Polyamory Support Group

Simple living, extreme early retirement, becoming and being wealthy, wisdom, praxis, personal growth,...
Post Reply
User avatar
Jean
Posts: 1890
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am
Location: Switzterland

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Jean »

I felt bad about leaving my job, because I was making paralels with how much it hurt to have a girlfriend leave me.

Jin+Guice
Posts: 1276
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Jin+Guice »

@Jean: I think you forgot that jobs are for losers and SOs are for winners.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9369
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I am going to be found guilty of making a mix of the threads, but I wanted to mention the relevance of the Saver/Investor/Trader/Speculator classifications here in terms of how I think it applies to polyamory. The rough analogy along the continuum of conventional relationship categories might be Celibacy/Marriage or Similar Commitment/Serial Monogamy/Player. One way to describe the practice of polyamory would be an attempt to keep some sort of anti-fragile or resilient mix of relationships along the continuum (inclusive of periods of celibacy as desired.) Another way to describe the practice of polyamory might be more like an individual who is naturally temperamentally centered at serial monogamy, but also experienced in Commitment and Player.

IOW, I think anybody who experienced at least a couple long-term domestic/affectionate relationships and who also has casually dated/played enough to feel reasonably comfortable with that, would be fairly likely to be fairly comfortable with polyamory. According to a very good book on polyamorous practice I read, the 4 primary realms of monogamy/non-monogamy would be sexual, romantic/emotional, financial/domestic, social. Mileage may vary, but my preference would be that my relationships with all or most of my partners would be at least at the level of Cuddly and/or Orgasmic/Quite Fond/Share Dinner and Borrow a Book/Go out and do something fun together. IOW, I am most comfortable with anything on the spectrum from Great F*ck-Buddy to Grandma's Boyfriend, but I would be more likely to go in for the occasional bit of Speculation rather than lock myself down completely.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by jennypenny »

I'm guilty of mixing the threads first, but I feel like there's an important pattern here that I can't quite put my finger on. :?

Jin+Guice
Posts: 1276
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Jin+Guice »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:23 am
I am going to be found guilty of making a mix of the threads
One of the new mental toys I've picked up from hanging out here is that ideas that are useful in one area are usually useful in another. This is how I make it through boring investing books written by people I hate. Part of me feels like so much of an amateur investor that I'll never make it, and that reading all these boring books by d-bags is a waste of time. But, if the d-bags' ideas can be used for something I'm actually doing now then....
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:23 am
but I wanted to mention the relevance of the Saver/Investor/Trader/Speculator classifications here in terms of how I think it applies to polyamory. The rough analogy along the continuum of conventional relationship categories might be Celibacy/Marriage or Similar Commitment/Serial Monogamy/Player.
I would've made the analogy /Marriage or Similar Commitment/Serial Monogamy/Polyamory/Player. Intentional celibacy would be something like living a cash based existence, not playing the game as hard as you can. I think unintentional celibacy would be something like using one or two credit cards and paying the minimum payment on each every month.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:23 am
Another way to describe the practice of polyamory might be more like an individual who is naturally temperamentally centered at serial monogamy, but also experienced in Commitment and Player.
Haha, isn't this just a description of you? I like your description of polyamory as sort of a master of all, which for the intent of the analogy would make it in some ways equivalent to ERE as it relates to investment.


What are your top polyamory books? I would also be interesting in your other top books in the realm of human socialization/ interaction. So far the only polyamory book I've read is The Ethical Slut.

User avatar
Jean
Posts: 1890
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am
Location: Switzterland

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Jean »

I cannot express it as accurately as i want, but i think you look at it backwards. The main reasons for monogamy are child rearing, and thé law and institutions built around it. Remove them and there is no reason for monogamy. So to me, monogamy is more like taking a credit to buy a hopefully usefull asset, like a Home. Polyamory would be like investing, celibacy would be saving, incel would be having no income, and a player would be a drug dealer.

Toska2
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 8:51 pm

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Toska2 »

As a celibate player I choose to consume the stash.

What's the saying? If you go alone, go fast. Go with someone else and you can go far.

Toska2
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 8:51 pm

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Toska2 »

Anyways the term "bare branches" implies that I need to find a non human "baby".

