Polyamory

[dies-l]

It seems that "intellectually honest" is defined here as "agreeing with dies-l".


eudaimonia,

Mark

Actually, intellectually honesty is about honestly trying to apply logic and reason. The claim here seems to be that polyamory is merely about having an openness to nurturing relationships outside of a given romantic relationship. My point is that most people have quite an openness to this, yet are not polyamorous. So, unless you are including me (and every other married or dating person who has healthy non-sexual friendships outside of my marriage) as a polyamorous, then this analysis would be intellectually dishonest. And, if that is your understanding of polyamory, you have essentially stripped the characterization of any meaningful distinction.

If you want to provide arguments as to why I am wrong, then please do so. But, comments like the one quoted above don't add anything to the discussion. Your comment is much like the grownup version of saying, "nuh-uhhhh" or "I know you are, but what am I?" or "la la la, I can't hear you".

 

[Mling]

It is interesting to see how the concept of polyamory is reinterpreted by the OP to pretend that it is about anything other than sex. If a non-Christian chooses to reject monogamy, then they are free to make that choice. As a Christian, it is not my place to expect non-believers to embrace my Christian worldview. However, I think it is fair to ask that people be intellectually honest. What differentiates polyamory from monogamy is sex, nothing more and nothing less.

As a monogamous person, I do believe that my wife owns me or that I own her. I do not feel deprived of meaningful relationships other than my marriage, and I don't believe that she does. We both have very fulfilling relationships with others outside of our marriage. But, we don't have sex with other people.

Actually, intellectually honesty is about honestly trying to apply logic and reason. The claim here seems to be that polyamory is merely about having an openness to nurturing relationships outside of a given romantic relationship. My point is that most people have quite an openness to this, yet are not polyamorous. So, unless you are including me (and every other married or dating person who has healthy non-sexual friendships outside of my marriage) as a polyamorous, then this analysis would be intellectually dishonest. And, if that is your understanding of polyamory, you have essentially stripped the characterization of any meaningful distinction.

If you want to provide arguments as to why I am wrong, then please do so. But, comments like the one quoted above don't add anything to the discussion. Your comment is much like the grownup version of saying, "nuh-uhhhh" or "I know you are, but what am I?" or "la la la, I can't hear you".

What I find peculiar is that you-- a conservative Christian-- seem to be defining relationships as either friendly or sexual.

What about romantic relationships? Was your wife simply a friend until the day you got married/first had sex? Or did you go through a courting/dating/wooing process in which your relationship was romantic but not sexual?

Christians are usually all about the sex-less romance, so I'm quite surprised to see meet one who seems to think that the only thing which makes a romantic relationship different from a friendly one is the sex. It must have made dating very interesting for you--I imagine it must have involved either...just not dating, or having sex on the first date in order to establish that the relationship was now romantic.

Polyamory is about having multiple romantic relationships. But the role of sex in romantic relationships is extremely personal, and is different for everybody.

I know at least one person who is both poly and asexual, and I know somebody else who is getting involved in a poly relationship but likes to take relationships extremely slowly, so sex is a no-go for, well....a long time. She's not involved with me, so I don't know the specifics.

 

[acropolis]

It goes against the fundamental urges that we have as humans and I imagine it'll never be widely practiced...

I'd say the urge to screw as man people as possible as often as possible is pretty fundamental. If it were socially acceptable and I could do it without feeling like a dirt bag I would definitely put together my own harem, but it isn't and I can't so I don't.

Oh honey, I live in the deep south too, and don't you think the gender roles are just as confining to women as well. Just like men who put their best foot forward, women have to try and put their best body forward. You say men in the deep south have to approach the woman, he isn't going to approach the the plain jane, he's going to go for the looker. Or if the woman approaches the southern man she likes, half the time he is put off by her forwardness. So she has to get all dolled up and hopes he comes to her. Isn't that just as stupid?

Oh yes absolutely gender roles hurt women as well! The expectation that men must always initiate robs women in part of control over their love lives, among many other detrimental results of gender norms. My point was only that gender norms currently require men to take an active role, whereas women are permitted (or forced, in some sense) to be passive. It isn't fair or even sensible, but women are generally valued for what they are and men for what they do. I'm not supporting any of that morally correct, just pointing out that that is how things tend to work.

 

[Mling]

I'm using 'performance' in the sociological sense. You performed for that woman and she become attracted to you. Had you performed poorly, nothing would have happened.

The way gender norms work is that women are socially valued mainly for appearance, which is totally passive and doesn't need any action. Men get some points here and there for looking good, but they are required in most cases to initiate whatever happens and to demonstrate their worth, since looks only go so far for hetero guys. Most people are so used to playing their role that they don't realize that it could be any other way for people with different roles. Even if singing for your dinner comes easy, you still have to do it if that's what society expects, or else you'll go hungry.

