Columns Nov 28, 2012 at 4:00 am

Gone Solo

Comments

105
Now that we've all said the magic word five times we're going to get even more of the Smeeeeeeeten kitchen ads.
106
I'm 48 yr old divorced suburban mom. I've lived in NY, CA and points in between. Yet I've never met anyone in a poly relationship, never heard anyone discussing their brother or sister or second cousin twice removed who said "oh, my sister is in a marriage w a man and a woman" or "that crazy Cousin Joe, married but totally has her permission to sleep around." Either it's a secret hidden by the masses or it's really not as common as the posters here think. That alone makes me side w the "poly is a choice / preference" people.
107
gromm (#28) hits the nail on the head.
108
24 laurel-- Yes! You're so right, and I wish more were made of this. If all the emphasis is put on how homosexuality is from birth and not a choice, then I don't see what's to stop the homophobes from seeking to cure fetuses before they're born. They'd probably want to juggle with the pre-natal hormones in order to fix what's "wrong." But if it's pointed out (loudly and clearly) that homosexuality is harmless, both to the individuals and the society, then I suppose they could flail around finding harm here and there, but it's not much of an argument.

I'm not sure the same could be said for poly behaviors. I can imagine situations where poly arrangements might work, but I can imagine more situations where a man insists he's poly, but he's really looking for a way to skip out of responsibilities to women and children. Like I said earlier, maybe I haven't been reading this column long enough, but right now, I don't see much difference between "poly" and "lying manipulative cheat."
109
Put all the BDSM toys in a box in your attic.
With your new partner, buy a couple of new toys, ideally ones you'd like to add to your arsenal anyway.
After a suitable period of time, if you feel it won't squick out the new girl, take out the box (obviously while she isn't there) and say "Check out all this cool bondage gear my leather daddy friend gave me when he moved out of the country."
If you think she'll be squicked out that it's used even if it wasn't by a former partner, you can get rid of it or leave it in the attic.
It's cheaper, it's only a white lie, and you're honoring the tradition of one BDSM enthusiast passing toys along to another one. (Although that part will be backwards--Younger, less experienced you will be passing toys along to an older, more experienced you.)
110
I am a guy who owns a Hitachi magic wand. I really love using it on women I have sex with. For a couple of them this was a new experience -- which each came to enjoy intensely. I assiduously wash it up with soap and hot water between women (and, of late, carefully age it as well --sigh). I use the same penis, same tongue, same hands with each new woman, I don't see the problem with introducing this well-loved (and cleaned) appliance (although I have gotten an 'ewww who's used that!?' response before).

Same with the restraints and whips.

I tend to click with women who like yard sales, antique auctions and clothes from the Sally so maybe used gear is a good compatibility indicator.

Am I weird? I guess but our throw-away culture is not normal.

I like Mr S products myself but of course a guy who sells bondage gear is going to suggest replacing all items frequently.
111
@106

It is actually relatively common for committed relationships to be more open than they appear from the outside. Once I tell someone I'm poly that's when I get to hear all the stories.

This sort of reminds me of how my grandfather thinks he doesn't know anyone gay just since nobody ever talks to him about it. I mean, doesn't it make sense to you that if even so many commenters here are skeptical of poly relationships, many poly people would want to hide it from the outside world even if their own partner/s is/are cool with it?

Listen, I also have [well-medicated] bipolar disorder. The other day someone I know said they don't know anyone with bipolar. This is funny not only because they said it to someone with bipolar, but also because we have several mutual friends with bipolar. There are lots of things that are everywhere but that you simply haven't noticed or haven't been told about for various reasons.
112
@32 "If all people are naturally non-monogamous, then how do you explain those folks for whom non-monogamy makes them consistently miserable? Are those people somehow broken, Dan? Perhaps there's nothing in particular about a monogamous person that a good dose of reparative therapy won't cure?"

I think that a simple perusal of other cultures will show that relationship models are pretty much cultural in nature. That does NOT mean that they aren't valid relationship styles, but let's call them what they are. There's too much of a tendency these days for people to want to make EVERYTHING an orientation because they think it makes their position more valid. Let's get out of that mindset, call things what they are and still see them as valid.

In Tibet, polyandry is common. If a woman didn't have multiple husbands (all brothers!), maybe she'd feel miserable, and maybe a man who wasn't sharing a wife with his brothers would feel miserable. Does that make it an orientation? No. In our society, monogamy is the norm, therefore it's fully reasonable for some people to feel miserable if their relationship doesn't reflect that. Similarly, monogamy has never been easy for humans, so it also makes sense that some would feel miserable being monogamous.

There's a lot of reasons to not want to be poly, or not want to be mono. I would be miserable being poly because as an introvert, one person is about all I can devote my time to and remain sane. Yet I know it would be possible for me to fuck another person, so I'm not going to claim monogamy is an orientation for me. Similarly, for every person who says non-monogamy would make them miserable because they don't want to share or whatever other reason, I'm pretty sure that most any of them would if honest admit to feeling sexual attraction to other people while in a relationship. It does not require having any real desire to act on that impulse to invalidate monogamy as an orientation. That would be like saying a bisexual in a relationship with the opposite sex is no longer bi, because they aren't acting on their attraction to both sexes. Unless your ability to feel even casual attraction turns off once you have a partner, monogamy isn't an orientation. Polyamory isn't either, because even if our natural impulse is to fuck many people, it's still a relationship model since fucking many people is not the same as having deep, committed relationships to multiple partners.
113
@108

I'm not sure how being poly is being a liar or cheater. Being poly doesn't make people liars or cheaters; lying and cheating is what does that.
114
@85 seandr

'2) People with personality disorders don't do especially well in monogamous relationships, either. And, from what I've seen, a certain degree of narcissism and/or histrionicism is, for some people (not all), what makes poly a "natural" choice for them. They need more attention and adoration than one partner can provide.'

No truer words have been spoken.
115
@114

It really does just depend. Using myself as an example (since I am the example I know best, though I know not everyone's experiences are like mine) -- it makes me happy to see my partner loving someone aside from me as well. Even though that takes the attention off me, it makes me happy because I like seeing him happy.

I don't think people who need an abnormal amount of attention and adoration are suited to poly relationships; they end up getting jealous and making their partners lives miserable. These are the people I see who are happy with being "poly" until they realize it means their partners get to see other people too.
116
I think it's really bizarre that Dan uses evo-psych arguments to generalize that "people" (correct me if I'm wrong, but implying *all* people) are naturally non-monogamous and then uses that to deny polyamory or monogamy as an orientation. After all, evo-psych arguments can easily be used to show why people are naturally heterosexual. If we weren't, the species would have been extinct long ago, right? And, sure enough, the majority of people ARE heterosexual. Perfectly valid generalizations about what keeps the species going as a whole still permit variations like homosexuality in a completely natural and very important minority of the population.

There may be evolutionary reasons why the race as a whole isn't geared towards widespread, faithful monogamy, but that doesn't mean that individuals can't identify with either monogamy or polyamory just as strongly as gay people identify with homosexuality. They have the choice to engage in a different relationship style - just like gay people could stay closeted and marry opposite-sex partners - but then they'd be miserable and repressed and living a lie.
117
I'm one of those that wrote in arguing that in my experience poly is something I am rather than just something I do. In my husband's experience monogamous is something he is while poly is something he's does to indulge me. He's also straight and has kissed a guy because he knows I think it's hot. My problem with Dan's premise isn't just coming down on a different side of "do vs are" it's based on the assumption "If all people are naturally nonmonogamous—a point I've made about 10 million times". Well, it's been argued that to some degree everyone is a little bit bisexual but that doesn't mean "If all people are naturally bisexual—then from my perspective, gay and straight are relationship models." Because while it's possible for people to "do" heterosexual things or homosexual things, a lot of people are wired to be more attracted to one sex over another. It's a spectrum and people fall along different areas. The only thing I wish to argue is that perhaps the amount of attraction to monogamy or polyamory relationship models or even sexual attraction to other people while in a monogamous relationships differs between people and falls along a spectrum. Some people are innately driven to do "poly" others are driven to do "mono" and when these preferences are innate it becomes less like a choice and more like a orientation in that the individual is oriented towards one side of the spectrum over the other.

