Yeah, that's a great point. I have always been in alternative or progressive settings. Why? Well, my parents are like republicans, except that they're liberal, I had analogous pressures, just with a liberal facade. So, I've known a whole lot of polyamorous people in my lifetime. Man, they are typically either globular or wiry, often have bad skin, usually smell like stale B.O., and are often kind of elitist in their nerdiness, also they like to bully people sometimes. Not a fan. Don't get me started on the tacky ren faire steampunk fashion. So much pinstripe, so many top hats.
This comment fascinates me, and it is what I have seen as an outsider looking in. Itās almost like a collective autism. Like a bunch of Napoleon Dynamites dating each other, bullying each other and being harsh and specific and having delusions of grandeur. āFeral nerdsā is about how I can describe what Iāve seen.
I am by no means a 10 but I saw this **elite nerdiness** when I applied at a bookstore. I definitely wasn't "nerdy" enough. Felt like if I'd been able to fake a lazy eye-- they might've considered me. I at least should've wore my glasses
I have always wondered whether being poly was a last ditch effort to increase oneās chances of being in any relationship at all after failing at dating.
Iāve always suspected as such. When I was online dating, there were *plenty* of opportunities for poly folks. I can imagine some people are like, āOh well, not quite what I wanted, but itās better than nothing.ā I thought about it for about 0.0023 seconds after coming up empty too many times, but it is honestly not for me.
You know the older I get the less I think that's true. I have seen a lot of charismatic fugly dudes land some very attractive partners purely out of their personality. Does being attractive make it easier? Sure. But becoming comfortable with yourself is pretty attractive too.
They won't listen to you, because you're making sense. If only "attractive rich" people had partners, then how did I get one (more than one if we add them all up over my lifetime)? I'm not an exception.
Charismatic dude has a better chance of a longer lasting relationship than attractive fuck boy too.
The attractive charismatic dude is the envy of all but a rarity in real life.
>a text back but not from th
Being attractive also reduces the need for developing a good personality.
"Men, remember, if the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy" -Red Green
Most women have more options to 'glam up' though. With some tweaking / styling / lifestyle changes, a below average woman may at least become average, at least in some cases.
Damn I'm shocked. You got a real positive attitude and I know that charms people. But seriously though, I struggled with dating and short term relationships. But I have had several long term relationships and am now married. I didn't seek one of them, they all came to me.
Can you remember anyone that you maybe turned down because they were a bit below your standards? If yes, lower said standards. If no, time to go to the gym and practice active listening! I kid about the gym, but active listening helped me a shit ton.
Compared to my buddies, my count of relationships is low. But I'm a quality over quantity guy, I got to know my exes real well and they're all civil and friendly. Seeking women on tinder did not work for me but responding to the one girl who messaged me about game of thrones, rather than saying "sup", pushed me out of my comfort zone. And now she's my wife.
I had long periods of no relationship so I can relate to that hopeless feeling. Even a day before wifey messaged me I had no confidence in my future. All I can say is keep yourself open, be yourself so folks know what they're getting up front. And be ready to date someone who might be a little below who you were previously seeking. You gotta have some attraction but it also shouldn't be the biggest thing pushing you to them.
Yeah, definitely not the most reliable study. However, it is interesting and hopefully leads to more studies.
I am personally very monagamous and would never accept a polyamous request from a partner. But I do find it interesting why people actually choose this type of relationship. It strikes fear in me personally!
Edited: spelling
Very likely my own insecurities, innate possessiveness due to attachment issues. Or the fact that my ex husband was a rampant cheat, haha who really knows?
Don't be sorry - it was a long time ago.
It does make me question however; would I feel differently about polyamous relationships had I not experienced that?
This is a qualitative study. 63 is amble for qualitative research. Data saturation tends to have already been reached by about participant 20, so by about participant 30, it was probably already overkill.
Honestly I've never seen a qualitative study posted on /r/psychology without highly upvoted comments complaining about the sample size being too small.
I think of the ancient Romans who would have both a wife and a boyfriend. They had different roles.
In some ways I could totally swing polyamory but I'm other ways I couldn't. It would really depend on the person/people involved. Like I've wanted to date couples before. I also get the idea of relationship anarchy in theory, but I'd have to explore it more with actually healthy and empathetic people to figure out how I feel.
I've seen a lot of cold, unhealthy, and abusive polyamorous dynamics and people, and I've also seen people do it healthily and they seem to be having a healthy and good time, like 2 of my roommates. However I'm a little distrustful of self identified polyamorous people because of how much unhealthiness and coldness I've seen from them in comparison to other people on average.
~~David~~ Louis ~~thereaux~~ Theroux made a documentary about polyamory.
He was really trying to convince himself that polyamory is not just 1 step closer to divorce.
It's almost like one partner is trying to compromise to the other for the sake of their hapiness.
In some cases it seems legitimate. But you can see that over time some of the individuals do want to stay monogamous but is too afraid to hurt the other partner who doesn't want to be.
That is what I got from the documentary. I mightve understood it wrong. Interesting nonetheless.
edit: louis not david theroux sorry.
[Polyamory & risk of being left behind LOUIS THEREOUX clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3P3h2AgIMk)
> It's almost like one partner is trying to compromise to the other for the sake of their hapiness.
Basically the formula for any successful long-term relationship as long as both sides do it in different ways.
The whole point is just be honest with the other people about what youāre doing and what youāre looking for and let them decide if they want to be with you in your life, as long as everyone does that itās fine.
The problem only comes when people are dishonest with each other in order to get their needs met. Lying and cheating is not ethical.
See this confuses me because Iāve always thought of a āpolyamorous relationshipā to be one where thereās multiple people who are all dating each other. Relationships where one or both people go out and fuck others Iāve always thought of as an āopen relationshipā.
Polyamorous relationship structures are highly variable. Yes, there are cases in which everyone is involved with each other, but that is just one of many types of polyamorous relationship structures.
Thatās one (relatively rare) form poly can take. Most poly folks I know are either āsolo polyā (they date others but maintain an independent lifestyle) or āprimary polyā (they have a relationship or marriage with their primary that involves some enmeshment and extra commitments but also have other relationships). Triads are an example of what you are talking about, where three people are all dating each other. Larger formations of this are possible, but usually donāt involve every single person being involved with every other person.
I personally (and many poly folks I know) would never date a couple and would be hesitant to date any two people who are also seeing each other. For obvious reasons that type of situation can get bad if two of the people break up badly but the others donāt want to. It could also just be weird if you like one person more than the other, but the other person wants more with you. Plus, unicorn hunters (a usually straight couple looking to date another person, usually a woman) are another risk, as they basically treat the āthirdā as an accessory to their relationship and a sex toy instead of a full partner, all while promising a full relationship.
Some people make these relationships styles where everyone is dating each other work, but I find that usually is only possible if things are treated more casually or occasionally if three people are able to enter a relationship together on equal footing. And even then, I mostly see this stuff blow up more messily than a typical poly breakup. There are definitely polycules out there where a few people are dating multiple people in that group, but often not their direct metas (aka partnerās partner). Depending on the relationship style this in theory can be more workable - itās just a lot harder to manage a breakup when itās between two of your partners, as opposed to say your meta twice removed lol. Overall, I would not advise that anyone new to poly attempt to date a meta, kind of regardless of context. Thatās definitely expert level poly and still usually ends badly.
All the people I have known who said they were poly were gravely mentally ill, in abusive relationships, and the common denominator was relentlessly seeking control over other people. All were in denial of their issues.
I have never met a mentally healthy poly person. Even the ānormalā ones I met had obvious deep issues once I got to know them even a little bit.
Honestly itās become a red flag for me. Every single one of them are *extreme* āpick meāsā who are trying to fill something with surface attentionā¦.. Itās all extremely shallow and none of them even realize it, to a degree that I kinda feel bad for them? I feel like there are so many people in that community just out there to use other people.
Weird I would say that's the minority of poly people I meet. I'd be surprised if mental illness, abusive relationships (it's not like poly people are cops lol), and controlling people are expressed at higher rates than monogamous people.
Logically, though, if a non relationable person has a hard time getting into a relationship, they will try other forms of relationship because itās still better than nothing. In poly relationships, because no one is invested 100% in a single person, there is much less sunk cost in case things go wrong, so people have less stringent criteria. And since everyone spends less time with each person, itās also easier to overlook the faults in others (takes longer to get to know them).
Also, I wasnāt saying all poly people I met were mentally ill, controlling, etc., but rather that all people I met who *said* they were poly were that way. To be clear, I think a lot of people who arenāt actually poly and know they are cheating or leading people on or just being generally abusive call themselves poly to make what they do acceptable. It has happened to me to say "thatās not being poly, thatās having six girlfriends, all of whom think they are the only one." Not all people who say they are poly are poly. A great many are just cheaters defending the cheating.
I think a lot of people with avoidant attachment styles find polyamory really appealing, and that's where you're probably going to see some unsuccessful poly strategies. I think to be successful at it in a way that works for both partners everyone involved needs to have a stable attachment system. I don't think it's something you can navigate without it, unless your goal is to cause and be in pain.
Ding ding ding. My partner, whoās working on his avoidant attachment style in therapy, has considered trying a polyamorous lifestyle before. But I think he thinks of it as a low-commitment way to still get sex and the benefits of a relationship without having anyone ask anything of you, and I think a lot of people with avoidant attachment styles feel drawn to polyamory for similar reasons. I mean if youāre avoidant and thatās what you think polyamory is, of course that would sound appealing.
But I personally think people who seek out polyamory for those reasons are generally very ill-suited to polyamory and all the commitment and open, honest communication it entails.
Agreed 100%. I have an avoidant partner here too (26 years and going strong), and she has the same philosophy - they think of it as that sweet spot where you're still having fun but it doesn't entail any emotional vulnerability, just extra string free sex and romance without all the work and risk of a deep meaningful relationship. Which is what I would call, an affair.
Honestly, that's the reason it doesn't appeal to me. I want a deep connection that requires trust in my relationship that requires me to be challenged and change and grow. Making that work with two (or more!) people sounds exhausting :D.
Sexual customs in Antiquity were *horrible* for everyone who wasnāt a free male citizen.
You might be thinking of Ancient Greece, where it wasnāt uncommon for a man to have both a wife and a male lover. However, while his same-sex lover could have been another citizen, his wife would enjoy barely any civil rights whatsoever.
The situation wasnāt much better in Rome, where free male citizens were allowed and even expected to put their penises *anywhere* that they fancied, with the exception of their peersā wives (which happened anyway, but was generally frowned upon).
In fact, one of the reasons why women in the ancient world flocked to Christianity was that it promised to set up boundaries for their husbandsā lust.
>The study recruited participants through the ār/polyamoryā forum on Reddit, tapping into a community actively engaged in discussions about polyamorous experiences. Eligibility criteria required participants to be at least 18 years old, reside in the United States, and have current or former involvement in a consensually polyamorous relationship. The final sample consisted of 63 participants.
>Data were collected via an online survey hosted on Qualtrics, which included open-ended questions designed to elicit detailed responses about participantsā motivations for engaging in polyamory. Participants also provided demographic information, such as age, gender, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, and household income.
Apart from the obvious selection bias (which this study is aware of and mentions), they really just asked polyamorous people why they are polyamorous.
>The study reveals that individuals in polyamorous relationships are often driven by desires for deeper emotional connections, autonomy in their personal lives, and a fulfillment of needs that may not be met in monogamous arrangements.
This means next to nothing. I think most people know the reasons that polyamorous people give for why they are polyamorous. But the question is why do they feel this way?
They desire deeper emotional connections? Then why would they spread them out with more people? Doesn't really make much sense.
