Polyamory Thread: I Love You All!

[Infected Mushroom]

what's difference?

The difference between a one-night stand and a committed relationship.

but you're not in a committed relationship in either.

How can you be Committed if you have multiple partners? There isn't a duty of loyalty right?

[Sun Wukong]

The difference between a one-night stand and a committed relationship.

but you're not in a committed relationship in either.

How can you be Committed if you have multiple partners? There isn't a duty of loyalty right?

Are you seriously so obtuse as to not realize you can have commitments to two or more people?

Polyamory is when they're okay with you honoring both.

[Laerod]

The difference between a one-night stand and a committed relationship.

but you're not in a committed relationship in either.

How can you be Committed if you have multiple partners? There isn't a duty of loyalty right?

How can you say you love your children if you have more than one? Your contention does not hold merit.

[Infected Mushroom]

but you're not in a committed relationship in either.

How can you be Committed if you have multiple partners? There isn't a duty of loyalty right?

Are you seriously so obtuse as to not realize you can have commitments to two or more people?

Polyamory is when they're okay with you honoring both.

but honoring one requires you to be loyal to that one person right?

so i don't really see how you can honor more than one commitment. That's like being a lawyer for BOTH sides of the same litigation.

[Khithali]

Yes, they evolve much faster. By reading or by socializing. Do you even know what are you talking about?

Please learn to respect the dead and stop making all deceased sociologists, anthropologists and brain scientists roll on their graves. I'm absolutely an amateur to the subject and even to me it feels like a slap on the face from how lacking in accuracy your opinion is.

You clearly do not understand evolution it takes thousands of years for one small change not twenty years

As someone currently undertaking a Masters degree in the biological sciences, I'd like to say that the speed of evolution of the brain has nothing to do with this. The brain is incredibly plastic (changeable) and learns throughout its lifetime, though especially when young. Raise two identical twins with the same brain in two very different environments, and you'll get two very different people, with very different values. Some things stay the same, yes, but beliefs and opinions are not among them. The brain is evolving slowly, but that doesn't mean the contents of them are. To compare to computers, this is like Manisdog claiming that computers can't have different programs because the hardware is the same.

Other people have seperately raised the issue of polyamory vs open relationships and what the difference is. Essentially, polyamory is a relationship, or network of such, involving more than 2 people. Open relationship is where the people in a relationship have said that their partner(s) may freely get with other people. The two are not mutually exclusive, but most certainly not the same thing. For example, you could have 3 people together in a polyamorous relationship who would consider any of them sleeping with another person as cheating, hence a closed (not open) relationship.

Regarding the idea that was raised of not getting all your partner's love, I find the idea that someone loving someone else means they can't love you as much quite ridiculous. Do people with single parents love their parents twice as much as someone who has two? Obviously polyamory is not for everyone. A lot, if not most, people don't wish to be in one and that is fine. And I will concede that time is a factor - one person only has so much time to dedicate to being with their partner(s), and having many will cut into that. It doesn't mean it won't work, but it does require working around. But then, as soon as you get outside of the standard 1 guy 1 girl relationship you need to actually start talking to each other about the sorts of things each of you expects and wants from this relationship and actually understanding each other... the horror.

And finally (wow this is turning into a long post), to answer the original question. I'm currently in two relationships. One of my partners is only in a relationship with me, and one is married to someone else. Both relationships are open in the sense that we may be with other people, but there is the expectation that this will be communicated. Just sleeping around and not saying anything is not ok, for risks of STDS if nothing else. And we're all happy about this and have consented to it, and I hope people can understand that consenting adults in loving relationships is a good thing, even if its not done in the way you personally would want it.

Edited to fix typos.

[Infected Mushroom]

but you're not in a committed relationship in either.

How can you be Committed if you have multiple partners? There isn't a duty of loyalty right?

How can you say you love your children if you have more than one? Your contention does not hold merit.

parental love is different

[Khithali]

How can you say you love your children if you have more than one? Your contention does not hold merit.

parental love is different

If you personally do not believe yourself capable of loving more than one person in a romantic sense, that is fine. If you personally would prefer your partner love no one but you in a romantic sense, that is fine. But is it possible for you to understand that this does not hold true for everyone, and that there are people who are happy loving multiple people, and having their partners having multiple people?

Polyamory is definetely not for everyone. Have your relationships in a way that makes you and your partner(s) happy. But realise that not everyone wants exactly the same thing that you want.

[Laerod]

Are you seriously so obtuse as to not realize you can have commitments to two or more people?

