muggiwhplar

Out of curiosity, what's stopping you guys from soft nexting? Is it because you think it's mean? Do you think the ends won't justify the means? Are you afraid of the consequences? All of the above? It's kind of hard to discuss the efficacy of it with you guys if you aren't willing to try it yourselves :P If I "cut them off," it would only be temporarily until they've become calm and rational. If you're talking about soft nexting in a monogamous relationship, then you can, and you should. Remember that you only ignore someone for a few days and then talk to them as if nothing ever happened. As opposed to cutting them out of your life completely. My parents were married long before 1990 ;)

My parents have never given me "unnecessary drama" (though I've sure given them a ton when I was a kid! :D). Remember, drama is things like yelling, crying, threatening, etc. If my parents ever have a "conflict" with me, they address it in a very calm, mature manner.

To be clear, girls will happily return after a "soft nexting period." And they will also happily return after they dump me for a guy who will promise them exclusivity, because eventually the monogamy guy will either bore her or cheat on her. Exactly. The girl has pretty much all the freedom in the world as far as her relationship with me goes. Other guys tend to be very territorial and needy, which is one of the reasons why I'm preferred over other men, despite the soft nexts. Remember the reason why we soft next. Men crave sex, and women crave attention. Funny thing is, I knew about this "fact" from psych studies I read in high school, but never really considered the implications of it. So with that said, soft nexting wouldn't work on any relationships I have with male friends because men don't care as much if you "ignore" them. The only way to achieve similar results would be to withdraw sex. But I shouldn't have to explain that one :P Similarly, these are sexual and possibly romantic relationships with women. That's not the same kind of relationship I have with my mom, for example :P I think you'll appreciate reading this and this, for ideas on what love in polyamory looks like. That Ginny and Gina thing that Kimberly quoted also touched on the idea.

I find it kind of funny that nobody except Kimberly and I will probably read this debate. Which sucks because even if Kimberly and I disagree, at least she'll probably understand where I'm coming from, whereas everybody else in this thread who didn't bother to read all of the posts today will still be left in the dark. Oh well.

That's not a valid reason to say I'm forcing them. If people enter a relationship with me with flawed expectations, even after understanding what I stand for, then that's their fault, not mine. The person who starts the conflict is the one who's "forcing" the other. The person who starts the conflict is the one who is ending the "ideal" of the "independent" relationship and shifting it towards a more power-oriented relationship like the dominant-submissive dynamic. The slippery slope leads to mutual unhappiness (a.k.a. the same unhappiness in the typical failed monogamous relationship). The ends justify the means. Sadly I can't personally argue with this right now since I only began experimenting with MLTRS recently and have had to "restart" my polyamorous lifestyle over the summer after moving to a new city. However, most of the guys who have been doing poly for a very long time with practically identical states of mind as BD can have poly relationships that are virtually drama-free for at least three years, before any sort of "problems" occur. And even if the relationship "ends," it eventually "resets" again in the future when the girl becomes sick of the guy she abandoned the poly guy for. This suggests that the MLTR arrangement is actually much more mutually-beneficial than the standard monogamy model. You're not talking about this and this, are you? He covered what we seem to be discussing with great detail in that chart and thread. I feel bad having to make you read all of this new information... and then argue with you about it immediately afterwards haha. Oh well. We can always debate the ethics, effectiveness, and practicality of all of these other topics at a later date. I think you're talking about the implications of actually "obeying" the girl's problems. But those implications (a.k.a. "betaization") are a MASSIVE topic beyond the scope of my reply (for now, at least). Right. And an emotionally mature person wouldn't be giving me drama like this in the first place because she'd understand the implications of our "arrangement." Choosing to quit seeing another girl just because one girl is irrationally unhappy just doesn't make any sense. You have to remember that I believe that awesome women are everywhere. It's not really a loss if I break up with one girl because there's another girl who's even prettier and more mature right around the corner. I'm beginning to suspect that you think it's bad if one person has more "power" than the other person. Is this true? Hopefully you don't also believe that a 50/50 relationship exists? (Let me know if I'm completely misunderstanding you and putting words into your mouth :P) Well, like I alluded to earlier, the implications for "caving in" and starting to get involved with conflict are not pretty. They are hard and fast rules for a reason. But it's not easy. It sounds easy, but it's not. Like I mentioned earlier, it can still be emotionally difficult to see a girl upset with you, even if you know she has no logical justification for her emotions. Think of why a lot of people are afraid to break up with their partners whom they no longer desire. They're afraid of seeing them sad and/or they can't bear the loss. Most guys don't follow BD's advice when it comes to "soft nexting" because they lack the emotional maturity (a.k.a. "callousness" to some of you :P) to do so. And then they can't figure out why their relationships are suddenly full of problems. It sounds easy to do in theory, but it's much harder to do in practice. Darn emotions. :P Again, the reason "soft nexts" exist, despite their political incorrectness, is because it preserves the romance and passion of a relationship. The ends justify the means. 2 would only be "bad" (decreasing your maximum happiness) for you if you value the potential happiness more than your stable happiness. The happiness is no longer stable when I must decide between options 1, 2, and 3. But I know what will happen if I choose option 2. I've learned from the mistakes of countless men who thought it would be a good idea to choose option 2. And again if we're going to follow your logic on this one, then she's forcing me to react in a certain way by starting this problem in the first place. In the example we've been using, I consider it emotionally immature and unjustified to make me choose between options 1, 2, and 3. I'd much rather be with a girl that doesn't force me to make such a decision in the first place. You've got it backwards. Again, I'm not forcing anyone out. If they leave, it's their decision. They don't have the right to say, "OK I'll try an open relationship; but if I don't like what I'm agreeing to, then it's your fault!"

