I have to respectfully disagree. Telling people to seek therapy for jealousy treats jealousy as a bad word, something to 'treat' as a mental imbalance. There are many people who experience jealousy, and it can be healthy. For those who do not know how to control their ACTIONS that stem from their jealousy, sometimes it's a matter of overriding our "training." We are taught from a young age to be jealous, and everything in our society reaffirms that. Maybe trying other tactics(developing mantras, looking at the big picture, rethinking the concept of owning another person, actively trying to retrain your brain) might be a better approach.

@letseatcake
Developing mantras, looking at the big picture, rethinking the concept of owning another person, actively trying to retrain your brain is actually what cognitive behavioural therapy IS.

@letseatcake:

"...We are taught from a young age to be jealous..."

Seriously? That's a remarkably specious statement.

Nobody gets taught to be 'jealous' any more than we are taught from a young age how to be 'happy', 'angry' 'bored' 'frightened' or anything else in the natural spectrum of human emotion.

Those states are wired in. What causes them and how they are managed can vary widely from human to human, but they're certainly not something we get 'taught'.

Jealousy is a very basic, primal emotion, and examples of its cause and effect can be found a lot lower down on the food chain than us.

Everyone experiences jealousy, without being taught how to do it. What -can- be taught is how we manage the effect it has upon us and how we choose to *act* upon it. Just as Matisse says.

It is not legit to compare sexual/romantic jealousy to fear of flying.

The latter will not protect you from harm, the former often will.

@MissQuickley - fair enough. But these things can at least be attempted on our own, not just, "Your jealous? Get therapy."

@Cordwainer - When I say "taught," I mean that everyone around us (and every form of media) applauds out-of-control jealousy. All the people we know who freak out if their partner even looks at another person. We are affirmed in our jealousy (the bad kind).

Jealousy IS hardwired to a certain degree, yes, for self-preservation purposes. But there are a lot of unhealthy ideas that are pounded into our heads, and many many people never unlearn them. Those who choose to sometimes have to fight it really hard, or, "unlearn it."

In a nutshell, I'm saying that just because someone is jealous, it doesn't mean they need therapy.

Jealousy as a primal emotion? Someone failed human development...

Human development? Hell, some people failed elementary reading comprehension. Nowhere did MM say "if you're jealous you automatically need therapy." That's just @letseatcake's own defensiveness. Someone asked her for advice overcoming insane jealousy. I'm not saying ever being jealous = insane but the person's use of that word suggests me to me that it's not just a question of taking a few deep breaths.
What's so terrible about therapy anyway? All you do is go talk, for chrissake. They aren't going to dunk you in cold water or shock you like in Wolfman. (Although MM might like that.)

Great column, Matisse. Jealousy is a wasted, unproductive emotion that serves no useful function.
@5- how does jealousy protect one from harm? (or fear of flying, for that matter) All jealousy ever produces is misery for the owner- the object will do as they will do, regardless of the emotional state of the jealous person.
In my experience, jealousy has broken up two relationships that needn't have happened if the emotion hadn't overwhelmed the reason and sanity of the jealous. Just sayin'.

@Larkshead

"So here is my advice about conquering jealousy: Don't look at it as a problem that's solved by changing other people's behavior. Regard it as a phobia and seek help from people who specialize in treating them."

That's pretty clear, to me. You're jealous, get therapy.

And nothing is wrong with therapy, at all. I'm usually the one suggesting it, but usually for people with severe problems. Not jealousy that might be able to be overcome by trying. MM didn't give any "home remedies," or any suggesstions at all.

@letseatcake No, she didn't say the VERY VERY trite and obvious thing of how "gee maybe you should just try harder to get over it". Because anyone who's so dumb that they think "omigod I had a brief instant of jealousy, I should have myself committed!" is too stupid to have sex anyway. Everyone knows that you can just try to get over shit, they don't need to be told that.

Plus she's not Dr Drew. What makes you think she even has any "home remedies"? And why the fuck should she? She's a dominatrix, she spanks people for a living. I like CT fine but it's just fluff. You people are taking this shit way too serious.

Yep, regarding the comment that jealousy might have a function where fear of flying doesn't -- when?

I haven't heard of jealousy not preventing anyone "straying" who was likely to, although perhaps that feeling of paranoia could tip you off to things in the relationship not being as it should. However, I really don't get jealous, and I certainly manage to sense when a relationship is getting screwed up. I've also broken up with more than one person because of their irrational paranoia about something I had -no- intentions of doing.

Therapy to tackle chronic and irrational jealousy sounds like a good strategy to me. Why on earth wouldn't learning tools to deal with it be a useful exercise?

@kungfujew: Jealousy doesnt protect. Not being jealous doenst mean you let others treat you bad, or that you wont see signt of betrayal and act on them.

Jealousy is basically "fear", and the only time fear helps is if you dont have time to think about what action is the best choice, like for example during a saber-tooth-tiger attack.

The process of feeling the jealousy, understanding where it is coming from, and experiencing the outcome of NOT being abandoned sounds like it's own personal cognitive therapy. But certainly if someone was having abandonment issues to the severity of a phobia like Matisse's, I think we would all look to therapy as a good idea.
Good column.

@ 9, 12, 13:

Somethings get a bad rap in our culture based more on Zeitgeist than anything else. MM states "we romanticize jealousy as if it proves love." I don't agree with MM here. I think more people think poorly of jealousy than romanticize it. Jealousy is an emotionally disempowering feeling, and anything which makes us feel so dismepowered must automatically be bad, right?

I don't think there is anything inherently romantic about jealousy, but I do think that in certain contexts, it can protect us from harm, provided we act accordingly on the feeling.

There are plenty of situations where we feel jealous not because we are controlling, insecure or paranoid, but simply because our lovers are doing things which give us good reason to be jealous. If we recognize this feeling and its basis, we can (1) Avoid even greater future heartbreak at the hands of the inconsiderate lover (a role I have played, so I'm not venting or finger-pointing here); and/or (2)Be motivated to tell our lover "Hey, that's not OK. That hurt my feelings."

MM says of jealousy: "Don't look at it as a problem that's solved by changing other people's behavior." Well, that's good advice if you are talking to a straight guy who gets jealous when his girlfriend dances with her gay male friends. It's terrible advice when you are talking to a monogamy-oriented woman/gay man whose master (presumably also lover) wants to bring a third party into their sex life.

It's not irrational "animal brain" thought to fear that the "master" may end up giving less attention and affection to his original lover in this situation- it's very logical (yes some people pull off the poly thing with no hurt feelings or shifting loyalties, but this is rare, and probably especially rare when one of the original two started off as unwilling).

MM says this person should "regard [jealousy] as a phobia and seek help from people who specialize in treating [phobias]." First, while phobia could presumably take the form of jealousy, this person is not suffering from a phobia. A phobia is an irrational fear. For reasons discussed above, this person's jealousy is rational- they fear that their man banging/dominating a third party may weaken their bond. Second, even assuming their jealousy is a phobia, how many therapists are qualified to administer treatment which makes it easier to accept your man getting it on with another person when that's not really what you want? And who licensed these people?

My comments are geared more towards my experiences as a non-monogamous wife to a dominant partner. Any playmates who are submissive have, in my personal experience, tended to be EXTREMELY clingy. So before you open up your Master to new subs, please heed this word of advice and know that "thirds" need to know their place is in the playtime, not all day every day, and that they are not going to be "owned", and they are not allowed to push for more than EITHER of you is willing to give. If you end up conquering your jealousy to agree to some degree of openness, draw your boundaries very tightly and stick to them very calmly and rationally, and make sure when anyone knows that what they did wasn't ok with you. Don't get pushed around in the sequence. It's very intoxicating for a Master to have a new person willing to submit to his every whim, and it's equally intoxicating for the new submissive to have a new dominant in his/her life. I am rarely ever jealous but this is one scenario of which I remain wary.

I don't think the word "jealousy" describes an actual emotion - "primal" or otherwise. *Anxiety* is an emotion and that's what jealousy is. Anxiety rooted in fear of being abandoned, being replaced, becoming obsolete, etc. Even if this person decides that she/he wants monogamy or if she/he has "good reason" to believe that she/he may be abandoned, replaced, etc., being plagued by anxiety sure ain't gonna help solve the problem! Therapy and/or medication can help cut back on the anxiety so that the person can function well enough to address the underlying issues.

Or... Date people who are also monogamous.

@subwlf Being monogomous doesn't protect you from jealousy. Lots of very insecure people falsely accuse husbands/wives of roving eye.

22: Do we need to believe that jealousy is either always good or always bad?

Yes, some insecure people falsely accuse their lovers of having roving eyes. That's bad, but it has little to do with the situation of this person MM has so poorly advised here. Their man has stated his desire to have sex (or at least dominate) a 3rd party, so they are not "falsely" accusing him of anything. For them, it's not that monogamy will protect them from jealousy, but rather that jealousy will protect them from unwanted polyamory- hardly a situation which calls for therapy.

@20: "being plagued by anxiety sure ain't gonna help solve the problem!"

Nice try, Dr. Freud. Anxiety involves a sort of general fear that you're not sure what to do about because you don't even know where it comes from or what it's about.

This person is not suffering from anxiety but rather a specific articulable fear- that a poly relationship will weaken their bond with their man. There's no need to try to strip this down to being a reflection of some other, deeper fear (as would be useful when analyzing MM's fear of flying) because it is in and of itself a reasonable thing to fear.

"Therapy and/or medication can help cut back on the anxiety so that the person can function well enough to address the underlying issues."

Saying to your man: "No, that's not cool- I don't want you banging/dominating another person because that would make me feel really bad" is actually a quite functional way of dealing with these feelings.

In fairness to MM, she did not seek this person out to prosthelytize polygamy; they wrote to her asking how they could "get used to this idea." I just think more responsible advice would have been: "You probably won't get used to it, so don't do it."

@kungfujew Once again, reading-comprehension-fail. First paragraph says: it's not for everyone, don't do it if you don't want to. And last sentence clearly states that you can't make a choice unless you're not afraid, which is exactly correct. A choice where you're scared of one of the two possible answers is not a choice at all.
I'm not polyamorous but I hate half-baked ideas. Whatever happened to intellectual rigor in this country?

@kungfujew Most of your arguments only make sense if you believe that monogamy is inherently better than polyamory. The truth is that monogamy works best for some people and polyamory works best for others. Feeling jealous can occur in either arrangement. I never said that the letter-writer had no right to negotiate a monogamous partnership. That would be ridiculous. I just believe that coming from a place of fear is no way to negotiate *any* style of relationship.

