"I want a girlfriend/boyfriend", and other such relationship advice

[Omar]

For what it's worth, that Philosophie Magazine investigation I referenced considers that monogamy will have been a short phase in human history...

[muggiwhplar]

For what it's worth, that Philosophie Magazine investigation I referenced considers that monogamy will have been a short phase in human history...

 

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

[Kimberly]

I read through your post first, and then tackled the articles. One of the very first questions I had were, "Why don't you classify yourself as a swinger?" I read your first post about your view on freedom and dominance, and I can't say it really answered my question. Then I double checked the definition of swinger and found I was using it incorrectly. That's my bad. It was silly of me to even ask that as a result and I feel kind of foolish. So that right off the board takes that factor out of the discussion. Whoops.

 

So onto everything else...

 

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.

 

Compatibility is something I can understand, and it's a widely universal truth. You need compatibility to maintain any sort of intimate interaction. What I have a hard time understanding is how meeting and knowing someone who makes you happy is suddenly invalidated by a potential candidate and current partner's disagreement/dislike/whatever and how it suddenly renders your current partner and yourself incompatible. There is sense in avoiding needless drama, and I can understand that in you and Blackdragon. But difficulties like this are part and parcel of long-term relationships to varying degrees. So why would you endanger your current happiness for the "potential" of further happiness if your partner was upset by one of your candidates? Isn't that just common respect and courtesy? Respect and courtesy might be spent at the small cost of your "power" which you're deriving from your independence, but there isn't a concept of status quo in this case and it's otherwise unavoidable.

 

In other words, you're emotionally monogamous (to Ginny), but sexually non-monogamous (allowed to have sex with Gina).

 

I do have a question about your definition of him/Ginny/Gina: why is it not simply defined as poly? In that example, each partner understands that the other is free to see more people, but they choose not to bring new people into the relationship if it detracts from their current ones. That seems very different than simply a monogamous relationship. Separating emotional and sexual as you have make sense and illustrate the point you're trying to make, but dividing these in practice seem impossible to do. Relationships always become intimate to some degree, and no matter how you divorce one from the other, you will bond on some level (physically if it's emotional and vice versa) with the person you engage with. That's part of human nature, and Blackdragon acknowledges that this is one of the concessions a poly person needs to make, what he refers to as "provider", in longer relationships.

 

 

It almost feels like it's too specific, and yet I can see why these things need to be identified. My problem right now is what limited knowledge I have of long term relationships pushes me to acknowledge how hard these are to separate, which this extremely detailed classification system seems to do (without truly trying).

 

(And I will take at this moment a second to say it is [bleep]ing difficult to learn from an arrogant [wagon] [self proclaimed, even!] such as Blackdragon. Some of his points from both articles that he explains in such a misogynistic detail that it completely drowns the point he tries to make. That's why it's been such a long time to respond to this post -- it took me several times to re-read, collect myself, organize my thoughts, and put them on paper. The second article does not explain in a rational and equal way how both partners interact. It's simply all about power and control. I mean, hell, it felt more to me like I was reading an "How to Dominate your Poly Sub" manual rather than an informational piece on the functions of polygamy/polyamory . Overall, I got more information from the first article that you linked to and very little of worth from the second if anything at all. In fact, I'd go and tell you right now that if you were trying to educate others...don't even bother linking to that second article, because despite his claims for a hate of Disney, he indulges in those exact same fantasies on his own with little to no regard to his partner aside from whether or not she puts out and worships his [rooster], honeymoon phase or not, with only the barest mind to the spectrum he outlined before.)

 

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.

 

Fair enough. That still has to cause a [bleep]ton of problems for you though.

 

[muggiwhplar]

Compatibility is something I can understand, and it's a widely universal truth. You need compatibility to maintain any sort of intimate interaction. What I have a hard time understanding is how meeting and knowing someone who makes you happy is suddenly invalidated by a potential candidate and current partner's disagreement/dislike/whatever and how it suddenly renders your current partner and yourself incompatible. There is sense in avoiding needless drama, and I can understand that in you and Blackdragon. But difficulties like this are part and parcel of long-term relationships to varying degrees. So why would you endanger your current happiness for the "potential" of further happiness if your partner was upset by one of your candidates? Isn't that just common respect and courtesy? Respect and courtesy might be spent at the small cost of your "power" which you're deriving from your independence, but there isn't a concept of status quo in this case and it's otherwise unavoidable.