I also find it sexist that many assume all men want to have many partners and women want monogamy. There are men who aren't interested in being with anyone else and very oriented towards monogamy, my husband is one fo them. There are women who are oriented towards persing poly relationships.

I'm not using orientation to equate poly or mono to gay or straight, it's a different spectrum, I'm just suggesting that such a spectrum may exist and people fall on different places along it. No everyone is equally non-monogamous by nature anymore than every person is equally bi-sexual by nature, even though societies existed where bi-sexuality was considered the norm to some extent.
118
Re' the poly issue, and the first letter-writer with no interest in a long-term romantic relationship or kids, why is is so important to so many to LABEL themselves AS something, identify AS that so stridently, and (and this is the part that really gets me) go to great lengths to ADVERTISE that identity/label to any and all?

Unless I am a potential or actual sexual or romantic partner, I have absolutely no interest in or need to know WHAT your sexual orientation/identity/preferences are.

And you have no reason to explain/rationalize yourself to nosy people who DON'T fall into the above categories with anything other than "I'm happy".

Once you pass that rather tedious stage of figuring out your own identity and/or discovering Queer Theory and/or advertising your orientation/identity in search of attention or affirmation (often somewhere in the early 20's it seems, and don't get me wrong, I think this is a useful and perhaps even vital stage which facillitates personal growth and the development of a group identity and support structure within it), why not just live your life as a human being who happens to orient/identify a certain way?

Your sexuality, while obviously a huge and important aspect of who you (we all) are, does not have to DEFINE you or be the MOST important thing about you. It should probably not be the first or even only thing about yourself most others know.

I happen to be a hetero female (on the continuum, I'd have to rate myself as around 98% hetero...I've tried sex with a woman and..ehhh..not so much up my alley, nor do I fantasize about women, but always about men).

And I happen to be pretty far down the continuum towards monogamous (so was my late common-law husband of 23 years). The idea of having more than one sexual partner at a time or even having a whole string of them at different times simply does not appeal to me.

I don't think there's anything WRONG with either of the above alternatives, they just don't trip MY triggers. That is MY orientation/identity/preference.

And (this post aside, lol) I don't feel any desire to broadcast this information to others UNLESS, of course, they happen to be potential or actual sexual/romantic partners.

As for used sexual gear, if it came second-hand from a retail source, fine. But if it was carried over from a prior relationship, seems like it would be potentially loaded with associations for both parties.
119
This is a pretty awesome and informative discussion. It would be even better, however, if Hyacinth would stop with her crybaby "woe is me" bullshit. This is the internet, honey. If you're looking for affirmation and unconditional support maybe you should talk to Dr. Phil instead of a bunch of anonymous strangers.
120
@Rip City Hustle

You're right, and I stopped that last night. It was out of inappropriate to start with but I did realize that after I'd had a bit of a rest. That isn't your problem or anyone else's, but sometimes I get frustrated and upset, and sometimes I'm annoying. I do apologize for that.
121
> @fakedansavage says polyamory a "choice," not an "identity." Where
> have we heard that argument before? Meet the new bigots, same as the
> old.
>
> @lilyldodge
>
> If all people are naturally nonmonogamous-a point I've made about 10
> million times-

But one that a lot of folks, myself included, would disagree with.

> then from my perspective, polyamory and monogamy are
> relationship models, not sexual orientations.

As long as you present it as *your* perspective, then there is no argument.
However, as other folks have pointed out, it isn't a question of *sexual*
orientation, but of *relationship* orientation.

> (And if poly and
> monogamy are sexual orientations, Lily, wouldn't going solo have to be
> considered one, too?) That was my point. Poly can be central to
> someone's sexual self-conception, and it can be hugely important, but
> I don't think it's an orientation in the same way that gay, straight,
> or bisexual are orientations.

It is not an orientation in the same way, but to my mind, it is an
orientation entirely *analogous* to sexual orientation. Just as there are
personality orientations toward Introversion/Extraversion (among many other
polarity characteristics-- see Myers-Briggs for more examples).

> People can and do, of course, identify
> as poly. But is poly something anyone can do

Not from what I have seen. I know many people that seem completely content with one intimate relationship, and even struggle some to find the energy for that. They have *no* interest in anything further.

> or something some people are? I come down on the "do" side.

I think there are folks who have the choice. Perhaps you are one of them. But there are those of us who would be poly even if we had *no* relationships, and others that I know who are as monogamous as a prairie vole, even if they aren't currently in a relationship.

I come down on the side that just as some folks are gay, some straight, and some bisexual, there are folks who are poly, folks who are mono, and folks who can do either comfortably.

> Lily clearly disagrees.

Lilly knows whereof she speaks.

Michael Rios
122
> @fakedansavage says polyamory a "choice," not an "identity." Where
> have we heard that argument before? Meet the new bigots, same as the
> old.
>
> @lilyldodge
>
> If all people are naturally nonmonogamous-a point I've made about 10
> million times-

But one that a lot of folks, myself included, would disagree with.

> then from my perspective, polyamory and monogamy are
> relationship models, not sexual orientations.

As long as you present it as *your* perspective, then there is no argument.
However, as other folks have pointed out, it isn't a question of *sexual*
orientation, but of *relationship* orientation.

> (And if poly and
> monogamy are sexual orientations, Lily, wouldn't going solo have to be
> considered one, too?) That was my point. Poly can be central to
> someone's sexual self-conception, and it can be hugely important, but
> I don't think it's an orientation in the same way that gay, straight,
> or bisexual are orientations.

It is not an orientation in the same way, but to my mind, it is an
orientation entirely *analogous* to sexual orientation. Just as there are
personality orientations toward Introversion/Extraversion (among many other
polarity characteristics-- see Myers-Briggs for more examples).

> People can and do, of course, identify
> as poly. But is poly something anyone can do

Not from what I have seen. I know many people that seem completely content with one intimate relationship, and even struggle some to find the energy for that. They have *no* interest in anything further.

> or something some people are? I come down on the "do" side.

I think there are folks who have the choice. Perhaps you are one of them. But there are those of us who would be poly even if we had *no* relationships, and others that I know who are as monogamous as a prairie vole, even if they aren't currently in a relationship.

I come down on the side that just as some folks are gay, some straight, and some bisexual, there are folks who are poly, folks who are mono, and folks who can do either comfortably.

> Lily clearly disagrees.

Lilly knows whereof she speaks.

123
IDGAF--nothing is wrong with you.

You may just be a quirkyalone. And there are a lot of us out here.

http://www.utne.com/2000-09-01/The-Quirk…
124
EastCoastDude@110, magic wands aren't so expensive. Seems to me that each woman who likes that stimulation should have her own. Like a toothbrush, some things feel personal.

Hyacinth -
@111 "There are lots of things that are everywhere but that you simply haven't noticed or haven't been told about for various reasons."

@113 "Being poly doesn't make people liars or cheaters; lying and cheating is what does that."

Absolutely.
125
@26 Let's not forget alcohol.

Hmmm... Speaking of which, happy hour!
126
I am in agreement with @24, that it shouldn't matter whether something is biological or a choice, when making the determination of whether rights should be extended.

That said, I think homosexuality is *not* a choice. I also happen to think things like pedophilia is probably not a choice, nor is being a sociopath. The difference in how society treats such people is the real question.

Relationships and interpersonal interactions between consenting adults should be acceptable to society whether a choice was made to be that way or not.

And of course the flip side is that it doesn't matter why a pedophile victimizes children. It doesn't matter why a sociopath or psychopath decides to kill or rape someone. You can perhaps be sympathetic to whatever made them that way, be it biological or environmental, but you are still going to lock them up, and keep society safe from them...... And at the end of the day, nobody is going to case whether they were born that way or chose it as a lifestyle.

