Open relationship?

[Jason]

@ Wood

If your decision to engage in a religion, ideology, belief system, philosophy, intellectual thought system, political party, social relationship, etc. is based on the practice of its adherents, you will find reason not to join any i.e. I'm not going to be a Christian because of the crusades, I'm not going to be a modernist because of the early 20th totalitarian governments, I'm not going to join ERE because of a douchebag guy named Jason. Stick to the principals because going ad hominem is always going to bring you neck deep into faulty practice and hypocrisy. You can never eliminate human frailty.

[wood]

@7Wannabe5:

I don't think negative perspective on monogamy is the healthy basis for polyamoury.

Agree. I'm not trying to be negative towards monogamy, but realistic. There is a fair chance you will be cheated on. Should you therefore avoid monogamy or go poly? I don't think so. I just mentally roll my eyes when I hear a guy saying "I trust my woman 100%, she would never cheat on me", because most guys would say this but so many of them are dead wrong (arrogant/ignorant).

Like Jason wrote, stick to the principals. I'm not advocating monogamy nor polyamory. I have no problem fulfilling a monogamous contract. But it's hard finding a partner who will. Harder than I thought.

[Jason]

The issue with monogamy is that the values of our society no longer pressurize people to maintain it. Our culture is actually one great advertising campaign opposing it.

Previously, up to the 1960's, even if you did not specifically belong to a religion that mandated monogamy, societal pressures and norms kept people in line. I remember having a conversation with my friend's father many years ago. His wife was batshit crazy. Despite the self-refuting logic behind the question, my friend asked him "Why the fuck did you marry mom anyways?" His father answered "It was the only way to get laid back then."

DeToqueville referred to it as the air that we breathe. Judeo-Christian norms prevailed even to those who did not participate formally in religious practices. But the climate has now changed. We have things like no-fault divorce etc. In this day and age, I honestly don't understand how people maintain monogamy unless they associate with a religious culture where it is mandated.

That's why I find the idea of a "closed" system of polymorous activity absolutely ludicrous. If you extend the logic, you're now basing your relationship on faith of more people committing to conditions of said relationship. How in the fuck does that make sense? Because you can't get one person to trust, you are going to get more than one person to trust?

[Ego]

A coworker of mine, age 55, tells me in all seriousness that all of his male friends have been betrayed at least once at some point in their life. My parents betrayed each other. There are surely many secret betrayals that never were revealed. Its everywhere.

With all this cheating going on it seems finding someone honest and loyal is like searching for a needle in the haystack. Until the needle is found, maybe the best option is simply to treat people nice and just fuck around. And when you find that someone, you will either be betrayed or, when on your deathbed, not know 100% that you didn't get betrayed. So better expect it and try to be abit careless about it.

Being 100% sure that you are in a monogamous relationship is usually either arrogant or ignorant in my opinion.

I went to a small party this weekend hosted by a couple who have been married for nearly fifty years. Most attendees, like the hosts, have been married for many decades. I know several of the men very well and would say with a high degree of certainty that they are not betraying their spouses.

Betrayal can be contagious. As can loyalty. Choose your friends carefully. And your spouse.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... ontagious/

Surround yourself with those who betray one another and that betrayal will be reinforced by the group.
Surround yourself with those who are loyal to one another and that loyalty will be reinforced by the group.

[7Wannabe5]

That's why I find the idea of a "closed" system of polymorous activity absolutely ludicrous. If you extend the logic, you're now basing your relationship on faith of more people committing to conditions of said relationship. How in the fuck does that make sense? Because you can't get one person to trust, you are going to get more than one person to trust?

I am going to make a weak dis-jointed attempt to explain. 6 year old children hold fast to the concept of "friend" in a manner that is different than the way most adults hold the concept. You will frequently hear them say things like "Bobby is my friend, not your friend!" This is in part due to the fact that one of the last developmental stages of the human brain is the capacity to think 3 steps out in terms of consequences.

Human beings engage in gossip. Recent research indicates that the ability to make and break alliances, share information about who is friend and who is foe, was a critical, valuable skill that influenced the evolution of our species.

Human emotions are based in the body and almost always expressed in language related to the body. Thus, we say "They were talking about me behind my back." We hold the knowledge that if two other people are engaged in relationship, negotiation, or trade, and we are not direct party to this interaction, it is more likely than not that our interests will not be best served, all other things being held equal. For instance, it's well-known that females with no sexual interest in other females will sometimes offer other females support in the task of dumping male partner. I would guesstimate that this actually happens more often than some guy a woman is cheating with suggesting that she dump her current partner.