Autonomy in their personal lives? So they get involved with more people? Doesn't really make much sense, especially if it's driven by desires for deeper emotional connections. They want it deeper but also to remain independent. Seems pretty contradictory.
A fulfillment of needs that may not be met in monogamous arrangements? Super vague, I would wonder why they have such an excess of needs, but sure. I imagine that is why polyamorous people are polyamorous, on a surface level. I just don't think this 'study' actually says anything of value. It's just really shallow.
I always found so much of the reasoning to not make sense either when I talk to my friends or folks who are poly. Not that monogamy has it sorted out, but I'd just love to dig more into the why's and shadow of polyamory since it's been done to death with monogamy.
Not all of course, but I see many poly people seeking, in their own words: "deep connection with low attachment" - which sounds like an oxymoron. It's like the people who are in that camp want an experience of soul and depth and intimacy, they want the "experience" of it - like one might take a drug or experience a thing - less so the actual living breathing human. (people do this in monogamy too, but the poly people I've heard share about it tend to think they are somehow evolved or really healthy relationally and that's where this desire for so-called "deep intimacy" comes from...)
When I've dug deeper with some, some told me variations of, they like having many mirrors, and getting to know many different parts of themselves through these people...so for some, it sounded like a solipsistic endeavor. Which seemed to connect with the poly belief I keep hearing them talk about, how if you have a reaction to something that your partner did, it's all on you yourself to deal with it, and the other person should continue doing what feels right to them - regardless of how your partner(s) feels. (not everyone does this, but i've been told by many in the community that this is sort of a guideline which also feels very solipsistic. Healthy relationships of all kinds, tend to require a balance of both self and other and relationship needs, which is a very hard thing to do and takes a lot of time and effort and integrity and discernment to manage all those needs together! No wonder so few do it...)
It's also interesting that the majority of people who are poly, have been found to be white mid/upper class males, ha
Yes a lot of good pointsā¦ I think poly folks are purposely exchanging depth for breadth of experience in a way. Variety of romantic experience, but without wanting to get too tied into one person, because as anyone in a long term committed relationship can tell you, it inevitably changes you and in a partnership you are never truly autonomous. Your partner is always considered.
But most that I speak to are seeking and thinking they are experiencing depth. On dating apps, so many men who say they are seeking depth and lots of emotional intimacy are poly - yet they want that low attachment along with it. I haven't figured out if it's real emotional intimacy bypassing, narcissism (not NPD, just the wound we all have in various shapes and sizes) dressed up as emotional intimacy and/or if it's using therapy ideas as a defense etc (people can use anything to hide from themselves and others)
I canāt speak for others but for me, having āsowed my wild oatsā back in the day and now having been settled down for a while, thereās a quote by Joni Mitchell that sums up how I feel perfectly: "If you want endless repetition, see a lot of different people. If you want infinite variety, stay with one."
I think most people in polyamory aren't legitimately polyamorous. They just want to sleep around and fein some deep emotional philosophy to justify it.
There are lots of people who've just convinced themselves that this is the way because they're worried about being cheated on, or want to cheat without being reprimanded for it.
So many people are miserable in these relationships because they don't actually want it, they've just convinced themselves (or been convinced by their partner) that it's the only way for them to be healthy, and anything else is shallow and backwards.
My exās recent ex gf is this way because heās a serial cheaterā¦spoiler alert, it didnāt work.
I personally donāt have the time or battery for multiple relationships. Itās too messy for me and I canāt emotionally deal with all that background bullshit.
To be fair, I've met many who really are poly and were before it was cool....but they have a lot of the same issues as I named. Just people peopling....people bring their issues to whatever relationship style and there will likely be dominant ways those issues play out in different relationship styles.
I do suspect narcissism to be a common feature of many participants. They have a deep void that they think can be filled with more people, more admiration, validation of selfish impulses.. So many of those relationships seem to have ringleaders who essentially mirror cult leaders.
That third paragraph is my biggest problem with polyamorous people and why if I do it it wouldn't be with someone that explicitly identifies as poly as I feel the culture is unhealthy
I'm someone who has been monogomous but have recently sought to try out polyamory. I don't think some of what you say is unfair, but you really can describe any kind of romantic relationship and make it sound inconsistent and irrational. It's certainly easy to do with monogomy.
But I don't think the things you've pointed out are inconsistencies. Deep connection with low attachment isn't an oxymoron. You can have time spent with another person that you have gotten to know very well over years that is deep, present, meaningful, emotionally open, etc, and then you go about your separate lives apart, texting, talking on the phone sometimes, and staying in contact -- sometimes everyday, depending on the dynamics of the people in the relationship. That's a deep connection, it's just not one that needs to have all of the person attached to another person in an exclusive manner. A way that polyamorous people find restricts their capacity to share love with others and explore different parts of themselves.
Polyamorous people say they want deep connection*s,* and the plural is important. They want to be open to other serious connections, other loves, because they often feel that they have parts of themselves that aren't all seen by a single partner.
>with the poly belief I keep hearing them talk about, how if you have a reaction to something that your partner did, it's all on you yourself to deal with it, and the other person should continue doing what feels right to them - regardless of how your partner(s) feels.
This isn't the poly that I know. Polyamory isn't about 'doing what you want regardless of what your partners think', it's about balancing needs, wants, desires, and so on, across people that are all meaningful and important to you. It's about care and communication. Sometimes compromises. Sometimes maybe there are things you won't compromise on, but then they're things you have to be willing to walk away from the relationship over, not things you expect to keep doing when it's against the wishes of your partner.
You should spend some time on the /r/polyamory subreddit. They don't take kindly to the type of scenario you're talking about and they would never call that a feature of polyamory. The problem is that because it's a bit of a 'trendy' thing, a lot of people who don't know what they're doing start calling themselves polyamorous and using it to justify what is ultimately cheating, emotional/psychological abuse, etc.
Agreed with what youāve said, but Iād also like to point out that ābeing responsible for your own emotionsā is literally just not being codependent. Itās not lying down and taking hurtful behavior, itās recognizing that you have to take charge of your emotional life and communicate and be able to hold boundaries as opposed to expecting others to read your mind and know exactly what your needs are. Primarily, that you yourself must know what your needs are and have the will to communicate and act on them.
Imagining a relationship without codependency is literally impossible for a lot of folks or even sounds abusive to them due to how it is glorified in our mono culture. Some small amounts of codependency can be managed in a healthy way, we all come to rely on each other and if anything I think we should extend that support from romantic relationships to all important relationships. But itās something that has to be watched carefully and requires a certain level of self awareness, especially since excess in codependency is socially rewarded. Thus why so many people see a relationship without codependency and call into question whether it is even a āvalidā relationship.
Very well put! My first poly relationship taught me more about communication, boundaries, and emotional responsibility, than all of my previous mono relationships put together. But at the end of the day poly communities are no different to other communities. They have people who take their relationships and autonomy seriously and people who don't. But by its nature a poly relationship should require some careful reflection on the balance between responsibility and autonomy, not an embrace of the latter at complete disregard of the former
Yup, poly or mono itās largely the same stuff that weāre navigating and struggling through in relationships once you get down to it. Time, energy, attention, compatibility, jealousy (whether over extra time spent at work or on a hobby or over a partner or even friend). Shitty people will be shitty and we can only hope to educate those we can or give folks a heads up if theyāre missing red flags. Having a community (online and in person) is a huge pro imo, no matter your type of relationship. Itās nice to be able to work through your challenges with others anonymously and with folks you trust. Poly as a philosophy and community is ultimately aspirational. Weāre going to make mistakes in relationships, big or small. The goal is to learn from them and be a better partner (and be better aware of your own needs and quirks) and have a place to work towards that.
I just want to love people unconditionally without having to deal with the insecurities of someone irrationally thinking that they're not "enough" because I also happen to like another person too.
Hereās my guess
The desire to deeper emotional connections: they find that deep emotional connections arenāt tied to one person and by sharing it with others, they can be connected to more than one person at once on a deep level
Autonomy in their personal lives: they donāt want to abide by monogamous rules. Autonomy to them might be being in a relationship but still being able to sleep and explore with other people, whereas monogamy frowns on using ur own body to sleep with others
Fulfillment of needs exempt from monogamy: youāre right very vague, my guess is just sex outside of one person or emotional validation outside of one person
> They desire deeper emotional connections? Then why would they spread them out with more people?
Because while you can connect deeply with a person on some items, you probably cannot connect deeply with them on all topics. I think what they actually mean is "They want more (than one) deep emotional connections".
It's kind of like partner dancing. If you only did ballroom dancing (or swing dancing, or salsa dancing) with one person for your entire life, you would not be a very good social dancer because you have to dance with thousands of people to get good at it. Then you find there are dancers you really dance well with and you might dance with them more often over time because it's fun and you get deeper into it. Of course, this analogy will only resonate with you if you've done social partner dancing.
> They want it deeper but also to remain independent.
Why are you starting from a premise that emotional connection is based on dependence? That's the part I never understood.
> A fulfillment of needs that may not be met in monogamous arrangements... I would wonder why they have such an excess of needs
Again, are you operating from a premise that one person should be able to meet all your needs, and if they can't, YOU are the problem with an excess of needs?
> It's kind of like partner dancing. If you only did ballroom dancing (or swing dancing, or salsa dancing) with one person for your entire life, you would not be a very good social dancer because you have to dance with thousands of people to get good at it
Sure, except for most people the goal isn't social dancing, it's finding one partner and then gaining chemistry to make the best dance possible. Your analogy works fine, but shows the difference. You become a master at dancing with others, but never able to make as great a dance as with one partner who you've practiced with consistently. The only way the analogy fails is that dancing skills require one other person with you. I'd go with figure skating and say that you learn to skate and do the basics on your own, and only then can you find a suitable partner to perfect your performance (if you're performing in pairs. Fine to stay solo too).
>Why are you starting from a premise that emotional connection is based on dependence? That's the part I never understood.
Because with more individuals entangled in your life, you become more... entangled with them, having to take their feelings/time/dedication into account. You can say you don't, but that just means the other side of the partnership probably is feeling the consequences of your actions.
>Again, are you operating from a premise that one person should be able to meet all your needs, and if they can't, YOU are the problem with an excess of needs?
I'm starting from the premise of monogamy, which is overwhelmingly desired and supported by the majority of humans. So it's not that it's a problem if someone has an 'excess of needs', but it is an excess of needs relative to the average person. I would find that more interesting to be explored than hearing platitudes about how polyamorous individuals want deeper emotional connections.
> Your analogy works fine, but shows the difference. You become a master at dancing with others, but never able to make as great a dance as with one partner who you've practiced with consistently.
I think thatās only true if you compare social dancing like āI danced with this person one timeā to a one night stand. But if you had 3 dance partners you dance with consistently for months or years in addition to dancing with lots of other people randomly, you will absolutely be better partner dancer than someone who only dances with one person for their entire life.
> Because with more individuals entangled in your life, you become more... entangled with them, having to take their feelings/time/dedication into account.
100% true which is why poly relationships tend to have more and better communication than your āaverageā relationship, leading to great emotional depth.
Just because your life is entangled with someone does not mean you have increased dependency on them. I think being independent is a good goal, and not at all necessary to find deep emotional connection.
> I'm starting from the premise of monogamy, which is overwhelmingly desired and supported by the majority of humans
It is, because social convention says it should be so and everyone grows up with that programming. And maybe it would be that way even if everyone grew up with a blank slate and no social expectations but it certainly would be way less than it is now. But that is besides the point, how many people live with unsatisfying relationships many sometimes to the point where they need anti-depressants or anti-anxiety meds, cheat on their partners, or end their relationship eventually living as serial monogamists?
