Thoughts on Polyamory

[Perrey]

I've been wondering about others thoughts, comments and/or opinions on polyamory. Polyamory seems to be more in the main stream. Anything from swinging to triads. From my standpoint, I see polyamory as on a continuum from swinging to committed triads and quads, all open to more than one partner. I think it takes certain kinds of open minded and communicative individuals to be in such relationships. I do find such relationships which are multiple partner but committed fascinating. Anyone considered or been part of such pairings?

 

[VampirTARA]

I am in a polygamous marriage, it is different from swinging triads or quads, polygamous stay within their own group 1 male and whatever number of females. it is usually religious based the same as the Muslims , the Mormons, practice it and my family is of the druid religion and we practice polygamy also.

 

[jehoram]

I am in a polygamous marriage, it is different from swinging triads or quads, polygamous stay within their own group 1 male and whatever number of females. it is usually religious based the same as the Muslims , the Mormons, practice it and my family is of the druid religion and we practice polygamy also.

Strictly speaking, the arrangement you describe is only one form of polygamy, called polygyny ("many women"). A polygamous marriage can also be several men and one woman, in which case it's called polyandry.

 

[VampirTARA]

Strictly speaking, the arrangement you describe is only one form of polygamy, called polygyny ("many women"). A polygamous marriage can also be several men and one woman, in which case it's called polyandry.

Well I like how you're an expert, by just reading a definition, compared to someone that actually lives in one, but anyways, the situation of one woman and many men that is an extreme rarity, because it does not work, males are naturally territorial in all species on this planet, they do not like to share

 

[WrongVerb]

I've been wondering about others thoughts, comments and/or opinions on polyamory. Polyamory seems to be more in the main stream. Anything from swinging to triads. From my standpoint, I see polyamory as on a continuum from swinging to committed triads and quads, all open to more than one partner. I think it takes certain kinds of open minded and communicative individuals to be in such relationships. I do find such relationships which are multiple partner but committed fascinating. Anyone considered or been part of such pairings?

I'm very open-minded and have great communication with my partner, but I'm monogamous. Just the way I that works best for me. I certainly think those who have styled their relationships to include multiple partners need to BE open-minded and have extraordinary communication skills, but don't assume that those of us who aren't polyamorous automatically aren't that way.

 

[VampirTARA]

People like to call us polygamous swingers, we are not swingers we practice something that is done by many cultures and religious, before the days of Jesus. even in the animal kingdom it is common for one male and many females, and for humans women outnumber men by more than two to one. yes it is hard to get 3 people that can get along,, I am thankful in our situation, the three of us grew up together and later on we just added our sister wife Kathy, Because She can close to us and blended in quite well And she asked, now our group is complete no one else will be added.

 

[EquinoxRising]

I am in a polygamous marriage, it is different from swinging triads or quads, polygamous stay within their own group 1 male and whatever number of females. it is usually religious based the same as the Muslims , the Mormons, practice it and my family is of the druid religion and we practice polygamy also.

Are you the legal wife?

 

[EquinoxRising]

People like to call us polygamous swingers, we are not swingers we practice something that is done by many cultures and religious, before the days of Jesus. even in the animal kingdom it is common for one male and many females, and for humans women outnumber men by more than two to one. yes it is hard to get 3 people that can get along,, I am thankful in our situation, the three of us grew up together and later on we just added our sister wife Kathy, Because She can close to us and blended in quite well And she asked, now our group is complete no one else will be added.

Wow. You're public about it? That's brave!

 

[jehoram]

Well I like how you're an expert, by just reading a definition, compared to someone that actually lives in one,

It is true that I am not currently in a polyamorous relationship (although I used to be, once), but you are. That does not give you the right to re-define words as you please. The dictionary is bigger than both of us, my friend.

but anyways, the situation of one woman and many men that is an extreme rarity, because it does not work, males are naturally territorial in all species on this planet, they do not like to share

True for most cultures, but not all. The Iroquois of North America had marriages with multiple men and one woman (significantly, this was a largely matriarchal culture). And Polynesians practiced both versions of polygamy. Somehow they figured out how to share.

