could you handle a polyamory relationship

Zorya

Lillybloom wrote: »

I never said the strongest best looking men wouldn'tget most women. I would agree with much of what said in the book "Sex at Dawn". Group sex would be much more common.

Every time I read the words group sex it's accompanied by inwardly hearing squelching sounds. Please stop, it's putting me off my scones :pac:

Dial Hard

professore wrote: »

Most of the divorces I've seen have been "No fault" followed by the woman shacking up with her male "friend".

Just on this, all Irish divorces are, by law, "no fault".

seamus

professore wrote: »

What is the point of a monogamous relationship anyway?

The only real benefit for a man is that he is sure his children are actually his....

For a woman the main point of a monogamous relationship is that her man won't abandon her to raise kids on her own with no financial support....

This would all be correct if humans were emotionless, selfish automatons.

I guess it depends on what you talk about by "benefit". Love is a "benefit" of a relationship. The emotional support of an individual whom you can trust. Physical assistance, someone to take up the slack when you're sick, someone to watch your back, someone who can be honest and frank to you when nobody is else.

These are all benefits of a monogamous relationship. Arguably fillable by anyone (not just a sexual partner), but rarely a single individual except a mate.

There is a reason people pair-bond even with no children involved. In fact, the data suggests that long-term relationships with children are more likely to break down than ones without.

Your analysis of the whys and whats seem to be based partly on social convention, part on self-projection, part on bitterness and part on pseudoscience. "Men are just in it for a shag, women are just in it for someone to pay the bills, monogamy is pointless".

H3llR4iser

Deleted User wrote: »

The former. They are romantically involved together too.

Yeah, figured so. Seems to me that the vast majority of people in the thread don't actually get the concept and think "polyamory" to be the same as having the famous "bit on the side" while the partner knows about it.

The only way for the concept to work is to have indeed all the "vertexes" of the triangle (or square, pentagon or whatever you like!) connected to each other. In this situation, rare and "fantasy fuel" as it might be, there's nothing wrong with the idea, quite the opposite.



When that "interconnection" is not there, the scenario will be much less balanced and sustainable, if you ask me; Sure, there are people who enjoy being taken advantage of or, in layman terms, being "cucked".

Guy:Incognito

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt5179408/

Get it on your Netflix boxes.

Boom_Bap

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt5179408/

Get it on your Netflix boxes.

It's a pretty good show

Cleopatra_

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt5179408/

Get it on your Netflix boxes.

I was watching this when I was in my polyamorous situation. I was all hopeful that it would work out with the three of us blissfully happy together, didn't work out that way :P

mvl

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Yeah, figured so. Seems to me that the vast majority of people in the thread don't actually get the concept and think "polyamory" to be the same as having the famous "bit on the side" while the partner knows about it.

The only way for the concept to work is to have indeed all the "vertexes" of the triangle (or square, pentagon or whatever you like!) connected to each other. In this situation, rare and "fantasy fuel" as it might be, there's nothing wrong with the idea, quite the opposite.



When that "interconnection" is not there, the scenario will be much less balanced and sustainable, if you ask me; Sure, there are people who enjoy being taken advantage of or, in layman terms, being "cucked".

Are you suggesting the Vee triads don't work (e.g. the triad where two persons are dating the hinge, but they are not connected to each other).

Or are you considering (for this type of triad) the metamour relationship as ... being "connection" ?

chrissb8

briany wrote: »

When Louis revisited Heidi and Jerry at the end of that doc and dug a little deeper on Jerry's feelings about the whole arrangement (Heidi having this, basically, second husband), you could see that Heidi was almost offended that Jerry voiced unhappiness about it at all. Jerry was clearly too invested in that relationship to really put his foot down on the matter, though, and Heidi was using that to her advantage all the way. Horrible woman.

Jerry is really, a pathetic man. I feel sorry for him to a point but come on. Where is your sense of pride and self respect. If your partner who already doesn't even really care about you went and said essentially "I don't care about your needs", as pointed out in that last interview with them, wouldn't you just tell them to get lost.

She essentially was having a monogamous relationship with this shadow following her (that would be Jerry of course). Out of some weird desperate love. That wasn't polyamory that was just a combination of an advantageous succubus and a eunuch.