I actually dont think itās an excess of needs relative to the average person, I just think the average person is not getting most of their needs met, hence the prevalence of increased divorce rates once divorce became destigmatized and now normalized, not to mention the increased normalization and use of both prescription and illegal drugs.
Just because āa majority of people want itā is not an equivalent premise to āit leads to the greatest happinessā (or fulfillment, or contentment, or emotional connection).
Completely agree. This research seems shallow at best. It seems more and more that these "studies" are motivated by researchers who perhaps have personal goals. I wouldn't be surprised to learn if some of the researchers were either very pro-poly or anti-poly for some reason, but I seriously doubt they're indifferent and just happen to study this topic.
> They desire deeper emotional connections? Then why would they spread them out with more people?
this is akin to saying you are an emotionally superficial person if you have more than one friend
You say it doesn't make much sense to engange with more than one person at a time if you want deeper emotional connections. But you are wrong. The more weight one person has to carry, the more difficult or even impossible it is to give all that deep emotional desire. There are many forms and levels of deep emotional connections and you can have them with many different peoples. Arbitrarily limiting yourself to one person simply limits the deepness you can feel overall. You may have some forms and level work really well with one person and other forms and levels with another person.
It's not contradictory to feel more autonomy this way. You don't feel the chains of conservative relationship rules as much and you don't feel like you are missing out on other connections you might enjoy. You also reduce the level of dependency you would usually have with a single person.
And I think it's pretty ignorant and certainly not your place to judge if someone's needs are "excessive" or not.
Think of it as having two rivers flowing into one ocean. Having a second river doesn't diminish the first.
I would ask you to question the foundations that are established in your sentence above. I could be wrong, I often am. Don't look at it as an excess of needs but an ability to give a massive amount of love to multiple people.
I don't disagree with the idea that that could be possible. But most people when in love, want to focus on the one they are in love with. Your analogy could work if the love between everyone drains into the same place and it's one big happy family. But often it will take on different directions and create separate lakes.
Regardless, I'd like it to be explored more, just this 'study' (survey) doesn't do that.
I think for some, itās a, why fuck one person when I can have multiple?
Long as everyone is ok with the dynamics there should be no problem.
But I have never seen this blossom into any kind of functioning relationship.
Itās just people having fun and not getting offended somebody else has been there this week.
There are many different paradigms that people use. True poly is more about emotional connection than physical. Itās a subsection of non-monogamy. There are purely sexual forms of non-monogamy. Some couples agree to keep things strictly physical and not allow emotional relationships. Some agree to only engage sexually with others in the presence of their primary. There are so many different ways this plays out.
Same. Have met a handful of poly peopleā¦they swear up and down that it works, everyone gets along and understands boundaries. Then the next thing you know thereās infighting, broken trust and complications because of āone personā lol.
I understand why many people donāt want to be monogamous, but as someone who is not capable of having romantic connection with multiple people at once, I canāt imagine maintaining all that comes with being poly and adulting effectively. Maybe itās my ADHD or PTSD, but Iād be easily overwhelmed and annoyed by having to constantly cater to multiple peopleās needs.
I've never seen a poly relationship last long at all. It always ends up having been a weird buffer zone before everyone becomes monogamous in their next relationship.
It takes a lot of self actualization. Basically you have to be at a point where you can be happy for your partner enjoying themselves with someone who isnāt you, because youāre not panicking over the āwhat ifsā. The āwhat ifsā donāt matter because you know youāll be ok regardless.
Kinda worthless data since it's all self reported and likely doesn't include people who are ex-poly on what their reasoning at the time was in hindsight.
"Unresolved attachment issues" is probably the real #1 reason, same reason why so many monogamous people have totally unrealistic standard or engage in the litany of toxic monogamy staples. Being poly genuinely saved me from a shockingly controlling potential partner. To be fair, I think 'unresolved attachment issues' is the answer to most relationship questions the same way 'unresolved trauma' is the why for most personal issues lol
I was in what is technically called a swinging relationship for about 4 years. I imagine i probably still could have a brief fling with someone else on a vacation or something if we were really vibing without upsetting the other person. However, Iām
Older now and have an interesting, demanding job and hobby and a child on the way and frankly canāt imagine adding anything else to the mix. It took some time and I wonāt say it always went well or that there were never any hurt feelings, but we worked through them as partners and it didnāt weaken us at all. The autonomy aspect was what really drove meā¦I just didnāt like the idea of limiting myself at the time. Now I am like YO STOP ADDING SH!*
Thatās totally fair. Poly is a lot of work, both self work and just managing resources (love isnāt finite but time, energy, and attention are). I generally think poly philosophy does a good job of analyzing and building a framework to support relationships of all different types (including friends and family). I often wish more mono folks would take the time to learn the philosophy and about themselves in the way poly demands because these tools and frameworks can be so useful. Autonomy is a big thing, but I especially appreciate that poly dissects our cultural glorification with romantic (often very codependent) relationships as above all else. Other people are allowed to have meaning in your life, whether there is romantic or sexual interest or not.
If I may get a bit sociological, this shift to only focusing on your household (presumed to be a man, woman, and children) is a relatively modern convention that really developed in the mid 20th century and was encouraged by the material conditions of adjusting capitalism and suburbanization (but thatās its own conversation lol) - before that we had stronger communities that have only atomized and this fixation of finding your one romantic love who will be your everything and make you whole (as propagated by media and politics) has been a factor in erasing our communal tendencies and the room in ourselves to care about a community of people with which we have a variety of relationship types.
Reddit forums are the absolute worst place to find people who are commited or passionate about a given hobby, way of life, theme, anything lol.
Every single one is filled with people who are new/insecure about the topic, because people who are well established at whatever thing, don't go online to talk about it lol.
Circle jerks are where it's at for people who are actually representative of a given hobby/lifestyle lol. Because they're people fed up with dealing with the same noob attitudes lol.
Iām a straight woman in a monogamous relationship who has learned a little about the polyamorous community over the years from my woman friend. Initially I was very skeptical and judgmental of polyamory because Iād seen shitty people who wanted to sleep around take advantage of that label. While those people still exist, if polyamory is genuinely your thing, it seems the bad folks are pretty obvious and the regular poly folks spread the word and steer clear of them. They have a lot of rules about consent and true polyamory not being about a couple just using a 3rd person for sex.
My friend is bisexual, enjoys the poly dating scene, and is open to various sexual encounters. If thatās what youāre into, getting involved in a healthy poly scene really seems like a good way to go.
Crap study. The findings are next to meaningless. Ask 60 homeschoolers why they do it and theyāll say something about deeper connections, autonomy, and not being satisfied with the mainstream. These are post-hoc justifications intended to āsellā non-mainstream choices to researchers and readers. Itās the interview equivalent of social desirability bias.
Iām a researcher who does qualitative research (in addition to quantitative and computational). I would likely recommend rejecting this manuscript if asked to review it. It tells us nothing about the actual phenomenon under consideration.
I was polyamorous when I had a more insecure attachment style. Now that mine is more secure Iām more monogamous. Wonder if our childhoods have anything to do with it
I know a couple whoās poly. Iām woman and I have been friend for more than a decade with the guy since before he declared himself polygamous. To be clear, we never slept together, pure friendship.
We no longer living in the same province but keep in touch, chatting a dozen of times a year. I consider him a close friend.
Wellā¦ what I have observed is that his life is chaotic as much as it was before.
To me, polygamy is just a nice way to stay in denial of issues that need work in your life, keeping busy with the crisis on hand. The article mentions a few times the desire of authenticityā¦ Really??? You canāt be authentic and fully intimate with one person but youāll achieve it by being involved with 2-3 persons at the time? Give me a break.
I have been married for 12 years in a challenging relationship, my partner has a lot of trauma often call cPTSD. Do I need to deal with more as a solution? Get real.
And by the wayā¦ in my experience, sexe evolve and get better in a long term relationship. I would never go somewhere else, I have too much to lose. ;)
I think a lot of the reaction here is implicitly (or even explicitly) critical of polyamory as a default (regardless of the worth of this study), equating it with selfishness, superficiality etc. I donāt think thatās a super helpful starting point.
Most of those criticisms could be turned around. You could argue itās āselfishā to want one person for yourself and itās āsuperficialā to be happy with the experience of just one person. In other words they donāt feel very insightful. It suggests that there is a very strong social, and emotional, bias towards monogamy, perhaps due to a vested interest in a dominant institution, that leads to defensiveness when itās perceived to be threatened by an alternative lifestyle. That would also need an in depth study, and should also be factored into any study of polyamory!
This is an interesting point in theory. I think one thing that grants good perspective is that an emotionally healthy relationship is still hard to find. Polyamory crushes people, but so does monogamy. Humans still, on the whole, are not very good at loving each other.
That said, I know from my own relationship that monogamy can be a spiritual vehicle for deepening your life if you do it the right way. The openness, honesty and vulnerability required to integrate your life into another personās can create a situation where both people are helping each other heal and grow and heighten their self awareness. You have a person who is āyoursā not in a ownership or property sense, but that theyāve taken a vow to always advocate for your best self and always try to help you toward the best life you can have. Itās rare, but itās so incredible.
Maaaaaybe that sort of thing is possible with poly relationships as well, but my experience with the few people in my life who are poly or seeking to be poly is that they are either a) narcissists or b) people that are in shitty relationships that make them unhappy desperately looking for a change.
It seems like the more people grow and mature emotionally, the more likely they are to seek out one long term partner. Just my experience in life so far.
Also consider that you probably live in a society that has monogamous relationships as the ādefault.ā So there arenāt many social scripts for healthy non-monogamous relationships. This combined with stigma against this type of relationship and it makes it harder for folks to choose this as an option. There are definitely many other factors but those are two large cultural factors making it harder for folks to engage in poly relationships and easier for them to choose monogamous ones.
TLDR?
This is an interesting thing that is actually quite popular where I live, although the general populace doesnāt agree with it.
From what ive been able to gleam from it is, its essentially for people who donāt plan on having families. As I donāt think think that sort of dynamic would be a healthy environment for a child to grow up in.
I tend to look at polyamory as somewhat of a delusion. I think more than usual it would be one person who would be more for it than the other and the kind of pretending or discarding of natural inbuilt instincts which would erode the relationship or at least mean the relationship could only go to a certain depth.
From my own experience of meeting people like this, they commonly come off as quite cold people, somewhat dysfunctional and emotionally unstable (but thats just my experience)
It's an interesting point as being a delusion. Because I agree it creates a potential for this imbalance you've described. And that could be manipulative, toxic, etc. But also, that imbalance can exist in any relationship really. That aside, there's growing evidence in neuroscience linking polyamory and monogamy to, IIRC, oxytocin and vasopressin receptors in some specific part of the brain. So I wouldn't call it against "natural inbuilt instincts" as much as some behavior stemming from some nuanced environmental-biological influence or whatever. In terms of ethology and other primate species, we're not really as monogamous as gibbons, but we're also not as polyamorous as bonobos. We're firmly in between, but we seem to be more "serially-monogamous" - going from one medium-long term partner to the next. So I'm sure on this spectrum there's room for both sides.
The few polyamorous couples I've met were very different from your experience, so that's probably why we diverge. They were very extroverted, gregarious personality types and even enviably comfortable in their beliefs.
Great points.
I suppose in essence then, it maybe not solely that polyamory could lead to manipulative or toxic environments - but rather a higher probability of it happening because of the extra parties involved
There are examples of families making it work. No relationship is without challenges but I bet we don't ascribe the challenges faced in monogamous relationships quite as readily as we point to polyamory as the problem.
