory on my part, that point has so far eluded me.

As pointed out already, gatherings ARE sexually charged. Your interest in tickling is a sexual interest, as you've stated and implied previous, and good on you for it. Most here have a sexual aspect to this. Clearly, by your statements in response to my question, you can restrain this entirely. Props, man. Many can't, and it's good to know you stand on that end of things. Means you're walking the talk. Many can. I can. Was a LOT tougher at the first gatherings, but like the excitement of dancing in our youths, things change when you've danced a lot.

Yes, I suppose you could say that gatherings are sexually charged, in that any social party scene is sexually charged. Even conferences in Corporate America can be said to be sexually charged. College classrooms, movie theaters, the list is endless. So I see it as basically inconsequencial. What qualifies a gathering as a sexual one (at least to me) would be how much sexual activity accompanies the tickling. By "sexual activities" I don't mean good tickle scenes.

My interests in tickling span many levels, of which a sexual interest plays only a part. The sexual interest for me, is for the most part conceptual. I dig the concept of a woman torturing a man or another woman with tickling. When I'm on the table at NEST being tickled, it's not sexually stimulating at all. It's torture. My wife knows this, and understands it. She doesn't look at me being tickled in the same light as me receiving felatio.

Again, like dancing or kissing, it's HOW a body handles themselves. If you wife heard about you slow-dancing after knowing you were OBVIOUSLY aroused by slow dancing, how would she react. Is this cool with her? Is this something you negotiated ahead of time? The poly kids do. Many of us who don't practice polyamoury do negotiate as well.

My wife knows the extent to which dancing turns me on. As the car dealers are fond of saying, "No negotiations necessary." When you say, "The poly kids do," it comes across as a kind of blanket statement that all who are poly abide by a certain code. You can't possibly know that, any more than I can. I'm sure many do, but I have to believe there are many who don't.

And yet some CAN'T. Some folks have themselves at my age in a marriage with kids who are near graduating or already graduated, realizing they denied themselves this, and WANT to try it before leaving this rock.

Are those people 'adulterous'? The poly kids aren't, IMHO, as poly kids negotiate. As Bella indicates, "cheating" is still the same for them as for the monogamous folks - playin' outside of your defined relationship.

They're not adultrous for wanting to experiment. They don't become adulterous until they actually perform the act. dvnc, You seem to feel that if adultery is negotiated, it's no longer adultery. I disagree. I think what's happened is that the poly kids have redefined adultery to accommodate their lifestyle. This whole argument is basically a question of whether or not one accepts this new definition. I personally don't.

The vitriol and aggression in your respect (your use of "your grand point" amongst other comments) argument style of response shows a clear emotional response. Thought this was discussion and observation. If your perception of my response was "ineffective" then why gratify a supposed 'attacker' with such an obvious rise to your perceived insult?

LOL. Hey, come on man, it wasn't THAT emotional. Mild irritation at worst. Mr Spock I ain't.

Now remember me, man. If I wanna say "you suck" I'll say it? When have I been terribly delicate? Sensitive? Demure? Not I, brer. You've SEEN me post in too many places now, for too long. Should know better. I mean to imply NOTHING about you, personally or professionally.

Okay, fine. Then what WAS your point in bringing my wife into this discussion?

As I read your response, your posted question - "Is polyamory just a feel-good euphemism for adultery" - you appear to have no issue with in in the response to me. OTOH, you're a capable and astute user of the language, and yet you put the phrasing thusly? It's pointed. Lateral. Negatively-phrased to that group.

Hence you get the responses you get.

Our society has become inundated with feel-good euphemisms. He's not mentally retarded, he's "scholastically challenged." It's not a slum, it's "low income housing." She's not short, she's "vertically challenged." The list is endless. Is it that much of a stretch to wonder if somebody hasn't taken the concept of adultery, and put a clinical name to it to give it more acceptance? Assuming for the moment that this is indeed the case, wouldn't these same people strongly react to anybody associating their new feel-good phrase back to it's original name they found so distasteful? Would they not launch accusations of judgementalism, imposing morality, and intolerance? As Robert Plant says, "Ooh, it really makes me wonder."

