nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

could you handle a polyamory relationship

Specialun

watching the new louis theroux doc from last week on polyamory.

well. could you handle your mrs or fella being banged by someone else on a regular basis , sometimes when you’re upstairs or downstairs

dont think i get it tbh

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

briany

When Louis revisited Heidi and Jerry at the end of that doc and dug a little deeper on Jerry's feelings about the whole arrangement (Heidi having this, basically, second husband), you could see that Heidi was almost offended that Jerry voiced unhappiness about it at all. Jerry was clearly too invested in that relationship to really put his foot down on the matter, though, and Heidi was using that to her advantage all the way. Horrible woman.

chite

I would seriously consider trying this sort of thing if the situation arose, and compatible with all involved (most likely a 2 girls, 1 guy scenario). A partner's needs aren't wholly dependent on you alone which may help someone who is a bit emotionally detached, so doesn't express much affection if the partner is a needy type, then that role could be fulfilled by partner #2. This might help if you were someone who is constantly away with work or other commitments so long as it works for all involved.
Or am I talking out of my arse?

Lillybloom

eviltwin wrote: »

My marriage is based on many things one being that we don't sleep with other people. I've no issue if it works for other couples but it's not for us. Sleeping with someone else would involve deception and neither of us want to be.with someone who can be duplicitous. Our family, our kids security, our unit is more important than a fumble with a randomer.

Sleeping with other people doesn't involve deception if you are open and honest about it.

Nobody asked you to compare your family unit to a fumble, that's irrelevant.

Specialun

briany wrote: »

When Louis revisited Heidi and Jerry at the end of that doc and dug a little deeper on Jerry's feelings about the whole arrangement (Heidi having this, basically, second husband), you could see that Heidi was almost offended that Jerry voiced unhappiness about it at all. Jerry was clearly too invested in that relationship to really put his foot down on the matter, though, and Heidi was using that to her advantage all the way. Horrible woman.

jerry was lost. i dont believe he was ok with his mrs been ploughed by joe. she was t interested in leaving joe if it meant his happiness improved

eviltwin

Lillybloom wrote: »

Sleeping with other people doesn't involve deception if you are open and honest about it.

Nobody asked you to compare your family unit to a fumble, that's irrelevant.

Honest or not, that's not how we envisaged our relationship going when we first got together so neither of us is going to entertain it now. We've built a life built on being faithful, I'm not prepared to risk it. Luckily I get what I need from my other half, I don't need anyone else. But if it works for you more power to you.

Lillybloom

eviltwin wrote: »

Honest or not, that's not how we envisaged our relationship going when we first got together so neither of us is going to entertain it now. We've built a life built on being faithful, I'm not prepared to risk it. Luckily I get what I need from my other half, I don't need anyone else. But if it works for you more power to you.

When did I say I was polyamourous?

MadDog76

In the documentary there was at least one person unhappy in every "relationship" shown..... says it all really.

[Deleted User]

MadDog76 wrote: »

In the documentary there was at least one person unhappy in every "relationship" shown..... says it all really.

With such documentaries I find all it "says" is that the producers and directors only chose relationships where one person was unhappy. We might feel tempted to read more into what we see than that - but when parsing any documentary we should never lose sight of the fact we see the story the creator wants to tell.

In any romantic relationship - especially one involving more than the standard two people - communication is key though. Such a relationship is not for everyone and constant monitoring and communication is the core of making it work - and noticing if it is not working for someone.

Certainly for us for example - not only are we happy but if anything we are getting happier. But that certainly does not "say it all" either. We just fall on one end of a continuum that this documentary chose to only show the other end of perhaps.

biko

Dalomanakora wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with polyamory

Polyamory is wrong!

It's either Polyphilia or Multiamory, mixing Greek and Latin is just plain wrong!

Wibbs

Lillybloom wrote: »

Why would you not consider it? Why is it such a problem if someone else has sex with your significant other?

Because for the majority of people sex is reserved for one's significant other. If you take the different and minority view, knock yourself out, but try not to judge others as they might judge you. You wouldn't like it. Oh and it's got eff all to do with "ego". That's the go to copout of an "explanation" for some for most human behaviour. Writers like Tolle and Chopra may peddle it, but they're raw charlatans.

briany wrote: »

When Louis revisited Heidi and Jerry at the end of that doc and dug a little deeper on Jerry's feelings about the whole arrangement (Heidi having this, basically, second husband), you could see that Heidi was almost offended that Jerry voiced unhappiness about it at all. Jerry was clearly too invested in that relationship to really put his foot down on the matter, though, and Heidi was using that to her advantage all the way. Horrible woman.