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9369
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

jennypenny wrote: I feel like there's an important pattern here that I can't quite put my finger on.
I agree.
Jin+Guice wrote: ideas that are useful in one area are usually useful in another.
Yup. I read a book written by some d-bag investor and he compared value investing to keeping mistresses.
I would've made the analogy /Marriage or Similar Commitment/Serial Monogamy/Polyamory/Player. Intentional celibacy would be something like living a cash based existence, not playing the game as hard as you can. I think unintentional celibacy would be something like using one or two credit cards and paying the minimum payment on each every month.
Well, there obviously may be some relevant gender/generational bias here. I was somewhat thinking of the expression "Saving it for marriage." in relationship to celibacy. Embodied mind theory suggests that all expressions of language can be translated down to core physiological functions and relationships, such as "above my head" , so metaphor is important and revealing.

Also, there was a girl who lived across the street from me when I was a child who somehow managed to save the contents of her Easter basket well into the summer. So, I would go over to her house and play some boring board game she liked on the off chance that I might get a jelly bean. Then one day I noticed that her chocolate bunny had become dusty. This anecdote roughly reflects my feelings related to strict saving of resources. Of course, saving without also providing sufficient maintenance might better be defined as "hoarding."

Actually, there is a good deal of evidence towards "use it or lose it" in the realm of human sexuality, so this is one of the reasons why I believe it is good self-care to mend, end or open sex-dead relationships.
What are your top polyamory books? I would also be interesting in your other top books in the realm of human socialization/ interaction.
"Designer Relationships" by Michaels and Johnson, "Opening Up" by Taormino are good. "Passionate Marriage" by Schnarch is very worthwhile, complex read on the topic of reviving sex life in existing marriage. As llorona mentioned above there is a good deal of overlap between polyamorous community and kink culture, so reading some books, or exploring some kink forums, might prove helpful. Also, books promoting sexual dichotomy theory, such as "The Way of the Superior Man" by Deida, and even some of the better player manuals such as "The Art of Mackin'" by Nasheed are also very good. Most important takeaway being that when you read enough books within this realm and you start to see overlap between suggestions made by Mormon housewives, players, geishas and PhDs, you will get at what seems to be essential vs. bias or chaff.

@Toska2:

If you are implying that celibacy is likely the best choice for quickest accumulation of financial funds, I would have to agree. I am teaching full-time right now in order to accumulate funds for my DD27s wedding, and as I type this I am wondering how I am going to summon up the energy necessary to meet my gardening partner at 11, my BF at 4, and then meet a possible 3rd with my BF at 6:30. I told my BF I would be willing to meet with a 3rd if he did all the legwork, and in theory that is true, but my left hip is killing me, and I have several hours of hauling wood chips scheduled in the interim. However, this does somewhat prove my take that attempting practice of frequent sex is good antidote for aging, because it forces you to keep acknowledging and fixing all the ways in which your physiological and/or social functioning is falling apart towards a more complex act than, for example, simply hopping on an exercise bike every day.

Toska2
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 8:51 pm

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Toska2 »

I wasnt. I turned it into a sex joke. People practicing polyamory wouldn't understand.

I dont need to take myself out to dinner, but sometimes I do anyways.

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

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by classical_Liberal »

@7WB5
Robust and resilient. Very good point. As a matter of fact I should have probably reversed the usage in my previous entry about this point. Still though, its certainly possible for one deepr relationship to be more robust AND resilient than several shallow. Remember, no matter what, you (or me or whoever) will always be a large component of any human relationship. So, that means I am potentially the weakest point. So, if a long lasting, deep relationship has a better chance of success than several shallow ones if I am the underlying cause of the problem. Then robustness and resilience, although defined differently, are both improved. Of course, in your example of a death of the other partner (or any other issues related to the other), resilience can become a major issue in the "deep" relationship.

@J+G
The reason I've never gotten married is because of the sadness i see in the eyes of most my friends who are :lol:

I think initially it seems like depth and breath are not mutually exclusive. However, once depth is improved upon in any situation, work or relationships, it become obvious that the realm of possibilities available in depth are different in kind to those available with breadth. To combine concepts, think of Wheaton levels and being unable to see past a level or two up. Also think of Paradox of Choice, where too much potential breath makes one dissatisfied with any choice made.