 

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).

 

I do have a question about your definition of him/Ginny/Gina: why is it not simply defined as poly? In that example, each partner understands that the other is free to see more people, but they choose not to bring new people into the relationship if it detracts from their current ones. That seems very different than simply a monogamous relationship. Separating emotional and sexual as you have make sense and illustrate the point you're trying to make, but dividing these in practice seem impossible to do. Relationships always become intimate to some degree, and no matter how you divorce one from the other, you will bond on some level (physically if it's emotional and vice versa) with the person you engage with. That's part of human nature, and Blackdragon acknowledges that this is one of the concessions a poly person needs to make, what he refers to as "provider", in longer relationships.

 

 

It almost feels like it's too specific, and yet I can see why these things need to be identified. My problem right now is what limited knowledge I have of long term relationships pushes me to acknowledge how hard these are to separate, which this extremely detailed classification system seems to do (without truly trying).

 

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.

 

(And I will take at this moment a second to say it is [bleep]ing difficult to learn from an arrogant [wagon] [self proclaimed, even!] such as Blackdragon. Some of his points from both articles that he explains in such a misogynistic detail that it completely drowns the point he tries to make. That's why it's been such a long time to respond to this post -- it took me several times to re-read, collect myself, organize my thoughts, and put them on paper. The second article does not explain in a rational and equal way how both partners interact. It's simply all about power and control. I mean, hell, it felt more to me like I was reading an "How to Dominate your Poly Sub" manual rather than an informational piece on the functions of polygamy/polyamory . Overall, I got more information from the first article that you linked to and very little of worth from the second if anything at all. In fact, I'd go and tell you right now that if you were trying to educate others...don't even bother linking to that second article, because despite his claims for a hate of Disney, he indulges in those exact same fantasies on his own with little to no regard to his partner aside from whether or not she puts out and worships his [rooster], honeymoon phase or not, with only the barest mind to the spectrum he outlined before.)

 

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

 

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.

 

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. :)

[Randox]

I'm sorry, but I am not reading the entirety of the last 3-4 pages, in part because my internet might not live long enough to do it. I think I got some of the important points though, assuming I can remember them.

 

First thing would be presentation. Long story short, if you wish to combat a strong help belief, you are likely much better off demonstrating why you are right rather than telling (which can be done through words, if you understand what I mean). When you tell, you put us on the defensive, because evolution dictates that being right is more important than reality. If you demonstrate, those of us who care can evaluate your position without constantly having to get past our own biological roadblocks all the time.

 

I'll also cut strait to the point that your treatment of the people your with hits me as callous, uncaring, and with an air of superiority. Quite frankly, it kind of stops mattering if your right at some point and becomes a matter of principle. If your lifestyle would require me to give up my values, then its going to work, and I don't see people as interchangeable. I also know that's not a fair assessment, because I think I have a feel for how it could work (I've given your approach quite a bit of thought since it does interest me), and while I see a lot of, I wont say happiness because I think the pursuit of perpetual happiness is a terrific waste of time and a biological impossibility, enjoyment in it, and even a lot of emotional satisfaction, I can't see it lasting. I'll get into it below, but at some point there needs to be a balance between practicality and emotion, and I think the boat for this life style, for me, was highschool.

 

 

Now that that's out of the way, there are some service reasons for favouring monogamy (as I prepare to isolate myself from the rest of the monogamous camp by devaluing relationships to practical reasons).

I know I've mentioned it before, but the biggest one for me is children. There are a few rare souls out there who can raise a child solo, and do a damn fine job of it. I'm not one of them, I never have been and I never will be, and I'm fine with that. Quite frankly, I'm not even totally onboard the 'I want children' boat yet (and I sure don't want them right now), but I hope to be one day. For that, I would really like to have a partner for a whole bunch of reasons that I hope are fairly obvious, and I will be coming in a way anyway.