The weird faces and reactions from Jerry though after giving a hollow answer were brilliant though.

chrissb8

Hector Savage wrote: »

Why is Louis Theroux so popular ?
He really does **** all, just hangs around and asks stupid questions ... maybe he gets down to their level, never got him.

Because he can walk into a neo-nazis house, a jail, a paedophile center and put the interviewees at ease and get the best answers. Plus he asks the right questions in the right way and throws himself into anything no fear. largely completely objectively only posing rhetorical dialogue to the viewer causing them to pause for thought and question at times, the pillars that uphold our society. The justice system, family units, modern medicine etc.

That's why.

professore

seamus wrote: »

This would all be correct if humans were emotionless, selfish automatons.

Unfortunately many of them are - more than you would think.

Zorya

Joe Rogan was talking to William Von Hippel (Head of Psychology at the University of Queensland, in Brisbane, Australia) yesterday and they came to monogamy and polyamory. The testicle size and the existence of jealousy are indicative of an evolutionary tendency towards monogamy, Bill reckons. I guessed jealousy would be important, and as i said it ain't all bad. The bigger testicle size is to do with washing out the other guy who was just there before...ewww.

:pac:

Relevant bits from 19 minutes for another 10 minutes or so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Dtv8ibI1vk

Wibbs

Zorya wrote: »

Joe Rogan was talking to William Von Hippel (Head of Psychology at the University of Queensland, in Brisbane, Australia) yesterday and they came to monogamy and polyamory. The testicle size and the existence of jealousy are indicative of an evolutionary tendency towards monogamy, Bill reckons. I guessed jealousy would be important, and as i said it ain't all bad. The bigger testicle size is to do with washing out the other guy who was just there before...ewww.

Aye, it's a theory partly based on our nearest relatives in the great apes and the sizes of testes and penises. Gorillas who work a "harem" set up with one male and lots of females that he keeps an eye on have tiny meat and two veg, chimps who are far more promiscuous have giant testes to compete with other males, humans sit somewhere in the middle, though have the largest willies(we lost the penis bone along the way too). Genetically humans have changed quite a bit in the last twenty thousand years. Most of the changes appear to be adaptations to new foods in the diet(gluten, lactose and so on, even alcohol), others are immune system changes, likely coming along as population densities got much higher and others seem to be in the reproductive end, sperm production and such.

Humans are very different to the other great apes in a number of ways. A major difference is women are almost constantly fertile. No mating season going on and show no outward signs of fertility. It's hidden so there's more uncertainty in men, which could explain the jealousy aspect in men. Even something like boobs are different. In all other animals they only grow when nursing, but women's are always "full". To any other great ape big boobs would be a turn off. It would tell them that they were nursing and sub fertile.

I remember reading of one bit of research that showed men produce more and better quality sperm if they've been away from their romantic/sexual partner for a few days. To the degree that for those trying for a baby, abstention and a short time apart might make it more likely than going at it every day. The theory being that on the reptile brain level the man is suspicious of an absent partner and that she may be up to no good, so when she comes back his body ups his game. Other research shows women have more orgasms with lovers than primary partners and this may increase the chances of conception with the bit on the side. Though the simpler answer there is novelty leads to more excitement and more orgasms. I'd bet that the same would be found with men playing away. Never mind that women's orgasms(which are not exactly reliable in many women. Which is another area of weirdness) are not necessary for conception, whereas men's most certainly are. A woman who never had one could have ten kids, a man that never had one would have none.

Wibbs

professore wrote: »

Unfortunately many of them are - more than you would think.

I don't agree with this at all, though it seems to be a common belief among some. Such people would be sociopaths or psychopaths and they're a minority among people. Even among sociopaths or psychopaths many still form emotional bonds with at least one person. What might come across that way are those otherwise normal folks who for whatever reason feel somewhat rejected socially or romantically so throw up a protective veneer around themselves.

Zorya

^^^Maybe the ability to 'give' a woman orgasms cements pair bonding? So then it would have a reproductive/evolutionary function. Maybe.