The only question that needs to be answered is whether everyone involved in a particular relationship or activity is a willing participant.
127
LOL, my hubby and his ex-girlfriend and I joke about his 20 yr old latex cock ring. We call it 'the sacred object'. He's left it to her in his will, she's going to have it bronzed.

128
Do you also advocate throwing out sheets and mattresses when you change partners? Why or why not? What's the difference? For that matter, what's a partner?

Good bondage gear can be expensive, or time-consuming to make. And I wonder when it makes sense to throw away old gear when you plan to immediately buy something identical.
129
@108, would it help you to know that my sweetie and I have been poly for years, and our relationship is very stable? I have two girlfriends, and she has a boyfriend.

Lying and cheating have nothing to do with it. We're open and honest with each other; we have to be, or it doesn't work.
130
@115 Hyacinth

'I don't think people who need an abnormal amount of attention and adoration are suited to poly relationships; they end up getting jealous and making their partners lives miserable. These are the people I see who are happy with being "

Perhaps you are right. In my experience with personality disordered partners, they needed more attention (sexual or otherwise) than just from me. Yet, they could not stand me getting attention outside of them (sexual or otherwise). What is good for the gander is not good for the goose.

Perhaps we should say that personality disordered people are not a 'natural' fit for monogamy or polyamory.

131
I really don't understand the people who say poly is not an identity thing because you can choose not to act on it. I identify as a kinkster, which is very much part of my sexual identity. I could choose to go without my kinks but I'd be miserable. I identify as bi/pansexual. I can be in a relationship with a man, but that doesn't mean I'm straight or that straight/gay identities are a choice just because a bisexual can choose one or the other. There are completely monogamous people and completely polyamorous people. Then there are the people who are in between and can enjoy either poly or mono. The existence of people that can choose to act one way or another doesn't mean it isn't inborn for others. Another example is personality. That is relatively unchangeable once developed, and everyone is either an introvert, extrovert, or somewhere in between. The existence of the ones in the middle that can shift slightly does not negate the ones at the extreme who cannot. There are women, men, and trans* or genderqueer. Just because gender is fluid for some doesn't mean it is for everyone.

TL;DR: The fact that something is a choice or fluid for some doesn't mean that it is not static for others. While poly/mono/ish isn't an issue of orientation, as that specifically relates to gender attractions, it definitely is an issue of identity, along with orientation, gender, personality, and the kink/vanilla spectrum.
132
I've seen several people mention that they're poly and would be miserable with only one partner, so I'll join my voice to the chorus and mention that I'm monogamous. I've had the same partner for 27 years, and have never had any inclination toward a second one. I'm not a jealous person; if my wife were poly I'm pretty sure I could deal with that (though it hasn't come up). I have plenty of sex drive. I'm simply not interested in anybody else.

So I'm quite convinced that there's such a thing as mono and poly orientation. I know lots of people in open relationships, triads and groups, and I'm delighted for their happiness, but it's decidedly not my thing. And I never "chose" to feel that way.
133
@123 lisagreen: Thank you for sharing a wonderfully comforting link!
I, too, am happily a quirkyalone. Sort of like Wile E. Coyote, long retired from chasing road runners and not getting anywhere.
134
I think what I cannot relate to is the sentiment "I'd be miserable if I had only one partner/ was the only partner because one person cannot provide everything for the other person" that several poly people on this thread have voiced.

The reason that I cannot relate to that sentiment? I am single, I have been single most of my twenties and had only one LTR. I enjoyed my relationship very much, I enjoyed the intimacy, the regular sex, the closeness etc. But I didn't need my partner to be happy or to feel whole. I am quite happy single as well, despite the lack of sex.

What I want to get at: this reliance on either one or several sexual and/ or romantic partners to feel happy, to feel like a worthy being, attractive, etc makes my skin crawl a bit.

I like that this week's column has these two extremes: on one hand the happily single guy, and on the other hand the polyamory thread still going.

135
@134 I'm going to guess at how that was meant based somewhat on my own personal feelings. I, like you, have been single much more often than I've been paired up. I've never understood how someone could jump from relationship to relationship, because I need some "me" time after a breakup. I have been in poly relationships where I only had one partner. I think it's less "I'd be miserable if I only had one partner" than "I'd be miserable if I wasn't allowed to have additional partners if I chose to". It's about autonomy. It's about knowing that your partner isn't putting restrictions stating, "You can only love me. No one else."
Now, I fall more midway on the spectrum and can do poly or mono, so someone thats "pure" poly please add you 2 cents.
136
@134

KateRose is right.

I only have one partner right now and I'm happy with that. It's not (for me) about needing to rely on or have people... It's just...

Well, let's say a monogamous person feels her relationship is not nurturing enough, and she's miserable, and she's living a lie. That doesn't mean she can't be single or she's needy; it means that when she IS in a relationship, it has to be a certain sort. If one lives in a bad relationship type for who they are, they will feel unhappy.

I'd rather be single (and I mean that in a calm, objective way -- not in a stomping my foot way) than in a monogamy-required relationship, for instance.

Part of it is that I'm constitutionally incapable of being sexually or romantically jealous. Even if I myself didn't care for the possibility of more than one partner, I'd never be able to get worked out about a partner of mine also being with someone else. It just... doesn't upset me. I can't make myself be upset about it. And so... at some point there's this fundamental "Are you some sort of Martian?" feeling I have toward the other if they start behaving in a jealous manner. It's not a value judgment, but it just baffles me beyond description and I don't find it to be something I want in my relationships.

On misconception is indeed that poly people are more needy. It's a kind of amusing irony, but that's how many poly people view those who don't wish to share. The other day I told a friend that I'm an only child, and he asked, "Wow, so did you learn how to share and all that?"

Me: I think I'm actually better at sharing than normal. *waggles eyebrows*
Him: Damn, I walked right into that one.
Me: Yeah, you did.

But this whole "poly people are needier" thing ignores what it's like for one's partner to be the one with other partners, and to be non-needy enough to be fine with that.

There are also different types of interpersonal need. I need my friends -- these people are my chosen family -- but I do not feel any emotional need for parents since mine were largely unavailable. I place a high emphasis on friendships and also sexual/romantic relationships because that is how I like to build my family-type support community in my life.
137
(And when I say I only have on partner right now and I'm happy with that, I mean pretty much what an emotionally secure single person who is nonetheless sexual/romantic in nature would mean if they said the equivalent -- it would be really nice to form a new relationship, but life is good until then too.)
138
poly people have replaced vegan people as the newest whiny sect of self-indulgent, self-righteous longing to feel marginalized...
139
There's something so . . . entitled . . . to the tenor of these polys' postings. I don't know that I'm capable of having an opinion of whether being polyamorous is an orientation or a preference, but as someone who hasn't been in a relationship for over a year and who misses that sense of intimacy and closeness, not to mention sex, it is a little hard to swallow assertions that if one had to do without having multiple, concurrent romantic/sexual partners, one would rather *die.*

Yes, Hyacinth, it would be nice to "form a new relationship," in my case, not in addition to the already-fulfilling one going on, but AT ALL. There's a distinct sense of wanting to have one's cake and eat it, too that's irritating me about some of these posts.

I understand that some people are more comfortable having poly relationships, that to those people, it isn't the equivalent of screwing around, etc. But to hear people say that they are actually deprived if they don't get to have multiple relationships, that they NEED them, is sounding histrionic. You don't NEED your multiple lovers; you want them. Fair enough. And I hope that everyone is always lucky enough to have all that he or she wants in life. For those of us who aren't lucky enough to have one fulfilling relationship, who would love to experience that, hearing the whining of a poor, deprived, naturally poly person forced to have only one partner at the moment is getting old.
140
Also, there's been a distinct attempt on the part of the poly folk to characterize those who are mono as being jealous. No doubt some mono people are jealous, but not all mono people are jealous, and not all jealous people are mono.