So, you always have to know that there are other humans with whom your partner(s) will be forming a great deal of variety of relationships, and you have to hold the internal-trust AKA confidence that your partner(s) will continue to find it in alignment with their own self-aware, self-care/self-interest to maintain contract with you under current, or otherwise amiable openly negotiated, terms. It's up to you to decide whether it is in your self-interest to retain any degree of relationship with somebody who has exhibited a tendency towards cheating at agreed upon terms, no different than the example that Riggerjack gave about choosing to retain the services of an employee he knew was capable of theft. If you think it would be impossible to find a partner who won't cheat, then that is reflective of either the fact that you do cheat yourself, or you think you are unique among all humans in your ability to not cheat.

Of course, the practice of polyamory does increase the probability that your partner(s) will encounter other partner(s) who offer value in company and/or contract greater than they believe they are receiving from you, but why is a closed market to be preferred in this realm apart from all others? If you love your partner(s), why would you want to enforce allegiance to less happiness producing time-spent or contract with you? OTOH, dating/courting/developing-acquaintance-towards-relationship with multiple others does take time/energy away from other pursuits or interests of value, so it makes perfect mutual sense to agree to large devotion of energies to large mutual project, such as the raising of children, missionary work, world-travel-adventure, or creation of retirement old-age mutual care nest, etc.

[Campitor]

Because you can't get one person to trust, you are going to get more than one person to trust?

This is what I'm thinking. Just because monogamy had a religious foundation, doesn't mean it wasn't a consequence of evolutionary pressure. Insofar the abrahamic edicts on monogamy, I can see why it was promulgated. In any amorous relationship there will be an exchange of bacteria; holes will be plunged, mouths kissed, tongues sucked. Restricting your physical contact to a single partner for life minimized your exposure to deadly pathogens that can only be exchanged via sexual contact. And fathers were more likely to provide resources and protection to offsprings they felt were their own therefore making females more likely to conform to monogamy for their own self interests.

Free loving bonobos, which seem to be the paragon of polyamory humans prefer, could freely engage in sex since their populations are small which limits the sexual diseases they encounter - this puts less pressure to be monogamous. As humans grew in population, and distinct sexual practices and partners proliferated, monogamy became the preferential means for relationships in a world where men routinely killed babies for various reasons and sexual diseases became deadly.

Being polyamorous puts you at greater risks since you are now sharing the bacteria of several people who are also sharing their bacteria with several people, etc. This puts you at greater risk of contacting diseases that a condom can't prevent like herpes, the flu, or some fatal form of a tropical disease spread via saliva. I understand that in a monogamous relationship these risks also exist if your partner is secretly unfaithful, but this risk is all but guaranteed exponentially in relationships were each party is free to have multiple sexual encounters. Just my honest opinion.....

[wood]

If you extend the logic, you're now basing your relationship on faith of more people committing to conditions of said relationship. How in the fuck does that make sense? Because you can't get one person to trust, you are going to get more than one person to trust?

Maybe it makes sense if one chooses to disregard trust altogether? Have protected sex and no expectations? I don't know.

@Ego:

I know several of the men very well and would say with a high degree of certainty that they are not betraying their spouses.

Without arguing your main point or saying that I don't believe you, I want to point out that the same has been said about many people who did betray.

[7Wannabe5]

@Campitor:

I agree that the human species "naturally" exhibits at about 1.6 to 1 on monogamy/polygamy scale. However, I would also note that we no longer live in a world where babies routinely go blind from syphilis and nobody understands why. I asked a friend who is an epidemiologist who specializes in research on AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, and he offered confirmation that the risk of death from riding my bicycle 5 miles to meet a new affluent lover over the age of 40 who uses a condom was much greater than my risk from the sex itself. Of course, dying from an STD still has a shame/ick factor not associated with dying while taking a healthy, petroleum saving bike ride in a world that still has automobiles operated by humans.

If the rate of cheating on verbal contract of monogamy is 30%, and the protection rate of condoms and other safe sex practices overall (inclusive of herpes, and other non-deadly STDs) is 90% then the likelihood of contraction of disease due to reliance on verbal contract of monogamy with partner, given that partner is similarly cheating on other non-condom wearing partners of unknown quantity (we will assume 3, could be 1 or 20), is 30% (general population infection rate) vs. (1- (.9)(.9(.9) ) = 27%(general population infection rate) with 3 overt partnerships involving safer sexual practices. Please feel free to adjust any of these numbers to reflect your own take on reality, and definitely double-check my math.