As a man focused on personal happiness, is the potential of drama such a threat to you, no matter how small, that you need to adopt such black and white guidelines? It seems to be a very selfish point of view if you expect interested parties to conform to your guidelines without giving any concessions, no matter how short your relationships tend to be. The drama thing is kind of a slippery slope. The more you tolerate, the worse it gets. Though girls have a tendency to displace their drama on other people instead of me if I don't put up with it... and then they're happy little angels when they see me again :D God no, that would be imposing my viewpoints on you, and that's asinine. I simply picked a scenario that I think you'd face fairly regularly with partners who might not fully understand the harsh guidelines you maintain to find out what you would do. I do find it slightly odd that you consider my relationship parameters as "harsh guidelines," especially when compared to monogamy's guidelines. I mean hell, one of my girls can go get married and have kids with another man if she wants to and I won't be upset! Just as long as she's sweet and kind to me. :) Is that too much to ask? >_> The happiness I already have is threatened once the drama begins. If I could pull partners with relative ease, then why would I spend time with a girl who's making me unhappy when I could replace her with a girl who will be much more enjoyable to be around? Wouldn't the roles immediately be reversed if I "caved in" to her demands, instead of suggesting that we both just part ways since both of us can't be happy with the current arrangement? In the situation you described, the options are: 1. I keep seeing new girl, current girl stays (ok for me, bad for her) 2. I quit seeing new girl (bad for me, ok for her) 3. I keep seeing new girl, current girl leaves (good for both of us) You can't fault me for refusing to choose option 2. If the current girl is really that upset, then obviously option 3 would be the best. And again, this is her choice. If she chooses option 3, that's great. But if she chooses option 1, that's her fault, not mine. More food for thought from your favorite person: http://blackdragonbl...men-the-choice/ :P

