Polyamory

[entitled]

of course...adding another "voice" to the "conversation" could not possible result in less opportunity for this...and thus I can see how the more traditional roles could be considered easier...

...but I'm not looking for "easy". If I have to invest more to increase my return? So be it...

Easy isn't always better.

And there's the reason that many polyamourous relationships fail - the people don't want to invest the time and energy necessary to make them work. Many people don't want to do that to make a two person relationship work, either. Even if it increases the potential for successful relationships - either monogamous or polyamourous.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The polyamourous slut! Maybe polyamoury is merely a word to offset the concept of slut? Do chicks have the power of manipulation or what!

hmm.
No, I don't think so, honey.
Slut isn't the first word that came to mind with this woman- valued, beloved, loving, intelligent, a perfect fit.

 

[CharleyH]

hmm.
No, I don't think so, honey.
Slut isn't the first word that came to mind with this woman- valued, beloved, loving, intelligent, a perfect fit.

GRR - if only it was not my day off!

 

[Stella_Omega]

GRR - if only it was not my day off!

or your off day?

 

[sophia jane]

I really appreciate everyone's input and thoughts on the subject. Stella- I find your experiences very intriguing. It's nice to hear the positive aspects of polyamory- thanks!

 

[Halo_n_horns]

I've been meaning to start this thread for a few days but kept forgetting (thanks to Stella's blog pun for reminding me!).
Thoughts on polyamory? Real life experiences?

I've never given it much thought, mainly because I find it very difficult to love even one person, let alone more than one. That said, I'm increasingly intrigued by the idea of it, and would love to hear from the more knowledgable.

Been there. Done that. Its not easy feeling like your heart is shattered into a million pieces while still being able to have another person that you're in love with.

Under different, more controlled conditions, I would probably welcome it again. But those conditions would really have to be just right.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Easy isn't always better.

And there's the reason that many polyamourous relationships fail - the people don't want to invest the time and energy necessary to make them work. Many people don't want to do that to make a two person relationship work, either. Even if it increases the potential for successful relationships - either monogamous or polyamourous.

Amen to that. The worst failings I've seen of each type of relationship have been when one or more partners was looking for an easy way out. I've seen both polyamoury and monogamy used that way, and neither to good effect.

Shanglan

 

[Liar]

Seems like for it to work, one needs to start with confidence in oneself, the mechanics of love, and the world in general.

I can just barely love myself, and loving one other is a struggle. I wouldn't have the energy for a second person to love like that.

 

[entitled]

Amen to that. The worst failings I've seen of each type of relationship have been when one or more partners was looking for an easy way out. I've seen both polyamoury and monogamy used that way, and neither to good effect.

Shanglan

Equus Grandiosa has agreed with me. i can die happy.

 

[Guest]

i have a feeling this is not going to win any points with anyone...

I don't see polyamory in the light that many here have pointed out....

I am in love with A....
I love several others, each of them exist within my heart... men and women... could I have a physical relationship with the ones that fall into this category.. yep in a new york minute...

I believe that humans were created to love MANY 'mates'... Someone dear to me called it
'serial monogamy'... you are monogamous to that person for a time... because the MOMENT that your heart or your body go into the keeping of another then the one your currently with you are participating in serial monogamony... also known lightly as polyamory... many who post here have very serious and heavy relationships with others on LIT that are NOT their offline SOs... is that cheating... or a form of polyamory/'serial monogamy' and before anyone even says oh online is just online tell that to ALL of the couples that met ON Lit that their relationships are not real because they met here and not say at the local bar....

Online is just as much a fact as going out for a drink after work... so you may have an offline SO... and you may have a few here that you give your heart's words too... you my friend are participating in polyamory/'serial monogamy'.

 

[Anniejustagirl]

Online is just as much a fact as going out for a drink after work... so you may have an offline SO... and you may have a few here that you give your heart's words too... you my friend are participating in polyamory/'serial monogamy'.

well, put.... points to you!

 

[Guest]

well, put.... points to you!

How many here.. would vehmently deny that statement though... then again... how many would nod their heads knowing that it was completely true

 

[Anniejustagirl]

How many here.. would vehmently deny that statement though... then again... how many would nod their heads knowing that it was completely true

It would be an interesting pole, but i firmly believe that we all have the capacity!

I think the more we love... the more need we have to share that love...and i just don't think that one ALL encompasing love does it for but a select few.

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

Tried it, didn't like it, most likely will never do it again. Jealous, posessive, greedy woman here. Can't do it. And if I find out that my current partner does her version of it without telling me...that's it. I'll walk back to the Midwest and kill her. Period.

And now a to lighten the mood.

