Poly Relationships: For or Against. Why?

[BellaRisa]

Like I said, "open relationship". The acceptance and consent by those involved in having more than one, intimate relationship at any given time, which is what polyamory is.

-Xionking

There's a difference, Xion. Poly is about having more than one relationship. Open marriages tend to be more about sex with other people, not love

 

[Deleted member 66627]

So, more or less, to be able to really be considered 'poly' there has to be a love aspect involved?

(huge just wondering question. Not trying to offend. 🙂)

 

[Redmage]

Like I said, "open relationship". The acceptance and consent by those involved in having more than one, intimate relationship at any given time, which is what polyamory is.

All you've focused on in the two posts in which you've discussed this is sex. You're all about the intimacy, not much about the relationship.

And no, that's not what polyamory is.

So, more or less, to be able to really be considered 'poly' there has to be a love aspect involved?

"Polyamory" means "having many loves," so yes, more or less. There are a lot of different ways of manifesting love, but if the only thing that defines a relationship is "fucking" then chances are it's not poly. Like I told xionking, that's more like swinging.

 

[BellaRisa]

So, more or less, to be able to really be considered 'poly' there has to be a love aspect involved?

(huge just wondering question. Not trying to offend. 🙂)

No offense taken hon 🙂 Love, or at least a very deep and loving friendship, are the hallmarks of polyamory (which means literally 'many loves')

 

[cloudgazer2k]

****

 

[Redmage]

No offense taken hon 🙂 Love, or at least a very deep and loving friendship, are the hallmarks of polyamory (which means literally 'many loves')

Hah. Beat you by four minutes!

i nearly lost a close friend when his wife, and mother of his son, decided that she wanted her other significant...other rather than him. she then spent the next two years or so dragging the divorce, and his life, through hell. i would only hope that other poly relationships do better than that.

How is this more devastating than an ugly divorce in a monogamous marriage? Heck, there's often even the "other man/woman" involved, except that relationship was never acknowledged openly until the marriage fell apart.

I'm not seeing anything uniquely damaging here.

 

[BellaRisa]

i nearly lost a close friend when his wife, and mother of his son, decided that she wanted her other significant...other rather than him. she then spent the next two years or so dragging the divorce, and his life, through hell. i would only hope that other poly relationships do better than that.

That's not poly. If it was then she wouldn't have felt she had to make a choice between the two men in her life. What you've described is monogamy done very, very poorly.

 

[Capnmad]

That's not poly. If it was then she wouldn't have felt she had to make a choice between the two men in her life. What you've described is monogamy done very, very poorly.

Okay, but curious, though -- isn't that assuming she felt she had to make a choice? Could she not have conceivably just fallen out of love with the other man, and simply chosen a monogamous relationship with someone else?

When you say, "That's not poly", for this situation, I'm not sure I get that. It's definitely unfortunate, but if we could take a look at any set of loving, sexual relationships involving more than two people that, for one circumstance or another dissolves into separate, uninvolved groups (as in this instance, the one man alone and the wife moved on to form a new couple with another)... ...well couldn't that group have been considered poly originally?

I think to say that the relationship CG2K described wasn't poly because we assume the mechanism leading to the results becoming unfavorable was that one somehow felt forced to choose (rather than them deciding of their own accord that it was time for a change and relationship boundaries to be redrawn) may be an argument more protective of the integrity of poly relationships than it is accurate. That is to say, if you can look at a failed set of relationships, and based on an assumption of the mechanics therein, figure a way to declare it "not poly", isn't that a bit of a convenient out in the defense of polys to declare it just "failed monogamy"? I know you can't and don't deny that there are failed poly relationships as well, but isn't this just pushing up the goal line to make it a loss for the other team?

Pardon my clunky phrasing -- not sure if I'm getting my point across, but still look forward to your response. If it's not clear I'll try to make it moreso next time.