There are many rational reasons to be monogamous. Feeling threatened, scared, or jealous don't make that list.

@25:

"Once again, reading-comprehension-fail. First paragraph says: 'it's not for everyone, don't do it if you don't want to.'"

No, not exactly. That is a sloppy paraphrase. Here is what the first paragraph says:

"It's not a given that anyone can just 'get used to' being nonmonogamous. Some people simply aren't wired for polyamory or swinging. The fact that you're having a D/s relationship is immaterial—if you want monogamy, no one can (successfully) order you to feel otherwise."

MM acknowledges that some people will never be OK being poly, but does not, as you incorrectly believe, advise "don't do it if you don't want to," but rather that the change from "not OK with poly" to "OK with poly" can't come from an external source. The difference between the actual text and your misreading is that MM is leading into how to become more OK with being poly, rather than saying that if you are not OK with it, you should simply stick to your guns. Again, in fairness to MM, this is what the person was asking for.

"And [the] last sentence clearly states that you can't make a choice unless you're not afraid, which is exactly correct. A choice where you're scared of one of the two possible answers is not a choice at all."

Well, we agree that this is the gist of MM's last statement, but I'm not sure how this paraphrasing constitutes a critique of my reading comprehension skills. I understood this to be her position but just don't agree. Some fears are legit and making a decision based on a legit fear is legit. This whole "all fear is bad" baloney is just a new age version of Catholic guilt making people feel bad about having perfectly natural feelings.

"I'm not polyamorous but I hate half-baked ideas."

Right. It's "half-baked" that I think it's legit for a monogamy-oriented person not to want to share their lover with a 3rd party, and that I think nixing this idea might be a better plan FOR THEM than getting therapy. I'm a real crackpot.

"Whatever happened to intellectual rigor in this country?"

Crrssshhhh! Did you hear that stone hitting your glass house?

@26:

"@kungfujew Most of your arguments only make sense if you believe that monogamy is inherently better than polyamory."

I don't know about "inherently better," but it's certainly better for people who don't like the idea of sharing their lover.

"The truth is that monogamy works best for some people and polyamory works best for others."

I acknowledged that @ 18: "yes some people pull off the poly thing with no hurt feelings or shifting loyalties, but this is rare, and probably especially rare when one of the original two started off as unwilling."

"Feeling jealous can occur in either arrangement."

Yeah, I never said that monogamy was a cure for jealousy; just that a person who is not predisposed to polyamory is probably going to feel more jealousy in a ploy relationship than a monogamous one.

"I never said that the letter-writer had no right to negotiate a monogamous partnership. That would be ridiculous."

And I don't think I said you said that.

"I just believe that coming from a place of fear is no way to negotiate *any* style of relationship."

Assuming you are even willing to admit that some fears may be legitimate, are people with legitimate fears not supposed to negotiate their relationships? And what fantasy world are all you people living in where people have relationships utterly devoid of fear?

"There are many rational reasons to be monogamous. Feeling threatened, scared, or jealous don't make that list."

And now the circular logic comes back around. Because jealousy and fear are inherently irrational, they can't possible constitute rational reasons to be monogamous.

"I don't know about 'inherently better,' but it's certainly better for people who don't like the idea of sharing their lover."

Not necessarily. I struggled a lot with jealousy when I first embraced polyamory. But I always knew that monogamy wasn't for me so I worked through it and I hardly ever feel jealous, anymore, and if I do, it's manageable.

"some people pull off the poly thing with no hurt feelings or shifting loyalties, but this is rare"

Really? Care to cite a source for this proclamation? I know plenty of poly folks who are doing just fine.

"a person who is not predisposed to polyamory is probably going to feel more jealousy in a ploy relationship than a monogamous one."

Perhaps, although not always. Some monogamous people get jealous of EVERYTHING. Then again, I think jealousy is an indicator that some issue needs to be discussed and evaluated. Whenever I feel jealous, it teaches me something about myself that I need to work on - perhaps that I need to improve my communication with my partner(s) about my needs and desires. So I guess you're right. It's not always bad. I've never viewed jealousy as the end of the world, which is why I don't demand monogamy simply because I might feel jealous.

Look, I don't think that operating from a place of fear is ideal in relationships. I think fear and anxiety cloud the issues and impede clear thinking.

Saying something like, "I want to be monogamous because I need a certain amount of time with my partner and I'm not willing to give up any of that time to other partners," is fine. But saying, "OMG, OMG, OMG, I'll explode into a million pieces if anyone touches my partner!" is just silly.

Is that you, Joe?

@kingfujew After carefully evaluating your statements, I take it all back. It is completely reasonable for you to be fearful that your girlfriend is cheating on you. In fact, I'd just assume it.

I'm not so sure jealousy has only one cause, fear of abandonment, as MM claims. I have no fear that my partner will leave me for another person, not because I live in some fantasy where that could never happen, but because I'm aware and at peace with the impermanent nature of all relationships. What bothers me about polyamory is the possibility of another woman bearing my husband's child. I would definitely feel resentful and wildly jealous of that woman. Even if she released my partner from all responsibility for the child or had an abortion it would somehow not be alright with me.

@31:

Nice "intellectual rigor" there, Don Rickles. Don't quit your day job. And a personal snap like that is often the last resort for those who can't maintain a reasonable discussion.

Oh, wait. I made a personal snap back at you. Never mind.

@29:

[me earlier]: I don't know about 'inherently better,' but it's certainly better for people who don't like the idea of sharing their lover."

"I struggled a lot with jealousy when I first embraced polyamory. But I always knew that monogamy wasn't for me"

OK, fair enough, but you started from a real position of internal conflict. Part of you wanted to be poly but part of you didn't. I guess we should assume that since the advice-seeker wrote to MM asking how they could get used to being poly, they have the same type of internal conflict.

However, not all similar internal conflicts have relatively equal pressure on both sides. Here, I get the impression that the advice-seeker has much more negative feelings about being poly than positive. I am not anti-poly and do not think I am projecting here. Look closely at their language. They don't say: "I'm really conflicted because monogamy is not for me but I also struggle with feelings of jealousy" (which was your situation). In fact, they say nothing pro-poly at all, which gives me the impression that only the "master" is interested in being poly, and the "sub" advice-seeker is just trying to find a way to play along despite their desire to stay monogamous.

"so I worked through it and I hardly ever feel jealous, anymore, and if I do, it's manageable."

OK. On the off-hand chance that the advice-seeker is still reading, how did you do this? I'm guessing that you did not get therapy.

[me earlier]: "some people pull off the poly thing with no hurt feelings or shifting loyalties, but this is rare"

"Really? Care to cite a source for this proclamation? I know plenty of poly folks who are doing just fine."

OK, you got me. I don't have a source for this. I do know that none of those 60s/70s communes with partner-swapping lasted, especially after kids came into the picture, but this is not directly applicable to a modern poly situation.

Can we at least agree that the complexities involved with being successfully poly take a bit more relationship skills than being successfully monogamous? In other words, I'm not saying "this can't work so don't try it", but rather "this is really tricky so don't try it unless you're sure you want it."

[me earlier]: "a person who is not predisposed to polyamory is probably going to feel more jealousy in a poly relationship than a monogamous one."

"Perhaps, although not always."

Yeah. That's why I said "probably."

"Some monogamous people get jealous of EVERYTHING."

Keep your eye on the ball here. We are talking about a specific monogamous person here. They have given no indication that they are jealous of "everything", only that the idea of someone else touching their man makes them jealous- again, a perfectly rational feeling which does not require therapy. Not a phobia.

"Then again, I think jealousy is an indicator that some issue needs to be discussed and evaluated."

Yeah, sometimes. People can feel jealous for a variety of bad reasons. This is good fodder for a general discussion about jealousy. I do not think it applies to this person's specific situation.

"Whenever I feel jealous, it teaches me something about myself that I need to work on - perhaps that I need to improve my communication with my partner(s) about my needs and desires. So I guess you're right. It's not always bad."

Do you think it possible that sometimes jealousy can teach us something about ourselves which we do not need to work on? In this case, would the advice-seeker be "working on" their communication with their "master" if they just said "Hey, I'm sorry, I can't do the poly thing"?

"I've never viewed jealousy as the end of the world, which is why I don't demand monogamy simply because I might feel jealous."

OK, it sounds like you are happy with your choice. I hope that you can understand those who may make different choices.

"Look, I don't think that operating from a place of fear is ideal in relationships. I think fear and anxiety cloud the issues and impede clear thinking."

We agree that being fearful is not ideal in a relationship. Where we appear to disagree is that you seem to think that the onus is on the person experiencing the fear to somehow make themselves less afraid, while I think there is sometimes an onus on the other person not to do things which result in their lover feeling fear; or at least to respect those fearful feelings.

"Saying something like, 'I want to be monogamous because I need a certain amount of time with my partner and I'm not willing to give up any of that time to other partners, is fine. But saying, 'OMG, OMG, OMG, I'll explode into a million pieces if anyone touches my partner!' is just silly."

First, I don't really see much of a distinction between these two positions, other than that the second statement is more honest and not coded in modern yakkety-yak.

Second, people have silly feelings in relationships all the time. Respecting your lover's silly feelings is part of the deal, as long as long as you can stand doing so. If the advice-seeker's "master" can't accommodate the advice-seeker's silly feelings and just has to be poly, I respect that and wish him well with his future lovers. Really. He is not being silly and even if he were, it wouldn't matter- he's entitled to indulge his silly feelings as long as no one gets burned.

@kungfujew

"However, not all similar internal conflicts have relatively equal pressure on both sides."

I can tell you from experience that jealousy can be overcome. It's not a fun feeling and it's not productive. One's inclination towards monogamy, polyamory, swinging, etc., has nothing to do with jealousy. It has to do with what one values in romantic relationships. Only when fear and anxiety are gone (or at least manageable) can one make a clear, informed, rational decision about what style of relationship(s) they want. I suspect you think otherwise, but this is my informed opinion, having more than a little experience with both monogamy and polyamory.

"OK. On the off-hand chance that the advice-seeker is still reading, how did you do this? I'm guessing that you did not get therapy."

I wish! If I could have afforded therapy to get through my early-poly challenges, I would have done it in a heartbeat (with a qualified, poly-friendly therapist). Seeking therapy doesn't mean that someone is flawed or sick. Sometimes it just helps normal people meet their goals.

