Polyamory

Post Reply New Topic

Ive tried this in a form. As long as rules were followed, I didnt have any problem. But there were some hiccups when the rules werent followed carefully.

I don't know about it's viability in a long term situation though, I don't have that experience.

I've seen these go a long time, and I've seen them crash and burn. I haven't seen one last 'forever', but that's not to say it couldn't. My own attempts have been fiery and short-lived.

The raw truth here is that it is almost impossible to have two or more equally strong relationships co-exist, and still have the sum of these relationships give you everything you need. So I see two practical alternatives that are more stable: 1. Keep any from becoming 'deep' bonds, be prepared to break a heart if one or more of your partners fails to do the same, and accept the absence of those deep bonds in your life. 2. Have one strong 'primary' relationship that is non-negotiable, and have everything else be recreational.

I think #2 is the most successful... provided that both primaries are fully committed to keeping the relationship strong, and the relationship can return to a one-on-one if either partner desires. That can be a ground rule, but it's something else to feel comfortable acting on it. One relationship is a LOT of work; and if that work isn't done, the primary will almost certainly corrode.

Both my mate and I are wild like this, and the subject has come up a lot... but we're both so busy with our lives, we just don't have the time to FIND partner(s). (Our tastes are peculiar, which makes it harder.) I'm eager to try it myself, but perhaps after we tie the knot would be better.

Everyone with autism is different of course ("meet one person with Asperger's and you've met one person with Asperger's"), but I would think that for people who are where I'm at on the spectrum, monogamous relationships, or attempts to form them, are equally as disastrous as polyamorous relationships usually are among the NT population. If you're like many Aspie guys and have had no luck with lasting relationships with girls you should try striving for casual promiscuity as a goal. It's safe.

Assuming you play it smart and use protection, your odds of contracting an STD by being a little on the "naughty" side, are waaaaay lower than they are being psychologically battered perhaps beyond repair by trying to be monogamous. The likelihood of contracting disease tends to be overstated by conservative elements in society who take issue with people having multiple partners.

I don't want to give the impression that I've been with dozens and dozens of women-- I haven't-- but I have had more partners than the average male in the United States, most of them within the past couple years, and have never had a problem with STDs.

Again I'm only speaking for the guys, I can't really offer the female perspective, Aspie or not.

***********************************************************************************************************

Check out my IMDB page!

Actually, I think reports of risk of contracting an STD from a partner with an STD are routinely misreported. Don't get me wrong, unprotected sex outside of a committed relationship is always a bonehead move. But the statistics people throw around are always selective. We don't tell people that SOME estimates put risk for HIV for a receptive gay partner at 1 in 1000. Not the best stats, but sufficient to prove magnitude: Risk of HIV transmission.

What people do misunderstand is that that one in a thousand is a PERSON, that it does happen, and it WILL happen to THEM. (Strangely, people bet on the lottery, assuming it WILL happen. But they leave their seatbelt off, assuming it WON'T happen.) If you multiply the non-safe behavior over people and years, and you accept that we always know less about our partners than we THINK we do, it turns into Russian Roulette very, very fast. Trust me, I write mortgage software for a living - entire industries are based on people's inability to understand how numbers add up over time. If you read 1:1000, you need to be THINKING 999:1000.

Protected sex, done SENSIBLY, is a much lower risk of course. Actually knowing your partner a bit, and not just meeting them in a park restroom or a bar, is still lower. Not sleeping with half of Manhattan is a big help on your odds too. Safe sex is not just about wrapping it up; it's a whole mindset.

A couple myths:

"Monogamy and the nuclear family are universal standards across all societies since the beginning of civilization" Nope, historically polygamy in various forms have been quite common, including occasional examples of polyandry and various forms of group marriage.

"Polyamorous relationships are casual/promiscuous. Monogamous relationships are serious/real." Actually poly relationships span the same spectrum as monogamous relationships. This misconception probably comes from the fact that, within a monogamous context, the transition from "just dating" to a "serious relationship" typically involves an explicit or implicit agreement to exclusivity. Hence, there is a learned correlation between "serious" and "monogamous". A transition from "dating" to "serious" within a polyamorous context does not imply exclusivity, so the learned correlation does not apply.

A word of caution:

kohne wrote: "... 2. Have one strong 'primary' relationship that is non-negotiable, and have everything else be recreational."

IMO, it's generally a mistake to try to force relationships into a particular shape, and preferable to allow relationships to develop as they will. While I have no objection to recreational relationships, I think it is a mistake to make commitments to restrict a relationship to be only recreational. The problem is that a recreational relationship can spontaneously become real, and then you have a mess on your hands.

