I'm not someone who would say "humans weren't made for monogamy", no - because I don't think you can make a sweeping statement and apply it to the whole of the human race, past, present and future with no exceptions.

In the same way I wouldn't say "humans were made for monogamy" either.

I am happy to accept that polyamory isn't for everyone. But it works for me. It works for my partner. It works for her other partner. And to an extent it works for the other people who we (individually) occasionally sleep with, who may not in themselves be polyamorous but are accepting of our polyamorous relationship status and therefore understand that by sleeping with - for instance - me, they are not doing any wrong to my partner.

@ Thucy: "i know myself that if i loved a girl i wouldnt be able to stand the thought of her giving it up to someone else. it begs the question - what does he have i dont? and it works both ways - this isnt some kind of male possession complex."

Indeed it is true that jealousy affects both men and women. And while it isn't specifically a male complex, your response is somewhat possessive...

In terms of "what does he have that I don't?", my response is to recognise that however great a person you might be, no-one can be perfect, no-one can be everything. There will always be someone who is better than you at one thing, even though you might be better than him at other things. So it's almost inevitable that there *will* be another guy who *does* have something you don't. You have something he doesn't, too. Every person is different to the next, and variety is the spice of life!

Maybe there's another guy your partner likes. Maybe you're more handsome and better in bed than he is, but maybe he's a better cook and his jokes are funnier. He 'clicks' with your partner about as well as you do, she likes spending time with him and she would probably like to express her joy in his company by sleeping with him once in a while, if you didn't object to this.

There are two potential ways you can respond to this scenario:

1. The normal response: You feel jealous of this other guy. You tell your partner you feel uncomfortable about how close she's getting to him. You ask her to promise not to get too involved with him. You reassure her that you only feel this jealousy because of how much you love her. She says she understands - but you continue to keep a careful eye on them just in case.

2. The compersive, polyamorous response: You are pleased that your partner has found someone whose company brings her joy. Spending time with this guy makes her happy, and because you care deeply for her, the fact that she is happy is pleasing to you, too. You allow them to spend some time together, including some time alone, as long as your partner remembers to make plenty of time to spend with you too. You can use the time your partner isn't with you to enjoy other things that she's less interested in - or the company of other friends, romantically or otherwise.

That's how it works for me anyway. The other guy *does* have something I don't, and allowing him to enrich my partner's life is a positive for me, too, because she is happy.

Okay a few questions - do you not dislike the fact that you are compared to this other person?

Do you not worry that if you are compared and considered inferior that you may become replaced?

Obviously I have no illusions about our own limitations. I'm no god - I think I make a good partner but there is always someone who is better. But this is not the point of a relationship, and perhaps this is where our underlying philosophies diverge. The point of a relationship is to willingly and cheerfully sacrifice your own happiness for one other person's happiness - to regard them higher than yourself. I should say that this is the point of love, perhaps not relationships, then, but relationships that contain love.

This is why before I will tell a girl that I love her I explain what I mean if I ever say that to her - to me it means that I consider them above myself and will forever consider their own problems more important than my own - a higher priority. Ideally this is requited.

So you mentioned that maybe you take two people who are good at different things and give them to one person.

I respond that this may be *practical* but it is not emotionally stable. For, if love will or should develop, with whom? And if the answer is with one and not another, for what reason? How does the other one feel about that?

Monogamous relationships work better because there is no comparison of people (ideally). One of the most dehumanizing things that people do to each other is classify each other by worth.

Imperialism and racism were wrong first and foremost because they preferenced some people over others - this is wrong because people are emotionally damaged when compared to others and deemed less. We all know full well that we are not the best at anything - but to have it affirmed in this way is an emotional insult.

In a monogamous relationship, two people take themselves out of the equation as it were, and, in cold terms, agree that they will regard each other as of the highest importance. This ensures that you have at least one person that sees you this way - since for all intents and purposes no one else in the world will ever see you this way.

But when you introduce a third party, this affirmation is shattered and questioned - and the reason for the relationship disappears.

So I don't think it is as much jealously as it is... inferiority? It is inherently emotional - this I acknowledge straight off. But it is important that emotions be respected.

I fear I may not have expressed the point well, but I think you see my point.

My only concerns with polyamory are practical ones.

