Poly Relationships: For or Against. Why?

[Mz Chaos]

I think the notion that one person has to be the end-all, be-all of your universe puts an awful lot of pressure on a relationship. How many people on this forum have been frustrated and unhappy because their partner was perfect for them in every way except, say, tickling? Isn't it dumb to think you should walk away from the person you want to spend every day with, raise your children with, grow old with... just because they don't fulfill your fetish needs? Isn't is also dumb to think you should just forever forgo that part of who you are, when it could be possible to satisfy those desires without hurting your primary relationship?

Well... ya see...

What I wrote was what would be the kind of relationship I would feel comfortable in should I find myself in one.

I rely on no one else but myself for my happiness. I put that burden on no one. The years I have traveled around this old sun of ours has taught me that I alone am responsible for keeping myself happy and healthy. When I relied on someone else to keep me happy it was a failure, however when I took that job on myself I was quite good at it. I don't want anyone to think that it is their responsibility to see to it that all my needs are met because that would be an impossibility. It would also require a hell of a lot of patience and psychic abilities.
I am the only center of my universe. I am the only one responsible for everything that happens to me. I am the one who makes my choices and my mistakes and I am the only one who sees to it that my life is the best that it can be. I am the one who must like me and love me, only then am I of any use to others or are others any use to me.
As far as my fetishes go, they are mine, I am not theirs. They do not rule me nor are they even in the top twenty on my list of necessities that I require to get through life. To me fetishes are like chocolate, if I can get it and eat it that is great, but if I found that I needed to get on a diet I certainly would miss it but I could live without it.
I lived most of my life without some of my fetishes being fulfilled and certainly could have gone the rest of the way. But I do cherish the memories I have of those that have been filled for at least I got to experience them, even if it was only once.
For example... I LIKE being tickled... I do not NEED to be tickled. For another example... I LIKE sex... I do not NEED sex (and even if I did I can take care of that myself).
So... I may be dumb... I may be stupid... I may be an idiot... I may have times when the stress of bills, surgeries, and the weight of friends illnesses and family emergencies push my face down into the mud... but I do know that if the only thing standing between me and the contentment of being in a relationship where everything is great except that I am not being tickled... the tickling has got to go.

 

[LindyHopper]

I don't know that I'd say it's the primary purpose of most monogamous relationships - at least not if the relationship has any staying power.

If you mean that most poly relationships are sexual but don't involve intercourse, then that may be an overstatement...

I wasn't implying that most people in poly relationships don't have sex. I suggested that sexual intercourse isn't the primary reason most poly people are together. I feel like a lot of vanilla folks have this notion that people are poly just so they can fuck a whole bunch of people. I was hoping to convey that it's really more a matter of head and heart.

As far as my fetishes go, they are mine, I am not theirs. They do not rule me nor are they even in the top twenty on my list of necessities that I require to get through life. To me fetishes are like chocolate, if I can get it and eat it that is great, but if I found that I needed to get on a diet I certainly would miss it but I could live without it.
... I do know that if the only thing standing between me and the contentment of being in a relationship where everything is great except that I am not being tickled... the tickling has got to go.

Why must we approach this from a perspective of what we have to sacrifice in order to be happy? I can make a list of 100 things I want in my life. Some of them I can't have, and I can live without many others. But to the extent that I can, of course I would like to have as many of those 100 things as I can get! 😀 And if tickling is, say, #47, and I can have that, even outside my primary relationship, without hurting myself or my husband, why wouldn't I do so? Would giving up tickling somehow make me a better person? Make ours a better relationship?

Perhaps loving more, enjoying more, experiencing more... makes life better? Why give up chocolate, even if you could live without it, if you don't have to?

As for the rest... I can tell that we've had very different life experiences, and I figure that's most of the reason for our difference in perspectives. I hope your burden is ever lighter.

 

[-Hari-]

I can respect other peoples desire to take part in these relationships, I cant say if its right or wrong, guess it depends on the individuals views, if all involved are ok with it then how can it be wrong?

Personally I wouldnt take part in one at all tho, I believe a relationship isnt truely meaningful unless theres devotion between two people without the desire to have more people involved to either spice things up or fill in the gaps or whatever else they do it for. My partner should be my everything and I should be thiers, no need for anyone else.

 

[BellaRisa]

I can respect other peoples desire to take part in these relationships, I cant say if its right or wrong, guess it depends on the individuals views, if all involved are ok with it then how can it be wrong?

