http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=15339984 Comments On: Savage Love by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Tue, 21 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Tue, 21 May 2013 10:45:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
I don't think there is one right answer. As other commenters have said I think it might be a spectrum. I've known people who couldn't be anything other than monogamous, that's how their "wiring" ended up; and I've also known people who have to be in poly arrangements to be happy. But I think a lot of the rest of us are somewhere in between. For myself, I am capable of being in love with two people at the same time - it's happened to me; but because of jealousy issues, the problems of negotiating and scheduling time etc etc... I feel that I have to work at achieving monogamy, but I also would have to work at getting to a workable polyamory situation, and the monogamy end of things is less effort, from where I'm at. So, somewhere in the middle, a bit closer to mono.

and my second point is... reading my lengthy explanation there: for me, which way I end up living my relationships *is* a choice. But I also recognize that for some people, it really, really isn't a choice, it's how they are.
Posted by Corvicula1979]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 21:40:59 -0800 The Stranger
I feel exactly the same way.

I'm a 37-yo poly woman here, and although I have repeatedly tried monogamy, I always get claustrophobic, feel increasingly isolated, and feel guilty that I'm incapable of meeting all my partner's needs. I used to end up cheating just to relieve the pressure. After 13 years of that, I realized that I'm just not suited to monogamy. I don't want to cheat on people, I don't want to hurt people, and I'm miserable in monogamous relationships, so I just don't do them anymore.

Currently I'm in relationships with 2 men, 1 for 2.5 years and 1 for 1.5 years. I also have a new lover (~1 month) who may or may not become something more. But in addition to my lovers, I also get to hang out with their other partners (and some of their partners' partners). I like and respect almost all of them, and I see many of them on a regular basis. Often, a group of us will go on a trip together (no, it doesn't turn into a massive orgy).

Does it always work perfectly? No. Sometimes there is strife, sometimes there is jealousy, and sometimes there are scheduling issues. Relationships end or change, just as monogamous ones do, and that can be difficult for more than just the couple. And of course each individual relationship faces many of the same problems as a monogamous relationship - one partner doesn't communicate well, a death in someone's family or a job loss stresses them out, someone's work gets crazy busy and they neglect their partner(s) for a bit. But when that kind of thing happens, which it inevitably does, we all have a close group of other people to turn to for support and help.

I know poly definitely isn't for everyone, but it certainly is for me, and many of the people I know. Most of us can't or don't want to have monogamous relationships. We're happy for our happily-monogamous friends, but we don't want to join them. Our monogamous friends are equally happy for us. I just wish that wider society could start to treat polyamory as a reasonable identity (I AM poly, rather than choosing to be poly), or relationship/life choice.
Posted by PaperBag]]> Thu, 06 Dec 2012 09:37:55 -0800 The Stranger
I feel exactly the same way.

I'm a 37-yo poly woman here, and although I have repeatedly tried monogamy, I always get claustrophobic, feel increasingly isolated, and feel guilty that I'm incapable of meeting all my partner's needs. I used to end up cheating just to relieve the pressure. After 13 years of that, I realized that I'm just not suited to monogamy. I don't want to cheat on people, I don't want to hurt people, and I'm miserable in monogamous relationships, so I just don't do them anymore.

Currently I'm in relationships with 2 men, 1 for 2.5 years and 1 for 1.5 years. I also have a new lover (~1 month) who may or may not become something more. But in addition to my lovers, I also get to hang out with their other partners (and some of their partners' partners). I like and respect almost all of them, and I see many of them on a regular basis. Often, a group of us will go on a trip together (no, it doesn't turn into a massive orgy).

Does it always work perfectly? No. Sometimes there is strife, sometimes there is jealousy, and sometimes there are scheduling issues. Relationships end or change, just as monogamous ones do, and that can be difficult for more than just the couple. And of course each individual relationship faces many of the same problems as a monogamous relationship - one partner doesn't communicate well, a death in someone's family or a job loss stresses them out, someone's work gets crazy busy and they neglect their partner(s) for a bit. But when that kind of thing happens, which it inevitably does, we all have a close group of other people to turn to for support and help.