First, regarding children. If there are children from multiple relationships, it would seem to be difficult to commit a fair amount of time to parenting unless all the partners lived under the same roof. True, it's not impossible but it just seems like a fairly large speed bump.

Secondly, and probably more selfishly. I think a large reason for a long-term relationship is companionship in old age. Really, beyond parenting and this, I see very little reason why any relationships should be 'forever.'
I think that a polyamorous relationship lacks this *mutual dependence* and, therefore, is more likely to leave one person single in old age.

I am young and, so, could be completely off with my assessment of relationships but I'd be interested to hear your take.

Yonni its interesting you bring that up as well.

Essentially I think that the fact that sex is built for two people means that it is natural that a sexual relationship would be between two people.

Mutual dependence and assurance of support and love in good times and bad is the foundation not just of love, but of marriage and any good relationship. To me this cannot exist if someone is telling you that you are not enough. Perhaps it is okay for some people, I can't deny that this may be true - I just must say that I have a harder time understand it than I do just about anything.

I'm here in Senegal, ironically enough about to try to start to write a paper for my French class - on polygamy in Senegal. It is perhaps even harder for me to wrap my head around polyamory in Western society than it is to understand polygamy in Senegal - at least here I understand the historical causes and know that the culture is so different that it will always be hard for me to insert myself into someone's shoes.

But since I think you and I Jamiet share much in common, comparatively anyway, I fail to see how you cannot crave monogamous love. It seems to me a basic need, for a Westerner at least.

@Thucy: "Okay a few questions - do you not dislike the fact that you are compared to this other person?"

Nope.


"Do you not worry that if you are compared and considered inferior that you may become replaced?"

No. I have a close, deep relationship with my partner and do not consider this a possibility. Our relationship is not threatened by the situation.


"...if love will or should develop, with whom? And if the answer is with one and not another, for what reason? How does the other one feel about that?"

Why not with both? If you have two children, is it not possible to love them both equally? Love is not like jam, it doesn't get thinner the further you spread it.


@Yonni: "My only concerns with polyamory are practical ones."

"First, regarding children. If there are children from multiple relationships, it would seem to be difficult to commit a fair amount of time to parenting unless all the partners lived under the same roof. True, it's not impossible but it just seems like a fairly large speed bump."

Yes, I agree that would be tricky. I know some poly people with children, but I agree that it must take quite a bit of managing...


"Secondly, and probably more selfishly. I think a large reason for a long-term relationship is companionship in old age."

I don't think that's true - not for me anyway. I wasn't thinking about my old age at all when I got into this relationship.


@ Thucy: "Essentially I think that the fact that sex is built for two people means that it is natural that a sexual relationship would be between two people."

Ah, but it is for me too. My relationship is with one other person. My partner has *two* relationships - one with me, and one with the other guy. Each relationship is between two people. It's not one relationship with three people in it. Does that make sense?

Fair enough and thanks very much for the responses. I find it a very interesting lifestyle and wish you the best of luck with it.

I'd like to point out that the variety of sexual positions that easily accomodate multiple partners would invalidate your argument, Thucy, that sex is built for two people...Unless you think that sex should only be for reproductive purposes. I would argue that, with humans at least, this is an invalid argument. If sex was only for reproduction, then women would only be able to have sex when fertile, much like many animals. Because our species can copulate at any time, it can be argued that sex for pleasure (ie, two or more people growing closer through mutual satisfaction and enjoyment) is an outgrowth of the fact that we are emotional creatures with emotional needs, and because we are all different, those emotional needs must, can, and should be filled in many different ways.

For many people, monogamous relationships are fulfilling and emotionally satisfying. For some people, that is not the case. Those who are different aren't "wrong" necessarily. Just different. If they can find others who share their needs and desires, why shouldn't they be able to share their love around?

@SGrabowski - So long as no one gets hurt in the process. Cheating on your spouse could fall into your "share the love around" but if you don't have your spouse's permission, you are scum (you in the vernacular, not you specifically, SG).

True. Good point, Draug.

SGrabowski +1

And Draugnar, yes, valid point. And that's still the case in poly relationships. If my partner was seeing a third guy without my knowledge, and concealed this relationship from me, that would still be cheating despite the fact that we're non-monogamous.

Love is a pretty recent human invention...