Personally I wouldnt take part in one at all tho, I believe a relationship isnt truely meaningful unless theres devotion between two people without the desire to have more people involved to either spice things up or fill in the gaps or whatever else they do it for. My partner should be my everything and I should be thiers, no need for anyone else.

I understand what you're saying about yourself Hari, but let me ask you: I've been with my husband for 17 years, married for 16, and I've been with my Dominant/boyfriend for 10 years, we plan to be together for another 40 or 50. We've been through everything from illness to childbirth to mortgages to 40 hr car trips Would you say my relationships weren't "truely meaningful" because there are three of us instead of two?

 

[-Hari-]

I understand what you're saying about yourself Hari, but let me ask you: I've been with my husband for 17 years, married for 16, and I've been with my Dominant/boyfriend for 10 years, we plan to be together for another 40 or 50. We've been through everything from illness to childbirth to mortgages to 40 hr car trips Would you say my relationships weren't "truely meaningful" because there are three of us instead of two?

I dont know, I would imagine it is or you wouldnt do it. I dont for a second think I can cast assumptions on whats meaningful or not to someone else.

If I had a girlfriend who wanted another guy as well as me, I would feel I wasnt enuf for her, because I as an individual want to fill my partners wants and desires, i cannot love more than one person at once, and the person I love should be all I need, and I expect that same commitment in return.

Im sure its meaningful to you, but it wouldnt be to me, just not the way I am, but i respect its the way you are and I cant judge you for that, at the end of the day, there are no rules, we make our own and we stick to them, I have mine and you have yours.

If I were doing what you do, I would by my own rules, be acting unfaithfully. And thats where we differ.

Thats not to say I think you are unfaithful, because as I said, I respect that different people have different views.

 

[LindyHopper]

Personally I wouldnt take part in one at all tho, I believe a relationship isnt truely meaningful unless theres devotion between two people without the desire to have more people involved to either spice things up or fill in the gaps or whatever else they do it for. My partner should be my everything and I should be thiers, no need for anyone else.

I think it's interesting that people only ever have this standard for romantic relationships, and not any other kind. If you have more than one friend, no one wouldn't say having a second friend means your first friendship isn't truly meaningful. If you have more than one child, people wouldn't accuse you of having the second one to spice things up or fill in the gaps. Every friend, every child, every relationship deserves to be considered on its own merits, don't you think?

I just think it's a shame that romantic love gets defined by exclusivity, when love is not assumed to be finite in any other area.

 

[-Hari-]

I think it's interesting that people only ever have this standard for romantic relationships, and not any other kind. If you have more than one friend, no one wouldn't say having a second friend means your first friendship isn't truly meaningful. If you have more than one child, people wouldn't accuse you of having the second one to spice things up or fill in the gaps. Every friend, every child, every relationship deserves to be considered on its own merits, don't you think?

I just think it's a shame that romantic love gets defined by exclusivity, when love is not assumed to be finite in any other area.

I strongly disagree that its a shame. If I thought that everyone should agree with my opinions then I would say its a shame that some people need more than one person to fulfill them romantically.

But thats not the case, everyone is different, its not a shame that people can find everything they want in one person and stay devoted to them without the need for others.... its a blissful thing to those who live like that.

The same way its blissful that there are people that can have more than one partner and still be happy, but thats something I never will or want to take part in.

I dont feel that a romantic partner falls into the same catagory as friends and children. Theres many different types of love, and I beleive the type of sexual romantic passionate love that happens between a man and a woman should be somethign shared in a twosome and no more.

I feel that when I give myself to someone, then im for them and them alone, when i kiss someone with all the passion I have in me because I love them, I cant give that same strengh of passion to someone else, its for them because they are the special one that ive given myself to.

Its not the same with kids and friends, you dont give them the same type of love, theres no bond like quite like it.

But as i said, its different for each person. these are my beliefs and I live by them and wouldnt have it any other way.

 

[Saeria]

I think when i try to come up with an opinion about this i find myself kinda lost. With myself, i recognize that I have a variety of different deep loves i have for people. These are kind of strange feelings, like i become in awe of someone, aesthetically inspired by them. In some ways i can love very close people around me intimately yet not quite sexually.
Now with this being said, i also think that a poly relationship starts not with just one person but with two people who are already in a strong intimate relationship. I recognize that i'm in a serious relationship with someone who is against any kind of poly relationship whatsoever, and it's that love and respect for him that keeps me "on the leash" so to speak. If it's him, one is enough and always will be. So, seeking out other people to love simultaneously would only hurt my relationship with him.



