Polyamory

One's Christian, one's Agnostic, and one's I have no freaking clue.

My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.

Are said friends among your possible dating pool? If not, why is it mandatory that you share the details of your love life with them? I'm not trying to be a dick about it, I just don't see why you need to talk about it.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Because it is a small town. In Ohio. If you've never been to a small town in the Bible Belt, the point's lost on you.

This is all hypothetical anyway. I dunno if I'll even be dating the chick anyway so whatevs. >>

My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.

Drunk in that stable triad/quad model you mentioned do all partners love each other equally? I know that they will most likely say so, but in practice I find that hard to believe. Everybody ends up picking a favorite amongst their loved ones.

Or a better question I suppose is how do those stable relationships deal with it when favoritism pops up?

If a parent can genuinely love all children equally without favouritism, why shouldn't it be possible in romantic relationships?

edited 11th Feb '11 10:36:55 AM by CaissasDeathAngel

My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.

Because a parent will love one child more, either due to them needing more attention or the child just clicking better with their personality. It might only be a small gap, but the favoritism will be there.

Not only that, but between parent and child there's at least other mechanics of teaching, protection, authority, and other things behind all of it — between lovers, the entire bond between them is centered around their perceptions of each others' worth. Being put off for the sake of another lover is a shot to your self-worth on a level few other situations could possibly accomplish.

edited 11th Feb '11 11:33:36 AM by Pykrete

I was quoting a polyamory friend of mine, the "Susan" from the perfectly well-functioning scenario I described earlier in the thread. If there is a gap, with parents and children it often doesn't actually matter, situations of The Un-Favourite aside. The vast majority of homes in which there are more than one child are not significantly worse off because of favouritism,

"Being put off for the sake of another lover is a shot to your self-worth on a level few other situations could possibly accomplish. "

You're assuming a level of jealousy some just don't have. I hav close friends. Sometimes they spend time with their other close friends and not me. Am I bothered or concerned by this? No. I don't monopolise their time or expect them to do so for me. I fail to see why this should be an issue when things are romantic and/or sexual either.

My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.

@Alkthash: Generally, in a triad/quad, I've found that the members do usually have about the same level of emotional involvement. Some fluctuation is to be expected, and to a degree, prepared for.

Because of the open communication that's needed, a jilted partner can sit the other two/three down and say "Hey guys, I'm feeling left out." and they talk it over and a solution is found.

Granted, it doesn't always work like this, but it's less of a problem than you'd think.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Do you and other polyamory couples… groups meet up often then?

edited 11th Feb '11 1:21:20 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Especially the case as I imagine happens in most actually-functioning poly relationships - it's not necessarily the case that one person is being left out, because that person presumably themselves has other partner(s). If the relationship is based around one person being poly and the other only being with that person, then it's unlikely to work if the person in only one relationship can't deal with it. Meaning it's their problem really.

My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.

Futurama: The Beast With A Billion Backs has a rather harsh take on both Polyamory and romantic love in general.

"Bender knows love, and love doesn't share itself with the world. Love is suspicious, love is needy. Love is fearful, love is greedy. My friends, there is no great love without great jealousy! I love you meatbags!"

edited 13th Feb '11 8:13:59 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

I'm determined to start calling us 'squads' or 'troupes'. It sounds Bad Ass.

My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.

I just refer to romantic groups of three or more as 'clumps'.

hashtagsarestupid

@joey: You know Futurama is comedy, right?

And furthermore that it's Bender saying that?

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

So?

hashtagsarestupid

"You can't have pros and cons to polyarmory any more than you can talk about the pros and cons of, say, interracial relationships."

I'm neither seeing the analogy, nor do I understand why the pros and cons of something like an interracial relationship should not be recognized. I've never engaged in polyamory, and I doubt I would do so because I believe it's hard enough organizing your life around one person. The complexity of juggling two mutual lovers is simply not appealing to me. Chagen's question might be naive, but I don't think it's a "nonquestion."

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

There are pro's and cons in an interracial relationship? Damn; guess I missed that memo.

^ There are pros and cons for anyone in or considering entering any non-standard relationship, yes, and they bear talking about.