The second is simple economics. Married people make more money and get more time off from work. This is fact. Even without these benefits (and also the lack of social stigma you'll discover when your 35 and single, especially since most people will assume you divorced), you have split living costs, and two incomes so that if one of you loses your job, your not out of new money and onto welfare right away. What I am saying is it makes your life cheaper, easier, and gives you a bigger safety net.

The third major service reason off the top of my head really only applies to couples where both are at least the same age, though ideally the female will be say 2-4 years older (because women live longer), and that's companionship in old age. Simply put, old people get lonely, and it gives you a shot of having someone you really enjoy being with for a longer time. As another interesting point, the longer two people are together, they start to take on the characteristics of a single entity, such as automatically distributing the task of remembering certain types of tasks between them, so that as the mind and body slowly fail, each only has half the responsibility (of course, the downside is that the death of one half can virtually cripple the other, since they might now be stuck with a brain that delegated remembering all the important dates to their other half for example).

 

So now that I am done 'devaluing' marriage, for me, a part of it is probably best described as sharing my life with someone. I consider life to be a journey, that we are here to experience something, and that one should enjoy the journey and lessons, good and bad. I'd rather not go through it alone though. One of the lessons I would like to learn is how to share myself, since right now my mind is still exclusive to me, and me alone. Some people are closer to knowing the real me than others, but only I know me, and before I die, I would like someone else to know me too, and I would like to know them in return. I can't think of a more rewarding journey, and it is certainly one that would take a very long time. Assuming I like what I find, and they do too, that's a journey that must last until one or the other dies, because we are every changing.

 

Or simply put, the way I see it, it is more practical for me to pursue monogamy, given that I aspire to be a parent and live long enough to hit a retirement home. Besides, it's more interesting to me in the long run. Poly is a fascinating dynamic if I am studying myself as a teen, but I am thinking a lot less so once I hit say late 30's or early 40's.

[Kimberly]

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).

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

Lol, also understandable. You should read this too then! :D

 

I might punch my computer if I do lol. I promise though, I'll read it later.

 

Yeah. The constant misunderstandings/misconceptions over the past months in this thread are enough evidence for that :P

 

So I'm guessing that means you're not sleeping with Obfuscator any time soon lmao.

[muggiwhplar]

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).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[obfuscator]

So I'm guessing that means you're not sleeping with Obfuscator any time soon lmao.

 

I DEMAND EXCLUSIVITY

[Kimberly]

Again, this is all assuming she brings something up by throwing drama at me, as opposed to trying to discuss it calmly and maturely.

 

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)

 

[hide=A side note about negative/positive/neutral responses]

I think neglecting a partner who is clearly upset is a decidedly negative reaction, even if it's meant to be neutral. The relationship aimed for here is one of equality and independence, but a portion of your happiness is connected to the other person. The dependence on that happiness for you goes down with a higher number of partners, but you can't simply severe that 'dependence' (for lack of a better word) for someone you're engaging in a relationship with unless you end that relationship. As a result of this, you both attend to each other's needs to a small degree in ways other than pure emotion or pure sex. By ignoring that "need", in this case choosing to ignore a partner's discomfort they confide in you, it is a negative thing. It fuels the drama. Overall, it breeds resentment on both sides -- both that your partner put you in that position and that you didn't listen to your partner -- and it hurts the relationship's health. That's what I mean.[/hide]

 

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.

 

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?

[muggiwhplar]

I'm sorry, but I am not reading the entirety of the last 3-4 pages, in part because my internet might not live long enough to do it. I think I got some of the important points though, assuming I can remember them.

 

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:

 

First thing would be presentation. Long story short, if you wish to combat a strong help belief, you are likely much better off demonstrating why you are right rather than telling (which can be done through words, if you understand what I mean). When you tell, you put us on the defensive, because evolution dictates that being right is more important than reality. If you demonstrate, those of us who care can evaluate your position without constantly having to get past our own biological roadblocks all the time.

 

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.

 

I'll also cut strait to the point that your treatment of the people your with hits me as callous, uncaring, and with an air of superiority. Quite frankly, it kind of stops mattering if your right at some point and becomes a matter of principle.

 

Agree to disagree.

 

If your lifestyle would require me to give up my values, then its going to work, and I don't see people as interchangeable.

 

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.

