could you handle a polyamory relationship

seamus · 12-11-2018 3:37pm

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.

Zorya · 12-11-2018 3:42pm

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.

12-11-2018 3:47pm

I hear digging but I don’t hear chopping.

jimgoose · 12-11-2018 3:52pm

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

mvl · 12-11-2018 4:06pm

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/

Lillybloom · 12-11-2018 4:06pm

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.

PlaneSpeeking · 12-11-2018 4:10pm

jimgoose wrote: »

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

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

jimgoose · 12-11-2018 4:10pm

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:

PlaneSpeeking · 12-11-2018 4:14pm

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

Wibbs · 12-11-2018 4:17pm

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.

PlaneSpeeking · 12-11-2018 4:19pm

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!!!

Fourier · 12-11-2018 4:22pm

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"

Zorya · 12-11-2018 4:23pm

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.

jimgoose · 12-11-2018 4:23pm

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.

Captcha · 12-11-2018 4:24pm

STD's

and

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

Zorya · 12-11-2018 4:32pm

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:

BrokenArrows · 12-11-2018 4:34pm

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.

wexie · 12-11-2018 4:39pm

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]

Zorya · 12-11-2018 4:43pm

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:ANd9GcS8a0qBAmKjvVYYUCi6UTC7VDakdXzMXKl6_IJ8wKa3e-fCRjM-

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTr6uplLLYxwLrmMpZbDkCtRUuT4YKFUFCa_evftaFIr0HF8iz

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQHrLOzJggmDRPzI2FBboL_JKSb2Gvac9-AVbe61f8O4xAWFSL

jimgoose · 12-11-2018 4:43pm

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!

super_furry · 12-11-2018 4:44pm

Keeping one woman happy is hard enough, not sure I could manage two. Nevermind trying to schedule getting the ride with their other fellas.

jimgoose · 12-11-2018 4:45pm

Zorya wrote: »

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

I see no oil-paintings there, by any means - although the two ladies in the first picture have nice baps.

mvl · 12-11-2018 4:51pm

Zorya wrote: »

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.

not sure I get your meaning about pop psychologists - is it because of what i linked, or have you read other material ?

- I was under the impression she's quite reputable psychotherapist, and she has solid experience in couples therapy.
-> ordered one of her recent books, looking forward to start reading it. till now I've listened to few of her talks, and read some articles here and there.

Zorya · 12-11-2018 4:52pm

jimgoose wrote: »

I see no oil-paintings there, by any means - although the two ladies in the first picture have nice baps.

Agreed, but the state of their eyebrows.

Zorya · 12-11-2018 4:55pm

mvl wrote: »

not sure I get your meaning about pop psychologists - is it because of what i linked, or have you read other material ?

- I was under the impression she's quite reputable psychotherapist, and she has solid experience in couples therapy.
-> ordered one of her recent books, looking forward to start reading it. till now I've listened to few of her talks, and read some articles here and there.

Sorry, I only read that one article. It doesn't look very scientific to me, that's what I mean by pop psychology. It just looks like a bundle of randomly constructed explanations. Maybe she is better elsewhere and hopefully you enjoy her book.

12-11-2018 4:55pm

....... wrote: »

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.

Well for us the time and energy thing works out because the girls are involved too. I imagine if I was doing the Mormon thing you describe and it was just me sexually active with two separate women - there would be time and energy issues too. But because we pair up or group in at different times in different ways - I am probably averaging out at around the same amount of sex as any normal couple over all.

As for the law - that was the hardest part for us. We decided not to use marriage at all - so as not to give one legal standing and the other not. So we never got married - though we did have a marriage ceremony of our own design for friends and families.

Instead we have worked with our lawyer/solicitor to work up legal documents on things like next of kin - medical proxy - inheritance - and parental rights. So basically if me and one of them as killed in a car crash tomorrow - the kids would not be taken away from the non-biological mother - and separated from their half-sibling(s) which they are to have the first of soon enough.

Lillybloom · 12-11-2018 5:03pm

Wibbs wrote: »

The everyone is a sheep, except me notion eh? Fair enough.

