Polyamory Support Group

Simple living, extreme early retirement, becoming and being wealthy, wisdom, praxis, personal growth,...
Jin+Guice
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Jin+Guice »

After a lot of arguing and discussion we finally have some rules that I actually believe to be true:

1. Wear a fucking condom.
2. No ex-girl/boyfriends.
3. No sex for money.
4. Do not bring someone home (to our house) if the other person is there.
5. The existence of the relationship must be revealed after no more than 1 date.

Guideline:
Neither of us should have to deal with bullshit because of the others outside activities.

The last statement is a guideline and not a rule because I thought it best not to place restrictions on third parties which would ultimately be unenforceable.


I'm extremely happy that we finally made progress on this front, I was getting tired of bring the subject up, having a fight about it, getting yelled at and not even having rules to show for it. I inspired this success of communication by yelling "If we don't make rules today, I'm living by no rules and doing whatever the fuck I want." God bless America.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Sounds good!

My only note would be that even though single people generally should default assume that other single people might be simultaneously dating others, or might be "committed" to playing the field, best practice would be to reveal your poly status no later than first meet/greet casual coffee type date, or any other kind of interaction that you might have with any sort of friend. You never know how things will develop, and the smallest of false pretenses at the get-go can lead to crumbling of foundation of major relationship much further down the road. IOW, although it is true that each individual in a relationship should be on the sensible lookout, you really should strive to get the facts of your situation out on the table, before a new partner is put into a situation where she might become a bit infatuated with you, and, therefore, be less well able to soberly judge her druthers vis-a-vis polyamory. Then, the fact that you did not reveal, might give your new partner subconscious moral basis for otherwise disregarding or disrespecting your rules. End result = Drama.

Also, beyond these rules, you are probably going to want to figure out some best practices for yourself. For instance, you will almost certainly want to figure out what your standard practice for taking calls or text from one partner while with another will be. My rule-of-thumb depended on level of engagement. For instance, not while cuddling on couch watching movie with partner in the evening, but perfectly acceptable if I am still there next morning, and he is in the other room checking in with the stock market (true story of how most of my dates with one partner went.)

Jason

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Jason »

Jin+Guice wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:58 pm
"If we don't make rules today, I'm living by no rules and doing whatever the fuck I want." God bless America.
Man, it's like being in the room when Patrick Henry gave his speech, except it's independence from your girlfriend's vagina and not the British.

EdithKeeler
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by EdithKeeler »

Man, it's like being in the room when Patrick Henry gave his speech, except it's independence from your girlfriend's vagina and not the British.
Isn’t part of the issue—the cause of all this really— that she’d already sorta liberated him from her lady parts? Already Patrick-Henried him, so to speak?

Jason

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Jason »

I think she King Georged him. She allowed his penis to set sail and settle in new lands. But to her it was a mere colony, ultimately beholden to the mother vagina. That's why there was all this fighting and bloodshed. Finally, J&G had enough and pulled out his quill and wrote his independence. There will be a transition time as they works out the kinks and the real terms of separation. But I'm guessing before you know it, he'll be banging like a Jacksonian democracy.

EdithKeeler
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by EdithKeeler »

... That's why there was all this fighting and bloodshed. Finally, J&G had enough and pulled out his quill and wrote his independence....
Why do I feel the urge to sing the Star Spangled Banner now?

Kriegsspiel
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Kriegsspiel »

Jason wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:15 pm
I think she King Georged him. She allowed his penis to set sail and settle in new lands. But to her it was a mere colony, ultimately beholden to the mother vagina. That's why there was all this fighting and bloodshed. Finally, J&G had enough and pulled out his quill and wrote his independence. There will be a transition time as they works out the kinks and the real terms of separation. But I'm guessing before you know it, he'll be banging like a Jacksonian democracy.
A Prince Albert connection to the King George vagina could indeed cause bloodshed.

THIS IS A FUN GAME

Jin+Guice
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Jin+Guice »

Y'all might make fun of me, but I'm just a humble Pennsylvania Yankee in Kingfish Huey's Court, trying to seduce these sweet southern belles before they suspect my stance on the Civil War statues.

