Polyamory Support Group

Simple living, extreme early retirement, becoming and being wealthy, wisdom, praxis, personal growth,...
M
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:34 pm

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by M »

One thing I have always wondered about polyamory is, how does this work with children and property?

Say a woman wants four children. She lives alone but is poly and has three boyfriends.

Does she invite all three boyfriends to come live with her and take turns getting her pregnant?
Does she have sex with each guy daily until mystery guy gets her pregnant?
What happens if one guy wants to leave her then, does he pay 1/3 of child support because she doesn't know who got her pregnant?

Likewise what happens to property when people split up? Say one boyfriend who fathered one of your children decides poly is not fun anymore and becomes monogamous with one of his girlfriends and moves in with her instead? Do you get half of his assets? Or just 1/6 of his assets because he had three girlfriends?

Or - likewise - what happens when boyfriend gets two other girls pregnant? Does he now only spend 1/3 of his time and money helping to raise the child you have with him?

What happens when boyfriend gets old and passes away when he has three children by three different girlfriends? Do all girlfriends get 1/3 of his assets? Does his assets go straight to his children?

I'm sure this is spelled out somewhere - I am simply unaware here I think.

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

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Bonde wrote: I suspect that increased wealth
AnalyticalEngine wrote:One interesting thing I've noticed about polyamory[1] is that it indicates a shift in the role property and money play in relationships. The people I've seen who practice it[2] often have their own jobs/wealth/life/independence/etc and therefore see less of a need to rely on their spouse's income for their lifestyle.
Yes, I've noticed this too. In fact, I think I joked someplace upthread about no longer feeling "affluent" enough to practice polyamory. Of course, societal affluence is also well correlated with the education of women, more years spent as a healthy adult, fewer years spent in child-rearing, percentage of population capable of self-authoring their own complex lifestyle, etc.
AnalyticalEngine wrote: There seems to be a distinction between types of poly relationships. I notice there is sometimes "married man + woman seek third" vs being completely unmarried/unattached to a primary partner.
Yes, below is a good article on solo polyamory. I consider myself to be/practice solo poly, even when I lived with one of my partners. As the article makes clear, the overall trend towards consensual non-monogamy is growing.
Per a 2020 YouGov survey of 1,300 US adults, 43% of millennials said that their ideal relationship would be non-monogamous, while just 30% of Gen X said the same. Overall, research from 2016 synthesising two different US studies showed 20% of respondents engaged in a consensually non-monogamous relationship at some point. But these studies don’t break down those numbers by specific types of non-monogamous relationships, so it’s impossible to say how many of those surveyed identify with solo polyamory.

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20 ... 0partners.
chenda wrote:As one of the commentators points out, if both men and women practice polyamory in equal numbers, the impact on the 'incels' and beta men is going to be cost neutral. Indeed the ideological inversion, monogamy as a form of sexual socialism vs the free market of polyamory, might be better understood as developing into a 'mixed economy' where a wide variety of sexual options are available.
I would argue that the practice of polyamory in equal numbers by heterosexual females and males, would actually have net positive benefit for heterosexual men who are not in top 20% of most attractive men, because women would feel more free to choose different partners for different qualities, rather than being either super matchy-matchy for long term pick or best-I-can-get for short term pick.

@M:

The answer is that it only works for people who are at a level of development where they are capable of creating and maintaining their own unique contracts without reference to central authority or the book of rules. It's not to be confused with simple promiscuity which is known to be a poor basis for family formation.

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

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Jin+Guice »

I haven't been posting about it, but my own adventures in polyamory have lead me to some sometimes exciting, sometimes dark, sometimes fun, almost always interesting, but occasionally very boring places.

I view "polyamory" or "ethical non-monogamy" or whatever your catch all term is for not doing romantic/ sexual relationships the way most of us were told they had to do them as romantic/ sexual ERE.

Just as "getting a good job" is actually a catch all term for a very specific set of beliefs, social structure and effectively lifestyle that is so vast it is hard to even put a name on, so is "monogamy." "Monogamy" is, if anything, much more vast and has a much larger set of beliefs and touches many more parts of our lives more secretly than "getting a good job."

Like accepting ERE (or at least the FIRE part of it) necessitates first accepting that you do not actually have to adhere to tradition and work a full-time job for at least 40 hours a week for at least 5 days a week, the first step to accepting whatever you want to call not what I am calling Monogamy is that you do not actually have to adhere to traditional romantic structures (which are less well agreed upon and harder to fully define, but still definitely very strong and real, imo).