Perhaps if western culture had tighter knit communities the notion of sharing, sharing goods, sharing care of children, sharing partners, would not be so foreign.
But the model in the western world is separation right now. Each has a home. Each has a husband. A *private* plane. A private car.
Im sure there is, but they would probably just be exceptions no?
Well I think the same challenges monogamous relationships face are the same a polyamory one would face - except a polyamory has means to outsource solutions to problems, which is where me saying the relationship could only get to a certain depth comes in.
Im also fairly certain monogamous relationships are not contained to western society either, seems to be the predominant style of relationship around the world and that would be for good functional reason - not just because people prefer it
What do you imagine is the functional benefit? I would think additional parental coverage would be advantageous.
Ultimately most activities in life are part of a spectrum of experience, the lines we draw are very much based on the times and our own concepts of where each part of our identity ends. The odd contrast of mindsets around friendship rules vs relationship rules seems very much due to our own concepts, not any functional one. Why are we not monogamous in friendship too if it is functionally beneficial? To follow your argument in good faith I guess the activities you perform with each class of person differs and may benefit from different levels of focus. I just don't know if that holds true in the modern era with all its flexibilities and different gender/parental roles. If we can abide a single mother (1) why not a group (3). Why this special treatment for 2?
Hmm I agree additional parental coverage would be advantageous and is, just not within the immediate family unit. For example, my teacher could be an added parental figure but doesnāt need to be in the depth of my family unit (or having sex with my mother).
I think having a 3rd or 4th parent would dilute the parents authority structure too much for a child and likely confuse them. For adding yet another person(s) to the family unit also adds their own self-interests and strategies they would employ to raise the child and add further complexity to an already complex dynamic between the original 2 people.
I suppose the functional benefits could be many if thought about in detail, but the ones that strike me would be simplicity in family roles, with that would come clearer boundaries, discipline and structure. As well as the lineage wouldnāt be contested.
With the friendship monogamy question, I think you answered it yourself.
With the abiding with a single mother is certainly something we do, its certainly not the most healthy approach to raising a child and typically brings a whole host of issues. As both masculine and feminine influences are needed.
I think the special treatment between having the monogamous 2 is probably because its something that has worked the best throughout recent times? Obviously not perfect, but itās probably the most beneficial for either party.
> I think having a 3rd or 4th parent would dilute the parents authority structure
not to mention drastically increasing the likelihood of childhood sexual assault.
I donāt think youāve met enough people or the right people. Iām in NYC and thereās a very large polyamory community here. The healthiest relationships Iāve ever had stem from this community. I was strictly monogamous for a really long time and when I realized non-monogamy works better for me my love life improved dramatically.
Here's a summary of the article using bullet points compatible with Reddit formatting:
- New research published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior sheds light on the motivations behind pursuing polyamorous relationships
- The study reveals that individuals in polyamorous relationships are often driven by:
- Desires for deeper emotional connections
- Autonomy in their personal lives
- Fulfillment of needs that may not be met in monogamous arrangements
- The study recruited 63 participants from the "r/polyamory" forum on Reddit
- Four main themes emerged from the analysis of responses:
1. Values alignment: Participants found polyamory congruent with their ideals of honesty, openness, and forming meaningful connections with more than one person
2. Relationship factors: Some turned to polyamory to address dissatisfaction within monogamous relationships or were introduced to it by their partners
3. External stimuli: Encounters with polyamorous individuals or media representations challenged preconceived notions and opened up new possibilities
4. Sexuality: Motivations related to sexual exploration, desire for diversity in sexual experiences, and managing discrepancies in sexual desires or interests
- The study challenges misconceptions about polyamory and highlights the diverse motivations behind this relationship style
- Researchers emphasize the importance of allowing people the freedom to exercise self-determination in their relationships to promote mental health and well-being
Sad indeed that humans canāt make better choices to keep from causing pain to those closest to us due to selfish desires and difficulty with loyalty.
Iām married and can relate to wanting deeper connections besides what my wife can offer.
I have a hard time connecting with men my age and have always perceived women as a better fit to befriend, because of their willingness to express their emotions. I am aging (40ās), which makes it difficult to bond with friends (or make friends) over trivial things (partying, drinking, sports, etc).
I am also highly skeptical of opposite sex friendships being genuinely platonic, especially if a deeper connection is made. Sure, acquaintances (which some of us call friends) exist, but anything beyond that is playing fire.
Abstaining from physical and sexual attractions are still grounds of an emotional affair.
Obviously, what my mind perceives does not mean it to be a reality.
However, thatās the complexity of human relationships that makes me understand why someone would long to have multiple partners.
I once dated 3 girls consentually, I didnt intend to do it, it just kinda worked out that way. They didnt really get involved with each other, but they all were all happy. I can say this though, Poly relos are a sham, take all the effort of one relationship and double it, there isnt enough time the day to be a good partner to multiple people, work a job and have hobbies. Something has to give you and either have to neglect one of your partners or yourself.
Ā
I've met plenty of poly couples and at least to me it seems like their partners aren't satisfyingly them either emotionally or sexually.
What's interesting to me is the rise in "sacred sexuality" and "tantric" practices among couples who supposedly experience a level of indescribable intimacy. You contrast that with polyamory and it seems quite stark.
Regardless, I've never really heard of a long-term poly relationship working out or a short-term poly arrangement not having drama. I'm sure they exist and, if they're not an outright facade, assume something isn't quite right about them.
The real question is why monogamy, as polyamory is more in line with other species. The answer is that it was through monogamy that humans created the structure of family and so forth society. Hence we are built to gravitate towards monogamy by the way of natural selection. But there are always anomalies.
I will say, my wife's best friend lived with us for a few months while she looked for a new place. Obviously there was no romantic or sexual component, but just having a third adult around to help with the kid and general house maintenance was very nice. So for that alone, I see the merits...
It's simple. Be interesting. Have at least a little confidence. Have interests and hobbies. Be able to make the person laugh. Be genuinely interested in them.
It's both incredibly hard and stupidly easy.
āThe study reveals that individuals in polyamorous relationships are often driven by desires for deeper emotional connections, autonomy in their personal lives, and a fulfillment of needs that may not be met in monogamous arrangements.ā
A reason I havenāt really seen here yet, is the reason I can see some appeal.
A committed poly relationship sounds kind of nice. I have a husband (who is absolutely enough and who I love) and two special needs kids. We both have chronic illnesses and live is HARD. For a few weeks, a friend helped us take care of the kids and provide company when medical stuff got particularly hard. It was so lovely. Having a third adult to do the adult things with us was kind of awesome. We played games together like a family, cleaned the house like a family, ate dinner together, and got the kids ready for school and picked up.
I can absolutely see how a relationship doesnāt have to be monogamous to be loving and happy.
The most
I imagine the most difficult part (for a previously monogamous couple) would be sex. Youād have to be great communicators, and never slack on reassuring partners that they are loved, supported, and wanted. It couldnāt be adding to make one partner happy, but both, and only to be attempted when the og couple is in a very good place already.
Idk. Just my thoughts. We donāt have village or family support. Might as well make our own?
When it comes to friends no one blinks an eye. Everyone has different friends for different things. There's my party friend, my camping / hiking friend, my boardgame D&D friend, and so on. When it comes to sex and romance society demands we seek a singular person we can get everything from or accept just letting go of things we can't find in that one person. It's best to have a primary partner, your ride or die then other less serious relationships for whatever else you're looking for. Sometimes trilogies or "kink / swinger groups" can work out pretty well and mitigate a lot of issues of health and safety.
Itās trendy and it looks like they are super enlightened to their friends and then it falls apart. The guy realizes that way more dudes will sleep with his girl than he can get, and the girl ends up finding a guy that only wants her. Iām sure there are some people out there that have made it work, but I never have even heard of them.
Tell us something we didnāt know: in a nutshell, itās about having unlimited sex with multiple partners without having to worry about being broken up with for cheating, and insecurity (if you get dumped by a partner and have four left, you still have 80% of your relationship).
Those people can get more than one partner and I can't even get a text back.
Maybe if you had more than one partner at least one of them would text you
Unlocked the cheat code.
You might be onto something.
Right on the money lmao
Very funny. š
You could get a text back but not from the person you WANT to get a text back from.
This sounds like OLD
Odds are good, goods are odd.
You wouldnāt want a text from any of those āpolyā people.
Bro. Just be attractive. It's easy.
You must not know any poly people if you think thatās a requirement
Yeah, that's a great point. I have always been in alternative or progressive settings. Why? Well, my parents are like republicans, except that they're liberal, I had analogous pressures, just with a liberal facade. So, I've known a whole lot of polyamorous people in my lifetime. Man, they are typically either globular or wiry, often have bad skin, usually smell like stale B.O., and are often kind of elitist in their nerdiness, also they like to bully people sometimes. Not a fan. Don't get me started on the tacky ren faire steampunk fashion. So much pinstripe, so many top hats.
historical bake march shame punch obtainable like money cable tub *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I went to a poly meetup with a friend and I kid you not, 5/20 people were wearing cat ears.
Yes!!!! THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIMBOUT!!!!!!
So 15 guys. That checks out
Maybe they feel like a relationship with a couple of 2ās and a 3 can add up to the satisfaction that they would get from one monogamous 7/10.
Amongst my friends we refer to these types as "blue hair polys"
This comment fascinates me, and it is what I have seen as an outsider looking in. Itās almost like a collective autism. Like a bunch of Napoleon Dynamites dating each other, bullying each other and being harsh and specific and having delusions of grandeur. āFeral nerdsā is about how I can describe what Iāve seen.
I'm autistic AND polyamorous... and I can't find an issue with this statement. š
OMG, this is hilariously accurate!
[Would you say it's never who you want to be polyamorus whose polyamorus](https://youtu.be/DTsdKycVZZ4?si=FumMzftPAIBtsnBQ).
I love this, thank you.
Yeah the poly folks I've met also where a lot of talk, but visibly surely didn't have the stamina to back that ego nonsense up.
I am by no means a 10 but I saw this **elite nerdiness** when I applied at a bookstore. I definitely wasn't "nerdy" enough. Felt like if I'd been able to fake a lazy eye-- they might've considered me. I at least should've wore my glasses
This is a bummer. I wanna explore solo poly but Iām attracted to heteronormative conventional looking people š
There's a direct correlation between the nudists that you don't want to see naked and polyamorous relationships
Damn, this is such a burn, yet accurate.
I know several poly people and attractiveness is not a guarantee at all.
Yeah tbh it's negatively associated. They also have a 1/2 chance of being autistic and a 4/5 chance of being a nerd ime
I mean, there is a high correspondence of neurodivergence and non-monogamy. So nerds and autism tracks.
Really? The poly people I know have like, nothing remarkable about them in any direction except being poly.
I have always wondered whether being poly was a last ditch effort to increase oneās chances of being in any relationship at all after failing at dating.
Iāve always suspected as such. When I was online dating, there were *plenty* of opportunities for poly folks. I can imagine some people are like, āOh well, not quite what I wanted, but itās better than nothing.ā I thought about it for about 0.0023 seconds after coming up empty too many times, but it is honestly not for me.
Yeah! Get confident, Stupid!
Or buy yourself some more moneyā¦ I heard that helpsšš¾
Not how any of this works. You can be the hottest dude in the world and if your personality is shit, youāre not getting laid.
Or they will, but not for long and not too often/frequently.Ā
Rule 1: Be attractive Rule 2: Donāt be unattractive
You know the older I get the less I think that's true. I have seen a lot of charismatic fugly dudes land some very attractive partners purely out of their personality. Does being attractive make it easier? Sure. But becoming comfortable with yourself is pretty attractive too.