...your point being?

Yeah so again I dont want to come off as sex negative or something here lol.

I know humans have sex for pleasure...... believe me.

But that doesnt change the fact that our anatomy is clearly evolved for the purposes of 1 on 1 sex.. the mouth is clearly not evolved for a penis, yes you can put it there, but that doesnt change that it's "unnatural" (that word has manifold connotations please dont jump to the wrong one)

Anyway I am also not saying JAMIET YOU SHOULD STOP BEING POLYAMOROUS

I am however expressing my supreme puzzlement at such a thing, and my personal view that such a thing will in all likelihood collapse on itself, at least according to my understanding of human romance.

That's all really. I'm not arguing, I guess is what I mean.

I do wonder if you aren't fooling even yourself, not to project too far but it really seems to me one of those things that is very very deeply ingrained in my psyche, so it is hard for me to imagine someone being able to let go of it.

It's similar to people who successfully hold their breath until passing out or go on a hunger strike till death - I am not sure I can comprehend the willpower necessary to defy your own nature.

Anyway good luck, I truly do hope no one gets hurt, in my opinion it is likely and this is why I will not do it, but since you are in it already, good luck all the same.

I should mention so as not to be a hypocrite that ONSs often hurt people. But not all that much. Lmao.

When it comes to sexual relationships I must admit on this forum that I have not been the most moral person, but that was high school shit. I have been much more decent in college, by choice.

My feelings about these things are strong which is why I am pontificating here... but I do recognize that they are just that, feelings. This isn't the same as a politics debate, lol

I think Thucy, this idea that a relationship needs to be based on the idea of you putting your partner on a pedestal and seeing them as necessarily more important than you is ultimately a damaging one (I have my suspicions about where this "love is self-sacrifice" narrative comes from but that's not necessarily relevant here). My point is surely an attitude where you regard the other person as "above yourself" is likely to lead to all kinds of things better off avoided like co-dependence, jealousy, and resentment. I think a certain amount of distance in a relationship can be a good thing. Having hobbies you like that your partner does not, having friends beyond your partner and so on are actually beneficial to relationships. I'm not saying polyamoury is necessarily for me, I really don't know, but I can understand the logic behind it.

@ Thucy: "But that doesnt change the fact that our anatomy is clearly evolved for the purposes of 1 on 1 sex.. the mouth is clearly not evolved for a penis, yes you can put it there, but that doesnt change that it's "unnatural" "

I'm not sure it's as clear-cut as that. We do appear to have evolved *beyond* the point at which sex is only a reproductive act. We naturally have sex for pleasure, and oral sex is pleasurable, therefore it seems perfectly natural to me. Plus we're not the only species that does it. In the "natural world", several species of monkeys and other apes have been observed to engage in oral sex.

"Anyway I am also not saying JAMIET YOU SHOULD STOP BEING POLYAMOROUS"

Yeah, don't worry, that's fine. I am happy that we are having this frank, interesting discussion. I appreciate that your view differs from mine, and am happy to have the opportunity to discuss. I don't feel you're attacking me - it's cool.

"I am however expressing my supreme puzzlement at such a thing, and my personal view that such a thing will in all likelihood collapse on itself, at least according to my understanding of human romance."

Well, that's the thing though. That's *your* understanding. Mine's different. I personally know people who have been in polyamorous relationships involving networks of 3, 4, 5 or even more partners than that, and in at least a couple of cases, those relationships have lasted for life.

"I do wonder if you aren't fooling even yourself, not to project too far but it really seems to me one of those things that is very very deeply ingrained in my psyche, so it is hard for me to imagine someone being able to let go of it."

Yeah. In *your* psyche. But not mine. Polyamory clearly isn't for you. But it works for me. I've never been happier. I am happier now that when we were monogamous.


@ Mafialligator: "I think a certain amount of distance in a relationship can be a good thing. Having hobbies you like that your partner does not, having friends beyond your partner and so on are actually beneficial to relationships."

I totally agree. I think otherwise, if you try to spend every moment outside of work with your partner and concentrating *only* on interests that you were both passionate about... you'd stand a high risk of driving each other nuts. Your partner can be the most important person in your life without being the *only* important person in your life. Even in a monogamous relationship, other interests, and the company of other friends, is important to a happy life.