Open relationship?

[fiby41]

Explanation: punchline is statement of the Pythagoras theorem.

[liberty]

Have any of you been in a monogamous relationship and then made it open/poly? Why and how did you do it? (Cheating doesn't count as a permanent solution!)

Yes, after a few weeks of prison feeling I asked to make it "open" so that I could fuck around again.

[fiby41]

Is one partner not the optimal solution to the relationship problem? What reasons there may be for wanting more or temporary relations?

Reasons I can think of : Less commitment, more mobility, primarily sexual reasons, infertility of primary partner or self so you seek secondary partner, wanting more children than what your partner wants or can afford/is willing to rear, thril of it,... Anything else I'm missing?

If one wants to maximize (maximization problem instead of optimization) children, subject to these constraints:

1 It is advised to have a space of 3 years between having two children for the health of both the mother and the children.

This way the wife will be free to have another child when the former child will be put in nursery/kindergarten. Assuming it took 3 months to get pregnant, rounding off, we have 4 years (3mo+9mo+3yrs) before she can get pregnant again

2 Not more than one wife is pregnant in any given year, so that caretaking can be done and expenses met

So it will require 4 fertile wives of child bearing age in an open relationship with one man with average sperm count, provided not more than one such quarter wife is pregnant in any given year

Note that I'm not being an -ist as it is one man having multiple wifes and not the other way round. Even if one woman had m husbands in our above model, she would still have 1 child every 4 years, so it won't be the maximum solution. Even in real life, number of women is the limiting factor for how many children can be borne at a time as n women and m men can have not more than n children every 9 months (disregarding health), but the opposite is not true, because the value of m is immaterial in a society where open relationships are practised (but matters in a monoamous society) provided n & m are both natural numbers.

[Jason]

In the history of "ideas that sound great at first but eventually lead to stimulant induced bludgeonings, post-orgy vehicular homicides, cut off penises discovered in scrap metal yards, divorces, broken friendships, domestic disturbance incidents, unwanted children, semi-orchestrated daytime talk show fights, pulled out weaves abandoned in fast food parking lots, arguments about whether fucking each other's relatives is acceptable after fucking each other's relatives has already transpired, naked people seen running down public roads, revenge porn and personal emotional trauma" I think open relationships rises to the top of the list.

[liberty]

Is one partner not the optimal solution to the relationship problem?

Is one stock in a portfolio an optional solution for investing? No. Because maybe that one company go bankrupt. Maybe it was a really bad company after all, but you didn't understand that when you analized it?

The same thing goes with relationship: Maybe the person you thought was great was an asshole after all. Maybe she scammed you, or fucked another man without you knowing (assuming you had a closed relationship). Diversification in relationships is good in the same way as in investing: If one of the partners turned out to be very bad, you have always others to go to.

Have fun!

[Jason]

but you didn't understand that when you analized it?

In my experience, that's something you should discuss with your partner beforehand.

[liberty]

@Jason, what I mean is that a person who looks to be great can be an evil scammer. I don't want to lay my life in hands of one other person... That's why I prefer to be single or in some kind of poly relationship.

[Jason]

@liberty

I was j/k'ing.

I understand your viewpoint. You want to spread the risk.

But trading in and out of stocks and trading in and out of relationships would seem to have the same issues: high fees, emotional response to short term gains and losses, you could just be diversifying amongst dogs etc.. Warren Buffet does a lot of research on the companies before he buys. As he says, your buying the company not the stock, you are making a commitment through good and bad times. Relationships, your buying the cow not the milk. It doesn't mean you won't make mistakes, but hopefully you'll learn over time. That being said, Warren Buffet, was from a certain standpoint, a polygamist for most of his life.

But ultimately it comes down to what your comfortable with. Marriage has benefited me personally, so I am more inclined to defend the one partner route.