All gender norms? Ever and everywhere? You're explaining this like I don't know it, which should tell you something--those aren't "gender norms." Those are one set of gender norms among many other options.

Here's how gender norms work in my neck of the woods.

"That's cool--there's a spot for you here."

That's not regional so much as sub-cultural, but it definitely exists. Trans people are publicly acknowledged as the gender they present as and identify as. People who aren't trans but don't completely conform to traditional gender roles are the most common. People who do conform to traditional gender roles are welcome and embraced as long as they don't try to make other people perform the same way they do. Individual people may, of course, not be comfortable with other people's gender presentation, but as long as that other person isn't actively doing something to you, you respect their right to identify and present as they wish.

So...there's norms--they vary, and while you acknowledge that, you still seem to be describing them as if they are universal.

Also, you seem to be describing women's passivity as if it is not also a performance. I have family in the south. I know how much make up, and money, and dieting, and affectation of ignorance and incompetence goes into pretending to be a passive doll. It's a performance. Just because men got the speaking part in the school play, and women got to play a tree--and will be utterly panned if they aren't the most beautiful tree around-- doesn't mean they aren't both performing.

Of course it isn't inherent in sex, gender norms are socially constructed. But once constructed they are real and have an impact on you, like it or not. In this social setting, and many others, I must, as a man, prove my worth and command attention and respect. Attractive women will get my attention whether they do anything or not, and pretty much regardless of the way they dress,

This is off topic, but what if they don't want your attention? Do you still give it regardless of what they do?

fashion being mostly to compete with other women. Women who aren't attractive at first glance aren't going to be considered.

Why not? Why do you choose to base relationships on looks instead of personality?

This is a common experience for the men I know in this region.

I'm not sure you can call something an "experience" like that if it is so dependent on personal choice. I don't really "experience," dinner-making, for example. I make dinner. It's a thing I do, not a thing that happens to me. You could, at any moment, talk to a woman who wouldn't normally be your first choice, and see what she has to say. Why do you choose not to?

edit: And just to be very clear, I'm disagreeing with you that competition isn't a part of it. You choose not to see it that way, but the reality is that those who don't perform well don't get a spot on the team. Everyone has many options for who to date, or who to secondarily date or whatever, and there are real, tangible reasons for selecting one person over another, and those that display more value get chosen over those that don't. In that sense it is always a competition.

In a sense, perhaps, but I experience it more as an incredibly complex and not always well-crafted jigsaw puzzle, in that the competition comes to distinct pauses, at least in certain regions. For examples, there's literally no competition in my immediate little chosen family. There really isn't. My girlfriend and her boyfriend don't want the kind of relationship that she has with me or he has with his primary. They already both have primaries, and neither would be able to handle having another comparable relationship in their lives.

Competition could, I suppose, be used to describe it...but it seems an odd use of the word. I mean, I'm more comfortable saying that berries compete for being the most appetizing-looking, than that my circle of friends compete for each other's love and attention. At least, among berries, there are a few things they can be judged on, and there are clearly set standards of what makes a berry appetizing--bright color, appropriate shape and size. But in a culture where there are so many criteria...it's a little mindboggling to figure out just how we're competing and how the competition would be judged. My gf's bf, for example, doesn't even need a cell-phone, so thick is the gaggle of girls around him. You can always just call one of his partners, and they'll probably be around him. He is overweight, bald, quiet, not completely male-identified, not completely straight, socially anxious and a little awkward. He looks very masculine--so wouldn't appeal to people who are immediately attracted to effeminate men-- but his queerness of both gender and sexuality wouldn't appeal so much to people who want their men butch. I have no idea what his strength is like, because I've never seen any demonstration of it...I don't know much about his artistic or public speaking skills either.

What he is, is respectful and kind. And by respectful, I don't mean he is polite and says the right things--I mean he will value the things you value, if only because you value them. Things you wouldn't know until you have a serious conversation with him.

Another person I know who pretty much has his pick of anybody he likes is almost the total opposite. He is fairly respectful of others, though not as obviously so and can sometimes be insensitive in subtle ways. His main attractions are that he's extremely extroverted and highly skilled in several things (I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that sex is one of those things--he's got all the right personality traits for it).

So how does one judge a competition when people who are all but total opposites get equally good prizes? If most of the berries get eaten, because there are critters around who like bright colors, who like dull colors, who like sweetness, who like sourness, who like big berries, who like small berries, who like berries in all stages of ripeness---isn't that less of a "competition," and more of a jigsaw puzzle? It's a complicated pairing of the most compatible sets, but with so many traits being judged as valuable that almost everybody gets a prize they like.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

This is hilarious.

The idea that this practice is acceptable and somehow 'understandable' to some people is pretty comical.

It goes against the fundamental urges that we have as humans and I imagine it'll never be widely practiced...

We condemn it because it is bizarre and attempts to lighten the social unity and cohesion that we have as a society.

