considering the changes in the way we see our world and the methods we can now see other ideas (i.e. social media and the news) i think a lot of people are having a very myopic view of what a relationship should be, a marriage, and what polyamorous means. having experience in all three, i think any approach of a relationship can work long as one is not influenced by ideas outside of them and as long as there is a level of communication AND comprehension that is unmatched or not influenced by people outside of the relationship. for example, I've had folks tell me to divorce my partner based on some ways they behave, not realizing that it's part of the dynamic of our relationship that i love and honor. in my most sensitive times, i avoid talking about my issues with my partner or partners outside of the relationship bc people outside usually have only MY interests best in mind, not the interests of the relationship.
there's a balancing act of "us" and "me" that we have to navigate when we are trying to work through relationship, marriage, and polyam situations. takes a lot of effort that some folks have yet to realize.
Polyamory's been essentially the same for humans over the generations and cultures, it's just the taboos that change.
The average relationship is 2 years long. 20% of men cheat in a relationship and 13% of women do.
If you wanna call that monogamy, OK, but I think the natural tendency of a human couple is to eventually want to expand, or take a break, or have variety, or fulfill needs with someone else that are not being fulfilled with the significant other... and the only thing stopping them is the fear of losing the person or being ostracized in the social circle.
I think a lot of this is just how our brains evolved based on social structure; it's less drama to be monogamous, but the human brain gets tired of the same thing over years. Even a car fanatic needs to take a break from cars, or it feels like a chore. It's sad but true to frame humans this way, but we'd probably be extinct if our brains didn't crave variety or a break from the norm at some point (even just a vacation or a guys/gals-night out can be that break).
@davebutton
"The average relationship is 2 years long. 20% of men cheat in a relationship and 13% of women do.
If you wanna call that monogamy, OK, but I think the natural tendency of a human couple is to eventually want to expand, "
No, no, no. 😭
Virtually no reasonable person calls cheating monogamy. The two things are not one and the same.
Someone could be in a poly relationship and cheat or in a monogamous relationship and cheat. Some people wanting variety (such as being with different people on that level, or cheating,) or finding they are no longer compatible doesn't negate the existence of either relationship dynamics. At the end of the day, no matter if it's monogamy or not, * healthy relationships are to be built on the foundation of: honesty, respect, good communication, and trust.
At the end of the day, no matter if it's monogamy or not, a healthy relationships are to be built on the foundation of: honesty, respect, good communication, and trust.
@Lovelight And consent! Nobody consents to cheating unless the partner has somehow made them compliant (such as threatening to leave the partner and their kids as an ultimatum, if they're not allowed to fool around and get their needs met). Not even the people who get tired of their partner not doing the work within the relationship to improve or save it, and just say, "You know what? Go ahead. Do whatever you want, I don't care anymore."
They're not consenting either, they've just given up. Like someone who is being assaulted, but lays down until it's over because they are frozen. I know that sounds like a really horrible equivalency but it's what I think of when I hear of such situations.
@Lovelight I think what @davebutton is getting at is there are people who think they're in a monogamous relationship when in actuality their partner is cheating, so they don't realize their partner is not being monogamous.
@Catloaf For sure, for me I put consent under the umbrella of respect.
@MaineCuddle I don't see it that way. There's something unsettling to me * about this * which I can't quite articulate why:
If you wanna call that monogamy, OK, but I think the natural tendency of a human couple is to eventually want to expand, or take a break, or have variety, or fulfill needs with someone else that are not being fulfilled with the significant other... and the only thing stopping them is the fear of losing the person or being ostracized in the social circle."
Feels kind of like saying "x% of men sexually assault and I think the natural tendency of men is to be sexual". Like Catloaf pointed out, neither cheating nor assault involve consent. I'd further go to say, that cheating isn't just about wanting to fulfill one's desires for say variety. Though about being selfish and controling another human too: whom the cheaters know or are for instance afraid will leave them. It could even be the cheaters not wanting the partners to find someone else themselves, should they bring up the topic to see someone else, etc.
(I still haven't figured out how to/or can't remember how to quote lines.) I think that your assessment is correct and the high divorce rate speaks for itself.
@MaineCuddle quoting a line is ">" followed by the text you're quoting. >This is what it looks like when you're writing a comment and quoting text becomes:
>This is what it looks like when you're writing a comment and quoting text
This is what it looks like when you're writing a comment and quoting text
Ignore this comment, it's nothing. You saw nothing. (<.<) (>.>) (<.>)
@Catloaf Thank you for the quoting tip. I edited that other part out.
I edited mine too. Men In Black Neuralyzer style.
@phil123cuddle seems like you might be considering entering into a thruple? Or maybe your partner is looking elsewhere?