 

I also know that's not a fair assessment, because I think I have a feel for how it could work (I've given your approach quite a bit of thought since it does interest me), and while I see a lot of, I wont say happiness because I think the pursuit of perpetual happiness is a terrific waste of time and a biological impossibility, enjoyment in it, and even a lot of emotional satisfaction, I can't see it lasting. I'll get into it below, but at some point there needs to be a balance between practicality and emotion, and I think the boat for this life style, for me, was highschool.

 

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.

[muggiwhplar]

Again, this is all assuming she brings something up by throwing drama at me, as opposed to trying to discuss it calmly and maturely.

 

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).

 

[hide=A side note about negative/positive/neutral responses]

I think neglecting a partner who is clearly upset is a decidedly negative reaction, even if it's meant to be neutral. The relationship aimed for here is one of equality and independence, but a portion of your happiness is connected to the other person. The dependence on that happiness for you goes down with a higher number of partners, but you can't simply severe that 'dependence' (for lack of a better word) for someone you're engaging in a relationship with unless you end that relationship. As a result of this, you both attend to each other's needs to a small degree in ways other than pure emotion or pure sex. By ignoring that "need", in this case choosing to ignore a partner's discomfort they confide in you, it is a negative thing. It fuels the drama. Overall, it breeds resentment on both sides -- both that your partner put you in that position and that you didn't listen to your partner -- and it hurts the relationship's health. That's what I mean.[/hide]

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

[Kimberly]

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).

 

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.

 

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

 

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. Unfortunately it hasn't really given me much insight on why you value so greatly the potential for happiness versus happiness you already had. For someone who asserts that he can pull partners with relative ease, it doesn't make a lot of sense to risk trouble for someone who might not even work out when you already have happiness and probably other partners to boot. It wouldn't mean you'd stop "working on other girls" to steal a phrase from Blackdragon, it wouldn't mean you'd stop pursuing your goals (unless your goal was gain as many partners as possible). It's just a matter of concession, and whether or not the concession is worth the assurance of happiness.

 

 

It seems less like a mindset of "lessening drama" and more about preserving your "role" as the only one who calls the shots, the one who has the power, which automatically forces any of your partners to concede to you. You, who said earlier you don't like dom/submissive roles. :P That eventually becomes your responsibility in the relationship to set and maintain guidelines if you never allow those guidelines to change, but your relationships might not reach the age (of the relationship!) where that becomes an issue.

 

 

[muggiwhplar]

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).

 

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

 

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

 

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? >_>

 

Unfortunately it hasn't really given me much insight on why you value so greatly the potential for happiness versus happiness you already had.

 

The happiness I already have is threatened once the drama begins.

 

For someone who asserts that he can pull partners with relative ease, it doesn't make a lot of sense to risk trouble for someone who might not even work out when you already have happiness and probably other partners to boot.

 

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?

 

It seems less like a mindset of "lessening drama" and more about preserving your "role" as the only one who calls the shots, the one who has the power, which automatically forces any of your partners to concede to you. You, who said earlier you don't like dom/submissive roles. :P

 

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

[Kimberly]

I do find it slightly odd that you consider my relationship parameters as "harsh guidelines," 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? >_>

 

They are definitively harsh because you hold all the power and force all of your partners to adhere to your guidelines beyond simply being in an open relationship. Yes, it is forcing, because people universally enter long-term relationships expecting a give-and-take. This is not a monogamous-exclusive concept, but plays into trust and respect. It is a universal concept in relationships both sexual and emotional. By refusing to bend for fear of a slippery slope, it causes stagnation of it's own kind. The difference in why this doesn't affect you personally as much is because of how short-lived the relationships are. (Note that I'm speaking simply in terms of time, not satisfaction.) It's a concept Blackdragon touches on oh! so briefly because the very concept is hard to teach, so rather he avoids it. Instead, when he must touch on it as he does when he describes the "provider" role and the degree in which an "alpha" needs to participate in order to remain that way in a long term relationship, he does it in a way that still says "this is your choice, you are giving this to them because they expect it. It undermines you, but it's just one of the things you got to suck up because women are crazy-emotional and need appeasement." It is the bare-bottom, simplest mean of describing the Give/Take of relationships tailored to the man who seeks to be constantly in control, without paying any attention to the minute details. Why? Mainly because it takes experience and wisdom to deal with these things otherwise. Unfortunately, it does its die-hard adherents a disservice because instead of doing it for the wrong reasons -- like idolizing a man/woman, which is BAD -- they simply don't do it at all even when it's acceptable and even beneficial to do so.

