Polyamory

[grey228]

I write primarily polygamous (one guy, mult women) stories - don't really care for other variations.

*shrug*

 

[JTobia]

I write primarily polygamous (one guy, mult women) stories - don't really care for other variations.

*shrug*

I agree wholeheartedly

 

[ghostgurrl13]

I agree wholeheartedly

I disagree -- wholeheartedly. It makes me angry when people imply that it is ok for a man to be with multiple women, but it is wrong for a woman to be with multiple men. Don't even imply imply it! Its so arrogant and chauvinistic and hypocritical, and just WRONG.

I believe in polyamory. I do not practice it in that I do not have sex with anyone else. But I am in love with someone else. Unfortunately, he is also attached and his relationship is heavily evaluated between the two of them by the degree of jealousy...to them, the more jealousy, the more love. Nothing will ever happen between us. I only hope that someday I can tell him that I love him...no strings attached. Its painful, but if I had to choose between the two people who I love equally, I would choose the one I loved first...the one who has lived life with me up to this point and loves me regardless of my flaws. Yes, we are only 4 years into our relationship...but the last 4 years of my life have been extremely defining.

So, it is hard to put the form of polyamory I believe in into practice. You have to find someone else you love, who loves you back, who is also ok with polyamory and being a secondary lover. PLUS the person who you are with primarily also has to be OK with it. Not so easy.

 

[RuReal]

What the two people are talking about isn't really polyamory, but polygamy thus not really part of the conversation. Good to see that people feel strongly about equal relationships though.

 

[Epmd607]

What the two people are talking about isn't really polyamory, but polygamy thus not really part of the conversation. Good to see that people feel strongly about equal relationships though.

Polygamy and polygyny are very much under the umbrella of what constitutes a polyamorous relationship. Intimacy requires commitment. Most poly relationships involve one married couple who are accompanied by a third who is sexually exclusive with only one of the pair. So the poly relationships almost always resemble categorical polyandry or polygyny. Female has more than one 'husband/mate', male has more than one 'wife/mate'. A poly relationship where all three people are intimate on a seemingly equal footing is even rarer. Usually, the two women are exclusive with the man, two men exclusive with the woman.

 

[RuReal]

Polygamy and polygyny are very much under the umbrella of what constitutes a polyamorous relationship. Intimacy requires commitment. Most poly relationships involve one married couple who are accompanied by a third who is sexually exclusive with only one of the pair. So the poly relationships almost always resemble categorical polyandry or polygyny. Female has more than one 'husband/mate', male has more than one 'wife/mate'. A poly relationship where all three people are intimate on a seemingly equal footing is even rarer. Usually, the two women are exclusive with the man, two men exclusive with the woman.

I would watch how one uses the term most as I suspect it depends on where you live. I know a few people in poly relationships and there is a local poly group in our community. About all I could really say is that they are all interestingly different.

What I tend to se is in fact that all three or more parties not only have equal footing. One of my good friends who is poly in a relationship with two other woman in fact is only intimate with one of them. The two women are intimate together and all three parties have other on and off relationships. In fact he has finally decided to move in. I am very curiouse to see how the dynamic changes once he is living together with one of them. He does play with the other woman just no sex.

 

[Epmd607]

I would watch how one uses the term most as I suspect it depends on where you live. I know a few people in poly relationships and there is a local poly group in our community. About all I could really say is that they are all interestingly different.

What I tend to se is in fact that all three or more parties not only have equal footing. One of my good friends who is poly in a relationship with two other woman in fact is only intimate with one of them. The two women are intimate together and all three parties have other on and off relationships. In fact he has finally decided to move in. I am very curiouse to see how the dynamic changes once he is living together with one of them. He does play with the other woman just no sex.

Historically, the Oneida Community, like many communes, would fall under the umbrella of polyamory. There's a level of intimacy though that poly asks for that is very difficult to achieve outside of two or three people in sexual relationships. If me and my wife both have casual sex outside of our marriage I wouldn't call that a poly relationship. If me and my wife had serious love affairs with men and women outside of our marriage and we each befriended the others' lovers, then I'd call that polyamory.

 

[GrnEyedGrl]

I agree that the notion of only accepting one man and multiple women is disgusting and hypocritical.

I disagree that polygamy and polyamory are the same thing. Polygamy involves a lot of physical characteristics such as sharing a home, bills, families. Polyamory (at least, the way I practice it) is simply an intimacy and an emotional relationship with other people, but the sharing of the marriage and physical assets and responsibilities is with only one mate, i.e. spouse.

 

[xssve]

I assume to have a successful poly you'd need some combination of people with low self-esteem and one dominant personality. Whenever I'm with one they want to be assured they're superior to the other in every way, but I'm not really in a poly relationship.