If you're not comfortable with it, don't do it. Communicate your reservations and have a discussion about expectations.
@sashamcgee great to meet a fellow relationship anarchist! Let me know if you'd ever like to chat, I am looking for more people on that kinda wavelength
@vivalalife nice to meet you as well! For the record I'm pretty much always open to new connections
Yay R.A., open, solo poly-ish! Such a lovely discussion y'all are having ;-)
I own no one (or their time/attention) and no one owns me (or my time/attention). I am drama repulsed.
I applaud any mutually authentic agreeable arrangements people make as creative solutions to human social/bonding needs, but I'm suprised that the cis het "till death to us part" myth still has any life in it. I hypothesize that disneyfied marketing in collusion with the family law and therapy industries keeps people making the same mistakes - so the anguish and drama continue.
Coupling is a relic of the patriarchy - likely only going back to the origins of agriculture 10,000 years ago (compared with ~200,000 years of our species). To quote my favorite historian Yuval Harari "we evolved in groups, not pairs". Going from nomadic foraging to sedentary agriculture created a demand for baby factories to produce workers and soldiers.
In many places women have been freed from that slavery, but the cutural tyranny of twos makes people imagine they can join forces and reduce expenses (and live happily ever after). Then most of them find their costs multiplied fighting over kids custody and community assets.
"Sex At Dawn" by Ryan and Jetha is an excellent humorous read on the topic - from an anthropological and primatological view.
I don't think coupling will be the norm in 50 years. It is unsustainable.
@Arphaxad007 Oh yeah, the "trash on monogamous relationships while making polyamory seem like a whole snack" strikes again. -_-
"Yay R.A., open, solo poly-ish! Such a lovely discussion y'all are having ;-)
I own no one (or their time/attention) and no one owns me (or my time/attention). I am drama repulsed."
Saying: "I applaud any mutually authentic agreeable arrangements people make as creative solutions to human social/bonding needs,"
While in the same breath calling monogamous relationships and people's vows to be together til death does them part a myth. Fyi, it is not heterosexual, cis exclusive thing to get married or take those vows.
"but I'm suprised that the cis het "till death to us part" myth still has any life in it."
The fact is, polyamory isn't for everyone and I don't see it ever being.
@Lovelight Thank you for your response and the opportunity to clarify one of my statements. By "cis het myth" I meant that cis het is the origin of the institution of marriage. Like many places still in the world today, practically everywhere a 100 years ago same sex marriage was illegal and homosexuality was closeted.
I do agree that poly isn't for everyone, nor will it ever be. in fact, I've seen some pretty scary drama in some poly nesting arrangements that re-confirms my own solo policy. I've also seen some really great long term stable open arrangements. I'm not against coupling, but would hope people will save themselves the trouble of the traditional "relationship escalator" anguish - that more than 51% end up in.
I believe people change and are individuals - not parts of the fictional entity of "a couple". I love the idea of individuals flourishing. If they can do so as "a couple" and not become stifled, miserably belaboring their friends with their suffering, great! Couple on!
@Arphaxad007
"I'm not against coupling, but would hope people will save themselves the trouble of the traditional "relationship escalator" anguish - that more than 51% end up in."
What do you mean by "the traditional relationship escalator anguish"? And what is your 51% based off of?:
"I believe people change and are individuals - not parts of the fictional entity of "a couple". I love the idea of individuals flourishing. If they can do so as "a couple" ..."
Why do you have a couple in quotations? Makes it sound like you are trying to invalidate monogamous people's relationships.
"... and not become stifled, miserably belaboring their friends with their suffering, great! Couple on!"
No relationship dynamic is exempt from misery, belaboring, and suffering. Or the need to work through it.
Having relationship issues isn't monogamy exclusive. In fact, it isn't even romantic/sexual relationship exclusive. It is a part of being imperfect humans who are trying to figure out and get along with both themselves and each other.
Except for his:
R.A., open, solo poly-ish! I own no one (or their time/attention) and no one owns me (or my time/attention). I am drama repulsed.
R.A., open, solo poly-ish!
That sounds like relationship utopia. I want a hippie commune.
@biancalovecraft
Our grandmothers couldn't get the cheap credit cards they pressure teens into getting
My mother was not allowed a credit card, unless she brought her husband or father to the bank, for them to authorize it, directly, with the bank.
She had a job. And it paid well. Her only crime was being female.
1970s. Canada This was standard
What is usually meant by relationship escalator is something like this: the belief in the sequence of people meeting, then believing they have found "their person" usually going exclusively with them, then cohabitating and/or marrying, have kids (maybe co owned pets), buying their house together, living happily ever after with their partner.