"Where we appear to disagree is that you seem to think that the onus is on the person experiencing the fear to somehow make themselves less afraid, while I think there is sometimes an onus on the other person not to do things which result in their lover feeling fear"

Yep. I agree with Matisse's advice in the final paragraph of this column. That's one of the joys of polyamory to me: less focus on controlling each others' behavior.

"First, I don't really see much of a distinction between these two positions, other than that the second statement is more honest and not coded in modern yakkety-yak."

*blink* Excuse me? You don't see a difference between rationally deciding one's values and then communicating them appropriately vs. freaking out and letting fear control oneself?

"Can we at least agree that the complexities involved with being successfully poly take a bit more relationship skills than being successfully monogamous?"

Nope. I think that is a common misconception. It entirely depends on the people involved. For me, monogamy requires skills that are beyond my comprehension, much less mastery. Polyamory is, for me, simpler, easier, and more convenient. For others, the opposite is true.

And as far as "respecting" jealousy? Oh, hell, no. I respect my *partners* and will make every effort to comfort them if they are upset for any reason, but I think jealousy stems from a place of pathetic insecurity - and that's OK, we're all pathetically insecure in some ways. But I do not *respect* anyone's jealousy such as to change my behavior in a way that would disrespect my relationships with my other partners. And I expect the same consideration from anyone whom I choose to date.

Look, I don't think we have enough information from the advice-seeker to decide whether or not polyamory or monogamy is the right choice for her/him. Ultimately, only that person can decide for herself/himself... with a clear, rational mind that is not overcome by fear.

OK, fair enough, and I will defer to you on most of this poly stuff as you have done it and I have not.

Jealousy is an adaptive behavior that confers reproductive advantage. A simple evolutionary, sociobiological model of why jealousy evolved is simple.

Imagine for both females and males:

There are two females, one is jealous and one isn't. The jealous female has exclusive sexual access to her male and he only gathers resources for her and their offspring. The non-jealous female's mate screws other females, splits his resources between her and other females, and is more likely to spread STDs among his female partners. The non-jealous female is more likely to end up sick with disadvantaged offspring.

There are two males, one is jealous and one isn't. The jealous male can rest assured that all the resources he shares with his mate and her offspring are being devoted to offspring that carry his genes. The non-jealous male may end up spending all his time raising another male's offspring and, like his non-jealous female counterpart, is more likely to get STDs or other communicable diseases from his polyamorous partner. The non-jealous male is more likely to end up sick raising another male's kids.

Jealousy helps everyone avoid cuckoldry, neglected offspring, unborn offspring, and disease.

As improved apes and have birth control, condoms, paternity tests, negotiation, and consent. The most advantageous strategy from an evolutionary standpoint is to be a cheater in a monogamous relationship, enjoying exclusivity with many partners, to maximize the number of your offspring if you are a male or maximize the resources you get from males if you are female. Part of our ape improvements are ethics, conscience, and guilt, so most of us want to have honest relationships. Being a sociopath, liar, and cheater is a different strategy, which no one admits unless they are gansta rappers.

@KremePuff

Wow, you really cracked me up there. I've seen shitloads of evolutionary arguments both for and against polyamory, but no one's ever brought STIs into that strategy. You really think our "animal brains" are worried about herpes? Have you ever heard of a population of non-human primates changing their sexual customs after HIV is introduced into their social group?

And what about gay people? What are their evolutionary reasons for jealousy? We have no evidence that the writer of the letter in the column is either male or female.

I am confused by a mental leap that is being made in this discussion. That is "I'm jealous" seems to equal, in these people minds "And because of that I will successfully restrict my mates behavior."
You're kidding yourself thinking that. My male friends who have jealous wives/girlfriends, they try to avoid riling her up, but they still go to strip clubs and flirt with girls at the office and whatever. They just lie about it and hide it. (Maybe they do more but they're not telling me if they do.) And I assume women do the same with jealous males.
It isn't that I don't understand feeling insecure, it's that ***jealousy doesn't get you anywhere***. If someone is gonna stray, they're gonna stray, and all the jealousy in the world will not stop them.

If you accept the lie of jealousy that you can own another person and that your possessive qualities give you rights, then you may as well also accept the lies your lovers tell you. If you are after the Truth and not merely comfortable ignorance you will need to move through to the other side of jealousy. The good news is, its a rather nice place to be.

I am starting to get really jealous of all you people who don't allow yourselves to be controlled by jealousy.

I love when the topic of jealousy comes up in a public discussion. As a wife in an openly non-monogamous relationship (or three!) I can say that when I feel jealousy it's about the amount of attention that I feel I'm getting or not getting. Time is my limited commodity - not love, affection, sex, or loyalty. When I feel loved and supported, and petted enough, I have no jealousy. Once, someone tried to convince one of my loves to dump me. I wasn't jealous over that. I was *infuriated*. I was so UN-jealous that I agreed to let this person into our lives, and it backfired because of THEIR OWN jealousy. I thought that was ironic, looking back. (this person's words to me assured that they would never do exactly what they tried to pull) The feeling of jealousy can be used as an indicator that something feels icky. The ACTION in response to that is what is important.

@TheGoddessMaria. Thanks! Exactly! As a nonmonogamous wife in a marriage that's lasted over 20 years, of course we've had our ups and downs. Sometimes one or the other of us gave a new playmate too much attention and were unfair to the primary partner. Sometimes a new playmate turned out to be unstable and overly demanding. 99% of the time, we worked shit out on our own. Once or twice, we saw a kink-friendly counselor for a session or two to tune up our communication. It's the difference between being able to say, "Hmmm. I feel a little jealous, better figure this out together," and saying, "Okay, my feelings of anxiety and abandonment are out of control. Let's get help before one or the other of us does something we'll regret." Both are okay, it's just a matter of knowing where you are and what's right solution for the moment.

KungFuJew:

You said "Anxiety involves a sort of general fear that you're not sure what to do about because you don't even know where it comes from or what it's about. "

So, so not true. I have very specific anxiety (fear that people, even the ones who are nice to me, secretly hate me, or, if they don't yet, one false step on my part and they will) and I've got a pretty good idea about where it comes from (school, from about 3rd grade through 8th grade). Some people's anxiety might be "a sort of general fear", but for others it is focused and specific. Jealousy, like any other fear, can be reasonable, or it can be irrational.

Some people with anxiety have a fear of death. You say about jealousy that it might be motivated by truth. Well, fear of death is far more rooted in truth than jealousy. Your partner MIGHT break up with you, but he might not. Every single person who fears death WILL die. Now, if you barely avoid an accident on the highway and feel scared and trembly afterwards, this would qualify as a reasonable fear of death. You saw your own mortality hurtling at your in the rearview mirror, and it shook you up, but you are able to take a deep breath and continue on with your day. What makes you different from people with an anxiety about death is the length and breadth, if you will, of the fear. The anxious person's fear is not irrational because it isn't true; it's irrational because it is out of proportion and makes them act in ways they otherwise would not act. Likewise, if you occasionally get twinges of jealousy from which you easily recover by remembering that the reason you are with your partner is because you are well assured of his devotion and/or rationally discussing your feelings with your partner, you do not have irrational jealousy. However, if you are beset by a fear that your partner will abandon you that makes you act in ways you would not otherwise act, I'd say that "hell yeah" that's a form of anxiety.

...and if the writer of the letter thinks that she might be up for poly if she wasn't so jealous, ie, if she thinks that her jealousy is colouring her behavior, then maybe her jealousy is irrational. I can't say, because I'm not her. I don't have irrational jealousy*, but I'm not up for a poly relationship. I wouldn't write a letter to MM WONDERING if it was my jealousy getting in the way of being poly, though. She did, so MM's reply was pretty good. Deal with the jealousy first, and if you still feel the same way, no poly for you. If that was the problem, then Yay! extra loving for everyone.

*I know it seems odd that I don't have any irrational fears about abandonment by a partner, given that my anxiety is about people disliking me, but it's really only people I've just met or don't know very well. Or, worst, people at a party.

@ 44:

Bon, I discussed anxiety in response to an earlier poster @20, who stated (1) anxiety is a subset of jealousy; and (2) the advice-seeker was suffering from anxiety.

I believe that (1) jealousy can sometimes be the specific product of a generally anxious mind, but is not always the product of anxiety- a position you seem to share; and (2) the advice-seeker is not suffering from anxiety, but a reasonable fear that they may be less happy in a poly relationship.

"if you are beset by a fear that your partner will abandon you that makes you act in ways you would not otherwise act, I'd say that 'hell yeah' that's a form of anxiety."

First, the advice-seeker has not stated a fear that their man would abandon them once they went poly, only a lack of willingness to share him, which is probably based more on a fear of getting less of his affection while being kept around by him. Second, it does not appear they are acting in ways they would not otherwise act- if they are monogamy-oriented, hesitating to share their lover is consistent with their normal behavior.

"and if the writer of the letter thinks that she might be up for poly if she wasn't so jealous, i.e., if she thinks that her jealousy is coloring her behavior, then maybe her jealousy is irrational ... MM's reply was pretty good. Deal with the jealousy first, and if you still feel the same way, no poly for you."

MM did not address the possibility that the advice-seeker was really looking for an "out", not simply "how to get OK with being poly" instructions. Again, I note that the advice-seeker does not really show any enthusiasm for the idea of going poly ("Me and my master are considering bringing another person into our play") but does emphasize their negative feelings about going poly ("I'm insanely jealous ... he vowed to be mine always ... I don't want anybody else to touch him").

Yes, another word for jealousy is ego. All strategies to avoid hurt are a continuation of suffering. If hurt is arising it must be directly experienced. My experience is when the heart breaks, it breaks open.

Like when you burn your hand on an open flame, you enjoy the delicious aroma of your own burning flesh, so don't be a coward and pull your hand away from the experience.

@kungfujew Again, your arguments only make sense if you have misconceptions about polyamory and assume that monogamy is the purest form of commitment in every situation. For example, you cite the advice-seeker's phrase, "He vowed to be mine always," as evidence that she/he is not comfortable with poly. What exactly does that phrase have to do with monogamy OR polyamory?

Good point, Rhythm. Your standard of "mine" in the context of a relationship does not require monogamy. I did not intend to state a universal standard.

What is being overlooked here by you and others is that this particular person in this particular relationship has their own standard for the word "mine"- one which does not include sharing their lover. They did not say "He vowed to be mine always, and I'm sure going poly will have no effect on that."

So, I'm not being monogamy-centric here (despite my clear ignorance of poly relationships); I'm just paying closer attention to what this person is telling MM.