141
@nocutename

I guess we have to just disagree... I have only one partner right now. Anyway, I don't think it would be a functional relationship for me if monogamy were thought of as important. Maybe it's not an orientation, but it is who I am. Even if we want to reduce it to something "unimportant", maybe that would make more sense -- like how I simply wouldn't be with anyone who deprived me of anything I highly value. If someone said I could never do some important hobby again and be with them at the same time, even that would be unacceptable. Or does it make it more sensible sounding if I explain it as a compatibility issue? I am not compatible with people who like monogamy. I'm also not compatible with people who treat their dogs like children.

I am a little frustrated to hear the "have your cake and eat it too" description -- that's what is said so often about bisexual people too.

I suppose to someone who wants one romantic connection but doesn't have it, this must sound like a parent of one child whining about how they "need" more than one child to someone who can't have any children, so if that's the case then I'm sorry. But in the same way that someone who wants five kids should probably think twice before marrying someone who insists on no more than one, I don't think it's unreasonable for anyone to reject monogamy if it makes them so uncomfortable, as long as they're honest.
142
I do also want to apologize for my earlier histrionics, which have probably set the poly population back a few years among Savage readers.

I am just me, not every poly person. I do my view this as "just the internet" -- I will respect you as much as a person whose face I can see feet away from me, but I'll also be just as frustrated. "Just the internet" isn't words -- it's people saying words. I've always found the excuse that "this is the internet" to be somewhat cowardly. Sort of a "this is a space where thoughtlessness and cruelty aren't problematic." I just don't agree.

That also leads me to the fact that I want to apologize for implying that being mono means being jealous; that was thoughtless and cruel.
144
Hyacinth:
Although I singled you out, I wasn't responding to you exclusively.
I do appreciate your apology for the implication that people who are mono are being jealous and I thank you for your clarification @141. I think what this thread has helped me to see is that people have a very hard time really understanding what it is like to have a different mindset--or orientation--than they themselves do.

I am straight, but I understand being gay, because it seems to me that desire is desire, and the gender or sex of the object of that desire doesn't seem to me to affect the feelings of lust or longing or love that I experience. But although I am not jealous, and don't insist on some sort of absolute monogamy that is non-negotiable and an expressed term or condition of the relationship, and I don't expect any one person to be all things to me (I have kids, siblings, parents, friends, colleagues, and they all fulfill different roles and different needs in my life), I find that when I start to form a serious emotional and romantic/erotic bond with another person, I want to focus my romantic energies on that one person, because that deepens the bond I have with him. I derive a lot of satisfaction from a sense of intense emotional intimacy and intensity with one person, and I guess I have a difficult time really understanding in an emotional way someone who doesn't share that feeling. So it's my turn to apologize, for sounding peevish.

For what it's worth, I never argued with the premise that people who want to be in polyamorous relationships are incompatible with those who expect monogamous ones and that people should be honest about desires and expectations. I just take issue with the word "need." I would love to be in a romantic relationship; I have a deep desire for that; but I don't *need* it.
145
@143

?
146
@144

I am finding this pretty fascinating too.

What you describe as focusing your romantic energies on one person is something that reminds me somewhat of the "new relationship energy" concept with poly people. It's that blissy state of falling, sort of...

But it deepens my already-existing relationship for me to love others, or for me to see him loving others.

I am not sure why.

But one of the most beautiful moments in my life was when he and I were on a vacation together, and his other partner called him late at night to tell him to take me to watch the sun rise at a certain time over the sea in the early morning, and to kiss me as the water started bleeding orange. She loved that we're in love, and that made me love her, and made me love him loving her...

It's... I dunno. It's amazing.

I'm falling for someone else right now (though I don't think it will work). Being able to discuss that with my partner makes me adore and want him even more. It's just amazing. It makes me feel so close to him.
147
"Also, there's been a distinct attempt on the part of the poly folk to characterize those who are mono as being jealous. No doubt some mono people are jealous, but not all mono people are jealous, and not all jealous people are mono."

Yup!!

Four main reasons mono makes sense for me.

1. I'm VERY jealous when I have the feels for a guy (if we're just fucking then I could care less).

2. When I'm in a relationship I pretty much don't look at anyone else (feel no desire to).

3. A serious relationship takes a lot of time. If I want to have an actual relationship with a reasonable amount of time devoted, I only have time for one (assuming I want to have a life).

4. I'm selective. I've never at any point in my life been in contact with more than one person I'd date.
148
@mydriasis

I swear this isn't a troll question -- what does it feel like to be romantically/sexually jealous?
149
@ hyacinth

That's like asking what it's like to feel sick.
What kind of sick?
What kind of jealous?

For me I'd say somethig like a blending of things, anger, hurt, often with a generous helping of disgust, aversion, discomfort, etc.

But I've never been cheated on and anyone I've ever been with has the good sense to not really make me jealous - most jealousy I experience isn't true jealousy, it's more possesiveness.

Which isn't triggered by the idea the whole "boyfriend being interested in someone else" thing, it's triggered by a "someone else being interested in my boyfriend" thing. If you hit on my boyfriend I will make you cry.
150
@ Gone Solo: do you live in Portland? "all I need is music and friends .". Because I'm pretty sure I've dated you, several times over.
151
The term IDGAF is looking for may be "aromantic". Asexual people don't have sex drive, even though they may have a romance drive. It's possible that IDGAF does not have a romance drive, even though he clearly does have a sex drive.
152
@Hyacinth

I'm interested in the polyamourous/open relationship lifestyle. Not as a curious bystander, but as something to try for myself.

I've found out some years ago that I'm not jealous. After a painful 10+ years of strict monogamy (on my part) with a POS, I'd rather have friendly and sexual relationships with several men who know about each other, and who see other women themselves, than ever embark again in a monogamous relationship. Plus I don't want to have to live, ever again, with a partner.

But sex once in a while, with people who respect me and whom I respect, is quite appealing. And I'd like to talk with one partner about their/my other ones. I'm interested in having feelings and emotional closeness, not just in sex.

So - since you identify as polyamorous. What difference do you make between friends with benefits, polyamourous, open relationship ? What I'm interested in, would you call it polyamory or something else ?

Please don't get upset at my words - I'm not a native speaker so many vocabulary subtleties are out of my league.
153
@nocutename "I derive a lot of satisfaction from a sense of intense emotional intimacy and intensity with one person, and I guess I have a difficult time really understanding in an emotional way someone who doesn't share that feeling"

Most of the relationships I've been in, or all, have had this sense missing, either from the start, or after some time. I always come one day to the realization that the deep connexion I felt was just my own delusion. I do crave it like you, but I know the odds are I'm never going to find it.

Should I dismiss any relationship with people I do like, because it won't feel deep enough ? I don't think so. Life is long and solitary, I do appreciate having diverse company for good times - such as sharing food, friendship, closeness, or sex.
154
Not *all* people are naturally non-monogamous. I don't disagree that probably most people are, but there are some of us who are monogamous and are simply intrinsically that way.
I would just wish that people who I respect, like you, Dan, would stop acting like the way I am is less natural. It's just different.
155
mydriasis@149
"If you hit on my boyfriend I will make you cry."

If that's humor, I don't get it. If you're serious, that's disturbing. How are people supposed to know he's off-limits?
156
sissoucat@153, I find that the feeling of authentic connection and intimacy ebbs and flows...over the course of each day and also over the course of decades. I don't think I've ever felt it for someone and then had the connection end completely. I'm sorry for your unhappy years and hope you forge strong connections in the future.
157
@Hyacinth: what does it feel like to be romantically/sexually jealous?

You've never experienced jealousy? I can understand outgrowing jealousy, but never experiencing it, not even in your youth? I know polys would say that's evidence of you being a more evolved person, but to me, there's something robotic and Mormon about it.

A person can't give up jealousy without sacrificing some passion. I also think it's sexy when a woman exhibits a little bit of territoriality around her man.

158
Dan - There is a communication issue at the root of the button-pushing heated discussion about polyamory and non-monogamy and orientation. I think what you (and poly folk) are trying to have is a discussion regarding the chosen or innate nature of non-monogamy.

