Do you even know what the fuck polygamy means? It doesn't mean extramarital or casual sex, it means multiple marriages very often for the purpose of producing gobs and gobs of children.tsb247 said:
Sexual Relationships
- Thread starter Kurokami
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well thats a first an actually forethoughtful response.That aside, yes my statments may be a bit flawed at some points but so are your responses but that is all just my point of view on things. Proper relationship?? well 2 persons who are together by choice and they are of right age(set by law) to make that choice?? Hard to tell really if we'd want a satisfying answer to that question we'd have to go very philosophical and if you'd want that you'd not read posts from here.As for the venereal diseases the risk of getting one rises exponentialy by every aditional partner you have, don't remember the rate but it was prety big.Sad Robot said:
The best advice I (or likely anyone) can give you is to sit down and have an honest conversation with both your girlfriend and your ex. The three of you will need to lay down ground rules for whatever this relationship... Thing will be.James_Sunderland said:
The biggest question for you to ask of yourself and your current girlfriend: is the ex going to be part of the "relationship" or ancillary fun? From what you've written, it sounds like you'd have a bit of difficulty actively sharing your girlfriend. So, you need to figure out whether this is just a bit of fun for your girlfriend and ex on the side, and the "main" relationship comes first, or the three of you will have some fun together, or if you'd honestly have to share your girlfriend qua girlfriend with your ex.
Pick a stances that makes you comfortable, and stick to your guns. The worst thing in the world would be for you to have growing resentment for the situation. Be prepared to hold the line, but only hold the line of what your comfort is. Remember that your girlfriend's main concern should be your happiness (and you hers), so try to come up with rules which you can all abide by.
If you do decide that this can only function as "we're still a couple, but we can have fun with the ex", then you'll need to hammer out what you're allowed to do and not do with each other. Demand fairness in the negotiations, and don't let yourself be emotionally blackmailed. If you can't handle any kind of non-monogamy, you have to say so right now
But, on that note, what the hell was your girlfriend doing accepting a "date" from your ex without discussing it with you first? Even if you're legitimately okay with it, a conversation about that would probably be in order.
Thanks for the advice (No really, thanks. I appreciate it.), I don't mind "sharing", it's more the fact that this will be a little difficult, as I have no experience with polyamory in the slightest. The three of us all live in the same place and if even one of us leaves, the others can't afford to stay there so cock-ups aren't exactly an option.Seldon2639 said:
That, and the last thing I want to see is a cute girl crying.
Oh, and to clarify: My girfriend and my ex regularly have what's known as a girl's night out, when they'll just randomly decide they're going to the movies or whatever.
But this was the first time my ex actually asked my girlfriend out on a date.
If my girlfriend is to be believed, it was like something out of an anime, with my ex looking at the floor and twidling her fingers. Almost makes me wish I'd been there.
They didn't actually "do" anything that night other than dine and talk, something my girlfriend foresaw (bless that brain of hers), which is why she said yes.
Also, I'm not so possesive that she has to ask me whether or not she can have dinner with someone who's bedroom is two feet away from mine.
Right now my main debate is whether it's not just best to politely retreat from this relationship so that this newfound love may blossom. I adore my girlfriend and I still have feelings for my ex but I can tell that they genuinely love each other. And I don't want to get in the way of that.
We'll just have to see how it goes, I guess.
How are my arguments flawed? I mean, if you don't agree with the sentiments, then that's fine by me but is there some logical fallacy in there that I haven't noticed?Dark Prophet said:
That's a real cop-out. I'm questioning the very foundation of this so-called "proper relationship". I know it's the social norm, but I don't think it has to be. If you think that makes it a deep philosophical debate, then, by all means. I've got anothing against a philosophical debate, here or anywhere else.Dark Prophet said:
Well, yes, if both you and your partner have sex with multiple partners, then yes, statistically it does increase your chances of getting an STD but even if you're in a so-called monogamous relationship, how can you be sure your partner isn't having sex with other people? No matter what they tell you, there's always a risk, and increasing that risk by having sex with multiple partners yourself is obvious. If only there was some sort of contraceptive that protected you from STDs...Dark Prophet said:
I can't really add much to what has already been said but if I were you I'd just try to tell her that I don't want to lose her, that I love her and, like you said, that you don't want to stand in the way of two people who clearly love each other.James_Sunderland said:
From what you've written, you seem like an intelligent, thoughtful and caring person and I truly hope things work out for the lot of you. If you can make it work, then you're a bigger person, as is your girlfriend and your ex, than most of us and I salute you. Best of luck.
Well, on some level you're really going to have to man up and have an uncomfortable conversation. Bear in mind that you do get to have some feelings in the matter, and even get to say "this is out of line". For the moment, your girlfriend went out on a "date" with another person. Without defining what the rules are for this new relationship, that's just cheating, plain and simple.James_Sunderland said:
This is one situation where the "just see how it goes" mindset isn't going to work. One of three things is happening here: either your girlfriend really likes this girl and wants to be with her primarily/exclusively but doesn't have the guts to break up with you; or your girlfriend likes both of you and wants to keep your relationship while adding your ex into the mix (either as a side-pocket deal, or as a real "third" part of the relationship itself); or your girlfriend was leading your ex on, knowing it wouldn't lead anywhere.