The premise I have been trying to create in this entire scenario is that both parties are acting as maturely as they're able -- in reality there might be an argument or minor spat. Avoiding it is almost impossible, yet if they do good for them. But the premise I am trying to outline is that both parties eventually discuss the potential candidate together as civilly as possible to avoid strain or premature break-ups (assuming both had the capacity to continue if the potential candidate never was found). Would you ditch the potential to maintain one or more of the MLTRs you currently have? Basically, would you keep what you know you're happy with now to avoid drama, knowing you have the potential to find another FB or candidate for MLTR in the future, if by doing so comes at a cost of your "power" (insisting that the current partner who is unhappy with your choice leaves so you can continue pursuing the potential candidate) I would continue pursuing the potential candidate. If/when one of my current MLTRs addressed the issue with me rationally, I'd tell her that I'm going to keep seeing whoever I want to see, and if she can't handle that, then I'll understand if she wants to go see someone instead of me (which hopefully she's been doing this entire time. Because if she has, this issue probably won't even come up in the first place). It's not a perfect system. No perfect system exists. But the benefits of my relationships exceed the occasional problems. And they're also much more conducive to my long-term happiness than traditional monogamy is. If that "fueling drama" ever reaches the tipping point, then the relationship just ends and we both move on... and then she'll probably return eventually after seeing her alternatives >_> BTW when you're talking about the "potential candidate" situation, are you suggesting that I should reject the potential candidate, and get exclusive with the girl who's angry? Or reject the potential candidate in favor of a different new potential candidate? Or something else? Or are you just giving me tough scenarios with no "ideal" solution :P Do you think the persistence of these roles (assuming healthy relationships) in "modern day" monogamy are supportive or destructive to the case of a monogamist like myself? I don't see any problems with it as long as the submissive partner enjoys being submissive and the dominant partner enjoys being the boss.

Oi, you can't make this easy for me, can you? :P Lol, I wonder how many people see that this thread has advanced 40 posts in a day and think, "Looks like Muggi decided to open his mouth again..." :lol: Yup. But that's not very feasible on here. It's easy to inspire my friends to live like I do, just because they see how I act and how happy I am. Then if they ask me for details, I'll explain it to them. I can't really do that here in this thread. I would have to keep a personal blog within this topic in order to "demonstrate" my lifestyle to others. Easier for me just to pick apart arguments. How people choose to react to that is up to them. Agree to disagree. If you give up your values to be with me, then that's your fault, not mine. I see people as replaceable. This sounds extremely callous and politically incorrect, but let me ask you what you would do if your beloved husband of 20 years died? It would suck, and you would mourn, but eventually you would probably move on and fall in love with another man to try spending the rest of your life with. Obviously he wouldn't be exactly the same, but by being with a new man, you'd be introduced to things that your old husband didn't have-- and some of these qualities would be better. You'd be broadening your horizons and developing more precious memories, just with someone different. While he wouldn't be the same as your old husband, he'd still be his replacement. We'll have to save the specifics of the happiness discussion for another time (and possibly another thread). But as I mentioned earlier, poly arrangements are a better balance between practicality and emotion than traditional monogamous marriage is.

See, I'm still having a hard time understanding here. A negative response to a potential candidate is drama, and you respond in turn with negativity, isn't that an unhealthy relationship to begin with? Responding to drama in a negative way is drama and equally destructive if unrestrained. If one person can't give a reaction for fear of provoking another (natural!) negative reaction, how do you move past any sort of speedbump? I don't respond with negativity. I don't respond, period. I dismiss myself from the situation and cut off contact for a few days, then pick things back up as if it never happened. Now if you consider that to be negativity, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I consider negativity to be getting sucked into her drama and arguing with her over it. Again, this is all assuming she brings something up by throwing drama at me, as opposed to trying to discuss it calmly and maturely. How to act and behave? That sort of falls back into submissive/dominate territory by putting all the restrictions on the partner while the dominate reaps the benefits. That only appeals to a very small subset of people, those that seek to dominate. It kind of crosses over to a whole different realm of people. >_> I do think that despite the roles of power he attaches to it, that it's a very clear idea of what different roles there are, and what level of commitment they require, so the infographic still has things to teach people. I'm not really a fan of dominant/submissive relationships either. And I don't see my relationships as being dominant/submissive. I see it as two independent people crossing paths when their needs (whether romantic or sexual) align. If our needs are misaligned, then she's more than welcome to leave and get her needs fulfilled elsewhere. I'm not forcing her to do anything-- she has the freedom to do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, just like I do. Keep in mind, though, that most of the "successful" marriages from around the 1950s are usually dominant/submissive relationships. Grandpa says jump, grandma jumps. Some people actually enjoy being submissive, and some enjoy being dominant. I enjoy neither. But if people are happy with that kind of arrangement, then more power to them.