Zorya

Another aspect that is not very fashionable to talk about is the effect on the female body of multiple partners. Especially in an era before condoms the presence of multiple partners sperm seems to lay the cervix open for ..well, basically assault. By disease. More variance equals more presence of viruses etc eg HPV. So if the species wanted survival, which I think was probably the greatest drive, anything that increases disease and death is not likely to be the favoured mechanism. Aside from the other more blatant STDs.
Anyways.

jimgoose

Zorya wrote: »

^^^Maybe the ability to 'give' a woman orgasms cements pair bonding? So then it would have a reproductive/evolutionary function. Maybe.

It's quite possible. Most women's orgasm response is a much deeper, emotional mechanism than men's, and isn't always triggered the same way.

jimgoose

Zorya wrote: »

...The bigger testicle size is to do with washing out the other guy who was just there before...ewww...

Indeed. The shape of the human Glas Penis ("head") assists with this as well. Take that, Other Guy - gangway!!

Wibbs

Zorya wrote: »

^^^Maybe the ability to 'give' a woman orgasms cements pair bonding? So then it would have a reproductive/evolutionary function. Maybe.

Seems to be it alright. Another weird part is that in women the clitoris isn't directly stimulated by sex, whereas in other great apes it is. It moved over time, which seems to have been selected for. One theory holds that this was because if a woman found a mate who was concerned enough for her pleasure he was more likely to be a better father and provider than a man who was wham bam thank you ma'am. The loss of the penis bone might be down to an external health check for women. For a man to get it on, it suggests he's healthy, his endocrine system is working, his insulin response is good, his cardiovascular and nervous system is working and he's even less likely to have something depression. All of the above can directly impact the ability to "get it up". The health of the old willie is a pretty good diagnostic tool(no pun) for overall health and fitness.

Zorya wrote: »

Another aspect that is not very fashionable to talk about is the effect on the female body of multiple partners. Especially in an era before condoms the presence of multiple partners sperm seems to lay the cervix open for ..well, basically assault. By disease. More variance equals more presence of viruses etc eg HPV. So if the species wanted survival, which I think was probably the greatest drive, anything that increases disease and death is not likely to be the favoured mechanism. Aside from the other more blatant STDs.
Anyways.

+1. That's something that doesn't get said too often. Women are at higher risks across the board from STD's than men. They're more likely to catch one, more likely for it to be hidden and they can do more damage to their reproductive health and can pass them on to their kids. Take one of the most common ones, HPV. In men it's much more likely to be asymptomatic and far less likely to lead on to serious illnesses, yet in women it's one of the main causes of cervical cancer a pretty common disease. Chlamydia is another. In women it can cause infertility, sometimes permanently, in men it doesn't.

mvl

Zorya wrote: »

Another aspect that is not very fashionable to talk about is the effect on the female body of multiple partners. Especially in an era before condoms the presence of multiple partners sperm seems to lay the cervix open for ..well, basically assault. By disease. More variance equals more presence of viruses etc eg HPV. So if the species wanted survival, which I think was probably the greatest drive, anything that increases disease and death is not likely to be the favoured mechanism. Aside from the other more blatant STDs.
Anyways.

but in the context of this discussion thread, today's serial monogamy does same thing as polyamory: more partners involved

as i said in earlier post: to my knowledge many polyamorists ARE supposed to be having strict rules about fluid bonding being restricted to primary partners.

Zorya

Wibbs wrote: »

+1. That's something that doesn't get said too often. Women are at higher risks across the board from STD's than men. They're more likely to catch one, more likely for it to be hidden and they can do more damage to their reproductive health and can pass them on to their kids. Take one of the most common ones, HPV. In men it's much more likely to be asymptomatic and far less likely to lead on to serious illnesses, yet in women it's one of the main causes of cervical cancer a pretty common disease. Chlamydia is another. In women it can cause infertility, sometimes permanently, in men it doesn't.

Yes, I have often considered that this is somewhat subversive, this lack of saying such often. Throw a pill at it instead. Keep the party going. I'm not saying that as a pleasure denier at all - but this dumbing down about basic biology is fundamentally disempowering and infantilising. Human as usable product.
In the same way not teaching women to be fully cognisant of their reproductive processes, which would be a lot more empowering, so that they can tell when they ovulate, know how to keep PH balance etc., know about emmenagogues etc. Then they would be more in control of their bodies without the need for outside management from pharmaceuticals and, basically, the state. But to stay dumb menas less need for self responsibility or even awareness.
Anyways, big complicated area, and I am going beyond the reach of the thread.