I'm sure there is an efficient frontier or balance in these things. It may prove your situation of one deeper relationship and one or two more shallow is that balance. Or conversely having two more shallow relationships could impact the long term depth of the primary.

In any event, the amount of effort you have to spend is limited, so you can't have your cake and eat it too. For instance, if you had decided to quit your low level jobs in music industry and moved on to low level finance job, then moved on to "X". All you would have ever really learned is how to bring people coffee. :? There would be no chance you have to opportunity to create a record label and charge for sound work today. So you have an opportunity that is different in kind do to the depth or your previous employment experience. You can still serve coffee if you want too as well :lol:

@Jacob
To follow the analogy:

The "married for 40 years" types are the workers who hold onto a career trajectory in a single organization. Things, titles, activities change through the years, but you are loyal to the person/company.

Serial monogamists are like the tech worker who constantly switches companies looking for better pay and new challenges. Same thing, different venue, the grass is always greener.

Polyamorists are similar to those working in the Gig economy. They may have several different income flows at any given time or they may have one primary and one or more side gigs.

@Clarice
Your point is well taken. One person can not fulfill all of ones needs, nor should anyone try to make a single person do that. Frankly, I think this is, by far, the strongest argument for polyamory (I think 7WB5 makes this argument in her posts). OTOH, if a deep relationship is no longer providing for enough needs to offset the hardships it's causing, ending it and looking for a new depth based relationship may be a superior choice.

@JP
I agree completely, there is an important underlying concept here I've been thinking around, but not at. I'm going to continue to let it digest.

Sorry, I'm the one derailed this thread. Much apologies.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9369
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@classical_Liberal:

I am really not agreeing with your polyamory = shallow, monogamy = deep dichotomy. I started practicing polyamory almost 4 years ago, and 1 of my relationships has lasted for that entire span, another lasted almost 3 years, and another is almost 3 years old. I have had 2 casual encounters, and 2 other couple month long relationships. Prior to practicing polyamory, with the exception of my 20 year marriage and my 3.5 year "marriage", my other serial monogamous relationship generally only lasted between 9 and 18 months. IOW, of all the relationships with men I have had in the 40 years(!!!) I have been on and off the market, at least 2 of my polyamorous relationships have proven to be among the most significant.

Polyamory better allows me to maintain relationships with men "as they are" or on terms that are acceptable to both of us. So, seasons go by, and here we still are, doing what we do together. Granted, there are other measures of "depth" than simply the passing of time, but some of those have nothing to do with relationship skills.For example, having and raising children together often requires nothing more than an unlucky choice of contraceptive. Very strong sexual or romantic chemistry is most frequently very apparent within short period of acquaintance. Shared interests are sometimes developed together, but oftentimes develop independently and are causative of bond. Sharing house-space and/or most evenings and weekends in each other's company is challenging, but oftentimes the best solutions to problems with co-habitation require less sharing and more space. etc. etc. etc. And none of these variable are precluded by the practice of polyamory.

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

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by classical_Liberal »

@7WB5
Another good point. I think depth of relationships is very much dependent on experiences shared. I think sexual attraction, having children, common interests, etc, are subcategories of this. IOW people with those things simply have more experiences together because they choose to/need to. As you pointed out, this means that length of relationship is only one variable to the number of experiences had together.

My general point is that I only have "X" amount of energy for personal relationships. The more I split that energy, the higher likelihood that each split will have gained less meaningful interaction. Hence each split will have a (at least partially proportional) lack of depth. Certainly there are other variables to this! A good partner may provide me with more energy for relationships, so I get "1.5X". I do concede it's possible to play this scenario out so that someone with several partners can have the same (or more) depth with each as a person with similar base energy "X" has with one partner. However, there are still limits to total life energy. So this extra partner energy must be coming from somewhere else. In which case, why have three, if one or two will do?

Jin+Guice
Posts: 1276
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Jin+Guice »

@ c_L:

I'm in disagreement with your dichotomy as well. I don't have the polyamory experience, but I have very deep and intense friendships and I don't find that the more meaningful friendships I have the weaker the other friendships are. These friendships do usually start with a large time/ energy commitment, which happens organically. I've still made multiple close friends at the same time before and the time/ energy commitment will eventually organically taper off. I'm also currently in bands with a total of at least 20 people and making records with 3 people. The bands haven't hit their groove yet, but if they do those will all be deep relationships. Of course there is a limit to this, but I don't think it's one in any realm.

