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

[hide=reminds me of you guys][/hide]

You're an interesting guy, Muggi.

 

Please continue with this debate, it's fascinating!

 

AND HERE WE HAVE IT FOLKS

 

proof that Muggiw's controversial views actually are "attractive" to people on a larger scale than gender.

 

@Saq

Sober up and reread that post bud. While it may seem "cool" there is nothing about your 2nd move that benefits you unless you don't have any interest in the girl

 

 

Don't twist my words. I didn't say Muggi's views are attractive whatsoever. I value his opinion, and what he stands for because he backs it up with some substance, which makes for interesting debate. That doesn't mean that I favor polyamory over monogamy at all.

 

I find drugs debates interesting, that doesn't mean I'm about to start taking M-Kat.

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.

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.

Bad phrasing, I meant I was asking everyone. My point was I could see why you're coming across as overbearing.

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.

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. :)

 

Bad phrasing, I meant I was asking everyone. My point was I could see why you're coming across as overbearing.

 

I think we already know what everybody else is going to say :P

Let me ask you a simple question.

 

Are there instances of monogamy lasting forever(lifelong)? It's a yes or no question.

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]

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.

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.

 

Yes, our opinions don't really clash at all. I was going to say I think you may be assuming a lot of "monogamists" want their current signifiant other to be with them forever, but then I realized maybe in your experience, unlike mine, you've seen a lot of unprepared individuals in regards to a possiblity of a breakup.

 

I'd like to say, I haven't seen much disillusioned people, in that, I'd say most people understand relationships aren't forever...but maybe I haven't been observant too much. Thinking about it, break-ups seem to be a much bigger problem than it should. Instead of saying "everything's going to be alright" or the opposing extreme "ditch monogamy all together" we should advise more on preparing for the worst. I know I will now.

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]

 

How long is "long ago"? It's convenient that it takes a long time to determine whether or not a marriage will actually be a lifelong success, so you can continue to use this misleading point.

 

I'm curious to know what your source is for your "low sex drives" statement? Have you been observing the bedroom activities of long-term married couples?

 

I'd also like to know what will be different with your scenario. I know you don't want to have kids - will you not watch tv with (one of) your significant others? Will you not sit on the couch and do nothing? Or do you expect to be constantly entertained?

Its hard to provide rational thoughts on such a subjective matter.

 

As I said before, some people like being a special someone to someone else and vice versa. Others don't. I don't see how polygamy or monogamy is better or worse. :\

 

I realize there's a severe risk that I'm overdoing it with my example, but here goes. Girl is in abusive relationship, doesn't really make her truly happy, yet she says she still loves the guy and wants to stay with him. It's objectively obvious that she would be better off without him. Yet she reacts angry and violently to the suggestion of breaking up or something along those lines.

 

Now, I apologize in advance for using such an extreme example.

 

But could this to a lesser extent be the case with people and monogamy? They're happy when it works, but when it fails, which statistically seems highly likely, they get very sad. When you think about it, most people go through many relationships before they get married, and often the end of the relationship makes people sad and angry and bitter towards each other. (Not all the time - there can be healthy breakups where it's mutual and they stay friends afterwards. Mutual as in mutual, not mutual as in one person wanted to break up and the other person agrees.)

 

Personally, the big issue I have with polyamoury is marriage and kids. More specifically kids. When I eventually have kids, I want to have kids in a partnership with one woman where we raise them together, because I believe that would be best for the child. Not sure how Muggi's polyamoury would work here.

 

I have a few ideas towards your question towards muggi, obfuscator, but I want to wait and see what muggi says. One thing tho - he's brought up the low sex drive thing and 13% of marriages up in the past. Last time he did it, someone, which may have been you, basically responded with "I think that describes me."

I don't remember saying that :?

Eh. I remember muggi bringing it up before and someone else basically saying "I think I'm in that 13%." (The essence of what that person said, not close to the words that person used.) I said "it may have been you" which was more of a guess on my part lol. Must've been someone else then.

Its hard to provide rational thoughts on such a subjective matter.

