Poly Relationships: For or Against. Why?

[Capnmad]

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

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

I'm not going to shun being right when I am, and I'm not going to shy from being corrected when I'm wrong. That's hardly a need to be right. You were welcome to correct me on my observation, and did not, or could not. Is that my fault?

 

[Deleted member 66627]

I'm not going to shun being right when I am, and I'm not going to shy from being corrected when I'm wrong. That's hardly a need to be right. You were welcome to correct me on my observation, and did not, or could not. Is that my fault?

No, it's not your fault. I felt that there was no need to. 😉

 

[Dussicar]

Well, after reading the many and well thought out debates in this thread, my opinion will pretty much be anti-climactic and simplistic but I figure I'd chime in anyhow.

By nature (or the nature of me), I am monogamous. I can't see myself getting into a ploy relationship. It just wouldn't rub me the right way. I guess in that respect, I go with the status quo.

However, I am not opposed to poly relations if all parties involved were willing and accepting of the arrangement. I actually saw one years ago where the decision was not unnanimous and somebody only went along with it out of fear of losing their "special someone." It made no sense to me. If it is not in your nature and it hurts, then why would you go on with it?

But then again, self destruction and enduring emotional pain for the sake of love is nothing new.

Pound for pound, I don't think it's my place to judge these arrangements just because I don't do it myself. You do whatever makes you happy as long as nobody gets hurt...Unless you like that too.

 

[Capnmad]

No, it's not your fault. I felt that there was no need to. 😉

Excellent. Perhaps you can rediscover the same sense that there's no need the next time you're fighting the urge to take credit for what someone else said. 😉

 

[Deleted member 66627]

Excellent. Perhaps you can rediscover the same sense that there's no need the next time you're fighting the urge to take credit for what someone else said. 😉

You dissapoint. 🙁 The slyly patronizing little barbs are unnecessary and never wear well on you, Morgan (even with the spoonful-of-sugar emoticon attached). Just because I didn't word it in a way that you, yourself could understand doesn't mean that it was anyone taking credit for anything. Alas, I'm not worried about taking credit, but I'm sure you are.

 

[Capnmad]

You dissapoint. 🙁 The slyly patronizing little barbs are unnecessary and never wear well on you, Morgan (even with the spoonful-of-sugar emoticon attached). Just because I didn't word it in a way that you, yourself could understand doesn't mean that it was anyone taking credit for anything. Alas, I'm not worried about taking credit, but I'm sure you are.

You disappoint when you misspell "disappoint". Next time, please cut and paste my entire expression for accuracy's sake. But pretending I can't understand? Nice condescending touch. 🙂

Oh, but feel free to show where you word my sentiment at all, and thank you for helping with my illustration, Jo...

I've demonstrated I can do exactly what you and Bella have done -- ignorantly assume something about your motive, and provoke a more irritable response.

I typically lend people the benefit of the doubt, and see where civil discussion leads. For all I know, you may have misremembered your previous comments or misspoken... This is all conceivable. For all I know, Bella's original phrasing may have only been confusing or confused. And for all you know, I've been honest in looking for responses that clarify what I missed about your alleged comment and demonstrates how Bella's statements are consistent. I do my best to hold all these options open when dealing with people, because I'm not in your heads, and I can't tell your motives for certain.

But no -- people have to start assuming mine (what deficiency compels them I will not speculate) -- that I "need to be right", or some bs. Then should I jump in the sandbox with you? Why should I extend either of you the benefit of the doubt? Perhaps from now on, I should assume the worst of your motives and cast slights and aspersions on you and Bella. Perhaps, Jo, you're just the self-aggrandizer I've heard, you can't stand being wrong, and inexplicably now even have to take credit from others.

But why should I assume that? It's ignorant and makes me the asshole. ...but you've done it.

This behavior is poison, and you've helped me demonstrate why. Assumption without knowledge and patronization is poison, and demonstrating how much so, we've returned it to each other in kind until we got here.

The problem is, I'm not the only one who sees this, and I'm hardly the only one this is visited upon. This is part of why people start seeing the whole "clique" thing -- because they can see people in Leadership modeling this behavior, their close friends picking up on it, and other people not challenging it because they just don't want the hassle. I know that people leave threads and even the Forum because this poison is so popular here. Some folks just give up talking to some of you because of it. And it's sad, really.


This would all be a lot easier if people would just be straight with each other while withholding their ignorant assumptions and the bullshit one-upmanship.

 

[Deleted member 66627]

You know, Morgan, it's easy for you to cast assumptions and barbed words as you just have. But it seems to be more difficult for you to sit back and analyze your own behavior. Going after Bella regardless, when you've done the same thing many, many times before. I would know as I've been on the recieving end of most of those remarks and comments.