It wouldn't be possible for me to have as deep a relationship with anyone else as I have with my current girlfriend unless someone else moved in with us. Unlikely in a romantic relationship, but again I've had deep friend relationships with multiple roommates before.

I'm not convinced that extreme depth is always that desirable. I have a deep relationship with music, but my life would be so much easier without it. I've spent so much time and money on practicing, having a place to work, rehearsing, recording sessions and buying gear. Before ERE I never questioned it, because I suffered from "what else would I do?" disease, but it's seriously detracting from my gardening and learning how to fix shit in my house time. I'm also on my 3rd profession and I've never again had to enter at the getting people coffee stage. There are also plenty of professions where you've really gone as deep as you can, or as deep as you really need to after a year or three.

If specifically one romantic partner is really doing it for you then, by all means, keep it to one. Doing whatever makes you happy is the point, to me. It's also the convention of our times, and I for one am not for breaking conventions if you don't want to. It's a real pain in the dick most of the time. I'm still unconvinced that lack of energy or depth of relationship are good reasons why monogamy would be superior to polyamory.

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

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by classical_Liberal »

To be clear, I'm not arguing against polyamory specifically. I kind of painted myself into that corner by making the argument about depth. I was drawn into that thought process because of the conversations here though. I certainly didn't intend to come into a thread that is specifically for Polyamors to exchange information and shit on the idea of it. So, I apologize if that's what it seems like I'm doing. Honestly, I'm completely apathetic towards the idea. Maybe someday it'll seem like a good idea to me in different circumstances, who knows?

I think my thoughts about depth do carry some weight though, even if just generally and the arguments against it wrt polyamory have given me something to think about. I still think, here at ERE, we are so worried about the fragility of hyper-specialization, we may sometimes be missing out on levels depth can provide. I'll try to bring my ideas on this together at a later date, more generally, on a different thread.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9369
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

classical_Liberal wrote:My general point is that I only have "X" amount of energy for personal relationships. The more I split that energy, the higher likelihood that each split will have gained less meaningful interaction. Hence each split will have a (at least partially proportional) lack of depth. Certainly there are other variables to this! A good partner may provide me with more energy for relationships, so I get "1.5X". I do concede it's possible to play this scenario out so that someone with several partners can have the same (or more) depth with each as a person with similar base energy "X" has with one partner. However, there are still limits to total life energy. So this extra partner energy must be coming from somewhere else. In which case, why have three, if one or two will do?
I had to ponder a bit. I do think that polyamory becomes more of a natural choice the older you are, because the further along you are in life, the more your own inherent proclivities combined with your own experiences will form a field in which your depth in various realms may or may not vary from that of others. For instance, Jacob could not have a meaningful conversation about astrophysics with most of the members of this forum.

One common poly-split in the kink community would be having an ongoing relationship with a Dom and an ongoing relationship with a cuddly-affectionate domestic partner. The energy in sexual or romantic relationships isn't just like two people with a full tank of gas; there has to be a certain amount of polarity. So both individuals have to spend some time outside of the relationship, either on their own or in the company of others, in order to recharge that polarity. In most conventional frame, this might consist of something as simple as going to the beauty parlor and chatting with the beautician before "date night" or spending a weekend ice fishing with your buddies. So, sometimes one partner can provide depth in one realm that another partner can't and vice-versa, and the reversed polarity of these relationships can also make interactions with each partner more meaningful. For instance, the behavior of one partner might make me feel beautiful, the behavior of another partner might make me feel appropriately challenged, and the behavior of a third partner might make me feel grounded. I don't deny that it should or could be possible for one partner to exhibit all of these behavior sets when appropriate, but IME, it is actually easier to form relationship with 3 different individuals for whom these behavior sets come naturally or readily in relationship to me*, than to try to extract them from one individual.

* A simple example of what I mean by "in relationship to me" would be that it has been my many times repeated experience that if I want to be in a relationship with somebody who will exhibit behavior that makes me feel like I am "adorable", dating a man who is at least 10 years older than me will do it.