Well like I said, I'm not going to "abandon" a girl just because of jealousy issues. However, I will cut off contact with her temporarily if she starts throwing drama at me by getting angry and emotional. But keep in mind that if the girl's throwing drama at me like that, then she's the one violating the common respect and courtesy. I very rarely terminate a relationship/friendship. Usually the girl does that instead (and then returns later on). Yeah, that's understandable. The Ginny thing is technically poly-- but just a subcategory of poly. The reason why those models exist are to give people an idea of how to act and behave in accordance with the structure of their desired relationship, based on their personalities and desires. Lol, also understandable. You should read this too then! :D The way he describes himself is a "benevolent dictator of his life." People may come and enter his life, and they'll be happy, but if they break any of his personal rules, they're out. He's also said that his life's like a train, always going forward in one direction, never changing directions. Girls can ride the train whenever they want, but they can't change its course. If they're sick of the ride, then they should get off the train and go find a man who drives a car instead :P But let's stick to discussing his ideas, rather than how he presents them :P Fair enough. That still has to cause a [bleep]ton of problems for you though. Yeah. The constant misunderstandings/misconceptions over the past months in this thread are enough evidence for that :P As always, let me know if you've got any more questions or if I failed to address anything. :)

Yeah, I've heard of that as well. Reminds me of the slow, but steady, rise of atheists in the world. Though I suspect atheism and religion will both "die" at the same time. But that's another topic :P

What do you mean by humans have been changing? I believe our society has changed dramatically and continues to change over time, yes, and we change to adapt to that. However our biology is still practically the same as it was 200,000 years ago. And biology and traditional monogamous marriage doesn't mix well. It's not that they haven't been long enough to qualify. It's that 1990 pretty much marks the beginning of the society we live in today (as opposed to the sexually repressed 1950s and the sexually liberated 1970s). In other words, society (and therefore marriages) were different before the 90s.

Oi, looks like I'm gonna have to start getting really specific here :P Hope I don't overwhelm you with information and links, lol. Here goes... Ideally, yes. And that would be fair. But the reality is, that isn't always possible. And when it isn't possible, I cut my losses and replace her. Again, sounds pretty heartless but it's the best for both of us in the long run. Not everybody's compatible, unfortunately. I don't know if I can link to this blog directly given some of its content but we can talk about the site via PM. That in my mind is the prime example of a poly relationship and based on what I've seen and heard discussed lately, it's not all that uncommon. A relationship where neither one's looking for a unicorn-styled "[bleep] 'em and leave 'em" partner that engages in an intimate interaction without forming any attachments. When I alluded to the "spectrum" of relationships, I was referring to this post on another forum (you'll have to "view" or "save" the image to see the complete chart; it gets cut off by ads on my computer otherwise). The guy who wrote that (Blackdragon) is one of the pioneers of the poly lifestyle, so most of the relationship-related aspects of my life have been influenced by his posts considering he and I have very similar personalities and philosophies. That relationship you quoted would be described as an "OLTR" (open long-term relationship). In other words, you're emotionally monogamous (to Ginny), but sexually non-monogamous (allowed to have sex with Gina). More information on that "model" of polyamory is explained here (I shared that link a couple posts back as well. Not sure if anybody has ever bothered to take a look at it, lol). My poly relationships are all friends with benefits ("FBs") and multiple long-term relationships ("MLTRs"). The differences between the two are explained here, by another poly person named Tubarao who's been happily poly for a very long time. By "realistically maintain a poly relationship without damaging your life goals," do you mean being emotionally committed to just one girl, while still being free to see other women on the side, like in the OLTR model (Ginny)? If so, you're probably right but that's not really something I'm interested in right now. Well now that I've elaborated on the full range of relationships, no, swinging would belong to the OLTR category :P Instead of describing myself as poly, I'd probably just tell you that I don't do monogamy. Which pretty much means the same thing, but as I've demonstrated here, it's a real pain in the ass to give a complete explanation regarding the subtle differences between relationship models. Well have fun reading through all that :P Let me know if you've got any more questions :lol:

