If a person is willing to cheat, then it's not really cutting it short..

Yes it is. It's shorter than it would have been, ceteris paribus.

It's not a charade. I didn't lie about anything on my profile. I genuinely don't give a shit when it comes to things like this-- you all should know that by now :P

 

My point was, until now I hadn't actually conveyed that within my profile, primarily because I underestimated how "effective" it is to convey, and because while it is indeed an aspect of my personality that attracts girls, it's not something that I want to "flaunt." It's an "attitude" kind of thing IRL, but that's nearly impossible to convey in a profile description. So I'm basically "talking the talk" on my profile, but I'm "walking the walk" once we're actually interacting... if that makes any sense. Like I said, I'm bad at articulating my thoughts when it comes to these kinds of things :P

 

Conversely, it kind of reminds me of girls who agree with dumb shit like this:

 

 

They say they want something like that. And they might even believe that they want something like that. But when they actually get that, they get bored fast.

 

What I'm doing is basically the opposite of that, lol.

 

So, wait, did they just describe a clingy guy and then say they don't want a clingy guy?

 

Don't forget location. Where you live you might have an abundance of datable women, other places it's dryer then a old man's fart.

 

Plus It seems arrogance is an eyecatcher these days, as I've noticed not just here but everywhere lately.

 

"These days."

 

That phrase annoys me. When a person says "these days" and they're referring to human behavior, well... I think you're an idiot because humans think the same way they have for thousands of years. Things that change are society and technology. If the "change" or new behavior can't be attributed to technology, or a change in the way society works (granted, a little harder to quantify) then chances are it's the way people thought 50 or 500 years ago.

 

Also, blarg.

 

I think a more generally accepted usage of arrogance goes beyond self confidence, real or otherwise. Arrogance refers to someone who treats other people as their inferior, someone who believes themselves to be better, or worth more, than others.

 

It is not an attractive trait, at least not to people with a healthy level of self esteem.

 

To the best of my understanding, arrogance is one of those things people will say they dislike, but act differently. Girls will say they don't like arrogant guys, then become attracted to them. According to a cracked article it can make promotions easier.

That's utter bullshit. All relationships, whether you're with more than one partners or not, operates on trust and understanding. And you can violate that - trust isn't restricted to who you [bleep].

 

Before I continue, I'd like to state my definition of "cheating" to make sure we're talking about the same thing here. To me, cheating is promising to be exclusive with someone, and then breaking that promise by having a sexual/romantic relationship with a different person without your partner's consent.

 

Elaborate on trust please. Trust what? Trust that you'll never "cheat" on your partner and remain loyal forever? That's limited to monogamy.

 

I "trust" humans to behave like humans. If someone chooses to "cheat," I don't blame them for having sex with someone other than their partner; I blame them for making a promise that they were too either stupid or deceptive to be able to keep.

 

I don't mind your lifestyle but good lord do you take every opportunity to wag it over others. It's unnecessary.

 

You consider it wagging it over others. I consider it holding others accountable for their life decisions.

If I'm making it clear that I'm talking about trust as a universal element, I am obviously not talking about trusting someone to never cheat. Don't put words in my mouth. But you trust your partner or partners implicitly to be there for you, or to support eachother, or whatever of the dozens of ways humans develop trust in another person. And that trust can be violated either by callousness, disregard, carelessness, whatever. You might forgive them for a mistake, but trust is still something that exists and can be broken.

 

As for "holding others accountable" that's also a crock of shit. You hold someone accountable when they make a mistake. The problem you have is that you view the different lifestyle they lead as a mistake because it's not what you have thought was logical. No one is doing that to you, so have the common courtesy not to do it to others. You don't need to be a one man political campaign for it when you can argue for it so eloquently and logically when it's actually contextually relevant. You're doing yourself a disservice and it's [bleep]ing annoying besides.

If I'm making it clear that I'm talking about trust as a universal element, I am obviously not talking about trusting someone to never cheat. Don't put words in my mouth. But you trust your partner or partners implicitly to be there for you, or to support eachother, or whatever of the dozens of ways humans develop trust in another person. And that trust can be violated either by callousness, disregard, carelessness, whatever. You might forgive them for a mistake, but trust is still something that exists and can be broken.