 

To tie this little mini-rant back into the main topic, you ask why would you be giving this concession if it makes you unhappy? You say that drama is a slippery slope, but this is only if you're dealing with an emotionally immature person. That requires the wisdom and experience to determine if they truly are that style of person. If you never take the time to develop or gain that wisdom, you will never be able to exercise it successfully on a case-by-case basis, which is how a person who is truly in charge of their life and prepared for anything should be able to act. If you are unable to do this, your unhappiness with these events could increase dramatically because they are now out of your realm of control and the only way to reassume control is to "cut your losses". As a result, the person you're writing off might not actually be immature, they might just be offended because they possess the ability to understand what you're doing and reacting in kind! EDIT: You linked me to the Message to Women, from where I read the '10 Things I learned about women' article. There is a reason why he says younger women are easier to be with. While this might not be the biggest reason, they are easier to take the power from because they are content with it, even if they go pursue their own poly relationships. They also tend to lack the intuition or experience to analyze this withdraw.

 

So the question comes down to, "Why should anyone risk potential happiness for guaranteed happiness" and "At what point does expanding my potential outweigh the benefits of guaranteed happiness?" Well, no matter what my ranting is about Blackdragon's poor teaching style is, it's still subjective. But I think a person in your shoes as well as anyone else looking to adopt BD's methodology should start learning very early on how to make these minute decisions, how to do these things. Otherwise, the biggest issue becomes people do it because it is easy, not because it will give you the most benefit. By taking the easy way out, you ensure your potential happiness is maintained, but at the cost of your stable happiness. Healthy stable happiness, stemming (in the case of poly) from one or more healthy open relationships of varying degrees. In that regard, you fail to successfully maximize your total happiness, instead betting on the future. If you adopt a lifestyle that is only short-term, this might be okay for you. But since you enter long term relationships with these people, with that comes responsibilities for all involved parties, otherwise you should not have entered a long term one, yes? If you gain more happiness by focusing on yourself, that might not be significant for you, but many people draw on to some degree from the happiness of their partner. (Also note that in this example "drawing on" is not dependency, it is an understanding between two or more partners and is a phenomenon you see in all types of relationships.)

 

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.

 

 

 

2 would only be "bad" (decreasing your maximum happiness) for you if you value the potential happiness more than your stable happiness. By doing that, you put more stock into something that might not work for the sake of something that does. It is part of the respect between two partners in any sort of long term relationship. This issue lies with whoever holds the power. If it is shared, it's both people's responsibility. If one forces control, it is their responsibility. In this case, you are forcing control. E: removed something from an older edit

 

First, it's important to distinguish that this isn't necessarily a mark of territorial behavior, like people would undoubtedly label it if the gender roles were reversed. The tension could stem from wholly justified emotions towards the other person. That's completely and utterly possible. Should neither be able to let go, that puts strain on you (decreasing your maximum happiness). After all, you're not there to play peacemaker; however, by being the one of power (again, going back to responsibility) it is your call on whether or not to pursue this knowing full well that you will force one of them away. Or you let it go and find someone else. If you don't have the wisdom to determine whether or not your partner is being childish, the ability to determine whether the connection you have with A is stronger than B or vice versa, you are hurting yourself overall by taking the easy way out and not even trying to consider it.

 

So no, while I can't fault a person for taking #2, they can be hurting themselves more than they're able to recognize in the long term for short term gains (or to minimize short term losses).

 

This concept of responsibility oddly touches the reason why there are many people in this thread who view you as callous as a result. It's because you are divorcing yourself from the responsibilities that comes with holding all of the power in the relationship and setting yourself up from the start to hold all the cards because by doing so, you feel comfortable with letting women enter/leave your life. With the power you wield, you accept them, but when you force them out you rob them of a choice between equals. Instead the decision is made for them as a result.