Well if she doesn't feel good about me seeing another girl, then I'll understand. That's just jealousy, and it's natural. But if she starts throwing drama at me as a result of it, then she's crossing a line. She's allowed to see other guys, and regardless of how I actually feel about it, I have no right to complain to her about it. I expect the same in return. If either of us is incapable of handling the jealousy, then the relationship must come to an end. Sounds harsh, but it's the best long-term solution. Exactly. I've got a life mission and many long-term goals which I dedicate the majority of my free time pursuing. Girls (and friends and family) are more than welcome to support me along the way. But if/when they start interfering with those goals, I need to cut them out of my life (sometimes just temporarily; sometimes permanently). I guess you could say it's a matter of my priorities. That, and I have an extremely low tolerance for things that make me unhappy :P

There are millions of marriages existing pre-1990. And I imagine at least some of them are "happy". And my point was, those marriages were forged by much different social norms and beliefs. You're going to have an extremely difficult time mimicking marriages like that in this post-feminist culture. Do you remember my arguments regarding society's influences on relationships/marriages? (Genuinely asking; if you don't remember then that means I need to go dig up my old posts on the subject and copy and paste them since I don't want to have to retype all of it :P) Those marriages were all prior to 1990. No. Not right now, at least. I see no reason to. Yes, I covered that here. If a girl can't deal with me seeing other girls (even though she's allowed to see other guys), I'll understand and she's free to leave me for a guy who will be exclusive with her. To be clear, just because I'm not exclusive with one girl doesn't mean I can't fully trust and commit to that girl. The thing about trust in my relationships is-- everything's out in the open. Both sides know we're seeing other people. Because of that, there isn't really any reason to "hide" anything or lie to each other. So trust isn't really an issue. A common problem in monogamous relationships is fear of the other person cheating. Not a lot of trust there. I'm not saying that all monogamous relationships inevitably have that problem; rather, it's an issue avoided altogether via poly. Similarly, commitment is kind of irrelevant when it comes to poly. The relationship is temporary, so you have a lot of fun without sacrificing happiness and fun for commitment. Also in mono relationships, there's a very high chance that the relationship will eventually end, thereby nullifying the commitment and the sacrifices made to preserve that commitment. Also remember that there's different degrees of relationships. From strictly one night stands, to friends with benefits, to open relationships, to serial monogamy, to traditional marriage. The closer you get towards marriage, the more commitment and romance you get, at the cost of your freedom and increased drama. In other words, one night stands and traditional marriage are at extreme ends of the spectrum. Open relationships are the most balanced in the middle of the spectrum.

When it comes to long-term monogamy/marriage in this thread, I can almost guarantee that people like obfuscator will insist on going through with it. That being the case, all I ask is for them to get a pre-nup and/or have an "open" marriage. Otherwise, unlike you or me, if/when they break up with their partners, there will be severe consequences. This is less true for women, though. Before 1990. You'll have to read through the divorce/marriage statistics and polls yourself. I regret not keeping track of my sources, so you've got me there. However, I will point out that the burden of proof is upon you to show why long-term monogamy would be a favorable idea, as well as how and why it would work out. Problem is, everybody's beliefs regarding this subject is based off of what they see on TV and their own personal experiences, as opposed to doing some independent research on divorce/marriage statistics and relationship dynamics/psychology. If you're getting married traditionally, this is a huge risk you're taking for questionable payoffs. I recall someone posting a link to a study examining couples who basically remained in the "honeymoon phase" (or something similar to it) for decades. But the interesting thing about that study was, it only had about a dozen participants. If long-term monogamy is such a realistic goal, then why aren't there millions, if not billions, of capable participants for such a study? It's a matter of freedom-- having the ability to do whatever I want, whenever I want, and without having to seek anybody's consent to do so. Long-term monogamy doesn't foster such a lifestyle. Read this. I shared this link earlier, encouraging RPG and obfuscator to read it. Not sure if they did, though. I'd recommend it to everyone; it's very thought-provoking. That was Flyingjj if I recall correctly.