Let's turn it around. Let's say that a couple were poly but considering becoming monogamous:

If one of them wrote for advice saying something like: "I feel really conflicted about this. I really want to make a go of being monogamous and have always wondered what it would be like, but at the same time, I don't want to give up having sex with people other than my main lover." This is a person who needs advice on how to go monogamous.

On the other hand, what if they wrote something like: "My master and I are considering going monogamous but I'm insanely devoted to the idea of sleeping with people other than my master. He vowed that I would always be free to sleep with other people, and I don't him to be the only one who gets to touch me. How can I get used to this idea?" This is a person who probably doesn't want to be monogamous, and this is a person who sounds a lot like the advice-seeker here. (And on a side note, would MM advice this person to seek therapy for their "intense, crippling fear"?)

Good advice must be tailored to the specific seeker of advice. A lot of people posting here have been too busy toting the merits of their poly lifestyles or poly lifestyles in general to actually think about where this particular person is at.

For the record, I am completely in favor of people being poly if that's what they really want.

"you have misconceptions about polyamory and assume that monogamy is the purest form of commitment"

I do not assume this. There are plenty of forms of commitment. I am sure that there are poly relationships which, overall, are far more committed than plenty of the monogamous relationships out there. I still think monogamy is a form of commitment.

@kungfujew First of all, I never use the term "poly lifestyle," EVER.

Secondly, you are too busy touting the virtues of jealousy to understand my actual opinion. You seem to think that I think this person should be poly. You are not paying attention to my position, which is that she/he should make the decision with a clear mind based on the pertinent factors like time, money, values, etc., NOT because of fear. That is my opinion; yours may be different.

As far as the "vowed to be mine always" stuff, I don't see the writer putting a mono OR poly judgment on the statement. She/he is saying that her/his master is committed to her/him REGARDLESS of whether they are monogamous or polyamorous. You assumed that the writer meant "mine" = "monogamous." I don't see that as the case.

No, not actually kungfujew in reference to your reply on number @48. Obviously you would remove your hand from a burning flame as this is a response to actual pain. In terms of hurt in the inner spaces, the avoidance is the basic cause of the suffering being so intense. In jealousy there is no actual physical threat. The hurt you feel because someone else did something you did not like is your own to face.

"In terms of hurt in the inner spaces, the avoidance is the basic cause of the suffering being so intense."

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You are using "avoidance" in a very broad way. We probably agree that avoiding dealing with your true feelings can lead to pain. So, if your lover hurts you, you should face that hurt and deal with it.

Where we probably disagree is that I think it is legitimate to recognize warning signs of lovers' behavior that is likely to lead to your being hurt, and then actually put some onus on your lover not to do those things- or get another lover.

In other words, avoiding your feelings is different from avoiding a situation which could end up hurting your feelings. In fact, doing the first may decrease your ability to do the second.

"First of all, I never use the term 'poly lifestyle,' EVER."

OK, good for you. Can I use it? (I don't use the term "gay lifestyle", because I don't think people choose to be gay. Poly? That's a choice.)

"Secondly, you are too busy touting the virtues of jealousy to understand my actual opinion."

"Touting the virtues of jealousy?" I actually just said that jealousy can be either good or bad, depending on context. MM and others have been writing here as though jealousy is always bad. I don't think any emotion is always bad. "Higher mental functions" have their place, but like emotions, are not good or bad per se.

You are correct that I have not understood your position the whole way through here, but it's not because I am busy touting the virtues of jealousy; it's because it has taken a little time to flesh out the nuances of what you are saying. It's called having a dialogue.

"You seem to think that I think this person should be poly. You are not paying attention to my position, which is that she/he should make the decision with a clear mind based on the pertinent factors like time, money, values, etc., NOT because of fear."

Rhythm, telling people things like they "don't understand" your opinion or that they are "not paying attention" to your opinion is a bit rude and a bit of a cop out. First, I agree with most of what you are saying. Second, it is possible for a reasonable person to disagree with you while also understanding you and paying attention to what you are saying.

Saying that they should not make a decision based on fear is really not that different from saying they should be poly, because the unspoken subtext is that their fear is necessarily illegitimate. A legitimate fear is a fine basis for making a decision.

"As far as the 'vowed to be mine always' stuff, I don't see the writer putting a mono OR poly judgment on the statement."

OK. There is still language that shows they don't want to go poly ("I'm insanely jealous ... I don't want anybody else to touch him")and no real language that is pro-poly ("Me and my Master are considering bringing another person into our play" is slightly more than neutral, and gives me the impression that the master is the only one actually interested in being poly).

"She/he is saying that her/his master is committed to her/him REGARDLESS of whether they are monogamous or polyamorous."

No, they are saying that their master vowed that to them, but that they don't like the odds of that vow being upheld once they bring in another lover.

"You assumed that the writer meant 'mine' = monogamous.' I don't see that as the case."

I didn't assume it, I deduced it, but you are still basically right- this was a sloppy-ass deduction Rhythm. It is probably not the case that the master made some past promise to be "theirs" which entailed permanent monogamy.

Here's what I think happened: The master promised to be "theirs" when he brought up polygamy; as in :"I will have sex with others, but I vow you will always be first emotionally, physically, etc." In other words, the master has the same definition of "mine" as you do. However, the advice-seeker is not buying that this definition of "mine" will work for her.

I note that you did not respond to my hypothetical above where the advice-seeker is writing about switching from polygamy to monogamy.

@kungfujew The fundamental difference between you and me here is that you think that jealousy has potential value in regards to making relationship decisions whereas I do not. I think jealousy stems from pathetic insecurity - it's OK, we're all pathetically insecure in some ways at some times, but there you have it. If someone has a legitimate reason to believe that their partner might abandon them for someone else, then that relationship isn't very healthy, anyway. And besides, trying to put restrictions on your partner about whom they can and cannot love/date/fuck isn't going to make them one iota less likely to abandon you (the proverbial "you") if that's what they want to do. I've seen monogamous relationships dissolve over cheating or "upgrading" way too often for me to believe that monogamy provides one iota of actual relationship security.

So, yeah, I believe that healthy reasons to choose intentional, long-term monogamy are few and far between. I think monogamy is an outdated institution originally intended only to control women's sexual behavior, and therefore paternal lines. At least things are more equitable in Western society these days as men are expected to be monogamous, too. But I believe that intentional monogamy is an unhealthy system conducive to a world of resentment and hurt. Just look at divorce rates. What our society is doing just ain't working, and that's undeniable, friend.

And based on what evidence do you deduce your opinion that polyamory is more of a choice than homosexuality is? I tried repressing my polyamorous nature to be in a monogamous marriage once and failed as miserably as any closeted gay person trying to be in a hetero marriage. I couldn't choose to be monogamous any more easily than I could choose to be gay - all the evidence I've gathered about myself thus far leads me to the conclusion that I'm poly and I'm (pretty much) straight.

In reply to number @53. Here is where intelligent self-regulation comes in. Do not do what is not in your eroticism. If you are not either attracted or repulsed then it is not where you are at. Rather follow your eroticism. It has a funny way of leading to the truth.

You said, 'put some onus on your lover not to do those things'. How weird. In an attempt to control and manipulate your lover in the flow of what is arising for them you begin with mind games which is fine but certainly not the juiciest option. It leads to repression and almost certainly messy blow-outs. Does telling your lover not to do something make you feel better? This is not love, it is many things and your lover may even get your approval, but approval is not love. So how much will you accommodate me and change and repress your flow is equal to how much I love you... And people wonder why their relationships get so stale.

Choose your constraints or surrender.

"The fundamental difference between you and me here is that you think that jealousy has potential value in regards to making relationship decisions whereas I do not."

Yeah, kind of. More like; if don't want your lover banging other people,don't give them the green light to do it. Not nearly as crazy as you make it sound.

"I think jealousy stems from pathetic insecurity"

Translation: you think monogamous people are pathetic. You are entitled to this opinion, and many monogamous people are indeed pathetic.

"If someone has a legitimate reason to believe that their partner might abandon them for someone else, then that relationship isn't very healthy, anyway."

Again you use extremes which do not necessarily apply to this specific situation. What about the concern (which I brought up earlier) that the advice-seeker will not be abandoned, but wind up being kept around by their man while getting less affection than when they were monogamous. Does this sound so far-fetched to you?

"And besides, trying to put restrictions on your partner about whom they can and cannot love/date/fuck isn't going to make them one iota less likely to abandon you."

It sounds like you are saying that we are unable to influence the behavior of our lovers. This is a far more radical notion than polygamy. Would you extend this principle across the board, or does it only apply to sexual behavior? Some people have relationships which involve regular compromise; as in: neither lover gets to do what they want all the time, but both lovers get to do what they want some of the time. If you don't want a relationship with any "restrictions", that's your business, but don't fool yourself into thinking that there is no place for restrictions in relationships in general.

"I've seen monogamous relationships dissolve over cheating or 'upgrading' way too often for me to believe that monogamy provides one iota of actual relationship security."

May I suggest you start associating with a higher class of people?

"So, yeah, I believe that healthy reasons to choose intentional, long-term monogamy are few and far between."

And at last we arrive, Rhythm! You may be poly, but you're basically as judgmental and narrow-minded as the uptight hypocritical monogamous people who think all poly people are wrong and immoral. If they're not doing it your way, they must be doing it wrong, right?

"I think monogamy is an outdated institution originally intended only to control women's sexual behavior, and therefore paternal lines."

Yeah, well, if you were a caveman breaking his ass all day to kill a mammoth, would you want to risk sharing those precious calories with the kid spawned by your woman and the wimpy artist who didn't join in the hunt because he was too busy drawing, brooding attractively, and getting laid even though he couldn't even do a single push-up?

"At least things are more equitable in Western society these days as men are expected to be monogamous, too."

If only Bobby Riggs had beaten Billy Jean King ...

"But I believe that intentional monogamy is an unhealthy system conducive to a world of resentment and hurt."

You're right, if you just substitute "life" for "intentional monogamy."

"Just look at divorce rates."

Uh-huh. And I suppose you have data on the divorce rates for poly couples, and this data shows they have lower divorce rates?

"What our society is doing just ain't working, and that's undeniable, friend."

I don't deny this, but I'm not sure banging whomever you want is the cure.

"And based on what evidence do you deduce your opinion that polyamory is more of a choice than homosexuality is?"

My opinion is evidence. I am that wise. Just kidding. Look, if you are a poly straight person stuck on a deserted island with a hot member of the other sex (or a poly gay person stuck on a deserted island with a member of the same sex), you're not going to be in your ideal situation, but you will still be able to get your rocks off. Gay people who only get to bang members of the other sex can't really get their rocks off.