I can see both sides of "It's a legitimate question" and "It's a non-question." I think there's a legitimate question hidden under a very poorly worded non-question.

Let me try rephrasing it:

What are the problems you run into with a poly relationship, both within the relationship and in dealing with people outside of it? What are the things that a poly relationship provides that a monogamous one can't, both within the relationship and in dealing with people outside of it?

Does that work better as an answerable question?

edited 17th Feb '11 9:27:25 AM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

I'll give that one a shot.

The problems: Biggest one inside the relationship is balance; of time, of affection, et cetera. Outside the relationship... well, the majority of the world still thinks we're aberrant. Some people look at us like there's something wrong with us because we're not quite the same. The standard human reactions to something we don't understand is fear and anger, and we get a lot of both.

The pros: The biggest thing for me is this: if you've got one lover, and you guys are in perfect harmony on 85 per cent of your life. What about the other fifteen? There's always that small portion of stuff that one mate just can't understand that maybe another will.

Yeah, I gave that comment a solid -_- when I read it, too.

edited 17th Feb '11 10:49:22 AM by Diamonnes

My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.

I hope this doesn't come across as silly or one of those "Questions Everyone Asks", but are there any literary sources you use for inspiration to help your clumps work? I'm thinking specifically of Robert A Heinlein's later writings because I'm highly familiar with them. They certainly sound like a good way to do it, but I have no idea if they'd work in practice.

He actually wrote about several variants, too: In Friday there's a group marriage that tends to break out into pairs and manages itself as an actual corporation with "shares bought in" — that one turns out to be dysfunctional and collapses. There's a second that's more egalitarian. Then you've got the quasi-religious shared love cult in Stranger In A Strange Land, and lastly Lazarus Long's extended polyamory in Time Enough for Love and later, where he sets himself up as a patriarch over a somewhat anarchic open group marriage.

edited 17th Feb '11 11:28:51 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Why do you need another full-blown romantic relationship to be understood that last 15%?

And furthermore, how does that fit into how most incidences of polyamory are more open swinging than an actual substantive 3rd+ party?

@Madrugada: The biggest problem in-relationship is time management, like Daimonnes said. That and anyone having poor communications ability; polyamory requires that everyone be forthright and upfront about their feelings, and some people aren't very good at that.

What it provides, I'd say...is a greater sense of freedom to those who want it. Personally, I view a completely monogamous relationship like a straitjacket; it has no appeal for me at all, and being poly allows me to commit to someone without having to worry about occasionally getting distracted or having to choose between two people I care equally about. In other words, it provides things that some people want and some don't, which is why I say it isn't for everyone.

@Fighteer: I tend to stay away from taking literature too seriously in that regard, for two reasons. One, there's no guarantee the writer has any practical experience at all with polyamory, and they might just be making shit up. Two, in books people act the way the author wants them to act; real people are never so cooperative, unfortunately.

That said, I enjoy Heinlein (even if his sex stuff ventures into some off-note places), and like it when writers accurately reflect the lifestyle in a positive light.

@Pykrete: You are taking literally what is supposed to be a metaphor. However, since a percentile scale isn't the best tool for this, let me try by example instead...

You(generic you) have a partner. This person is stable, reliable, meets your practical needs and is a good person. You can take them to meet the folks, etc. etc.

Problem is, you've got a bit of a wild streak and this partner doesn't really cater to that. You meet another person, who while being a bit irresponsible and headstrong, totally speaks to the devil-may-care side of you. They also share some interests with you that Partner A does not.

Now, convention wisdom makes this a binary solution set. Either you stay with Partner A, or you break it off with Partner A and go out with Partner B. Neither is a perfect solution, but it is socially acceptable. (This I think is why there are so many so-called "serial monogamists" in the world).

Poly allows you to break out of this mold. You can have both of your needs met, if you are willing to do a little extra work. I think that was what Daimonnes was trying to say.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

Drunk, in your experience do most poly triads end up being a type 7 relationship or a type 8?

edited 17th Feb '11 7:01:19 PM by Alkthash

And if 7, what's the...uh...angle between them