Assumed, btw, is that the polyamourous miss out on the feeling of commitment. You assume this from a point of complete lack of understanding about their world. Sounds like the folks that describe ticklephiles as creepy when they don't dig our ways, man. Again, I ain't into getting peed on, but them kids are encouraged to find their bliss, so long as I don't have to participate, and no one's harmed without consent. The polyamourous that play consentually, like the ticklephiles that play consentually, aren't adulterous.

What I said was that they miss out on the feeling of SINGULAR commitment. And what's there to understand about polyamory that hasn't already been reiterated ad nauseum? Nobody's being peed on, and if what I say reminds you of folks that describe ticklephiles as creepy, that only tells me sadly that you haven't heard a word I've said.

Thus you and I disagree. So? Don't mean much. We have disagreed before. So be it. I respect you none the less.

Do try to show some respect. Where you can't, silence is going to show better for you, man. You can post better. Seen it.

Good advice to all of us. Peace out, brother D!

 

[BellaRisa]

Thoughts

The answer to the original question, "is polyamory just a feel-good euphemism for adultery?" is : nope.

One might ask how I came to this startling conclusion, given my admitted bias.

Simple. A euphemism is an inoffensive expression that is substituted for one that is considered offensive. (Dictionary.com)

From what I've read here and conversations I've had elsewhere, polyamory is an expression that is no less offensive than adultery, when it's used (overtly or otherwise) in a derogatory manner. As every poly person knows, it can be said with utter disdain by those who find it less than savory. That's definitely been proven to me in more than one circle. Furthermore, no one who actually grasps the concepts of these two words would ever substitute one for the other. 'Polyamory' means having more than one loving relationship, (which btw may or may not be sexual) while 'adultery' merely refers to extramarital sex. It has nothing to do with love, respect or devotion, the hallmarks of polyamory. The two are as different as night and day; one is about giving more love and receiving more in return, the other about utter selfishness and giving nothing. No one who has taken the time to know and understand polyamorous folk would make the error of euphemizing poly for adultery, it would make no sense.

Bella

 

[Bagelfather]

Some things I tell her, but not everything. Mostly because I don't know everything that's going to happen. At some NEST gatherings, I get strapped down and tickle tortured. At others, I don't. She knows that there is a lot of tickling that goes on at NEST, but seldom if ever asks me what transpired while I was there. IF she asks me, I'll tell her. I never stay overnight at the hotel, only because she's not comfortable with that, but she's cool with the one-day thing, so that's what I do. And if somebody else interprets this as polyamorous, adulterous, or whatever, that's all well and good, since I don't require people to agree with me.

My apologies in advance but I am unclear in the answer you have given. Do you tell her [your wife] in advance that you might be tied down and have people tickle you at a gathering? Have you told her afterwards that this has occured. Is she comfortable with you being restrained and someone other than her tickling you?

How it relates is simple. In poly there is open communication and everything is agreed upon. Adultry is where there are lies and deceit.

 

[kis123]

I think the bottom line is once the smoke settles and dust clears, the believers in monogamy will go back to their monogamy and the polyamorists will continue their polyamorous relationships. I've learned a lot about this alternative lifestyle and find the concept interersting, but it's probably not for me.

I have also come to the personal conclusion that most so-called monogamous relationships are riddled with cheating and serial-adultery, so with the exception of a (very) few, there's no such thing as monongamy anymore. Every relationship I've ever been involved (including marriage) has had cheating in it. I even had a man tell me that he can love more than one woman at a time so he does!

I say do whatever appeals to you and your partner. As long as you're loving and treat your partner with respect, it's all good to me. Besides, it's your relationship choice and it's really none of my business to judge it.

 

[drew70]

My apologies in advance but I am unclear in the answer you have given. Do you tell her [your wife] in advance that you might be tied down and have people tickle you at a gathering?

No. She already knows this is a likely occurance.

Have you told her afterwards that this has occured.

If she asks me, I tell her. Sometimes she asks. Most of the time she doesn't.

Is she comfortable with you being restrained and someone other than her tickling you?

She has even encouraged friends and relatives to tickle me, so yes she is comfortable with others tickling me. I've never asked her how she feels about restraints.

How it relates is simple. In poly there is open communication and everything is agreed upon. Adultry is where there are lies and deceit.