For the record: I do not believe in democracy & I do not believe that humans have inherent rights that cannot be infringed for the good of society.

your just bent out of shape becase pepole being bale to have sucsefull relshinships like that wiht the aprovel of others is not what you want and weakens your chances of evry one condmeing what you dont like and want them to condemm

your being disgusting you wanted condemnation i will give it to you

 

[dies-l]

What I find peculiar is that you-- a conservative Christian--

The problem with labels is that they are very often wrong, misplaced, or misleading. I am a Christian. I am probably more conservative than you. But, I am by no means, a conservative Christian, at least not as that phrase is used by most people who would identify as conservative Christians.

seem to be defining relationships as either friendly or sexual.

Hmm. I don't remember doing that.

What about romantic relationships? Was your wife simply a friend until the day you got married/first had sex?

No, but our relationship was sexual in nature long before we had sex.

Or did you go through a courting/dating/wooing process in which your relationship was romantic but not sexual?

I would regard a relationship that is built around the contemplation of sexuality is both sexual and romantic. You are making a false dichotomy.

Christians are usually all about the sex-less romance

Once again with the wrong assumptions.

The rest of your post is based on bad assumptions about me and about Christians in general, so there is not much to comment on.

 

[acropolis]

All gender norms? Ever and everywhere? You're explaining this like I don't know it, which should tell you something--those aren't "gender norms." Those are one set of gender norms among many other options.

Here's how gender norms work in my neck of the woods.

"That's cool--there's a spot for you here."

That's not regional so much as sub-cultural, but it definitely exists. Trans people are publicly acknowledged as the gender they present as and identify as. People who aren't trans but don't completely conform to traditional gender roles are the most common. People who do conform to traditional gender roles are welcome and embraced as long as they don't try to make other people perform the same way they do. Individual people may, of course, not be comfortable with other people's gender presentation, but as long as that other person isn't actively doing something to you, you respect their right to identify and present as they wish.

So...there's norms--they vary, and while you acknowledge that, you still seem to be describing them as if they are universal.

Also, you seem to be describing women's passivity as if it is not also a performance. I have family in the south. I know how much make up, and money, and dieting, and affectation of ignorance and incompetence goes into pretending to be a passive doll. It's a performance. Just because men got the speaking part in the school play, and women got to play a tree--and will be utterly panned if they aren't the most beautiful tree around-- doesn't mean they aren't both performing.

When speaking in generalities I try to strike a balance between accuracy and having to endlessly qualify every statement I make. I think I made the mistake of hastily referencing something which is, of course, by no means black and white nor universal, and only true on average. You're correct, gender normsaren't by any means universal. In the US, however, there are sets of gender norms which are very common, though again, not universal in existence or degree. In general, both men and women face considerable social pressure to behave in accordance with their gender roles, and they often suffer for breaking those roles.

Regarding performance, yes, everyone has to perform, and I hate it and it sucks. I would say that men are expected to take a more active role in their performance than women, in general, and so for many social settings it isn't possible for men to excuse themselves from taking action, by 'just being themselves,' and still get dates. But yes, we all must perform, and we are all judged based on this performance in the great competition of life. I don't like to compete like this, and the social norm of exclusivity gives me at least the feeling of not having to compete for a while. I wouldn't get such a break in a poly situation so that is one reason I'm not going to get romantically involved with poly people.

This is off topic, but what if they don't want your attention? Do you still give it regardless of what they do?

I can definitely see why you would read my statement that way, since so many guys do lay it on think regardless of anything a woman does. I make an effort to read the situation before making any kind of move, and avoid things like male gazing women, invading their personal space, cornering them before propositioning, and so forth. When I say she's going to get 'attention' no matter what, it means I'll notice her and mentally include her in People I Would Like to Date, not that I'm going to badger or harass her, or even stare at her, if she's clearly not interested in being accosted by strangers at the moment (which is most often the case, I find).

Why not? Why do you choose to base relationships on looks instead of personality?

I wish it were some other way, honestly. I have tried to date women who didn't physically turn me on but were wonderful in all other ways, and it just doesn't work. I'll be close friends with them, but romantically I can't do it for very long.

This is a somewhat controversial opinion, but from the studies I've read and my personal observations I think female sexuality/attraction is far more fluid than that of men, in general, and more influenced by non-physical traits. It might seem totally arbitrary and unfair for me to exclude women that don't physical attract me, but that might just be you applying your own experience of attraction to me, which might not be valid.

I'm not sure you can call something an "experience" like that if it is so dependent on personal choice. I don't really "experience," dinner-making, for example. I make dinner. It's a thing I do, not a thing that happens to me. You could, at any moment, talk to a woman who wouldn't normally be your first choice, and see what she has to say. Why do you choose not to?