 

(LOOK I MADE SOMETHING COME FULL CIRCLE, I AM SO PROUD OF MY ATTENTION SPAN. Only took a [bleep]ing hour to write it all god damn I hate myself.)

 

EDIT: The link you provided is an interesting read but I guess we'll get into it another time. If I start talking about it now, we'll never finish this current topic.

 

EDITEDIT: Holy [bleep] I am so sorry. I tried making these paragraphs smaller and breaking them up more but I can't edit it down much more. @_@

[muggiwhplar]

They are definitively harsh because you hold all the power and force all of your partners to adhere to your guidelines beyond simply being in an open relationship. Yes, it is forcing, because people universally enter long-term relationships expecting a give-and-take.

 

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.

 

This is not a monogamous-exclusive concept, but plays into trust and respect. It is a universal concept in relationships both sexual and emotional. By refusing to bend for fear of a slippery slope, it causes stagnation of it's own kind.

 

The slippery slope leads to mutual unhappiness (a.k.a. the same unhappiness in the typical failed monogamous relationship). The ends justify the means.

 

The difference in why this doesn't affect you personally as much is because of how short-lived the relationships are. (Note that I'm speaking simply in terms of time, not satisfaction.)

 

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.

 

It's a concept Blackdragon touches on oh! so briefly because the very concept is hard to teach, so rather he avoids it.

 

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.

 

Instead, when he must touch on it as he does when he describes the "provider" role and the degree in which an "alpha" needs to participate in order to remain that way in a long term relationship, he does it in a way that still says "this is your choice, you are giving this to them because they expect it. It undermines you, but it's just one of the things you got to suck up because women are crazy-emotional and need appeasement." It is the bare-bottom, simplest mean of describing the Give/Take of relationships tailored to the man who seeks to be constantly in control, without paying any attention to the minute details. Why? Mainly because it takes experience and wisdom to deal with these things otherwise. Unfortunately, it does its die-hard adherents a disservice because instead of doing it for the wrong reasons -- like idolizing a man/woman, which is BAD -- they simply don't do it at all even when it's acceptable and even beneficial to do so.

 

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).

 

To tie this little mini-rant back into the main topic, you ask why would you be giving this concession if it makes you unhappy? You say that drama is a slippery slope, but this is only if you're dealing with an emotionally immature person.

 

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."

 

That requires the wisdom and experience to determine if they truly are that style of person. If you never take the time to develop or gain that wisdom, you will never be able to exercise it successfully on a case-by-case basis, which is how a person who is truly in charge of their life and prepared for anything should be able to act. If you are unable to do this, your unhappiness with these events could increase dramatically because they are now out of your realm of control and the only way to reassume control is to "cut your losses". As a result, the person you're writing off might not actually be immature, they might just be offended because they possess the ability to understand what you're doing and reacting in kind!

 

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.

 

EDIT: You linked me to the Message to Women, from where I read the '10 Things I learned about women' article. There is a reason why he says younger women are easier to be with. While this might not be the biggest reason, they are easier to take the power from because they are content with it, even if they go pursue their own poly relationships. They also tend to lack the intuition or experience to analyze this withdraw.

 

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)

 

So the question comes down to, "Why should anyone risk potential happiness for guaranteed happiness" and "At what point does expanding my potential outweigh the benefits of guaranteed happiness?" Well, no matter what my ranting is about Blackdragon's poor teaching style is, it's still subjective. But I think a person in your shoes as well as anyone else looking to adopt BD's methodology should start learning very early on how to make these minute decisions, how to do these things.

 

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.

 

Otherwise, the biggest issue becomes people do it because it is easy, not because it will give you the most benefit. By taking the easy way out, you ensure your potential happiness is maintained, but at the cost of your stable happiness.