Grayson

Wibbs wrote: »

Aye, it's a theory partly based on our nearest relatives in the great apes and the sizes of testes and penises. Gorillas who work a "harem" set up with one male and lots of females that he keeps an eye on have tiny meat and two veg, chimps who are far more promiscuous have giant testes to compete with other males, humans sit somewhere in the middle, though have the largest willies(we lost the penis bone along the way too). Genetically humans have changed quite a bit in the last twenty thousand years. Most of the changes appear to be adaptations to new foods in the diet(gluten, lactose and so on, even alcohol), others are immune system changes, likely coming along as population densities got much higher and others seem to be in the reproductive end, sperm production and such.

Humans are very different to the other great apes in a number of ways. A major difference is women are almost constantly fertile. No mating season going on and show no outward signs of fertility. It's hidden so there's more uncertainty in men, which could explain the jealousy aspect in men. Even something like boobs are different. In all other animals they only grow when nursing, but women's are always "full". To any other great ape big boobs would be a turn off. It would tell them that they were nursing and sub fertile.

I remember reading of one bit of research that showed men produce more and better quality sperm if they've been away from their romantic/sexual partner for a few days. To the degree that for those trying for a baby, abstention and a short time apart might make it more likely than going at it every day. The theory being that on the reptile brain level the man is suspicious of an absent partner and that she may be up to no good, so when she comes back his body ups his game. Other research shows women have more orgasms with lovers than primary partners and this may increase the chances of conception with the bit on the side. Though the simpler answer there is novelty leads to more excitement and more orgasms. I'd bet that the same would be found with men playing away. Never mind that women's orgasms(which are not exactly reliable in many women. Which is another area of weirdness) are not necessary for conception, whereas men's most certainly are. A woman who never had one could have ten kids, a man that never had one would have none.

It might just be purely psychological though. It might just be that some people are more confident and relaxed about this stuff and have nothing to do with biology. Maybe anyone can do this. Although evolutionary psychology can be useful sometimes we can read too much into it.

Zorya

mvl wrote: »

but in the context of this discussion thread, today's serial monogamy does same thing as polyamory: more partners involved

as i said in earlier post: to my knowledge many polyamorists ARE supposed to be having strict rules about fluid bonding being restricted to primary partners.

Yes serial monogamy would have something of the same effect on the cervix - though maybe not the exact same. Sperm contains a substance that softens the cervix. Think about that - every time sperm touches it softens or ripens it - imagine that with any other part of your body - you'd be cautious about who you were inviting to soften the skin surface, as soft skin surface is a risk.

Each persons sperm is different in some ways. Personal to them, like. Women actually also produce antibodies to sperm (- not looking that up as I don't have time, but this seems odd). But anyways production of antibodies is a state of inflammation, even if low grade. Competing sperm from polyamorous, simultaneous partners may be an immune system challenge. etc etc. as the body is in ways fending off sperm.

Now i know with barrier methods this may not be as important.

Though it is worth knowing that sperm has a beneficial effect on women too - not just reproductive - it alleviates depression, for example - tha actual substance of sperm does, not just sex or orgasm. It doesnt just lie there, or drain out, it is actively absorbed every time there is no barrier sex.

I will look into all this more later. But there are undoubted evolutionary reasons why good health choices are better than otherwise.

Wibbs

Zorya wrote: »

Yes, I have often considered that this is somewhat subversive, this lack of saying such often. Throw a pill at it instead. Keep the party going. I'm not saying that as a pleasure denier at all - but this dumbing down about basic biology is fundamentally disempowering and infantilising. Human as usable product.

"Product" is much of it. What generates more cash? Always follow the money.

But yes for the majority of human history, but particularly when we settled down in large numbers in bog communities, it would have been prudent to select for non promiscuous women for a few reasons, reproductive health and more trust in the origins of kids. It would also be prudent to select for non promiscuous men too, as women being more vulnerable to reproductive disease would need to be careful to avoid the town stud. In other aspects like paternity, less of an issue, as women know their kids are theirs even if the identity of the father is vague.