I know poly definitely isn't for everyone, but it certainly is for me, and many of the people I know. Most of us can't or don't want to have monogamous relationships. We're happy for our happily-monogamous friends, but we don't want to join them. Our monogamous friends are equally happy for us. I just wish that wider society could start to treat polyamory as a reasonable identity (I AM poly, rather than choosing to be poly), or relationship/life choice.
Posted by PaperBag]]> Thu, 06 Dec 2012 09:34:54 -0800 The Stranger
Oh, come on. That's not polyamory, it's cuckolding. To compare you not wanting to force her into extracurricular sex activities to her request for exclusivity is disingenuous. A request to refrain from an activity one would prefer to engage in is fundamentally different from a request to engage in an activity one would prefer not to engage in.
Posted by koko]]> Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:32:41 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Jenni]]> Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:33:13 -0800 The Stranger
I thought I was a polyandrous person and decided that was the way to go. Then I met my lover, and honestly after about a year and a half, I have no desire to be with other people. We've talked about it and figured if the opportunity arises we'll discuss it, if not, no problem. So it's important to stay open to this possibility!

Also you never know what can happen in the future with your partner. They could come around to the idea of being in a polyamorous relationship once they feel comfortable with it and secure in the relationship.
Posted by sambetty]]> Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:06:16 -0800 The Stranger
I loved the recent This American Life episode where the long-term couple decides to spend a month seeing other people to see what it's like, and the woman heads straight to the bars and starts hooking up with guys she'll never have to care anything about and who don't seem to mind her choices, while the guy has to go through a series of 5-dates and then break up with a girl, and they all get mad at him.

Anyway, thanks for your respectful rejoinder. I think you're right.
Posted by What It Feels Like For A Boy]]> Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:55:50 -0800 The Stranger
Wealthy Martial Artist has a paraphilia - a kink. The film critic Noël Burch coined the term “viragophile” for a man aroused by a woman vanquishing a man, not as a muscle babe, but with elegance, through speed and skill, perhaps in white gloves and heels.

Or a leather catsuit. A Welshman I know put it trenchantly: “Diana Rigg turned a whole generation of British men into perverts.” Rigg’s Emma Peel perfectly embodied the archetype, but the archetype crosses all generations and cultures. From Mrs. Peel, dial forward half a century through five incarnations of La Femme Nikita, or back three millenia to Penthesilea fighting the Greeks, and you’ll find the same elegant warrior.

A few things follow about WMA:

1. He doesn’t want to fuck you. Karate isn’t foreplay, it’s the main event.

2. If he’s as expert as you suggest, he’s skilled at not hurting his students and not being hurt by them. You’re pretty safe.

3. His weird contrivances are due to shame. WMA’s kink is mild (especially compared to some of the shit that passes through Dan’s column), does not meet a DSM-V criterion for pathology, nevertheless he, like most of us, has internalized the teaching that if you’re not vanilla, you’re a fucking sicko.

4. The viragophile has a female countertype who digs chop-chop with the boys; Mrs. Peel is as popular among women as among men. WMA, who over many years has come to know you, like you, and trust you, may have detected that latency within you.
Posted by Incider]]> Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:56:10 -0800 The Stranger Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Wed, 28 Nov 2012 00:04:26 -0800 The Stranger no appeal for me in the 'all in one person' thing. it feels very disrespectful. and very unstable. someone said security / safety was their main monogamy motivation, for me mono seems unsafe, insecure... and to be honest, temporary. i'm not that keen on something that might founder over what feels like minor stuff. relationships are, for me, more about building a family than about anything else. whether or not the relationship includes sex is not the defining point.
also... i could never choose. that is also dehumanising, disrespectful. how could i? what right does anyone have to try to interfere / control another persons relationships? it would be like choosing one friend over all others, or only one child. it is just incomprehensible to me. the 'primary relationship' thing is also incomprehensible to me.... that seems like monogamy-shape relationship, with slightly different rules.
re the kids, and parenting. there is a huge difference between 'adults who help out with each others kids', and 'parents'. we have both kinds, and there is a massive difference. it's about the level of responsibility, and also about the relationship between adult and child.
Posted by sappho]]> Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:12:38 -0800 The Stranger Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:04:25 -0800 The Stranger Posted by GQbd]]> Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:43:55 -0800 The Stranger "Poly only works if all participants are okay with the arrangement AND continue to extend each other basic courtesy and consideration."

avast@187, it is indeed crucial to be aware of that danger and plan fun date nights for the "home" relationship so they don't just feel like parents & roommates. It helps to be aware of the concept of "New Relationship Energy," which means that the new partner looks extra shiny and appealing for six months or so. After a while, though, the comfort of the old relationship often trumps the excitement of the not-so-new. It also helps to be aware that relationships change and sometimes end, and that a desire for poly may be just a symptom of the underlying need for change.
Posted by EricaP]]> Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:38:13 -0800 The Stranger For LW2, I actually see very little downside in a young woman getting very, very good at kicking some creep in the 'nads!
Posted by Thatsmeinthecorner]]> Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:52:45 -0800 The Stranger
The situation where it's a couple where one or both have outside lovers...well, I won't say that it _can't_ work, but there is a distinct risk that the "home" relationship will slowly become the dull, boring, place where the drudgery of daily life must be hammered out day after day, while the lover is where you go when you want pleasure and excitement. Whoever gets left home tending the laundry and kids most often is going to start feeling seriously devalued and taken advantage of. (Can you tell that's what happened with that girlfriend I mentioned earlier?) The outside lover has an unfair advantage, in that they are always the one who gets excited about that expensive dinner date, and never the one who has to look at the finance ledger and say "honey, we can't afford that right now."

