|
It's cool and good. Should probably post this in A/T if you want actual responses beyond "cuck my dilz coolio im gay macchiato"
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
It's cool if you're cool. You gotta have a pretty untraditional philosophy of love to make it work. My wife and I are in an open marriage and we're honestly too busy to go swimming in pools of genitals, but it's not a problem when we gently caress other people because who cares? If one of us fell in love with another person, we wouldn't have a problem having them move in and just living that way, or ending the relationship if it came to that because we've had a great life together. If they had a kid with her, I think I would raise it like it was mine if that's what she wanted because I never understood the need to share genetics with children to love them. Overall, I think there's way more drama and stress in monogamous relationships I've been in than the open relationships. In the latter, you just don't care about the bullshit you're supposed to care about in the former, and in both you basically do what you want anyway. All relationships are open, some are just more full of myths and lies than others.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
nomadologique posted:this is a bit of a silly wash, ya people cheat and there are lots of myths and lies but actually there are people out there who want to be in a relationship with one other person and feel comfortable and happy that way, trust their partner and don't worry about them cheating, because they both want that and want each other Yeah, you're right. I've talked to lots of smart people in monogamous relationships who express the exact same feelings about their relationship that I do about mine, minus the "monogamy is poisonous bullshit". The difference is that they don't play all these power politics with each other and they're respectful and trusting. So obviously it's not a categorical thing. Monogamy always sounds like enforcing rules to me in order to mitigate feelings of distrust, but that idea is a bit alien to them because they don't have that feeling of distrust, they've just integrated monogamy into their definition of commitment and they value that form of commitment. The whole commitment thing always makes me chuckle because I don't know many serial monogamists who are as committed to each other as we are in our marriage. They maintain separate bank accounts and things because there's always a dealbreaker in their relationship and they need to constantly make bets about whether it's going to take place.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
BigBoss posted:What's ur fav. episode of Dr. Who? That show is loving garbage. That episode of The X Files where they find that beetle in the hunk of meat mailed from the jungle by that dude, and it gives these escaped convicts these horrible disease pimples... yeah, I think that's my favourite.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
WobblySausage posted:So have either of you screwed other people? It's not really an "open marriage" until that happens. If so, and you guys are as strong as you say, then great. Uh, yes. It's not a rare thing, just not "rooms of dicks and vadges".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
a bay posted:Do you think she would be ok with it if you have another gf She's been fine with it when it happened, so yes?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:How does it compromise trust? They're already agreeing to sleep with other people, isn't that just completely throwing trust out the window? Trust is just having control over another person's genitals I guess?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
That's funny, I was imagining the opposite. Monogamy is "my wife is a pussy for me to gently caress whenever I want" vs "my wife is a human who has an interest in freedom that I want to honour." Edit: post is not edit, wtf. tuyop fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Sep 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:That was my point though, if absolutely everyone were onboard with open stuff I could vaguely see it working, but as long as that's not the case then the people in the position to fully monopolize a single partner, (or sleep around themsevles without their partners sleeping around on them) are going to have a higher status than the people who have to share. I think this is partly why when you look at reddit boards on poly (a gold mine of fantastic e/n style posts) it's always guys that are whining about having trouble coping with their gf sleeping around, there's uneven gender standards there and they subconsciously realize being in this situation devalues them socially. It says that they aren't good enough to be one of the guys who has a dedicated girlfriend. Status only matters if you care. You probably shouldn't care about that poo poo. ArbitraryC posted:In my experience the only people who talk about monogamy are "controlling genitals" are manipulative shitstains trying to morally browbeat their partners into sexual things they're not comfortable with. It's icky. I don't know what this means. WobblySausage posted:See I can see this. I could do it without the emotional attachment (and toothbrush sharing). Yeah, we're incredibly attached to each other. I love my wife, it's weird to think I could love her only if she doesn't love someone else. Though I've found that my perspective is a bit stoic and odd. Her love for me and sexual/emotional interactions with others have pretty much nothing to do with my love for her (and vice versa, I can be in love with someone else and in love with my wife too, why not?). I can't control those things and wanting to would be a pretty lovely way to live, so I don't want to. I can control whether I'm a good spouse, and we're both completely transparent about what that means to us so we have a healthy, loving, chill, open relationship. It's really not a big deal and only comes up when a friend brings up some kind of baffling drama about their spouse being unfaithful and neither of us can really understand why they should care, since they can't control it. If we're talking economics, then it's sticky because there are only so many hours in the day and it takes a ton of personal emotional work to be comfortable when your partner spends those hours with someone else. But I recently took a week driving around and surfing with a girl and my wife had to stay home because she had work. She missed me but wasn't resentful because she knows how our relationship is. I didn't care when she hung