This is what I am hearing, in the discussion:

OP: "I self-identify as a born non-monogamist who has a relationship with a currently self-identified monogamist. Please use your respected position as a sex columnist to help me manipulate my partner into opening our relationship, and/or provide justification and excuses for when I cheat.

Dan: "You annoy me and you need a smackdown for your non-adherence to the albeit recent modern linguistic conventions of the non-monogamous and sexual-advocacy communities. Also, it is my belief at this time that non-monogamous inclinations are chosen, not innate. I'm not going to provide the excuse for your cheating ass."

The Poly Community: How dare you say that being poly cannot be part of our self-identity! We have a right to identify as poly!!! *list of examples* Also - we feel we have as much right to opinions about the chosen/innate nature of non-monogamy, as queer folk have to opinions on the chosen/innate nature of sexual orientation.
159
Dan - There is a communication issue at the root of the button-pushing heated discussion about polyamory and non-monogamy and orientation. I think what you (and poly folk) are trying to have is a discussion regarding the chosen or innate nature of non-monogamy.

I thought perhaps this handy translation to what I THINK everyone is trying to say, might aid in the discussion:

OP: "I self-identify as a born non-monogamist who has a relationship with a currently self-identified monogamist. Please use your respected position as a sex columnist to help me manipulate my partner into opening our relationship, and/or provide justification and excuses for when I cheat.

Dan: "You annoy me and you need a smackdown for your non-adherence to the albeit recent modern linguistic conventions of the non-monogamous and sexual-advocacy communities. Also, it is my belief at this time that non-monogamous inclinations are chosen, not innate. I'm not going to provide the excuse for your cheating ass."

The Poly Community: How dare you say that being poly cannot be part of our self-identity! We have a right to identify as poly!!! *list of examples* Also - we feel we have as much right to opinions about the chosen/innate nature of non-monogamy, as queer folk have to opinions on the chosen/innate nature of sexual orientation.
160
@seandr

Not sexually or romantically, though in other ways sure, I guess... It was probably a silly question though. 

I'm not sure that I feel that "this/he/she is FOR ME feeling" though. What I'd say I have much experience with is envy -- like wanting the same good thing someone else has, but not minding that they do happen to have it. Not wanting to take it from them, but just wanting to have it also. I have been bitterly envious several times in life. Mostly about academics though. 

I don't agree that sacrificing jealousy means sacrificing passion, but I think there must simply be different causes of passion. I see what you're saying though, in the sense that bitter envy of those more skillful and talented than myself is part of what drives my love for my field and makes me so good at it. But I also feel very lit up/electric/passionate about my partner without being jealous. On the other hand, "passion" is amorphous, and it's impossible to transmit a proper assessment of one's sense of passion to others, so I know you probably won't believe me.

Passion is something disconnected from how it comes about, though, I think. For you, jealousy is part of it. For me, it isn't. Jealousy is not a necessary condition; the thing can exist without a uniform cause. What you require in order to experience or recognize passion is not what all other people require in order to experience or recognize passion. 

I guess my question is:

What makes you believe your statement that a person can't give up jealousy without sacrificing some passion? What evidence? Or is it simply a feeling that this is the case, based on your own internal states, and conflating your own internal associations (jealousy+passion) with those that you assume happen to others.

(My field is cognitive science... haha.)
161
@ Erica

I sort of figured that the context was implied but I'll elaborate.

If someone knows he's taken and goes for him anyway, she will regret it.

If someone thinks he's single and hits on him I'll probably feel a malicious urge but would never act on it. Can't fault a girl for having good taste.
162
mydriasis:

What is it that causes the malicious urge?

(Again, probably a dumb question, but you also can't fault a person who also happens to be a cog sci person for wanting to know about other people's interior states. ;)

To me that sounds like getting a malicious urge because someone says they like your purse, since I guess my brain doesn't work like yours, so I want to know more.
163
Dan, I normally don't disagree with you, but I don't at all think ALL people are naturally nonmonogamous. I think some of us, like myself, are, and others, like my husband, are by nature monogamous. One or the other may be the norm for human biology, but heterosexuality is also the default for biology, since it does propogate the species. It is not, however, the norm for every single individual.

I base this on my husband. He is very into sex -- he has never NOT wanted to in more than a decade together, he is totally comfortable with poly lifestyles -- we have several friends who are poly, and they bother him not at all (unlike those who cheat, which makes him insane), he has been given absolute permission to sleep with other people if he should want to, and has said that if I feel like I want to do so, he'd be fine with me seeking outside affections as well. But though he'd be okay with me pursuing it (and not because he's into me with others because he's not), he has no interest in doing so himself, even when we've gone long stretches without sex for medical reasons. He is simply only interested in his partner.

I tend to think that people like him, the truly monogamous are the exception rather than the rule, but I think for them, monogamy is their nature.
164
@mydriasis

Hey, is there any way to send private messages to people here? I assume not since this isn't a discussion site by purpose, and I only joined up to comment recently, but I was looking at a bunch of your comments in your profile just now and you said some wonderful things I completely agree with and would like to discuss. If there isn't a way, I'd post an email address so you could email me if you'd ever agree to do that. I understand if you wouldn't want to do that though.
165
@seandr -- I've never experienced jealousy of a sexual nature (though plenty that a friend has amazing legs and I don't;). Not because I think I'm more evolved or anything, just because it's not how I'm wired. I don't get upset when my husband wants to eat someone else's cooking for a night or feel like he loves mine less because of it, and sex is the same thing.

For me, a huge part of it is that I am naturally a loner. I've never felt the urge to be coupled up, just the urge to be with a specific person because of who they are. And even then, I often find being in a relationship a little wearing.

So if the person I'm with wants a little variety, then it doesn't threaten me. And if they actually prefer someone else to me, then I HOPE they leave to be with that someone else instead of staying -- why would I ever want to be a consolation prize? I only want someone with me as long as they want to be there
166
@ hyacinth

Thank you! Feel free to post your email I'll totally contact you.

"To me that sounds like getting a malicious urge because someone says they like your purse, since I guess my brain doesn't work like yours, so I want to know more."

No it's more like someone saying "I want you to share your purse with me instead of having it all the time". Get your own purse! :p

167
@153 (sissoucat): I'm sorry to hear you had that one-way experience. I didn't mean that people should try to find it and aren't deserving of whatever happiness they can grab that comes their way and should hold out for some romantic ideal that may not come along.

I have had very few relationships in my life only 3 or 4, really (one was a pretty long-term one), but in 3 of them, that feeling was present (in the case of the 4th, only I seem to have had those feelings in that much depth). Like EricaP, I experience those feelings ebbing and flowing over the course of a romantic relationship, but not cutting off abruptly.

I was addressing the difference in polyamory as it's being described by a few people on this thread, and my monogamish perspective. It's not that I can't love more than one person at a time, but there is a dimension to coupled-ness I like that I only find when we are facing each other and only each other.

I understand the desire for sexual variety and novelty, and don't insist on absolute sexual exclusivity (it's fun to spice things up a bit), and I don't have a jealous or possessive bone in my body, either, so that doesn't play a part in my interest in emotional, romantic monogamy. (Because to my understanding, true polyamory is very different than my non-insistence on strict monogamy. What hyacinth described @146 ["one of the most beautiful moments in my life was when he and I were on a vacation together, and his other partner called him late at night to tell him to take me to watch the sun rise at a certain time over the sea in the early morning, and to kiss me as the water started bleeding orange. She loved that we're in love, and that made me love her, and made me love him loving her..."] is utterly foreign to me.)

But the more I try to clarify what I've already said, the more I seem to be misunderstood so I'll shut up already!
168
@mydriasis

Email: lovetransposons@gmail.com

Yes, as in the jumping genes. To my eternal nerdy shame.
169
@161 thanks.

I generally think of myself as only poly by circumstance rather than by nature, but maybe I should reassess that, since my reaction to your words "If someone knows he's taken and goes for him anyway" is to ask:

What does it mean to be "taken"? If he's interested back, then was he taken? And if he's not interested, then why kick her when she's down?
170
@Erica

"What does it mean to be "taken"?"