 

As I said before, some people like being a special someone to someone else and vice versa. Others don't. I don't see how polygamy or monogamy is better or worse. :\

 

I realize there's a severe risk that I'm overdoing it with my example, but here goes. Girl is in abusive relationship, doesn't really make her truly happy, yet she says she still loves the guy and wants to stay with him. It's objectively obvious that she would be better off without him. Yet she reacts angry and violently to the suggestion of breaking up or something along those lines.

 

Now, I apologize in advance for using such an extreme example.

 

But could this to a lesser extent be the case with people and monogamy? They're happy when it works, but when it fails, which statistically seems highly likely, they get very sad. When you think about it, most people go through many relationships before they get married, and often the end of the relationship makes people sad and angry and bitter towards each other. (Not all the time - there can be healthy breakups where it's mutual and they stay friends afterwards. Mutual as in mutual, not mutual as in one person wanted to break up and the other person agrees.)

 

For an extreme example, I'll use an extreme answer: She's probably better off WITH him, most likely with finances. So while she gets beat, she also gets a roof, food, and some luxeries. So maybe it's not entirely objective to say she'll be better off outside of that relationship. So thus, it is again, a subjective matter. I think she's good within one, you don't think she is.

 

But yes, that was an extreme example and perhaps an irrevelant one. What we're talking most here is normal, respectful relationships. The problems based in absusive ones are not even remotely related what we're talking about. It's not a matter of your own safety when considering to choose "monogamy" or "polygamy". :wink:

 

 

But again, I don't think's much of a matter between polygamy or not, but rather how you can handle break-ups: when they come unexpectingly by the other or when you yourself got to go. "Polygamy" is just a easier way to explain to those who don't realize you shouldn't be so tied up in a relationship. You can have one, or you can have twenty, relationships, the point is not the number, but is how you handle yourself after the relationship wanes or breaks apart.

Are you legitimately playing devil's advocate for a case of spousal abuse? What?

Yes, our opinions don't really clash at all. I was going to say I think you may be assuming a lot of "monogamists" want their current signifiant other to be with them forever, but then I realized maybe in your experience, unlike mine, you've seen a lot of unprepared individuals in regards to a possiblity of a breakup.

 

I'd like to say, I haven't seen much disillusioned people, in that, I'd say most people understand relationships aren't forever...but maybe I haven't been observant too much. Thinking about it, break-ups seem to be a much bigger problem than it should. Instead of saying "everything's going to be alright" or the opposing extreme "ditch monogamy all together" we should advise more on preparing for the worst. I know I will now.

 

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.

 

How long is "long ago"? It's convenient that it takes a long time to determine whether or not a marriage will actually be a lifelong success, so you can continue to use this misleading point.

 

Before 1990.

 

I'm curious to know what your source is for your "low sex drives" statement? Have you been observing the bedroom activities of long-term married couples?

 

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?

 

I'd also like to know what will be different with your scenario. I know you don't want to have kids - will you not watch tv with (one of) your significant others? Will you not sit on the couch and do nothing? Or do you expect to be constantly entertained?

 

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.

 

Personally, the big issue I have with polyamoury is marriage and kids. More specifically kids. When I eventually have kids, I want to have kids in a partnership with one woman where we raise them together, because I believe that would be best for the child. Not sure how Muggi's polyamoury would work here.

 

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.

 

Eh. I remember muggi bringing it up before and someone else basically saying "I think I'm in that 13%." (The essence of what that person said, not close to the words that person used.) I said "it may have been you" which was more of a guess on my part lol. Must've been someone else then.

 

That was Flyingjj if I recall correctly.

Are you legitimately playing devil's advocate for a case of spousal abuse? What?

An extreme question gets an extreme answer. It avoids people using "pity" scenarios to prove their points, because no one in their right minds would oppose it.

Before 1990.

 

There are millions of marriages existing pre-1990. And I imagine at least some of them are "happy".

 

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?

 

I assure you my beliefs about monogamy are not in the slightest based on "what I see on TV".

 

Here's an article you may find interesting (in particular, that stable happy marriages have a direct tie to life-span): http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/10/04/the-secrets-to-a-long-life-and-a-bigger-salary-and-why-nice-guys-do-finish-first/

 

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.