"Loved by
Loved by someone else
I know you're thinkin' 'bout it, i know you you're thinkin' bout it.
Loved by
wouldn't you love to be loved by
wouldn't you love to be loved by
would you love to be loved."

 

[Skipadeedoodah]

Well, here are a couple of examples I know of.

I know a poly quad - two men, two women, living in the same house and raising children together. There is a sexual relationship between the men and the women (hence the children 😉 ), but both men are straight. Yet the men do love one another, and not exactly in the way they love their own brothers.

My own wives love each other dearly - in fact if either of them thinks I'm neglecting the other one, believe me I hear about it. 🙂 And again, this isn't a sisterly sort of affection, but neither is it sexual.

I don't know if this is what Bella meant by non-sexual romantic love, but I don't know what else to call it.

I understand this logically, but emotionally I just can't wrap my head around it. I guess the love they share must just be a different kind of love than I've ever experienced. I guess, in my head, sexual love and romantic love are one and the same. I can't see having one without the other. Is that where I'm having trouble understanding this?

To me, romantic love and a friendship kind of love are separated by a line that is a sexual expression of that love. So to have love without sexual attraction/expression is a friendship kind of love. In order to crossover to romantic love, sex is like the bridge -- if that makes any sense at all.

 

[BellaRisa]

I strongly disagree that its a shame. If I thought that everyone should agree with my opinions then I would say its a shame that some people need more than one person to fulfill them romantically.

But thats not the case, everyone is different, its not a shame that people can find everything they want in one person and stay devoted to them without the need for others.... its a blissful thing to those who live like that.

The same way its blissful that there are people that can have more than one partner and still be happy, but thats something I never will or want to take part in.

I dont feel that a romantic partner falls into the same catagory as friends and children. Theres many different types of love, and I beleive the type of sexual romantic passionate love that happens between a man and a woman should be somethign shared in a twosome and no more.

I feel that when I give myself to someone, then im for them and them alone, when i kiss someone with all the passion I have in me because I love them, I cant give that same strengh of passion to someone else, its for them because they are the special one that ive given myself to.

Its not the same with kids and friends, you dont give them the same type of love, theres no bond like quite like it.

But as i said, its different for each person. these are my beliefs and I live by them and wouldnt have it any other way.

I understand this, I really do. That's why I've always highly respected monogamy.

Now I will say that I agree with Lindy to a degree: it is a bit of a shame that monogamy, which began because of male financial issues and the number of wives they were allowed and had absolutely nothing to do with love, has been put on a false pedestal and made to seem more faithful and honorable. Same with the idea that you can love many children and many sibling and friends, but more than one life partner just magically falls into a whole different category. That simply isn't true, cheesy romance novels notwithstanding; in current reality, when someone else having more wives doesn't make you less of a man in your Roman city-state, devoting your entire life and all that you have to two people is because you (gasp!) love two people, and it's no less faithful or 'right' than devoting to one

 

[BellaRisa]

I understand this logically, but emotionally I just can't wrap my head around it. I guess the love they share must just be a different kind of love than I've ever experienced. I guess, in my head, sexual love and romantic love are one and the same. I can't see having one without the other. Is that where I'm having trouble understanding this?

To me, romantic love and a friendship kind of love are separated by a line that is a sexual expression of that love. So to have love without sexual attraction/expression is a friendship kind of love. In order to crossover to romantic love, sex is like the bridge -- if that makes any sense at all.

I see what you're saying hon, and let me be more clear: I was talking about couples who can't or don't have sex for whatever reason but do have sexual attraction, my bad for not saying that.

 

[Skipadeedoodah]

I see what you're saying hon, and let me be more clear: I was talking about couples who can't or don't have sex for whatever reason but do have sexual attraction, my bad for not saying that.

I get what you're saying about the attraction, but I'm confused about romantic love without sexual expression of that love. Maybe if you give me some examples of potential reasons why these people wouldn't have sex, I might understand it better.

Just to be clear - I'm not trying to argumentative at all. This is just interesting to me, and I don't quite understand it.

 

[BellaRisa]

I get what you're saying about the attraction, but I'm confused about romantic love without sexual expression of that love. Maybe if you give me some examples of potential reasons why these people wouldn't have sex, I might understand it better.

Just to be clear - I'm not trying to argumentative at all. This is just interesting to me, and I don't quite understand it.

You're not being argumentive at all, you're asking good questions!