In a monogamous relationship.

"If he's interested back, then was he taken?"

Depends on what you mean by interested? You can be attracted to someone outside your relationship while still desiring to remain monogamous, so if by interested you mean attracted then yeah he's still taken. If by interested you mean 'considering it', then he's the one in for the world of hurt.

"And if he's not interested, then why kick her when she's down?"

Because it's deeply satisfying?

You expect me to feel sympathetic to a girl for all the hurt she felt by being rejected by my man? Yeah that's so sad for her, I may need a tissue.
171
@170, I don't expect you to feel sympathetic. Your original posts sounded like you might physically threaten or hurt someone who flirted with your boyfriend.

But since you just referred to punishing your boyfriend with a "world of hurt" if he considered breaking up with you, I guess you're exaggerating and you just mean you would be cold to these people, not that you would actually assault them.
172
@171

Wow sooo many misunderstood items.

"If you hit on my boyfriend I will make you cry."

Does not suggest anything physical or assault. I am perfectly capable of making someone cry with my words and in fact would probably have an easier time of it than trying to physically harm someone.

"if he considered breaking up with you"

No, if he considered cheating on me. That's the context.
173
@sissoucat (@152),

I've thought of the same thing myself: of having sex with men I like, respect, and cherish from time to time in a context friendship. Is this just "dating a bunch of guys?"

I guess I think in terms of "non-monogamy" because I was traumatized/annoyed by the word "polyamory" in the 1990s by preternaturally smug "poly kids" in college. (An interesting thing about polyamory is that I've heard of poly people telling other poly people "they're not doing polyamory the right way.")

Maybe we're just starting to sort things out now: non-monogamy, open marriage, polyamory. Maybe it's that polyamory means different things to each individual, like bisexuality.
175
@172, thanks again. Sorry so dense.
176
@Erica

Not at all! Clearly we just all experiece things differently.

@cocky

Yeah, in my first post in the subject I think I mentioned that I'm more 'possesive' than 'jealous', I tend to end up with guys who don't bring up a lot of jealousy, thank god.
177
Ms Driasis - Just curious; how do you discern and regulate the difference between "attracted but not interested" and "considering cheating"? Unless your men are all as inept as Guthrie Featherstone or Claude Erskine Brown, there would seem to be a good bit of grey area there.
178
@EricaP you're so nice, as always... I'm OK, I was just providing context for my question to Hyacinth, who's new here.

Actually I like not having strong connections with anybody ; it's a sure way not to be emotionaly manipulated and coerced, ever again. I love freely giving my attention and love - but I hate being expected to give it. I'm not an ATM love machine.
180
@nocutename Oh, I wasn't flaming you, it was an honest remark, on my having experienced those "romantic" feelings before, only to find that they had been a delusion - and on deciding not to pay much attention to those feelings in assessing a relationship from now on.

I miscommunicated on the one-sidedness. I meant : two people feel an intense emotional intimacy at one point, but it's based on each one mistaking the other one for the image they've made of him/her in their own brain. Then over the years you communicate more, and you find out that, every single event that meant intimacy for you, meant nothing or quite a different thing for them ; and vice-versa.

My take is : well, we can't see in each other's brains, so let's be happy that some friendship and good will (and lust) is present, and not vye for "romantic love".
181
Okay, I just had to log on to say that these are really two of the stupidest letters I've ever read in this column. LW1- Sorry dude but your "issue" is neither unique or interesting and LW2 - Really? Do buy new sheets and pillow cases too because, you know, you used them with "someone else". Good lord.
182
@midwestkittie Thanks for answering my question to Hyacinth ! Relationship terminology so confuses me.

This I know for sure :
- monogamy is one socially bonded pair, living together, sex together, no divorce ;
- serial monogamy is the above, minus the "no divorce" clause ;
- real polygamy (original meaning - not polygyny) is several socially bonded pairs, living together, sex together - is it community sex ?
- colloquial polygamy (polygyny) is a male socially bonded with several females, living and sex together ;
- monogamish is a form of monogamy or serial monogamy with a pair socially bonded, living together, sex together, plus very temporary other sexual partners - but no social bond with them.

But what are the other forms :
- open marriage : is it a synonym of monogamish ? Or is it monogamish with more permanent thirds ? Do the thirds live with the couple ?
- FWB : this one is sex without living or being socially bonded together
- "dating a bunch of guys" : is it several FWB at once ?

And where does polyamory come in ?
183
@sissoucat

Crap, somehow I completely missed responding to you with my take on things. Please check back because I will today if you are still curious about my thoughts (can't at this immediate moment).
186
@Hyacinth oh, good, I thought you hadn't read my post yet. I'd love to have your definition of polyamory !

@184 Hunter-troll darling, do you object to :
a- the sucking of cocks, or
b- their being spit out afterwards ?

because that makes me worry that you either :
a- have become asexual or religious lately, or
b- entertain a weird fetish for cocks being masticated into amputation and ingested after sex ?

Cocks would better beware of you, than of anything else, then.

Or... maybe, do you just suffer from acute attention deprivation ?
Hey, don't worry, we still read you. Peace.
187
@sissoucat: I hope you didn't think I thought you were flaming me; I didn't at all. I just thought that you had misunderstood me. I thought that perhaps you thought I was looking down on you derisively, and that wasn't at all the case.

I am interested in your categorization of different types of relationships. I wouldn't put "living together" as a requirement for all monogamous relationships, however. Many people are monogamous dating couples who don't live together. So perhaps there should be some category of monogamy and monogamishny which falls below living together and fwb. I would call that "dating:" having sex (whether monogamously nor not), socially bonded, (perhaps) emotionally bonded. In my experience, fwb is more casual that that. And much less emotionally and socially bonded. I never assumed monogamy within a fwb situation, either, but a recent letter here that sparked this whole "is polyamory an orientation?" discussion began with a fwb in which the male lw agreed to monogamy, so I need to recalibrate!

My older definition of the term "open marriage" used to be close to the way "monogamish" is being used in Savage Loveland (although the word "marriage" in it, implied that the couple was married and you can me a non-monogamous couple without being married. But you know what I mean).
188
@186 lol
190
@sissoucat - i know you didn't ask me :-) but here's my definition of polyamory, for what it's worth...

each individual is an autonomous person, who makes bonds of varying depths - sexually, emotionally, and socially - with others as is appropriate to that combination of people. there are no pairs. all relationships are recognised, open and honest. of course all are not equal, but each bond is valued for what it is. also recognised are the relationships created between those who 'share', who have intimate relationships in common. this builds up a network of people who have an ongoing investment/commitment to each other, both socially and emotionally, irrelevant of the current living arrangement or sexual status of any single relationship in the group. this group is often referred to as the 'family'(or over here 'whanau'), and may have as few as 3, or as many as your patchy history provides you with. the whanau will often end up including children, grandparents, and in-law's as well.

the quality of the social bonds tends to be somewhere on the spectrum between 'close friend' and 'married', and the sexual connections may be independent of those social bonds. i.e. someone may be in a 'marriage' type bond with one person, but only have occasional sex, say every few months or years; while another person who is more of a 'friend', may be someone they have sex with every week, or every day.

the primary defining feature of poly relationships (as i understand them) is that the commitments are two-fold: firstly, the commitment to a person is not conditional on sexual fidelity or even whether there is sex at all, but more on emotional intimacy, affection, and the valuing of that person for who they are. secondly there is a commitment to the family, including any children, which out-weighs the individual's desires regarding any particular relationship. this means that there is an investment in supporting others relationships, and a disincentive to cause drama.

it is not unusual for a person to have a short-term 'thing' with someone from the whanau, but stay on as family when it ends, and possibly end up having other sexual relationships with other members of the group. such people are usually welcome. however, outsiders may be treated with some caution, and anyone who tries to annex a member of the family is likely to be met with a wall of hostility. this happens more often than you think.

i think this is one of the causes of distaste for 'mono's' from poly folk: they are those strange people who think that your relationship is 'not real', and that just because you are happy for them to sleep with your partner/lover/friend, it's ok for them to ask for monogamy. or that they have some kind of veto-right over relationships that may span decades....
191
@sappho - I meant to ask you but then shied away, although I was very interested in reading what you said on Maori relationships on an older post.