Though it would also make sense for women to have kids with different men. Spread the chances of healthy offspring and a range of traits. When you hear of women in underprivileged areas who have say three kids with three different fathers who then settle down with another guy and maybe have his kid too, while he helps raise her previous kids, that makes sense from the purely evolutionary and the group standpoint.

There's also the different strategies of having one or two kids and concentrating all resources on them, or having loads of kids and spreading the resources more thinly. People in the third world or living in more poverty tend towards the latter, whereas people in the first world and the more well off tend towards the former.

mvl

Zorya wrote: »

I will look into all this more later. But there are undoubted evolutionary reasons why good health choices are better than otherwise.

and i have to stop reading this thread till evening, cause i have other more important things to attend now

Wibbs

Grayson wrote: »

Although evolutionary psychology can be useful sometimes we can read too much into it.

Oh I agree. However psychology is very much entwined wth biology.

ohnonotgmail

biko wrote: »

Polyamory is wrong!







It's either Polyphilia or Multiamory, mixing Greek and Latin is just plain wrong!

Well it was a television show, what do you expect.

briany

chrissb8 wrote: »

Jerry is really, a pathetic man. I feel sorry for him to a point but come on. Where is your sense of pride and self respect. If your partner who already doesn't even really care about you went and said essentially "I don't care about your needs", as pointed out in that last interview with them, wouldn't you just tell them to get lost.

She essentially was having a monogamous relationship with this shadow following her (that would be Jerry of course). Out of some weird desperate love. That wasn't polyamory that was just a combination of an advantageous succubus and a eunuch.

The weird faces and reactions from Jerry though after giving a hollow answer were brilliant though.

It seemed to me that Jerry was tolerating the situation to keep some semblance of family life together. He also seemed to have a very depressive personality, and not just due to the fact that his wife had this other man.

Does Jerry's life get better if he tells Heidi to get lost? Well, if by better we mean living down at the Shangri-la, paying alimony out the nose, and having Joe drop the daughter off for weekend visits, then yeah.

H3llR4iser

mvl wrote: »

Are you suggesting the Vee triads don't work (e.g. the triad where two persons are dating the hinge, but they are not connected to each other).

Or are you considering (for this type of triad) the metamour relationship as ... being "connection" ?

Yep, the "V" shaped ones, where as you put it two people are dating an 'hinge' but not involved with each other - if you look into these, you'll most likely find out there are some very questionable reasons for the "arrangement" and one of the "legs" of the V is getting the short end of the stick; Prime ground for resentment, jealousy and drama.



It could take many forms:



- Desirable/rich "hinge" dating two desperate/naive "legs";

- "Hinge" and one "leg" keeping the other around purely out of utility;

- One of the "legs" being a sadsack who's afraid of being alone and would agree to anything;

- Maybe rarer, but can happen, two "legs" taking advantage of the hinge;



Perhaps there would be some of these situations working somehow, but I'd say it's extremely rare...

Zorya

Not meaning to be harping on about the nasties but I guess promiscuity is closely related to polyamory and when one is considering the latter one should perhaps consider the former.
There has been a dramatic fall in teenage pregnancies in Ireland (over 60% in 15 years) which indicates young people are using the pill (although it may indicate other things which I will not go into!), but a corresponding explosion in sexually transmitted diseases among these same young demographic (rising five fold between 1989 and 2009 and even more recently).
That would seem to indicate not wokeness or the exercise of progressive informed freedom but rather basic, unforgiveable ignorance and / or irresponsibility about the facts of life.

Random stats -
Syphilis and Gonorhea are up by a fifth in a year - 2016 - 2017.
The Scandinavian countries, Iceland and Ireland seem to be top losers when it comes to STD rates for some reason.
Chlamydia is fast the rise - figures are hard to gauge because people are not being tested enough.
Syphilis cases doubled between 2005 and 2013. Doubled. Syphilis! It's at its highest rate now since after World War II. Good going, eh.

Long term Chlamydia can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, scarring the reproductive organs, leading to infertility.
Long term Syphilis, even if treated but because of early harm done due to its dormancy, can cause lesions throughout all the systems in the body - Syphilis in the pregnant mother can cause the death or abnormality of child.
Long term Gonorrhea can cause infertility and arthritis. And lots of other nasty stuff.