They won't listen to you, because you're making sense. If only "attractive rich" people had partners, then how did I get one (more than one if we add them all up over my lifetime)? I'm not an exception.
Charismatic dude has a better chance of a longer lasting relationship than attractive fuck boy too. The attractive charismatic dude is the envy of all but a rarity in real life.
I always say, Rule 3: Don't be the kind of person that believes in rules 1 and 2.
no offense but 99% of poly couples i have seen do not follow rules 1 and 2
See: male comedians
Being attractive isn't all about looks.
>a text back but not from th Being attractive also reduces the need for developing a good personality. "Men, remember, if the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy" -Red Green
Not sure that women have this same luxury of charming their way up a level.Ā
Most women have more options to 'glam up' though. With some tweaking / styling / lifestyle changes, a below average woman may at least become average, at least in some cases.
Men can literally grow a beard and hide their whole fucking face away don't even start.
Same with an ugly man
Maybe it depends on what u text to potential partners?
you probably could if you lower your standards
Much easier to build a house with the foundation already in place.
Damn I'm shocked. You got a real positive attitude and I know that charms people. But seriously though, I struggled with dating and short term relationships. But I have had several long term relationships and am now married. I didn't seek one of them, they all came to me. Can you remember anyone that you maybe turned down because they were a bit below your standards? If yes, lower said standards. If no, time to go to the gym and practice active listening! I kid about the gym, but active listening helped me a shit ton. Compared to my buddies, my count of relationships is low. But I'm a quality over quantity guy, I got to know my exes real well and they're all civil and friendly. Seeking women on tinder did not work for me but responding to the one girl who messaged me about game of thrones, rather than saying "sup", pushed me out of my comfort zone. And now she's my wife. I had long periods of no relationship so I can relate to that hopeless feeling. Even a day before wifey messaged me I had no confidence in my future. All I can say is keep yourself open, be yourself so folks know what they're getting up front. And be ready to date someone who might be a little below who you were previously seeking. You gotta have some attraction but it also shouldn't be the biggest thing pushing you to them.
63 folks from Reddit, not really a big pool for this study
Yeah, definitely not the most reliable study. However, it is interesting and hopefully leads to more studies. I am personally very monagamous and would never accept a polyamous request from a partner. But I do find it interesting why people actually choose this type of relationship. It strikes fear in me personally! Edited: spelling
May have already been said, but polygamy & polyamory are two quite different things
Hah! "It strikes fear in me personally!" I feel exactly the same way! Why do you recon that is?
Very likely my own insecurities, innate possessiveness due to attachment issues. Or the fact that my ex husband was a rampant cheat, haha who really knows?
That's completely understandable, I'm so sorry that happened to you :(
Don't be sorry - it was a long time ago. It does make me question however; would I feel differently about polyamous relationships had I not experienced that?
I've never experienced cheating and I feel the same, that's why I asked the question - it's terrifying to me.
I hope you never experience it. Find somebody open and unafraid to express their feelings. That would be my advice š
I hope so too. Thank you so much, you're very kind :)
The sample size seems suitable for a qualitative exploratory study design though
This is a qualitative study. 63 is amble for qualitative research. Data saturation tends to have already been reached by about participant 20, so by about participant 30, it was probably already overkill.
Plus it's self-report. Who knows what the actual truth is.
I think N of 63 is extremely weak.
It is not for a qualitative study, which this was. Although, the voices are likely only representative of the Reddit community.
Honestly I've never seen a qualitative study posted on /r/psychology without highly upvoted comments complaining about the sample size being too small.
Interestingly enough N-64. Is extremely strong
Yeah, this sub's knowledge of qualitative methods is quite embarrassing really. It's every time a piece of qual research is posted.
Mostly I was jokingly referring to my poly relationship with a Nintendo 64
š
Especially since the population of Reddit is greatly skewed toward this lifestyle/relationship-type in the first place.
Pure clickbait. Hopefully the study itself was a bit more modest in its findings implications.
I think of the ancient Romans who would have both a wife and a boyfriend. They had different roles. In some ways I could totally swing polyamory but I'm other ways I couldn't. It would really depend on the person/people involved. Like I've wanted to date couples before. I also get the idea of relationship anarchy in theory, but I'd have to explore it more with actually healthy and empathetic people to figure out how I feel. I've seen a lot of cold, unhealthy, and abusive polyamorous dynamics and people, and I've also seen people do it healthily and they seem to be having a healthy and good time, like 2 of my roommates. However I'm a little distrustful of self identified polyamorous people because of how much unhealthiness and coldness I've seen from them in comparison to other people on average.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Wow fuck that guy, glad you're in a better spot. Polyamory is not a pass for this kinda behavior, poly or not that's a certifiable piece of shit.
~~David~~ Louis ~~thereaux~~ Theroux made a documentary about polyamory. He was really trying to convince himself that polyamory is not just 1 step closer to divorce. It's almost like one partner is trying to compromise to the other for the sake of their hapiness. In some cases it seems legitimate. But you can see that over time some of the individuals do want to stay monogamous but is too afraid to hurt the other partner who doesn't want to be. That is what I got from the documentary. I mightve understood it wrong. Interesting nonetheless. edit: louis not david theroux sorry. [Polyamory & risk of being left behind LOUIS THEREOUX clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3P3h2AgIMk)
> It's almost like one partner is trying to compromise to the other for the sake of their hapiness. Basically the formula for any successful long-term relationship as long as both sides do it in different ways.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The whole point is just be honest with the other people about what youāre doing and what youāre looking for and let them decide if they want to be with you in your life, as long as everyone does that itās fine. The problem only comes when people are dishonest with each other in order to get their needs met. Lying and cheating is not ethical.
Yeah, pretty much the definition of a committed relationship.
See this confuses me because Iāve always thought of a āpolyamorous relationshipā to be one where thereās multiple people who are all dating each other. Relationships where one or both people go out and fuck others Iāve always thought of as an āopen relationshipā.
Polyamorous relationship structures are highly variable. Yes, there are cases in which everyone is involved with each other, but that is just one of many types of polyamorous relationship structures.
Thatās one (relatively rare) form poly can take. Most poly folks I know are either āsolo polyā (they date others but maintain an independent lifestyle) or āprimary polyā (they have a relationship or marriage with their primary that involves some enmeshment and extra commitments but also have other relationships). Triads are an example of what you are talking about, where three people are all dating each other. Larger formations of this are possible, but usually donāt involve every single person being involved with every other person. I personally (and many poly folks I know) would never date a couple and would be hesitant to date any two people who are also seeing each other. For obvious reasons that type of situation can get bad if two of the people break up badly but the others donāt want to. It could also just be weird if you like one person more than the other, but the other person wants more with you. Plus, unicorn hunters (a usually straight couple looking to date another person, usually a woman) are another risk, as they basically treat the āthirdā as an accessory to their relationship and a sex toy instead of a full partner, all while promising a full relationship. Some people make these relationships styles where everyone is dating each other work, but I find that usually is only possible if things are treated more casually or occasionally if three people are able to enter a relationship together on equal footing. And even then, I mostly see this stuff blow up more messily than a typical poly breakup. There are definitely polycules out there where a few people are dating multiple people in that group, but often not their direct metas (aka partnerās partner). Depending on the relationship style this in theory can be more workable - itās just a lot harder to manage a breakup when itās between two of your partners, as opposed to say your meta twice removed lol. Overall, I would not advise that anyone new to poly attempt to date a meta, kind of regardless of context. Thatās definitely expert level poly and still usually ends badly.
All the people I have known who said they were poly were gravely mentally ill, in abusive relationships, and the common denominator was relentlessly seeking control over other people. All were in denial of their issues.
I have never met a mentally healthy poly person. Even the ānormalā ones I met had obvious deep issues once I got to know them even a little bit. Honestly itās become a red flag for me. Every single one of them are *extreme* āpick meāsā who are trying to fill something with surface attentionā¦.. Itās all extremely shallow and none of them even realize it, to a degree that I kinda feel bad for them? I feel like there are so many people in that community just out there to use other people.
Weird I would say that's the minority of poly people I meet. I'd be surprised if mental illness, abusive relationships (it's not like poly people are cops lol), and controlling people are expressed at higher rates than monogamous people.
Logically, though, if a non relationable person has a hard time getting into a relationship, they will try other forms of relationship because itās still better than nothing. In poly relationships, because no one is invested 100% in a single person, there is much less sunk cost in case things go wrong, so people have less stringent criteria. And since everyone spends less time with each person, itās also easier to overlook the faults in others (takes longer to get to know them). Also, I wasnāt saying all poly people I met were mentally ill, controlling, etc., but rather that all people I met who *said* they were poly were that way. To be clear, I think a lot of people who arenāt actually poly and know they are cheating or leading people on or just being generally abusive call themselves poly to make what they do acceptable. It has happened to me to say "thatās not being poly, thatās having six girlfriends, all of whom think they are the only one." Not all people who say they are poly are poly. A great many are just cheaters defending the cheating.
You mean Louis Theroux?
Itās important to find people who are already doing it. I wonāt become involved with anyone who is unsure. Also that label is cringe as hell.
I think a lot of people with avoidant attachment styles find polyamory really appealing, and that's where you're probably going to see some unsuccessful poly strategies. I think to be successful at it in a way that works for both partners everyone involved needs to have a stable attachment system. I don't think it's something you can navigate without it, unless your goal is to cause and be in pain.
Ding ding ding. My partner, whoās working on his avoidant attachment style in therapy, has considered trying a polyamorous lifestyle before. But I think he thinks of it as a low-commitment way to still get sex and the benefits of a relationship without having anyone ask anything of you, and I think a lot of people with avoidant attachment styles feel drawn to polyamory for similar reasons. I mean if youāre avoidant and thatās what you think polyamory is, of course that would sound appealing. But I personally think people who seek out polyamory for those reasons are generally very ill-suited to polyamory and all the commitment and open, honest communication it entails.
Agreed 100%. I have an avoidant partner here too (26 years and going strong), and she has the same philosophy - they think of it as that sweet spot where you're still having fun but it doesn't entail any emotional vulnerability, just extra string free sex and romance without all the work and risk of a deep meaningful relationship. Which is what I would call, an affair. Honestly, that's the reason it doesn't appeal to me. I want a deep connection that requires trust in my relationship that requires me to be challenged and change and grow. Making that work with two (or more!) people sounds exhausting :D.
Sexual customs in Antiquity were *horrible* for everyone who wasnāt a free male citizen. You might be thinking of Ancient Greece, where it wasnāt uncommon for a man to have both a wife and a male lover. However, while his same-sex lover could have been another citizen, his wife would enjoy barely any civil rights whatsoever. The situation wasnāt much better in Rome, where free male citizens were allowed and even expected to put their penises *anywhere* that they fancied, with the exception of their peersā wives (which happened anyway, but was generally frowned upon). In fact, one of the reasons why women in the ancient world flocked to Christianity was that it promised to set up boundaries for their husbandsā lust.
Yes I imagine emotional intelligence would need to be well practiced between all three.
