Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

could you handle a polyamory relationship

Options
1246789

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Bigbagofcans
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Bigbagofcans


    I'm sure some people could handle it but more could not.

    Same as swinging, most people couldn't hack it with the jealousy.


  • Options
    #93
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    Specialun wrote: »
    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

    What you're describing is being cucked if you're not also banging someone else.

    Not quite the same thing as polyamory.


  • Options
    #94
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Zorya


    Lillybloom wrote: »
    People desire sex with other people, often its a repressed desire.

    What's wrong with an oul' repressed desire or two? Do people think that we have to scratch every itch or go entirely mad? I have not found that to be so. In fact an unexpressed desire (which I find to be a more truthful expression than repression, with all its implied heaviness) can be good material for creativity and energy and wisdom.

    I am sure it would be rare among long paired couples for one or both not to occasionally (often, even) meet someone by whom they are astonished. Someone outside the relationship that makes them feel huge desire.
    But so what? That's life, like.

    We don't have to go round satiating all our desires and to effectively deal with a new strong desire is not to necessarily repress it at all. It can be to expand to encompass it. To be wise enough to see in all directions and into the future and the past. It is an exercise in human awareness and the development of will.

    If one is in a committed relationship I think one can learn to love and admire the brilliance and uniqueness of the other to whom one may become suddenly attracted, to contain the fire, to use humour and common sense until the fire naturally dies down, as it inevitably will if not fed by neurosis.

    The world is full of astonishing people who could be desirable. That is something to be happy about. How cool is the species, how desirable. But monogamous people are not all going round with their bellies in a knot full of repressed desires, lamenting mournfully for all the others with whom they cannot be fcuking.


  • Options
    #95
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Lillybloom wrote: »
    Juat having a discussion on the issue, why are you getting so worked up?

    Most people are lemmings, and will just drift towards what the crowd does afraid to do what they truly desire. Monogomy was needed to build civilisation hence it is the status quo.

    What exactly is your problem with letting people live whatever lives they choose ?


  • Options
    #96
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What are people’s views on polyandry? A woman with many husbands?

    I don't even want one!!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Lillybloom
    Site Banned Posts: 75 ✭✭Lillybloom


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    What exactly is your problem with letting people live whatever lives they choose ?

    I do let people live whatever life they choose. I'm not stopping anyone being monogomous. All I'm doing is having a discussion here.


  • Options
    #98
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    I watched a show called "1 husband 3 wives" recently - it followed a group of fundamentalist mormons where they practiced polygamy.

    But the women didnt get to sleep with each other which I thought was a total waste of time. The whole thing was based around the guy fathering as many children as possible to make it easier for him to get to heaven. Boring. The reality was that some of the wives were miserable, and all bar the first wife had no legal standing.

    Would I be in a polyamorous relationship myself? Maybe. But I think itd have to be me and 1 man and 1 woman (I am female). I cant imagine fancying 2 men who are also having sex with each other.

    Mostly I think I just wouldnt have the time or energy for it. Id also worry about the legal position and that the law would only protect one married couple.


  • Options
    #99
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Lillybloom wrote: »
    I do let people live whatever life they choose. I'm not stopping anyone being monogomous. All I'm doing is having a discussion here.

    You're not though. You are decrying monogamy, calling people "lemmings" and belittling the view of people telling how happy they are with their one and only partner.


  • Options
    #100
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    ....... wrote: »
    I watched a show called "1 husband 3 wives" recently - it followed a group of fundamentalist mormons where they practiced polygamy.

    But the women didnt get to sleep with each other which I thought was a total waste of time. The whole thing was based around the guy fathering as many children as possible to make it easier for him to get to heaven. Boring. The reality was that some of the wives were miserable, and all bar the first wife had no legal standing.

    Would I be in a polyamorous relationship myself? Maybe. But I think itd have to be me and 1 man and 1 woman (I am female). I cant imagine fancying 2 men who are also having sex with each other.

    Mostly I think I just wouldnt have the time or energy for it. Id also worry about the legal position and that the law would only protect one married couple.

    I've no wish to go OT but that's basically the only way I would be into doing this!!!


  • Options
    #101
    mvl
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭mvl


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What are people’s views on polyandry? A woman with many husbands?

    for sure same view as about a man having more wives.
    also, it sounds wrong when all partners don't have equal status.

    - other than that, think handling multiple women tensions or multiple men meltdowns can be an art in itself ...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Lillybloom wrote: »
    People desire sex with other people, often its a repressed desire.
    People often conflate physical intimacy and emotional intimacy though.