Lol, I think they missed the cynical humor here.

 

[xssve]

Polyamorous, Polyamory were coined in the early 70s at the latest.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=polyamory&searchmode=none

I don't know what a pagan wizard and a neo-shaman have to do with the etymological discussion. lol. JS Mill, Harriet Taylor, Bertrand Russell, Simone de Beauvoir all lived and wrote about polyamorous relationships, usually within the framework of marriage. Marriage has always been especially important to polyamory. I wouldn't just say anthropological definitions of polygyny and polyandry are irrelevant to the discussion because the terms don't pop up in the works of 70s mystics. Just because something describes a cultural pattern doesn't mean the people involved don't experience romantic intimacy.

The core concept of polyamory is romantic intimacy between three or more people. I'd say that honesty and openness are already found within the term.

An open marriage is technically called social monogamy, and distinctly different from a more communal arrangement, it's reportedly historically common in France and Japan, it's a civilized, urban arrangement that cuts everybody some slack while maintaining a stable home environment for the children, etc.

Strict monogamy is largely an agrarian institution, where household were more self contained, population sparser, and everybody did everything together, often Three or more generations of the same family.

Not that it's impossible in an urban environment, but the stresses tend to be greater, and there are more demands on ones time - it might seem a bit shallow justify taking a lover because of scheduling problems, shift work, etc., but it is a common complaint. Specialization is largely an urban phenomena - where there is a city, there are prostitutes, for example, going back at least to Ur.

Anyway, there are a lot of parallels between the Eighteenth century and this one, a lot of free love and free thinker movements, that often took religious overtones if not outright form, the Mormons, famously, and I believe it was actually Calvin who first came up with the notion of "spiritual marriage" - but there were any number of groups large and small that advocated or practiced various forms of polyamoury to greater or lesser extents.

 

[RuReal]

Historically, the Oneida Community, like many communes, would fall under the umbrella of polyamory. There's a level of intimacy though that poly asks for that is very difficult to achieve outside of two or three people in sexual relationships. If me and my wife both have casual sex outside of our marriage I wouldn't call that a poly relationship. If me and my wife had serious love affairs with men and women outside of our marriage and we each befriended the others' lovers, then I'd call that polyamory.

I am not talking about casual sex at all. I know that one of the members of the poly relationship also has a current boyfriend and has had this boyfriend for a few years. I also know that another member of the group has had a few boyfriends off and on through the poly relationship. At this point I would say only one member really does casual relationships, but that is by choice.

Do they have thier ups and downs like any couple based relationship yes. To be honest it is a great deal like most standard relationships with some goods and bads tossed in, but I won't bother going there.

You might speak for some forms of what people will call polyamory: Look up polygamy, polyandry then look up polyamory in a dictionary. That should put you on the start as to why what they are talking about is not palyamory.

 

[xssve]

Polygyny is more than one woman, polyandry, more than one man - polygamy is non-specific - polyamoury means the same thing thing, but causes less confusion than polygamy which is often used interchangeably with polygyny.

 

[xssve]

I assume to have a successful poly you'd need some combination of people with low self-esteem and one dominant personality. Whenever I'm with one they want to be assured they're superior to the other in every way, but I'm not really in a poly relationship.

Homey actually raises an important point here - it's kind of distracting to be in bed with Two women, as opposed to MFM, you can only really give your full attention to one at a time, the other has to assist, or be a self starter - not low self esteem per se, which was merely a cynical attempt at humor, but definitely less selfish although there's nothing says you can't switch off periodically, so everybody get's a chance to be the center of attention, but it does entail delayed gratification on the part of at least one of the participants, which some people have problems with.

In most polygynous households, the husband has sex with his wives one at a time, dunno about polyandry, not as common as a steady arrangement, though cuckholding is a nominally poly arrangement.

 

[jdntdp]

My opinion

Back in my single and dating days...none of the girls I knew in an open relationship were ever successful. Ultimately, their marriages failed. I am not saying that it cannot work, but my experience has been that it's physically fun but there is a price to pay. I believe that sex is tied to emotion more than the body. If there is something we are seeking physically there is something lacking emotionally. This emptiness may not be in your marriage, but in your own psyche and people supliment sex in it's place. If you were to determine the origin of this need, your drive to be with someone else would fade.


Just my respectful opinion.

 

[GrnEyedGrl]

Back in my single and dating days...none of the girls I knew in an open relationship were ever successful. Ultimately, their marriages failed. I am not saying that it cannot work, but my experience has been that it's physically fun but there is a price to pay. I believe that sex is tied to emotion more than the body. If there is something we are seeking physically there is something lacking emotionally. This emptiness may not be in your marriage, but in your own psyche and people supliment sex in it's place. If you were to determine the origin of this need, your drive to be with someone else would fade.