Jerry is a spineless eejit. As you say B, he has serious oneitis for the Heidi wan. To the point where his brains and spine have departed him and he's letting her have the second guy, so he can keep a piece of her. Now that shite's the "ego" when it goes rogue. The two blokes in the other three way weren't exactly heavy hitters either, though seemed more content. TBH - and being bitchy here - those guys looked like the weird kid you pick last for your team in PE class.

There seems to be a different dynamic in play depending on whether it's two guys with one woman, or two women with one man. In the former where it's two guys, in every case I've heard of, seen, read about, the guys in question are pretty bottom of the barrel dating pool wise, the women above them by a little ways anyway. In the two women, one bloke, the men are usually closer to the top end in looks and/or charisma, and/or power, local or otherwise. Which makes sense. In cultures that practice polygamy the guy with the most cultural "wealth", in looks, money or whatever has the most wives. Polygyny, that is a woman with more than one lover/husband is much rarer in the human cultural sphere.

Which makes evolutionary sense in a very basic sense. If a tribe of people numbering 40 and all but five of the men are killed/lost, the tribe can survive. If If a tribe of people numbering 40 and all but five of the women are killed/lost, the tribe is extinct on its feet.

Can polyamorous relationships work? Of course. Humans can have the oddest setups and they can works. It's one feature of us as a species, a remarkably diverse dating and mating set of cultures. I've personally only known of two such couples. Both eventually imploded, but to be fair one lasted nigh on ten years which isn't so bad.

AllForIt

Deleted User wrote: »

...... we are currently gestating our third child and really happy about it.

Uggh. Too much information.

tupenny

Its what I'd want tbh.
A strong, trusting, loving relationship
Monogamy is bull and sex isnt love

Purple Mountain

I can't find one never mind a few :rolleyes:

Wibbs

tupenny wrote: »

Its what I'd want tbh.

And fair enough. Whatever greases one's axle.

Monogamy is bull

Maybe, but the vast majority of human cultures through time and place have reckoned it the best bet. They all didn't lick that from a stone.

and sex isnt love

If your partner's lover is rooting them into paroxysms of sexual ecstasy and they're usually too tired/have a headache with you, then "love" or a semblance of it tends to follow.

Fourier

Lillybloom wrote: »

Why would you not consider it? Why is it such a problem if someone else has sex with your significant other?

Why do you need to know your partner better than anyone else? Do you get jealous if their sibling knows them just as well as you?

I love these kinds of arguments, you see them all the time on Reddit. Something the vast majority of the population do and is simply a subjective preference is cast as indefensibly irrational and then psychologised, e.g. "Why do you need to know your partner better than anybody else?"

My favourite one came from one of the "no barriers to the net" subreddits where a commenter said something like:
"Why do people care if they're filmed on the toilet and its uploaded to the net, does your ass need to be 'for your eyes only' that much? There's no rational defense for the privatisation fetish of our society"

mvl

Specialun wrote: »

watching the new louis theroux doc from last week on polyamory.
....

dont think i get it tbh

Someone who can't handle polyamory may wanna consider being solo poly ?!?
- guess not many ppl could see the joke ... it IS a joke though.

There are people who can be emotionally involved with more than one individual (human nature is not monogamous imo); they are calling it polyamory and not swinging because there is more than just riding involved.

They have their primary's partner consent before dating others; communication is important. Think it can be both rewarding and demanding to be in such relationships - but it doesn't make sense for everyone.

PS: was reading how polyamory had become quite a thing with millennial's in tech - https://www.wired.com/2017/04/silicon-valley-polyamory/ - if this is not showing up on boards then maybe the locals are not as open about it

Wibbs

mvl wrote: »

PS: was reading how polyamory had become quite a thing with millennial's in tech - https://www.wired.com/2017/04/silicon-valley-polyamory/ - if this is not showing up on boards then maybe the locals are not as open about it

Colour me shocked. Silicon Valley, a culture most likely to produce the kinda guys I noted before in the documentary:TBH - and being bitchy here - those guys looked like the weird kid you pick last for your team in PE class//..where it's two guys, in every case I've heard of, seen, read about, the guys in question are pretty bottom of the barrel dating pool wise, the women above them by a little ways anyway. Silicon Valley tends to be male heavy, fewer women for more men. Plus the same Silicon Valley tends to be a continuation of the dafter ends of the social science "theories" of US college campuses. So Silicon Valley men sharing a "girlfriend"(and I'd bet the farm that's the majority break down of such setup there)? So no, not a shock TBH.

jimmytwotimes 2013

Wouldn't bother some people (male or female) but some people would be very put out by it. Know who you are and date people who share your views on this- whichever side you fall on.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Wouldn’t be for me

corner of hells

Handle it ?