This has nothing to do with any form of clique-mentality, as tempting as it seems to want to throw that word around. You walk around with a Mod-headed mentality, automatically assuming that if you make a post long and fill it with big enough words then you'll have solved the issue. You assume that every thread with an issue absolutely NEEDS your touch and you even go as far as to claim such things as, "I wish I could sort this one out." or "This is what needs to be done."

So preaching about holier then thou with the behavior that you set across the board is just like the pot calling the kettle black. I *KNOW* what other's say about me, even though they are doing exactly what you claim you're tired of; "ignorant assumptions" and "bullshit one-upmanship". It's life and you just have got to keep on keeping on.

But don't for one minute assume that just because you're smarter and quite possibly more mature then myself or others here that you are excluded from the poision of which you preach. And furthermore proved Bella's aforementioned point of just HAVING to be correct with your desire to stoop as low to correct my spelling.

 

[Capnmad]

And furthermore proved Bella's aforementioned point of just HAVING to be correct with your desire to stoop as low to correct my spelling.

Hey, you're gonna' try to use my own words against me, you could at least have the courtesy to spell 'em right. You want to go on the attack, expect a counter. And if you want to say that you said something, be ready to back it up. That's all I ask.

Wish I could get into more, but I've gotta' go to work. 'Night. 🙂

 

[chicago]

I'm hesitant to chime in here, as I'm sure I'll get a lot of flack for it, but if someone were to seemingly say two contradictory things, I would want clarification and I have to admit, I've seen a lot of snide and condescending remarks from one side.

I can also see how people start these "clique" ideas when one person is politely disagreeing, or just even wanting clarification from, another, but instead of polite responses, said person gets a barrage of condescending and not-so-subtle "barbs" by not only the person he was originally talking to, but another coming to her aid.

It's kind of ridiculous, especially when people are making these childish remarks and then playing dumb when they're blatantly pointed out to them.

At any rate, back on topic...

The whole poly thing is interesting to me, but I don't feel I could ever really make it work as perhaps I'm just monogamous, or have been somewhat "trained" that way by society.

 

[asutickler]

Speaking from a strictly personal standpoint, I really don't think I'd do too well with polyamory. Don't get me wrong, the idea of having several girlfriends does have a certain appeal... However, maintaining just one intimate relationship is a lot of work. When I think about it seriously, I really can't see myself putting forth the effort that it would probably take to maintain two or more at the same time. I'm just too lazy, and I also need a significant amount of time to myself.

 

[Capnmad]

Given how far I've helped take this thread off-topic, I'll wrap things up via PM so as not to derail further. Mods, thanks for letting our discussion proceed unabated.

 

[xSamanthax]

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?

I would agree with the first half of your statement - that there is an increased complexity.

I would not agree that problems may be sooner overlooked than attended to. From my experience, most people that truly understand polyamory understand that more complexity requires more honest communication and more vigilance in keeping a balance that meets everyone's needs. These folks tend to confront jealousy, emotional needs, and stuff like that head on. They tend to dig a little deeper, looking for the trigger of the jealousy, rather than to just say "uh oh, a negative emotion, let's just ignore that and hope it goes away".

Then there are those who think that poly is a code word for swinging, or casual sex...

 

[LindyHopper]

Wow, I go away for five days and this thread is still going? Impressive...

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.

I'd agree that complexity increases, but I've tended to see that discussion increases proportionally. One interesting thing about polyamory is that there isn't a well-understood handbook for it. You kind of have to talk things through, and check in often, to make sure everyone's happy. It's comparatively easy to coast along in a monogamous relationship, following cultural scripts and assumptions for how things are supposed to work, whether or not they actually are working. Custom-designed relationships tend to take more communication, and be a better fit.

 

[LindyHopper]

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

I would say that love is a possibility, not a requirement. Clearly, you probably aren't already in love with a person you've just met who might eventually become very important to you. That takes time to evolve. The point is that the end goal is more than sex in and of itself.

I think a polyamorous relationship is one where the individuals involved are open to the possibility that a serious relationship might evolve outside of the two of them. I'd also point out that a couple can be polyamorous even if there are only two of them at that particular moment, just as gay man is still gay if he's single.

 

[BellaRisa]

Wow, I go away for five days and this thread is still going? Impressive...



I'd agree that complexity increases, but I've tended to see that discussion increases proportionally. One interesting thing about polyamory is that there isn't a well-understood handbook for it. You kind of have to talk things through, and check in often, to make sure everyone's happy. It's comparatively easy to coast along in a monogamous relationship, following cultural scripts and assumptions for how things are supposed to work, whether or not they actually are working. Custom-designed relationships tend to take more communication, and be a better fit.

