NationStates Jolt Archive

Definition for those who don't know:
Polyamory means "loving more than one". This love may be sexual, emotional, spiritual, or any combination thereof, according to the desires and agreements of the individuals involved, but you needn't wear yourself out trying to figure out ways to fit fondness for apple pie, or filial piety, or a passion for the Saint Paul Saints baseball club into it. "Polyamorous" is also used as a descriptive term by people who are open to more than one relationship even if they are not currently involved in more than one. (Heck, some are involved in less than one.) Some people think the definition is a bit loose, but it's got to be fairly roomy to fit the wide range of poly arrangements out there.

For references and FAQs, see this page (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/polyamory/faq/).

I was debating this with my best friend earlier, and she is clearly dead set against it. I'm not too sure, but leaning towards agreement (just to clarify). We're looking for opinions or thoughts on the subject, since the two of us have reached the point where our conversation goes in circles and outside input would be greatly appreciated.

Isn't polyamory the marriage between groups of people? Like a goup of females can marry a group of males?

I'm all for any consentual marraige.

Isn't polyamory the marriage between groups of people? Like a goup of females can marry a group of males?
That would be Polygynandry

That would be Polygynandry

Oh cool, a new word. Thanks for clearing that up :)

I'm all for any consentual marraige.

me too...
I have been eyeing that rock for a while... she never wants to talk thon :(

Actually, our dilemma at the moment is mostly relationship-based, before marriage. My friend is a polyamory, but he has not told his girlfriend. I'm against the relationship on the grounds that he should be honest, and tell her that he is going to have other relationships, but that this in no way will (in his point of view) reflect on how he feels about her. My best friend, on the other side, feels that if he truely loves her he would not be looking elsewhere, regardless of the fact that he only sees her four times a year or so, and that true commitment involves fidelity. Whether what he did is right or not has been pretty much settled already.

I support polyamory when everyone involved supports polyamory. If his girlfriend doesn't know, then he's just flat out cheating. He should talk to her, and he totally should have talked to her earlier.

Personally, I don't think I'd be able to handle being in a relationship with more than one person at a time. Other people can do whatever floats their boats though, as long as everything's honest, and no one gets hurt. Unless the people involved are into that sort of thing.

[QUOTE=Lupinasia]My friend is a polyamory, but he has not told his girlfriend.

Hmm, I very much hope this doesn't mean he's seeing people without her knowledge of it, as that strays from the land of Polyamory into the land of Cheating. It's not impossible that someone who is polyamorous might negotiate a monogamous relationship with someone at a given point in time. However, if they feel as though their polyamory is an important part of their identity, I doubt such an arrangement will be successful.

Key to the whole process? Honesty and communication--just like any other relationship. People who shirk their duties in these departments are rightfully viewed with much suspicion...

I've tried a relationship with a guy and my girl in High School. Didn't work out... too much work! :p

Other than that, go for it. As long as both parties are clued in.

Without the honesty part, I don't see how it's anything but abusive.

Actually, our dilemma at the moment is mostly relationship-based, before marriage. My friend is a polyamory, but he has not told his girlfriend. I'm against the relationship on the grounds that he should be honest, and tell her that he is going to have other relationships, but that this in no way will (in his point of view) reflect on how he feels about her. My best friend, on the other side, feels that if he truely loves her he would not be looking elsewhere, regardless of the fact that he only sees her four times a year or so, and that true commitment involves fidelity. Whether what he did is right or not has been pretty much settled already.

Letsee, polyamory is defined by most to mean 'openess', or having KNOWING partners. That means, what your friend is doing is just glorified cheating. It's only polyamory if ALL involved are aware and in consent. That is not polyamory.

Having two husbands (or, conversly, having two wives) is simple bigamy. I'm neither for nor against that.

Polyamory means 'many loves' or 'loving more then one'. That means that not ONLY do you love the two men in your relationship, but that THEY love each other. What form that takes (homosexual, brother-like, father figure - son figure, ect. ect.) depends on the personalities and preferences of those involved.

Summary: Having a wife and a side-line girlfriend is not polyamory. That is just cheating. Having two husbands who are indiferent to each other or in competition for your attention, that is not polyamory, it's just bigamy. Having multiple partners who love each other as much as they love you, taht is polyamory. Now, whether such a system is POSSIBLE given the mental attitude of most individuals in today's present age is another story.

Summary: Having a wife and a side-line girlfriend is not polyamory. That is just cheating. Having two husbands who are indiferent to each other or in competition for your attention, that is not polyamory, it's just bigamy. Having multiple partners who love each other as much as they love you, taht is polyamory. Now, whether such a system is POSSIBLE given the mental attitude of most individuals in today's present age is another story.