"I tried repressing my polyamorous nature to be in a monogamous marriage once and failed as miserably as any closeted gay person trying to be in a hetero marriage."

Please! You have every right to indulge in polygmay, but denying yourself that indulgence is nowhere near as soul-crushing as being a gay person stuck in a hetero marriage. How do I know this without being gay or poly? It's called empathy and imagination, Rhythm. Being poly in a monogamous marriage is like being a plant-eating animal that gets from one source all the vegetation it needs to survive, but strongly desires to taste new forms of vegetation. Being a gay person in hetero marriage is like being a meat-eating animal that dines exclusively on newspaper.

"I couldn't choose to be monogamous any more easily than I could choose to be gay"

Kind of like I couldn't choose to eat a low-fat diet any more than I could choose to be gay. It just won't work! I've tried low fat diets and I failed. Butter, bacon, steak ... it's not a choice for me to eat these things; it's just who I really am. (Sorry for making food analogies in two consecutive paragraphs. What can I say? Food and sex are easy to compare)

@56: "Here is where intelligent self-regulation comes in. Do not do what is not in your eroticism."

First, that is the reverse of self-regulation. Second, I'm pretty sure you are not a dude, because when you remove the double-negative of "do not do what is not in your eroticism", you get: "do what is in your eroticism." If guys did that all the time, trust me, you and your sisters would not be happy campers. Of course, you probably define "eroticism" with a female bias, so you could just chalk up the the things unchecked males did as non-erotic.

"If you are not either attracted or repulsed then it is not where you are at."

I don't know what this means. Probably because I am a lousy lay.

"follow your eroticism. It has a funny way of leading to the truth."

Well, if "what makes you cum" is synonymous with "the truth", I guess you're right.

"You said, 'put some onus on your lover not to do those things'. How weird."

No, not weird. Even assuming I was wrong to say this, it was actually pretty cliche.

"In an attempt to control and manipulate your lover in the flow of what is arising for them you begin with mind games which is fine but certainly not the juiciest option."

Look, if it's "juicy" for you to be poly, go for it. Really. Not everyone thinks that is "juicy", though. And telling your lover straight up that you don't want them doing something is not a "mind game." It's just being direct.

"It leads to repression and almost certainly messy blow-outs."

Right, which I'm sure never happens in poly relationships. No repression of any feelings, no blow-outs.

"Does telling your lover not to do something make you feel better?"

It's not the process of telling them not to do the thing; it's the result of not having the thing done, or at least having the knowledge that you tried. What if you are not into scat and your lover asks to poop on you? It may not feel good to say no, but it probably feels better than getting pooped on.

"This is not love, it is many things and your lover may even get your approval, but approval is not love."

Are you going to tell us what love is, then?

"Choose your constraints or surrender"

Can I do both?

Kungfujew:

1. I don't think that jealousy does help a relationship any, even if it isn't particularly irrational levels of jealousy. I mean, just because you aren't crazy for feeling something doesn't mean that feeling has positive effects. You can work through low levels of jealousy in reasonable ways, but that doesn't mean the jealousy itself helped your relationship.

2. I think all jealousy stems from fear, just like all fear of death stems from...fear. They aren't different things. Jealousy is just a label for a specific fear.

3. You keep quoting it yourself: "I'm insanely jealous." I realize that the word use is sloppy and vague, but when I read the phrase "insanely jealous" that does NOT sound like a rational level of jealousy. So while you assume the writer of the letter has a rational level of jealousy and that MM has no reason to suspect otherwise, by reading the exact same letter I come to the opposite assumption: that the writer has an irrational level of jealousy and that it makes sense to find out what is in her brain when the fog of irrational jealousy is lifted.

4. You can't make the backwards case (poly to monogamy) as though it's the same thing. The difference is societal expectation. Having been raised on Disney movies, the writer has ingrained false expectations about romantic love. "He swore he would be mine forever." That sentence doesn't even mean anything. It's impossible to keep, so as a promise it's both worthless and meaningless. (Both the "mine" and the "forever" parts, actually.) However, it sounds good to people used to fairy tales. Oh, so romantic...like the notion that love can stop death. It's bullshit, but it's bullshit that we fall for. So once she can see past her "insane" jealousy, and kicks the romantic falsehoods to the curb, maybe she will realize that poly isn't so scary after all. I mean, if you advise every single person who's scared of poly at the beginning not to try it, that leaves...not many people. Lots of people who were scared at first are in happy poly (or non-monogamous) relationships.

5. Other than very basic safety stuff, one shouldn't be kept from doing things out of fear. If she tries polyamory, and dislikes it, that's a very different thing from not trying because she's afraid, or even from not trying because she's not interested.

6. Thank you for being nice in your responses. I usually don't comment on these pages because discussion so often devolves into name calling and vitriol. Thank you for being a decent debater.

Kungfujew:

A few more things (sorry, should have read all comments before posting):

1. " "I think jealousy stems from pathetic insecurity"

Translation: you think monogamous people are pathetic. You are entitled to this opinion, and many monogamous people are indeed pathetic."

I disagree entirely with your translation of this sentence. In fact, if you remove the derogatory word "pathetic", I think this is entirely correct. Jealousy stems from insecurity. If we have no insecurity in a relationship, we aren't jealous. Of course, in order to have ABSOLUTELY NO insecurity, either we have very little invested and/or the balance of power in the relationship is skewed heavily in our favour, and these things carry problems of their own. So it's natural for each partner to feel, on occasion, a low level of jealousy in a relationship that each cares about and in which the balance of power is about equal. Saying it's natural doesn't mean it isn't caused by insecurity...which is just another word for fear.

2.I think you're confusing nonmonogamy and polyamory. They're not the same thing. Nonmonogamy is just what it sounds like, and what I think you are actually talking about. Polyamory is the belief (and actions taken on that belief) that it is no more reasonable to believe we should or can love only one romantic partner than it is to believe we can or should love only one sibling, friend, or child. So your desert island example actually doesn't apply, because polyamory is about "love that includes sex", not about just sex.
Think of it this way: We all believe that parents can love more than one child, and that belief is not made invalid by the fact that parents of only one child are able to love that child even if they really wanted more children. So when someone who is poly says "I can and do fall in love with more than one person at a time," they still have that ability even when they are only currently with one person.

I guess you could say I'm an armchair polyamorist: I do believe that humans have the capacity to be in love with more than one person at the same time. I just don't put that belief into practice, because I am content with my single partner and he is content with me. If one of us wasn't content, I'd have to decide if I wanted to act on my belief. Fortunately for my lazy self, it hasn't come up.

@kungfujew Can you please stop applying the term "polygamy" to me? I'm guessing you're using it because it has more well-known negative connotations than "polyamory" does. At any rate, I have continually identified as polyamorous here, not polygamous, so please respect that.

"Translation: you think monogamous people are pathetic."

No. I think people who let fear control their lives are pathetic.

"And at last we arrive, Rhythm! You may be poly, but you're basically as judgmental and narrow-minded as the uptight hypocritical monogamous people who think all poly people are wrong and immoral. If they're not doing it your way, they must be doing it wrong, right?"

Well, I'm certainly not trying to support laws stating that monogamous folks can't get married. I wish they'd extend the same courtesy to us poly folks. If people are letting fear and/or societal norms determine their relationship style, well, that's their choice to make, but I don't think too highly of it. If people have deeper, more rational, and meaningful reasons for choosing monogamy, then I respect that.

"Yeah, well, if you were a caveman breaking his ass all day to kill a mammoth, would you want to risk sharing those precious calories with the kid spawned by your woman and the wimpy artist who didn't join in the hunt because he was too busy drawing, brooding attractively, and getting laid even though he couldn't even do a single push-up?"

Fortunately, I'm not a caveman. I'm an educated, feminist individual with easy access to a wide variety of effective and convenient contraceptives.

"I'm not sure banging whomever you want is the cure."

It works for me!

"Please! You have every right to indulge in polygmay, but denying yourself that indulgence is nowhere near as soul-crushing as being a gay person stuck in a hetero marriage."

I can assure you that being restricted to monogamy crushes every ounce of my soul into oblivion. I can't maintain a monogamous relationship because no one wants to be around me when I'm restricted to monogamy! Polyamory is not a steak dinner or chocolate cake - it is how I experience and express romantic love. It's not something that I'd be better off avoiding if I could just control my wicked impulses. It's a healthy, legitimate part of who I am.

"And I suppose you have data on the divorce rates for poly couples, and this data shows they have lower divorce rates?"

Well, that is something which is difficult to study because right now we're only allowed to legally marry one person at a time. All I can speak of is my personal experience and observation, which is that polyamorous marriages and other highly committed relationships tend to last about the same length as monogamous ones, generally speaking, but that poly folks are less likely to stay in unhealthy relationships for very long and that poly breakups/divorces tend to be a lot less ugly, dramatic, and damaging to kids and families.

"Can you please stop applying the term 'polygamy' to me? ... I have continually identified as polyamorous here, not polygamous, so please respect that."

Oops. Sorry. That was sloppy. I think I was just using it because it ends with "gamous", so it contrasts well with "monogamous", another word ending in "gamous." I wasn't thinking about how the word entails actually marrying multiple people.

"I'm guessing you're using it because it has more well-known negative connotations than 'polyamory' does."

Nope. I was just being sloppy.

[me earlier]: "Translation: you think monogamous people are pathetic."

"No. I think people who let fear control their lives are pathetic."

Yes, but since you think monogamous people are letting fear control their lives, you therefore must think that monogamous people are pathetic. Please stop dancing around and admit this.

"Well, I'm certainly not trying to support laws stating that monogamous folks can't get married. I wish they'd extend the same courtesy to us poly folks."

I agree completely! Bunch of hypocrites. However, while your having an axe to grind about this issue is legit, it is separate from your disapproval of monogamy.

"If people are letting fear and/or societal norms determine their relationship style, well, that's their choice to make, but I don't think too highly of it."

OK, so you want other people to have a better opinion of polyamory but you get to look down your nose at monogamy. Are you beginning to see how you are not so different from all those people driven by "societal norms"? Deluding yourself into thinking that you are on the one true path is one of the most "normal" things that people do, even while on the fringe.

"If people have deeper, more rational, and meaningful reasons for choosing monogamy, then I respect that."

Really? Because this statement is not exactly consistent with your earlier writings. So far, it's kind of sounded like you believe that monogamy is driven entirely by irrational forces ... and that irrational forces are necessarily bad.