According to some sociologists, the usual version of polygyny seems to have evolved not so much as a result of male's possessiveness as the fact that in cases of paternity, it (theoretically) removes all doubt as to who the father of a woman's child is. That matters in cultures where inheritance of property is an important part of the legal structure. In cultures without a tradition of inheriting property, that social force is removed.

And I'm not sure where you got the "women outnumber men by two to one" figure. The population statistics I've seen show a roughly 51% to 52% female majority. It only gets to your ratio in cultures where there's a lot of male mortality due to wars.

But please don't think I'm putting your relationship down. If it works for your and your spouses, I wish you all the best and admire your honesty in professing it. I can only hope that someday all of us can be equally forthright in establishing the loving relationships that enrich our lives without being judged by society.

 

[lexxxi2010]

I am in a fmf triad. It's like a normal relationship except with three people. It's actually very mundane and normal lol. We are also swingers. That's very different. Swinging is all about sex and poly is about actual relationships.

 

[rainbowdash30]

It's the only way to be. Humans aren't supposed to be monogamous.

 

[Green_Knight]

It's the only way to be. Humans aren't supposed to be monogamous.

I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with you but on what basis do you make that statement? I thought the jury was still out on that. Some people need monogamy and wouldn't be able to handle polygamy - while for others the reverse is true.

In the days before effective birth control men - unless they didn't mind bringing up someone else's child - needed to be sure that their wives were monogamous, though it was very unfair that many of them didn't feel the need to be monogamous themselves.

 

[VampirTARA]

Are you the legal wife?

Yes I am the legal wife, I was the first one married, I am the head wife, my sister wife Tony one second and then Kathy. yes we are open about it, just like a lot of others are, and no we are not members of some strange Commun. we were all married in states it is considered a misdemeanor. but to us a piece of paper in a government office is not a marriage, we were married through all religion all of us, but the couples involved make marriage not a piece of paper.

 

[VampirTARA]

I am in a fmf triad. It's like a normal relationship except with three people. It's actually very mundane and normal lol. We are also swingers. That's very different. Swinging is all about sex and poly is about actual relationships.

Exactly Swinging is about sex, and polygamy is about relationships and loving someone but some people just don't get it, people will support alternative lifestyles, and yet some of the people that live in alternative lifestyles themselves and want the states to pass marriage for them, will not support us to have ours legalized also ( yes with limits on how many ) I call them hypocrites and support their cause the same as they do mine.

 

[malefica]

I'm in an environment of friends where the majority, save for two couples, are polyamorous or 'poly-sexual' in one way or another, which is a contrast to how I was raised which was surrounded by nothing but monogamy. I knew what poly was, but had never seen it work.

I personally feel that I am somewhere between polyamory and 'poly-sexual'. I haven't put those thoughts into practise, but me and my Owner did end up discussing if it was right to open up the relationship when a mutual friend of ours approached me with a sexual interest - he was in a polycule where his emotional needs were being met but not the physical ones. The discussions ended with a 'no' from my Owner, which resulted in a lot of disappointment and frustration. But I am not unhappy enough to consider leaving my relationship to try out something that I am not entirely sure will work.

 

[Justfantasies]

I think it is easy to hung up on definitions. Every individual has a distinct set of sexual preferences and needs and this is just as true in a relationship where there are multiple partners involved as in a more conventional one.

I suspect that a) poly-x relationships are a lot more common than would superficially appear to be the case -- because they are often private, b) they aren't very stable; because (just on a mathematical basis) they can be quite complex.

Another issue is the role of jealousy -- I have tried a polyamorous relationship a few times in my life and didn't feel particularly jealous. But that's just me. I also found the relationships were very short lived.

 

[SlutAddicted]

I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with you but on what basis do you make that statement? I thought the jury was still out on that. Some people need monogamy and wouldn't be able to handle polygamy - while for others the reverse is true.

In the days before effective birth control men - unless they didn't mind bringing up someone else's child - needed to be sure that their wives were monogamous, though it was very unfair that many of them didn't feel the need to be monogamous themselves.