Anyways, you get the picture. Watch out for cooties in the jungle, basically.

How people can reckon they are cool because they have loads of sex with multiple people and yet are such ignorant gobdaws that they don't do enough to protect their basic health is beyond me. Which is what it looks like lots and lots of people ARE doing. All the time.
Weirdos. :rolleyes:

mvl

then this discussion is not complete if we don't bring up the concept of polyfidelity - it is same as monogamy, but with few extra privileges

- actually, maybe ppl could try to imagine how would it if they've met all their serial monogamous relationships in same time frame: would they not love/be attracted to the individuals they used to love/be attracted to ?

mvl

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Yep, the "V" shaped ones, where as you put it two people are dating an 'hinge' but not involved with each other - if you look into these, you'll most likely find out there are some very questionable reasons for the "arrangement" and one of the "legs" of the V is getting the short end of the stick; Prime ground for resentment, jealousy and drama.
It could take many forms:
- Desirable/rich "hinge" dating two desperate/naive "legs";
- "Hinge" and one "leg" keeping the other around purely out of utility;
- One of the "legs" being a sadsack who's afraid of being alone and would agree to anything;
- Maybe rarer, but can happen, two "legs" taking advantage of the hinge;
Perhaps there would be some of these situations working somehow, but I'd say it's extremely rare...

Look - I've no bias towards poly or ethical non-monogamy: I think they can work for some individuals, and it’s not for me to criticize the lifestyle.

From your original message I understood you were meaning the only way a triad (or more) can work is when all are involved with each other. But then in your later post, you give examples when such triad doesn't work ?

a. Based on my readings, I thought a triad assumes that there is a primary relationship: this primary should have same privileges as a monogamous relationship (nobody takes advantage of someone else).

b. Examples of poly triads in my eyes are Vees, Unicorn triads (a primary couple finds a HBB=unicorn, and all 3 are involved).

So with a,b, from your later examples (included above), good few would describe the unicorn triad scenario: guess that can mean not all triads with all individuals involved are working (maybe I am missing something).

Few more points to note:
- Unicorn hunters are not always seen with good eyes by the polyamory community, when there is the imbalance of power (and I know this only from my reading)
- Example of triads that can work: the ones with polyfidelity (this one says they lasted 30 years - https://www.reddit.com/r/polyamory/comments/3dlcau/lived_in_a_poly_triad_for_almost_30_years/)
- Not all poly relationships are the same; and I am sure the poly bdsm individuals would push some boundaries - but at least there are rules, it would be controlled in a way .

Vela

I know someone that did it. They got married. I said it wouldn't work out. It didn't work out.
I still haven't said I told you so, but man... the struggle is real.

H3llR4iser

mvl wrote: »

From your original message I understood you were meaning the only way a triad (or more) can work is when all are involved with each other. But then in your later post, you give examples when such triad doesn't work ?

I quite honestly don't understand - what I said is that the only way I see this ever working is when all the people in the relationship are involved at the exact same level with one another; a "V" arrangement is no such thing, as the two people on the open end of the V aren't involved with each other.

Let's keep it at three for the sake of simplicity - the only way I see this working is if the "geometry" of the relationship is a TRIANGLE, with all vertexes connected, rather than a V. In layman terms:

- A is in a relationship with B
- B is in a relationship with C
- C is in a relationship with A
- A, B and C enjoy the relationship together, and when it doesn't happen is because either A, B or C decided "no thanks, you guys go ahead!"

Where I CAN'T see it working well:

- A is in a relationship B
- A is in a relationship C
- C and B don't have a relationship
- When A does things with B, C is not involved by A's choice
- When A does things with C, B is not invovled by A's choice
- A might do things at the same time with B and C, but the latter two won't enjoy that as much as A
- Sooner or later, either B or C will start growing resentful that the "other one" is getting more attention/sex/whatever from A

mvl

Oh, now I see what I missed: thought I read connection has to exist, but actually you meant connection at same level.

Define what connection is, is it a romantic/emotional, or sexual ? Thought poly accepts either.