 

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

 

Healthy stable happiness, stemming (in the case of poly) from one or more healthy open relationships of varying degrees. In that regard, you fail to successfully maximize your total happiness, instead betting on the future. If you adopt a lifestyle that is only short-term, this might be okay for you. But since you enter long term relationships with these people, with that comes responsibilities for all involved parties, otherwise you should not have entered a long term one, yes? If you gain more happiness by focusing on yourself, that might not be significant for you, but many people draw on to some degree from the happiness of their partner. (Also note that in this example "drawing on" is not dependency, it is an understanding between two or more partners and is a phenomenon you see in all types of relationships.)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

By doing that, you put more stock into something that might not work for the sake of something that does. It is part of the respect between two partners in any sort of long term relationship. This issue lies with whoever holds the power. If it is shared, it's both people's responsibility. If one forces control, it is their responsibility. In this case, you are forcing control. E: removed something from an older edit

 

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.

 

First, it's important to distinguish that this isn't necessarily a mark of territorial behavior, like people would undoubtedly label it if the gender roles were reversed. The tension could stem from wholly justified emotions towards the other person. That's completely and utterly possible. Should neither be able to let go, that puts strain on you (decreasing your maximum happiness). After all, you're not there to play peacemaker; however, by being the one of power (again, going back to responsibility) it is your call on whether or not to pursue this knowing full well that you will force one of them away. Or you let it go and find someone else. If you don't have the wisdom to determine whether or not your partner is being childish, the ability to determine whether the connection you have with A is stronger than B or vice versa, you are hurting yourself overall by taking the easy way out and not even trying to consider it.

 

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.

 

So no, while I can't fault a person for taking #2, they can be hurting themselves more than they're able to recognize in the long term for short term gains (or to minimize short term losses).

 

You've got it backwards.

 

This concept of responsibility oddly touches the reason why there are many people in this thread who view you as callous as a result. It's because you are divorcing yourself from the responsibilities that comes with holding all of the power in the relationship and setting yourself up from the start to hold all the cards because by doing so, you feel comfortable with letting women enter/leave your life. With the power you wield, you accept them, but when you force them out you rob them of a choice between equals. Instead the decision is made for them as a result.

 

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!"

[muggiwhplar]

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.

[Sangrina]

I've been following this debate \:D/

 

There's something that came to my mind... Muggi says the girls keep coming back to him repeatedly after their attempts for mono relationships fail for one reason or another. Maybe... could it be it's the other way round? The girls might keep going back to mono relationships when they get tired of feeling "replaceable" in a poly relationship?

 

Also, seeing a poly guy between mono relationships can be quite practical. She gets physical and perhaps emotional togetherness with someone (whenever the poly guy has the time in his schedule, considering he has so many girls to see), but she doesn't have to take into account the poly guy's feelings at all, since he already thinks the girl is replaceable and doesn't really care if she stays or goes.

[obfuscator]

I'm reading everything. Do you apply these harsh absolutes to other relationships you have? (Non-romantic ones). Because like Kim said, all relationships are give and take. The only possible way to maintain a relationship like you've described is if you really don't care about people at all.

 

Would you give such absolutes to your parents, for instance?

[Randox]

Been thinking about something that could potentially be very depressing, though I'm not finding it to be such.

 

What is love?

 

For me, I have never found there to be any particular necessity for a link between liking someone and loving them. It makes it a lot easier, but it doesn't seem to be required, so loving someone would seem to be someone totally different from liking someone a lot.

 

Similarly, when I see someone and for lack of better words, my body gets excited, that's not love either. That's just lust, and lust has even less in common with love than liking someone does.

 

So next I would think about the people I do love, that I know I love, and what is different about those relationships. And a very long story made much shorter is familiarity and respect. If I had to describe it using other words, I would say that is a unique combination of familiarity and respect.

 

 

I am thinking about this because of an observation I made about myself. I have dated people I was attracted to and people I wasn't with equal ease (with the difference being I tend not to initiate contact in the latter scenario), and I get along with people fine either way, but love, that takes a lot of time. I don't believe in love at first sight, which apparently means I am disqualified from being capable of felling love at first sight (to not be excluded, you have to believe in it first). But where I am going with this is for me (and I can't stress me enough here, because this is certainly not going to hold true for everyone), love isn't something I find, it's something that is created.

 

It also leads to me wonder what one would call a relationship where physical and emotional relationships were in totally different spheres, with a person filling one need having no obligation to fill the other, and there being no expectation of such (without using the phrase 'cheating with a [bleep] buddy while in a celibate relationship'). I think that for someone like me, that might be ideal, since the person I love could easily end up being someone I have little or no actual physical attraction to, but would be the person I want to live and share my life with. The connection between physical intimacy and social intimacy is actually quite inconvenient (and no, I am not joining Muggi's camp. His lifestyle gives me even less of what I want, because the emotional relationship is paramount for me, and poly can't provide what I need).