You need to put your foot down and say "I need to know what's going on here", because that's the only way you can decide how next to act. I know, for me, that the most I would be able to accept is either a complete third participant (so, we're all in a relationship with each other), or that the new girl is just a bit of extra fun. The first seems impossible here, since your ex only seems to want a relationship with your girlfriend; the second would only be possible if you're willing to put your foot down and say "either break up with me, or I stay the main relationship in your life".
But, I'm also biased, I wouldn't really be able to share my girlfriend, not in the sense of actually having to split her affection or "relationship", even with another girl.
I hate to contravene the advice of another fine member of the Escapist, but putting yourself in that position, saying "I love you, I don't want to lose you", makes it much more difficult to form an open relationship on equitable terms. Either you should both want an open relationship, you shouldn't have an open relationship, or you should break up. If your girlfriend is expecting you to put up with an open relationship under terms you don't enjoy, all to avoid "losing" her, you're never going to be happy with it.Sad Robot said:
I absolutely agree, maybe I wasn't as clear as I hoped and instead opted for a rather romanticized notion of the situation, but yes, absolutely. I only meant that one should make it clear that while they are willing to let the other person have freedom in terms of who they have a relationship with, it shouldn't and doesn't need to take anything away from the current relationship. If either of the parties involved does, however, want it to or feels that it must take something away from it, then that's an entirely different matter.Seldon2639 said:
Just sharing my thoughts-
I personally would not want an open relationship. My girlfriend and I have been together for nearly two years, and we both still find sex with one another to be sufficient. Though I'm not overly jealous, I'd be uncomfortable "sharing-" and I'm not really interested in looking elsewhere either.
However, I also think everyone else should be completely free to do what they like, so long as no one is hurt. Open relationships work wonderfully for some people, and there's no reason I should force my personal preference on some other relationship.
I personally would not want an open relationship. My girlfriend and I have been together for nearly two years, and we both still find sex with one another to be sufficient. Though I'm not overly jealous, I'd be uncomfortable "sharing-" and I'm not really interested in looking elsewhere either.
However, I also think everyone else should be completely free to do what they like, so long as no one is hurt. Open relationships work wonderfully for some people, and there's no reason I should force my personal preference on some other relationship.
Why don't you explain your point rather than just being a condescending prick about it? The most shocking problems with polygamy all involve coerced marriage, which any reasonable person would agree is a separate issue unto itself.bagodix said:
It all depends on the person you are with. I have had girlfriends, and so far every single one I have had inspired me to feel that relationships are over rated as is having a girlfriend. I have also just been the guy that the girls sleeps with and nothing else, and truthfully to me that is a lot easier to handle on the emotional scale. I'm kind of a loner at heart, I enjoy being alone somethimes and don't have to have another person to rely or lean on... ever. Open relationships have usually been the majority of all relationships I have had, although not all of them sexually open, and not all of those girls were actually considered "my girlfriend". We were either just seeing one another or dating, or she would date other guys (dinner, movie, going places) and would only sleep with me. Kinda wierd... I know, but when your really enter the dating scene you will find some weird and crazy things that go on.
Do you know what a discussion is? If you don't stop acting like an idiot, this'll be my last attempt to communicate with you.bagodix said:
I need a reality check because I don't agree with you? How about you convince me you're right? You've already proven that I'm ignorant since I can't read your mind, so enlighten me.
Tinfoil hats and accusing me of paranoia is not the subject. That's when you're leaving the subject, if you can't see that, I'd have a talk with whoever raised or educated me, if I was you, because you have a way to go.
No, I said never said all STDs were cureable, I said they were treatable, and I said you could get rid of all unwanted pregnancies with 100% certainty.
I want to do away with the nuclear family as a standard. That doesn't mean there'll be single mothers running around everywhere, or that there won't be families around. You're either jumping straight to the conclusions you want, with no regard for reality, or you fail to understand the concept. Until I know which one, I can't continue to argue my point, if it's the former no matter what I say, it won't matter, because you won't listen, in the latter, it should be an easy task of informing you.
Again, insults accomplish nothing.
You're going to have to back your statements up with more than your intuition.
No, gay couples are no different than other couples who can't concieve children themselves. I never said they were. In fact, I said exactly that. It's the morons who get pregnant and can't take of their children that are the problem. I don't see how that would turn gay parents into a catastrophe. But I guess I'm stupid that way. When the facts, and simple logic tell me something is right I'm naïve enough to believe it, even if I haven't checked with you first, which of course I should, since you're infallible, and allknowing, and don't need to explain why.