 

[Tortuga]

Okay let me see if this will help....(Names aren't really important but what the hell, these are people that are not of the forum but BDSM relations) I am in a poly family with Master Skywolf and his mate Lady Dawn. A mate is usually another Dominant that submits to another Dominant, IE: Lady Dawn submits to Master Skywolf. They make any decisions that concerns the poly family together. Now, Master Skywolf has an alpha sub, Celia, she is kind of like the head submissive, IE: Kind of like a store manager. I am a protected submissive under Master Skywolf. Now that I'm done with the relationship tree, poly isn't something that is necessarily sexual, it can and it can't. Poly relationships are like a group of people that desire to build a long-term future together on mutually agreeable grounds, with sex as only one aspect of the relationships. Now in a poly household, communication is definitely something that is very important for all members. And to me anyways, it's really important to have a connection with all members of the household. Poly isn't a swingers club or some kind of harem, it's a loving relationship with a group of people.

 

[Capnmad]

Okay let me see if this will help....(Names aren't really important but what the hell, these are people that are not of the forum but BDSM relations) I am in a poly family with Master Skywolf and his mate Lady Dawn. A mate is usually another Dominant that submits to another Dominant, IE: Lady Dawn submits to Master Skywolf. They make any decisions that concerns the poly family together. Now, Master Skywolf has an alpha sub, Celia, she is kind of like the head submissive, IE: Kind of like a store manager. I am a protected submissive under Master Skywolf. Now that I'm done with the relationship tree, poly isn't something that is necessarily sexual, it can and it can't. Poly relationships are like a group of people that desire to build a long-term future together on mutually agreeable grounds, with sex as only one aspect of the relationships. Now in a poly household, communication is definitely something that is very important for all members. And to me anyways, it's really important to have a connection with all members of the household. Poly isn't a swingers club or some kind of harem, it's a loving relationship with a group of people.

I understand all that, but still, I don't think any of it necessarily prohibits the situation CG2K described as initially fitting the definition of a polyamorous relationship.

 

[RavenMoon]

I understand all that, but still, I don't think any of it necessarily prohibits the situation CG2K described as initially fitting the definition of a polyamorous relationship.

I agree with you.

Poly is a very delicate structure that requires a lot of work and dedication. There are so many outside factors from society and the government that threaten poly relationships, no matter how strong they can be. And the relationship is only as strong as the individuals within it.

We do not know what factors could have played a part in Cloudgazer's friend's relationship. But the same things that can harm a monogamous relationship can also strike at a poly one. Poly ones can fall apart just the same. And people in poly relationships can change their feelings about one another just the same as in a monogamous one. I know this first hand and my past poly relationship was no less poly than anyone else's here.

Like I said before, we are egocentric creatures and we like to judge and measure similar things around us according to our own experiences and understood definitions. I have read a lot of wonderful stuff in this thread, but I have also seen a bit of what I have just explained.

 

[cloudgazer2k]

****

 

[Redmage]

perhaps i should have explained better. it was a poly relationship, as there were 4 people involved in this. there were celebrations of union, since Texas doesn't recognize poly marriages. however, over time, things degraded. things started as a poly relationship, then became a nasty fight that lasted a long time.

the woman involved, supposedly, decided that she had an overnight change of heart and felt that the deadbeat she left with was more capable than the man she had originally married. she stated that she was a born-again Christian (though, for as long as i knew her, she was a devout Pagan), and used that as a part of the excuse as to why she caused the trouble she did.

Again, I'm not seeing what the failure of that relationship had to do with polyamory, or how this unfortunate mess was any worse than the bitterness that often arises when a monogamous marriage fails.

 

[cloudgazer2k]

Again, I'm not seeing what the failure of that relationship had to do with polyamory, or how this unfortunate mess was any worse than the bitterness that often arises when a monogamous marriage fails.

i give up. forget i said anything.

 

[Redmage]

OK. For the record, though, poly relationships certainly can fail. I've just never seen them to have any monopoly on nasty breakups.

 

[Capnmad]

A shame that Cloudgazer withdrew. 🙁 I think it's been a good and civil discussion.

I tend to think that as the number of romantically-involved parties increase, complexity also increases, and problems may be sooner overlooked than attended to, resulting in sustainability being more difficult than in mono relationships, statistically speaking.

The fact that some have successful, happy lives in long term polyamorous relationships shouldn't negate this, as there are always exceptions, especially when speaking in broad terms as I am.

Would you agree or disagree with my first statement regarding poly relationships?

 

[Redmage]

I tend to think that as the number of romantically-involved parties increase, complexity also increases, and problems may be sooner overlooked than attended to, resulting in sustainability being more difficult than in mono relationships, statistically speaking.