- So for the example with a triad/Vee, I think it can work when there is an emotional triad but a sexual Vee, when ppl involved are hetero (metamours are close friends or whatever, but not having it with each other). Metamours from this triad might have other external connections (other triads, couples or whatever).

Another question: what would you describe as success or failure for these relationships ?
As I think consensual, valid arrangements that lasts years beyond the NRE, can be declared successful. Not easy, but can be done...

H3llR4iser

Well, defining "successful" can be a difficult task, so probably we should keep it as a "sustainable arrangement that doesn't cause any of the involved parties to suffer in some way because of the others", if that's a thing. Length, phases...that's all dynamic stuff that can change. You have relationships, even "bog standard" 1:1 ones, whicht end without a specific reason - just because the two folks involved grew apart.



For what we defined as a "V Shaped" situation to work, however, there needs to be an absolute balance of power, where the two "open ends" get exactly the same time, attention, investiment - unless one of the two enjoys things to be at a position of disadvantage.

Dial Hard

Zorya wrote: »

How people can reckon they are cool because they have loads of sex with multiple people and yet are such ignorant gobdaws that they don't do enough to protect their basic health is beyond me. Which is what it looks like lots and lots of people ARE doing. All the time.
Weirdos. :rolleyes:

I have a friend whose one and only concern around safe sex was not getting pregnant. She got a coil in last year and basically went "Huzzah, no more barrier methods for me!" and has had a lot of casual sex since. She has absolutely no fear of STIs whatsoever and I literally cannot get my head around it. We've had so many arguments about it that we've pretty much had to agree to just not discuss it anymore for the sake of our friendship.

She was having serious womb/cycle/pain issues last year (hence the coil) and was in and out of the gynaecologist I don't know how many times, but when I suggested an STI screening might be worth doing, she scoffed at the idea. She's never, ever had a test. I find that absolutely crazy.

RWCNT

Dial Hard wrote: »

I have a friend whose one and only concern around safe sex was not getting pregnant. She got a coil in last year and basically went "Huzzah, no more barrier methods for me!" and has had a lot of casual sex since. She has absolutely no fear of STIs whatsoever and I literally cannot get my head around it. We've had so many arguments about it that we've pretty much had to agree to just not discuss it anymore for the sake of our friendship.

She was having serious womb/cycle/pain issues last year (hence the coil) and was in and out of the gynaecologist I don't know how many times, but when I suggested an STI screening might be worth doing, she scoffed at the idea. She's never, ever had a test. I find that absolutely crazy.

Jesus, imagine feeling that indestructible.

.......

Dial Hard wrote: »

I have a friend whose one and only concern around safe sex was not getting pregnant. She got a coil in last year and basically went "Huzzah, no more barrier methods for me!" and has had a lot of casual sex since. She has absolutely no fear of STIs whatsoever and I literally cannot get my head around it. We've had so many arguments about it that we've pretty much had to agree to just not discuss it anymore for the sake of our friendship.

She was having serious womb/cycle/pain issues last year (hence the coil) and was in and out of the gynaecologist I don't know how many times, but when I suggested an STI screening might be worth doing, she scoffed at the idea. She's never, ever had a test. I find that absolutely crazy.

Ive seen that attitude a lot on boards.ie

In fact, I think (maybe it was on reddit?) there was an AMA here with a swinger and when people pointed out the increased risk of STIs and the person doing the AMA had a similar attitude.

Some people just dont like to look at reality.

Many years ago I read a book by an ex playboy bunny and she said that they ALL had to have sex with Hefner with no protection so they were constantly spreading infection amongst themselves.

Zorya

....... wrote: »

Ive seen that attitude a lot on boards.ie

In fact, I think (maybe it was on reddit?) there was an AMA here with a swinger and when people pointed out the increased risk of STIs and the person doing the AMA had a similar attitude.

Some people just dont like to look at reality.

Many years ago I read a book by an ex playboy bunny and she said that they ALL had to have sex with Hefner with no protection so they were constantly spreading infection amongst themselves.

Hefner good example. Yuck.


Disease probability mitigates against the likelihood of some glorious garden of Eden style orgiastic sex in the past. Without protection tribes would have been riddled with diseases.