 

Yes, I agree with that. My point was, monogamy requires you to place a certain list of expectations on your partner. Some of these expectations are completely unrealistic and just begging to be violated. And what happens when they're violated? Loss of trust. The solution isn't to find someone who you can trust to live up to your expectations. The solution is to not put those expectations on them in the first place, and therefore not have to worry about them breaking your trust.

 

When it comes to those "universal elements" of trust such as caring, support and understanding, yes those should be a given in every relationship. But those are also normal behaviors.

 

As for "holding others accountable" that's also a crock of shit. You hold someone accountable when they make a mistake. The problem you have is that you view the different lifestyle they lead as a mistake because it's not what you have thought was logical. No one is doing that to you, so have the common courtesy not to do it to others. You don't need to be a one man political campaign for it when you can argue for it so eloquently and logically when it's actually contextually relevant. You're doing yourself a disservice and it's [bleep]ing annoying besides.

 

If I tell you that you'll get burned for putting your hand on the stove, and you put your hand on the stove and get burned, you don't have the right to complain about your sore hand. This becomes even more true if they keep touching the stove over and over and over again, trying to keep touching the stove but without getting burned.

 

The reason no one does the same thing to me is because I don't complain when my hand gets burned.

That's utter bullshit. All relationships, whether you're with more than one partners or not, operates on trust and understanding. And you can violate that - trust isn't restricted to who you [bleep].

 

I don't mind your lifestyle but good lord do you take every opportunity to wag it over others. It's unnecessary.

Committed relationships, Kimberly. Committed. Those are the ones that require a trust that non-committed ones (as Muggi calls "polygamy") don't have, because well, they're not committed.

 

Committing defined as, obtaining a special romantic status in someone's heart. Whether or not you appreciate the value of that is up to you.

 

 

There's so much backslash on Muggi's posts and while I can see why, I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. What Muggi calls a "polygamy" lifestyle is neither a lifestyle nor polygamist (I'll argue there's no such thing as polygamy). It is called keeping your options open or "freelance dating" where you're not becoming committed until you find someone special. I always thought this is how it's done and I still see it as that.

 

This "lifestyle"(for a lack of a better word) is supposed to go on until you find someone special to become committed to. But until then, I don't see the problem at flirting and dating (as in, going on dates) different people. The moment you commit to someone, yes, you obtain responsibilities to that person (exclusive dating., no cheating, etc. - but also completely different for each relationship, Muggi keep note). That's how it goes. Some people are like this until they meet someone special, others like Muggi claim it can go on forever. Let them do whatever they want.

 

The thing I do disagree with Muggi's concept here is his claim that the non-committed "lifestyle" (for a lack of a better word) is better than the committed one. There is no right or wrong, for how can I criticize your decision to commit to that individual or to even commit at all? It is whether or not you are committed or not, it's like being Catholic or a Jew, there's no right answer. Muggi can state some benefits of being a Catholic over a Jew all he wants, like the ability to eat non-Kosher foods, but it's not "you're wrong, I'm right" thing and it never can be.

 

Muggi's "polygamist lifestyle" really is just a long dating game without committing to someone. But we have to recognize some people like the feeling of being committed by a special someone, it gives them value and self-worth, and the opposing side: not everybody gives a damn about being committed to.

 

 

**EDITED a few times.

You can't boil relationships down to the equivalent of a stupid child making a mistake. The fact that you're doing so is not only stupid, but insulting.

 

As for committed relationships, don't even try to say that you can't be committed to multiple people in polygamy. The fundamentals that muggi explains to people are sensible and can be applied to anyone regardless of their lifestyle. But that's not what I'm talking about when I got upset with his little snide "#monogamyproblems" comment. Don't twist my irritation with his constant badgering of polygamy being some superior masterrace lifestyle with my ability to understand his lifestyle choice.

 

There's adherence to your lifestyle and giving advice, and then there's how muggi handles it from time to time. Not all the time. But a lot.

@Gio

It's not even about commitment (as much as I wish it was, since it's rare that someone defends me on here :P)

 

I can still be madly in love with one girl and hold her in my arms and cuddle with her all night and feel the same feelings you guys do. The only difference is: I'm allowed to see other people while she's not around. And she's allowed to see other people while I'm not around. The reason why I allow this is not because I'm afraid of limiting myself to just one person. I do it because if she's the only girl I'm with, she will eventually grow bored of me if I keep my promise with regards to cheating; or she will eventually get too fed up with my infidelity and leave me. The only way to keep the women you love around forever without sacrificing passion (albeit with an on-again-off-again dynamic) is through polyamory.