I think that most of the conclusions about whether we are or are not supposed to be monogamous tends to start with a conclusion then wrap an argument around it. And more often than not the key factors cited are external factors and circumstances, which suggests that outcomes are a by-product of conditioning and necessity as much as nature.

The primary exception is the fact that women are the child bearers. But access to birth control, ability/inability to identify paternity, negative judgment of unwed mothers and the presumption that pairing as opposed to communal is the "right" sharing of responsibilities are all external factors. Many of those factors are a function of women being regarded as possessions and many have fallen away in modern times.

There was a time when women were expected to marry early and be virgins when they married. That was an almost universal assumption and what many believed to be "natural". In historical terms that fell away and became the exception rather than the rule almost overnight as soon as we stopped punishing women for not complying.

I know of nobody and no data that can truly separate the aspects of our behaviour that are "natural" and those that are conditioned into us. Even jealousy is a function of both visceral emotion and conditioning. Why does a man on the other side of the world get jealous and insulted if you see his wife's bare arms but I sincerely do not feel jealous if you see my gorgeous wife in a bikini. The jealousy may be a "natural" emotion but the point at which it kicks in is a function of conditioning.

We also tend to assume the options are binary - monogamy or polygamy. What about serial monogamy - or whatever the phrase is for being with one person at a time but not staying with one for ever. Or mostly monogamy with an annual hall pass. Or open relationship where one partner is the primary life partner but any number of possible variations of outside lovers are acceptable.

Personally I don't think there is any one natural way. If we could see into everyone's mind and strip away all the conditioning and biases we could possibly identify a majority preference, but that wouldn't mean the minority isn't natural or the way they are supposed to be.

The whole notion of what we are or are not supposed to be relies on the false premise that we are all the same in this regard.

 

[Green_Knight]

I think that most of the conclusions about whether we are or are not supposed to be monogamous tends to start with a conclusion then wrap an argument around it. And more often than not the key factors cited are external factors and circumstances, which suggests that outcomes are a by-product of conditioning and necessity as much as nature...

Thanks for such an interesting and insightful post.

One thing you do not mention (perhaps wisely) is the impact of religion, some forms of which support polygamy whereas others have strict adherence to monogamy as one of their central tenets. My conclusion is that religious preferences in this area have more to do with practical considerations than morals. In the days when children's upbringing was the responsibility of the woman, polygamy made sense in a hostile environment; with multiple wives, children were more likely to be left with a 'mother' if anything happened to their actual mother. On the other hand, the last thing Moses needed when he was trying to move an entire people across the desert were jealousies and arguments arising from people popping into and out of each other tents at night, so rule number 7 (6 in some versions) became "no fucking someone else's husband or wife". The strange thing is that these beliefs still persist with great strength long after the practical considerations have ceased to apply.

Personally, I know that I can love more than one person at once, often in different ways and in ways that may change over time. I find it rather sad that I have to hide the fact that I also love someone else from those that I love but the fact is that many people are too insecure to cope with 'competition' for their partner's affections. For my own part, there's always the possibility that maybe, deep down, I would think that if someone was willing to share me, their feelings for me might not be that strong. Nor am I sure that I would always be happy being one of multiple husbands - I can think of some situations in which I would but others I might find more difficult. On top of that, I assume that a poly situation needs a set of rules and agreements to make it work and I am not sure I'm up to living my life in such a regulated way.

The curious thing is that while human beings may not naturally be monogamous, as rainbowdash30 suggested, I have my doubts whether we have the capability to handle polygamy either. All praise to those who do make the various forms of poly situations work.

 

[SlutAddicted]

Thanks for such an interesting and insightful post.