[me earlier]: "Yeah, well, if you were a caveman breaking his ass all day to kill a mammoth, would you want to risk sharing those precious calories with the kid spawned by your woman and the wimpy artist who didn't join in the hunt because he was too busy drawing, brooding attractively, and getting laid even though he couldn't even do a single push-up?"

"Fortunately, I'm not a caveman. I'm an educated, feminist individual with easy access to a wide variety of effective and convenient contraceptives."

Ugh! Caveman no like feminist! Feminist say "equal pay for equal play" and make caveman share 50% of mammoth meat because cavewoman make bow and arrow to shoot mammoth and also because 95% of caveman calories actually come from plants foraged by cavewoman while caveman watch wrestling on TV. Next thing, feminist want to join cavemen on mammoth hunt and make tampons part of hunting budget. Ugh!

[me earlier]: "I'm not sure banging whomever you want is the cure."

"It works for me!"

That is great, really. What works for you won't necessarily work for others (although I'm sure it would help some).

"I can assure you that being restricted to monogamy crushes every ounce of my soul into oblivion."

This statement is in regard to your comparing poly people being exclusive to gay people being in straight marriages. I'm not going to presume to deny that you find being monogamous soul-crushing. I just hope that at some point you step away from your own perspective long enough to realize that there are even more soul-crushing things out there, and that being gay in a hetero marriage is one of them. Think about it: a poly person in a monogamous situation is getting at least some of the type of sex they really desire.

"Polyamory is not a steak dinner or chocolate cake - it is how I experience and express romantic love."

Are you saying that steak dinner and chocolate cake are not expressions of love? You must be one of those feminists who never learned how to cook because you thought it was subservient.

"It's not something that I'd be better off avoiding if I could just control my wicked impulses. It's a healthy, legitimate part of who I am."

Wicked impulses are often "a healthy, legitimate part of who" we are. I support your right to be wicked.

[me earlier]: "And I suppose you have data on the divorce rates for poly couples, and this data shows they have lower divorce rates?"

"Well, that is something which is difficult to study because right now we're only allowed to legally marry one person at a time."

Nice dodge. I was referring to what happens when married, monogamous couples transition to being poly. Maybe those couples have lower divorce rates, maybe they don't. You were implying that they did and I was just wondering if there was anything behind this.

"poly folks are less likely to stay in unhealthy relationships for very long"

All relationships are unhealthy at some point. Sometimes sticking it out is the wrong call, but sometimes it leads to closer ties in the long run. Investing strongly in one partner increases the likelihood of each of these possibilities.

"poly breakups/divorces tend to be a lot less ugly, dramatic, and damaging to kids and families."

Would you elaborate as to why you think this is the case?

@59:

"I don't think that jealousy does help a relationship any, even if it isn't particularly irrational."

You can't begin your assessment at the point where jealousy arises. You have to look at what caused the person to feel jealous. Yes, relationships are better off with less jealousy, but the damage jealousy causes a relationship is often the fault of two people, not one. I'm not saying jealousy helps a relationship; I'm saying that the non-jealous lover may be hurting the relationship.

"I think all jealousy stems from fear."

I agree, but so what?

"when I read the phrase 'insanely jealous' that does NOT sound like a rational level of jealousy ... you assume the writer of the letter has a rational level of jealousy"

This would be a good point if the advice-seeker were writing about their lover just flirting with other person. I think most people are either OK with sexually sharing a person they are in a relationship or made very jealous by the idea. I don't think many would describe themselves as made "mildly jealous" by the idea. In other words, the self-description of "insanely jealous" is probably pretty typical.

"it makes sense to find out what is in her brain when the fog of irrational jealousy is lifted."

This is a very telling sentence. If I wrote about a person considering going poly that "it makes sense to find out what is in their brain when the fog of irrational horniness is lifted", half the people on this discussion thread would be up in arms. The subtext of most of the discussion here is that it is inherently irrational not to want to share your lover.

"You can't make the backwards case (poly to monogamy) as though it's the same thing. The difference is societal expectation."

I agree that this is not a completely fair juxtaposition, but it's still worth discussing in order to demonstrate that there have been some hypocritical things written here. Engaging in activities which defy social expectations does not let you off the hook with regard to the golden rule.

"Having been raised on Disney movies, the writer has ingrained false expectations about romantic love."

Now who's making assumptions about this person?

"'He swore he would be mine forever.' That sentence doesn't even mean anything."

Speak for yourself. It actually does mean something to some other people. Believe it or not, some people make this vow and keep it.

"It's impossible to keep, so as a promise it's both worthless and meaningless. (Both the "mine" and the "forever" parts, actually.)"

The "mine" part is actually quite possible to keep. As for the "forever" part, you're being a bit too cute in your literalness. Barring a few religious people who believe in meeting spouses in the afterlife, I think there is an understanding that "forever" just means "'till death do us apart."

"once she can see past her 'insane' jealousy, and kicks the romantic falsehoods to the curb, maybe she will realize that poly isn't so scary after all."

Maybe. If that's what they really wants, I hope so. (On a side note, you should know that there are many, many non-romantic people who are opposed to sharing their lover.)

"if you advise every single person who's scared of poly at the beginning not to try it, that leaves...not many people. Lots of people who were scared at first are in happy poly (or non-monogamous) relationships."

Good point. How did these people typically start off, though? I'm guessing that most of them were on the fence. Again, I just don't get the impression that this person is on the fence.

"one shouldn't be kept from doing things out of fear."

It depends. Don't make this a blanket rule.

"If she tries polyamory, and dislikes it, that's a very different thing from not trying because she's afraid"

Not everyone is like you, OK? Maybe you would have been flexible enough to put humpty-dumpty back together again after trying poly and deciding you did not like it. For some people, their relationship would not recover. It's OK to be afraid of that possibility if you know yourself well enough to believe it to be likely.

"Thank you for being nice in your responses."

You are welcome. I try.

@ 60:

[quoting 3rd party; Rhythm]: "I think jealousy stems from pathetic insecurity"

[me earlier]: "Translation: you think monogamous people are pathetic."

"I disagree entirely with your translation of this sentence. In fact, if you remove the derogatory word "pathetic", I think this is entirely correct. Jealousy stems from insecurity."

Well, let's take a closer look at insecurity. We can experience the feeling that we are less secure, we can actually be less secure, and/or we can experience fear of something that will actually make is less secure in the future. I think that the unwillingness to share a lover is usually the third of these things, but I get the impression that you, Rhythm Dakini, etc. think it is simply the first of these things.

"in order to have ABSOLUTELY NO insecurity, either we have very little invested and/or the balance of power in the relationship is skewed heavily in our favour."

Bingo.

"it's natural for each partner to feel, on occasion, a low level of jealousy in a relationship that each cares about and in which the balance of power is about equal. Saying it's natural doesn't mean it isn't caused by insecurity...which is just another word for fear."

Yeah, this is in line with what I have been writing.

"I think you're confusing nonmonogamy and polyamory ... Nonmonogamy is just what it sounds like ... Polyamory is the belief (and actions taken on that belief) that it is no more reasonable to believe we should or can love only one romantic partner than it is to believe we can or should love only one sibling, friend, or child."

So Polyamory is non-monogamy which includes emotional connection to all those whom you regularly have sex with? Bon, the thing about belief systems is that they rarely actually get practiced as espoused. I doubt polyamory is any different from Christianity in this regard. More importantly, this paragraph is another example of someone trying to piggyback their lifestyle (sorry, Rhythm) to this advice-seeker's situation. Where in "me and my Master are considering bringing another person into our play" do you read anything about love?

"your desert island example actually doesn't apply, because polyamory is about 'love that includes sex, not about just sex."

Speak for yourself. Do you really not think there are poly people who are just in it for the extra sex partners? Even if there weren't, as discussed above @62, the poly person on the island gets at least some of what they want, while the gay person does not, so the example does apply.

"We all believe that parents can love more than one child,"

Yeah, but parents of multiple kids usually have a favorite child.

"when someone who is poly says 'I can and do fall in love with more than one person at a time,' they still have that ability even when they are only currently with one person."

We all have that ability. You're talking about poly people like they have some magic power.

"I guess you could say I'm an armchair polyamorist: I do believe that humans have the capacity to be in love with more than one person at the same time."

This is not a rare or new concept. Haven't you ever listened to country music? (I'm talking about the old, good country music, not this garbage they're putting out these days.)

You know, kungfujew, you confuse me. Your tone through this has been 100% respectful (at least to me; not quite as much to others, but still a high percentage) but I still get little twinges that you are deliberately garbling things others say. If you were meaner about it or engaged in ad hominim attacks I'd just write you off as a troll and be done, but the fact that you are being respectful makes me wonder if you are maybe garbling accidentally. So I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, explain a few of my perhaps minor/peripheral points more clearly, ('cause lawrd knows I'm no forensics champion) and wait to see how you respond before I dive into the whole big mess. (Forgive me, I don't know how to do the fancy boxed quotes; I'm sure it's easy but I don't see any instructions.)

(You quoted me saying) "one shouldn't be kept from doing things out of fear."

(and you responded) It depends. Don't make this a blanket rule.

...except I didn't make it a blanket rule. You left out the part where I qualified it. What I said was,

"Other than very basic safety stuff, one shouldn't be kept from doing things out of fear."

So, let's assume you didn't mean to cut that and change the meaning. Can you see why I might think it looks troll-like to cut it like that?

(You quoted me saying) "your desert island example actually doesn't apply, because polyamory is about 'love that includes sex, not about just sex."

(And you replied) "Speak for yourself.

[actually, I'm not. I'm in a monogamous relationship. I'm speaking only from observation.]

Do you really not think there are poly people who are just in it for the extra sex partners? Even if there weren't, as discussed above @62, the poly person on the island gets at least some of what they want, while the gay person does not, so the example does apply. "

Okay, you asked a question in this paragraph, so let me answer it first.

"Do you really not think there are poly people who are just in it for the extra sex partners?"