The amount of assumptions people pack into our dating structure is astounding. Getting married used to effectively mean if you were a man you no longer had to feed yourself or clean and as a woman meant you no longer had to financially take care of yourself. While this has fallen out of style, it was an implied social contract that went along with "getting married" even if it wasn't expressly stated anywhere.


Intellectually, the most interesting part of the journey for me has been unpacking all of the things that come with that traditional structure and trying to assign them their actual role. For example, marriage means a lot of things. Legal marriage, still part of the equation for the vast majority of people who say they are "getting married," is a legal contract with specific terms and implications. It is possible to get married without this contract and it is possible to obtain this legal document without doing the other things people usually mean when they say they are "getting married," but few consider this.


Anyway, I think it's relevant to all of the contract and "who does polyamory benefit" discussions to think about all of the various things that each dating institution provides.


Like I think all of these "who does polyamory benefit" discussions are assuming a lot of things and not considering others. For example, will dudes with <20% attractiveness actually be hurt? I dunno, it might still be beneficial to marry a dude who has some time on his hands to raise some kids bc he isn't drowning in the vagina's of everyone else's wives. Assuming that monogamy solves this problem assumes that wives are fucking ugly dudes and that wives are faithful to ugly dudes and surely a ton of other things.

I feel like asking what everyone doing non-monogamy looks like is the same as asking what everyone working 5 hours a week or only for 5 years of their lives looks like, probably a lot fucking different and probably more the same than you would think, but probably not how you would think.

chenda
Posts: 3289
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Nether Wallop

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by chenda »

Jin+Guice wrote:
Wed Dec 28, 2022 4:16 pm
I haven't been posting about it, but my own adventures in polyamory have lead me to some sometimes exciting, sometimes dark, sometimes fun, almost always interesting, but occasionally very boring places.
That all sounds great.

I tend to agree with @7 that polyamory would benefit the <20% in attractiveness men by creating more 'vacancies' as it were.

chenda
Posts: 3289
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Nether Wallop

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by chenda »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue Feb 21, 2023 4:07 pm
Didn't want to derail @AE's journal so replying here. That's interesting. Admittedly MFFs or similar can be an easy way to try batting for both teams.

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

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@chenda:

Upon reread, my post of AE's journal was kind of confusing. I have tried batting for the other team with limited success, but in general my tendencies are hetero. I've also come to the conclusion that threesomes of any combination are more trouble than they are worth. Also, my current level of pudge is such that I would be more aptly categorized as Hippocorn rather than Unicorn. Therefore, I am only currently interacting with partners whom I've already known for many years,

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

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Book Review:

I found "Open: An Uncensored Memoir of Love, Liberation, and Non-Monogamy" to be interesting from a couple different perspectives we often engage on this forum. The author, Rachel Krantz, is a journalist who simultaneously researches and explores the wide world of consensual non-monogamy while experiencing her own slow-moving train wreck of a quite dysfunctional relationship which constitutes her first time experimenting with consensual non-monogamy and her first time in a relationship with a strong sub/Dom dynamic.

Some excerpts that highlight why it may be of interest to some members of this forum:
He'd had me take the Myers-Briggs test on my second night sleeping over. Together our types could be some of the most compatible. Alone, his type was the rarest..."Look", he said, his voice dropping even lower, "I can tell we're unusually compatible as partners. If nothing about you is a big problem I can foresee at this point, nothing will be- at least from my end. I'd have recognized by now which major need I would be compromising. Sure, you're a little messy. And definitely younger than I'd prefer. But you'll get older. There's nothing we can't work on here.
Adam was "paternalism, worship of the written word, perfectionism, and rationality" personified
After one jealousy attack which he deemed a "tantrum", Adam said he could stop seeing Simone, if thats what I really wanted. But his tone made it clear that this would be a self-sabotaging failure on my part, a temporary offer.
"No, I don't want you to stop," I said.
"Are you sure?" he asked unconvincingly.
"Well, I do, but not rationally. I know that's not fair. And I'll have to do this at some point if I want to be with you no matter what."
He has a better map...and he's definitely calmer than me, way less irrational. I'll just keep working at it.
Homeostasis is also a reason why we chemically adapt to the initial lust we feel for a lover. That falling-in-love high goes away over time because your body perceives it as stress and wants to return to homeostasis.
I was hoping that the same principle would apply to my jealousy exposure therapy-the more I experienced its triggers, the more my body might eventually learn to tamp down this unwanted and extreme fight-or-flight response,...But, in the meantime, I judged mysel for my "irrational feelings"- and so did Adam- hard.
His hyperdominant and "rational" nature-the archetypal masculine- had certainly become valued and trusted over the more emotional and intuitive sides of myself.
What we both didn't seem to realize is that the high value Adam placed on his "rationality" over my "irrationality" was also a result of his projections. In part because he was not "supposed: to feel strong negative emotions as a man (besides anger, with maybe a little side of depression), Adam was unconscious or avoidant of his own vulnerable feelings, anxieties, and insecure manipulations.