 

[BlackShanglan]

How many here.. would vehmently deny that statement though... then again... how many would nod their heads knowing that it was completely true

I wouldn't deny it. In fact, the SO and I have a standing agreement that neither of us is to engage in online sex play or potentially sexual or romantic relationships. I think you're quite right at the core, although I may see it in a different light. To me, if the relationship takes energy, passion, or commitment away from the primary relationship, then it has to be considered as in that light. Of course all relationships require the partners to have some outside interests; too tight a focus on each other gets claustrophobic. But when partners are drifting apart while pursuing their seperate online or real life interests - romantic or not, really - it calls for some thought, and of course for some work.

There's that blasted word again, eh?

Shanglan

 

[Stella_Omega]

How many here.. would vehmently deny that statement though... then again... how many would nod their heads knowing that it was completely true

Lizzie, I think most people here at Lit are very aware of the validity of online relationships- More people here than any other online group I've ever known!

 

[AppleBiter]

I wouldn't deny it. In fact, the SO and I have a standing agreement that neither of us is to engage in online sex play or potentially sexual or romantic relationships. I think you're quite right at the core, although I may see it in a different light. To me, if the relationship takes energy, passion, or commitment away from the primary relationship, then it has to be considered as in that light. Of course all relationships require the partners to have some outside interests; too tight a focus on each other gets claustrophobic. But when partners are drifting apart while pursuing their seperate online or real life interests - romantic or not, really - it calls for some thought, and of course for some work.

There's that blasted word again, eh?

Shanglan

Seconded.

 

[Guest]

I wouldn't deny it. In fact, the SO and I have a standing agreement that neither of us is to engage in online sex play or potentially sexual or romantic relationships. I think you're quite right at the core, although I may see it in a different light. To me, if the relationship takes energy, passion, or commitment away from the primary relationship, then it has to be considered as in that light. Of course all relationships require the partners to have some outside interests; too tight a focus on each other gets claustrophobic. But when partners are drifting apart while pursuing their seperate online or real life interests - romantic or not, really - it calls for some thought, and of course for some work.

There's that blasted word again, eh?

Shanglan

I find that I can fulfill the other needs of my life through friendships. I have many loving friendships that, while important and vital to my life, will not equal the releationship I have with my husband. While he and I have discussed the possibility of a third person as a sexual partner/lover, it stays mostly in the realm of fantasy. I am lucky to have a few very important friendships with people who share interests my husband and I do not share. He also has such friendships. These friendships are not sexual, because we have agreed that sex is exclusively within our relationship, even if we include another person.

I am also VERY conscious that online relationships involve real emotions -- something I sometimes suspect is not common knowledge. I always deal with my online relationships with as much honesty as I can muster, while also reminding myself (and the other person) that I know it is ONLINE and I won't indulge in any form of commitment. I may flirt or play with someone here, but my husband always knows of it, and can read it if he wants.

I have a capacity for very strong affections, but when they happen online where everything is much more subject to interpretation and misunderstanding, I am MUCH more careful. If I get upset or feel hurt by someone here, or feel they are ignoring me for some inexplicable unknown reason, I remind myself not to blame that other person, who may have no idea how I feel and may well not have any thought that their actions are affecting me. And I do believe online relationships, because they take up emotional energy and real time, can have an impact on one's offline life, for good or for ill.

And I've had MANY online relationships that moved offline -- including the one with my husband. Some worked wonderfully. A few were horrible situations. Some were simply not able to withstand the forces of life without the protective barrier of online.

I applaud those people who can maintain polyamourous relationships, with the definition that those are not just love/friendships but sexual relationships similar if not equal to a primary relationship. Those friends I have with whom I am very comfortable and for whom I have a great and deep but nonromantic love do not qualify as part of a polyamorous relationship by that definition.

 

[Liar]

many who post here have very serious and heavy relationships with others on LIT that are NOT their offline SOs... is that cheating... or a form of polyamory/'serial monogamy' and before anyone even says oh online is just online tell that to ALL of the couples that met ON Lit that their relationships are not real because they met here and not say at the local bar....

There's no such thing as "just online". It's cheating. If the offline SO doesn't know and approve. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter if it's via online chat, notes in pockets, bar groping or smoke signals.

 

[BlackShanglan]

There's no such thing as "just online". It's cheating. If the offline SO doesn't know and approve. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter if it's via online chat, notes in pockets, bar groping or smoke signals.

Psst. Liar. Check your semaphore.

 

[impressive]

There's no such thing as "just online". It's cheating. If the offline SO doesn't know and approve. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter if it's via online chat, notes in pockets, bar groping or smoke signals.

I've always been of the opinion that a polyamorous relationship is one in which ALL partners are aware of the arrangement ... not one in which a partner is operating on the presumption of monogamy. *shrugs*

Now, to the semantics ...

We have polygamy & monogamy ... and polyamory & ______ (what -- monoamory)?