out with some guy friends in Montreal for awhile either, in a similar situation. Edit: these situations would probably be especially inflammatory because we share bank accounts, so it's easy to imagine someone getting really bitter about the other spending our money on romantic vacations with other people. tuyop fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Sep 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:The biggest thing is trust and communication. If you don't like how the relationship is structured or how certain things are going you should say something about it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:What I mean is I'm monogamous and do not personally feel like my gf is controlling my genitals. I think trying to turn this into some sort of social equality issue to shame people who aren't comfortable with non-monogamy into something poly or open by implying unless they're willing to they're a misogynist is really gross and I absolutely hate when people make posts that imply that. It's borderline sexual abuse. Ah, well sure I think I've been pretty clear that there are non oppressive monogamous relationships, and there are oppressive non-monogamous relationships. Oppression is just a thing lovely people do to each other regardless of gender and relationship model. I was responding to the idea that trust=exclusive sex so people in an open relationship have already thrown all trust out the window somehow.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
WILDTURKEY101 posted:on the flip side of that coin, a lot of people just want more more more all the time, always looking for the newest funnest thing instead of being able to slow down and appreciate the good things and people that you already have in your life You can not have a relationship with those people, you know.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
nomadologique posted:geeze i guess we all agree why aren't we in a polyamorous relationship right now together?? It's you nomadologique, you don't change your sheets often enough and ew.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
corpuscollossus posted:Sorry I gave you Aids Can't possibly happen in a monogamous relationship, nope! Oh wait... you mean you have to trust someone regardless of your relationship???
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
corpuscollossus posted:I was joking but that book does look like a good read Yeah I actually just bought it on kindle.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Maybe you should reconsider your unhealthy level of codependency?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Sorry, it just reads like, "if my girlfriend wasn't emotionally available at all times that would be a dealbreaker for me." I mean, if she went to see a movie alone or was in another country or any number of situations when you can't just call, she would be equally absent and you'd have to call someone else, right? So there must be something else that gets you upset about the whole sleeping with others thing if you're not unhealthily codependent. It's fine to just find the whole thing icky, I guess, but this is the economic argument that nonmonogamous people consider. Your spouse is unavailable right now because they're doing something that they want or need to do without you. It's cool, be cool.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
You guys know people managed to have trusting and loving relationships before cell phones were a thing, right? Humans can manage emotionally on their own for extended periods of time. We can do this. You guys sound like 14 year olds upset when their BFFs don't text back within 12 seconds.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
/\/\/\ yeah that's exactly what we're talking about.  ArbitraryC posted:It seems like your only argument hinges around you misrepresenting the point I'm making. That was kind of about the hospital play about the guy who seems to be cheating. ArbitraryC posted:If she were instead traveling with boyfriend number 2, I would not be invited and would legitimately feel like a lower priority than boyfriend 2 for that duration. Yeah ok, I understand. This is about your philosophy of love. It does sound a bit codependent anyway, but for different reasons. Your perception of how valuable you are as a spouse seems to hinge on how your partner prioritizes her time. Do you feel more worthwhile when she chooses to spend time with you than not? I don't mean missing her, I mean feeling second tier.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:More worthwhile as a person? Not really, but it reinforces my faith in our relationship and the idea that I am an important person to her. It makes me feel content I guess. I think it's fair to say it's how I view love and I understand different people have different languages but obviously mines is right and theirs is just wrong. I just have trouble seeing how priorities don't reflect how much you care and I think it's pretty universal, plenty of people get jealous not just of people, but hobbies/work too, it ultimately boils down to not feeling valued or important to that person. I like this conversation.  I always operate under the assumption that people are reasonable and good, so this sort of reasoning is always kind of shocking to me even though it's very common. It just doesn't seem reasonable to value things over which you have no control, or externalize your values in the case of things over which you have some control (like the actions of a partner who already loves you). I can't control whether or not you spend time with me, I can only do my best to be a good person to you. Part of that involves respecting whatever you need to do that doesn't involve me, so it has no bearing on my feelings of validity or self-worth or jealousy if you do something without me. Beyond codependency, it just seems like a more joyful way to live. I've met a few people who can't seem to come up with reasons for why they love their spouse. It seems to boil down to "because he/she loves me". That's really hosed up to me.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:Uh oh, I enjoy the company of my wife and therefore must be codependent I don't enjoy the company of my wife, that's exactly what I said. Good summary.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 01:42
|
|
Maybe couple's therapy will help me achieve an enlightened state of indifference about my wife, once I can't care less whether my wife's around or not my marriage will finally be on solid foundations and we can move on to banging strangers.
