Thoughts on Polyamory

[green337]

What a great, thoughtful thread. I have recently discovered the concept of polyamory and feel it speaks to me, my ideals, my tendencies and my heart. Sadly, I am married and my husband isn't interested in entertaining my notions. In the interest of full disclosure, I have cheated on him. But before you judge/label...think a minute....

The agony of doing that was excruciating. I did not have a name for the way I felt; namely, I wanted to explore relationships with other men. I wanted my husband, first and foremost, but there were needs he can't fulfill.

This has torn us both up. He wants a commitment from me I'm not able to give. We want each other. I want to explore the depths and breadth of relationships.

But we cannot agree and one of us has to decide.

(My apologies in advance if anything I say sounds judgy, as it's not intended that way).

I don't envy your situation.

There are many different sorts of relationships that all work in their own ways, but it's important that you're all on the same wavelength, and there's no need to keep secrets (unless it's agreed to do so, where the fact that there's secrets is not a secret).

I hope that your husband can change his mind on it so you get the fulfillment you need, or you find a way to come around to his point of view. It very much sounds like you're both in love with each other, and I'd hate for something to break you apart, but you sound like your needs/desires are going in different directions.

 

[coacheric]

Your tone is somewhat accusatory and I don't understand your question. Do you have an actual question or are you trying to provoke me?

My question was very simple. As you clearly stated in another post, you just got out of a poly relationship yet now state how you want to get into one. Just trying to understand the facts

 

[readinggp]

It's the only way to be. Humans aren't supposed to be monogamous.

I like your take on the idea.

 

[Glycerinelimits]

I think that monogamy has "evolved" to where it is today because that is what most people want and they have used whatever social institutions as the path to support and foster the idea. However, having said that, that does not mean that some people do not prefer it or flourish in a polyamorous relationship. I think the reason you don't see more is because a intimate relationship between a couple is complicated enough and when you calculate the permutations of relationships that happen when you have three or more, the complexity added is geometric, not linear addition nor a decrease in complexity. I think most people aren't capable. That isn't a bad thing or a good thing. There is no "value" judgment to be made. However, there are some people that are capable and that isn't a good thing or bad thing either.

 

[Nastygirl23]

I really agree with you and have enjoyed reading your thoughts on the subject. Thanks for posting!

I think that most of the conclusions about whether we are or are not supposed to be monogamous tends to start with a conclusion then wrap an argument around it. And more often than not the key factors cited are external factors and circumstances, which suggests that outcomes are a by-product of conditioning and necessity as much as nature.

The primary exception is the fact that women are the child bearers. But access to birth control, ability/inability to identify paternity, negative judgment of unwed mothers and the presumption that pairing as opposed to communal is the "right" sharing of responsibilities are all external factors. Many of those factors are a function of women being regarded as possessions and many have fallen away in modern times.

There was a time when women were expected to marry early and be virgins when they married. That was an almost universal assumption and what many believed to be "natural". In historical terms that fell away and became the exception rather than the rule almost overnight as soon as we stopped punishing women for not complying.

I know of nobody and no data that can truly separate the aspects of our behaviour that are "natural" and those that are conditioned into us. Even jealousy is a function of both visceral emotion and conditioning. Why does a man on the other side of the world get jealous and insulted if you see his wife's bare arms but I sincerely do not feel jealous if you see my gorgeous wife in a bikini. The jealousy may be a "natural" emotion but the point at which it kicks in is a function of conditioning.

We also tend to assume the options are binary - monogamy or polygamy. What about serial monogamy - or whatever the phrase is for being with one person at a time but not staying with one for ever. Or mostly monogamy with an annual hall pass. Or open relationship where one partner is the primary life partner but any number of possible variations of outside lovers are acceptable.

Personally I don't think there is any one natural way. If we could see into everyone's mind and strip away all the conditioning and biases we could possibly identify a majority preference, but that wouldn't mean the minority isn't natural or the way they are supposed to be.