So, if I have open communication with my wife, that makes me poly? If I go out and screw another woman, but openly communicate this deed to her, that makes it not adultery?

Ed, open communication is a key to ANY successful relationship. It's not relegated to the domain of poly. You seem to suggest that open communication is guaranteed in any and all poly relationships, and that all who are poly are completely bereft of any lies or deceit. Surely you must realize the inherent fallacy of such blanket statements.

And besides, it's already been established that adultery by definition has nothing to do with communication. It has to do with action. If a married person has sex with someone other than the spouse, that's adultery. Polyamory means "loving many." Again, nothing to do with verbal communication.

Moreover, you've still not demonstrated a connection between the third degree regarding my wife, and the topic of polyamory vs adultery. I need you to spell it out for me.

 

[starfires]

So, if I have open communication with my wife, that makes me poly? If I go out and screw another woman, but openly communicate this deed to her, that makes it not adultery?

Not really. It also requires her to not mind, and tell you so. You entered your marriage as a monogamous relationship, you made certain commitments, you took certain vows. You can't back out of them unilatirally and declare that you've done nothing wrong.
When poly people marry, they write their own marriage vows, replacing the standard monogamy rules with other rules that the two (or more) of them agreed on.

Ed, open communication is a key to ANY successful relationship. It's not relegated to the domain of poly. You seem to suggest that open communication is guaranteed in any and all poly relationships, and that all who are poly are completely bereft of any lies or deceit. Surely you must realize the inherent fallacy of such blanket statements.

Quite right. Poly people have their share of liars, cheaters, dysfunctional relationships, and abusive relationships just like monogamous people. If anything, it's even easier to fuck up a poly relationship than a mono one, and sure enough it happens all the time. That said, I think there are two factors that make open communication more likely in a successful poly relationship:
1. The social norm is monogamy. It takes a certain amount of self-awareness to realize that you want to live differently from the norm. Once you admit this to yourself, it is easier to talk about it to other people.
2. Once again, monogamy is the social norm. As such, there are plenty of standardized, one-size-fits-all views floating around about what a relationship should be like. Monogamous people that don't talk to each other about their relationship can, theoretically, muddle along on the strength of those societal views alone (reinforced by romantic movies and books, advice columns, talk shows, etc.), without ever bothering to customize them to fit their needs. Polyamorous relationships don't have that luxury. Social paradigm does not provide any defaults for them, so they have to build their own relationship from scratch.

And besides, it's already been established that adultery by definition has nothing to do with communication. It has to do with action. If a married person has sex with someone other than the spouse, that's adultery. Polyamory means "loving many." Again, nothing to do with verbal communication.

Technically, yes, polyamory involves adultery (at least in cases where actual sex outside the marriage happens). However, there are two types of definitions of adultery floating around, and I'll try to clarify them. technical adultery is sex outside of marriage. moral adultery is sex outside of marriage that is morally wrong.
I claim that sex outside of an (open) poly marriage is not morally wrong, therefore it does not constitute moral adultery. Does that answer your question?

 

[Redmage]

Not really. It also requires her to not mind, and tell you so. You entered your marriage as a monogamous relationship, you made certain commitments, you took certain vows. You can't back out of them unilatirally and declare that you've done nothing wrong.

That about sums it up. At a tickling party the sexual tension is much higher than any ordinary gathering of men and women, so it's disingenuous to claim otherwise. While it's true that no one gives their partners a detailed run-down of every interaction they have in a day, hiding behind that fact to avoid talking with one's partner about what goes on at such a party is also disingenuous.

I have a simple rule of thumb that clarifies most questions about what my wives do and do not need to know. I call it the "walk-in rule," and it runs like this:

If I consider some particular situation from my wife's point of view, would she be unhappy or jealous if she walked in with no knowledge and saw it happening? If the answer is yes, or seems likely to be yes, then I tell her about it. If possible, I tell her before it happens, and explain anything that I think might be misunderstood if she were to just walk in cold as I've described. But if something unforeseen comes up then I let her know about it as soon as I can afterward.