If you mean "Do poly relationships fail more often than monogamous relationships?" then I don't personally believe they do, but I don't have any numbers to say for certain.

If you mean "Are poly relationships more complex than mono relationships, thus requiring more attention?" then yes, they are. And arguably they require a skill set that isn't much taught in a society that's convinced that monogamy is the only real way. That said, nearly all the skills that make poly relationships work would also enhance monogamous relationships if they could be applied there.

And, as I noted earlier in the thread, poly relationships can be stronger and more resilient in some ways.

 

[Capnmad]

If you mean "Do poly relationships fail more often than monogamous relationships?" then I don't personally believe they do, but I don't have any numbers to say for certain.

If you mean "Are poly relationships more complex than mono relationships, thus requiring more attention?" then yes, they are. And arguably they require a skill set that isn't much taught in a society that's convinced that monogamy is the only real way. That said, nearly all the skills that make poly relationships work would also enhance monogamous relationships if they could be applied there.

And, as I noted earlier in the thread, poly relationships can be stronger and more resilient in some ways.

A good answer. Thank you.

 

[BellaRisa]

Okay, but curious, though -- isn't that assuming she felt she had to make a choice? Could she not have conceivably just fallen out of love with the other man, and simply chosen a monogamous relationship with someone else?

When you say, "That's not poly", for this situation, I'm not sure I get that. It's definitely unfortunate, but if we could take a look at any set of loving, sexual relationships involving more than two people that, for one circumstance or another dissolves into separate, uninvolved groups (as in this instance, the one man alone and the wife moved on to form a new couple with another)... ...well couldn't that group have been considered poly originally?

I think to say that the relationship CG2K described wasn't poly because we assume the mechanism leading to the results becoming unfavorable was that one somehow felt forced to choose (rather than them deciding of their own accord that it was time for a change and relationship boundaries to be redrawn) may be an argument more protective of the integrity of poly relationships than it is accurate. That is to say, if you can look at a failed set of relationships, and based on an assumption of the mechanics therein, figure a way to declare it "not poly", isn't that a bit of a convenient out in the defense of polys to declare it just "failed monogamy"? I know you can't and don't deny that there are failed poly relationships as well, but isn't this just pushing up the goal line to make it a loss for the other team?

Pardon my clunky phrasing -- not sure if I'm getting my point across, but still look forward to your response. If it's not clear I'll try to make it moreso next time.

I never said it didn't fit the description of poly initially. I'm sure it was. Just as a mono relationship can become poly, I believe a poly situation can become mono. And this one seemed to have done so, and badly at that. The rest of your post was...um...let's just say you went a bit deeper than I chose to

 

[Capnmad]

That's not poly. If it was then she wouldn't have felt she had to make a choice between the two men in her life. What you've described is monogamy done very, very poorly.

I never said it didn't fit the description of poly initially. I'm sure it was. Just as a mono relationship can become poly, I believe a poly situation can become mono. And this one seemed to have done so, and badly at that. The rest of your post was...um...let's just say you went a bit deeper than I chose to

That's... ...interesting. I guess I don't see how to reconcile these two statements.

In the first, you're describing the relationship as poly insofar as there are three people involved ("choice between the two men in her life"), but saying it's not poly if one party feels they have to choose. Okay, if we go with the assumption that that's how she was made to feel, I totally get that, and I can go with the "that's not poly" thing.

But then, in the second statement, you're saying that you actually meant once it became mono, it was no longer poly (rather than making mention of feeling the need to choose between the two men, as it seemed was the basis of the first statement). ...which is kind of obvious, but I'll go with it. But then to claim you "never said it didn't fit the definition of poly initially" seems a little bit contradictory with that first statement, "That's not poly." (which context shows clearly refers to her life at the time there were two men in it)...

Pardon me if I go deeper than most, but clarity and consistency are things useful for understanding. Can you kindly reconcile those statements for us?

 

[BellaRisa]

That's... ...interesting. I guess I don't see how to reconcile these two statements.

No problem, I'll type slower

Can you kindly reconcile those statements for us?