[Jason]

Let me put this in context of of something I can understand, because I'm not sure I'm following this:

I'm on a small boat. There are seven of us. There's a storm. We get marooned on an island. There's three women: a hot country girl, a movie star, and an old lady and four men: me, a fat fuck, an old, rich fuck who's married to the old lady and a smart fuck.

Now, each week I go back forth on who I want to fuck more: the country girl or the movie star. I obviously don't want to go near the old lady because what good is her money on a fuckin tropical island. Because its a closed system (occasional cannibal visitations not withstanding) I'm thinking what's in my best interest: to try to get a commitment from one of the chicks I do want to fuck, or just let the closed system play out and know I can have both chicks (they are stranded on an island, so eventually they will get desperate enough to fuck me) knowing that they are most likely fucking the other men I'm ship wrecked with. Also, does it mean I have to bang the old lady in order to bang the other two women. How does this work?

See, this is just too much brain damage and why jerking off into a coconut becomes a viable option. And you know that week the Harlem Globetrotters show up not even the old lady is visiting my fuckin hut.

[7Wannabe5]

@Jason:

I can't speak for all females, but in my book, the Professor would be kind of yummy, the Captain maybe (might be less likely to be distracted from sexual interaction than the Professor, more likely to procure and cook food for me), uh-uh on Mr. Howell (even if not married, and in context where money mattered), and, as for Gilligan, I would try to be kind in my rejection of his homemade valentine, but not even remotely fathomable under any circumstances.

[Jason]

Well, I don’t know who all these people you are referring to are, but from a systems standpoint, do you have the option of choosing to sleep only with the Professor guy and not this Gilligan guy? Or what happens if the captain says in order to fuck him you have to also fuck his little buddy Gilligan. What do you do? Do you try just to mono up with the Professor at this point?

[Ego]

DeToqueville referred to it as the air that we breathe. Judeo-Christian norms prevailed even to those who did not participate formally in religious practices. But the climate has now changed. We have things like no-fault divorce etc. In this day and age, I honestly don't understand how people maintain monogamy unless they associate with a religious culture where it is mandated.

Simple. The air we breathe is a dance of culture and nature. The Golden Rule is innate and existed long before religions.

It becomes problematic when humans pollute culture with the purpose of short-circuiting nature.

[liberty]

The issue with monogamy is that the values of our society no longer pressurize people to maintain it. Our culture is actually one great advertising campaign opposing it.

Yeah of course... That's why only poly marriage is legal

[Jason]

Yes, you are right. Given the current state of people's view on marriage, if people were allowed to marry more than partner there would be Disney Land lines around every church and town hall with every permutation of numerical group that one can think of crying in joy that they, after all the years of oppression, and indignities and marching and fighting for their God given rights to actually marry more than one person because every logical person knows that the answer to improving the overall happiness and success rate of an institution currently fettered by the anachronistic chains of limited membership, they can now finally legally legitimate their unions, despite the pleas from divorce attorneys not to allow it because it will certainly put them out of business.

[Jason]

DeToqueville referred to it as the air that we breathe. Judeo-Christian norms prevailed even to those who did not participate formally in religious practices. But the climate has now changed. We have things like no-fault divorce etc. In this day and age, I honestly don't understand how people maintain monogamy unless they associate with a religious culture where it is mandated.

Simple. The air we breathe is a dance of culture and nature. The Golden Rule is innate and existed long before religions.

It becomes problematic when humans pollute culture with the purpose of short-circuiting nature.

Um...no.

[7Wannabe5]

Or what happens if the captain says in order to fuck him you have to also fuck his little buddy Gilligan.

Well, that happens all the time, but most guys don't name it Gilligan.

Seriously, desert island problem is pretty much the opposite of real-life polyamory. There are a lot of attractive, amiable people in the world. Just this afternoon, a participant in the foster grandparent program at the elementary school where I was teaching hit on me pretty hard. Widower, owns his own house and two condos providing rental income, PhD engineer from India. Not unattractive, pleasant manner, but then he nodded off for a few minutes during story time. Of course, my current grouchy old BF prefers for me to wear flannel pajamas to bed, so...why I am retiring from the field.