Putting words in my mouth therr Wibbs. Never said I was or wasn't a fellow lemming.

andekwarhola · 12-11-2018 5:15pm

Lillybloom wrote: »

Nope I'm explaining my people are afraid of open relationships, you haven't countered that point. I never said what people should and shouldn't like. I believe you are projecting.

Ironically, when people are at such pains to prove that the elective lifestyles of others are down to fearful conformity, it just makes the accuser look like the one that might secretly doubt their own.

Lillybloom · 12-11-2018 5:20pm

andekwarhola wrote: »

Ironically, when people are at such pains to prove that the elective lifestyles of others are down to fearful conformity, it just makes accuser look like the one that might secretly doubt their own.

If your interested in debate then you won't be interested in what someone "looks like".

professore · 12-11-2018 5:22pm

Lillybloom wrote: »

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?

You say things like intimacy abd fidelity, but really I think those words are a cover up for the real reason, you want to protect your ego.

Biologically if your man sleeps around you can't get pregnant with someone else's kid. If your woman sleeps around she can. HUGE DIFFERENCE. It would be the equivalent of stopping a woman having any kids, and on top of that, raising the kids of a woman or women that their man cheated on her with. I think that's the main reason women are less bothered about sharing their man than the other way round.

andekwarhola · 12-11-2018 5:28pm

Lillybloom wrote: »

If your interested in debate then you won't be interested in what someone "looks like".

'Lemmings' obviously exist on both sides of the conformity divide.

seamus · 12-11-2018 5:31pm

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/

A few reasons, which are all unhappiness or unsatisfied desire reworded to sound like they're outside of personal control. How American.

You're making the error in assuming that what I posted applies to everybody equally. Of course it doesn't.

People still eat cake when they're not hungry. People still eat cake even when they're fit to burst, but the urge is too much. Some people cannot walk past a cake without taking a slice.

But not everyone does. Some people don't eat cake no matter how hungry they are. Some people acknowledge the cake looks great, but also acknowledge that it's empty carbs and they won't feel that great afterwards. Some people see the cake and think, "Ooh yeah, I have some cake at home, I'm gonna have me some of that".

The implication that everyone desires sex with other people is fundamentally flawed because it assumes everyone feels and acts the same.

I posited a more general opinion why that's not the case for everyone, I never claimed that people in couples never cheat, just that the push and pull factor is highly variable.

suicide_circus · 12-11-2018 5:49pm

what's the problem with repressing desire? adults do it all the time.

pxdf9i5cmoavkz · 12-11-2018 5:56pm

My wife asked me the other day what I would think of her if she slept with my best friend.

I replied: That you're lesbian?

Pyr0 · 12-11-2018 6:18pm

It wouldn't be for me personally, once I commit to someone emotionally and physically then I expect them to do the same for me, obviously this is after a "are we exclusive?" conversation. I'd hope that by that point it would have been brought up if it was something the other person wanted to do and if it was, I'd end it.

I know a few people in varying degrees of an "open relationship" and I find it very interesting, mainly just hearing the stories that spring up from that kinda life :pac:

Capt'n Midnight · 12-11-2018 7:02pm

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

when multiple cultures were looked at the offspring from polyamory didn't fare as well. Because resources were spread across more of them.

Taken to daft logic with the Ottoman Sultans. Lots of kids, but the first thing you did on becoming Sultan was to kill all your brothers :eek:

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.

Hogamous, Higamous,
Man is Polygamous,
Higamous, Hogamous,
Woman is Monogamous

Read the Bible, lot of massacres of men.

The 19th century War of the Triple Alliance wiped out up to 90% of the male population of Paraguay.

70%-80% of Russian males born in 1923 didn't make it past 1945

rob316 · 12-11-2018 7:25pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not much info to give that I have not given multiple times on the forum before. I am 11ish years as the M in an MFF relationship now.

The girls titled it a "Truple". And except for it being 3 people and not 2 - we are pretty much the same as a "couple" in every other way. Pretty much all the same rules and expectations and dynamics you would expect of a couple.