There are several reasons why a poly couple might not be having sex; they may be secondary partners and feel that actual intercourse is only for their primary partners, or that they should wait a few years and really make sure they're dedicated and then have an official ceremony (a handfasting or something similar in lieu of legal marriage). I've know of one couple who feels that sex might actually take the focus away from their romantic love and focus it too much on the physical; I'm not down with that for myself but I can kinda understand it...my point is just that you can be majorly into someone without expressing it sexually, it's not for everyone but it is legit 🙂

 

[-Hari-]

Same with the idea that you can love many children and many sibling and friends, but more than one life partner just magically falls into a whole different category. That simply isn't true

This is where I disagree. ya cant say its not true, it clearly is to alot of people, very much the case that it IS in a diferent catagory based on theyre views on the difference between the unreplacable love that comes from giving birth to yoru own child, the respectful love you have for your many friends and the sexual and passionate love you have with your loved one/s. theres no doubt in my mind that all different types of love magically fall into theyre own catagory, love isnt as simple as having one set of rules for all.

And having said that, its again down to each individual and theyre views on each type of love, whether they are the sort of person that devotes themself to one person sexually or many, the latter of which isnt right or wrong, its just preference and those who disagree with either *should* respect other and let them get on with it.

But I maintain that you cannot compare a sexual love to that of a child or a friend, its completely different and therefore carries a whole different bag of issues and disagreements... just like the one the this conversation is all about, the question only applies to romantic/sexual relationships because they are in a different league to other types of relationships.

I dont think its for any of us to claim whats true and whats not or whats right or wrong. If people are happy with what they are doing and theyre not hurting everyone then theres no problems, if people can express love in all these different ways than that just shows how flexible a thing love is.

Shiz... imagine if love WERE simple we couldnt have such thought provoking conversations 😛

 

[Skipadeedoodah]

my point is just that you can be majorly into someone without expressing it sexually

It would be utterly ridiculous for me to disagree with that statement 😛 I just feel like after awhile, the lack of sexual intimacy could/would blur the line between friendship and romance.

But of course, everyone is different!! That could very easily be just me 🙂

 

[BellaRisa]

This is where I disagree. ya cant say its not true, it clearly is to alot of people, very much the case that it IS in a diferent catagory based on theyre views on the difference between the unreplacable love that comes from giving birth to yoru own child, the respectful love you have for your many friends and the sexual and passionate love you have with your loved one/s. theres no doubt in my mind that all different types of love magically fall into theyre own catagory, love isnt as simple as having one set of rules for all.

And having said that, its again down to each individual and theyre views on each type of love, whether they are the sort of person that devotes themself to one person sexually or many, the latter of which isnt right or wrong, its just preference and those who disagree with either *should* respect other and let them get on with it.

But I maintain that you cannot compare a sexual love to that of a child or a friend, its completely different and therefore carries a whole different bag of issues and disagreements... just like the one the this conversation is all about, the question only applies to romantic/sexual relationships because they are in a different league to other types of relationships.

I dont think its for any of us to claim whats true and whats not or whats right or wrong. If people are happy with what they are doing and theyre not hurting everyone then theres no problems, if people can express love in all these different ways than that just shows how flexible a thing love is.

Shiz... imagine if love WERE simple we couldnt have such thought provoking conversations 😛

Don't get me wrong, I see your points and I would never say that one type of love is right or wrong, but I'll definitely say what's true and what isn't *with respect to individuals.* No one can ever explain to me why loving two husbands or two wives is so completely different than loving two children or two best friends or many parents and step-parents. It's just totally different, that's all. Um, alrighty then . Meanwhile, it seems to me that with family and friends, love is like an endless ocean and we never run out of it, there's enough for everyone. But somehow romantic love is the *one* type of love that's like a pie, and giving more than one person a slice makes all the other slices smaller and inadequate. That just doesn't make sense for me personally, though I respect that others can't share any pie without someone going hungry

 

[-Hari-]

Don't get me wrong, I see your points and I would never say that one type of love is right or wrong, but I'll definitely say what's true and what isn't *with respect to individuals.* No one can ever explain to me why loving two husbands or two wives is so completely different than loving two children or two best friends or many parents and step-parents. It's just totally different, that's all. Um, alrighty then . Meanwhile, it seems to me that with family and friends, love is like an endless ocean and we never run out of it, there's enough for everyone. But somehow romantic love is the *one* type of love that's like a pie, and giving more than one person a slice makes all the other slices smaller and inadequate. That just doesn't make sense for me personally, though I respect that others can't share any pie without someone going hungry

meh, this is why I hate the internet, its so hard to put across things the way they are in your head.