I pretty much knew where this dysfunctional relationship memoir was headed from the "Sure, you're a little messy...Nothing we can't work on." (shuddering in my wee muddy little Type-P boots.) However, as a much older (so somewhat less "woke") reader, who errs on the side of rational although female, I could feel empathy for both Rachel and Adam in their respective roles and types. Also, as many other reviewers noted, this book is more about the kind of dysfunctional power dynamics that can crop up in any significant relationship than it is about the problems and pleasure of polyamory.

I also think it may be of more general interest if read at the level of considering how "appeal to the rational" may backfire when attempting to convince a more emotionally oriented SO to join in any sort of alternative lifestyle. This is the point I did a very poor job of trying to make elsewhere regarding the possibility of the use of a statistical term such as "median" in any relationship mission statement. Just don't do it!

Also, this book combined with my own experience tends to strengthen my theory that the type most suited for polyamory is likely an ENFP; it's closest to being an actual core sexual/romatic orientation for them. The type most suited for "swinging" would likely be the ESTP (who are a strange mix of conservative and openly-wild- like Donald Trump.) Polyamory is also a good fit for eNTPs like me and J&G, but more at the level of lifestyle/interests than core orientation. It's not such a good fit for INTJs, because their Renaissance Soul is more akin to Serial Master than Plate-Spinning Generalist-they tend toward long term monogamous relationships which they suddenly make rational decision to end. ENTJs , like the Adam character in the memoir, may think they are well-suited for it, but really they are just more like old-school polygamous patriarchs or polyandrous matriarchs.

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

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Jin+Guice »

Ya, that relationship just seemed terrible. That chick didn't seem like she wanted to be non-monogamous. That dude seemed super manipulative.

white belt
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 12:15 am

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by white belt »

I'm not a poly practioner at the moment and perhaps never was, so take what I say with grain of salt. From my perspective, it seems like ENM has become very trendy in a lot of circles to the point that is dilute of any meaning. I guess it's just following the geeks/mops/sociopath trend of any other subculture. I mean, I know the term is encompassing to cover a wide spectrum of arrangements, but on the other hand it seems a lot of people just use it as an excuse for one party to remain non-monogamous. If I had a dollar for every time I encountered a woman with ENM in her profile who's male partner only allows her to hook up with other women...

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

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

There are also a lot of men who want women to hook up with other men, but only under their direct supervision. Luckily, I no longer give a rat's azz about what men want, beyond factors related to shared humanity.

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

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Jin+Guice »

ENM has become much more popular, but I don't think that negates its existence. I always thought of ENM as pretty much everything that is not strict, don't look my wife in the eyes, monogamy. I even view the allowance of explicit extracurricular flirtation as ENM. Similar to how I feel like semi-ERE is everything that is not FIRE or traditional 40 hr a week for 40 years work paths.

I use the term "polyamory" differently, to at least denote someone who is actively seeking multiple relationships that are "more" than "just sex." This convention is my own though.

I think the two phenomenon y'all are describing again has to do with the social dating script, where a dude who is taken, and therefore somewhat explicitly looking for only sexual relationships is of relatively low-value, while a woman who is explicitly looking for sexual relationships is of relatively high-value. I will note that though it seems recently that there are more people seeking these situations (or at least being louder about it), IME ppl are relatively bad at achieving or navigating them.

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

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Jin+Guice »

punting this here from my journal:
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2023 2:06 pm

Well, obviously, because it gives them most of the benefits of marriage and dating with less of the expense, risk, commitment and/or effort. Of course, my perspective may be skewed due to dating a lot of men who already went through an expensive divorce (or two.)

Interesting. We have vastly different assumptions and perspectives, which is what I imagined was happening. It seems like there are a lot of assumptions about the inherent dynamics at play in these roles? I'm not saying you are wrong or right, but trying to tease out what these dynamics are.