Just my respectful opinion.

Thank you for your opinion....on both threads....

I started this thread a long time ago and since then, things in my life have continued to get better and better. My love for my husband grows more and more every day and my relationships with others are strong and fulfilling. Everyone is different. This works for some, and doesn't work for others. To each their own. While everyone has their opinion on the subject, I sometimes find it hard to distinguish a respectful opinion and judging. If we break up in the future and this fails, I'll be the first to say you were right. But I don't see that happening.

 

[jdntdp]

hang on...

Thank you for your opinion....on both threads....

I started this thread a long time ago and since then, things in my life have continued to get better and better. My love for my husband grows more and more every day and my relationships with others are strong and fulfilling. Everyone is different. This works for some, and doesn't work for others. To each their own. While everyone has their opinion on the subject, I sometimes find it hard to distinguish a respectful opinion and judging. If we break up in the future and this fails, I'll be the first to say you were right. But I don't see that happening.

Whoooahh!

I NEVER said that your relationship is doomed, nor was I judging. I did say that in my experience, I found, the relationships did not survive. Since I am not a professional psychiatrist (and have only sat in their offices on the couch), I cannot say "A" lead to "b", but that was certainly my observation. I do think that there is a price to be paid for bringing others into a commited relationship but that price may not result in a problematic marriage. In no way, was I trying to say anything more.

I wish you and your husband happiness.

 

[PixelPrincess]

I think polyamory is a beautiful thing. If you are lucky enough to have a partner who you can communicate with and share those thoughts and desires, supports you, and loves you and can see the root of your feelings, you are truly blessed. It sounds like this is what you have after reading this thread. My hats off to you.

I am also one of the rare people who share in an open/poly relationship with my husband. It is possible, people do survive it and thrive in it. You just have to have the right person. I hope you continue to have good luck as it seems that you are.

 

[DeceptiveSpeed]

I think polyamory is a beautiful thing. If you are lucky enough to have a partner who you can communicate with and share those thoughts and desires, supports you, and loves you and can see the root of your feelings, you are truly blessed. It sounds like this is what you have after reading this thread. My hats off to you.

I am also one of the rare people who share in an open/poly relationship with my husband. It is possible, people do survive it and thrive in it. You just have to have the right person. I hope you continue to have good luck as it seems that you are.

See what communication and trust can do for a relationship?

Also, guys need to realize that poly is a two way street - the women can have multiple guys as well. Should just be 1 guy, multiple females.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

Back in my single and dating days...none of the girls I knew in an open relationship were ever successful. Ultimately, their marriages failed. I am not saying that it cannot work, but my experience has been that it's physically fun but there is a price to pay. I believe that sex is tied to emotion more than the body. If there is something we are seeking physically there is something lacking emotionally. This emptiness may not be in your marriage, but in your own psyche and people supliment sex in it's place. If you were to determine the origin of this need, your drive to be with someone else would fade.


Just my respectful opinion.

Again, we're back to the 'amor' in polyamory. Swapping wives or casual 'boyfriends' and sex partners shouldn't really enter into a discussion about polyamorous relationships. A poly relationship is primarily about romantic intimacy between more than two people and the sex act itself it just a background aftereffect of the trifold(+) intimacy. 'Open marriage' is hardly ever polyamorous.

p.s. the origin of the sex drive is DHEA --> testosterone. Inhibit DHEA production and there will be no sex drive, regardless of the quality of the emotional relationship.

 

[jdntdp]

perhaps

Again, we're back to the 'amor' in polyamory. Swapping wives or casual 'boyfriends' and sex partners shouldn't really enter into a discussion about polyamorous relationships. A poly relationship is primarily about romantic intimacy between more than two people and the sex act itself it just a background aftereffect of the trifold(+) intimacy. 'Open marriage' is hardly ever polyamorous.

p.s. the origin of the sex drive is DHEA --> testosterone. Inhibit DHEA production and there will be no sex drive, regardless of the quality of the emotional relationship.

To assume that a sex drive is driven by testosterone alone is short sighted. While physiology is a factor in "drive", DHEA is not the only thing driving brain chemistry. For that matter, testosterone will increase physical aggression for sex, but doesn't deal with emotional issues that can create a need for supplimenting sex for emotional needs that have not been met. Even this is short sighted with a very multidimensional issue.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

To assume that a sex drive is driven by testosterone alone is short sighted. While physiology is a factor in "drive", DHEA is not the only thing driving brain chemistry. For that matter, testosterone will increase physical aggression for sex, but doesn't deal with emotional issues that can create a need for supplimenting sex for emotional needs that have not been met. Even this is short sighted with a very multidimensional issue.