Let me cosign this, well said. Also, one aspect that tends to be overlooked is that while there can certainly be more complexities, often problems actually go overlooked *less* with poly because there are more observations and points of view, another person to help acknowledge and voice that there even IS a problem. I've noticed quite often that this can be an issue with monogamy, one partner being unsure if there's even an issue worth mentioning, so something festers for far too long until it gets really bad and resentment builds. Having another partner's insight can be a tremendous help with issues that may arise. I can tell you firsthand that another person, a third partner, who really knows the dynamic between yourself and the partner you have an issue with, can be **amazingly** helpful in figuring out how best to tackle a problem, how to communicate, etc.

 

[Redmage]

Let me cosign this, well said. Also, one aspect that tends to be overlooked is that while there can certainly be more complexities, often problems actually go overlooked *less* with poly because there are more observations and points of view, another person to help acknowledge and voice that there even IS a problem. I've noticed quite often that this can be an issue with monogamy, one partner being unsure if there's even an issue worth mentioning, so something festers for far too long until it gets really bad and resentment builds. Having another partner's insight can be a tremendous help with issues that may arise. I can tell you firsthand that another person, a third partner, who really knows the dynamic between yourself and the partner you have an issue with, can be **amazingly** helpful in figuring out how best to tackle a problem, how to communicate, etc.

It does work that way in the ideal, though I know that it is still possible for something like that to go unaddressed even in a poly relationship. Granted there's less excuse for it there, but I have seen complexities and insecurities among one or several partners stifle that communication.

If there is a single great trap that's unique to polyamory it is that it can be easier for problems between two or more partners to be unspoken because of the support structure that a poly relationship provides. If a component relationship is troubled, and there seems to be no easy solution, then it can be very easy to fall back on other relationships in the group for a while or even expand the group by adding another relationship. (NRE is a lovely and delightful way to lose oneself for a time.)

The problems aren't ignored, exactly, but put at a distance for a time in hopes that they'll sort themselves out. Sometimes that's just easier than doing what it would take to fix them, or admitting that they can't be fixed. It's the converse of the enhanced communication that you mentioned, which is also a feature of poly relationships.

Of course this can happen in monogamous relationships as well. The classic situation there is a troubled relationship in which one or both partners seek outside relationships without telling their mate. So they end up with the problem they started off with and betrayal besides. That might happen more often in monogamous relationships because of the communication that poly encourages. I just needed to mention that the same aspects that can bring problems to light in polyamory can also let them go unspoken if those involved aren't careful.

In some ways a polyamorous relationship is like a magnifying glass. It enlarges and clarifies rules that ought to apply to any relationship:

1) Play fair.
2) Talk sooner rather than later.
3) Don't turn to others when you need to talk to someone you love.
4) Watch out for each other.

Poly folks have made something of a science of this, but we can still use reminders now and again.

 

[BellaRisa]

It does work that way in the ideal, though I know that it is still possible for something like that to go unaddressed even in a poly relationship. Granted there's less excuse for it there, but I have seen complexities and insecurities among one or several partners stifle that communication.

If there is a single great trap that's unique to polyamory it is that it can be easier for problems between two or more partners to be unspoken because of the support structure that a poly relationship provides. If a component relationship is troubled, and there seems to be no easy solution, then it can be very easy to fall back on other relationships in the group for a while or even expand the group by adding another relationship. (NRE is a lovely and delightful way to lose oneself for a time.)

The problems aren't ignored, exactly, but put at a distance for a time in hopes that they'll sort themselves out. Sometimes that's just easier than doing what it would take to fix them, or admitting that they can't be fixed. It's the converse of the enhanced communication that you mentioned, which is also a feature of poly relationships.

Of course this can happen in monogamous relationships as well. The classic situation there is a troubled relationship in which one or both partners seek outside relationships without telling their mate. So they end up with the problem they started off with and betrayal besides. That might happen more often in monogamous relationships because of the communication that poly encourages. I just needed to mention that the same aspects that can bring problems to light in polyamory can also let them go unspoken if those involved aren't careful.

In some ways a polyamorous relationship is like a magnifying glass. It enlarges and clarifies rules that ought to apply to any relationship:

1) Play fair.
2) Talk sooner rather than later.
3) Don't turn to others when you need to talk to someone you love.
4) Watch out for each other.

Poly folks have made something of a science of this, but we can still use reminders now and again.