The whole notion of what we are or are not supposed to be relies on the false premise that we are all the same in this regard.

 

[SlutAddicted]

I think that monogamy has "evolved" to where it is today because that is what most people want and they have used whatever social institutions as the path to support and foster the idea. However, having said that, that does not mean that some people do not prefer it or flourish in a polyamorous relationship. I think the reason you don't see more is because a intimate relationship between a couple is complicated enough and when you calculate the permutations of relationships that happen when you have three or more, the complexity added is geometric, not linear addition nor a decrease in complexity. I think most people aren't capable. That isn't a bad thing or a good thing. There is no "value" judgment to be made. However, there are some people that are capable and that isn't a good thing or bad thing either.

I agree a lot of what you say. But I think we need to acknowledge that many of those social institutions promoted women as possessions and punished non-compliance with their teachings. In historical terms it is only very recently that a few western societies allowed people to choose which social institutions of which they would be a part.......and there remains substantial familial and societal pressure to stick with the groups into which you were born. We have not yet reached the point where we can say with any authority that observed outcomes are truly reflective of individual reflection and will.

 

[Glycerinelimits]

I agree a lot of what you say. But I think we need to acknowledge that many of those social institutions promoted women as possessions and punished non-compliance with their teachings. In historical terms it is only very recently that a few western societies allowed people to choose which social institutions of which they would be a part.......and there remains substantial familial and societal pressure to stick with the groups into which you were born. We have not yet reached the point where we can say with any authority that observed outcomes are truly reflective of individual reflection and will.

I agree that men have used institutions to exercise some sort of "property" right over women in the past (and I am sure some today as I still observe it, without calling out any specific male, dominated denominations or churches). However, through my life, and a common issue I observed over the 25 years I was active in church, was women often use those same institutions to try to keep their men in-line so to speak as well. Women typically far out number men in terms of church attendance and the couples groups I used to be a part of over the years, a common complaint was the men rarely wanted to go to church and the women would pressure them. I am not saying it is right or wrong. Just an observation. I would propose, there are a number of reasons why women would want there men to go to church that have nothing to do with some idea of "property."

 

[SlutAddicted]

I agree that men have used institutions to exercise some sort of "property" right over women in the past (and I am sure some today as I still observe it, without calling out any specific male, dominated denominations or churches). However, through my life, and a common issue I observed over the 25 years I was active in church, was women often use those same institutions to try to keep their men in-line so to speak as well. Women typically far out number men in terms of church attendance and the couples groups I used to be a part of over the years, a common complaint was the men rarely wanted to go to church and the women would pressure them. I am not saying it is right or wrong. Just an observation. I would propose, there are a number of reasons why women would want there men to go to church that have nothing to do with some idea of "property."

Agreed. The key point I was getting at is that the idea of us each choosing the social institutions which we will follow or participate in is a relatively new dynamic. So new in fact that I don't think we can observe our participation in those institutions and assume it to be an entirely voluntary thing. I too was raised in a church environment and found it to be full of pressure and expectation. The women I observed who were always trying to pull their men in saw the church group as their primary social circle, social status and connection to family. While they were not literally compelled to participate as they have in the past, to cease participating carries serious social and personal ramifications to the point that I don't believe that they can be said to have made the choice to engage with those particular institutions as entirely voluntary.

Certainly of the people I can think of in the church there was a strong undercurrent of judgment toward those that don't participate and among those who do there are a variety of rigid views on sex. So yes you can be poly but all your friends and family will treat you like an outcast. That isn't freedom to truly be yourself. And while some people do choose the institutions that suit them for many the institution has undue influence and finds ways to sanction those who don't submit. In their own small way every person trying to drag their unwilling partner to church is doing the bidding of that religious institution - letting themselves be a tool to impose the will of the institution on the partner. I don't see how we can look at the partner who is letting themselves be used and not consider that their choices still aren't truly free or suited to them based upon truly objective criteria.