You can't boil relationships down to the equivalent of a stupid child making a mistake. The fact that you're doing so is not only stupid, but insulting.

 

Stupid mistakes are all the same thing to me: making a poor decision based off of your current emotions, rather than your rationality. Or just not knowing what you don't know... but that's not a valid excuse here :P

 

As for committed relationships, don't even try to say that you can't be committed to multiple people in polygamy. The fundamentals that muggi explains to people are sensible and can be applied to anyone regardless of their lifestyle. Don't twist my irritation with his constant badgering of polygamy being some superior masterrace lifestyle with my ability to understand his lifestyle choice.

 

There's adherence to your lifestyle and giving advice, and then there's how muggi handles it from time to time. Not all the time. But a lot.

 

As a friendly reminder, polyamory is not 100% perfect. But it's better than monogamy. Think of it this way; rating them on a 10-point scale:

Mono: 5/10

Poly: 8/10

 

People criticize poly for not being perfect, and use that as an excuse not to explore it. They'd only choose poly if it was a 10/10. But there's no such thing as 10/10; not in this day and age, at least. People would rather stick with their 5/10 than upgrade to an 8/10. And that makes no sense.

You can't quantify satisfaction. You can quantify success rates. It's like saying one religion is demonstratively better than the other because it has more or less adherents. Numbers are important, but they are not the bottom line.

 

I get educating people so they're aware there's other choices. I think you've done that at this point. The pot shots you make beyond that are unnecessary and do not help your cause. That, at the very least, you should be able to see logically.

I'm not trying to defend Muggi, I'm just saying what I feel this thread's direction has been going. I'm not trying to issue this point to just you Kimberly, but everybody here. Sincere apologizes if it felt that way.

 

 

 

You're committed to one person or you're not committed at all. That's just how it is, you can't share your romance to others because if you do you're not committing your entire romance onto one person. Again, some people like having this status on someone. It doesn't make it less right or less wrong. That's all I'm saying.

You can't quantify satisfaction. You can quantify success rates. It's like saying one religion is demonstratively better than the other because it has more or less adherents. Numbers are important, but they are not the bottom line.

 

I get educating people so they're aware there's other choices. I think you've done that at this point. The pot shots you make beyond that are unnecessary and do not help your cause. That, at the very least, you should be able to see logically.

 

I think you can choose to interpret any of my posts as "potshots" if I'm criticizing monogamy and/or advocating polyamory directly to someone who's having problems with monogamy. Or, in this recent event, reminding people that cheating wouldn't be an issue if you weren't monogamous. Honestly I think you're making mountains out of molehills here, Kimberly. It's not like someone just got dumped and I said, "BAHAHAHA that'll teach you to choose monogamy, sucker!" Rather, everyone was getting all involved in a discussion about cheating-- something which could be avoided altogether if they didn't insist on monogamy.

 

And for the record, I bite my tongue enough in this thread as it is. Every time someone posts about hitting it off with a girl they're infatuated with, I choose not to rain on their parade with scary facts and warnings, even though I know their joy won't last forever. But at least I know that I'd be wasting my time with those people since they're temporarily impossible to reason with. The same can't be said for arguing my beliefs against people like you or any other regular poster in this thread who's generally more level-headed and open-minded.

And for the record, I bite my tongue enough in this thread as it is. Every time someone posts about hitting it off with a girl they're infatuated with, I choose not to rain on their parade with scary facts and warnings, even though I know their joy won't last forever.

Doesn't that make you like a douche? Assuming people can't handle themselves and will get themselves hurts sounds like a superiority problem - as in, you view yourself higher than others.

 

As long as you recognize it and you try to to think about it that's fine. It's not a real good trait as somebody who thinks and gives advice.

I've said many times in the past-- the reason why most relationships fail is usually beyond the two peoples' control. It doesn't matter how mature they are. It's not like I'd have any better "results" with monogamy than you guys. I'd be fighting the same uphill battle as everyone else, regardless of my own qualities.

 

Also keep in mind what the implications would be if/when this happens:

 

Me: "Long-term monogamy is stupid. It just doesn't work."

*Relationships-Thread-Visitor enters long-term monogamous relationship*

Me: "Hey congrats buddy, I know you can do it!"