Now, different spouses will feel differently about things. But personally if I were planning on getting tied up and tickled by multiple women at a party, or if I were planning to do the tying and tickling myself, then the "walk-in" rule would definitely apply. That is, I'm pretty sure that my partners would be unhappy if they just walked in cold and found that happening. So that is definitely the sort of thing that I would brief them on fully before I did it. I'd explain the context of the party, how I felt about it, the sorts of things that were likely to happen, and so on. That's the kind of "full disclosure" that poly people have a right to expect from one another.

 

[dvnc]

Without that tiresome set of quotes (ya know how much I love USENET quote style arguments...), do let me say, specifically, that I bring up your wife, Drew, because you bring up adultery. This is a term requiring "stepping out" on your partner, marital or otherwise. We already did the definition of adultery, didn't we?

www.dictionary.com for anyone wanting to see several iterations of the definition.

Drew, NEST is an event focused on tickling. Videos are shown there of tickling, and folks are tied and tickled there. It's consentual, sure, but it's not a checkers match. Not an event bereft of sexuality, and I watched you there. Was one of the mods at a couple of NESTs, helping out the hosts, remember? If you wife don't ask, brother, that don't mean it didn't happen, and sayin' you'll tell her if she asks says something in and of itself.

Now, that's 'tween you and your lady, too. Wouldn't be the ONLY person on this forum who plays outside of their marriage and ain't poly, and I ain't the only one pointing this out. Re-read this thread, and this forum, if ya doubt me, brother.

In those, you say, "If she asks me, I tell her. Sometimes she asks. Most of the time she doesn't" and "She has even encouraged friends and relatives to tickle me, so yes she is comfortable with others tickling me. I've never asked her how she feels about restraint."

My lady knows my interest. All of 'em have, actually. One was attending events with me back in California, for YEARS. Played at many events even. Would likely have dug you, given her ultimately shown 'ler tendencies.

The longer you go on with this thread, the more that several points are established:
1) some people here are polyamourous, and comfortable with it, and can defend their actions with logic
2) few people here will argue against them with any means
3) several discuss play going on, of sexual nature, tickling or not, outside of their monogamous relationships, without relating it entirely to their spouse or lover

I'm well aware that some of us CAN control themselves sexually. Ain't saying you can't. Saying that just 'cause you control your urge don't mean it don't exist. Denial of that doesn't change it.

The point is simple - you ask a question, and argue with perspectives. Anyone who disagrees with your pointed questions gets longer args after quoted points. Doesn't change the fact that you ask, and don't seem able to agree to disagree, trying to debate laterally something that is NOT your interest. Something you phrase negatively. Using "just a feel-good euphemism" was an easy jab, man.

It makes clear that you don't have a lot of positive for them folks. Not surprising, then, that few step up to argue your "side" of this, and several show other sides.

There are SEVERAL other sides.

Doesn't mean you should change yours.

Does mean that you've just belittled many, here.

Hope I don't one day fall out of tolerance within the tickling community 'cause my other deviant interests don't mean your approval, or anyone else's, here.

You skipped over the definitions of adultery. Read the dictionary site for that, and consider dropping this, as currently, I agree to disagree with you, as ever, and don't see your points as arguments so much as differences in opinions, when positive, and derisive, when negative.

Regardless, peace,

dvnc

 

[drew70]

DVNC, in response to your latest post, first let me apologize, I wasn't aware you found the quotes tiresome. For me it's a useful tool to direct responses to specific comments. I'll try to remember your preference from now on.

When you and Bagels mentioned my wife, and began asking questions about her, I assumed that your collective point was something along the lines of, "Hey Drew, if what the poly kids are doing is 'adultry' then what you are doing is just as much so." I came back and described this line of argument as a "cheap shot." You then responded, saying you in no way meant to suggest any such thing, and I believed you.

Now you're once again giving support my first impression. You say you bring up my wife because I bring up adultery. Now we're back to the "cheap shot" scenario. It's pretty clear and evident that you regard my play at the gatherings as extra marital sexual activity. If that's not adultery, I don't know what is.