 

So I assume you don't plan to live with any of your future girlfriends?

I'd also like to know what will be different with your scenario. I know you don't want to have kids - will you not watch tv with (one of) your significant others? Will you not sit on the couch and do nothing? Or do you expect to be constantly entertained?

 

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.

 

Do you not pursue committed poly relationships? I ask because it seems that if you did, you would at least tell your partners if you sought others, and that if they had a problem at least with that particular person, you would take that into consideration. Something like that doesn't break the "agreement" you all have about an open relationship, but understands that you're still committed to your current partners until the point that it fails to work out and you part ways. And if you had or ever will pursue committed relationships it seems like what you're explaining to be your level of freedom now isn't much greater than a mono committed relationship. (IE beyond simply dating and looking to "settle down")

Before 1990.

 

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)

 

I assure you my beliefs about monogamy are not in the slightest based on "what I see on TV".

 

Here's an article you may find interesting (in particular, that stable happy marriages have a direct tie to life-span): http://www2.macleans...o-finish-first/

 

Those marriages were all prior to 1990.

 

So I assume you don't plan to live with any of your future girlfriends?

 

No. Not right now, at least. I see no reason to.

 

Do you not pursue committed poly relationships? I ask because it seems that if you did, you would at least tell your partners if you sought others, and that if they had a problem at least with that particular person, you would take that into consideration. Something like that doesn't break the "agreement" you all have about an open relationship, but understands that you're still committed to your current partners until the point that it fails to work out and you part ways.

 

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.

 

And if you had or ever will pursue committed relationships it seems like what you're explaining to be your level of freedom now isn't much greater than a mono committed relationship. (IE beyond simply dating and looking to "settle down")

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

W...what? You didn't really answer my question at all XD

 

Everything is out in the open but that doesn't mean that the trust in a relationship doesn't exist. I'm not talking about cheating, I'm talking about taking on another partner *with* your current partner(s) knowledge and seeing how they feel about it. If you're emotionally connected and committed to one person and they don't like another, would you dump them for the new person simply because of that disagreement? That's not a rational decision. Never in the example I gave, the act of taking another partner which I'd imagine would be extremely common, did the concept of "cheating" come into play. I am strictly asking about your take as a poly person. What would you do if one of your committed partners disliked one of your new choices in partners? No deception, no bullshit. That is undoubtedly a strain on the relationship. I also understand there are different degrees of relationships. Poly relationships differ from other open relationships based on the commitment to multiple partners. Otherwise, there's no distinction between poly and casual [bleep]buddies.

 

Basically, I'm asking you as someone defining himself as a believer in the health and benefits of poly relationships, what would you do in that situation? And I ask this because I believe that the answer you give would contradict the freedom you claim to have because the degree of freedom you're discussing seems to only apply to swinging/one night stands/[bleep]buddies.

 

EDIT: Sorry for the edits, had to fix some things that didn't make sense & run-on sentences/formatting.

Everything is out in the open but that doesn't mean that the trust in a relationship doesn't exist. I'm not talking about cheating, I'm talking about taking on another partner *with* your current partner(s) knowledge and seeing how they feel about it. If you're emotionally connected and committed to one person and they don't like another, would you dump them for the new person simply because of that disagreement? That's not a rational decision. Never in the example I gave, the act of taking another partner which I'd imagine would be extremely common, did the concept of "cheating" come into play. I am strictly asking about your take as a poly person. What would you do if one of your committed partners disliked one of your new choices in partners? No deception, no bullshit. That is undoubtedly a strain on the relationship.

 

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.

 

I also understand there are different degrees of relationships. Poly relationships differ from other open relationships based on the commitment to multiple partners. Otherwise, there's no distinction between poly and casual [bleep]buddies.

 

Exactly.

 

Basically, I'm asking you as someone defining himself as a believer in the health and benefits of poly relationships, what would you do in that situation? And I ask this because I believe that the answer you give would contradict the freedom you claim to have because the degree of freedom you're discussing seems to only apply to swinging/one night stands/[bleep]buddies.

 

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

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.