[obfuscator]

What is love?

 

Baby don't hurt me

 

In all seriousness, I agree. Love and lust have very little to do with each other.

[Mylez]

I'm reading everything too. I find this absolutely [bleep]ing fascinating. Kimberley and Muggi both have very good points which is making this all the more interesting.

 

While I have quite strictly stuck to a monogamous lifestyle so far (I'm 21, and still studying), the poly lifestyle seems to sit ambiguously in my mind. I think this is because, like Randox, a care-free, happy-go-lucky approach to relationships is great... until you want to "settle down".

 

I don't really think I'm in a position to think about this too much with respect to my own lifestyle, I'm young and happily in a two-year relationship. However, this doesn't stop me from pondering. :D

[muggiwhplar]

There's something that came to my mind... Muggi says the girls keep coming back to him repeatedly after their attempts for mono relationships fail for one reason or another. Maybe... could it be it's the other way round? The girls might keep going back to mono relationships when they get tired of feeling "replaceable" in a poly relationship?

 

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.

 

Also, seeing a poly guy between mono relationships can be quite practical. She gets physical and perhaps emotional togetherness with someone (whenever the poly guy has the time in his schedule, considering he has so many girls to see), but she doesn't have to take into account the poly guy's feelings at all, since he already thinks the girl is replaceable and doesn't really care if she stays or goes.

 

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.

 

I'm reading everything. Do you apply these harsh absolutes to other relationships you have? (Non-romantic ones). Because like Kim said, all relationships are give and take. The only possible way to maintain a relationship like you've described is if you really don't care about people at all.

 

Would you give such absolutes to your parents, for instance?

 

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

 

Been thinking about something that could potentially be very depressing, though I'm not finding it to be such.

 

What is love?

 

For me, I have never found there to be any particular necessity for a link between liking someone and loving them. It makes it a lot easier, but it doesn't seem to be required, so loving someone would seem to be someone totally different from liking someone a lot.

 

Similarly, when I see someone and for lack of better words, my body gets excited, that's not love either. That's just lust, and lust has even less in common with love than liking someone does.

 

So next I would think about the people I do love, that I know I love, and what is different about those relationships. And a very long story made much shorter is familiarity and respect. If I had to describe it using other words, I would say that is a unique combination of familiarity and respect.

 

 

I am thinking about this because of an observation I made about myself. I have dated people I was attracted to and people I wasn't with equal ease (with the difference being I tend not to initiate contact in the latter scenario), and I get along with people fine either way, but love, that takes a lot of time. I don't believe in love at first sight, which apparently means I am disqualified from being capable of felling love at first sight (to not be excluded, you have to believe in it first). But where I am going with this is for me (and I can't stress me enough here, because this is certainly not going to hold true for everyone), love isn't something I find, it's something that is created.

 

It also leads to me wonder what one would call a relationship where physical and emotional relationships were in totally different spheres, with a person filling one need having no obligation to fill the other, and there being no expectation of such (without using the phrase 'cheating with a [bleep] buddy while in a celibate relationship'). I think that for someone like me, that might be ideal, since the person I love could easily end up being someone I have little or no actual physical attraction to, but would be the person I want to live and share my life with. The connection between physical intimacy and social intimacy is actually quite inconvenient (and no, I am not joining Muggi's camp. His lifestyle gives me even less of what I want, because the emotional relationship is paramount for me, and poly can't provide what I need).

 

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.

[obfuscator]

So how do you approach relationships with your parents if they "introduce unnecessary drama"?

[muggiwhplar]

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.

[obfuscator]

So there would never be a need to give them the ultimatum that they were affecting your happiness and risked being cut off?

 

So why can't the same thing happen in a monogamous relationship? In fact, it strikes me as odd that your parents would be so mature with you but then immediately act like children when dealing with each other....which must be the case, as if I understand your points correctly such unnecessary drama is unavoidable in monogamous relationships.