Polyamory is when they're okay with you honoring both.

but honoring one requires you to be loyal to that one person right?

It is possible to be loyal to more than one person. In real life, this occasionally causes conflicts, such as when your boss asks you to work saturday morning and you promised to go fishing with your son at the same time.

so i don't really see how you can honor more than one commitment.

Your problem.

That's like being a lawyer for BOTH sides of the same litigation.

No it's not. It's more like being a lawyer for multiple parties, such as in class action lawsuits, except of course that a healthy relationship wouldn't have a lawyer-client dynamic.

[Laerod]

How can you say you love your children if you have more than one? Your contention does not hold merit.

parental love is different

Loyalty is loyalty. If you can divide it among children you can divide it among partners. And I'm well aware that some people can't.

[Infected Mushroom]

but honoring one requires you to be loyal to that one person right?

It is possible to be loyal to more than one person. In real life, this occasionally causes conflicts, such as when your boss asks you to work saturday morning and you promised to go fishing with your son at the same time.

so i don't really see how you can honor more than one commitment.

Your problem.

That's like being a lawyer for BOTH sides of the same litigation.

No it's not. It's more like being a lawyer for multiple parties, such as in class action lawsuits, except of course that a healthy relationship wouldn't have a lawyer-client dynamic.

i see...

i still can't imagine it, but at least it's starting to make a bit of sense...

[Laerod]

i see...

i still can't imagine it, but at least it's starting to make a bit of sense...

That's a start =P

[Rushtar]

Yes, it is in some zones and they are pushing society on some stupid things like if you say beautiful to a girl you are being oppressive.
Both are bad, depends where more or less.

Dude, you don't even know how to properly refer to trans people without stirring up moods, and you want to give your advice on how people should do feminism?

To the extent you say it actually harms [dyadic cisgender heterosexual] males?

I will be preying for you.

You are who mood up, if I have to talk about cancer to tell you facts, I'll talk, even if one here has, the doctor doesn't have to stop talking about it because is bad. I just described something, it doesn't matter my opinion on that, just is. Sorry if my words offended you. Just tell me non ofenssive terms and i'll use, like vulva, ok. I didn't give advice, i just described a fact.
1+1=2 fuck you. 1+1=2. It's the same, no matter if you are offended or not. Plus, I wasn't talking about feminism, which is egalitarian, I was talking about "hembrism". I'm atheist, don't assume that I am blinded by some kind of faith.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

You are who mood up, if I have to talk about cancer to tell you facts, I'll talk, even if one here has, the doctor doesn't have to stop talking about it because is bad. I just described something, it doesn't matter my opinion on that, just is. Sorry if my words offended you. Just tell me non ofenssive terms and i'll use, like vulva, ok. I didn't give advice, i just described a fact.
1+1=2 fuck you. 1+1=2. It's the same, no matter if you are offended or not. Plus, I wasn't talking about feminism, which is egalitarian, I was talking about "hembrism". I'm atheist, don't assume that I am blinded by some kind of faith.

Femismo não existe, desculpe.

All feminism is still feminism as long as it occurs inside a patriarchal society. When females are the hegemonic class controlling society and privileged by norms and traditions, then you can talk about femismo.

[Rushtar]

You are who mood up, if I have to talk about cancer to tell you facts, I'll talk, even if one here has, the doctor doesn't have to stop talking about it because is bad. I just described something, it doesn't matter my opinion on that, just is. Sorry if my words offended you. Just tell me non ofenssive terms and i'll use, like vulva, ok. I didn't give advice, i just described a fact.
1+1=2 fuck you. 1+1=2. It's the same, no matter if you are offended or not. Plus, I wasn't talking about feminism, which is egalitarian, I was talking about "hembrism". I'm atheist, don't assume that I am blinded by some kind of faith.

Femismo não existe, desculpe.

All feminism is still feminism as long as it occurs inside a patriarchal society. When females are the hegemonic class controlling society and privileged by norms and traditions, then you can talk about femismo.

There are individuals who support the patriarchy and a few the matriarchy, even if they are minority, should be combated as well as patriarchy. And yes, there are norms that give privileges over men, but they are camouflaged as egalitarian norms (not many, but there are).

[The Holy Therns]

My interest in sex is today slim to none - I see no particular difference these days between close friendships and romantic relationships that don't involve the exchange of bodily fluids. I am in that respect technically the third partner in two people's relationship, according to both of them.

That's not to say I'm asexual, I'm just not interested.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

There are individuals who supports the patriarchy and a few the matriarchy, even if the are minority, should be combated as well as patriarchy. And yes, there are norms that give privileges over men, but they are camouflaged as egalitarian norms (not many, but there are).