I disagree, and so does my wife. If she thought tickling was anywhere near as sexual as you seem to, then she wouldn't be encouraging friends and relatives to tickle me. Your insistance that tickling is sexual is no different than the homophobes who insist that all M/M tickling is gay. While we don't see M/M tickling at NEST, we do see F/F tickling. I've heard many women say they will tickle other females, but it isn't a sexual thing, and I have no reason to doubt them. So yeah, I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree with you and say, tickling IS a game of checkers. If some of us get more of a thrill from playing checkers than others, it doesn't make the game itself any more or less sexual.

I'd like to comment on your three points if it's cool to do so.

1) I do agree that some are polyamorous and are comfortable with it. Where we differ is that I'm convinced those are the people who don't feel a need to respond in any other way but meaningful discussion. Those that are polyamorous and UNcomfortable with it are the ones who see a topic such as this as an attack, and equate it with moral intolerance, judgement, etc. Such people are likely to respond with counter allegations.

2) Perhaps there are few people who will argue with them with any means, but all it takes is one to raise a legitimate point, which I believe I've adequately accomplished.

3) Several do play outside of their established monogamous marriages. I for one don't consider this polyamorous or adulterous unless the play involves sexual activity, as which tickling alone doesn't qualify. There's a reason we call it "play."

I do ask questions and debate the perspectives. For that, I offer no apologies. This is a forum designed for such things, after all. People who disagree with the question can simply ignore it and move on to the next thread. It's simply a question. We can disagree with the answers to the question, but to disagree with the question itself is rather silly, don't you think?

If you see the question as a jab, then I suggest you take another look at how the question came up in another thread. Somebody mentioned polyamory. I asked what that was, and got an answer. I said, "cool, it sounds like adultery with built-in amnesty." Some disagreement arose. Since the thread was about something else, I did the right thing, and continued the topic in a new thread. No jabs. No judgement. No moral outrage. Simply discussion. The outpouring of vitriol that followed is evidence that some who embrace the poly lifestyle are anything but comfortable, and ready to pounce on anybody raising legitimate questions about it. If I've belittled anybody, it was for that reason.

I've read the dictionary.com definitions of adultery. The very first definition is very similar to what's found in Webster:

voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband; also : an act of adultery.​

While Dictionary.com gives other definitions, this is the only definition that Webster offers. When a married couple engages in polyamory, that might not satisfy Dictionary.com's extended definitions of adultery, but it certainly satisfies this one, which is found in both Webster and Dictionary.com. Whether or not I'm personally interested in engaging in polyamory has no bearing whatsoever on this irrefutable fact. In short, the dictionaries support my point considerably more than they support those of my opponents in this discussion.

Moreover, by bringing my wife and our relationship into question, you've broken one of the Golden Rule stipulations: Make your comments about the topic, not about the poster. Don't get me wrong. I'm not crying foul, or claiming innocence of this, but it is reassuring to see that I'm not the only one who experiences difficulty keeping within this particular requirement. 😉

Peace, brother D!

 

[BellaRisa]

Since the beginning of this thread, I've fielded *many* emails and pm's about polyamory and my personal life, and gladly so. Of all the questions I've received, the one that gave me most pause for thought was this: why take so much time to debate something when you know no one's mind will change?

Posting in this thread was never about changing anyone's mind. Not for me anyway, and I'd be surprised if Lindy, Redmage or DVNC felt differently. We've been around long enough to know which brains are welded shut on a given topic. No, when I discuss my way of life here it's to let others know the truth about how and why I love. That's important, because there are way, way too many who will happily spout derogatorily about the subject when they haven't lived it or taken the time to really know anyone who has; they aren't wired as we are, and know nothing about it. And yet they talk, as is their right. And so those who do live it or honestly know folks who do, and do understand-in short, those who actually know what we're talking about-need to continue giving voice, not only for the truly interested but for those who love as we do but are afraid of being wrong or misunderstood.

When polyamory is discussed in a negative manner, the main reason those who live this way become exasperated is because our loved ones are so horribly reduced and discounted. It's as though being poly means we'll have relations with any random person on the street that catches our eye, which is a foul notion and about as far from from reality as one can get. Really, read the posts here or on other forums that discuss this; you'll see such vile phrases as 'screwing around', 'fucking around', "guess who I screwed today", etc. Terms and mildly, poorly veiled insults that are not only crude and beneath everyone here (or so I thought), but that totally disregard the reality of our LOVE. *Never* is the love and devotion we have for our significant others, long term relationships that we nurture and honor and cherish, given the respect that love deserves in a world that is so often bereft of it. And yes I know how horribly corny that sounds, but when so many people are lonely and wishing for love, how anyone can insult or denigrate the bonds that we are blessed to share is beyond me. Our lovers become part of happy, fully functioning families. That aspect is always ignored by nay-sayers, perhaps because it destroys the sordid, superficial, sex-driven ideas they have in their minds.