 

What you're saying makes sense when compared with your statement of freedom earlier. But don't you feel every partnership you take on should maintain the same level of satisfaction for you and your partner as a bare minimum? And when I say strain, I'm not talking about simple jealousy. I don't know your history with committed relationships, but tensions in a relationship can be caused by jealousy, but they are not always the root cause -- disrespect, no chemistry, mistrust based on the integrity of another (specified in that manner to separate it from simple jealousy-driven mistrust), and so on are one of the many factors a relationship can experience.

 

Like, I'll cite this case of a polyamorous group (1 man, 2 women, married to both of them):

I am committed to Ginny. I intend to keep her as a primary part of my life, and to grow and love her as long as I am able to do so. All decisions that effect my life will have to consider her and how it may affect her. All further relationships, whether with Gina or anyone else, will have to be weighed in terms of their implications for my relationship with Ginny. And since Ginny and Gina get along so well, it means that the continued existence of my relationship with Gina (which is young but relatively strong considering its youth) is preferable for all involved. So, not only does my relationship with Gina not threaten my relationship with Ginny, it may actually complement my commitment to Ginny. It may actually add value to that other relationship. Isn’t that awesome?

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.

 

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

 

That's still a bit of a weasel-y answer since you could realistically maintain a poly relationship without damaging your life goals :P BUT ANYWAY! I'll cede then that the argument I made about your views on your freedom were incorrect.

 

Now you'll have to forgive me for jumping around again, but given what I can interpret from your post (dislike of commitment) then isn't the better term for the relationships, or lack thereof, that you pursue just simply swinging? Not necessarily poly-amorous relationships? Because the difference between swinging and a relationship is the size of the gulf of an ocean and important to distinguish. Like, if you said to me, "Kim, did you know I only like poly relationships?" it paints a vastly different picture than, "Kim, did you know I'm poly?"

 

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)

I remember your post, and it was somewhat correct. The dynamics of marriage have changed, yes, but humans have been changing since the beginning of time. Now is no different.

 

 

Those marriages were all prior to 1990.

 

Of course, because marriages that happened after 1990 haven't been long enough to qualify...

 

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...

 

What you're saying makes sense when compared with your statement of freedom earlier. But don't you feel every partnership you take on should maintain the same level of satisfaction for you and your partner as a bare minimum?

 

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.

 

And when I say strain, I'm not talking about simple jealousy. I don't know your history with committed relationships, but tensions in a relationship can be caused by jealousy, but they are not always the root cause -- disrespect, no chemistry, mistrust based on the integrity of another (specified in that manner to separate it from simple jealousy-driven mistrust), and so on are one of the many factors a relationship can experience.

 

Like, I'll cite this case of a polyamorous group (1 man, 2 women, married to both of them):

I am committed to Ginny. I intend to keep her as a primary part of my life, and to grow and love her as long as I am able to do so. All decisions that effect my life will have to consider her and how it may affect her. All further relationships, whether with Gina or anyone else, will have to be weighed in terms of their implications for my relationship with Ginny. And since Ginny and Gina get along so well, it means that the continued existence of my relationship with Gina (which is young but relatively strong considering its youth) is preferable for all involved. So, not only does my relationship with Gina not threaten my relationship with Ginny, it may actually complement my commitment to Ginny. It may actually add value to that other relationship. Isn’t that awesome?

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.

 

That's still a bit of a weasel-y answer since you could realistically maintain a poly relationship without damaging your life goals :P BUT ANYWAY! I'll cede then that the points I made about your views on your freedom were incorrect.

 

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.

 

Now you'll have to forgive me for jumping around again, but given what I can interpret from your post (dislike of commitment) then isn't the better term for the relationships, or lack thereof, that you pursue just simply swinging? Not necessarily poly-amorous relationships? Because the difference between swinging and a relationship is the size of the gulf of an ocean and important to distinguish. Like, if you said to me, "Kim, did you know I only like poly relationships?" it paints a vastly different picture than, "Kim, did you know I'm poly?"

 

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:

I remember your post, and it was somewhat correct. The dynamics of marriage have changed, yes, but humans have been changing since the beginning of time. Now is no different.

 

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.

 

Of course, because marriages that happened after 1990 haven't been long enough to qualify...

 

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.