As you can see from the posts just above mine however - there is a misconception that it is the same thing as an open relationship or sleeping around. That is something else though - not what we do and not - I think - what the word polyamory means.

If anyone has a link to it that would be nice - always interested to follow the current thinking on it for obvious reasons. Or if you can Drop Box it and share a link with me or whatever.

In a relationship with 2 women under the same roof? Christ mate one is enough.
Couldn't handle double the problems and moaning.

Zorya · 12-11-2018 7:53pm

rob316 wrote: »

In a relationship with 2 women under the same roof? Christ mate one is enough.
Couldn't handle double the problems and moaning.

I think it's the double amount of moaning that he likes

Earthhorse · 12-11-2018 7:57pm

Fourier wrote: »

Now we enter into personal theories of human history, is this supported anywhere?

Not sure if you mean the "lemmings" part or the "monogamy" part of her statement but my understanding is that the latter is supported. I'm no expert on the subject but I remember reading in Stephen Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature that most anthropologists consider human beings to be mildly polygamous.

Here's a quick link I found on the subject: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-humans-polygamous-in-nature

I have to say I don't really find it that difficult to believe.

pauliebdub · 12-11-2018 8:25pm

I've come across gay relationships that are polyamorous, though it seems to be quite rare, usually a couple of lads who are married and shack up together with a third lad. I'm not sure where the 3rd guy stands from a legal perspective if it didn't work out he could be dumped on the street or how the dynamics work if you are with a couple, is one more interested in you than the other. It wouldn't be for me.

AllForIt · 12-11-2018 8:27pm

I could handle say 5 or 6 but no more than that.

Fourier · 12-11-2018 8:43pm

Earthhorse wrote: »

Not sure if you mean the "lemmings" part or the "monogamy" part of her statement but my understanding is that the latter is supported. I'm no expert on the subject but I remember reading in Stephen Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature that most anthropologists consider human beings to be mildly polygamous.

Here's a quick link I found on the subject: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-humans-polygamous-in-nature

I have to say I don't really find it that difficult to believe.

That's simply a quora answer though, not an actual statement from anthropologists. I know from theoretical physics that Quora can't really be trusted to be accurate.

Pinker, I'd have to see the book, but he tends to make sweeping claims, say they're supported and then when you dig into it, it turns out to be one or two studies his grad student did.

My reading of the area is that humans tend along monogamy to serial monogamy rather than polygamy (although there are cultures with polygamy), see this review from Springer-Verlag:
http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gavrila/papers/pairbonding.pdf

Most likely Wibbs knows more accurate information.

However the main thing I was disagreeing with was this:

Monogomy was needed to build civilisation hence it is the status quo.

There is no evidence of this, in fact the review article above (and others) don't posit anything like this. Monogamy seems to be natural (along with other forms of sexual bonding) in humans.

Lillybloom · 12-11-2018 8:56pm

Fourier wrote: »

That's simply a quora answer though, not an actual statement from anthropologists. I know from theoretical physics that Quora can't really be trusted to be accurate.

Pinker, I'd have to see the book, but he tends to make sweeping claims, say they're supported and then when you dig into it, it turns out to be one or two studies his grad student did.

My reading of the area is that humans tend along monogamy to serial monogamy rather than polygamy (although there are cultures with polygamy), see this review from Springer-Verlag:
http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gavrila/papers/pairbonding.pdf

Most likely Wibbs knows more accurate information.

However the main thing I was disagreeing with was this:

There is no evidence of this, in fact the review article above (and others) don't posit anything like this. Monogamy seems to be natural (along with other forms of sexual bonding) in humans.

Do you think we'd have the civilisation we do today if monogomy and marriage was never introduced?

Earthhorse · 12-11-2018 9:03pm

Fourier wrote: »

That's simply a quora answer though, not an actual statement from anthropologists. I know from theoretical physics that Quora can't really be trusted to be accurate.

Oh absolutley, which is why I said it was a "quick link". The books making those statements are discussed in said link though. I guess we'd have to read them.