One thing you do not mention (perhaps wisely) is the impact of religion, some forms of which support polygamy whereas others have strict adherence to monogamy as one of their central tenets. My conclusion is that religious preferences in this area have more to do with practical considerations than morals. In the days when children's upbringing was the responsibility of the woman, polygamy made sense in a hostile environment; with multiple wives, children were more likely to be left with a 'mother' if anything happened to their actual mother. On the other hand, the last thing Moses needed when he was trying to move an entire people across the desert were jealousies and arguments arising from people popping into and out of each other tents at night, so rule number 7 (6 in some versions) became "no fucking someone else's husband or wife". The strange thing is that these beliefs still persist with great strength long after the practical considerations have ceased to apply.

Personally, I know that I can love more than one person at once, often in different ways and in ways that may change over time. I find it rather sad that I have to hide the fact that I also love someone else from those that I love but the fact is that many people are too insecure to cope with 'competition' for their partner's affections. For my own part, there's always the possibility that maybe, deep down, I would think that if someone was willing to share me, their feelings for me might not be that strong. Nor am I sure that I would always be happy being one of multiple husbands - I can think of some situations in which I would but others I might find more difficult. On top of that, I assume that a poly situation needs a set of rules and agreements to make it work and I am not sure I'm up to living my life in such a regulated way.

The curious thing is that while human beings may not naturally be monogamous, as rainbowdash30 suggested, I have my doubts whether we have the capability to handle polygamy either. All praise to those who do make the various forms of poly situations work.

I think you are correct that many religious "rules" at least in their original form were primarily about practical considerations. The various restrictions on food choices always come to mind - surely that was a by-product of health and safety considerations in the time and place as opposed to some overriding need to dictate what we eat every day of the week.

Although I think moral considerations are relevant as well. But what is morality - I think betraying a trust (adultery) is far more offensive than being openly poly. The practice of polygamy is prevalent in many religions and while it is usually one man and multiple women I am aware of no prohibition on the opposite.

And then there is the fact that religion as written is very different from religion as practiced. Read carefully there are really only 10 hard and fast rules in the bible, the commandments. We regularly ignore seven of them (no other gods, no idols, honour father and mother, keep the sabbath, don't lie, don't take lords name in vain, don't covet) turn a blind eye to one (no adultery) and mostly try to abide by two (don't steal, don't kill). Yet religious leaders have layered on a bunch of rules that aren't really there. There is no prohibition on smoking or drinking. There is direction to treat the body as a temple but that applies to eating at McDonald's too. Every religion enthusiastically cites the old testament statement against homosexuality while ignoring the new testament direction to not judge others (even with the adulteress who, unlike a gay person, has violated a commandment).

All that is to say that what we are taught as moral or right or natural ebbs and flows with practical considerations, genuine moral/ethical considerations and distorted self-serving interpretations of both. Often what we are taught has less grounding in any real religious or secular value than it does it certain people's desire to control the actions of others and define the way society should work. You can see it in the presumption that attends these discussion. Polygamous men aren't callous fuck machines that will do any woman with a pulse, why would a polyamorous woman be different?

Everything about the stereotype of sexually active women is not only wrong. It is ridiculous. They don't need to dress and act like bimbos to attract men and when they do they attract abuse and assholes. Why do we assume that after thousands of years sexually active women haven't figured out to be discrete and subtle? There is lots of data now that suggests women are much more sexually active than we thought - that is no surprise. What is surprising is that we somehow believed that women were dutifully advertising their activity by acting like bimbos so we could abuse them.

I agree that few people are able to handle a poly relationship. But that is in part because our perception of what it would look like is completely off base and we have been taught as men that it would inherently be a source of shame. I have been in long-term relationships with women who betrayed me and hid behind lame excuses including women's rights as if they had the right to fuck me over. I am now married to a poly women who does have other lovers but never lies and never convinces herself that her needs supersede mine. She chooses her partners carefully and does not abide jerks at all. She would rather poke her eye out than let some douche bag into her pants then play the victim and whine about how men are. And she never puts the need to be polite or accepted above me.