|
corpuscollossus posted:So being poly is essentially hedonism? What kind of things are X and Y here? Yeah no, you can like a restaurant and therefore decide to eat there and only there for the rest of your life. Or you can decide that you can still like that restaurant and eat at other restaurants whenever you want, because it doesn't change how much you like the original restaurant. In the first example, you probably made this decision because you think the food is perfect there or it's a perfect restaurant. You assume there is a perfect food/restaurant (for you, maybe, if you're being progressive). In the poly restaurant case, there is no perfect food, just different food. As for whether this is hedonistic in relationships, I wouldn't say so. Pleasure isn't the thing I'm trying to maximize here, more like humanity. I'm trying to become more fully human with others, and sometimes that involves sex and intimacy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:It's objectively less of a commitment to the person. Commitment means what you, as relationship partners, want it to mean. This is a thing you can just talk out and have work. There are no "objectively committed" people in relationships. The Saurus posted:why won't these poly fucks just give us a straight answer? it's all "X and Y" and "different restaurants" and "riding a bike eating an apple vs listening to a record" and other things that don't really make sense as analogies for love and compassion with other human beings Well, sure. Monogamy operates under the assumption that there is a perfect man/woman for you and you just need to find him/her and be happy forever. I don't believe in that, I think there are only different women for me and to make this statement like "Anne is for her rear end, Beth is for her mind" would be really dehumanizing. It's not this calculated Sims needs chart where you decide you need the woman who cooks well tonight.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
nomadologique posted:a remarkably civil conversation nonetheless, congratulations folks, one for the record books
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:communal societies like that end up with top men dominating the sex, after a while. people definitely get left out, humans love their hierarchies. Survivorship bias. If you aren't some kind of anthropologist, this is just dumb speculation (and no respectable modern anthropologist would make these claims because they're fallacious, see the ridiculous shitshow that is evolutionary psychology). Societies with soldiers and institutionalized violence will overrun peaceful, nonhierarchical societies until most humans appear to be somehow violent. It doesn't mean that's how humans naturally are, just what we can observe right now or in the most recent histories. There's no way to know what's good for humans or what kind society might be the best for us if we base these judgements only on societies that are most common now.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
CombineThresher posted:The best part of an open relationship is listening to everyone involved bitch about, then fervently deny, all the hurt feelings and petty drama that come from multiple people loving each other and claiming that no unbalanced emotional attachments exist between any of them. It's like a Jenga tower - the fun part is watching it collapse. Are you making all these people up? I think we've heard from a few people in this thread who are like, yeah I have experience with open relationships and it's been cool and good, but I guess it could be terrible for some people.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
LethalGeek posted:Rules are scrub tier and if you need them then you're doomed to failure.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Wulfolme posted:You miss the point of lots of things. Whatever duder, just gonna sit here enjoying my relationship(s) regardless of semantics and context or whatever you're getting at.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
Professor Shark posted:Also tuyop, you should post a whopper EN thread when it falls apart, we could use some new people signing up around here You know, my only monogamous relationship was my first "real" girlfriend when I was 15-16 and I was pretty unhappy with the rules and poo poo. All the others have been open. I'm 27 now (and I don't think this is exceptional so I hope it doesn't sound like I'm bragging, I've just been called out here a couple of times), so we're talking more or less steady relationships with dozens of women, usually simultaneously, and I've never experienced any epic drama or meltdowns. I've had painful breakups but honestly they're pretty boring, just people talking about their differences and realizing things won't work. Those women have usually gone on to have other open relationships as well and we've always stayed friends. We had 50 guests at our wedding, 11 of them were exes of mine and there wasn't any drama there at all either. This isn't my first rodeo and it's not unsustainable all the time for everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 06:30
|
|