Clarice
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:45 pm
Location: California

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Clarice »

I have a follow up question. Don't you all think that polyamory is very anti-ERE? Polyamory and other expressions of sexuality require erotic display. Erotic display is, by design, extremely wasteful, both, in nature and in culture. As of lately, I find myself attempting to fix what time is taking away and hold on the attention of the opposite sex (not polyamory, just flirting). I am observing that inevitably, such behavior costs money. That just me... but I am assuming that seducing southern belles costs money as well. What do you think? How do you choose?

Jin+Guice
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Jin+Guice »

@Clarice: Interesting question. Personally I find polyamory to be more ERE than monogamy.

However, my approach to ERE and what I think is ERE is different than a lot of people. When I discovered FIRE I was already very frugal, so initially that is what interested me. I started my ERE journey by fine tuning some high level frugality stuff. I next realized that I'd always been interested in investment, but that the culture of buying stocks/ bonds/ real estate had discouraged me from learning about it and participating. I realized the error of my ways and began working on some very low level investing stuff. After really diving deep in to the blogs and the ERE book I realized that saving money to escape the rat race is less important to me than living according with my values and having a high level of autonomy and freedom.

The point of the previous paragraph is that while I came for the frugality and investing advice, I stayed for the freedom and web-of-goals lifestyle design. For me, the goal of ERE is to maximize the intersection of freedom/ autonomy and my web-of-goals. This requires a high degree of self knowledge, going against the grain of modern society and a working knowledge of many other subjects. It has become my personal belief, through self-reflection, that one person is not capable of simultaneously satisfying all of the needs that a romantic relationship is supposed to. Even less so across all future time periods. It is part of my web-of-goals to improve myself while satisfying my needs. It's undeniable that romantic relationships have a huge effect on both of these things. I also believe that sharing romantic relationships with multiple people, with different skill sets, will broaden my knowledge of the human condition and my working knowledge of many subjects. Therefore I find polyamory extremely Early Retirement Extreme.

I've thus far side-stepped an important point, which is that we are all here because we are ultimately seeking something (I argue it's usually 'freedom from') through frugality. I can't say I believe that polyamory will save me money or will not increase my current expenditures. The only way I can think to argue this is that increasing peace of mind almost always lowers expenses. For example, if my current XYZ needs aren't being met, this problem will eventually manifest in other problematic and potentially expensive ways.

I also argue that dating, while prone to having a cost, does not need to be expensive. In the long run, I think the cash outlay for personal upkeep is a sound and important investment. Things like keeping yourself in shape and personal hygiene are important and, no matter how hard I try, I am inclined to do this at a higher level when I know that I am seeking potential mates, even if they are additional potential mates. I've argued in the Mens Fashion thread that keeping yourself well groomed and dressed is also important and does not need to be expensive. It is different for women. I can't comment through direct experience, and I believe that the situation is harder for women but, I also believe there are frugal methods women can employ.

This brings us to dates. I've been reading some of the old "How to Land ERE Babes" threads and really enjoying them. There is substantial argument over whether it is possible to date cheaply. I have never found this to be a problem. Frankly, I am a truly weird dude and if you aren't willing to walk a mile and insist on an Uber, how are we even on a date in the first place? Almost everything I enjoy doing is free or very cheap and I don't naturally present as a person who has more than $100 in the bank. I have strong opinions and I'm not usually quiet about them. I am proud of my ERE achievements and while I don't mention ERE directly to most people, I do often discuss principles I've gotten from ERE with people who are interested in those topics. I will part with cash for dates occasionally if someone demonstrates extremely high value or truly enjoys one of the few fancier activities in which I sometimes indulge (this is also true for friends).

I would say one day I'll learn to answer a simple question simply, but I don't think it's true.
Last edited by Jin+Guice on Wed Apr 03, 2019 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Clarice
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:45 pm
Location: California

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Clarice »

@Jin+Guice:
Thank you for your answer. It resonates with me greatly. :)

Jason

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Jason »

Jin+Guice wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:21 am
"How to Land ERE Babes"
a/k/a the title of MMM's most recent word doc

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Clarice:

Like J+G, I was already quite practiced in frugality before reading "ERE." I was also already familiar with systems design as it applies to perma-culture.