*attempts to break it down for my own good*

Love between sexual partners can be different or not different to the love you feel towards your kids or friends depending on each persons individual ability to love n that mannor.

Some people can love more than one sexual partner and doing that has no negative effect on the relationship/s.

Some people put all of theyre love into one sexual partner and loving someone else crosses the line of devotion that this type of person makes when they fall in love.

The love between a child and parent is something forged thru birth and is unbreakable, no matter how many kids you have.

The love between one person and his/her friend is based on respect and interaction of a non sexual nature (unless your the type of person that can happily have sex with your friends, but thats a WHOLE other conversation 😛 ) this can happen with many people because you dont devote yourself to them in the same way, it has to be different, if the love was the same, we`d all be in relationships with all of our friends, and wouldnt be able to tell the difference between friends and lovers.

And that brings us to the love between a person and his/her sexual partner. This either comes with singular or multible devotion. As many of us have agreed, neither is any more right than the other.

But in conclusion, the different types of love are all different and seporate in theyre available sets of opinions.

This is why I dont think they can be compared, theyre different ball games in the same field.

Loving two husbands is different to loving two children because loving a child is different to loving husband, you feel different towards them, its a different love altogether and its irrelevant how many children you can love.

I see it as an invalid arguement to compare child love to sexual love when each has its own set of feelings unique to the relationship you have with each. An invalid argument where no argument is needed, the point doesnt need to be validated with compasisans to other things, any open minded person can respect that different people love sexually in different ways.

anyway...

The love is different but that still doesnt change whether its right or wrong to have two sexual partners or not 😛


My head hurts abit now, I hope that made the sense I wanted it to 😛

 

[BellaRisa]

meh, this is why I hate the internet, its so hard to put across things the way they are in your head.

*attempts to break it down for my own good*

Love between sexual partners can be different or not different to the love you feel towards your kids or friends depending on each persons individual ability to love n that mannor.

Some people can love more than one sexual partner and doing that has no negative effect on the relationship/s.

Some people put all of theyre love into one sexual partner and loving someone else crosses the line of devotion that this type of person makes when they fall in love.

The love between a child and parent is something forged thru birth and is unbreakable, no matter how many kids you have.

The love between one person and his/her friend is based on respect and interaction of a non sexual nature (unless your the type of person that can happily have sex with your friends, but thats a WHOLE other conversation 😛 ) this can happen with many people because you dont devote yourself to them in the same way, it has to be different, if the love was the same, we`d all be in relationships with all of our friends, and wouldnt be able to tell the difference between friends and lovers.

And that brings us to the love between a person and his/her sexual partner. This either comes with singular or multible devotion. As many of us have agreed, neither is any more right than the other.

But in conclusion, the different types of love are all different and seporate in theyre available sets of opinions.

This is why I dont think they can be compared, theyre different ball games in the same field.

Loving two husbands is different to loving two children because loving a child is different to loving husband, you feel different towards them, its a different love altogether and its irrelevant how many children you can love.

I see it as an invalid arguement to compare child love to sexual love when each has its own set of feelings unique to the relationship you have with each. An invalid argument where no argument is needed, the point doesnt need to be validated with compasisans to other things, any open minded person can respect that different people love sexually in different ways.

anyway...

The love is different but that still doesnt change whether its right or wrong to have two sexual partners or not 😛


My head hurts abit now, I hope that made the sense I wanted it to 😛

You did very well, I understand exactly what you're trying to say

And I agree with you about 99%. I'm always going to feel that one can compare the different types of love, because they're all love, *but* I absolutely respect why you feel differently

 

[BellaRisa]

It would be utterly ridiculous for me to disagree with that statement 😛 I just feel like after awhile, the lack of sexual intimacy could/would blur the line between friendship and romance.

But of course, everyone is different!! That could very easily be just me 🙂

Heh, if it's a good long-term relationship the line between friendship and romance gets blurry all the time; ask Bill about the marathon conversations we have about the LOTR movies

 

[Redmage]

I wasn't implying that most people in poly relationships don't have sex. I suggested that sexual intercourse isn't the primary reason most poly people are together. I feel like a lot of vanilla folks have this notion that people are poly just so they can fuck a whole bunch of people. I was hoping to convey that it's really more a matter of head and heart.

Ah. Yes, no arguments there.