Physiology, the drive to procreate is 90% of the story. I'm not assuming sex drive is driven by hormones, because it is. It's factual that sex drive is primarily about the presence of specific hormones acting in specific ways. The reason a boy experiences spermarche age 12-14 and a girl menarche 11.9-12.9 years. Cultural stuff, emotional decoration and ritual is a thin film over the biology when it comes to the reason people have sex. Everyone has sex to fulfill emotional needs, but there's a reason why one long term partner at a time has been the most common pattern. Intimacy is reflexive, I tell you my secrets you tell me yours. With three or more people there's always the worry that there are other secrets shared, other intimacies that you're not privy to. This thread is really just talking about the very superficial, who you're sleeping with instead of who you're truly intimate with. I guess that's what you get on a sex chat board.

There's not much information about who slept with who pre-agriworld. But most hunter-gather societies today are serial monogamous, one partner at a time. Social monogamy is the likeliest pattern before the Neolithic Revolution with a strong hint of serial monogamy. Multiple 'spouses' comes with the origin of property accumulation. Casual encounters are not the same as setting up house with two husbands or two wives. Today a polyamorous relationship would appear to our Western eyes as two husbands or two wives, not just husband for emotional needs and boyfriend for sexual needs. That's plain old social monogamy. Each partner should meet emotional and sexual needs. Why someone would need so much extra sex and emotion is the thing to talk about.

 

[Netzach]

nm, so much for reading whole threads

 

[Netzach]

Physiology, the drive to procreate is 90% of the story. I'm not assuming sex drive is driven by hormones, because it is. It's factual that sex drive is primarily about the presence of specific hormones acting in specific ways. The reason a boy experiences spermarche age 12-14 and a girl menarche 11.9-12.9 years. Cultural stuff, emotional decoration and ritual is a thin film over the biology when it comes to the reason people have sex. Everyone has sex to fulfill emotional needs, but there's a reason why one long term partner at a time has been the most common pattern. Intimacy is reflexive, I tell you my secrets you tell me yours. With three or more people there's always the worry that there are other secrets shared, other intimacies that you're not privy to. This thread is really just talking about the very superficial, who you're sleeping with instead of who you're truly intimate with. I guess that's what you get on a sex chat board.

There's not much information about who slept with who pre-agriworld. But most hunter-gather societies today are serial monogamous, one partner at a time. Social monogamy is the likeliest pattern before the Neolithic Revolution with a strong hint of serial monogamy. Multiple 'spouses' comes with the origin of property accumulation. Casual encounters are not the same as setting up house with two husbands or two wives. Today a polyamorous relationship would appear to our Western eyes as two husbands or two wives, not just husband for emotional needs and boyfriend for sexual needs. That's plain old social monogamy. Each partner should meet emotional and sexual needs. Why someone would need so much extra sex and emotion is the thing to talk about.

We've been post -agriworld for quite some time now. The "thinness" of the veneer of culture is very much up for debate. Most hunter-gatherer societies today live in social structures completely fucked over from whatever they were by a postindustrial and postcolonial world - but when you find neolithic man do let us know how we're doing it wrong, because the success of his social structures has brought the industrial world to its knees - oh, wait.

The major feature of homo sapiens is this giant frontal grey stuff which does these amazing external adaptations every year or so, like ipods and twitter and a slightly different gear box on this year's Audi and sexting. You are typing into a thing that has revolutionized sexuality for a large chunk of the world.

 

[jdntdp]

So what I hear you saying is...

We've been post -agriworld for quite some time now. The "thinness" of the veneer of culture is very much up for debate. Most hunter-gatherer societies today live in social structures completely fucked over from whatever they were by a postindustrial and postcolonial world - but when you find neolithic man do let us know how we're doing it wrong, because the success of his social structures has brought the industrial world to its knees - oh, wait.

The major feature of homo sapiens is this giant frontal grey stuff which does these amazing external adaptations every year or so, like ipods and twitter and a slightly different gear box on this year's Audi and sexting. You are typing into a thing that has revolutionized sexuality for a large chunk of the world.

Netzach,

So you are saying that sex drive is NOT necessarily controled by one hormone? Personally, I agree that hormones are a specific factor, but it is nieve to think that sex drive is controlled by one thing. I could probably come up with 30 things that controll drive in only 1% of all people. Not to mention the things that controll sex drive in 15% of all people.

I don't discount testosterone as a force for one second, but there are a number of hormones and hormonal catalysts that influence brain chemistry alone. THAT doesn't even get into neural anatomy phenomena. Oh and there is the nature vs nurture thing too. Pavlov had something to say about our reactions to stimuli.

 

[PixelPrincess]

I've gone crosseyed.