Question is: are dyadic cishet men harmed because of sentiment against them? That is, if ever actually existent, generated because of class politics generally after the person in question feels oppressed?

Let's see:



Femismo doesn't exist, so it can't kill anyone. Sexism, institutionally and structurally always against women, kills everyday, both because of indirect effects in otherwise dangerous and problematic structures (e.g. capitalism and its inherent inequality and exploitation of the poor), and because of its direct effects as misogyny, an ideology. Huge difference.

How can we fight something that isn't a general sentiment in society, that isn't even an ideology? People can't rationally convince someone to bear less sentiment of frustration directed against a privileged and also oppressive class.

Sexism, heterosexism, monosexism, allosexism, amornormativity, cissexism, binarism, colonialist genderism, dyadism...* None of these have an equivalent against dyadic cishet guys, exactly because a system based around their given normality is hegemonic, and has always been. You probably don't even know what many of these terms mean, so why would you beg to be a priority together with the struggle of females?

* Affecting: women, non-heteros, bi people, and other non-gay/non-hetero identities, asexual spectrum folks, aromantic spectrum folks, all trans people, non-binary/genderqueer/non-conforming trans people, ethnocultural gender folks (e.g. travestis), intersex people.

Do you understand how undue is this concept?

[Rushtar]

Discriminatory laws giving advantage to women over men, exist, at least in my country, for example:

· In the case of the complaint filed by man, this will lead to a magistrate who will rise to a default judgment, in fact, the police may call the reported woman to the police station and then return home safely, until the day of judgment, and it doesn't matter if him have provided evidence that at first seem irrefutable.

· In the case of the complaint filed by the woman, it will result in the automatic detention of man, no matter where you are, your work (with the impact of their tarnished image, in a bar or at a park with their children) will be handcuffed , taken into custody and forced to spend the night in dungeons dependencies, whether innocent or guilty. Also it doesn't matter the evidence given, if submitted, as they are not prescriptive; the result, incarceration.

I think that this should be combated as well as machismo.

[Fanosolia]

Dead honest, totally neutral to it. If you can make it work somehow I say call you tiger blood sir but it's not for me.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Relationships are personal. All you kiddies need to but out and stop trying to tell other people how they are allowed to care about each other. Seriously, it makes you look like a bunch of stupid assholes.

[MERIZoC]

Not really interested in that, but power to those who are.

[Rushtar]

Relationships are personal. All you kiddies need to but out and stop trying to tell other people how they are allowed to care about each other. Seriously, it makes you look like a bunch of stupid assholes.

Until there are laws that give advantages over other sex or one (male or female) can't defend from the other, if the man hits the woman and threatens to kill the girl, no one should intervene? (or vice versa) It's an abuse of power over an innocent person. It can kill, so why not regulating that?
What about if a man wants to rape a child, or if at first someone ones but then no, forcing him/her? To a certain point something has to be done.

[The Greco-Baktrian Empire]

I feel as though I'd be open to the idea of a polyamorous relationship, but have not participated in one as of yet. I really don't understand all of the stigma attached to such relationships.

[Fanosolia]

Discriminatory laws giving advantage to women over men, exist, at least in my country, for example:

· In the case of the complaint filed by man, this will lead to a magistrate who will rise to a default judgment, in fact, the police may call the reported woman to the police station and then return home safely, until the day of judgment, and it doesn't matter if him have provided evidence that at first seem irrefutable.

· In the case of the complaint filed by the woman, it will result in the automatic detention of man, no matter where you are, your work (with the impact of their tarnished image, in a bar or at a park with their children) will be handcuffed , taken into custody and forced to spend the night in dungeons dependencies, whether innocent or guilty. Also it doesn't matter the evidence given, if submitted, as they are not prescriptive; the result, incarceration.

I think that this should be combated as well as machismo.

the word this comes to mind

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

It's not about discrimination being ever positive. I think anyone can agree with it.

Also, I'm not sure if this is sex discrimination or general attitudes when it comes to rape legislation.

It's about priorities and said standards still not defining oppression, as they don't come from prejudice and an intention to limit the other group's rights.

[New England and The Maritimes]

It's not about discrimination being ever positive. I think anyone can agree with it.

Also, I'm not sure if this is sex discrimination or general attitudes when it comes to rape legislation.

It's about priorities and said standards still not defining oppression, as they don't come from prejudice and an intention to limit the other group's rights.

Taking rape seriously is clearly about oppressing men! You think it's a coincidence 90% of rapists are men?