Well, no, not really...although I'm sure you can find people like this, I've never really heard of it being a problem BECAUSE within the "more than one partner" community there is a perfectly acceptable label for people who just want a peice on the side. It's nonmonogamy, and it doesn't carry a stigma. People who are in it for the sex tend to use that term, (or "swingers") because they want a particular thing (nsa sex with people outside their marriage) and they are more likely to get what they want if they use the label that everyone understands means just that. Poly is more specific, in my (admittedly limited) observation, and nonmonogamous people don't identify as poly because that implies you want a certain level of committment out of your lovers. I mean, I can only talk about the community that my friends belong to, but a liar who called himself poly just to get some tail would get called out in the community, and then he would get no more tail...it makes more sense for such people to use the label that will get them what they want without offending anyone...so, yeah, I guess people COULD do that, but it would be less successful than just using the label that already exists for them. This is already longer than I wanted, but I do also have to say that there is crossover between these things. I have one family of friends who are both poly and nonmonogamous. The three of them are bonded. The man and one of the women are legally married and are each others' primary partners. The second woman is the secondary partner of both of the other two, and this triad is a polyamorous one. They are also nonmonogamous with other people, BUT they don't claim that those other fwb/ fuckbuddies are a part of their polyamorous relationship.

And now to answer the gist of the paragraph:

...Well, no, the poly person does not necessarily get part of what they want, any more than a gay man on a desert island with one other gay man is guaranteed to get what he wants...
You know, I had a whole big long confusing paragraph here in which I meandered around, answering what I thought you might mean, and then second guessing what you meant and trying to answer that...and then third guessing, because I really don't understand your point. Maybe you could clarify exactly what you are basing the definition of "orientation" vs. "lifestyle" on, because it doesn't make any sense to me.

And finally:

(You quoted me saying) "We all believe that parents can love more than one child,"

(And you replied) "Yeah, but parents of multiple kids usually have a favorite child."

Were you kidding? That answer seems waaaay trollish. It doesn't negate my argument AT ALL, and besides, what's this "usually?" I'll grant you "sometimes", but you're going to have to defend "usually." Anyway, even if I granted you "usually", it still doesn't speak to the argument at all. It's a non-sequiter.

And once again I want to thank you for being respectful. I get anxious about posting online and voluntarily talking to strangers, but when your answers don't have any swearing or vileness I feel much better about doing this thing of which I am afraid.

@65:

"I ... get little twinges that you are deliberately garbling things others say ... the fact that you are being respectful makes me wonder if you are maybe garbling accidentally."

I think we are talking about about different aspects of the same general subject. When we respond to one another, we tend to slightly shift the direction of the subject. If this is what you mean by "garbling", I think we are both a bit guilty.

[Bon earlier]: "one shouldn't be kept from doing things out of fear."

[me earlier]: "It depends. Don't make this a blanket rule."

"I didn't ... What I said was, 'Other than very basic safety stuff, one shouldn't be kept from doing things out of fear.' Can you see why I might think it looks troll-like to cut it like that?"

Only if you are assuming the worst, which I don't think you are. I'm omitting stuff to keep a long post from being even longer. This entire discussion has been about relationships, so I don't think anyone reading this edited quote would get the impression that you were suggesting people ignore their fear with regard to basic safety. What I meant was "Don't make this a blanket rule about relationships." If you read the words "don't make this a blanket rule" in the context of the other stuff written here, this should be clear. No red herring here.

[Bon earlier]: "your desert island example actually doesn't apply, because polyamory is about love that includes sex, not about just sex."

[me earlier]: "Speak for yourself."

"actually, I'm not. I'm in a monogamous relationship. I'm speaking only from observation."

OK.

[me earlier]: "Do you really not think there are poly people who are just in it for the extra sex partners?"

"no ... within the 'more than one partner' community there is a perfectly acceptable label for people who just want a peice on the side. It's nonmonogamy ... People who are in it for the sex tend to use that term, (or 'swingers')."

OK. Now you are talking about the people who are upfront.

"Poly is more specific ... nonmonogamous people don't identify as poly because that implies you want a certain level of committment out of your lovers."

Bon, there are people in this world (female, male, gay, straight, bi, monogamous, poly) who pretend to be more committed than they actually are in order to get good sex and/or more sex. Do you take everything people say about every subject at face value, or only what poly people say about their sex lives and relationships? Just like everyone else, some poly people love those they have sex with; some don't. Stop holding up the "poly creed" as though it is evidence of actual intent or emotion.

"I do also have to say that there is crossover between these things."

That's all I was trying to say. If it sounded as though I thought polyamory and swinging were the exact same thing, I'm sorry. As with my overuse of the word "polygamy" which Rhythm corrected, I have been a bit sloppy and ignorant.

[me earlier]: "the poly person on the island gets at least some of what they want, while the gay person does not"

"the poly person does not necessarily get part of what they want, any more than a gay man on a desert island with one other gay man is guaranteed to get what he wants"

The original hypothetical (which was a response to Rhythm comparing being poly in a monogamous relationship to being gay in a hetero relationship) assumed that the poly person was stuck on the island with someone they were attracted to. Maybe some poly people in this situation would say: "well, if I can't be poly, then I'm not going to have sex at all ... even with this person over here I find hot." I kind of doubt it, though. I think most of them would go ahead and have some fun getting busy, while wishing they could also have more lovers. In contrast to this, the gay person will not have the option of really enjoying sex. It' legit for a poly-oriented person to say "I won't be happy in a monogamous relationship." It's not legit to say "It would make me just as unhappy as a gay person in a hetero relationship." A more apt analogy would be: "It would make me as unhappy as a gay person in a relationship with a person they were only slightly attracted to."

"Maybe you could clarify exactly what you are basing the definition of 'orientation' vs. 'lifestyle' ... because it doesn't make any sense to me."

"Orientation" is how we are wired (acknowledging that wiring can be a product of nature or a combination of nature and nurture), "lifestyle" is what we choose to do. For example, a person who has the orientation to be gay can live a closeted hetero-active lifestyle, a closeted celibate lifestyle, an out and and monogamous lifestyle, an out and celibate lifestyle, or an out and polygamous lifestyle. The word "lifestyle" is used by gay-haters to put down gay people, so I understand why some poly people would have a negative response to it. Let me clarify that I think it is possible both to be somewhat wired for polyamory and to choose to a poly lifestyle.

[Bon earlier]: "We all believe that parents can love more than one child,"

[me earlier]: "Yeah, but parents of multiple kids usually have a favorite child."

"Were you kidding?"

Yes, that was a joke- apparently, not a very good one. I acknowledge that it is possible to love more than one lover at the same time, OK?

"And once again I want to thank you for being respectful."

Again, you are welcome, Bon.

Oops. Replace the word "polygamous" in the paragraph differentiating orientation from lifestyle with "polyamorous."

Her problem is not jealousy, it's a lack of assertiveness. She does not want a non-monogamous relationship. She has every right to seek a monogamous relationship with someone else. She needs to dump this guy and find someone more suitable.

Sorry, I don't buy the jealousy = insecurity equation. Certainly they're related, but I think jealousy is a basic emotion in itself. The common idea that jealousy is really just insecurity reflects the role that sexual relationships play in our society - your sex partner is also your primary source of emotional intimacy and support. It has not always been this way, though. As a couple of people have mentioned, jealousy (the desire to keep your sex partner(s) to yourself) has obvious adaptive value, and you'll find it even in animals that don't form close pair bonds like we do.

Oh, and 38:

"You really think our "animal brains" are worried about herpes? Have you ever heard of a population of non-human primates changing their sexual customs after HIV is introduced into their social group?"

I think you're misunderstanding the point about innate behavior, as opposed to learned behavior. Animal behavior (including ours) develops through evolution, so we instinctively behave in certain ways that enhance our survival/reproductive rate. So, yes, it's definitely conceivable that animals could have evolved STD-avoiding behavior, even if they are not consciously aware of STDs themselves. (STD's have been around for a long time, and are definitely not confined to our species).

KremePuff is right.

Ok, kungfujew, I don't think you're a troll. :)

I actually don't even mean just in relationships when I say you shouldn't make decisions based on fear. I mean pretty much everywhere in life, with, of course, an exception made for the "duh" things. I actually can't think of any instance where I think the FEAR of something should be a deciding factor in decision making. I really can't. One could make the argument reduce to the absurd by claiming that I mean that people should take it to the extreme (if you are afraid of spiders you should tie yourself up in a garbage bag filled with black widows), but assuming we're not doing that, and we're also excluding things that are basic safety, I really can't think of any situation in which I would agree that a decision based on fear is the best choice.

I've had many years to think about it, because of my anxiety, and also my fear of heights. Sometimes I fail at my philosophy, but every time I fail, and make a decision based on fear, it reinforces my belief that it's a good philosophy to follow. Because of it, I can now go up in one of those glass elevators (if I just don't look out or down) without too much panic. Because of it, I can talk to you on the internet machine, and I can come back to read your responses, and it has been very satisfactory to see that you have not once said something personal that will ruin my day because my stupid brain already thinks that everyone hates me. So I try to use the "do what you fear" philosophy is every situation. It builds character in those areas of life where I'm not crazy, and keeps me from devolving into a gibbering heap in those areas where I am crazy.
I can't have thought of every single situation in the world, though. If you can think of a situation in which you think decisions based on fear will help, give 'em to me, and maybe I'll agree. Clearly, I don't agree in the letter writer's situation. :)

Okay, polyamory vs nonmonogamy.

I can't speak for every community of people who are nonmonogamous in every place such communities exist. I can only tell you that the "lying nonmonogamous person pretending to be poly" just doesn't seem to be a problem that anyone in the community I'm on the outskirts of ever seems to talk about, nor did it seem to be a problem when I was slightly more within that community, back when I was single. I'm sure that such creeps exist, because creeps always exist, but I just don't buy that they are anything other than statistical outliers, if you will. Those creeps end up on craigslist, I'm willing to bet, not in nonmonogamy communities. OH, HEY! I think I may have figured out where we have been talking past each other. If you already know what I'm about to say, then I'm sorry for assuming, but just in case:
Even in a big perverted city like the one I'm in, the nonmonogamous (let's call them n/m for brevity) and the poly form communities, so that they're reasonably assured of getting like minded people to date and play with, just like BDSMrs. (In fact, these communities overlap quite a bit.) These communities are like small towns: everyone has seen everyone else around, and reputation is important. In the wide world of sex, a creep who says "I love you" in order to get laid just moves on, but in a n/m or bdsm community, if you act like an asshole people will talk to each other and tell everyone what an asshole you are. Since these communities are smaller than the wide world, if you misrepresent yourself and people start talking about it, you are soon going to find yourself shuffled to the outside of these communities and far less likely to get laid. It's not that I believe every single person is a shining example of honesty and goodness, it's just that I have faith in the self-regulating "creep expulsion" process that ingroups like this tend to have.

