Any polyamorists among us?

Calibos wrote: »

Paging taxAHcruel...Paging taxAHcruel....

If you insist.

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm onto you.

Oooooo matron. Ger 'orf. At least wait to be asked.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Oh yeah sure you want an 'ethical', 'responsible', 'non-monogamous' relationship.

It essentially for many has all the properties of monogamy. Except the focus of your fidelity and dedication is not just to the person but to the _relationship_ itself. Such people are entirely committed to the relationship - and are practising complete fidelity within those boundaries. It is not much of a focus shift really - I think most couples are similar - but the distinction is less clear or relevant to them because full dedication to the relationship coincides synonymously with dedication to the partner too.

There is an "alternative relationships" kind of thread live over on The Ladies Lounge forum too if you wish to read more or ask more too.

Doc wrote: »

The way he described it she wanted them to be in a committed relationship with each other but that they were free to experience sex with other people if they wanted to without that being seen as cheating.

This is somewhat different I think. There are some differences between an "open relationship" which is what you describe and what people generally consider polyamory to be. Then there polyandry. And polygamy. And more. To be honest - The labels confuse the feck out of me. I have given up on them.

I think what people generally mean by it is essentially a committed relationship with full fidelity - only the relationship has more than the standard 2 people in it.

This can include tangential relationships - that is for example a person with two relationships with two independent people - a guy with a girl in one house and another in another house for example - or a full interpersonal one where all the people in the situation are in relationships with each other - so the guy has two girlfriends for example - and they are also romantically and sexually involved. The latter is where I lie and is generally considered to be emotionally the easier to maintain as there are less chances - and causes for - jealousy and division of priorities.

But in both types the boundaries and settings are clear. You know who is involved with who - how - and in what way. And the entire relationship has all the same rules of fidelity that you would associate with any "normal couple".

A full open relationship is massively different. You do not know who your partner is sexual with - how often - when - where - why - or anything. Or what their level of emotional investment in each partner might be - or develop to be.

While my own relationship is open to the VERY occasional (talking like three times in 10 years) event where we have indulged in some level of sexual expression with people outside the relationship in an experimental way - I would certainly not be able to cope with a true "open relationship" situation. It just would not be for me. I would break down the very first time my partner left the house without me.

Gongoozler wrote: »

I wonder, if you're not comfortable with being in an open relationship, does it really just come down to insecurity?

I would say not no. We all know what we want from a relationship - what rules and boundies and conditions - and I would not put words like "insecure" or "prudish" or "close minded" or any other psychological evaluation on anyone who merely had preferences that precluded certain activities or configurations. We simply want what we want.

Saying someone is insecure just because they do not want an open relationship would be as awful as suggesting someone is racist simply because they have never been sexually attracted to asians. You simply want what you want.

Actually sometimes the exact reverse is true. Some people consent to open relationships _because_ of their insecurities. They feel - for example - that they will lose their partner if they do not consent to allow it - and so against their own better judgement and well being they consent to allow it regardless of their own feelings. And it is truely sad when this happens to the point my heart literally aches for those I know who have been cajoled into it.

Rayanne2010 wrote: »

Each to their own & it it works congrats.. but imho... it's a cover up for love/sex addiction and lack of intimacy/commitment... dilutes the love in all dat! ;o)

I have found the exact opposite to be true. And my usual response if asked about this is to ask a person who has 4 children - for example - if their love for their children feels any more dilute now than when they had 2 children only.

Never once have I had a yes answer to that question. I think what most people realise is that human love is one of the truely infinite resources we appear to have. No matter how much love your heart pours out on one target - like a child or sibling - parent or sexual partner - it is capable of doing it again for another. That does not mean we are compelled to do so - but it certainly does mean we can not question the reality of the love of those that do.

_Are_ there people who fit your evaluation above? Hell yes. Loads of them. Especially in the open relationship and swinging communities. Is it a fair generalisation by which to judge all such relationships however? Not a bit.

whiskeyman wrote: »

Is that someone who eats Flora?

Nah. And the adverts lead me to believe eating Flora is _good_ for your heart. One wonders if the same can be said of this Early grave probably.

Lau2976 wrote: »

I think it's quite interesting. I'd try it TBH but I'm a selfish git so I can't see it going well for anybody involved but me

It is not something I would recommend anyone set out to do or try or achieve. That would make it somewhat forced and less natural - something I have always found corrosive to the success of any sexual adventure short or long term. I think the people I know who have ended up in such relationships - and are making it work - tended to end up there naturally in a slow evolution of events that they neither predicted nor controlled.

One thing that seems ubiquitous in people I have met in such situations is that every one of them have openly said "If someone had asked me _before_ any of this if this is the kind of thing I would like to happen - I would have said NO".

I have yet to see a healthy example of such a relationship where any one person in it said "Hell yea - this is what I always wanted - so I set out to make it happen - and here I am".

Lau2976 wrote: »

I would be open to it naturally progressing there.

A good way to be. In my experience as I said however the majority - if not all - the people who ended up there seem to be saying to me (myself included) - that they would not have considered themselves open to it really if asked before it all happened. They simply somehow found themselves not only there - but happy being there.

If someone had met the 12 years ago me and - having described my relationship to me - asked would I be up for trying that kind of thing - I would have been in the "hell no" bracket I think.

Lau2976 wrote: »

An interesting thing on this would be that RTE 2 show connected. I think one of them is dealing with this now?

I might have to You Tube that one. I am in the "No Television" camp - to the point I have only just this second learned that Network 2 has renamed itself back to RTE2 apparently?

Dial Hard wrote: »

taxAHcruel, I've always wanted to ask how you'd feel if either of your girlfriends wanted to bring another man into the equation?

I would feel exactly the same way as you would in a couple if your partner proposed this.

I think it is hard to get this across even though I have tried it a few ways. But really the best way to envision this relationship is quite literally to understand that it operates in every way the same as any couple - with the minor difference in numbers.

Like any couple our relationship evolved from first meeting into a romantic relationship - and like any couple it is unlikely anyone would want to - or would ask to - suddenly introduce another person into that dynamic.

But as with all hypothetical questions like this - or what I would do if one of them left - or what would I do if they decided to be together exclusively without me - or whatever - I simply give the same answer: It appears highly unlikely at this time to happen, and I will cross that bridge if and when we come to it.

Dial Hard wrote: »

Because pretty much any polyamorous relationship I've seen/read about has been one man with multiple girlfriends and none of them ever seem particularly keen on the idea of another man coming on the scene.

Because of my own relationship and my large amount of friends in, and my work with, the gay community, I have met a handful of people in similar relationships and you are indeed right. They are predominantly skewed towards a ratio of higher females to males. But I have met a couple that were the other way too. So they are out there. Just less common.

But for me it has nothing to do with not wanting another man on the scene. As I said the relationship is established and I would not want another PERSON on the scene in that way. Even if they proposed another girl - my reaction would be identical to another guy.

The only introduction of other people we have engaged in so far are the rare (like I said 3ish times) playing about at a party or in a game of dares that got carried away or the like where we ended up doing a few things sexually with others. But many relationships do that every so often I guess I have also proposed to them a one or two time "open relationship" thing where they get to do some playing away - which they were interested in discussing - but have not since followed up on in any way.