Thank you. We have already decided that what Tyler did is low, underhanded, all that jazz. We fully plan to kill him later. What we are debating is the plausiblity and moral implications of the system as a whole- whether two knowing partners (different example: myself and a past boyfriend) could have an open relationship and still claim we were actually in love. I feel that we were, and she feels that if we really WERE, we would not have had an open relationship. The same could be applied to any polyamorous relationship. Are they possible, or do they defeat what love really means?

Thank you. We have already decided that what Tyler did is low, underhanded, all that jazz. We fully plan to kill him later. What we are debating is the plausiblity and moral implications of the system as a whole- whether two knowing partners (different example: myself and a past boyfriend) could have an open relationship and still claim we were actually in love. I feel that we were, and she feels that if we really WERE, we would not have had an open relationship. The same could be applied to any polyamorous relationship. Are they possible, or do they defeat what love really means?

Oh. Well, duh, yeah. Love is not defined by "I am such-and-suches only girlfriend or lover" it is, well, how you FEEL around them. If your best friend makes you happy, even with NO sexual attraction, you love that friend. IF there is sexual attraction, then go screw each other's brains out. So long as everyone is open about it and communicates, there shoul be no problem. Love is a feel-good emotion. So . . . .

go feel good about it.

EDIT: Here, this might help a bit. Love != sex. (for non-programmers out there, != means does not equal). Sex is a nice sideline, but I don't really like it all that much. I perfer to snuggle. And that is jsut as much love as sticking something in a random hole or other.

I think you can love more than one person at once. Why not? Love isn't exclusive. People aren't wired to only like one person.

For a long time I felt that love required monogomy... but I recently decided that this simply isn't true.

I am deeply in love with my girlfriend. We've been together over two years and I love every second we spend together. There isn't anything I wouldn't do to make her happy.

There are also several other women who I have similar (but less strong/developed) feelings for. I wouldn't hesitate to tell these other women that I love them as well. But I no longer understand the reasoning behind the belief that my love for person x is in anyway effected by my love for person a, b, or c.

I'm convinced that polyamory can work as long as everyone involved knows what's going on and is content with the situation.

I'm convinced that polyamory can work as long as everyone involved knows what's going on and is content with the situation.

For that matter, Absolutist Monarchies can work along the same lines. One must take into account people's . . . . less content desires.

For that matter, Absolutist Monarchies can work along the same lines. One must take into account people's . . . . less content desires.

Agreed, though when you take the opinions of three people into account it is a lot easier to be sure that all three of them really do agree on the situation, as opposed to a full country where if even one person is unhappy with the social system that argument goes kaaaaaaaaaaaaphfut. *Side note: sound effects are important, even online.*

If you can find a government where everyone is 100% content with the situation, I'll happily agree with the point. However, I believe a polyamorous relationship with content partners is a lot easier to find than such an Absolutist Monarchy.

Eh. So long as everyone involved wants it, not my issue.

Personally, I wouldn't be -against- having a harem (I have a friend who teases about being my harem mistress, even), but my actual, full, true emotions are only aimed at one person right now. While I do have love for that same friend, my ex is the one who has the poetic part of me. Basically, someone has dibs, and there's only room for more if that person wants to share.

Notably, I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with a second guy. I can barely stand men as -friends-, much less sharing wives with them.

So, basically, I'm a monogamist, but my hormones might be persuadable.

I was in a relationship where it was two females and one male... and let me tell you, it just did not work. I also knew others in these types of relationships and they were awful, just simply awful.

It's not for me, but I am open to the fact they may work for others (as long as everyone is honest and willing), although I have yet to see proof of this.

That would be Polygynandry

As I understood it polyandry means one woman and multiple men?

For a long time I felt that love required monogomy... but I recently decided that this simply isn't true.

I am deeply in love with my girlfriend. We've been together over two years and I love every second we spend together. There isn't anything I wouldn't do to make her happy.

There are also several other women who I have similar (but less strong/developed) feelings for. I wouldn't hesitate to tell these other women that I love them as well. But I no longer understand the reasoning behind the belief that my love for person x is in anyway effected by my love for person a, b, or c.