I quoted your entire post because it's excellent, thank you . It's true that having other partners to turn to can keep you from talking to the one you need to be communicating with, that's a common theme in the posts on the Poly community on LiveJournal; in mono relationships I've seen that happen with parents or siblings or best friends, while with poly it tends to be another partner or lover. In mey experience that can make it easier, because the partner confided in can act as a bridge of communication where a friend/sibling/in-law wouldn't feel right, but I can also totally see that putting that partner in a bad spot, the middle, and making it harder on them and everyone involved. Ugh, I don't believe that poly is more difficult that monogamy, but it ain't easier is it?

 

[Redmage]

I quoted your entire post because it's excellent, thank you.

*elvis* Thenkew. Thenkewverymuch. */elvis

in mono relationships I've seen that happen with parents or siblings or best friends, while with poly it tends to be another partner or lover. In my experience that can make it easier, because the partner confided in can act as a bridge of communication where a friend/sibling/in-law wouldn't feel right, but I can also totally see that putting that partner in a bad spot, the middle, and making it harder on them and everyone involved.

I've also seen it happen that the partner one turns to is unable to look at the situation objectively, and ends up taking one side or the other.

For example I can often to talk to one of my wives about a difficulty I'm having with the other, because they care about one another and have an investment in that relationship. But it's much harder to talk with either of them about a relationship outside our marriage, because their instinctive reaction is "She hurt you?!?" and then their claws pop out like Wolverine's. So instead of objective feedback or an attempt to mediate I get unconditional support for whatever I'm thinking of doing - which is lovely, but not so helpful if what I'm doing is a bad idea.

It's not always even a matter of advice, though. Sometimes the failure mode is simply to stay away from a painful spot in one relationship and take comfort in one of the other component relationships, or in a new one.

Ugh, I don't believe that poly is more difficult that monogamy, but it ain't easier is it?

No, it's not. The one good thing is that poly folks get to see a lot of different relationship styles both in their friends' relationships and in their own. The single greatest weakness in monogamy, IMO, is simply the cultural assumption that there's only one good/proper way to have a relationship.

There is one rule I should have added to the list in my last post:

5) Know thyself.

All the communication in the world is no good if you're communicating the wrong information to your partner(s). It's very easy to tell someone that you need something if what you really need might be something that you don't want to admit to yourself, or if you're concerned that it will harm the way your partner sees you. We hairless apes play all kinds of games with ourselves.

 

[Capnmad]

Genetic influence versus cultural?

Something interesting in the coverage of this topic is reference to how culture affects things -- that the culturally dominant thing is monogamy, and generally, polyamory isn't accepted, and so, there's rarely the occasion to impart the interpersonal skills needed to properly manage a poly relationship.

I get that angle of cultural effects, but do you think it's culture that dictates the dominance of monogamy over polyamory, or is there something in our genes?

It seems to me conceivable that a trend toward polyamory may be influenced by genes coding for genetic dispersion (seeking more partners to increase the possibility of spreading your genes on to various offspring from couplings with multiple partners). While most probably tend to think this may apply only to men looking to spread their genes, I imagine there may be a gene coding for multiple-partner-seeking among women, such that their offspring might benefit from a wider range of genetic compliments, because a possible weakness in one genome in one child would less likely be revisited in another child if by a different father. (Mind you, I'm not saying multiple-partner-seeking is polyamory -- only that genes coding for it might influence someone more to pursue a sustainable arrangment with more than one partner.)

Alternatively, it's conceivable that there are genes coding for specifically single-partner bonding as the arrangement would increase the likelihood of having two consistent providers, in turn possibly increasing likelihood of survival of the offspring.

Both types of genes offer advantages in the successful continuance of genes. Could it be that one set of genes is just more dominantly expressed in some people while the other is more dominant in others, helping dictate the type of romantic relationships that they engage in? Could they trump cultural effects in influence?

Curious about your opinions.

 

[Redmage]

I get that angle of cultural effects, but do you think it's culture that dictates the dominance of monogamy over polyamory, or is there something in our genes?

Unlikely, since monogamy is predominant mainly in countries that were once controlled by the Roman Empire, and eventually by Christianity. In other societies polygamy has been fairly common, polyandry less so.

Genetically, polygamy (one male with several female mates) makes the most sense as a reproductive strategy. That's because female reproduction is bound to a 9-month cycle, while male reproduction is not. Not to put too fine a point on it, but a male with a harem can impregnate several of them in the time it takes for one of them to give birth. That means that the local gene pool (that is, that family and others like it in the same area) can expand much more rapidly than a society that reproduces one-on-one. And rapid reproduction is very strongly selected in the genome of any species.