When you are designing a system for resilience, you should strive to only include features which have at least 3 desired functions, and to have each critical function covered by 3 reasonably independent features. For instance, hedge of blueberry provides fruit, lovely fall color, and moderate deterrent to trespass. If growing enough fruit to have jam all through the winter is a critical function in your plan, you will choose to grow at least 2 other preserve-worthy fruits which aren't often subject to the same failures to yield as blueberries. In the FI version of ERE this is roughly analogous to diversification of investmens. In the intermittent/part-time employment version of ERE this is roughly analogous to multiple unrelated streams of more or less passive or active income sources.

So, quite obviously, it follows that if any of the functions of intimate relationship are critical in your overall life-style design, then having at least 3 independent partners who provide these functions will add resilience. Of course, it also follows that not all of these relationships need be fully sexualized if some of them are providing functions other than sex. For instance, a person who self-describes as monogamous might have a SO who provides some measure of financial, domestic, social, romantic, and sexual partner functions, but might also have a business partner, a full-time nanny, a weekly tennis and drinks buddy, an ongoing emotional connection with heart-breaking high-school sweet-heart, and a paid subscription to the live-stream "Big Bottom Badminton" feed. A declared polyamorous individual simply acquires and maintains this same sort of diversification in a more self-aware fashion, and without either strictly limiting OR strictly preferencing the sexual function. This "OR" is important, because as well as providing alternate sources for sexuality if one relationship temporarily or permanently runs dry, polyamory also provides the option to continue in the relationship if it still provides other valued functions or qualities, whereas strict adherence to serial monogamy tends towards greatly limiting flexibility in this regard. For instance, most would allow that continuing in friendship and/or co-parenting with ex is acceptable, but what about continuing to share household or continuing to share very affectionate but not sexual physical relationship or continuing with romantic correspondence while living apart? etc.etc.etc.

Also, when it comes to erotic display, as with anything else approached with toolbox/perspective of creative frugality, it is eminently possible to substitute knowledge, skill, time, effort, attention, and vigor for money. That said, for better or worse, it is more than tad bit more difficult to simply coast along if your druthers is 3 lovers rather than 1. It will require more investment of some combination of non-financial assets, but the plan or hope would be that returns will also be much better overall as well as less likely to fail completely. And, as is also true for conventional dating/mating, the biggest savings of money and/or other assets will be gained by simply knowing and accepting your "level."( People who are quite likely to reject any club that would have them as a member, are most likely to surmise that paying more dues might be solution.) IOW, by being aware of the difference between the desire for sexual validation and the desire for sexual interaction or intimacy, even though they are usually quite naturally intertwined. As an antidote to the particular problems aging presents in this regard, I highly recommend "A Round-Heeled Woman: My Late Life Adventures in Sex and Romance" by Jane Juska.

Another permaculture analogy, offered in one of my favorite books, is that the feminine sexual energy is like a well-designed swale and the masculine sexual energy is like the rain. The first step of the dance is "make yourself attractive" and the second step of the dance is "signal availability", but if/when you are in highest functioning mode, these steps will become indistinguishable, and you will just be open to the flow of the universe, and fully relaxed in your feminine energy. So, in any moment you are holding a thought such as "Is my lipstick running into my wrinkles?" , the factual answer to the question almost doesn't matter, because it serves as sure signal that you are not in your power. Alas, I am unable to share the secret for holding this state indefinitely, because not within my possession.

Clarice
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:45 pm
Location: California

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Clarice »

@7wb5:
Wow! What a treatise! Thank you. I ordered the book. Yeah, I get it how various investments protect against financial collapse, a combination of an orchard, a business, and a job create a resilient income stream and a high school sweetheart helps to survive a flatlining marriage. As with everything else, a toolbox of creative frugality helps with an erotic display as well. Yet... at the end of my creativity, I find myself reaching for the purse and substituting money for knowledge, skill, time, effort, attention, and vigor. :lol:
People who are quite likely to reject any club that would have them as a member, are most likely to surmise that paying more dues might be solution.
What? Could you be more specific?

classical_Liberal
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:05 am

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by classical_Liberal »

The last few posts have been very interesting. I'm tempted to not post this because it's only tangentially related to the topic at hand, also because I feel my knowledge of systems thinking is limited...but I will anyway. :D