I don't choose who I am attracted to, they are either attractive or not. There are degrees of attraction, and it's certainly up to me which woman among that group of attractive ones to approach, but the presence of attraction isn't a matter of control for me. I've had this conversation many times with lots of guys and it's agreed that it's either there or it isn't, and if it isn't there, nothing a woman can do will change that. This is probably a function of socialization, but having been thus socialized, it's how we tend to operate.

In a sense, perhaps, but I experience it more as an incredibly complex and not always well-crafted jigsaw puzzle, in that the competition comes to distinct pauses, at least in certain regions. For examples, there's literally no competition in my immediate little chosen family. There really isn't. My girlfriend and her boyfriend don't want the kind of relationship that she has with me or he has with his primary. They already both have primaries, and neither would be able to handle having another comparable relationship in their lives.

Competition could, I suppose, be used to describe it...but it seems an odd use of the word. I mean, I'm more comfortable saying that berries compete for being the most appetizing-looking, than that my circle of friends compete for each other's love and attention. At least, among berries, there are a few things they can be judged on, and there are clearly set standards of what makes a berry appetizing--bright color, appropriate shape and size. But in a culture where there are so many criteria...it's a little mindboggling to figure out just how we're competing and how the competition would be judged. My gf's bf, for example, doesn't even need a cell-phone, so thick is the gaggle of girls around him. You can always just call one of his partners, and they'll probably be around him. He is overweight, bald, quiet, not completely male-identified, not completely straight, socially anxious and a little awkward. He looks very masculine--so wouldn't appeal to people who are immediately attracted to effeminate men-- but his queerness of both gender and sexuality wouldn't appeal so much to people who want their men butch. I have no idea what his strength is like, because I've never seen any demonstration of it...I don't know much about his artistic or public speaking skills either.

What he is, is respectful and kind. And by respectful, I don't mean he is polite and says the right things--I mean he will value the things you value, if only because you value them. Things you wouldn't know until you have a serious conversation with him.

Another person I know who pretty much has his pick of anybody he likes is almost the total opposite. He is fairly respectful of others, though not as obviously so and can sometimes be insensitive in subtle ways. His main attractions are that he's extremely extroverted and highly skilled in several things (I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that sex is one of those things--he's got all the right personality traits for it).

So how does one judge a competition when people who are all but total opposites get equally good prizes? If most of the berries get eaten, because there are critters around who like bright colors, who like dull colors, who like sweetness, who like sourness, who like big berries, who like small berries, who like berries in all stages of ripeness---isn't that less of a "competition," and more of a jigsaw puzzle? It's a complicated pairing of the most compatible sets, but with so many traits being judged as valuable that almost everybody gets a prize they like.

If you don't see your arrangement as competing then by all means more power to you. I couldn't be in a situation like that without being constantly aware that I'm only second or third choice, and that there are other people romantically involved that could be more or less interesting and valuable that me at any given time. Having someone I'm supposedly romantically involved with cut me off or ditch me because some other lover pulled rank would communicate to me that I'm not as valuable to my love interest, and I couldn't tolerate dealing with that. It would say to me "Sorry I'm going to go spend some time with the person I actually care about, maybe they'll be some time left over for you later to sate your needs." No way could I deal with that. They only way I could is if I thought I wasn't worth being a romantic priority in someone's life, which is why I can't help but feel sorry for people that DO tolerate being a 'secondary.' That's what that situation communicates to me, and I can't really see it any other way, but if you don't then there's no issue clearly.

Competition is always in play whether you see it or not. Someone else can always appear who is more attractive to your partner than you, and this stresses me out. The social norm of being in an exclusive relationship gives me a bit of peace of mind that, at least for the moment, I don't have to be confronted with the reality of the competitive nature of romance. Serial monogamy works best for me, and that's part of why it does.

 

[Mling]

The problem with labels is that they are very often wrong, misplaced, or misleading. I am a Christian. I am probably more conservative than you. But, I am by no means, a conservative Christian, at least not as that phrase is used by most people who would identify as conservative Christians.



Hmm. I don't remember doing that.




No, but our relationship was sexual in nature long before we had sex.



I would regard a relationship that is built around the contemplation of sexuality is both sexual and romantic. You are making a false dichotomy.




Once again with the wrong assumptions.

The rest of your post is based on bad assumptions about me and about Christians in general, so there is not much to comment on.

It's probably a fair accusation, that I made some assumptions about your beliefs regarding sex in relationships.

However, you did state that polyamory must be all about sex because it is possibly to have emotionally fulfilling relationships with friends outside of a monogamous relationship. You did use sex as the defining characteristic of a relationship that is more than friendly, and that requires a title like "polyamory."

And yet, there are asexual poly people.

And yet, the idea of "emotional affair" exists to describe the situation where a person has shared an inappropriate amount of intimacy with somebody other than their partner, but hasnt had sex--might have never even considered sex.

If your wife found out that you go to another woman's house, feed her cat, read her children bedtime stories, make popcorn and snuggle on the couch with her as you share extremely personal details of your lives, do you think that would be considered ok, due to the fact that it isn't sexual?