Another example would be that if I want to be in relationship with somebody who makes me feel very sexually excited, then I will choose somebody who naturally possesses dominant attributes or behaviors or somebody who is very self-aware choosing to exhibit such behaviors. It's kind of hard to explain, but I have been quite romantically "in love" with men who couldn't bring themselves to exhibit any sort of rough behavior in bed; kind of like all the melting chocolate I could want, but no kick of caffeine. I have also had partners who were romantic and dominant, but impossible to work or live with. etc. etc. etc.

So, my perspective is that what I have to give/spend in relationship to most men is my feminine energy. My feminine energy is mainly renewed through time spent in nature, interacting with other women or children, or caring for my body and other aspects of my aesthetic. So, since I only have limited feminine energy to trade, I need to make sure I get best value in exchange, and one-stop shopping is not necessarily the best way to achieve that. My personal conception of polyamory does not preclude the possibility of de facto monogamy, so if I do happen to find one partner with whom I can get best trade for everything I want then that would be great, but at this point in my life, I am not inclined to force it or settle for making do.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9369
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

IOW, some people cycle through life and many relationships and end up feeling bitter, resentful, jaded, or disillusioned with the opposite gender. I still very much like men; I could just cuddle right into a pile of an assortment of current and former partners- like my sister with her 4 very bad dogs, but I have also become quite S-P-O-I-L-E-D. :lol: and also, not coincidentally, quite fond of my own fine company.

Jin+Guice
Posts: 1276
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Jin+Guice »

@7w5: You talk about feminine vs. masculine energy a lot. How exactly do you classify these things? Have you ever experimented with trying to exert masculine energy? Do you think this is impossible for someone who is female and/or of your personality type?

I'm really inspired by your approach to polyamory, if I wasn't already involved/ living with someone who I don't want to break up with I would try to emulate your style.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9369
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Jin+Guice:

As a female eNTP, I have a lot of masculine energy, but it is more juvenile than mature. My internal masculine functioning is about at the level of a rebel punk kid who suffers from premature ejaculation. However, this is not immediately apparent, because my external adult feminine energy is more like youngish Mrs. Santa Claus.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9369
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Random musings after reading "The Smart Girl's Guide to Polyamory" by Dedeker Winston.

If you are in a bit of distress, and you are looking for support as a female practitioner of overt polyamory, this is your go to book. I found the author's take on the evolution of modern practice of polyamory from late 20th century feminism (think Riot Grrrrl) very much in alignment with my own. In particular, I was struck by her mention of "On Our Backs" , which was a very sex-positive lesbian erotica magazine; the title meant to be a response to the publication "Off Our Backs" which was created by anti-porn feminists. In the 80s and 90s, although I was married with young children, I was familiar with this magazine and many related works. So, the evolution towards modern polyamory goes something like mid-century-prudish-feminism/late-20th-century-sex-positive-feminism/integration-of-feminism-and-sex-positivity-with-more-complex-relationships-as-Riot-Grrrl-generation matures and some aspects of this culture filter down towards Millennial generation (the author is a Millennial.)

The author also compiles a very attractive collection of famous women in history who practiced polyamory, including Virginia Woolf, Edna St. Vincent Millay, and Elizabeth Holloway Marston (married to creator of Wonder Woman character.) Her discussion of history of free love communities is interesting, because she notes that they all failed when control became too rigid. I was aware that polyamory was practiced by some Native American tribes, and some interesting examples, such as tradition of wife of older brother initiating younger brother into sexuality, are offered.

Although the author does not mention systems theory or permaculture, I found myself once again noting how much the practice and philosophy of polyamory are in alignment with these concepts. For simple instance, very obvious analogy can be made between what polyamorists refer to as "old relationship energy" vs. "new relationship energy" and the process of creative destruction in a climax forest. A climax forest is mature and robust, but actually contains less bio-mass per acre than an environment that is intelligently managed in alignment with creative destruction in order to allow for more bio-mass due to greater variety of species exposure to the energy from the sun. I think this is why the author and I, although VERY cognizant of MANY difficulties, can't now not think in terms of monogamy being a choice within polyamory. To me it seems like the same reason why I can't not think in terms of permaculture.

Post Reply