[liberty]

@Jason, I think long term relationships are great, but that is not opposed to being poly. As poly you can for example have "friends with benefits" where you have a friendship + sex. Or just separate open relationships. You can even have a closed relationship with more than 2 partners, example: 2 bisexual women and 1 straight man, 3 gay men etc.

I'm glad marriage have benefited you! But you never know if it would have benefited you even more with multiple partners

[baska]

You can even have a closed relationship with more than 2 partners, example: 2 bisexual women and 1 straight man, 3 gay men etc.

You have to have energy for all this people and be outgoing. Just thinking about them would exhaust me. For die-hard introvert it's not mentally sustainable. Recovery will take 3 times as much and quality alone time would suffer.Instead sleeping with multipartners I will sleep out from them. Thats for people people thing.

[liberty]

@basko, yeah you are maybe right there - this type of relationship is maybe more for extroverts. On the other hand: what if your partners are introverted too? Then you can all have much time alone between the interaction.

[Jason]

I'm glad marriage have benefited you! But you never know if it would have benefited you even more with multiple partners

See, this type of comment leads me to believe that you, as most people who prefer this type of life, just want to fuck around with multiple people and the decision to be poly is not really based on some stock market analogy or thought out calculus. Its really just rooted in hedonism. And I don't mind. Believe me, I've been there. Just call it what it is.

[pukingRainbows]

Is one stock in a portfolio an optional solution for investing? No.

I think a better comparison would be jobs rather than investing because the former requires much more effort on a daily basis.

You could be a taxi driver, optometrist, freelance writer, piano player and programmer and it would arguably hedge your bets in one way, but also limit your success in another way. But it could work and it's all about your goals really.

I'm interested in the depth of the human bond and so multiple partners would work against that for me.

[7Wannabe5]

@Jason:

Hedonism (the theory of ethics towards maximization of pleasure) and the Calculus, or more accurately Systems Theory, are not by any means mutually exclusive. Also, the individuals with whom I am acquainted who seem to be naturally tending towards polyamoury (as opposed to polygamy-AKA-just fucking around) are also the least aggressive, because they are attempting to teach themselves to share one of the hardest things to share, which is the variety of love that is like the love of a perfect mother who has abandoned you at age 3 for the new baby she now feeds at her breast. Your jealousy and rage is immense. You writhe about on the floor kicking your legs. You pick up your Tonka truck, and attempt to climb into the crib and bash your rival over the head. Your not perfect, but good-enough mother says "Jason, come bring your picture book and sit by me while I feed your sister. I can't hold the book myself while I feed her, so I need a big-boy helper like you...Can you count how many toes she has? Shhhh...let's tiptoe while we take her to her crib, so she won't wake up while we are working on making our clay volcano together."

I decided to attempt practice of polyamory (previously practiced strict serial monogamy) after ending a significant relationship in which I demanded contract of monogamy with a man who had previously practiced polygyny in accordance with his theory of ethics (Islam.) I found myself driven into a dark, dysfunctional corner of jealousy and resentment, because he was obviously only abiding by the literal letter of our contract. Every thoughtful book I read on the topic of overcoming jealousy suggested that allowing yourself the same freedom of behavior the other party was allowing himself was the best, or only, functional solution. I found this to be true.

Compersion, an emotional state that is highly valued by thoughtful proponents of polyamory and loosely defined as being the opposite of jealousy, is the ability to take pleasure in the thought of somebody else experiencing pleasure in which you do not directly share. This is viewed as entirely natural and beneficial in many contexts, such as when you are one of two adults caring for a child. For instance, it makes you happy to know that Grandma took Billy to the park and they both had a very good time, while you were able to work without interruption on your financial spreadsheets. It's viewed as less natural or beneficial in many contexts where three adults, who can sometimes revert to childish or primitive behavior, are involved. For instance, it makes you less happy to know that Hank took Sally to bed and they both had a very good time, while you were able to work without interruption on your financial spreadsheets, UNLESS you have the maturity to recognize that it was your free choice to work on spreadsheets rather than spend time/energy in bed with Sally yourself. One lifelong problem I have had with monogamy as a female with a relatively high sex drive is I don't like being party to a contract that serves to hold my sexual energy in reserve until the other party is done with working on spreadsheets, or whatever other task he is likely to value over spending time and energy in bed with me, especially since there are so many other men with whom I could partner who would greatly prefer to spend their time and energy in such a manner. IOW, it seems very wasteful to me, except to the extent that I am able to sublimate my sexual energy towards some other activity such as teaching developmentally disabled children or canning pumpkin.