Of course I do... Polyamorous(ness) is actually the correct term for simply sleeping around randomly. I know that polygamy means taking multiple wives. Other people seem to interchange them as well... I fell into the same trap. That is all. If you want me to be more precise, then I will say that polyamorousness and polygamy both carry risks with them since there are multiple sex partners in both cases.Seanchaidh said:
Only the same risks as serial dating, though. The difference between sleeping with two people at the same time, and two people at different times in different relationships is largely a semantic one. Whatever risks existed with the first girlfriend exist with the second, whether I'm monogamous or not. There's no more real risk to two simultaneous relationships than to two relationships at discrete times.tsb247 said:
If I act responsibly in both cases, the chances of catching an STI or making an unwanted baby is relatively limited (approaching so close to zero that zero's going to need a restraining order). If I act irresponsibly in both cases, there's a lot of risk. The exact timing of the relationships is irrelevant. Having sex with Becky then Lindsay has the same risks for both (especially Lindsay) than if I sleep with both of them at the same time (or, at least, have sexual relations with both of them in the same timeframe).
By the by, why is the assumption that a polyamorous relationship means "you're sleeping around"? There exist open relationships like that, but there also exist open relationships with defined outside membership and the same kind of scrutiny put into a regular sexual relationship. Similarly, no one in their right mind advocates a non-monogamous relationship consisting of "just go do whatever you want". Couples considering open relationships are counseled to make rules (especially about STI tests and contraceptives).
Finally, yes if your point it "having two partners in your lifetime is more dangerous than just having one", you're completely correct. But, given that most people have multiple partners over their lifetimes, there's no inherently added risk to non-monogamy over serial monogamy.
Seldon's post above seems an utterly reasonable defense of polyamory.
I suspect the reason monogamy is so popularly recognized as the best way to go today is because of a strange interaction between tradition and the gradual liberation of women. Women as well as children were treated as property of the Patriarch by the Romans and other cultures, and this caused tendencies which haven't yet disappeared. To be property meant being obedient and being unable to make your own decisions. Therefore, to be "faithful" as a wife meant to be like property, and to be like property meant the wife could not decide to fuck anyone other than the husband: the husband would not make that decision, and so the wife couldn't act upon it as that ideal wife-as-property. This is how a "homewrecking" man could be seen as having transgressed against the husband of the wife he fucked: whether rape or simple sex, the man damaged the husband's property by lowering its worth to him as sexual exclusivity (in women!) is often valued by men and a woman who was exclusive but is no longer so would then be 'damaged' (or "damaged goods") at least as a matter of the logic of property.
The above is generally thought of as a rather horrible view to have about women today. But we are not yet without its effects: we ask, who wears the pants in the relationship, and by doing so refer to who is in control. And many women even prefer their man to be somewhat dominant in certain respects. There has been, however, two historical reactions against this attitude that has basically amounted to an opening of relationships generally, with more freedom to choose partners for both the man and woman, and the other somewhat less wholesome tendency for wives simply to demand of their husbands the same sort of strictures that had historically been imposed mostly on the woman in the relationship: now, couples don't exist as a master with a wife as his property, they consist of two people who own and claim certain rights over each other with the idea that the other does so as well. Now they both are each other's property, and this is the basis for ideas that oppose so-called sexual infidelity. Now both people are allowed to desire and demand sexual exclusivity of their partner, and feel 'betrayed' or 'transgressed against' when their partner does not meet that expectation: this is the legacy of women as property and the liberation of women has in some ways meant the subtle imprisonment of men along with the women rather than freedom for both.
I suspect the reason monogamy is so popularly recognized as the best way to go today is because of a strange interaction between tradition and the gradual liberation of women. Women as well as children were treated as property of the Patriarch by the Romans and other cultures, and this caused tendencies which haven't yet disappeared. To be property meant being obedient and being unable to make your own decisions. Therefore, to be "faithful" as a wife meant to be like property, and to be like property meant the wife could not decide to fuck anyone other than the husband: the husband would not make that decision, and so the wife couldn't act upon it as that ideal wife-as-property. This is how a "homewrecking" man could be seen as having transgressed against the husband of the wife he fucked: whether rape or simple sex, the man damaged the husband's property by lowering its worth to him as sexual exclusivity (in women!) is often valued by men and a woman who was exclusive but is no longer so would then be 'damaged' (or "damaged goods") at least as a matter of the logic of property.
The above is generally thought of as a rather horrible view to have about women today. But we are not yet without its effects: we ask, who wears the pants in the relationship, and by doing so refer to who is in control. And many women even prefer their man to be somewhat dominant in certain respects. There has been, however, two historical reactions against this attitude that has basically amounted to an opening of relationships generally, with more freedom to choose partners for both the man and woman, and the other somewhat less wholesome tendency for wives simply to demand of their husbands the same sort of strictures that had historically been imposed mostly on the woman in the relationship: now, couples don't exist as a master with a wife as his property, they consist of two people who own and claim certain rights over each other with the idea that the other does so as well. Now they both are each other's property, and this is the basis for ideas that oppose so-called sexual infidelity. Now both people are allowed to desire and demand sexual exclusivity of their partner, and feel 'betrayed' or 'transgressed against' when their partner does not meet that expectation: this is the legacy of women as property and the liberation of women has in some ways meant the subtle imprisonment of men along with the women rather than freedom for both.