My reading of the area is that humans tend along monogamy to serial monogamy rather than polygamy (although there are cultures with polygamy), see this review from Springer-Verlag:
http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gavrila/papers/pairbonding.pdf

If we interpret humans being mildly polygamous as; most of us are monogamous but some are drawn toward polygamy then there is no contradiction between what you're saying and what they're saying. I realise we could also read it as; most human beings are mildly drawn toward polygamy.

Most likely Wibbs knows more accurate information.

Pffft! He doesn't even have grad students.

There is no evidence of this, in fact the review article above (and others) don't posit anything like this. Monogamy seems to be natural (along with other forms of sexual bonding) in humans.

On that subject I'm not so sure but if we look at marriage historically we can see the basis for these claims in traditions such as dowries and ties between royal families.

12-11-2018 9:09pm

rob316 wrote: »

In a relationship with 2 women under the same roof? Christ mate one is enough. Couldn't handle double the problems and moaning.

I don't think I could handle a moaner at all - let alone two of them. If someone feels they are trapped in a relationship with a moaner - I would wonder should they be questioning why they are in that relationship at all. I am quite attracted to positive people myself - and the only "moaning" I can think of occurring around here is the good kind.

Fourier · 12-11-2018 9:41pm

No real disagreement there Earthhorse, I'll await somebody who might know more, not something I'll claim a huge amount of knowledge on. However more so I doubt Lillybloom has reached the conclusion of social constructed monogamy from a literature review.

Lillybloom wrote:

Do you think we'd have the civilisation we do today if monogomy and marriage was never introduced?

Well the articles above have Monogamy as one of the natrual mating patterns of humans, so we'd have to have evolved differently, so definitely things would be different. How different? I cannot say.

Guffy · 12-11-2018 10:32pm

Try_harder wrote: »

/i was going for the Balamory tune lol

You didn't try hard enough.

FTA69 · 12-11-2018 10:51pm

Such a load of old hippy rubbish. I met one chap who was in such a relationship, skinny weird looking chap in Harry Potter glasses and a scarf. Described himself as an “anarchist”, shock horror.

I was asking him is he ok with his missus getting gorilla-f*cked over the kitchen table by some lad while he’s off having a pint or something and he said “it’s not my place to police my partner’s sexual activity.” What a joker.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he has his bollix taped to his gooch.

Mental carry on.

Fourier · 12-11-2018 11:00pm

Earthhorse wrote: »

Oh absolutley, which is why I said it was a "quick link". The books making those statements are discussed in said link though. I guess we'd have to read them.

I looked at this a bit more.

Rather than reading Sex at Dawn itself, I read some of the academic commentary on it.

It mostly seems to have not really been noticed in the relevant fields and was rejected by OUP for publication.

Even one of the more positive reviews from a Dr. Emily Nagoski is fairly scathing at the end.

Out of Eden is a more respected and one I have read. However I know most don't consider his view of Monogamy being constructed as valid and it certainly isn't the standard view among anthropologists. Plus I don't think his conclusion would sit well with some (he thinks Monogamy is unnatural, but it's what we should do, like how physical conflict is natural but we should avoid it).

A review of it by Dr. Catherine Driscoll at the University of Sydney actually states the standard view is what you said

Dr. Driscoll wrote:

that it was choice-based and only mildly polygynous

The full review is behind a Springer-Verlag paywall, but just in case some have access and you can read the summary:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-017-9573-3

So Monogamy being a major part of the natural range of human sexual behaviors is the current model among anthropologists. Not that Monogamy is constructed to preserve the status quo and we're all naturally Polygamous as Lillybloom suggested.

Lillybloom · 12-11-2018 11:14pm

Fourier wrote: »

No real disagreement there Earthhorse, I'll await somebody who might know more, not something I'll claim a huge amount of knowledge on. However more so I doubt Lillybloom has reached the conclusion of social constructed monogamy from a literature review.

Well the articles above have Monogamy as one of the natrual mating patterns of humans, so we'd have to have evolved differently, so definitely things would be different. How different? I cannot say.

If we evolved for monogomy cheating and adultery wouldn't be so common.

could you handle a polyamory relationship

Comments