Yes. [hide] But when it "works" it's for at least one of the following reasons: - The couple was married long ago, back when social norms were completely different - They have "boring" lives and low sex drives. Boredom is subjective, which is why I wanted to examine what people pictured their marriages looking like. If they said, "I just want to be able to sit on the couch and watch TV with my spouse and kids every night," then that's fine with me. I consider that boring and unfulfilling, but to each his own. This represents about 13% of marriages out there, btw. As for the other 87%, well, you know how they end up :P [/hide]

My plan? It's simple, don't get butthurt over a broken relationship. That's the core trait of polygamists, isn't it? "Oh who cares if Ashley doesn't like me anymore, I'll go with Becky". Tha'ts my plan. Enjoy the relationship while it lasts, but prepare for the worst. Have that value in someone's heart but realize you'd probably not be there forever. I just do it with one girl at a time, because I subjectively know that would give me a more meaningful relationship to my own personal tastes. It makes me happy - a subjective trait. Again, it's always a game of being committed to someone or not. Being exclusive or not. There's no right or wrong, only how bad you handle the fallout...which I agree people need to work at it a lot more. See, what you're describing here is serial monogamy. In other words, being monogamous but probably only for about a few years at a time. And I'm fine with that. Not exactly my cup of tea, but it at least makes sense-- much more sense than expecting monogamy to last forever. You also acknowledged what will happen when you two break up, which is good. This is another issue that people tend to tiptoe around if they plan on being monogamous forever. Again, my beef isn't necessarily with marriage (as long as it's an open marriage w/ a pre-nup) or monogamy. My arguments are against people who actually believe in monogamy lasting forever, without either side ever cheating, and without sacrificing their happiness due to drama, rules, sacrifices, commitment, etc. Glad to see you've got your head on straight here. :) I think we already know what everybody else is going to say :P

Do I think it was a dick move? I answered that earlier: http://forum.tip.it/topic/192134-i-want-a-girlfriendboyfriend-and-other-such-relationship-advice/page__st__13160#entry5318256

Regarding time and place, you must understand that regardless of the circumstances, my beliefs are going to inevitably piss some people off at some point or another, regardless of how gingerly I articulate it, and regardless of when I choose to express it. They can choose to ignore my posts, debate them, or agree with them. But attacking them irrationally or complaining is not a fair option. Similarly, I've never rubbed my views in people's faces with the intent of hurting them or kicking them while they're down. Rather, my posts are usually along the lines of, "What you're doing or thinking of doing or talking about doing makes no sense. Here's why I think it makes no sense and/or here's what I would do and why it makes sense. Please try to convince me as to why your stance makes sense and/or mine doesn't make sense." And depending on how emotionally invested people are in their stances, when I question them, they sometimes react very angrily. You could argue that it's my fault for disturbing the peace, but it takes two to tango.

I brought it up because cheating wouldn't even be an issue you'd have to worry about in the first place if you didn't insist on being monogamous... and you're faulting me for that? Similarly, if you were enjoying the cheating discussion so much, then why didn't you guys simply ignore my post(s) and carry on? This would be less of an issue if the scope of all relationship-related discussions wasn't limited to a single forum topic, as opposed to an entire forum. Oh well.

Beliefs are subjective, yes. I know why you guys want to get exclusive with someone and live happily ever after. I'm asking you guys to logically defend how you're going to "make it work." Or are you guys just basing your future on emotional whims without any rational planning? I've spent the past year on here explaining how I do it, and I'm extremely happy. Nobody ever talks about how they do it, or plan to do it, and then they get angry at me when I tell them that they can't do it.

Thank you for admitting that. I rest my case. I'm always happy to debate this with you guys, as long as you make rational arguments. But when you resort to name calling; or dismiss my claims on the grounds of me being "full of himself" or "condescending"; or asking me to quit posting because I'm threatening your ego; you can't honestly expect me to take your views seriously.

And now the big question is: do you consider yourself, Kimberly, and all the other posters in this thread to be included in that group of irrational people?

I tried.