SafeSurfer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not much info to give that I have not given multiple times on the forum before. I am 11ish years as the M in an MFF relationship now.

The girls titled it a "Truple". And except for it being 3 people and not 2 - we are pretty much the same as a "couple" in every other way. Pretty much all the same rules and expectations and dynamics you would expect of a couple.

As you can see from the posts just above mine however - there is a misconception that it is the same thing as an open relationship or sleeping around. That is something else though - not what we do and not - I think - what the word polyamory means.

If anyone has a link to it that would be nice - always interested to follow the current thinking on it for obvious reasons. Or if you can Drop Box it and share a link with me or whatever.

So, which is your favourite and how handy is it to always have a baby sitter and is having 2 mother in laws a pain?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Dial Hard wrote: »

I have a friend whose one and only concern around safe sex was not getting pregnant. She got a coil in last year and basically went "Huzzah, no more barrier methods for me!" and has had a lot of casual sex since. She has absolutely no fear of STIs whatsoever and I literally cannot get my head around it. We've had so many arguments about it that we've pretty much had to agree to just not discuss it anymore for the sake of our friendship.

She was having serious womb/cycle/pain issues last year (hence the coil) and was in and out of the gynaecologist I don't know how many times, but when I suggested an STI screening might be worth doing, she scoffed at the idea. She's never, ever had a test. I find that absolutely crazy.

And she really needs to fear them. I studied a biological field in college and the series of lectures we had on STIs have been burned on my brain. The main thing that shocked me was the stats. HIV is rare (though climbing) but all the other STIs are just so much more common than you’d think. Really bloody common. And our lecturer did not hold back on graphic photos of infected gentalia. If your friend was at these lectures, she wouldn’t be so blasé.

Bigbagofcans

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And she really needs to fear them. I studied a biological field in college and the series of lectures we had on STIs have been burned on my brain. The main thing that shocked me was the stats. HIV is rare (though climbing) but all the other STIs are just so much more common than you’d think. Really bloody common. And our lecturer did not hold back on graphic photos of infected gentalia. If your friend was at these lectures, she wouldn’t be so blasé.

Fair play to your lecturer. These things need to be talked about and graphic images shown in schools.

There was a 6% increase in STIs in Ireland this year. In this era of casual dating and Tinder, you would think that people would take even more precautions than before.

mvl

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Fair play to your lecturer. These things need to be talked about and graphic images shown in schools.

There was a 6% increase in STIs in Ireland this year. In this era of casual dating and Tinder, you would think that people would take even more precautions than before.

good news is that appears this increase is not due to polyamorists in Ireland - cause looking at this thread, their number is insignificant (close to zero percent).

-also note that I am assuming the person referred to at post 238 is monogamish and not poly. if my assumption is wrong, keen to hear about it

Dial Hard

mvl wrote: »

I am assuming the person referred to at post 238 is moogamish and not poly. if my assumption is wrong, keen to hear about it

She's single and hooking up.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Fair play to your lecturer. These things need to be talked about and graphic images shown in schools.

There was a 6% increase in STIs in Ireland this year. In this era of casual dating and Tinder, you would think that people would take even more precautions than before.

And he wasn’t even scaremongering. I had him for various lecture modules and he was always very measured. But also very forthright!

That 6% stat doesn’t surprise me at all. People are thicks.

paw patrol

I wouldn't like polyamory but more to do with the fact I find having a relationship tough work . It would be over whelming managing it with more than 1 other.

I'd rather have an open relationship or swinging where it was fun without the commitment.

SafeSurfer

Apologies I was out of the country for a week

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So, which is your favourite and how handy is it to always have a baby sitter and is having 2 mother in laws a pain?

I don't have a favourite. Then again I do not have a favourite in many things. If people ask me what my fave food or film or fruit or car or book or whatever is I seem to rarely be able to answer. I know all the ones I like - but I do not tend to rank them in terms of better and worse and favourites.

I do not compare them in that way basically. I basically love them both and wouldn't be without either of them.

Economies of scale are definitely a benefit - including in child care and extended family. I get on well with their mothers/families these days (was ropey as hell in the beginning as you might imagine). But extra grand parents is always useful. We have a once monthly house party - and the kids get farmed out to one set or another on those weekends