It seems like you feel that marriage is net negative or net more risky for men? Is the assumption that the man makes more money, does not sign a prenuptial agreement, does not cheat and continues to put in effort after the wedding?

It would also seem based on that statement that you would advice men to find "forever girlfriends" rather than marry? If "forever girlfriends" are unavailable should the marry or stay single?
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2023 2:06 pm
Chapter 7 of "He's Just Not That Into You: The No-Excuses Truth to Understanding Guys" is entitled "He's Just Not That Into You If He Doesn't Want to Marry You."

Of course, Chapter 5 is entitled "He's Just Not That Into You If He's Having Sex With Someone Else", thus would seem to clearly preclude polyamory as good choice for female, but IM self-aware O the freedom and other benefits offered by polyamory is worth the loss of total devotion. MMV.

In conclusion, if you agree to "forever girlfriend" contract, you are likely with a guy who is "not that into you", yet you are giving up the options and opportunities available to you by continuing to play the open field and/or maintaining multiple partnerships. Agreeing to be somebody's "forever girlfriend" is kind of like spending all your money on an annuity from a company with only a C+ rating. I actually think it is such a rip-off contract, I would rather be the monogamous mistress of a man who is already married vs. "forever girlfriend" of a man who is monogamous with me. In fact, I think it is the prime example of women being tricked into paying too highly for monogamy vs other qualities. As in, yeah, he just sits around the apartment drinking beer and farting all weekend, but Thank the Goddess he grants access to his junk to me alone!

Also, I would advise against marriage with a pre-nup. If the dynamic going in is skewed in a manner that would make that necessary, it's not going to work well in the long run in a dyad. Possible exception here for provisions for children born previously in another relationship. Marriage is for amateurs, not professionals.
Ah, I guess it is not my experience that men treat their wives better than their forever girlfriends. It seems to me like those who will stop trying or dishonesty seek greener pastures will do so regardless of marital status. The "forever boyfriends" I know don't sit around drinking beer all weekend and farting... that sounds more like a married dude to me. It seems like "forever girlfriending" a chick you aren't that into is also a bad deal for the dude?

Haha, being involved in a poly community I would equate "monogamous mistress" and "forever girlfriend."

I also find that, given the popularity, cultural dominance and assumed ethical dominance of monogamy, it is over-valued by almost everyone (imo)?

I also don't really think marriage is that good for anyone, so I'm probably not going to agree with the thesis of a book on "how to avoid dead end relationships" which doesn't mean I won't agree with some or all of their advice.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2023 1:14 pm
Also, having 3 boyfriends is much more resilient than having 1 husband at my age; like if you had one car with 200,000 miles on it which you kept very well maintained in the garage vs. 3 cars with 200,000 miles on them which you kept parked in the open field around your camper, which situation offers greater probability that at least one will start-up when you need it?

I enjoy that you think of men as objects you leave in a pile in your yard to be used at your whim, lol. Do you the cars in this example not also have demands of their own though? Will they not drive to another abandoned lot if you don't drive them or change their oil often enough?

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

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Jin+Guice wrote:It seems like you feel that marriage is net negative or net more risky for men? Is the assumption that the man makes more money, does not sign a prenuptial agreement, does not cheat and continues to put in effort after the wedding ?It would also seem based on that statement that you would advice men to find "forever girlfriends" rather than marry? If "forever girlfriends" are unavailable should the marry or stay single?
I don't think that marriage is net negative or net more risky for men. I think middle-aged divorced guys who had bad divorce experiences do think this way. I was being a bit flip in this post, and also not clearly delineating between my practice when I was strictly monogamous up until age 50 and my practice now that I have been polyamorous for the last eight years. I was still serial monogamous and considering the possibility of marrying again (prior to my second "marriage") when a divorced man I was dating who was quite "into me" used the phrase "forever girlfriend" to describe the ideal relationship he wanted with me. If I attempt to be more serious in my answer, I would say that it is unappealing, because it is like the guy is chickening out, and if you pretend like it is okay that he is chickening out then you are not doing either of you a favor. Maybe you might end up spending too much life energy trying to earn his trust and convince him that you are not evil-in-that-way like his ex/other-women-he-heard-about-in-manosphere. , and that's really not your work to do.
Ah, I guess it is not my experience that men treat their wives better than their forever girlfriends. It seems to me like those who will stop trying or dishonesty seek greener pastures will do so regardless of marital status. The "forever boyfriends" I know don't sit around drinking beer all weekend and farting... that sounds more like a married dude to me. It seems like "forever girlfriending" a chick you aren't that into is also a bad deal for the dude?
This really might just be me reflecting on how it is more fun when men go to the trouble to make interesting plans (not at all necessarily expensive plans!)when you are first dating, but once you become casual in your coupledom, whether married, conventional GF/BF, or long-term polyamorous; the level of effort goes down. Maybe this just seems worse to me in BF/GF mode, because I am simultaneously bored and trapped in his horrible middle-aged divorced man environment. Like if we were married, at least I wouldn't be staring at a slightly dirty wall with a wrinkled hockey poster taped to it or have to take a shower after sex in a bathroom that still has a little bowl filled with potpourri 3 years ago my his ex-wife. Men who have been continuously single until age 50 generally do a better job of keeping things fun while in company, but definitely may come with a whole 'nother bag of problems.
Haha, being involved in a poly community I would equate "monogamous mistress" and "forever girlfriend."