Furthermore, anyone who assumes that loving more than one person at a time cheapens or lessens the love for one's primary partner has only to ask we primaries about it, we'll tell you it simply isn't true. No one could be as happy as we are in our long term, multi-decade marriages and unions without feeling uniquely, singularly cherished. Our special and individual places in our partners hearts and souls are solid and dependable and beautiful, and they remind us of that every single day.

Monogamy is a wonderful thing. For those who were born to live that way. But some of us simply weren't. And where many people were meant to be part of a duo, some of us were honestly meant to be part of triad or a quad. It's right for us, it makes us whole and balanced and well. Bill and I were monogamous for the first 5 years of our marriage, until those whom we were also meant to love came into our lives. And since monogamy is the norm in our society (for reasons that have nothing to do with love, btw) we simply cannot marry our other significant others. *Many* of us would, in a heartbeat, given the chance. Perhaps one day that will change, but until then we live as we do. Proudly.

For some, the love they have to give is like a pie. The more people they love, the smaller each slice must become. And so of course they need to be jealous and watchful and stingy with their slice, who could blame them? But for others, it's more like the ocean, seemingly endless and constantly replenished when nature adds to it. (And yes, that's corny too, but there you are ) And the 'rules' of love, rules written by folks born many millenia before us and who were far more interested in property and inheritance than love, don't fit our hearts and minds. Instead of committing to one, we naturally commit to two. Maybe even three. And they commit to us. And life goes on. Better than it was before and far less lonely.

If you have a need of some sort to see our way of loving and committing as 'adultery', lumping us in with the dictionary and societal definitions of that word that include hurt and lies and deceit and the ruining of relationships, at this point I say go ahead. Apparently it's something you're compelled to do. Moral superiority is often based on turning a blind eye to selected facts. For those who live in the world and know adultery for what it really is (hence the definition requiring malicious intent and destructive purpose) I suggest you read the definitions, talk to actual poly people and their loves, and make up your own mind. Which, from the majority or posts in this thread, most of you already have 🙂

Bella

 

[dvnc]

Ah, but the topic regards our partners, as one can't have adultery without such, thus it is within topic. This is, though, the thin line that we mods are careful to watch.

If ever I claim a perfection, brother, I do encourage you to know it down, too!

Again, we disagree in several points. Like the definitions of adultery, if you narrow your defs to only one dictionary, then you're chosing a side. I'm not. I'm not actively polyamourous, I am married, and I disagree with the concept that sexual activity is adulterous. Going back to dictionary.com, and the several dictionaries quoted, as posted in a couple of my replies, the def varies, the perception varies, and the narrower your scope, less you'll grasp agreement here.

This group has MANY perspectives.

Still, as ever, you argue well. I just don't agree with you. I see your point, and understand your basis, but disagree with it as the only possible basis.

Adultery in all present soceities is a negative. Sin. Crime. Bad. Thus, associating it with a group's interest and belief is derisive of that group. That you aren't seeing this repeated point surprises me. Leaves you open to being regarded poorly by not only the polyamourous, but also by those who associated judgemental folks negatively, and by those who befriend either offended set.

Consentuality in your belief is a cornerstone of our play in tickling, whether or not there's bondage. No consent in agreeing partners is still an agreement to submit. Still D/s play. People outside this interest knock D/s, male submission, the "silliness" of tickling with any persistent interest, much less a sexual one, etc.

Your stance is acknowledged, your argumentative drive points to a desire to prove something that, so far, hasn't been proven. I still disagree.

dvnc

 

[drew70]

Not really. It also requires her to not mind, and tell you so. You entered your marriage as a monogamous relationship, you made certain commitments, you took certain vows. You can't back out of them unilatirally and declare that you've done nothing wrong.