Lovely people of Savage Love, I'll resume reading some other time, it's getting late over here and my brain is turning to mush - can't understand stuff. I'll read again when clarity returns !

@Hunter - ah, I thought so. Check on "the dirty normal", the novelty of it may kill the boredom, but please don't troll there - we like you as our kept troll, I mean when you're not too unpleasant to some of us.
192
@Hyacinth: What makes you believe your statement that a person can't give up jealousy without sacrificing some passion?

Romantic jealousy is an emotional reaction to the fear of losing your partner to someone else.

In both poly and monogamous contexts, people abandon relationships to pursue other relationships all the time. If you have a deep romantic attachment to someone, and you sense that it might be disrupted by another person, then jealousy - the fear of your partner choosing someone else over you, and the hurt you'd feel as a result - seems to me an inevitable response.

If, on the other hand, you're all smiles and well-wishes, then I don't think your attachment to that person is as deeply rooted in your psyche as such attachments can be for other people. That deep rooting (into your emotional core and your self-concept) can produce stronger emotions - passion, anger, joy, jealousy - than is possible if you are not as personally invested in the relationship. (No judgment there, btw - deep attachments can certainly be dysfunctional, and they do require a certain amount of trust and vulnerability that isn't for everyone.)

Anecdotally, my experience says that a woman's capacity for jealousy is positively correlated with her sexual intensity. Also, I've been in a long term relationship (with a woman who isn't particularly prone to jealousy, although not immune to it either) that had become a bit of a snooze, and found that giving her some rivals seemed to wake her up.
193
@Hyacinth: (My field is cognitive science... haha.)

That is funny - me too!
194
@157 seandr

'A person can't give up jealousy without sacrificing some passion. I also think it's sexy when a woman exhibits a little bit of territoriality around her man.'

As a woman, I'm curious, why is that?
195
@albeit:
Not sure which part you're asking about, but I think I burned through my SLOG quota in @192.

As for the second, it definitely depends on how her territoriality manifests itself. Not letting you out of the house alone, or killing and boiling someone's pet rabbit a la Glen Close - not sexy.

But, imagine you come home from a party with your woman, and she gives you that look of detached amusement that says, unconvincingly, that she couldn't care less, and says "That whatshername sure spent a lot time talking to you tonight. Seemed to be hanging on your every word. You know those tits are fake, right?"

The vulnerability expressed, the instinctive dissing of her rival, the implicit acknowledgement of your sexuality as a male, the possibility raised that she'll compete for you on those terms. Sexy.
196
@sappho I'm rested now. It's a bit hard to understand the dynamics of what you're describing, since I've never experienced such living arrangements first hand.

I get the two-fold commitments, but the living arrangements and the type of bonds are a bit of a mystery. How do you define the 'married' type bond in a whanau, as opposed to 'close friend' ? You say it's social - does it mean that a wedding makes a pair 'married', whereas no wedding makes a pair 'close friends' ?

How do people in the family keep tabs on the ongoing sexual arrangements (you said open and honest) - I guess the living arrangements and social arrangements are plain enough to see ?

I'd also like to know if what happens in our poly in a mono culture could happen in your poly culture. Suppose A is a woman honestly and openly sexually involved with two men, B and C. In our culture, B and C know about each other, but the odds are they don't want to socialize together, much (no whanau). And least of all at night. It's either A and B at home at night, or A and C - neither B nor C would sleep on a couch in the same house where the other male is in bed with the female. What happens in a whanau ?
197
@187 nocutename, I know you to be a considerate poster, with whom sharing is rewarding, so no worries. It would be silly of me to take exception to what you're feeling - I just wanted to mention that another set of feelings could occur in the same situation. So all's good.

So, to categorize relationships, I gather that we must look at 4 main criterions : living arrangements, type of social bond (aka marriage), exclusivity or not of sexual bond, depth of emotional bond - and we could add the expected length of the social bond, to distinguish strict monogamy from serial monogamy - but that distinction is, imho, only of concern to religious types.

Do we agree on this ?
198
Gawd I hate the word "squicky."
199
@seandr/hyacinth

Neuroscience in the house ;)
200
I don't find jealousy sexy at all -- it may be an inevitable part of sexual relationships for those who are wired that way (likely including me, though I've had so little occasion to be jealous that I don't think of myself that way), but that's far from saying it's inherently sexy itself.

Pretty much any really unpleasant emotion takes me totally out of libido-world. Others have very different associations. It's kind of like the way I don't have any use for "dirty talk" if it means anything you'd typically see on a lavatory wall, not because I'm especially prim, but because disgust isn't connected to arousal for me.
201
@wendy/109

"I have never met anyone who was poly after meeting someone they actually wanted to be exclusive with, and for whom they felt it was worth it to be exclusive."

This is hurtful to me, as it implies that the only reason I'm poly is that I don't want any of my partners enough, or find them worthwhile enough. It establishes a hierarchy where monogamy is a stage above polyamory, that you graduate to once you have found the Real Thing, as opposed to just an alternate choice. It'd be like if I said, "I've never met anyone who was monogamous after finding a partner who was generous enough and secure enough not to be threatened by non-monogamy."

We like to operate our relationships the way we like to operate them and whether our relationships are monogamous or polyamorous doesn't have anything to do with how much we want/love/value our partners.
202
@194: "As a woman, I'm curious, why is [a woman exhibiting territoriality around her man sexy]?"

It strikes me as a kind of backhanded affirmation of the intensity of the bond on the part of the one experiencing feelings of jealousy, and by extension, affirmation of the worth of the object of jealousy in their eyes. To one who experiences it in those terms, the lack thereof implies "What, don't you even _care_ that you might be at risk of losing me? Is that how little I mean to you?"

203
@sissoucat / 152

There's no one right way to do poly. For me the defining feature of polyamory is that nothing is taken for granted or assumed. Everything is openly discussed. Some polyamorous people do put restrictions on each other: such as allowing their partners to have sex with others, but not engage in certain romantic activities that are reserved for each other; reserving particular sex toys or sex acts for use only with each other; asking that their partner always call before going to bed even if they're spending the night with another lover, etc.

The key is for you to really think about what you want from your partners, what you can't live without in a relationship and what you can't live with, what you're willing to provide the partner in question, and what you're willing to sacrifice for the partner in question. You may even find that what you want and are willing to give is different from one partner to the next. Once you figure out what those things are in relation to a person you're involved with, then you sit down and tell them what your terms are, listen to what their terms are, and then the two of you together decide if you both want to agree to be bound by those terms until such time as you mutually renegotiate them.

I practice polyamory and have several different types of relationships. I have a long-term partner with whom I was friends for years before we became romantically involved; we usually behave more like friends who occasionally smooch when we're out in public, but most people in our social circles know we're "more than friends" but also not in a dating relationship. He's the partner I'm most comfortable with, trust completely, and he also gives me advice about the other men and women I'm pursuing and I listen to his stories and give him advice about the other women he pursues.

I have another partner who I see a couple times a month pretty much only for very kinky, freaky sex. We're after different things in life but we're more sexually compatible than I've been with anyone else in a decade. He is very kind and respectful and doesn't treat me poorly just because our relationship is strictly sexual.

My third partner is much younger than me, and our relationship primarily emotional with sex on the side. He comes to me with his existential crises, his youthful confusion, his need to be listened to, and I play the role of mentor/healer and ask very little of him. I value our relationship because when I'm with him, I see myself the way he sees me - as a wiser, confident older woman who has all her shit figured out, understands life, and knows the answers to all the big questions.

I need and get a lot of different things - support, sex, validation. I get emotional support and stability from my long-term partner, I get wild kinky sex from my sex friend, and I get to feel wise and needed with my young friend. That's just how my personal polyamory looks right now at this moment in time. Yours may look very different. But the first step is to figure out what you need, and what you can give.
204
@seandr 192

"Romantic jealousy is an emotional reaction to the fear of losing your partner to someone else.