Morning Glory Zell, to whom the term "polyamorous" is credited says this about the definition: "The two essential ingredients of the concept of "polyamory" are "more than one" and "loving." That is, it is expected that the people in such relationships have a loving emotional bond, are involved in each other's lives multi-dimensionally, and care for each other. This term is not intended to apply to merely casual recreational sex, anonymous orgies, one-night stands, pick-ups, prostitution, "cheating," serial monogamy, or the popular definition of swinging as "mate-swapping" parties." - Glossary of Polyamory Terms- Franklin Veaux

DeusMechanicus wrote:

I'm afraid I have to disagree on several counts. 1. I'm concerned with long term happiness for everyone involved. 2. I'm not aware of any studies showing a positive correlation between STD prevalence and polyamory. I suspect that the opposite is the case. Poly relationships tend to have better communication about STDs, since the topic comes up. Monogamy has increased STD risks due to the prevalence of cheating, since cheating involves reduced communication. Poly relationships tend to have much less cheating because people are not motivated to do so, and because ground rules are usually open to negotiation. 3. I would say that polyamory changes social cohesion. As a member of a polyamorous community, I can say that I experience this as a positive change. 4. Only a small minority of social mammals are monogamous, and of these most are not strictly exclusive.


Daryl_Blonder wrote:

This is a tricky issue. Yes, polygyny as practiced by some fundamentalist Mormon sects is a disaster for women's rights. However, outlawing polygamy seems like attacking the problem from the wrong control point, since there is no intrinsic reason for polygamy to cause gender power bias. On the other hand, non-consensual marriages involving wide gender specific age differences is certainly detrimental to any semblance of equality. Still, it is unfortunate to let a few FLDS sects ruin it for the rest of us. My marriage is egalitarian and mutually supportive, and I don't see that changing if we were to also marry our other sweethearts too.

abaisse wrote:

That's cool. Polyamory is definitely not for everyone.

Why? What do you base this assessment on?

************************************************************************************

Check out my IMDB page!

Here's a good question: what defines a "real" relationship?

**************************************************************************************

Check out my IMDB page!

Just guessing, but perhaps your relationship feels more secure to you than before? Or perhaps you feel more secure in general?

Sounds like it's working for you, so the following advice is really directed at everyone.

Jealousy is rarely about what we think it's about. So when jealousy comes up, one good approach is to ask "what is this emotion really about?" For example, if it is fear, then what scenario are you worried about happening? If it's anger, what expectation is not being met? Does this expectation correspond to an actual need or a strategy for meeting a need? Are there alternate strategies? Once you've identified what it's really about, actively address the situation with good communication, keeping in mind that it is rarely fruitful to try to get other people to change.

A couple polyamory words I recently learned:

FRUBBLE: A pleasant emotion of happiness arising from seeing one's partner with another partner. Contrast wibble; See also compersion. Usage: Primarily British; less common outside the United Kingdom.

WIBBLE: A feeling of insecurity, typically temporary or fleeting, when seeing a partner being affectionate with someone else. Wibbley: of or related to wibble, as Seeing those two together makes me feel wibbley. Contrast compersion, frubble. Usage: Primarily British; less common outside the United Kingdom.

These are from a site that you will find by Googling "xeromag polyamory glossary". I still haven't written enough messages to be allowed to include a link. But that site have tons of great stuff.

Stay happy,
Ken

I dunno...I guess one where you spend time with each other & stuff and that person makes an impact on your life.

My two primary criteria for a real relationship are: 1. that it is a relationship and 2. that it is real.

But seriously, I want all of my relationships to be precisely whatever they are, and with precisely the people with whom they are with. This is why the particular flavor of polyamory that I practice does not involve attempting to create safety by placing constraints or modifications on the people and relationships involved. We don't have a rule against rules, but on the other hand we don't seem to need any rules that are designed to limit other relationships in any way.

So to me, a relationship is real if it's not trying to be something different from what it is.

This doesn't work for all poly people, and most poly people choose to provide some security by making agreements of various kinds.

"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is not safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." - Helen Keller

I'm not capable of polyamory. I'd love the person I was with first far too much for it to end well. :\

I used to think that. I don't any more.

~Kate

I don't think I have enough morous for Polyamory

I don't just think it, I know it.

I thought I knew too. I didn't. But, no two people are alike. Maybe you do.

~Kate

The reason this is the case for me is that simply by nature I do not like sharing my romantic love with any more than one person. I will want them all to myself and I will want to give them my entire being. Adding in another makes things too complicated and I would end up having a preference.

I am selfish, I know.