I wonder if systems thinking, at least the way it's being used in this thread, isn't missing something very important. Depth. I've noticed the same potential flaw in other discussions as well. For example, it's often expressed that it's more robust to have two differing income streams. Each with the ability to provide for needs (or in this case many relationships). While at first glance this seems more robust, and I can't really disagree. However, I can't help but think if one relationship or one income stream can provide, say 2X, what you need, that it is different in kind or depth than one that only provides just enough. Certainly someone who earns 2X needs in one way, lives much differently than who earns 1X in one way. Does this "depth", in of itself, open up more opportunities? IOW, can having depth in a single relationship open up ways to ensure that it, even though it's singular in nature, is actually more robust than having many? A strong single source may prove more resilient than several weaker sources due to it's incredible depth. I also think depth of a singular focus ends up opening up opportunities and situations that otherwise would not even be apparent.

Of course, one can argue it's best to have both breath and depth. However, one can not argue humans have unlimited energy, so allocation of resources comes into play. I do grok that the whole point of a system is to have each component supporting others. I just wonder if sometimes energy isn't simply best spending building a better, stronger, more resilient singular solution, particularly in this context. EDIT: or in any context involving human relationships.

Thoughts?

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Clarice wrote:What? Could you be more specific?
Oh, mostly I was just attempting to make the semi-obvious point that if you wish to maintain sexuality as you age, or within any context in which you find yourself less attractive, oftentimes it makes better sense to work on expanding your concept of attractive rather than continually striving or "fixing." For instance, if what you see when you look in the mirror is halfway to Mrs. Santa Claus then you will save money and effort trying to "fix" that if you are at least halfway able to eroticize Santa. This also applies to younger people who are stuck in relatively poor dating market or quest for romantic ideal. Interesting side effect of gaining this degree of acceptance is that it often renders you more generally attractive.

classical_Liberal wrote:Of course, one can argue it's best to have both breath and depth. However, one can not argue humans have unlimited energy, so allocation of resources comes into play. I do grok that the whole point of a system is to have each component supporting others. I just wonder if sometimes energy isn't simply best spending building a better, stronger, more resilient singular solution, particularly in this context. EDIT: or in any context involving human relationships.

Thoughts?
Well, first minor note would be that "robust" and "resilient" are not entirely synonymous. For instance, an individual could have a single large, strong, unlikely-to-be-toppled source of income vs. 3 small independent sources of income, and it very well could be the case that the 3 small independent sources of income could never provide as much on average as the single robust source, but the 3 small sources would be more resilient if less likely to fail entirely due to relative independence, and more likely to bounce back if they are capable of growth if provided with more resources.

That said," lifestyle design" itself is a concept produced by a very individualistic culture. It is also quite possible to design a lifestyle as a couple or even as a tribe, but this can't be accomplished covertly. You actually have to sit down at the table or convene in the common hall and hash out the design and the plan for success. Then, moving forward from this perspective, your collaborative skills will be what you will retain if this relationship comes to an end, and these skills are what will render you resilient.

Another way of looking at it is that the only true physical boundaries in making or maintaining relationship(s) are death and distance. So, an individual who has been happily monogamous for 40 years, upon the death of partner, will find himself still as much within a community of people with whom he could form new relationship, as an individual who has been actively polyamorous for the last 40 years. If the culture at large supports monogamous relationship then the new widower, even if very rusty at anything like dating, may very well find himself better able to form next new relationship than the polyamorous individual who does not have similar benefit of societal support for his practice.

So, polyamorous practice may be best understood as being primarily internally motivated for some "weirdos" who will obviously attempt to rationalize their own personal druthers by any means at their disposal :lol: Really, no different than attempting to explain why you would rather have 3 part-time jobs than 1 full time job, even though the full time job might overall require fewer hours for more pay. All you can really say is it has been my experience that I am happier that way.