I also find that, given the popularity, cultural dominance and assumed ethical dominance of monogamy, it is over-valued by almost everyone (imo)?

I also don't really think marriage is that good for anyone, so I'm probably not going to agree with the thesis of a book on "how to avoid dead end relationships" which doesn't mean I won't agree with some or all of their advice.
I agree that monogamy is over-valued by almost everyone. And I don't disagree with your take that the standard "relationship escalator" is imbedded in the advice offered in "He's Just Not That Into You." HOWEVER, and this is a pretty big HOWEVER, many or most women who want to practice polyamory will run into the problem that many men will equate this to "will jump into bed on first date" or "will perform any kinky desire you text her" or "not interested in emotional connection", so some of the standard towards relationship dating rules still apply. Although, I will note that men who are already in a relationship and self-describe as polyamorous are less likely to jump to these errant conclusions. IOW, they are more likely to behave in a respectful manner towards women who also self-describe as polyamorous. And it is also entirely possible that there are any number of sincere solo-polyamorous practicing men out there, but they are being swamped out by the "free-loaders."
I enjoy that you think of men as objects you leave in a pile in your yard to be used at your whim, lol. Do you the cars in this example not also have demands of their own though? Will they not drive to another abandoned lot if you don't drive them or change their oil often enough?
Actually, it has been my experience that even if I drive them directly over to some other woman's yard and lock the fence around mine, they still keep coming round, even though I'm currently pretty much down to obnoxious/depressive Mrs. Santa Claus with semi-chronic diarhrea on a bad hair day as my objective level of appeal. In theory I am still polyamorous, in reality I am currently celibate.

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

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by Jean »

seeing how lack of father correlates with causing problens to society, i think the main criterion to say if monogamy is overvalued compared to other options should be father retention.

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

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@jean:

Yes, I don't disagree. That's one of the main reasons why I recommend marriage for younger women and polyamory for older women. However, I would describe this as generally having to do with family formation, as opposed to just father retention. For instance, my mother-in-law was a great help to me while raising my children and my children have relationships with their paternal cousins and aunts. Also, big downside of being a single parent of either gender is that you will be a crappy parent in some ways unique to you and you won't have the coverage of another human who is also a crappy parent, but in crappy ways that are different from your crappy ways, which may or may not be well correlated with gender. Just the other day my adult son said, "I love Dad, but he can be a dickhead sometimes." which would likely be construed as gender-related negative trait, whereas a parental failing along the lines of not immediately noticing that your toddlers have covered the walls with fingerpaint, because you were focused on your reading, would likely be less gender-correlated.

So, if a younger woman does not want to have children, then I would only recommend marriage if she is a conventional romantic idealist and/or if just being a little couple in a cozy cottage with a dog and maybe some chickens feels like a family to her and/or if she is of a modern mindset and wishes to seek success as power couple.

chenda
Posts: 3289
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Nether Wallop

Re: Polyamory Support Group

Post by chenda »

I once saw an adorable child's t-shirt which said 'Mummy will you marry my daddy?' which is just a lovely way to propose.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2023 12:51 pm
So, if a younger woman does not want to have children, then I would only recommend marriage if she is a conventional romantic idealist and/or if just being a little couple in a cozy cottage with a dog and maybe some chickens feels like a family to her and/or if she is of a modern mindset and wishes to seek success as power couple.
+1. And also those of us who are prone to spinsterdom in isolated cosy cottage whilst living alone with a destruction of cats would do well to consider polyamory in the same way cats are great for entertaining themselves but occasionally rock up for cuddles and feeding.

Post Reply