That was the "modern" version of idealistic models of "family" that 50's TV shows like Leave it To Beaver or Father Knows Best portrayed.
The anguish part is finally figuring out that their "life partner" isn't and then the drama of dissolution. The more than 51% number is referring to divorce rate. That is quite minimal considering the consistent decline in marriage rates as well as all of the get together-break up drama gossip that is constant about people who haven't even gotten to the cohabitation part.
Why I have "a couple" in quotations is because many people believe it to be its own existing thing. Most couples invalidate themselves over time (I would remind you that anything greater than 51% = "most") by terminating their arrangement. I am not trying to invalidate anyone. Couples, throuples, open, monogamous, monogamish, etc. I admire creative solutions and wish the best to anyone's human connection efforts....except the predators ;-)
I disagree that there are no relationships that are exempt from misery, belaboring and suffering. There are plenty and I am not interested in ANY misery, belaboring and suffering. If something isn't working for me, I'm out. Whether familial, business, friend, hobby, club, etc.
I agree that people are trying to figure out changing situations, but the simpler and more clearly defined that any "relationship" is, the better it can work for the participants. I'd wager that you are rarely dissatisfied with the cashier at the grocery store. Maybe I'm wrong about that and you've tried a relationship counselor with them already ;-)
I repeat, I am not against or trying to invalidate "couples". But the moment ANYONE complains to me about another person they are involved with, I tell them to take it up with them, not me. I won't in joining a gang to validate someone's position in a power struggle. That's drama I'm very happy to let other more dramatic folk enjoy.
@Arphaxad007 "I disagree that there are no relationships that are exempt from misery, belaboring and suffering."
I didn't make such an argument. Straw man alert.
"I own no one (or their time/attention) and no one owns me (or my time/attention)."
PS. I am glad you own nobody and that nobody owns you, cause to own or be owned by someone is slavery which is no good.
Over and done with.
@MaineCuddle "Except for his:
That sounds like relationship utopia. I want a hippie commune."
Fine, imma give him that, I guess.
I think communication is super important with polyamory, and while monogamy works for some people I think its completely normal to have love for more than one person. I think to much pressure can be put on finding your one person and that they have to fulfill your every need. I think there are many kinds of love and that each one is really important. I think romantic love should be talked about more, and validated. I can get a bit clingy and needy and my relationship has gotten so much better now that Iv stopped looking to my girlfriend to fulfill my every need and now have a couple close cuddly and deep bonds. So I think polyamory can be great but its definitely not easy and takes a lot of communication. Also having a good relationship with self is super important!
Nm
@frogtide "I think to much pressure can be put on finding your one person and that they have to fulfill your every need."
There can be if there are unrealistic expectations and that the relationship is unhealthy. And if there's such pressure, given there's no perfection, then that's to be worked through.
For instance, sometimes incompatibilities especially if just by a bit, can be mitigated through healthy compromises and *sacrifices: https://www.aconsciousrethink.com/15515/sacrifice-in-a-relationship/
"I think there are many kinds of love and that each one is really important."
"Also having a good relationship with self is super important!"
I agree.
@Lovelight by "No relationship dynamic is exempt from misery, belaboring, and suffering. Or the need to work through it." were you just pointing out that when people experience some kind of frustration in a relationship that they can "work through it"?
Your use of the word "exempt" was what I disagree with. In fact, I think people can choose to only create relationships that never have misery, belaboring, and suffering.
A similar analogy is the contrast of stereotypical Eastern social views with Western social views. In the West "Everything is permitted except that which is expressly forbidden" and in the East "Everything is forbidden except that which is expressly permitted".
The notion that any "relationship" has automatic definitions/parameters goes along with the Western view above. From my view, this is the norm in the USA and has endless conflict built in on delusional expectations and struggles for dominance. A great business opportunity for relationship gurus/therapists. And predators.
@Arphaxad007 ""No relationship dynamic is exempt from misery, belaboring, and suffering. Or the need to work through it." were you just pointing out that when people experience some kind of frustration in a relationship that they can "work through it"?"
No, I was speaking in the general context of monogamy, polyamory, etc., relationship dynamics. Neither of which are exampt from "misery, belaboring, and suffering. (Or the need to work through it.)" Cause the way you came off initally was praising non monogamy* while throwing shade at monogamy*.
@Arphaxad007 ~ "Everything is forbidden except that which is expressly permitted"
I love this wording!! 💓
Life is too short to not live your life the way you want, whether that includes monogamy, poly, solo, het, bi, a, gay, cis, trans, whatever your things may be so find someone who's philosophy matches your own. A lot of things breed resentment, one being feeling like you can't live your life on your terms because of someone else.