Even if she was ok with it, do you see how some people wouldn't be, or would need to negotiate and talk about it to become ok with it?

That's because more-than-friendly relationships have other earmarks than just sex or sexuality, and a lifestyle that includes multiple partners is "about" sharing all those things, not just sex.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Actually, intellectually honesty is about honestly trying to apply logic and reason.

Correct. And when you accuse others of being intellectually dishonest without specifying their logic errors, there is nothing else that one can conclude than that you simply expect other people to agree with you.

The claim here seems to be that polyamory is merely about having an openness to nurturing relationships outside of a given romantic relationship.

Polyamory is about the having multiple romantic relationships at the same time.

My point is that most people have quite an openness to this, yet are not polyamorous. So, unless you are including me (and every other married or dating person who has healthy non-sexual friendships outside of my marriage) as a polyamorous, then this analysis would be intellectually dishonest.

Since you've misunderstood what polyamory is, you have failed to find any intellectual dishonesty.

And, if that is your understanding of polyamory, you have essentially stripped the characterization of any meaningful distinction.

You did that, not me, since that isn't my understanding of polyamory.

If you want to provide arguments as to why I am wrong, then please do so. But, comments like the one quoted above don't add anything to the discussion. Your comment is much like the grownup version of saying, "nuh-uhhhh" or "I know you are, but what am I?" or "la la la, I can't hear you".

You don't like looking in the mirror?

I was trying to get you to actually present an argument. It was impossible for me to reply in a substantive way because you gave me nothing to examine. So, it was a good thing that you rose to the challenge of explaining yourself, because it revealed a knowledge error.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dies-l]

It's probably a fair accusation, that I made some assumptions about your beliefs regarding sex in relationships.

However, you did state that polyamory must be all about sex because it is possibly to have emotionally fulfilling relationships with friends outside of a monogamous relationship. You did use sex as the defining characteristic of a relationship that is more than friendly, and that requires a title like "polyamory."

And yet, there are asexual poly people.

And yet, the idea of "emotional affair" exists to describe the situation where a person has shared an inappropriate amount of intimacy with somebody other than their partner, but hasnt had sex--might have never even considered sex.

If your wife found out that you go to another woman's house, feed her cat, read her children bedtime stories, make popcorn and snuggle on the couch with her as you share extremely personal details of your lives, do you think that would be considered ok, due to the fact that it isn't sexual?

Even if she was ok with it, do you see how some people wouldn't be, or would need to negotiate and talk about it to become ok with it?

That's because more-than-friendly relationships have other earmarks than just sex or sexuality, and a lifestyle that includes multiple partners is "about" sharing all those things, not just sex.

Ok, if it is your assertion that there are people who practice polyamory by having romantic relationships outside of their primary sexual relationship, but which do not involve having sex, then I will concede that this is a different moral issue than so-called sexually open relationships or polyamorous relationships that involve sex. I have to be honest that I don't buy your assertion, but for the purpose of intellectual debate that is not all that important.

Once again, this comes down to labels. Prior to this moment, every reference I have ever heard of polyamory (and I have some loved ones in my life who are active in the polyamory community) has had an inherent sexual element. You seem to apply the label differently than I would (just as you seem to with other labels, such as "conservative Christian").

But, let me summarize my feelings this way. As a Christian, I would never seek a romantically intimate relationship outside of my marriage. I also would be very unlikely to have a romantically intimate relationship that did not have some contemplation of sexual intimacy. Thus, for my purposes, romantic and sexual are nearly synonymous. But, I am not all that interested in the moral attitudes of non-believers (so long as they are not directly infringing upon me in some tangible way). So, if a non-Christian couple wishes to have a polyamorous relationship (of either definition), then that is between them as far as I am concerned.

But, once again, I am convinced that polyamory is in general an expression of sexuality, just as is marriage. Just because there are asexual married people does not make marriage any less sexual. Likewise, the existence of "asexual polys" does not, in my opinion, render polyamory any less sexual. The ultimate difference between a traditional monogamous couple and a polyamorous couple is, at the very least, an openness to outside sexual relationships.

 

[Mling]

Ok, if it is your assertion that there are people who practice polyamory by having romantic relationships outside of their primary sexual relationship, but which do not involve having sex, then I will concede that this is a different moral issue than so-called sexually open relationships or polyamorous relationships that involve sex. I have to be honest that I don't buy your assertion, but for the purpose of intellectual debate that is not all that important.

Once again, this comes down to labels. Prior to this moment, every reference I have ever heard of polyamory (and I have some loved ones in my life who are active in the polyamory community) has had an inherent sexual element. You seem to apply the label differently than I would (just as you seem to with other labels, such as "conservative Christian").