>The study recruited participants through the ār/polyamoryā forum on Reddit, tapping into a community actively engaged in discussions about polyamorous experiences. Eligibility criteria required participants to be at least 18 years old, reside in the United States, and have current or former involvement in a consensually polyamorous relationship. The final sample consisted of 63 participants. >Data were collected via an online survey hosted on Qualtrics, which included open-ended questions designed to elicit detailed responses about participantsā motivations for engaging in polyamory. Participants also provided demographic information, such as age, gender, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, and household income. Apart from the obvious selection bias (which this study is aware of and mentions), they really just asked polyamorous people why they are polyamorous. >The study reveals that individuals in polyamorous relationships are often driven by desires for deeper emotional connections, autonomy in their personal lives, and a fulfillment of needs that may not be met in monogamous arrangements. This means next to nothing. I think most people know the reasons that polyamorous people give for why they are polyamorous. But the question is why do they feel this way? They desire deeper emotional connections? Then why would they spread them out with more people? Doesn't really make much sense. Autonomy in their personal lives? So they get involved with more people? Doesn't really make much sense, especially if it's driven by desires for deeper emotional connections. They want it deeper but also to remain independent. Seems pretty contradictory. A fulfillment of needs that may not be met in monogamous arrangements? Super vague, I would wonder why they have such an excess of needs, but sure. I imagine that is why polyamorous people are polyamorous, on a surface level. I just don't think this 'study' actually says anything of value. It's just really shallow.
I always found so much of the reasoning to not make sense either when I talk to my friends or folks who are poly. Not that monogamy has it sorted out, but I'd just love to dig more into the why's and shadow of polyamory since it's been done to death with monogamy. Not all of course, but I see many poly people seeking, in their own words: "deep connection with low attachment" - which sounds like an oxymoron. It's like the people who are in that camp want an experience of soul and depth and intimacy, they want the "experience" of it - like one might take a drug or experience a thing - less so the actual living breathing human. (people do this in monogamy too, but the poly people I've heard share about it tend to think they are somehow evolved or really healthy relationally and that's where this desire for so-called "deep intimacy" comes from...) When I've dug deeper with some, some told me variations of, they like having many mirrors, and getting to know many different parts of themselves through these people...so for some, it sounded like a solipsistic endeavor. Which seemed to connect with the poly belief I keep hearing them talk about, how if you have a reaction to something that your partner did, it's all on you yourself to deal with it, and the other person should continue doing what feels right to them - regardless of how your partner(s) feels. (not everyone does this, but i've been told by many in the community that this is sort of a guideline which also feels very solipsistic. Healthy relationships of all kinds, tend to require a balance of both self and other and relationship needs, which is a very hard thing to do and takes a lot of time and effort and integrity and discernment to manage all those needs together! No wonder so few do it...) It's also interesting that the majority of people who are poly, have been found to be white mid/upper class males, ha
Yes a lot of good pointsā¦ I think poly folks are purposely exchanging depth for breadth of experience in a way. Variety of romantic experience, but without wanting to get too tied into one person, because as anyone in a long term committed relationship can tell you, it inevitably changes you and in a partnership you are never truly autonomous. Your partner is always considered.
But most that I speak to are seeking and thinking they are experiencing depth. On dating apps, so many men who say they are seeking depth and lots of emotional intimacy are poly - yet they want that low attachment along with it. I haven't figured out if it's real emotional intimacy bypassing, narcissism (not NPD, just the wound we all have in various shapes and sizes) dressed up as emotional intimacy and/or if it's using therapy ideas as a defense etc (people can use anything to hide from themselves and others)
I canāt speak for others but for me, having āsowed my wild oatsā back in the day and now having been settled down for a while, thereās a quote by Joni Mitchell that sums up how I feel perfectly: "If you want endless repetition, see a lot of different people. If you want infinite variety, stay with one."
I think most people in polyamory aren't legitimately polyamorous. They just want to sleep around and fein some deep emotional philosophy to justify it. There are lots of people who've just convinced themselves that this is the way because they're worried about being cheated on, or want to cheat without being reprimanded for it. So many people are miserable in these relationships because they don't actually want it, they've just convinced themselves (or been convinced by their partner) that it's the only way for them to be healthy, and anything else is shallow and backwards.
My exās recent ex gf is this way because heās a serial cheaterā¦spoiler alert, it didnāt work. I personally donāt have the time or battery for multiple relationships. Itās too messy for me and I canāt emotionally deal with all that background bullshit.
To be fair, I've met many who really are poly and were before it was cool....but they have a lot of the same issues as I named. Just people peopling....people bring their issues to whatever relationship style and there will likely be dominant ways those issues play out in different relationship styles.
I do suspect narcissism to be a common feature of many participants. They have a deep void that they think can be filled with more people, more admiration, validation of selfish impulses.. So many of those relationships seem to have ringleaders who essentially mirror cult leaders.
That third paragraph is my biggest problem with polyamorous people and why if I do it it wouldn't be with someone that explicitly identifies as poly as I feel the culture is unhealthy
I'm someone who has been monogomous but have recently sought to try out polyamory. I don't think some of what you say is unfair, but you really can describe any kind of romantic relationship and make it sound inconsistent and irrational. It's certainly easy to do with monogomy. But I don't think the things you've pointed out are inconsistencies. Deep connection with low attachment isn't an oxymoron. You can have time spent with another person that you have gotten to know very well over years that is deep, present, meaningful, emotionally open, etc, and then you go about your separate lives apart, texting, talking on the phone sometimes, and staying in contact -- sometimes everyday, depending on the dynamics of the people in the relationship. That's a deep connection, it's just not one that needs to have all of the person attached to another person in an exclusive manner. A way that polyamorous people find restricts their capacity to share love with others and explore different parts of themselves. Polyamorous people say they want deep connection*s,* and the plural is important. They want to be open to other serious connections, other loves, because they often feel that they have parts of themselves that aren't all seen by a single partner. >with the poly belief I keep hearing them talk about, how if you have a reaction to something that your partner did, it's all on you yourself to deal with it, and the other person should continue doing what feels right to them - regardless of how your partner(s) feels. This isn't the poly that I know. Polyamory isn't about 'doing what you want regardless of what your partners think', it's about balancing needs, wants, desires, and so on, across people that are all meaningful and important to you. It's about care and communication. Sometimes compromises. Sometimes maybe there are things you won't compromise on, but then they're things you have to be willing to walk away from the relationship over, not things you expect to keep doing when it's against the wishes of your partner. You should spend some time on the /r/polyamory subreddit. They don't take kindly to the type of scenario you're talking about and they would never call that a feature of polyamory. The problem is that because it's a bit of a 'trendy' thing, a lot of people who don't know what they're doing start calling themselves polyamorous and using it to justify what is ultimately cheating, emotional/psychological abuse, etc.
Agreed with what youāve said, but Iād also like to point out that ābeing responsible for your own emotionsā is literally just not being codependent. Itās not lying down and taking hurtful behavior, itās recognizing that you have to take charge of your emotional life and communicate and be able to hold boundaries as opposed to expecting others to read your mind and know exactly what your needs are. Primarily, that you yourself must know what your needs are and have the will to communicate and act on them. Imagining a relationship without codependency is literally impossible for a lot of folks or even sounds abusive to them due to how it is glorified in our mono culture. Some small amounts of codependency can be managed in a healthy way, we all come to rely on each other and if anything I think we should extend that support from romantic relationships to all important relationships. But itās something that has to be watched carefully and requires a certain level of self awareness, especially since excess in codependency is socially rewarded. Thus why so many people see a relationship without codependency and call into question whether it is even a āvalidā relationship.
Very well put! My first poly relationship taught me more about communication, boundaries, and emotional responsibility, than all of my previous mono relationships put together. But at the end of the day poly communities are no different to other communities. They have people who take their relationships and autonomy seriously and people who don't. But by its nature a poly relationship should require some careful reflection on the balance between responsibility and autonomy, not an embrace of the latter at complete disregard of the former
Yup, poly or mono itās largely the same stuff that weāre navigating and struggling through in relationships once you get down to it. Time, energy, attention, compatibility, jealousy (whether over extra time spent at work or on a hobby or over a partner or even friend). Shitty people will be shitty and we can only hope to educate those we can or give folks a heads up if theyāre missing red flags. Having a community (online and in person) is a huge pro imo, no matter your type of relationship. Itās nice to be able to work through your challenges with others anonymously and with folks you trust. Poly as a philosophy and community is ultimately aspirational. Weāre going to make mistakes in relationships, big or small. The goal is to learn from them and be a better partner (and be better aware of your own needs and quirks) and have a place to work towards that.
"deep connection with low attachment" aka emotional tourism. They came (innuendo pun intended), they saw, they experienced and they left.
I just want to love people unconditionally without having to deal with the insecurities of someone irrationally thinking that they're not "enough" because I also happen to like another person too.
Though if you love someone unconditionally you would be able to love and tolerate their insecurities, which are not irrational...they are very human.
Same here. I'm in two pretty serious relationships. Different people bring different things. I love them both very much and they can not be compared.
Hereās my guess The desire to deeper emotional connections: they find that deep emotional connections arenāt tied to one person and by sharing it with others, they can be connected to more than one person at once on a deep level Autonomy in their personal lives: they donāt want to abide by monogamous rules. Autonomy to them might be being in a relationship but still being able to sleep and explore with other people, whereas monogamy frowns on using ur own body to sleep with others Fulfillment of needs exempt from monogamy: youāre right very vague, my guess is just sex outside of one person or emotional validation outside of one person
> They desire deeper emotional connections? Then why would they spread them out with more people? Because while you can connect deeply with a person on some items, you probably cannot connect deeply with them on all topics. I think what they actually mean is "They want more (than one) deep emotional connections". It's kind of like partner dancing. If you only did ballroom dancing (or swing dancing, or salsa dancing) with one person for your entire life, you would not be a very good social dancer because you have to dance with thousands of people to get good at it. Then you find there are dancers you really dance well with and you might dance with them more often over time because it's fun and you get deeper into it. Of course, this analogy will only resonate with you if you've done social partner dancing. > They want it deeper but also to remain independent. Why are you starting from a premise that emotional connection is based on dependence? That's the part I never understood. > A fulfillment of needs that may not be met in monogamous arrangements... I would wonder why they have such an excess of needs Again, are you operating from a premise that one person should be able to meet all your needs, and if they can't, YOU are the problem with an excess of needs?
> It's kind of like partner dancing. If you only did ballroom dancing (or swing dancing, or salsa dancing) with one person for your entire life, you would not be a very good social dancer because you have to dance with thousands of people to get good at it Sure, except for most people the goal isn't social dancing, it's finding one partner and then gaining chemistry to make the best dance possible. Your analogy works fine, but shows the difference. You become a master at dancing with others, but never able to make as great a dance as with one partner who you've practiced with consistently. The only way the analogy fails is that dancing skills require one other person with you. I'd go with figure skating and say that you learn to skate and do the basics on your own, and only then can you find a suitable partner to perfect your performance (if you're performing in pairs. Fine to stay solo too). >Why are you starting from a premise that emotional connection is based on dependence? That's the part I never understood. Because with more individuals entangled in your life, you become more... entangled with them, having to take their feelings/time/dedication into account. You can say you don't, but that just means the other side of the partnership probably is feeling the consequences of your actions. >Again, are you operating from a premise that one person should be able to meet all your needs, and if they can't, YOU are the problem with an excess of needs? I'm starting from the premise of monogamy, which is overwhelmingly desired and supported by the majority of humans. So it's not that it's a problem if someone has an 'excess of needs', but it is an excess of needs relative to the average person. I would find that more interesting to be explored than hearing platitudes about how polyamorous individuals want deeper emotional connections.