 

I would love to see that person succeed and be happy for the rest of his life in such an arrangement. But I just don't believe it's possible. I can wish him all the best and hope it'll work out, but to tell him that he's making the right decision would not only be lying; it would be downright hypocritical of me and undermine everything that I talk about.

 

So I guess you could say I'd rather be labeled a douche than a liar or a hypocrite :P

Well in that regard, I can see where you're coming from. Douche-status, revoked.

 

I could go on and ask some questions, but what's the point. As long as we can acknowledge our differences we'd be fine. I always have a tendicy to speak more than I really should... oh well.

@muggi: your issue is not that you think polyamory is superior to monogamy, it's that you have no conception of the fact that monogamy can and does work. You keep parroting the phrase "unkeepable promise" when it comes to exclusivity in a monogamous relationship; but you're ignoring the absolute fact that many people can and do keep the promises they've made to be exclusive in a monogamous relationship.

 

You keep acting like your mindset is that of some superior, enlightened being who somehow knows that polyamory is the only way to acheive happiness, and that monogamy can never be successful - and then when the fact is pointed out to you that many people do acheive and mantain succesful exclusive monogamous relationships your only defence is to claim that despite all appearances to the contrary, you know, with your enlightened mind, that such people aren't actually happy.

 

It's that which is so annoying about your polyamory crusade - you've taken it to the point where you're so convinced your theories are correct that you ignore fact completely.

It's a closed system. We've also got a problem with defining happiness.

You're missing the point. Cheating is just one of the many many reasons stacked against you to suggest that monogamy is an awful idea.

 

Whenever I talk about all of these "disadvantages," yet you continue to say "but it CAN work!" it reminds me of:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA

 

Yes, I've never said that it can't work. But when it "works," it doesn't look like you would expect it to look. It looks very boring. But boredom is subjective. So it's up to you to decide if it's worth betting your money and happiness on that. No such "bet" is needed with polyamory.

So many responses haha

 

I think hitting on someone who has a boyfriend is a dick move regardless of whether or not they're into it.

Plus, why would you want to be with someone who is known to cheat?

 

To be fair, I've cheated before.

 

I think hitting on someone who has a boyfriend is a dick move regardless of whether or not they're into it.

 

I agree, but not a lot of people are in committed relationships, and those that are tend to make it very well known.

 

Honestly, i would go for it. She has a boyfriend? So what.

If she is really in to her boyfriend she's going to tell you to [bleep]off before you get the chance to drop your first line.

 

Precisely, if she's got a boyfriend, I'll back off. Not a big deal.

 

[hide=and for those of you who can take a joke]

muggiw is actually a very high class professional troll hired by Jagex, installed on these forums with the sole purpose of foiling any chance any former-runescaper has with relationships and thus happiness. This will cause all of the ex-'scapers to return to their rightful home. Lumbridge.[/hide]

On the contrary, I think you're betting just as much on polyamory. It's not a guarantee of happiness.

What exactly do you think I'm betting?

Polyamory can make people more happy on a personal level, but it's also incredibly destructive and hurtful to people who enter polyamorous relationships thinking that's what they want, and discovering otherwise, and also to their friends and families. Not just of those who have to pick up the pieces, but also friends and families of people who are quite happy in polyamorous relationships, but who themselves find it a bit strange or out-of-character.

 

The main flaw I have with this mentality is this: All relationships, and all people, can only exist within the context of those around them. Following a pattern of sexual behaviour which causes so much grief to the people close to those who get themselves involved in this, doesn't lend itself to a harmonious environment for all concerned. When shit hits the fan, like it does in all relationships at times, there isn't the support network there to work through it. Therefore, any serious, long-term relationship stemming from that basis is hopelessly flawed to begin with.

Yes, emotional maturity's a basic requirement for any type of relationship if you don't want it to hurt you or the people you care for.

No, you're missing the point and if I'm being slightly cynical, I think you're missing it on purpose. It doesn't matter how emotionally mature you are. Stuff happens. People hurt. People close to people who are hurting, also hurt. You can't accept that polyamorous relationships are inherently hurtful, and cover that with 'emotional maturity'.

 

Being emotionally mature is accepting that it does hurt, and responding to it responsibly. It's not blindly refusing to accept that that fact matters.

Not to mention that if you can be emotionally mature in a polyamorous relationship you can be exactly the same in a monogamous one.