Thank you for the clarification. I agree wholeheartedly.

When poly people marry, they write their own marriage vows, replacing the standard monogamy rules with other rules that the two (or more) of them agreed on.

Very interesting. This is something I'd never considered. The marriage vows. It's a good point. Most of the marriage vows I've heard (and I've heard plenty, believe me) don't mention monoamorous vs polyamorous relationships. My guess is that since polygamy is illegal in most states, the monoamorous relationship is assumed without making a vow.

Quite right. Poly people have their share of liars, cheaters, dysfunctional relationships, and abusive relationships just like monogamous people. If anything, it's even easier to fuck up a poly relationship than a mono one, and sure enough it happens all the time. That said, I think there are two factors that make open communication more likely in a successful poly relationship:
1. The social norm is monogamy. It takes a certain amount of self-awareness to realize that you want to live differently from the norm. Once you admit this to yourself, it is easier to talk about it to other people.
2. Once again, monogamy is the social norm. As such, there are plenty of standardized, one-size-fits-all views floating around about what a relationship should be like. Monogamous people that don't talk to each other about their relationship can, theoretically, muddle along on the strength of those societal views alone (reinforced by romantic movies and books, advice columns, talk shows, etc.), without ever bothering to customize them to fit their needs. Polyamorous relationships don't have that luxury. Social paradigm does not provide any defaults for them, so they have to build their own relationship from scratch.

Interesting point of view and worthy of consideration, though it appears to me that both 1. and 2. are basically saying the same thing. I do agree that a successful polyamorous relationship requires considerable communication, probably more than a monoamorous one for the simple reason that there are more people involved.

Technically, yes, polyamory involves adultery (at least in cases where actual sex outside the marriage happens). However, there are two types of definitions of adultery floating around, and I'll try to clarify them. technical adultery is sex outside of marriage. moral adultery is sex outside of marriage that is morally wrong.
I claim that sex outside of an (open) poly marriage is not morally wrong, therefore it does not constitute moral adultery. Does that answer your question?

Yes, it does, and thank you for sharing your thoughts. I agree with much of what you say.

 

[LindyHopper]

Hi starfires! Nice to see you!

When poly people marry, they write their own marriage vows, replacing the standard monogamy rules with other rules that the two (or more) of them agreed on.

That's what Icycle and I did. We weren't about to use standard wedding vows that weren't true to what we wanted our marriage to be.

1. The social norm is monogamy. It takes a certain amount of self-awareness to realize that you want to live differently from the norm. Once you admit this to yourself, it is easier to talk about it to other people.
2. Once again, monogamy is the social norm. As such, there are plenty of standardized, one-size-fits-all views floating around about what a relationship should be like. Monogamous people that don't talk to each other about their relationship can, theoretically, muddle along on the strength of those societal views alone (reinforced by romantic movies and books, advice columns, talk shows, etc.), without ever bothering to customize them to fit their needs. Polyamorous relationships don't have that luxury. Social paradigm does not provide any defaults for them, so they have to build their own relationship from scratch.

I think this is the most important factor pointing towards relationship success for the polyamorous - you had to talk to each other about it in order to make it happen. I also think that the kinds of people who tend towards these relationships are, almost by definition, open-minded and communicative.

technical adultery is sex outside of marriage. moral adultery is sex outside of marriage that is morally wrong.
I claim that sex outside of an (open) poly marriage is not morally wrong, therefore it does not constitute moral adultery.

I would also add that "moral adultery" need not involve sexual intercourse. I may not have sex with my play partners, but I would certainly consider the activites I do with them to be adultery if were doing them behind my husband's back. Tieing the notion of "adultery" to sexual intercourse misses many shades of meaning, in both the false positive and false negative direction.

For some, the love they have to give is like a pie. The more people they love, the smaller each slice must become. And so of course they need to be jealous and watchful and stingy with their slice, who could blame them? But for others, it's more like the ocean, seemingly endless and constantly replenished when nature adds to it. (And yes, that's corny too, but there you are )

Not corny at all, bella. 🙂 That's beautful, and true. In fact, your whole post was an awesome description of what these relationships are like, and what they really mean, for anyone with a mind open enough to hear.