In both poly and monogamous contexts, people abandon relationships to pursue other relationships all the time. If you have a deep romantic attachment to someone, and you sense that it might be disrupted by another person, then jealousy - the fear of your partner choosing someone else over you, and the hurt you'd feel as a result - seems to me an inevitable response."

This is interesting to me, because polyamory was the context that set me free from my fear of abandonment.

I agree with you that jealousy is derived from the fear of loss, specially the fear that you'll lose something because someone else will take it away from you.

What changed my view was the realization and acceptance that nothing ever really stops a person from being able to leave you if they really want to. A word, a promise, a marriage certificate--none of those things really keep my partner from leaving me, although I'll of course admit they might make my partner more reluctant and slower to leave me. But in the end, partners will leave me if I'm monogamous, and they'll leave me if I'm polyamorous, as soon as they no longer feel like what they're getting out of our relationship is worth what they're putting into it.

Practicing polyamory also means I don't have to be as afraid that my partner will leave me for someone else, because they can be with that person without leaving me.

I always say that I don't particularly care what my partner does when he or she isn't with me. I just care about whether they're giving me what I need and honoring our agreements. I require a certain amount of attention, affection, talk-time, sex, whatever. If someone can give me everything I want from them and still have time/energy left over for other people, great! Nothing makes me happier than to see the people I love be happy. If someone isn't giving me what I want from them, I don't care if they aren't seeing anyone else. I'm not happy. I don't get jealous because I just focus on what's happening between my partner and me - not between my partner and anyone else.
205
@204 "Practicing polyamory also means I don't have to be as afraid that my partner will leave me for someone else, because they can be with that person without leaving me."

To expand on that: if my husband happens to fall in love with someone monogamous, he won't be able to be with her without leaving me, and there's always that risk. But on the other hand, he knows he has a wandering eye and he knows that "New Relationship Energy" doesn't last forever, so it's unlikely that he'll want to jump ship for a new monogamous relationship.
206
Eirene@200, are you open to dirty talk if your partner wants it? or is it a kink too far, like scat play for Dan? I'm just thinking that it's pretty common for people to like it, though I gather your partners don't ask for it.
207
I think part of what is raising some people's hackles against poly as an identity is the idea that all poly people 'need' more than one partner. For me, and I think for many other poly-folk out there, poly a lot more than that.

For example, I first started considering cohabiting, mutually-supportive multi-partner relationships at age 12. It seemed to me then, and for many years afterwards, that this was impossible in western culture, so I resigned myself to never living that way, and thinking of it as an interesting idea, no more. And it was as an interesting idea that it cropped up in conversation between myself and a friend I had known for about a year. He liked the idea too. Some time after that, we acknowledged our mutual attraction, and have now been together, very happily, for 22 years.

He has had three relationships with people other than me in that time, and I have had one, which only started 3 years ago. Until that time, I was, I suppose, 'functionally' monogamous. I was perfectly happy and secure in the relationship I had; not attracted to anybody else; not feeling the need for any other relationship for myself; not seeking any other relationship. I was delighted by his happiness when he was in love with somebody else. I considered myself to be poly for all of that time (although I only discovered the word poly about a decade ago, it encompassed my feelings). I was perfectly happy with the arrangement, and did not feel threatened at all, because I was aware that he loved and valued me for myself. So it's not just all about wanting multiple sexual partners for oneself, to me at least. A larger part of it is being happy for your partner to have other partners.

Somebody asked why poly people need to be so open about our lives. The fact is, my partner of three years' standing would not want to be my hidden dirty secret, and I don't want her to be. She deserves as much social acknowledgement as A did, when I had been with him for 3 years.

In terms of poly people being more attention-seeking, I think it depends on each individual: one reason poly is great for me is that, while I absolutely love my partners and enjoy spending time with them, I also really like lots of alone time. You get lots of alone time when your partner is with their other partner/s, and you don't have to feel selfish about grabbing it, because you know they are happy where they are. I tend to be an rather intense, introverted person, and I need silence from time to time to process it all.

Seandr: ‘But, imagine you come home from a party with your woman, and she gives you that look of detached amusement that says, unconvincingly, that she couldn't care less, and says "That whatshername sure spent a lot time talking to you tonight. Seemed to be hanging on your every word. You know those tits are fake, right?"' Oh yikes! That sounds like an agonisingly painful thing to put a partner through. I am honestly dismayed and sorry if something I do triggers that degree of insecurity in a partner, and I would want to reassure him/her immediately.
208
So many of the reasons I see that poly people give for their being poly work on presumptions of mono relationships that are foreign to me.

I'm more monogamish than strictly monogamous, but I don't get especially jealous or possessive, and haven't had particularly jealous or possessive partners (with one exception). I never feel "selfish" or "guilty" about wanting alone time, and have no problem giving it, and I've never, ever been with anyone who has had a problem with my having as much alone time or friend time as I wanted or needed--and vice versa.

When all these justifications for being poly are given, it makes it sound like being polyamorous reflects a more enlightened state, while being monogamous implies a caveman-type state of unevolved attitudes and insecurities.

Whether or not your polyamorousness is an orientation or a preference, I can respect it as your no-less-legitimate lifestyle choice, and I don't feel the need to hold my monogamish attitude up as morally superior or the product of a more enlightened state of mind. I wish the polys could do the same.

209
EricaP@206: I really only meant a subset of dirty talk -- the portion that reminds me of middle-school bathrooms, or anything to do with humiliation. Raunchy humor and the like I'm totally down with. I guess earthy rather than dirty is one way to put it.
210
@sissoucat

I have never been in a monogamous relationship, but the relationships have been in different forms, so I'll tell you how they worked and how I define them. I have heard countless different ways people have defined their own non-monogamous relationships though and sometimes what they mean when they use a word is not at all what I mean when I use the same word. 

1. 

Fuck buddy: relationship consists only of sex, no friendship, no commitment, either non-monogamous or incidentally monogamous (ie monogamy not required but the "buddies" simply happen not to be fucking other people at a given time for some incidental reason)

2. 

Friends with benefits: many people use this to mean fuck buddies, but when I use it I mean that the person is genuinely my friend and that I also have sex with them. Also not monogamous, though I've met a few people who do want it to involve monogamy until either party meets someone else and ends the friends-with-benefits relations. 

If either party no longer wishes to participate in the "benefits", the two may well still stay friends since it's a genuine friendship. One of my best friends was initially a fuck buddy, then became a friend with benefits, and now we're just regular old good friends with no sex. 

3. 

Open relationship: Whether married or living together or not, this relationship is committed to some extent (perhaps you refer to the person as your husband or wife or boyfriend or girlfriend or partner, but it's "official" in a social way), but sexual relations outside the relationship are acceptable. However, this is the only committed relationship -- the other sex partners are either just fuck buddies or friends with benefits.

4. Polyamory: more than one serious romantic and sexual relationship at the same time, possibly at varying levels of commitment, but all social, romantic relationships -- perhaps one would refer to all as partners or all as boyfriends/girlfriends or some other appropriate term. Sometimes all people involved are in relationships with each other. For instance, my partner and his other partner have at various times been partners with the same third person. Sometimes they have all lived together and shared a room. In some situations all partners may all co-parent the children together. My partners' child has "Mommy [Name]" and "Mommy [Name]" even though one of the women is no longer a partner. (His child lived the first several years of life with both women in the home.)

Sometimes there's a "primary" ie the primary relationship that gets priority despite all the relationships being meaningful. My partner will be my primary even if I start dating someone new. I am his primary, though his other partner was his primary before me (this switch wasn't caused by me, long story having to do with her work, family obligations, and many other issues). Before her, his primary was the mother of his child, who passed away. 

I'm sorry this isn't longer and more detailed, but some tasks have cropped up since yesterday morning and I can barely scrap together the time to write! I hope this is helpful.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.