The -gamy words, I believe, pertain to legal constructs (marriage) ... whereas the -amory words pertain to a lifestyle. Yes?

 

[BlackShanglan]

The -gamy words, I believe, pertain to legal constructs (marriage) ... whereas the -amory words pertain to a lifestyle. Yes?

I think the problem in pinning down definition is that "polyamo(u)ry" is a newly created word. I have not yet seen it in a printed dictionary, although dictionary.com has it thus:

Main Entry: polyamory
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships

Not terribly precise, and the evident etymology just seems to indicate "many" "loves," which is probably true for every person on the planet.

Perhaps it's going to take some time before usage stabilizes; right now, different people seem to mean different things by it. I've seen it enacted as some on this thread describe it - basically a variant on the "open" marriage idea, with one primary partner and others moving in and out of the picture with lesser degrees of emotional/financial/time-based committment. I've seen it enacted as a lifestyle with no primary partner or shared living arrangements and an enthusiasm for short-term sexual relationships, serially and/or simultaneously. I've seen it enacted as one-sided situations of the "I'll screw around because I think you want me too badly to leave me" variety, with the other partner monogamous and generally miserable. I've heard it described but never actually seen it enacted as a sort of communal multi-partner living arrangement. All of the people described what they were doing or proposing as "polyamory," so the water's a bit muddy at the moment.

Oh, and there are also those who describe themselves as inherently "polyamorous," seeming to suggest that they see this less as a lifestyle choice than as a sexual orientation or characteristic. I'm not sure where that fits in either.

Shanglan

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The way I see it, there are pitfalls in any kind of arrangement. I frankly think it's a purely individual thing. It would be as wrong to force a person to be poly as it would to force them to be monogamous (contrary to what I have in some of my stories, which ARE just fantasy).

Currently, I am in an open relationship. I am happy with it, and my slave is happy as well. She has been in enough failed monogamous (or supposedly monogamous ones) relationships that have been destroyed through cheating and abuse to know that monogamy is not necessarily the best system. I know that I would have difficulty trying to return to a monogamous arrangement (such as what I was supposed to have with my last girlfriend- and wasn't true, either, due to two-timing on her part). It wasn't until long after that break-up that I decided to accept the truth about myself: I am not cut out for monogamy.

During that long wasteland of soul-searching, confusion, struggle, etc., I avoided serious relationships as a rule (partly due to geeky awkwardness and partly due to the fact that the women in my social circle didn't strike me as compatible with me).

Finally, after fighting with myself long enough, I came to terms with myself and decided to pursue what I wanted. Eventually, after several false starts, I found what I wanted: a woman who could accept the real me from the outset. I never claimed to be a "one-woman" man, because in sexual terms I am not. What I practice is not "polyamory" as such. It is swinging. It is what works for both of us. Even so, I make sure that I indicate to her constantly that she has the romantic side all to herself. That's what counts for her.

And, yes, there are rules. As with any relationship, poly or conventional, there must be some rules to avoid the pitfalls that can happen in relationships. That there are plenty of pitfalls in monogamy too is indicated by the divorce rate: anytime that something has a 50% failure rate, it has a failing grade. 60% of men and 40% of women have ADMITTED to infidelity (not counting how many have lied about it to the pollsters too).

My point is that polyamory and swinging aren't the only things that can break down in practice. BOTH monogamy and polyamory can fail and often do.

To me, it is better for the individual to be honest with himself or herself about he or she first. Then, and only then, can he or she be honest and upfront with a prospective partner about what kind of relationship he or she wants.

I am not the sort of guy who would do well in an exclusive relationship. My sister, who recently married, is not the sort of girl who would do well in anything BUT an exclusive relationship. The jury is still out about my brother, who is living with his girlfriend (in what sort of relationship I don't know for sure).

And, contrary to what rgraham666 thinks, nobody has to be left in the dust. After all, numbers of the sex (or sexes) that you desire are never static. They are always in flux.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Oh, and there are also those who describe themselves as inherently "polyamorous," seeming to suggest that they see this less as a lifestyle choice than as a sexual orientation or characteristic. I'm not sure where that fits in either.

Shanglan[/QUOTE]

That pretty much sums me up. It is as much a part of my sexuality as bisexuality and my Dominant/sadist side are.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I don't know whether I'm a blissful Romantic about this subject or just not intensely involved enough to claim that HM is my 'one and only'. I do know that I made promises and promises are important. She would be really hurt and I won't do that. But to say that I couldn't be deeply fond of someone else and sexually attracted to them is nonsense.

I'm one of those, perhaps it's generational, who thinks that the old idea of the hippy commune with everyone loving everyone they want to would be wonderful. I don't know if it really ever happened. Never lived in one, myself. Nice idea, though.