But, let me summarize my feelings this way. As a Christian, I would never seek a romantically intimate relationship outside of my marriage. I also would be very unlikely to have a romantically intimate relationship that did not have some contemplation of sexual intimacy. Thus, for my purposes, romantic and sexual are nearly synonymous. But, I am not all that interested in the moral attitudes of non-believers (so long as they are not directly infringing upon me in some tangible way). So, if a non-Christian couple wishes to have a polyamorous relationship (of either definition), then that is between them as far as I am concerned.

But, once again, I am convinced that polyamory is in general an expression of sexuality, just as is marriage. Just because there are asexual married people does not make marriage any less sexual. Likewise, the existence of "asexual polys" does not, in my opinion, render polyamory any less sexual. The ultimate difference between a traditional monogamous couple and a polyamorous couple is, at the very least, an openness to outside sexual relationships.

So really, when you've said that polyamory is all about sex--what you really meant to say is that, *to you,* romance is all about sexuality.

Certainly, sexual openness is a factor of most poly relationships, but, since that is not all.that romance is for most people, it is also not all that poly is.

When you describe poly as being all about sex, you mischaracterize it as a bathhouse orgy or a system of buck fuddies. The overwhelming majority of people who practice it dont experience it that way. I wrote an intellectually honest description of my own understanding and experience of a community that i am involved in.

If that description did not feature sex as prominently as it would if *you* wrote it, chalk that up to different values or different conceptions of what is important in a romantic relationship.

But please do *not* go around calling me dishonest just because I value intimacy more than sex, and it shows in my writing.

 

[Mling]

When speaking in generalities I try to strike a balance between accuracy and having to endlessly qualify every statement I make. I think I made the mistake of hastily referencing something which is, of course, by no means black and white nor universal, and only true on average. You're correct, gender normsaren't by any means universal. In the US, however, there are sets of gender norms which are very common, though again, not universal in existence or degree. In general, both men and women face considerable social pressure to behave in accordance with their gender roles, and they often suffer for breaking those roles.

Regarding performance, yes, everyone has to perform, and I hate it and it sucks. I would say that men are expected to take a more active role in their performance than women, in general, and so for many social settings it isn't possible for men to excuse themselves from taking action, by 'just being themselves,' and still get dates. But yes, we all must perform, and we are all judged based on this performance in the great competition of life. I don't like to compete like this, and the social norm of exclusivity gives me at least the feeling of not having to compete for a while. I wouldn't get such a break in a poly situation so that is one reason I'm not going to get romantically involved with poly people.





I can definitely see why you would read my statement that way, since so many guys do lay it on think regardless of anything a woman does. I make an effort to read the situation before making any kind of move, and avoid things like male gazing women, invading their personal space, cornering them before propositioning, and so forth. When I say she's going to get 'attention' no matter what, it means I'll notice her and mentally include her in People I Would Like to Date, not that I'm going to badger or harass her, or even stare at her, if she's clearly not interested in being accosted by strangers at the moment (which is most often the case, I find).




I wish it were some other way, honestly. I have tried to date women who didn't physically turn me on but were wonderful in all other ways, and it just doesn't work. I'll be close friends with them, but romantically I can't do it for very long.

This is a somewhat controversial opinion, but from the studies I've read and my personal observations I think female sexuality/attraction is far more fluid than that of men, in general, and more influenced by non-physical traits. It might seem totally arbitrary and unfair for me to exclude women that don't physical attract me, but that might just be you applying your own experience of attraction to me, which might not be valid.




I don't choose who I am attracted to, they are either attractive or not. There are degrees of attraction, and it's certainly up to me which woman among that group of attractive ones to approach, but the presence of attraction isn't a matter of control for me. I've had this conversation many times with lots of guys and it's agreed that it's either there or it isn't, and if it isn't there, nothing a woman can do will change that. This is probably a function of socialization, but having been thus socialized, it's how we tend to operate.

Thank you for explaining your comments--that does make a lot more sense.

If you don't see your arrangement as competing then by all means more power to you. I couldn't be in a situation like that without being constantly aware that I'm only second or third choice, and that there are other people romantically involved that could be more or less interesting and valuable that me at any given time. Having someone I'm supposedly romantically involved with cut me off or ditch me because some other lover pulled rank would communicate to me that I'm not as valuable to my love interest, and I couldn't tolerate dealing with that. It would say to me "Sorry I'm going to go spend some time with the person I actually care about, maybe they'll be some time left over for you later to sate your needs." No way could I deal with that. They only way I could is if I thought I wasn't worth being a romantic priority in someone's life, which is why I can't help but feel sorry for people that DO tolerate being a 'secondary.' That's what that situation communicates to me, and I can't really see it any other way, but if you don't then there's no issue clearly.
[/quote]

Hee, I get what you mean--I'm actually really sensitive to any hint of rejection or being deliberately ignored. It can be a bit of a problem sometimes...