@185: Yes, exactly. When the girlfriend did that, first thing she did was set out a series of safety nets/boundaries, supposedly to make me feel comfortable, then systematically disregarded each and every one, including the one where our bed was OUR bed. Poly may not inherently mean "eat your cake and have it too" but it sure attracts a lot of people who treat it as exactly that.
Posted by avast2006]]> Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:38:40 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Crinoline]]> Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:07:52 -0800 The Stranger Posted by finallyhappy]]> Tue, 27 Nov 2012 07:18:35 -0800 The Stranger Posted by tinadonn]]> Tue, 27 Nov 2012 01:40:09 -0800 The Stranger And you might disagree that what he's doing is creepy, manipulative, or disrespectful.

I'm not picking up anything in LWs letter to suggest she finds this guy "creepy, manipulative, or disrespectful." If I did, I'd take her word for it given that she's worked for him for years. If she was creeped out by this guy, she wouldn't be writing to Dan for advice.

My objection is to the commenters reading their own tired stereotypes into this letter based on a disappointingly narrow-minded, anxiety-ridden, and phallophobic point of view.

Read the letter again. LW didn't ask anyone whether she should or should not do this. She quite deliberately has kept that decision to herself. She simply asked about his intentions, presumably so she can make her own informed decision.

And, as I think about it, I'm pretty certain this is not about a guy getting off on having his balls kicked. This guy doesn't want to pay her for sex. I think he's into her, and he is trying (in his own odd way) to seduce her (an act which often *requires* a man to mask his intentions, at least in the beginning).

If he succeeds, good for both of them - I know a couple of women who, in their youth, had relationships with powerful older men. They both benefited enormously from them. If he doesn't, so it goes.
Posted by seandr]]> Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:36:06 -0800 The Stranger
Sorry, my bad. That happens when I try to be extra PC.
Posted by migrationist]]> Mon, 26 Nov 2012 21:35:26 -0800 The Stranger
"It makes it sound like monogamy and polygamy/polyandry are indeed mainly culturally determined."

Sorry but this is a pet peeve of mine. Polygamy is not the gendered opposity of polyandry. Polygyny is. I know that polygamy usually means multiple women but it isn't inherently gendered.
Posted by mydriasis]]> Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:39:59 -0800 The Stranger
It seems to me that the pros have nothing to do with being poly

1. when your pissed off with one person there is someone else you still get on with, who will prob talk you down off your high horse.

Um, friends fill this role quite nicely.

2. and you don't feel like you have to be something other than who you are - no 'gap-filling', if they need something that they don't get from you, they'll just get it elsewhere.

This doesn't appeal to me at all. Basically it's like instead of having one person who's got it all going for them, you have a bunch of people who are only somewhat appealing?

3. looking after toddlers and small kids is soo much easier when there are three or four parents

This is legit - but again not exclusive to poly. A handful of monogamous couples living together could acheive the exact same thing, or even an especially close knit group of adults that assume responsbility for eachother's childen.

4. you're less likely to get that social isolation people talk about when they are in a couple, esp once there are small kids.

Again, this just comes down to equating monogamy with being a nuclear family that has no outside friends or interests. That's not what it's about at all.

Sure, some people do monogamy that way, but not all of us.
Posted by mydriasis]]> Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:34:45 -0800 The Stranger
Start dancing Argentine tango. Done well, it goes a long way to getting that intense emotional connection with another person, and you get to do it with 20 different people in a night.
Plus you'll learn a new life skill that will help stave off dementia :-p
Posted by chvb]]> Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:12:29 -0800 The Stranger Posted by sweet g]]> Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:17:09 -0800 The Stranger
I came to this article from a conservative link bemoaning the hypocrisy of "liberals"... they kind of have a point for Dan to not see his own history repeating. I will leave whether it's a good idea in general to turn *behaviors* into *identities* for another time ;-)
Posted by zappernapper]]> Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:39:34 -0800 The Stranger