 

[VampirTARA]

I have been in a polygamous relationship for 23 years, me and my sister wife Toni, Grew up with our husband, as toddlers. now we are Celtic and of the druid of religion, now some like us choose to practice the old ways of our religion and some do not. well me and my sister wife Toni We want both of your love With our friend so the both of us decided to share him and then we informed him of what was going to be. and later down the road we added our sister wife Kathy And before someone asks Yes we were all married Before the eyes of God in different states., But what gets me Christianity, Judaism And the Westerners Imposing Their views and beliefs against polygamy. Yes I do believe Those crazy compounds like The Warren Joseph that We're the ones Marrying kids Absolutely should be Crashed And eliminated. And to the few people That want call us swingers, you people are ignorant. We do not venture Outside our Covenant. We are all very happy Well except him When all of us girls are having our monthly and I swear he wants to run for the hills. but us girls choose to follow the old ways of our religion, because of love, not because of some sexual perversion.

 

[SlutAddicted]

I have been in a polygamous relationship for 23 years, me and my sister wife Toni, Grew up with our husband, as toddlers. now we are Celtic and of the druid of religion, now some like us choose to practice the old ways of our religion and some do not. well me and my sister wife Toni We want both of your love With our friend so the both of us decided to share him and then we informed him of what was going to be. and later down the road we added our sister wife Kathy And before someone asks Yes we were all married Before the eyes of God in different states., But what gets me Christianity, Judaism And the Westerners Imposing Their views and beliefs against polygamy. Yes I do believe Those crazy compounds like The Warren Joseph that We're the ones Marrying kids Absolutely should be Crashed And eliminated. And to the few people That want call us swingers, you people are ignorant. We do not venture Outside our Covenant. We are all very happy Well except him When all of us girls are having our monthly and I swear he wants to run for the hills. but us girls choose to follow the old ways of our religion, because of love, not because of some sexual perversion.

Please believe that the loudest and most obnoxious voices may claim to speak in the name of Christianity but that doesn't mean they represent the concensus or the tenets of the faith. In my experience those are just their excuses for being assholes.

As for confusing poly with swingers I don't even know what to say - ignorant is the best characterization.

 

[jonpatato]

Exactly Swinging is about sex, and polygamy is about relationships and loving someone but some people just don't get it, people will support alternative lifestyles, and yet some of the people that live in alternative lifestyles themselves and want the states to pass marriage for them, will not support us to have ours legalized also ( yes with limits on how many ) I call them hypocrites and support their cause the same as they do mine.

Hi! I am a straight polyamorous male. I am not into swinging.For me it is not just about the sex. But I do not believe one person can meet all of our needs. Man or woman.

 

[VampirTARA]

Please believe that the loudest and most obnoxious voices may claim to speak in the name of Christianity but that doesn't mean they represent the concensus or the tenets of the faith. In my experience those are just their excuses for being assholes.

As for confusing poly with swingers I don't even know what to say - ignorant is the best characterization.

Thank you, is quite annoying and insulting when they referred to us as swingers and we have been cold degenerates heathens you name it, me and my friend at the time Toni All of us were the best of friends, And me and Tony were in love with Our friend,, So we both decided Let's follow our religions old ways , And share again And the three of us at the time We're always together so it was like we were all married, and one day we informed him how it was going to be lol whether he likes it or not

 

[VampirTARA]

Hi! I am a straight polyamorous male. I am not into swinging.For me it is not just about the sex. But I do not believe one person can meet all of our needs. Man or woman.

Well the two of us girls did it because we love him, But in all reality Yes there is things I cannot provide him Whether it be emotionally or sexually That my other two sister wives can, And vice versa, Each one of us girls serves a function I guess the best way to put it each one of us girls has their own unique qualities. but in 23 years it has worked smoothly for us, and yes with any couples we've had our quarrels and we work them out but nothing serious

 

[jonpatato]

Well the two of us girls did it because we love him, But in all reality Yes there is things I cannot provide him Whether it be emotionally or sexually That my other two sister wives can, And vice versa, Each one of us girls serves a function They keep him f I guess the best way to put it each one of us girls has their own unique qualities. but in 23 years it has worked smoothly for us, and yes with any couples we've had our quarrels and we will work them out but nothing serious

But in my case I am fine with my lover being with someone else at times. I do not want to watch or cuckold.
But do be honest and open.