Done well, that feeling doesn't come up for a bunch of reasons...off the top of my head, I can think of three. First is that the hierarchy doesn't represent feelings, but commitment. Gf's boyfriend was already in a commuted relationship when they met, so of course, he didn't have a ton of time to devote to her. I came along a little later, and ended up giving her a lot of support when she was going through a really hard time--a dynamic which then got flipped around when I was having trouble. So naturally, we've ended up with a closer, more commited relationship, but it's acknowledged that that is largely due to logistics, not the value of the person, or how much we care about each other.

Also, there is etiquette regarding having respect for your partner's other partners. In any situation, it would be rude to just "pull rank," unless there's an emergency. In my immediate circle, it helps too that we all genuinely like each other, and all hang out as friends together. So, for example, a while ago, my girlfriend "daisy" (she just whined whyyyyyy, but that's the code name I#m going with!) found herself without any way to get to Rosh Hashanah services. I was in a class that night and couldn't drive, she called Alfred who was hanging out with his main girlfriend and another partner. It did interrupt them, but they all agreed that getting daisy to services was an important priority that was well worth interrupting Disney movie night.

Last is that the "hierarchy" (I'm going back and forth on whether that's literally true, or a metaphore...) is agreed upon. You are somebody else's secondary partner (meaning a partner they've made less of a commitment to, not somebody they care about less,) and they are your's. If there's disagreement about roles, that's a problem--it shouldn't be the case that one person is pursuing another as their major love interest, while the other doesnt have the time or desire to have a commited relationship with them.

Also, just to confuse things a bit more--some people label people/things who aren't romantic partners as their "primaries," like their school-work, or their career or their sick mother, or themselves. For somebody who's a bit lonely, but doesnt have space in their life for a full on relationship, it's a useful way of encoding that.

Competition is always in play whether you see it or not. Someone else can always appear who is more attractive to your partner than you, and this stresses me out. The social norm of being in an exclusive relationship gives me a bit of peace of mind that, at least for the moment, I don't have to be confronted with the reality of the competitive nature of romance. Serial monogamy works best for me, and that's part of why it does.

That's true, but it can play out in a lot of different ways--somebody can be more attractive in a "shiny and new," "adventurous" sort of way...and that does have the possibility to wreck a long term relationship. One of the things I really like about the configuration i have going is that daisy and i make really good "partners." We have extremely similar life goals and almost perfectly complimentary life skills, (we're both good at the things the other sucks at.) But we both have needs the other can't fulfill. We wouldn't work half as well as a monogamous couple, because we'd be unsatisfied in important ways. Having other people around let's us fill those gaps in tye relationship and focus on building a life.

 

[dies-l]

So really, when you've said that polyamory is all about sex--what you really meant to say is that, *to you,* romance is all about sexuality.

Certainly, sexual openness is a factor of most poly relationships, but, since that is not all.that romance is for most people, it is also not all that poly is.

When you describe poly as being all about sex, you mischaracterize it as a bathhouse orgy or a system of buck fuddies. The overwhelming majority of people who practice it dont experience it that way. I wrote an intellectually honest description of my own understanding and experience of a community that i am involved in.

If that description did not feature sex as prominently as it would if *you* wrote it, chalk that up to different values or different conceptions of what is important in a romantic relationship.

But please do *not* go around calling me dishonest just because I value intimacy more than sex, and it shows in my writing.

I think you are misunderstanding me if you think that I am characterizing it as a "bathhouse orgy" or the like. I understand that many polyamorous relationships are nurturing relationships that have much to offer in the non-sexual realm. But, then again, so are my relationships with my friends, family, and others who are not my wife. What makes my relationships not "polyamorous" is primarily that there is nothing sexual, either directly, implied, or contemplated in those friendships. So, I would stand by by statement that all that distinguishes polyamory from other relationships is the element of sexuality, either explicitly (i.e., sexual intercourse) or indirectly (i.e., "asexual" romance).

And, like I said, I don't really buy your argument that there are really many people out there identifying as "polyamorous" who are involving themselves in asexual romantic relationships.

 

[Mling]

I think you are misunderstanding me if you think that I am characterizing it as a "bathhouse orgy" or the like. I understand that many polyamorous relationships are nurturing relationships that have much to offer in the non-sexual realm. But, then again, so are my relationships with my friends, family, and others who are not my wife. What makes my relationships not "polyamorous" is primarily that there is nothing sexual, either directly, implied, or contemplated in those friendships. So, I would stand by by statement that all that distinguishes polyamory from other relationships is the element of sexuality, either explicitly (i.e., sexual intercourse) or indirectly (i.e., "asexual" romance).

If what distinguishes having many friends from having many romantic partners is sexuality, then what distinguishes friendship from romance is sexuality. I disagree. I think what distinguishes romance from friendship is intimacy and commitment. Sexuality may be involved, but then, sexuality may be involved in non-romantic friendships, also (ranging from friends who flirt to no-strings-attached relationships).