I can't even say it.

Wibbs

Fourier wrote: »

I love these kinds of arguments, you see them all the time on Reddit. Something the vast majority of the population do and is simply a subjective preference is cast as indefensibly irrational and then psychologised, e.g. "Why do you need to know your partner better than anybody else?"

Oh testify F. It is extremely common an argument. Not just on this matter, but defo gets trotted out as far as any sexual/relationship stuff goes.

For me much of it is a holdover from the sexual revolution. A good thing. However the "permissiveness" and openness needed in a society to come to terms with that tends more applying that towards the anything goes minority. And fine. However, just because some swing from the rafters with a feather up their bum, and again that's fine, doesnt mean that others who prefer a more traditional setup are somehow wrong. A revolution should be to the benefit of as many people as possible, not just those calling for one.

newnamexx

Poly what?
Anyway my wife, my beloved wife lost interest after our second child was born.
I played along for a bit but ten years is a bit much So all bets off.
She won't address the issue at all.
The betrayal is hers.
I haven't yet but I will without any guilt if the opportunity ever arises.
Sadly no one is interested. But I live in hope.

And they wonder why Prostitutes make a living. I would never be that desparate.

dartboardio

I’d imagine people in ‘open relationships’ are obsessed with sex and wouldn’t do too well in a regular relationship where it’s not something that is on the top priority 24/7 due to life getting in the way. And that’s not the kinda person I am or would want to be in a LTR with, so yeer welcome to yer open relationships, call them attin ye want

Like above as someone said a relationship for me is mainly focused on the strong trust, loyalty and experiences you share with the person, to change the ‘status’ or ‘category’ of our relationship just so we could have sex with other people would be complete madness to me and defeat the purpose of the operative... the ‘relationship’.

newmember2

Deleted User wrote: »

That is more "swinging" or "open relationship" I think. Where partners come and go - one night stands - and so forth.

Polyamory is more long term and fixed. As one link on google says "Polyamory means having multiple romantic relationships at the same time, with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. An open relationship is a relationship where the parties are free to take new partners"

In your relationship, all parties are romantically linked or is it that you're linked with the two women?

[Deleted User]

newmember? wrote: »

In your relationship, all parties are romantically linked or is it that you're linked with the two women?

The former. They are romantically involved together too.

suicide_circus

not for me. I ain't raising someone else's spawn.

Corb_lund

Absolutely degenerate.

Zorya

Deleted User wrote: »

In any romantic relationship - especially one involving more than the standard two people - communication is key though. Such a relationship is not for everyone and constant monitoring and communication is the core of making it work - and noticing if it is not working for someone.

.

Yeesh, after several decades we still cannot agree on who is due to bewashing the dishes - all that 'constant' monitoring, communicating and noticing must be damn exhausting.

Why does jealousy get such a bad rap anyway? It's not all bad!

A few alternative definitions - from Old French jalousie "enthusiasm, love, longing, keen, zealous,solicitude, carefulness, regard,zeal, fervor, devotion"

I think a certain amount of jealousy is compatible with a healthy ego - if you have found someone who you really admire, respect, love, enjoy sharing spit with, think are the bees knees, the best you've ever come across etc., why wouldn't you want to enthusiastically and keenly keep at least a certain intimate side of them to yourself

Mwuahaha.

BeerWolf

Join the Swingers Club.

Lillybloom

Fourier wrote: »

I love these kinds of arguments, you see them all the time on Reddit. Something the vast majority of the population do and is simply a subjective preference is cast as indefensibly irrational and then psychologised, e.g. "Why do you need to know your partner better than anybody else?"

My favourite one came from one of the "no barriers to the net" subreddits where a commenter said something like:
"Why do people care if they're filmed on the toilet and its uploaded to the net, does your ass need to be 'for your eyes only' that much? There's no rational defense for the privatisation fetish of our society"

And there are answers and rebuttalls to those arguments.

Have a go at debating my point rather than just declaring it invalid.