Soitanly. As I said, the situation described, which was the *ending* of that relationship, didn't strike me as poly, but mono. I wasn't talking about the entire relationship, just the last bit. Perhaps it was poly at one time, but at the time of it's end it wasn't, in my opinion. Feel free to disagree; I don't really need to be right on this but I gather you do

 

[Redmage]

That's... ...interesting. I guess I don't see how to reconcile these two statements.

In the first, you're describing the relationship as poly insofar as there are three people involved ("choice between the two men in her life"), but saying it's not poly if one party feels they have to choose. Okay, if we go with the assumption that that's how she was made to feel, I totally get that, and I can go with the "that's not poly" thing.

But then, in the second statement, you're saying that you actually meant once it became mono, it was no longer poly (rather than making mention of feeling the need to choose between the two men, as it seemed was the basis of the first statement). ...which is kind of obvious, but I'll go with it. But then to claim you "never said it didn't fit the definition of poly initially" seems a little bit contradictory with that first statement, "That's not poly." (which context shows clearly refers to her life at the time there were two men in it)...

Let me take a whack at it.

First, the fact that there are three people involved does not, by itself, make the relationship polyamorous. Lots of monogamous, adulterous marriages have three people involved.

At some point, the lady in this relationship felt that she had to make a choice between the men in her life. That's not really an assumption - it's unlikely that she would have made such a disruptive decision if she didn't feel the need. We can speculate on her motives - perhaps she had "grown out of love" with one of them, or perhaps she simply felt she couldn't keep both relationships, but either way the point at which that decision was pressed on her the previous polyamorous relationship ceased to exist.

Did she become monogamous? We can split hairs on this one, but I don't see much point. The only way to know for certain would be to find her and ask her if, at that moment, she would have felt comfortable bringing another man or woman into her relationship with the man she chose. My guess is that she would answer no, if only because that moment held enough heartache and disruption without adding that in.

Be that as it may, the polyamorous relationship that had existed before was no longer polyamorous once she felt she could not sustain both relationships.

Now, at this point I think your search for "clarity" is in danger of refining points so fine that they become impossible to see. Which isn't really serving clarity any more. For my money, the central point here is that relationships fail, but that the pain that comes from that isn't really any greater in a poly relationship than it is in a monogamous relationship.

 

[BellaRisa]

Be that as it may, the polyamorous relationship that had existed before was no longer polyamorous once she felt she could not sustain both relationship.

This.

 

[Capnmad]

No problem, I'll type slower

Soitanly. As I said, the situation described, which was the *ending* of that relationship, didn't strike me as poly, but mono. I wasn't talking about the entire relationship, just the last bit. Perhaps it was poly at one time, but at the time of it's end it wasn't, in my opinion. Feel free to disagree; I don't really need to be right on this but I gather you do

You disappoint. 🙁 The slyly patronizing little barbs are unnecessary and never wear well on you, Bella (even with the spoonful-of-sugar emoticon attached). And you should know there's a difference between asking questions to understand something so you can get it right, and needing to be right and assuming so about something regardless of understanding.

I’ve been inquisitive, even humble in my approach, asking pardon for my clunky use of language. I have made no declarations of my accuracy over yours (I don’t even know what I’d be trying to declare that I’m so right about, to your mind), but looked for you to reconcile two statements, because I didn't get it.

It seemed to me that you were calling it non-poly on the first occasion based on an assumption that someone felt pressured to make a decision, and on the second, calling it non-poly after it dissolved and was clearly so, and were backpedaling from your previous characterization. Indeed, your writing so indicates, if without additional clarification.

Thank you, Redmage, for your clarifying response. Makes more sense, though based on CG2K’s description and what was written in response, I’d still debate a couple of your points... ...but when some people start making little slights at those asking for clarity, the annoyance/curiosity scale says the topic's no longer worth discussing.

 

[Deleted member 66627]

Feel free to disagree; I don't really need to be right on this but I gather you do

You disappoint. 🙁 The slyly patronizing little barbs are unnecessary and never wear well on you, Bella (even with the spoonful-of-sugar emoticon attached). And you should know there's a difference between asking questions to understand something so you can get it right, and needing to be right and assuming so about something regardless of understanding.

Alas, she's got a point though, hon. 🙂

http://www.ticklingforum.com/showpost.php?p=2064694&postcount=134