Orientation vs lifestyle

A bisexual on a desert island with only one other person will get "a part of what they want." Bisexual is still an orientation despite this. Bisexual people are still "wired" to be attracted to both sexes even if they are in monogamous relationships. A poly person is still "wired" to fall in love with lots of people even if they are in a monogamous relationship. You can have a poly-oriented person in a non-poly lifestyle just like you can have a bi or gay-oriented person in a straight lifestyle. Both are probably hard on the spouse.

I don't think any of this has much to do with the letter, though. The letter writer sounds young, and uses vague words that have wiggly meanings, and doesn't really tell us enough to determine if what her master wants is a poly relationship or a n/m one. I'm only clarifying because I can imagine how irritating it must be to Rythem to be waved aside with a "you're not legitimate, not like the gays are legit" hand.

"In the wide world of sex, a creep who says 'I love you' in order to get laid just moves on, but in a n/m or bdsm community, if you act like an asshole people will talk to each other and tell everyone what an asshole you are."

You are assuming that those who stay with extra sex partners for more than a brief time do so at least partly out of love. This is not so, Bon.

"I can imagine how irritating it must be to Rhythm to be waved aside with a 'you're not legitimate, not like the gays are legit' hand."

I never said that. I just said that being gay and having no gay sex is worse than being poly and only getting to sleep with one person. I don't think it's more legit to have one dollar than it is to have two dollars; I just recognize that there is a difference between the two, no matter how broke the person with two dollars feel. If any poly person is irritated by this, the irritation is not due to any oppression of poly people but rather the narcissism of that individual.

"A bisexual on a desert island with only one other person will get 'a part of what they want.'"

Right. That's why being bisexual in a hetero marriage is not as bad as being gay in a hetero marriage. Thank you for reinforcing my point.

"Bisexual is still an orientation despite this."

No, bisexuality being an orientation has nothing to do with this. I never said that being able to "get part of what you want" prevents making what you want from being an orientation.

"Bisexual people are still 'wired' to be attracted to both sexes even if they are in monogamous relationships."

I agree.

"A poly person is still 'wired' to fall in love with lots of people even if they are in a monogamous relationship."

I think just most of us are wired poly, then. I think the main difference between people who are monogamous and people who are actively poly is that many monogamous people would like to have more lovers buy aren't willing to accept the trade-offs involved with sharing their lovers. At the end of the day, Bon, you are trying to turn a decision on how to handle general human sex drive into a specific orientation.

"You can have a poly-oriented person in a non-poly lifestyle just like you can have a bi or gay-oriented person in a straight lifestyle. Both are probably hard on the spouse."

You had me up until you threw "gay" in with "bi" and "poly." For reasons stated above, it's worse for gay people to have no gay sex than for poly people or bi people to be monogamous.

"If you can think of a situation in which you think decisions based on fear will help, give 'em to me, and maybe I'll agree."

Well, why don't we just replace "fear" with "concern." Now, do I really need to make a list of situations? You and others here seem to think that decisions should be made when everything feels OK. Sometimes you have to make decisions when everything does not feel OK in order to make things OK.

you may not be a troll, but you're a dishonest debater. Wow. I've tried to write a response three times but the way you try to wiggle out of things when the debate doesn't go your way just makes me mad.

Forget it. Who am I trying to impress? The letter writer certainly hasn't thought enough about this to deserve all this debate, and since I no longer think you deserve it, who cares?

I am only going to mention, because it is personally insulting, this little gem:

"You and others here seem to think that decisions should be made when everything feels OK. Sometimes you have to make decisions when everything does not feel OK in order to make things OK."

Really? Sometimes decisions need to be made when things don't feel okay? Like, say, when you're in the grip of crippling anxiety? Like then? I have to make decsions "when things don't feel OK" all the fucking time, and I still have the balls to try my best not to make those decsions based on fear, because basing them on fear is unproductive at best. Don't try to make cowardice into a virtue. It's not cowardly to fear things, but it is cowardly to let that fear make your decisions for you. It happens, yes. It happens to me A LOT. But I don't pretend that making "in the moment" decisions based on fear is somehow laudable.

"you may not be a troll, but you're a dishonest debater."

Why? Because I keep on explaining to you that you are responding to points which I have not actually made? Let's refrain from name-calling and just chalk it up to honest misunderstanding.

"I've tried to write a response three times but the way you try to wiggle out of things when the debate doesn't go your way just makes me mad."

Who says the debate isn't going my way? By the way, it's interesting that you apparently think it's OK to make decisions while mad, but not while afraid.

"Forget it. Who am I trying to impress?"

A dishonest debater who wiggles, apparently.

"The letter writer certainly hasn't thought enough about this to deserve all this debate"

Good point.

"I no longer think you deserve it"

Right. People who don't agree with you do not "deserve" to hear what you have to say.

"who cares?"

Me, in spite of myself.

"it is personally insulting, this little gem:"

[me earlier]:"You and others here seem to think that decisions should be made when everything feels OK. Sometimes you have to make decisions when everything does not feel OK in order to make things OK."

If you think that this is a personal insult, you must have grown up very well insulated from personal insults, Bon.

"Really? Sometimes decisions need to be made when things don't feel okay? Like, say, when you're in the grip of crippling anxiety?"

No, not when you're in the grip of the anxiety. But lets' say that the idea of something gives you anxiety and then you later reflect on that. I think it's legit at that point to say "The idea of ____ makes me feel bad, so I am not going to do it." You don't necessarily have to say "I am going to find a way to cure myself of the anxiety I have associated with _____, and then and only then will I decide whether or not to do it" (which was MM's advice, in a nutshell).

"I have to make decisions 'when things don't feel OK' all the fucking time, and I still have the balls to try my best not to make those decisions based on fear."

So do you enter the decision-making process with the assumption that your fear is wrong?

"because basing them on fear is unproductive at best."

No, at best, it can help you follow your heart. At worst, it can shut out love and fun. Emotion is crazy that way; how the same emotion can lead you to varying paths depending on the circumstances. This is why we should make decisions based on context, not based on rules which preclude acknowledging the validity of certain types of feelings.

"Don't try to make cowardice into a virtue."

I don't think I have done that. Virtuous things are necessarily good. At no point have I stated that fear is necessarily good.

"it is cowardly to let ... fear make your decisions for you."

No, it is cowardly to let fear make all your decisions for you.

"I don't pretend that making 'in the moment' decisions based on fear is somehow laudable."

Laudable is a strong word. Sometimes your best course of action is neither bad nor laudable. I don't think it's laudable for the advice-seeker here to refuse to share their lover; I just think, based on what they wrote, that it's probably the best course of action for them.

"it looks like you're unclear on the difference between choosing monogamy because you prefer not to share your partner, and choosing it because you're jealous, insecure, or afraid."

I'm unclear about a lot of things, K876, but this is not one of them. You present these two positions as though they are distinct. I do not think they are, although I agree that there are varying degrees of jealousy among those who do not want to share their sex partners.

I agree with many of the posters here in that an unwillingness to share your sex partner is rooted in jealousy; and that jealousy is a form of insecurity. Where we differ is that I believe that this position not necessarily caused by some sort of mental instability and is not not necessarily the wrong state of mind in which to decide whether to be polyamorous.

I would be interested to read your elaboration regarding people who are unwilling to share their sex partners but who are also not made jealous by the idea of sharing their sex partners. Once you lay out their reasons to refuse sharing sex partners, It would also be interesting to read your explanation as to why these reasons are more "legitimate" than jealousy.

"KFJ, other than you, I don't think anyone here said that 'an unwillingness to share your sex partner is rooted in jealousy.' (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)"

You are wrong. I'm sorry I don't have time to read through the 70-plus posts here to pull out the numerous relevant quotes, but I'll give you quotes from the advice seeker ("Me and my Master are considering bringing another person into our play, but I'm insanely jealous") and the advice columnist Matisse's response ("people in monogamous relationships also experience jealousy").

"Some people are just wired monogamously."

Actually, if people were "wired monogamously," monogamy wouldn't be the source of so much tension. As I have said before, I think that most people have the capacity to be polyamorous (and/or to be swingers) but avoid it because they don't want to share their lovers or deal with the other complications it entails.

"they can benefit from learning to deal with their jealousy while still staying in a monogamous relationship."

OK.

"I'm not sure what other reasons you're looking for"

I was looking for reasons that you had referred to without listing; the "legitimate" reasons for being monogamous.

"that's what some people prefer, just like some people prefer blondes or brunettes."

I am not buying this. There are reasons behind preferences.

"Maybe they have limited time and prefer to spend it all getting closer to one person."

More likely they have limited time and want to make sure that when they do have time, their main person is available to them, not off with someone else.

"jealousy is not limited to sex. People, whether wired for monogamy or not, can be jealous of their partner's friends or interests, or even of their friends spending time with other friends."

True but irrelevant.

"I got more jealous of my girlfriend's friendships than I would by her having sex with other people."

So?

"A good analogy might be comparing 'I'd prefer to drive rather than fly because I really enjoy driving and seeing the countryside, and I can spare the extra time'"

It sounds like you are saying that it is only rational to choose between two options when both options are acceptable to you.

"'I can't even think about flying because I'm too scared, so I'm going to drive without looking at my options and comparing them.'"

Did you really read this thread? Matisse, the advice columnist, has already made the flying analogy, K876. See @18 and @24 if you care enough to read my responses.

@78:

OK, that is pretty much the most sensible thing any of us here have written.

As to this part:

"some reasons other than jealousy to choose monogamy ... concern over increased risk of spreading STIs; concern over increased risk of unplanned pregnancy; the fact that scheduling multiple relationships is a pain in the gluteals; lack of sexual/emotional interest in the available dating pool... and, yes, sometimes to please a partner."

Do you think it is possible that during human social evolution, the factors you cite above were part of what led to jealousy about sharing sex partners becoming such a common human trait? If so, can they really be considered completely independent of jealousy?

kungfujew and Rhythm need to meet up in a bar (or coffesshop if they don't drink), get drunk (or at least quench their thirst), argue (I mean politely debate) and then either fuck or fight. Your circular and mutually defensive argument is interesting, but getting old. You can invite Bon too... he/she (sorry don't know which) has alot to say about it too.

Honestly, I bet you'd actually like each other.

Yeah, it got old. Sorry.

Oooor hey, maybe the chick's "master" is an asshole because he's not paying attention to her fears.

Unless, of course, she hasn't said anything about it. So maybe before she gets therapy or pulls on her bootstraps, she should say, "Hey, I know you're thinking of bringing in someone else to this relationship, but I'm really not comfortable with it. In fact, I have trouble even thinking about someone else touching you."

I know, I'm totally awesome, posting on old columns.