I'm convinced that polyamory can work as long as everyone involved knows what's going on and is content with the situation.
yes but what opinion does your girlfriend have of it?

i expect that the reason why polyamory is rare is that its hard enough to find ONE person who is willing to have sex with you on a regular basis, to have to find one worth bothering with who doesnt care if you have other sexual relationships , who is will to participate in these relationships, to find another person who not only wants a sexual relationhip with you and you with her but her with your gf and your gf with her .....

well its just too complicated to be common.

but if one does actually fall into such a relationship where everyone agrees, no one is delusional and everyone is worth the effort, go for it.

and good luck to you

I actually have an interesting experirence regarding polyamory, because while I myself have chosen to be extremely monogamous, many of my friends are polyamorous. I would offer these observations, free of my opinion:


First of all, it's very rare that polyamorous people love in groups. I know of a few situations like that, usually involving a bisexual person with one lover of each gender. There are exceptions, of course, but this is a common pattern. Most polyamorous couples are in "open" relationships, the definition of such depending on the couples involved.

Polyamory, even amongst very willing participants, produces hierarchies of lovers, so-to-speak. Most polyamorous people have a "primary," so that the emotions involved between couples are NOT equal. Sometimes, secondaries try to climb up the ladder, causing friction between his or her partner and their chosen primary. When a person exchanges primaries, the result is often quite ugly. Many people, more often women amongst my friends, become secondaries in the hope of becoming primaries with that person. They most often get burned.

Many couples choose polyamory to "spice up" their lovelives. It rarely works. Polyamory does not equal intimacy. It means having multiple responsibilities to maintain healthy relationships. It's hard to keep up just ONE, and if you haven't been able to do that with one partner...imagine doing it with two. Very few people manage it. Those that do are to be admired, I think, because they will tell you it's NOT easy, and you do have to sacrifice some emotional intimacy with all partners to keep them happy. If you don't want to sacrifice that, reconsider your desire to be polyamorous, I've been told.

Polyamorous relationships DO have rules, and those need to be clearly spelled-out before the relationship begins. Without boundaries established, people tend to get hurt.

Lastly, if you want polyamory and your partner does not, DO NOT TRY IT. Either keep monogamous or end the relationship. Polyamory NEVER works when it's one-sided. It's just cheating then.

Hope this helps.

Ge-Ren

Trick is, for the most part, requires that there be some bisexuality involved (Or homosexuality if you're all the same gender...), and a serious lack of territorial nature. Or, alternatively, some lower-key love.

That is, I'm more likely to be selfish over someone I'm psychotically OHMIGOD! in love with and would walk across continents for, than someone who's basically just an awesome friend who I omigod love so much I could pinch their cheeks.

That said, my main issue, aside from STD-avoidance, is emotional. If the person I love really really really needs some from someone else, especially someone I get to mess around with, fine and dandy. But if their emotional bond becomes stronger than ours... then I'm going to sigh and slip out of position.

No one wants to be "someone who has sex with lots of people" when they could be "polyamorous." Hell that almost sounds talented. Sounds like you could get a degree in it! You probably can. Sigh. Euphemisms. Nuclear weapons, that's the only real answer.

So anyone who loves more than one person, in any way, is "polyamorous?" Wow! So, everyone is polyamorous! What a terrific way to define the term.

Hope this helps.

It does. Thank you very much. I appreciate everyone's opinion, for this has been a point of contention between me and my friends and your views will certainly help us resolve them ^_^

As a closing note, for all you doubters out there: My boyfriend Chris and I called our relationship open last summer, agreeing we could do whatever we pleased if we admitted it later. While Chris chose monogamy, my two-week attachment to another boy (also in an open relationship at the time) started well, ended well and was completely accepted and forgiven by Chris. Perhaps when I graduate college such things will be different, but just putting in my two cents; I believe it certainly is possible for a polyamourous relationship to work out, even if one primary is monogamous. It all depends on the people. And certainly neither I nor my temporary attachment minded being a secondary, as Ge-Ren mentioned some did. Feel free to ignore the ravings of a delusional highschooler if you feel this is impossible, of course.

If nothing else, I'm rather proud of being crazy.
Signing off,
Lupinasia

It does. Thank you very much. I appreciate everyone's opinion, for this has been a point of contention between me and my friends and your views will certainly help us resolve them ^_^

As a closing note, for all you doubters out there: My boyfriend Chris and I called our relationship open last summer, agreeing we could do whatever we pleased if we admitted it later. While Chris chose monogamy, my two-week attachment to another boy (also in an open relationship at the time) started well, ended well and was completely accepted and forgiven by Chris. Perhaps when I graduate college such things will be different, but just putting in my two cents; I believe it certainly is possible for a polyamourous relationship to work out, even if one primary is monogamous. It all depends on the people. And certainly neither I nor my temporary attachment minded being a secondary, as Ge-Ren mentioned some did. Feel free to ignore the ravings of a delusional highschooler if you feel this is impossible, of course.

If nothing else, I'm rather proud of being crazy.
Signing off,
Lupinasia
if it were really OK it wouldnt have to be accepted and forgiven.