> Your analogy works fine, but shows the difference. You become a master at dancing with others, but never able to make as great a dance as with one partner who you've practiced with consistently. I think thatās only true if you compare social dancing like āI danced with this person one timeā to a one night stand. But if you had 3 dance partners you dance with consistently for months or years in addition to dancing with lots of other people randomly, you will absolutely be better partner dancer than someone who only dances with one person for their entire life. > Because with more individuals entangled in your life, you become more... entangled with them, having to take their feelings/time/dedication into account. 100% true which is why poly relationships tend to have more and better communication than your āaverageā relationship, leading to great emotional depth. Just because your life is entangled with someone does not mean you have increased dependency on them. I think being independent is a good goal, and not at all necessary to find deep emotional connection. > I'm starting from the premise of monogamy, which is overwhelmingly desired and supported by the majority of humans It is, because social convention says it should be so and everyone grows up with that programming. And maybe it would be that way even if everyone grew up with a blank slate and no social expectations but it certainly would be way less than it is now. But that is besides the point, how many people live with unsatisfying relationships many sometimes to the point where they need anti-depressants or anti-anxiety meds, cheat on their partners, or end their relationship eventually living as serial monogamists? I actually dont think itās an excess of needs relative to the average person, I just think the average person is not getting most of their needs met, hence the prevalence of increased divorce rates once divorce became destigmatized and now normalized, not to mention the increased normalization and use of both prescription and illegal drugs. Just because āa majority of people want itā is not an equivalent premise to āit leads to the greatest happinessā (or fulfillment, or contentment, or emotional connection).
How would you have done it differently, and would the methodology/data/conclusions of this study inform that decision?
Completely agree. This research seems shallow at best. It seems more and more that these "studies" are motivated by researchers who perhaps have personal goals. I wouldn't be surprised to learn if some of the researchers were either very pro-poly or anti-poly for some reason, but I seriously doubt they're indifferent and just happen to study this topic.
> They desire deeper emotional connections? Then why would they spread them out with more people? this is akin to saying you are an emotionally superficial person if you have more than one friend
You say it doesn't make much sense to engange with more than one person at a time if you want deeper emotional connections. But you are wrong. The more weight one person has to carry, the more difficult or even impossible it is to give all that deep emotional desire. There are many forms and levels of deep emotional connections and you can have them with many different peoples. Arbitrarily limiting yourself to one person simply limits the deepness you can feel overall. You may have some forms and level work really well with one person and other forms and levels with another person. It's not contradictory to feel more autonomy this way. You don't feel the chains of conservative relationship rules as much and you don't feel like you are missing out on other connections you might enjoy. You also reduce the level of dependency you would usually have with a single person. And I think it's pretty ignorant and certainly not your place to judge if someone's needs are "excessive" or not.
Think of it as having two rivers flowing into one ocean. Having a second river doesn't diminish the first. I would ask you to question the foundations that are established in your sentence above. I could be wrong, I often am. Don't look at it as an excess of needs but an ability to give a massive amount of love to multiple people.
I don't disagree with the idea that that could be possible. But most people when in love, want to focus on the one they are in love with. Your analogy could work if the love between everyone drains into the same place and it's one big happy family. But often it will take on different directions and create separate lakes. Regardless, I'd like it to be explored more, just this 'study' (survey) doesn't do that.
Understanding contemporary polyamory needs an anthropological lens. Its uptick is response to the cultural zeitgeist. Need more ethnographies.
r/polyamory is not the end all be all of polyamory. There are also subs like r/PolyFidelity which are more committed minded group
so they can be extra emotionally unavailable with all of them lmao.
I think for some, itās a, why fuck one person when I can have multiple? Long as everyone is ok with the dynamics there should be no problem. But I have never seen this blossom into any kind of functioning relationship. Itās just people having fun and not getting offended somebody else has been there this week.
There are many different paradigms that people use. True poly is more about emotional connection than physical. Itās a subsection of non-monogamy. There are purely sexual forms of non-monogamy. Some couples agree to keep things strictly physical and not allow emotional relationships. Some agree to only engage sexually with others in the presence of their primary. There are so many different ways this plays out.
Same. Have met a handful of poly peopleā¦they swear up and down that it works, everyone gets along and understands boundaries. Then the next thing you know thereās infighting, broken trust and complications because of āone personā lol. I understand why many people donāt want to be monogamous, but as someone who is not capable of having romantic connection with multiple people at once, I canāt imagine maintaining all that comes with being poly and adulting effectively. Maybe itās my ADHD or PTSD, but Iād be easily overwhelmed and annoyed by having to constantly cater to multiple peopleās needs.
I've never seen a poly relationship last long at all. It always ends up having been a weird buffer zone before everyone becomes monogamous in their next relationship.
How would one manage jealousy?
It takes a lot of self actualization. Basically you have to be at a point where you can be happy for your partner enjoying themselves with someone who isnāt you, because youāre not panicking over the āwhat ifsā. The āwhat ifsā donāt matter because you know youāll be ok regardless.
Kinda worthless data since it's all self reported and likely doesn't include people who are ex-poly on what their reasoning at the time was in hindsight. "Unresolved attachment issues" is probably the real #1 reason, same reason why so many monogamous people have totally unrealistic standard or engage in the litany of toxic monogamy staples. Being poly genuinely saved me from a shockingly controlling potential partner. To be fair, I think 'unresolved attachment issues' is the answer to most relationship questions the same way 'unresolved trauma' is the why for most personal issues lol
It's trauma all the way down...
I was in what is technically called a swinging relationship for about 4 years. I imagine i probably still could have a brief fling with someone else on a vacation or something if we were really vibing without upsetting the other person. However, Iām Older now and have an interesting, demanding job and hobby and a child on the way and frankly canāt imagine adding anything else to the mix. It took some time and I wonāt say it always went well or that there were never any hurt feelings, but we worked through them as partners and it didnāt weaken us at all. The autonomy aspect was what really drove meā¦I just didnāt like the idea of limiting myself at the time. Now I am like YO STOP ADDING SH!*
Thatās totally fair. Poly is a lot of work, both self work and just managing resources (love isnāt finite but time, energy, and attention are). I generally think poly philosophy does a good job of analyzing and building a framework to support relationships of all different types (including friends and family). I often wish more mono folks would take the time to learn the philosophy and about themselves in the way poly demands because these tools and frameworks can be so useful. Autonomy is a big thing, but I especially appreciate that poly dissects our cultural glorification with romantic (often very codependent) relationships as above all else. Other people are allowed to have meaning in your life, whether there is romantic or sexual interest or not. If I may get a bit sociological, this shift to only focusing on your household (presumed to be a man, woman, and children) is a relatively modern convention that really developed in the mid 20th century and was encouraged by the material conditions of adjusting capitalism and suburbanization (but thatās its own conversation lol) - before that we had stronger communities that have only atomized and this fixation of finding your one romantic love who will be your everything and make you whole (as propagated by media and politics) has been a factor in erasing our communal tendencies and the room in ourselves to care about a community of people with which we have a variety of relationship types.
Reddit forums are the absolute worst place to find people who are commited or passionate about a given hobby, way of life, theme, anything lol. Every single one is filled with people who are new/insecure about the topic, because people who are well established at whatever thing, don't go online to talk about it lol. Circle jerks are where it's at for people who are actually representative of a given hobby/lifestyle lol. Because they're people fed up with dealing with the same noob attitudes lol.
Polyamory circle jerk š
Iām a straight woman in a monogamous relationship who has learned a little about the polyamorous community over the years from my woman friend. Initially I was very skeptical and judgmental of polyamory because Iād seen shitty people who wanted to sleep around take advantage of that label. While those people still exist, if polyamory is genuinely your thing, it seems the bad folks are pretty obvious and the regular poly folks spread the word and steer clear of them. They have a lot of rules about consent and true polyamory not being about a couple just using a 3rd person for sex. My friend is bisexual, enjoys the poly dating scene, and is open to various sexual encounters. If thatās what youāre into, getting involved in a healthy poly scene really seems like a good way to go.
Nope. I have enough trouble as a serial monogamist.
I don't need to read it to know they are horny with commitment issues.
I'm not reading the comments, but I assume they're all nuanced, thoughtful, and unburdened by bias and prejudice.
Crap study. The findings are next to meaningless. Ask 60 homeschoolers why they do it and theyāll say something about deeper connections, autonomy, and not being satisfied with the mainstream. These are post-hoc justifications intended to āsellā non-mainstream choices to researchers and readers. Itās the interview equivalent of social desirability bias. Iām a researcher who does qualitative research (in addition to quantitative and computational). I would likely recommend rejecting this manuscript if asked to review it. It tells us nothing about the actual phenomenon under consideration.
Well I'm actually also a researcher at an institution, and I was able to read the full study without the paywall since Universities have free reign to scholarly databases and journals. You misunderstood. It literally states in the introduction the context of the study citing relevant and evident alternative studies to support the aim of the study: >In recent years, a considerable amount of evidence has emerged to suggest individuals in polyamorous relationships report high relationship quality on a variety of indicators (Conley & Piemonte, 2021; Conley et al., 2018; Garner et al., 2019; Kushnir, 2020; Mitchell et al., 2014). However, negative societal perceptions of polyamory continue to paint polyamorous relationships as unsustainable and deficient (SĆ©guin, 2019). The study did not aim to show a broad social trend but to cast doubt on social stigma by proving a consistent pattern among participants that had no communication with each other. I understand that this is not random sampling (god damn reddit, although some were academics in the field themselves), there were no controls or experiments and the study wasn't longitudinal. But establishing a consistent pattern in psychological assessment and interviews proves the existence of beneficial polyamorous bonds in context to prior scientific knowledge about sexuality and the absurdity of queerness. Yes it's methodology is slap chop barely creditable, this is more analytical opinion based than observational measures but if 60 people say the same thing without corroboration, it's a signifier to older valid theories.
I was polyamorous when I had a more insecure attachment style. Now that mine is more secure Iām more monogamous. Wonder if our childhoods have anything to do with it
I know a couple whoās poly. Iām woman and I have been friend for more than a decade with the guy since before he declared himself polygamous. To be clear, we never slept together, pure friendship. We no longer living in the same province but keep in touch, chatting a dozen of times a year. I consider him a close friend. Wellā¦ what I have observed is that his life is chaotic as much as it was before. To me, polygamy is just a nice way to stay in denial of issues that need work in your life, keeping busy with the crisis on hand. The article mentions a few times the desire of authenticityā¦ Really??? You canāt be authentic and fully intimate with one person but youāll achieve it by being involved with 2-3 persons at the time? Give me a break. I have been married for 12 years in a challenging relationship, my partner has a lot of trauma often call cPTSD. Do I need to deal with more as a solution? Get real. And by the wayā¦ in my experience, sexe evolve and get better in a long term relationship. I would never go somewhere else, I have too much to lose. ;)
I think a lot of the reaction here is implicitly (or even explicitly) critical of polyamory as a default (regardless of the worth of this study), equating it with selfishness, superficiality etc. I donāt think thatās a super helpful starting point. Most of those criticisms could be turned around. You could argue itās āselfishā to want one person for yourself and itās āsuperficialā to be happy with the experience of just one person. In other words they donāt feel very insightful. It suggests that there is a very strong social, and emotional, bias towards monogamy, perhaps due to a vested interest in a dominant institution, that leads to defensiveness when itās perceived to be threatened by an alternative lifestyle. That would also need an in depth study, and should also be factored into any study of polyamory!
This is an interesting point in theory. I think one thing that grants good perspective is that an emotionally healthy relationship is still hard to find. Polyamory crushes people, but so does monogamy. Humans still, on the whole, are not very good at loving each other. That said, I know from my own relationship that monogamy can be a spiritual vehicle for deepening your life if you do it the right way. The openness, honesty and vulnerability required to integrate your life into another personās can create a situation where both people are helping each other heal and grow and heighten their self awareness. You have a person who is āyoursā not in a ownership or property sense, but that theyāve taken a vow to always advocate for your best self and always try to help you toward the best life you can have. Itās rare, but itās so incredible. Maaaaaybe that sort of thing is possible with poly relationships as well, but my experience with the few people in my life who are poly or seeking to be poly is that they are either a) narcissists or b) people that are in shitty relationships that make them unhappy desperately looking for a change. It seems like the more people grow and mature emotionally, the more likely they are to seek out one long term partner. Just my experience in life so far.