    You can find someone physically attractive without feeling like, "Oh yeah, I'd love to have sex with them".

    What I mean is that it's a lot like eating. If you're hungry, you'll go and find a piece of food and eat it. In fact, nearly everything edible will look like mana from heaven.
    If you're not hungry, then you can look at a piece of cake and not eat it, while acknowledging that it would indeed be tasty.

    You can also eat the cake if you feel that you can, but you won't get the same "satisfied" feeling you get when you eat because you're hungry.

    Sex is a lot like this. The "hungry" part is the desire for sex with emotional intimacy. And if you have a partner with whom this is already satisfied, then you're not hungry.
    You can acknowledge that attractive stranger looks like a tasty piece of cake, but you don't feel the same desire for them that you do for your own partner. You can call that "repression" if you like, but no more than you "repress" your desire for that chocolate cake because you're already full.


  • Options
    #103
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Zorya


    seamus wrote: »
    People often conflate physical intimacy and emotional intimacy though.

    You can find someone physically attractive without feeling like, "Oh yeah, I'd love to have sex with them".

    What I mean is that it's a lot like eating. If you're hungry, you'll go and find a piece of food and eat it. In fact, nearly everything edible will look like mana from heaven.
    If you're not hungry, then you can look at a piece of cake and not eat it, while acknowledging that it would indeed be tasty.

    You can also eat the cake if you feel that you can, but you won't get the same "satisfied" feeling you get when you eat because you're hungry.

    Sex is a lot like this. The "hungry" part is the desire for sex with emotional intimacy. And if you have a partner with whom this is already satisfied, then you're not hungry.
    You can acknowledge that attractive stranger looks like a tasty piece of cake, but you don't feel the same desire for them that you do for your own partner. You can call that "repression" if you like, but no more than you "repress" your desire for that chocolate cake because you're already full.

    Feck. That's it. I was resisting successfully but the repeated use of the word cake has reached critical max for me...I'm making chocolate biscuits.


  • Options
    #104
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I hear digging but I don’t hear chopping.


  • Options
    #105
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,176 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    Absolutely not. I'm a jealous, possessive Tyrannosaur and so is Woman. :D


  • Options
    #106
    mvl
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭mvl


    seamus wrote: »
    Sex is a lot like this. The "hungry" part is the desire for sex with emotional intimacy. And if you have a partner with whom this is already satisfied, then you're not hungry.

    if this would be it, then I assume we won't see happy couples cheating. few reasons for these cheats, according to Esther Perel :
    https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/relationships/news/a35914/why-happy-couples-cheat-esther-perel/


  • Options
    #107
    Lillybloom
    Site Banned Posts: 75 ✭✭Lillybloom


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    You're not though. You are decrying monogamy, calling people "lemmings" and belittling the view of people telling how happy they are with their one and only partner.

    The general population are lemmings, I think that is hard to dispute. I am disagreeing and making points. Belittling is a subjective interpretation of disagreement.


  • Options
    #108
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    jimgoose wrote: »
    Absolutely not. I'm a jealous, possessive Tyrannosaur and so is Woman. :D

    And with them little arms you can't even, you know.... would explain the frustration!


  • Options
    #109
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,176 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    And with them little arms you can't even, you know.... would explain the frustration!

    Frustration? Au contraire - my good lady and I agree that the presence of a third-party on either of our parts would result in something like a scene from "Predator"! :pac:


  • Options
    #110
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    jimgoose wrote: »
    Frustration? Au contraire - my good lady and I agree that the presence of a third-party on either of our parts would result in something like a scene from "Predator"! :pac:

    I stand corrected!!! :D:D:D:D


  • Options
    #111
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Lillybloom wrote: »
    The general population are lemmings, I think that is hard to dispute.
    The everyone is a sheep, except me notion eh? Fair enough.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Wibbs wrote: »
    The everyone is a sheep, except me notion eh? Fair enough.

    If Michael Fassbender and Jamie Dornan want to enter into a polyamorous relationship with me - can I change my answer ???? Baaaaa!!!


  • Options
    #113
    Fourier
    Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    Lillybloom wrote: »
    I genuinely just want to have a discussion on the topic, but you're making it difficut with your antagonistic tone. I welcome people disagreeing with me, i enjoy the debate, I'm happy to do so without the anatagonism.
    Alright, very simply you said that the general population has a fear of polyamory rather than simply having a preference for monogamy. Do you have any actual evidence of this widespread fear?

    What I have read (and also seen in real life) is that most people either like monogamous relationships, or serial monogamy and others like casual sex, i.e. if people don't enter into a single very long term relationship, they have a series of long terms or they're just not into relationships.