Every definition of polyamory I've ever heard is more along the lines of being attracted to several people at once. For instance, I have four female friends. I like them all quite a lot. I would be MORE than willing to engage in a relationship with all of them at once, if such a thing were possible. However, since none of my female friends are interested, my dreams seem quite distant indeed.
I could be said to have polyamorous desires, but I do not have a polyamorous relationship.

But damn that would be sweet.

*SIGH* No one loves me...

(OOC: Just to clarify, any such relationship would be with mutual knowledgeable consent of all involved. Anything less would just be a LOT of cheating.)

While Chris chose monogamy, my two-week attachment to another boy (also in an open relationship at the time) started well, ended well and was completely accepted and forgiven by Chris.


That's not polyamory. That's you two saying flings were allowed, then you going on one despite your BF's decision to be monogamous.

You had a fling on the side. Totally different. If you had to be forgiven, it's not polyamory. I would have thought twice before getting into a fling on the side, especially if my partner decided to be faithful to me.

You're young yet. You may not know the difference.

Ge-Ren

I have come to the conclusion that polyamory is a load of fetid dingoes' kidneys.

Man unfulfilled by wife (say, she refuses to engage in fellatio or some other such nonsense) finds himself attracted to, and the object of attraction for, someone who will orally wax his carrot. After 13 years of marriage, wife agrees to polyamory, adopts symmetrical square geometry with another couple, and things are fine...right up until husband of second couple doesn't want to shag first couple wife anymore.

Point is, first couple husband is simply unfulfilled and pissed off at himself for marrying the first woman who agreed to screw him on a regular basis. Yes, they do genuinely love one another, I suppose, but his rampant libido and her selective proclivities produced his need to wander and his conscience produced the need to want to do with sans guilt. Enter polyamory. gee golly, it sounds very logical and fair! Riiiiight up until they discover that his wife is unable to find anyone interested in her wares while hubby is swimming in offers. It should be honestly called polycoitaly because that's what it really is.

So to avoid the appearance of self-deception, those engaged as polyamorists (or, to use their lexicon, those who "are poly") tend, in my experience, to adopt a rather superior and super-erudite tone when confronting us skeptics. I know that's a generalization, but I've not yet met the practitiouners of geometric relationships who aren't smug. And why? Because they're getting to screw whoever they want! True, there's the matter of all those in one's particular geometry and their approval, but hey, it's "open", right?

Dingoes' kidneys is too good for this practice -- it is instead horseshit.

And while I usually say something like "no offense truly meant" to those whom I so indict with that label, in this case, I mean all the offense I can. Disingenuous and smug? Please.

Personally, I don't have a problem with polyamory or open relationships, (provided everyone involved is open and honest (and gets regularly tested for STDs)) however I highly doubt if either would work for me.

what's the story in polyamore (sorry, but i just had to)

That would be Polygynandry

no it wouldn't.

also, while it would be polyamorous, it wouldn't be a definition of "polyamory".

my 2p: polyamory is the only amory that makes sense to me. My wife isn't on the same wavelength though.

I have come to the conclusion that polyamory is a load of fetid dingoes' kidneys.

Man unfulfilled by wife (say, she refuses to engage in fellatio or some other such nonsense) finds himself attracted to, and the object of attraction for, someone who will orally wax his carrot. After 13 years of marriage, wife agrees to polyamory, adopts symmetrical square geometry with another couple, and things are fine...right up until husband of second couple doesn't want to shag first couple wife anymore.

That is "being a hopelessly optimistic bunch of idiots" which isn't going to work in whatever field you try it. You might as well say "cars are horseshit" because a man unfulfilled in life, at say 45 to 50, might well buy a fast car to make himself feel young and groovy but it doesn't have the desired effect.

Just because some idiots can make a hash of things which a particular philosophy advocates, that doesn't invalidate the philosophy itself.

It's no different to any other romantic or sexual engagement. So long as there's honesty and openness, you have every chance of making it a success.

I believe that Polyamory is possible, perhaps even reasonably frequent.

I believe mutual Polyamory between all concerned parties is possible, though unlikely to occur often.

I also believe that sustainable Polyamorous relationships are possible but are simply the exception to the rule.

I believe that a sustainable societial view on polyamory would therefore be that it is more often something else entirely. Cheating, or lying to one's self and their partner. I've heard many times that a "threesome" is the death knell of a relationship, I'm inclined to agree. Those who want more, end up with less.

The number of people who can sustain a polyamorous relationships are probably fairly few in number. More power to them if they can do it, but I think more people are simply confused by their emotions and desires.

Still, these are only my beliefs, based on my own experiences and observations.