However, I would note for the record that my current primary partner is only open/okay with me engaging in very casual, just-sex interactions with other men, and I have found that does not work for me, so now we are working on reconciling our differences within monogamous contract, but it seems likely to fail unless I Harrison Bergeron myself (again, sigh.)

[Jason]

After reading that post, I thoroughly agree.

You really do need to get laid properly.

[fiby41]

1 Poly & happy
2 Poly & regret
3 Mono & happy
4 Mono & regret

Examples
1 liberty
2 STDs
3 Jason
4 divorce ??

[liberty]

@Jason, There are many types of polyamory, not all of them is "fucking around". A throuple with closed relationship, for example, is not fucking around...

I prefer fucking around. Hedonism and selfishness is great! As long as you don't hurt other people you should just do everything you can to make your life as good as possible.

@pukingRainbows, jobs is also a great comparison. To put your life in hands of one single employer is very risky and irrational too. That's why I save 2/3 of my income.

[7Wannabe5]

@Jason;

No, strike my last paragraph. I feel it is in my best interest to resign myself to pumpkin lady lifestyle now, while it is still choice rather than necessity.

[wood]

After having gained some more insight this year one of the troubles with monogamy the way I see it is that you may never really know if you are truly living in a monogamous relationship.

Maybe I just lost abit of trust in women in general, but after 8 months of dating them as a single man I have been astounded by how many of them are married/committed but still fucking around (about half of the ones I met). There looks to be a stigma against men in our society ("that cheating scumbag!") but women seem to be just the same, if not worse. 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.

[7Wannabe5]

@wood:

I don't think negative perspective on monogamy is the healthy basis for polyamoury. I would also note that there is a difference between being loyal and honest in relationship to another person vs. being loyal and honest in relationship to your own contracts. Dogs are loyal because they were bred to retain puppy like (dependent) qualities from a species (wolf) that exhibits high degree of social hierarchy. Therefore, if you wish to evince personal loyalty from a partner, you need to seek a partner who is more childlike, and you need to exude dominance, or vice-versa. If you prefer an egalitarian relationship with a partner with similar level of independent adult-like qualities, then you will have to judge on the basis of ability to straight-forwardly form/honor/end contract in alignment with self-interest.

IOW, an individual who vows to stick with you "no matter what", either clearly hasn't given the matter a great deal of thought, or is involving 3rd party such as God, Society or Children/Extended-Clan in the contract. For instance, the woman who is sticking to her marriage vow in relationship to abusive drunk because that is her religious code should have reasonable expectation of support from clergy or other members of her congregation dealing with such a situation. Many religions have easy-out clause for non-sexual performance included in marital contracts, but due to the influence of a cult formed by a man who hated his own body on early Christianity, celibacy is viewed as an ideal state for some, and therefore should-be-acceptable state for others. Also, the practice of monogamy combined with patrilineal inheritance naturally resulted in more money flowing to church coffers in the case of no sons born or second sons who were already celibate clergy before death of first son. So, the Western notion of romance is also derived from this philosophical line combined with the resulting practice of dowry in affluent circumstances, due to the imbalance of total females/first-born sons. Therefore, now that we are just barely 100 years out from females in the West having anything resembling equal property rights, there has been a shift in economics which has resulted in a shift in culture which is making many people uncomfortable.