 

[Redmage]

I strongly disagree that its a shame. If I thought that everyone should agree with my opinions then I would say its a shame that some people need more than one person to fulfill them romantically.

In hopes of heading off a spat, let me try to clarify what I think Lindy meant, with something that I've seen happen more that once.

There are relationships that could be helped - perhaps even saved - by polyamory. But they aren't because the people involved have bought into the idea that monogamy is the only moral possibility. I don't mean people who are constitutionally unsuited to polyamory, but people for whom the only barrier is in their heads: they never try it because they don't know about it, don't believe it can work, and/or believe that it's wrong.

These people are trapped by their definitions. They have locked themselves into a definition of fidelity and romantic love that actually prevents them from being as happy as they could be.

Mind you, I'm not saying that you're such a person - I don't know you well enough to say. But such people do exist. I've met them. And that is a shame.

My ideal would be for people to understand that the traditional relationship model isn't the only one out there. That doesn't mean they have to try it, or even that it's right for any person in particular. But they can't see whether or not it will work for them if they don't understand their options, and that does call for some new flexibility in our definitions.

 

[-Hari-]

In hopes of heading off a spat, let me try to clarify what I think Lindy meant, with something that I've seen happen more that once.

There are relationships that could be helped - perhaps even saved - by polyamory. But they aren't because the people involved have bought into the idea that monogamy is the only moral possibility. I don't mean people who are constitutionally unsuited to polyamory, but people for whom the only barrier is in their heads: they never try it because they don't know about it, don't believe it can work, and/or believe that it's wrong.

These people are trapped by their definitions. They have locked themselves into a definition of fidelity and romantic love that actually prevents them from being as happy as could be.

Mind you, I'm not saying that you're such a person - I don't know you well enough to say. But such people do exist. I've met them. And that is a shame.

My ideal would be for people to understand that the traditional relationship model isn't the only one out there. That doesn't mean they have to try it, or even that it's right for any person in particular. But they can't see whether or not it will work for them if they don't understand their options, and that does call for some new flexibility in our definitions.

Ide like to think there was no spat to be had 😛

anyway, I think bella said similar and my answer to her was a better post than my last.

Im done with ths convo for today, my head hurts way too already 😛 some sort of mutual understanding has been met where im concerned... I think

 

[BellaRisa]

some sort of mutual understanding has been met where im concerned... I think

Yes, yes it has

 

[Flatfoot]

I am curious about this in love without sex thing though. I understand what Bella said about two people into the same kinks playing (i.e. spanking, tickling, whatever) and having it not be sexual. But I have harder time swallowing the idea on the vanilla end. Two people, romantically in love, but not having sex?? I get that sometimes people are physically incapable of having sex, and they can still be in love, but in my opinion, sex is a staple in a romantic relationship. It's what draws the line between a friendship and romance. I'd have a very difficult time being in a romantic/non sexual relationship long term. I think in the end, I'd end up feeling like we were just friends.

This is exactly what I was thinking, but didn't know how to articulate without directly equating love to sex. I know love doesn't equal sex, but shoot, if you're gonna have mashed potatoes, there better be some gravy! Probably not the best analogy, but... I dunno.

Also, I don't have anything against poly relationships, but I don't imagine that I could do it. I've never been a great multi-tasker, and having two bosses telling me what to do would be quite stressful. Hmm... call me crazy, but if I were to be REMOTELY comfortable with some sort of a poly relationship, I think I might be better suited towards polyandry. That'd be another guy I could not only hang out with, but who could take some of the heat off my back in certain instances! Then again, if having multiple partners is for the purpose of meeting certain needs through one partner that the other can't meet, I imagine said guy would be completely different from me, and I'd end up not getting along with him anyway, not to mention the whole jealousy thing seeping in. Yeah, I'm not certain I could do it.

Also, as far as the show Big Love, I don't know how Bill Paxton's character does it. I'd probably have kil--divorced Chloe Sevigny's character a LONG time ago. The other two women are cool. Well, Margene's a little naive and annoying... Okay, Barbara's the only one I'd be able to deal with. Yeah, I couldn't do polygamy.

 

[Icycle]

I do think it's a shame that our society has sort of a Highlander-esque, "there can be only one" attitude towards romantic relationships. If someone in a monogamous relationship finds himself attracted to someone else, then there is this underlying assumption that he must choose one or the other, and furthermore, that choosing the new person means he no longer loves the person he was with. And even if he doesn't choose the new person, the fact that was even attracted to someone else may lead him to question his existing relationship.