And, like I said, I don't really buy your argument that there are really many people out there identifying as "polyamorous" who are involving themselves in asexual romantic relationships.

I never claimed there were many. I pointed out that it exists, and then described an emotional affair (hanging out snuggling and talking, reading to her children etc.) in order to make the point that if monogamous couples are capable of "cheating," in non-sexual ways, and if asexual people are capable of having romantic relationships, then there must be non-sexual components to romance. IE: the difference between friendly and romantic is not necessarily sexual.

 

[acropolis]

Done well, that feeling doesn't come up for a bunch of reasons...

Sounds like ya'll have worked it out so everybody is happy, that's groovy. Like I said, it wouldn't work for me, but it doesn't mean it's wrong or anything just that it's not something I'm going to get involved with. Having a single romantic interest is enough of a time-sink, I don't think I could manage multiple people at once. One serious relationship does it for me, and whenever I'm not in a serious relationship, hookup culture also does it for me. Sex tends to lead to feelings which lead to relationships so I don't mix the serious relationship with the screwing around, it would just get way too messy. Maybe sometime down the line if I make the mistake of getting hitched and we both get bored with each other physically I'll consider it, but for now serial monogamy satisfies.

Jealousy also plays into it, despite my efforts not to be. It's probably something heavily socialized, since in this culture to tolerate your SO getting involved with other people make you look weak, worthless, and pathetic, even if it's something you both agree to. The opinion my peers have of me does play a role, for good or ill. Also it's a lot easier for women to get laid than it is for hetero guys, and it would just be too much to handle if my SO was getting it on the side but I wasn't.

But we both have needs the other can't fulfill. We wouldn't work half as well as a monogamous couple, because we'd be unsatisfied in important ways.

I think in my case it helps that I'm basically the 'standard' male: cis-gendered heterosexual, which makes it easy to be satisfied with a single romantic partner. My preferences can easily lie within one person so there isn't much strain involved. If I could somehow have one SO as well as a group of concubines, and have that be socially acceptable, well that would be ideal but I'm pretty sure that's wildly unethical by today's standards so I stick with the closest thing to it that works for me.

 

[Mling]

Sounds like ya'll have worked it out so everybody is happy, that's groovy. Like I said, it wouldn't work for me, but it doesn't mean it's wrong or anything just that it's not something I'm going to get involved with. Having a single romantic interest is enough of a time-sink, I don't think I could manage multiple people at once. One serious relationship does it for me, and whenever I'm not in a serious relationship, hookup culture also does it for me. Sex tends to lead to feelings which lead to relationships so I don't mix the serious relationship with the screwing around, it would just get way too messy. Maybe sometime down the line if I make the mistake of getting hitched and we both get bored with each other physically I'll consider it, but for now serial monogamy satisfies.

Jealousy also plays into it, despite my efforts not to be. It's probably something heavily socialized, since in this culture to tolerate your SO getting involved with other people make you look weak, worthless, and pathetic, even if it's something you both agree to. The opinion my peers have of me does play a role, for good or ill. Also it's a lot easier for women to get laid than it is for hetero guys, and it would just be too much to handle if my SO was getting it on the side but I wasn't.



I think in my case it helps that I'm basically the 'standard' male: cis-gendered heterosexual, which makes it easy to be satisfied with a single romantic partner. My preferences can easily lie within one person so there isn't much strain involved. If I could somehow have one SO as well as a group of concubines, and have that be socially acceptable, well that would be ideal but I'm pretty sure that's wildly unethical by today's standards so I stick with the closest thing to it that works for me.

It's kinda hot that, as a straight cis male, you know what cis means.

And yes...darn social stigma against keeping a harem of slave-girls. Or slave-boys, depending on your taste.

 

[acropolis]

It's kinda hot that, as a straight cis male, you know what cis means.

And yes...darn social stigma against keeping a harem of slave-girls. Or slave-boys, depending on your taste.

Yeah I'm a hit with the feminists 'round these parts.

And of course they would be consensual concubines, I know for sure there's folks out there that are into that. But then I'd have to live the lifestyle and that would complicate my life quite a bit.

 

[Mling]

Yeah I'm a hit with the feminists 'round these parts.

And of course they would be consensual concubines, I know for sure there's folks out there that are into that. But then I'd have to live the lifestyle and that would complicate my life quite a bit.

Lol, there's nothing unfeminist about wanting a closet full of slave-girls who are there consensually to fulfill their own slave-girl fantasies.

(*currently keeps a large pillow and blanket in the closet for just such play )

 

[Amber the Duskbringer]

This thread. I like. Speaking of kinky stuff... My friend wanted to involve me in his "den" of mates. Not sure on that yet. Gotta admit I like the idea though, just as long as the fursuiting is to a minimum.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Gotta admit I like the idea though, just as long as the fursuiting is to a minimum.

Okay, I have to ask... what is "fursuiting"?


eudaimonia,

Mark