Jin+Guice
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Jin+Guice »

classical_Liberal wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:01 am
The last few posts have been very interesting. I'm tempted to not post this because it's only tangentially related to the topic at hand, also because I feel my knowledge of systems thinking is limited...but I will anyway. :D

I wonder if systems thinking, at least the way it's being used in this thread, isn't missing something very important. Depth. I've noticed the same potential flaw in other discussions as well. For example, it's often expressed that it's more robust to have two differing income streams. Each with the ability to provide for needs (or in this case many relationships). While at first glance this seems more robust, and I can't really disagree. However, I can't help but think if one relationship or one income stream can provide, say 2X, what you need, that it is different in kind or depth than one that only provides just enough. Certainly someone who earns 2X needs in one way, lives much differently than who earns 1X in one way. Does this "depth", in of itself, open up more opportunities?
Interesting idea porting the depth argument from relationships to employment. Depth is a common argument against polyamory so I've spent some time thinking about it. I've been dating my current girlfriend for almost 7 years and depth of romantic relationship is something I've only recently come to appreciate through experience. I've been actively interested in pursuing some kind of music career since I was 16 and worked in a recording studio in some capacity since I was 17. Depth of career is something I have much more experience with.

Shockingly, I am going to argue that depth is supported by or at least is not compromised by polyamory. Our society is attached to the idea that we fall in love with our careers between 18 and 22 and work them for the rest of our lives. The question "What do you do?" is often answered with "I am a ..." However, we are more tolerant of polyamory among careers than lovers. You aren't a failure if you divorce your career at 45 or get a little hobby on the side.

I quit working in studios because I could see the sadness in the eyes of the men I wanted to be like. These guys had a real love of music and a real depth of knowledge. The problem with depth is that while we deepen our understanding of something/ someone, which will deepen our joy, it will also deepen our familiarity and contempt. When I first started working in a studio I just loved being in studios. It was exciting and exhilarating. I truly loved getting people coffee. Now I'm just trying to get out of there as fast as possible. I'm still excited when someone brings in a really great song. I'm still excited when I've helped them realize their vision of that song. It's incredibly satisfying and I'm thankful everyday that I get to do it. The process, which is largely standing at a computer for 10 hours telling someone that what they just did isn't quite good enough so we have to try again, is less exhilarating to me now than it was 15 years ago. I'd like to be making records and playing gigs 30 years from now. I've realized that in order to do that I'm going to have to spend a large part of my time doing something else.

Done correctly, I think polyamory can deepen our understanding of ourselves and our lovers. Working in different fields and learning about different topics has deepened my knowledge of music. Concepts and competencies can be transferred from one area to another. I think the analogy holds for romantic relationships as well.

Too much breadth will weaken depth, but I don't think in the realms we've explored, the two are strictly opposed. If you value depth, and I think most do or at least could, than seek it. I've found that the more mature one is in a relationship/ career/ skill the less one gains from sinking large amounts of time into it. Of course a primary career/ relationship will still take up a large amount of time and energy. I'm suggesting that it won't take up all of your time or energy and that spending an evening apart from your primary lover with another, or a day away from your beloved desk digging in the dirt, doesn't have to detract from depth, and has the potential to add to it.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by jacob »

I definitely see the parallels. Some jobs I've worked in had noncompetes effectively barring me from "seeing" other jobs. Others required seeking permission to screw around with side-jobs and looking back while screwing around with side-income was better for me, I'm not sure it was better for my employer given that it contributed materially to me eventually leaving "to pursue other interests". Then there's the whole golden handcuffs thing.

Thus, it really comes down to the price/value of loyalty and who pays it. Loyalty doesn't seem to be innately good. Whether it's good depends on whether the relation is symmetric so one party is not benefiting while the other is paying. For example, over the past generation, businesses have begun to treat their employees w/o showing any loyalty at all (at-will). The transition is not complete in the sense that businesses or at least managers still expect employees to be loyal to the company.

What we have here is the romantic equivalent of the gamesman in between the traditional company man and the new gig economy. What matters not is what is best but that everybody is on the same page.

Clarice
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:45 pm
Location: California

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Clarice »

@classical_Liberal:
Well, I have to go to work, but I feel compelled to give you a short answer to the question of width vs. depth...
Sometimes, you don't get to choose. Sometimes, depth is not there. Sometimes, something is obviously lacking. Then, being aware of the other extreme, and of the continuum leading to the other extreme, and of your current (and potential) place on this continuum may prove helpful.

Jason

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Jason »

Clarice wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:56 am

but I feel compelled to give you a short answer to the question of width vs. depth... Sometimes, you don't get to choose. Sometimes, depth is not there. Sometimes, something is obviously lacking.

Um...forget it.

Post Reply