    The number of people really seeking a long-term relationship with multiple people is quite low. Nothing wrong with it, but I just don't think most want it. I certainly don't think most want it, but suppress it for reasons of ego and fear. If that was the case it would be recognised by experts in human sexuality.

    Appeals to other people being "sheeple" are tactics used when actual argumentation is exhausted, i.e. "I am right, others simply lack the insight"


  • Options
    #114
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Zorya


    mvl wrote: »
    if this would be it, then I assume we won't see happy couples cheating. few reasons for these cheats, according to Esther Perel :
    https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/relationships/news/a35914/why-happy-couples-cheat-esther-perel/

    Sometimes I hate pop psychologists, they fill the universe with so much blather. (It is interesting to read, so I don't mean to disrespect you for linking it, just my opinion on HER words.) It sounds to me like her clients are mostly just looking for pseudo-scientific ways to excuse their not having the gumption to turn around to their partner and said upfront- Hey look it, this engine's gonna blow, I am going to have sex with someone else. And then take the consequences of being honest, so at least it gives the other person a chance to live with some choice and dignity. It's not like as if we are forced to live with dishonesty, frenzy and complex drama. People make choices.


  • Options
    #115
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,176 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    Lillybloom wrote: »
    People desire sex with other people, often its a repressed desire.

    You could argue that human males are conditioned by evolution and, to some extent, by environment/society to want to bend every tasty lady they see over the photocopier and impregnate her. And you'd have a point. However, that is rude and counter-productive behaviour. Mot mature men have figured out that a proper, intimate relationship with one person, comprising not only sex but the associated support, emotional and otherwise, is much healthier and more satisfying as time goes on and trust and love builds.


  • Options
    #116
    Captcha
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭Captcha


    STD's

    and

    https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/men-who-perform-oral-sex-women-more-risk-mouth-and-throat-cancers/


  • Options
    #117
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Zorya


    jimgoose wrote: »
    You could argue that human males are conditioned by evolution and, to some extent, by environment/society to want to bend every tasty lady they see over the photocopier and impregnate her. And you'd have a point. However, that is rude and counter-productive behaviour. Mot mature men have figured out that a proper, intimate relationship with one person, comprising not only sex but the associated support, emotional and otherwise, is much healthier and more satisfying as time goes on and trust and love builds.

    Good points except for the evolutionary absence of photocopiers :pac:


  • Options
    #118
    BrokenArrows
    Registered Users Posts: 7,500 ✭✭✭BrokenArrows


    I'm sure it works fine in a relationship where both people are attractive enough to get laid whenever they want.

    Big difference if the guy is not attractive or socially awkward.
    Doesn't matter if a girl is unattractive or awkward, they can get laid whenever they want.


  • Options
    #119
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    BrokenArrows wrote: »
    .
    Doesn't matter if a girl is unattractive or awkward, they can get laid whenever they want.
    [/quote]

    Little Johnny and a little girl are playing. Little Johnny pulls down his shorts and says, "I have one of these and you don't."

    The little girl starts crying and crying and runs home to her mother.

    The next day Little Johnny and the girl are playing together again. Once again Little Johnny points to his private parts and says, "I have one of these and you don't."

    But this time the little girl just keeps on playing.

    "How come you're not crying today," asks Little Johnny.

    "My mother told me," says the little girl, pulling up her dress, "that with one of these, I can get as many of those as I want."[/quote]


  • Options
    #120
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Zorya


    BrokenArrows wrote: »
    I'm sure it works fine in a relationship where both people are attractive enough to get laid whenever they want.

    Big difference if the guy is not attractive or socially awkward.
    Doesn't matter if a girl is unattractive or awkward, they can get laid whenever they want.

    Meh, I don't know, I'm not generally seeing astonishing love things in the pictures I'm finding of polyamorous couples.

    https://www.oddee.com/item_99303.aspx

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS8a0qBAmKjvVYYUCi6UTC7VDakdXzMXKl6_IJ8wKa3e-fCRjM-

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTr6uplLLYxwLrmMpZbDkCtRUuT4YKFUFCa_evftaFIr0HF8iz

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQHrLOzJggmDRPzI2FBboL_JKSb2Gvac9-AVbe61f8O4xAWFSL


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,176 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    Zorya wrote: »
    Good points except for the evolutionary absence of photocopiers :pac:

    Alright already, substitute "tree-stump" for "photocopier" back in the day and it be pleasing you, my point stands! :D


Advertisement