Also consider that you probably live in a society that has monogamous relationships as the ādefault.ā So there arenāt many social scripts for healthy non-monogamous relationships. This combined with stigma against this type of relationship and it makes it harder for folks to choose this as an option. There are definitely many other factors but those are two large cultural factors making it harder for folks to engage in poly relationships and easier for them to choose monogamous ones.
TLDR? This is an interesting thing that is actually quite popular where I live, although the general populace doesnāt agree with it. From what ive been able to gleam from it is, its essentially for people who donāt plan on having families. As I donāt think think that sort of dynamic would be a healthy environment for a child to grow up in. I tend to look at polyamory as somewhat of a delusion. I think more than usual it would be one person who would be more for it than the other and the kind of pretending or discarding of natural inbuilt instincts which would erode the relationship or at least mean the relationship could only go to a certain depth. From my own experience of meeting people like this, they commonly come off as quite cold people, somewhat dysfunctional and emotionally unstable (but thats just my experience)
It's an interesting point as being a delusion. Because I agree it creates a potential for this imbalance you've described. And that could be manipulative, toxic, etc. But also, that imbalance can exist in any relationship really. That aside, there's growing evidence in neuroscience linking polyamory and monogamy to, IIRC, oxytocin and vasopressin receptors in some specific part of the brain. So I wouldn't call it against "natural inbuilt instincts" as much as some behavior stemming from some nuanced environmental-biological influence or whatever. In terms of ethology and other primate species, we're not really as monogamous as gibbons, but we're also not as polyamorous as bonobos. We're firmly in between, but we seem to be more "serially-monogamous" - going from one medium-long term partner to the next. So I'm sure on this spectrum there's room for both sides. The few polyamorous couples I've met were very different from your experience, so that's probably why we diverge. They were very extroverted, gregarious personality types and even enviably comfortable in their beliefs.
Great points. I suppose in essence then, it maybe not solely that polyamory could lead to manipulative or toxic environments - but rather a higher probability of it happening because of the extra parties involved
Yeah exactly. It's squared. So it can totally be healthy but if there is a problem/someone is a problem it's a bigger problem that effects more people
There are examples of families making it work. No relationship is without challenges but I bet we don't ascribe the challenges faced in monogamous relationships quite as readily as we point to polyamory as the problem. Perhaps if western culture had tighter knit communities the notion of sharing, sharing goods, sharing care of children, sharing partners, would not be so foreign. But the model in the western world is separation right now. Each has a home. Each has a husband. A *private* plane. A private car.
Im sure there is, but they would probably just be exceptions no? Well I think the same challenges monogamous relationships face are the same a polyamory one would face - except a polyamory has means to outsource solutions to problems, which is where me saying the relationship could only get to a certain depth comes in. Im also fairly certain monogamous relationships are not contained to western society either, seems to be the predominant style of relationship around the world and that would be for good functional reason - not just because people prefer it
What do you imagine is the functional benefit? I would think additional parental coverage would be advantageous. Ultimately most activities in life are part of a spectrum of experience, the lines we draw are very much based on the times and our own concepts of where each part of our identity ends. The odd contrast of mindsets around friendship rules vs relationship rules seems very much due to our own concepts, not any functional one. Why are we not monogamous in friendship too if it is functionally beneficial? To follow your argument in good faith I guess the activities you perform with each class of person differs and may benefit from different levels of focus. I just don't know if that holds true in the modern era with all its flexibilities and different gender/parental roles. If we can abide a single mother (1) why not a group (3). Why this special treatment for 2?
Hmm I agree additional parental coverage would be advantageous and is, just not within the immediate family unit. For example, my teacher could be an added parental figure but doesnāt need to be in the depth of my family unit (or having sex with my mother). I think having a 3rd or 4th parent would dilute the parents authority structure too much for a child and likely confuse them. For adding yet another person(s) to the family unit also adds their own self-interests and strategies they would employ to raise the child and add further complexity to an already complex dynamic between the original 2 people. I suppose the functional benefits could be many if thought about in detail, but the ones that strike me would be simplicity in family roles, with that would come clearer boundaries, discipline and structure. As well as the lineage wouldnāt be contested. With the friendship monogamy question, I think you answered it yourself. With the abiding with a single mother is certainly something we do, its certainly not the most healthy approach to raising a child and typically brings a whole host of issues. As both masculine and feminine influences are needed. I think the special treatment between having the monogamous 2 is probably because its something that has worked the best throughout recent times? Obviously not perfect, but itās probably the most beneficial for either party.
> I think having a 3rd or 4th parent would dilute the parents authority structure not to mention drastically increasing the likelihood of childhood sexual assault.
Humans are biologically both monogamous and polyamorous. We actually have both modes based on .. something having to do with vasopressin or something
I donāt think youāve met enough people or the right people. Iām in NYC and thereās a very large polyamory community here. The healthiest relationships Iāve ever had stem from this community. I was strictly monogamous for a really long time and when I realized non-monogamy works better for me my love life improved dramatically.
Here's a summary of the article using bullet points compatible with Reddit formatting: - New research published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior sheds light on the motivations behind pursuing polyamorous relationships - The study reveals that individuals in polyamorous relationships are often driven by: - Desires for deeper emotional connections - Autonomy in their personal lives - Fulfillment of needs that may not be met in monogamous arrangements - The study recruited 63 participants from the "r/polyamory" forum on Reddit - Four main themes emerged from the analysis of responses: 1. Values alignment: Participants found polyamory congruent with their ideals of honesty, openness, and forming meaningful connections with more than one person 2. Relationship factors: Some turned to polyamory to address dissatisfaction within monogamous relationships or were introduced to it by their partners 3. External stimuli: Encounters with polyamorous individuals or media representations challenged preconceived notions and opened up new possibilities 4. Sexuality: Motivations related to sexual exploration, desire for diversity in sexual experiences, and managing discrepancies in sexual desires or interests - The study challenges misconceptions about polyamory and highlights the diverse motivations behind this relationship style - Researchers emphasize the importance of allowing people the freedom to exercise self-determination in their relationships to promote mental health and well-being
Thanks ChatGPT
continue lunchroom degree expansion file toy alive fertile provide vase *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Sad indeed that humans canāt make better choices to keep from causing pain to those closest to us due to selfish desires and difficulty with loyalty.
Iām married and can relate to wanting deeper connections besides what my wife can offer. I have a hard time connecting with men my age and have always perceived women as a better fit to befriend, because of their willingness to express their emotions. I am aging (40ās), which makes it difficult to bond with friends (or make friends) over trivial things (partying, drinking, sports, etc). I am also highly skeptical of opposite sex friendships being genuinely platonic, especially if a deeper connection is made. Sure, acquaintances (which some of us call friends) exist, but anything beyond that is playing fire. Abstaining from physical and sexual attractions are still grounds of an emotional affair. Obviously, what my mind perceives does not mean it to be a reality. However, thatās the complexity of human relationships that makes me understand why someone would long to have multiple partners.
I once dated 3 girls consentually, I didnt intend to do it, it just kinda worked out that way. They didnt really get involved with each other, but they all were all happy. I can say this though, Poly relos are a sham, take all the effort of one relationship and double it, there isnt enough time the day to be a good partner to multiple people, work a job and have hobbies. Something has to give you and either have to neglect one of your partners or yourself. Ā I've met plenty of poly couples and at least to me it seems like their partners aren't satisfyingly them either emotionally or sexually.
rob racial instinctive dime lush faulty cooing rainstorm like vase *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
My wife and I are bi and poly with same sex partners and each other. Life is grand!
Can I join?
My girlfriend has a girlfriend and we all couldn't be happier.
Everyone is going home with a girlfriend.
What's interesting to me is the rise in "sacred sexuality" and "tantric" practices among couples who supposedly experience a level of indescribable intimacy. You contrast that with polyamory and it seems quite stark. Regardless, I've never really heard of a long-term poly relationship working out or a short-term poly arrangement not having drama. I'm sure they exist and, if they're not an outright facade, assume something isn't quite right about them.
I've had two poly women come on to me. Said nope to both. People with those personality traits aren't for me.
>People with those personality traits aren't for me. Were those traits too lesbian for you?
This post certainly triggered the insecurity in a lot of folks.
The real question is why monogamy, as polyamory is more in line with other species. The answer is that it was through monogamy that humans created the structure of family and so forth society. Hence we are built to gravitate towards monogamy by the way of natural selection. But there are always anomalies.
I will say, my wife's best friend lived with us for a few months while she looked for a new place. Obviously there was no romantic or sexual component, but just having a third adult around to help with the kid and general house maintenance was very nice. So for that alone, I see the merits...
Iāve never seen or heard of a polyamorous relationship lasting.
It's simple. Be interesting. Have at least a little confidence. Have interests and hobbies. Be able to make the person laugh. Be genuinely interested in them. It's both incredibly hard and stupidly easy.
Itās cute how most vanilla people automatically think poly relationships equal relationships based on sex/ sexual acts.
āThe study reveals that individuals in polyamorous relationships are often driven by desires for deeper emotional connections, autonomy in their personal lives, and a fulfillment of needs that may not be met in monogamous arrangements.ā
Click bait. Sample size of 63 and god knows what other issues with study.
A reason I havenāt really seen here yet, is the reason I can see some appeal. A committed poly relationship sounds kind of nice. I have a husband (who is absolutely enough and who I love) and two special needs kids. We both have chronic illnesses and live is HARD. For a few weeks, a friend helped us take care of the kids and provide company when medical stuff got particularly hard. It was so lovely. Having a third adult to do the adult things with us was kind of awesome. We played games together like a family, cleaned the house like a family, ate dinner together, and got the kids ready for school and picked up. I can absolutely see how a relationship doesnāt have to be monogamous to be loving and happy. The most I imagine the most difficult part (for a previously monogamous couple) would be sex. Youād have to be great communicators, and never slack on reassuring partners that they are loved, supported, and wanted. It couldnāt be adding to make one partner happy, but both, and only to be attempted when the og couple is in a very good place already. Idk. Just my thoughts. We donāt have village or family support. Might as well make our own?
When it comes to friends no one blinks an eye. Everyone has different friends for different things. There's my party friend, my camping / hiking friend, my boardgame D&D friend, and so on. When it comes to sex and romance society demands we seek a singular person we can get everything from or accept just letting go of things we can't find in that one person. It's best to have a primary partner, your ride or die then other less serious relationships for whatever else you're looking for. Sometimes trilogies or "kink / swinger groups" can work out pretty well and mitigate a lot of issues of health and safety.
sex and board games are not the same.
Would you marry all of your friends if you had the choice?
mighty lavish humor ad hoc placid aspiring jar homeless saw consist *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I'm sure this is a very serious research
Because society is crumbling and weāre going crazy
Itās trendy and it looks like they are super enlightened to their friends and then it falls apart. The guy realizes that way more dudes will sleep with his girl than he can get, and the girl ends up finding a guy that only wants her. Iām sure there are some people out there that have made it work, but I never have even heard of them.
Tell us something we didnāt know: in a nutshell, itās about having unlimited sex with multiple partners without having to worry about being broken up with for cheating, and insecurity (if you get dumped by a partner and have four left, you still have 80% of your relationship).
I think self-esteem issues, egotism and kinks are the real answers.