Polyamory can be an alternative to cheating: Ellie

[Rotted]

Oh no someone had an opinion! Just stop.

- - - Updated - - -




There is no cheating if both sides agree to something. You can call it that if you want but it's not.

Exactly buddy, I have no idea why these people are calling cheating, polyamory.

Seriously though it's a term that's been invented to justify being unfaithful. It's cheating on the fundemental level or a excuse for people who can't keep it in their pants. If you can't cope with being faithful in a normal relationship you shouldn't be in it in the first place

[Fencers]

this thread is hilarious when you consider that most people in this thread can't even land a first date with just ONE person never mind more than one. lol

I actually thought that this morning. I find the contrast between the volume of posters that in other threads of this forum report never having even kissed another person, being virgins, having few sexual partners in their lifetime and so on to be amusing when opinions on sex and relationships are offered.

Further many also proclaim things like introversion, disabilities and 'forever alone' nonsense about not liking to be around too many people.

Very amusing. The Venn Diagram of MMO-Champion's users proclamations would be delightful if drafted.

[Manabomb]

Irresponsible deviants.

People say religion was oppressive, but this shit shouldn't fly.

Those kids are going to be raised being mocked for having a cuck father and a whore mother.

If you're willing to let your kids be bullied like that just so you can get a fuck you shouldn't be a parent.

Religion -is- oppressive. Dictating what I can and cannot do without factual reasoning, dictating whom I can and cannot love or mate with without rationality. Religion is a tool for the powerful to control those with less power.

I'd rather those kids grow up in a home where sex is openly talked about and even embraced as a natural act than a cool christian chastity club aka abstinence yuppies. That's where you get kids that grow up not knowing the trials and tribulations of actually being an adult parent.

[Fencers]

Exactly buddy, I have no idea why these people are calling cheating...

If all parties agree, how is it cheating on one's partner?

Polyamourus relationships have existed since mankind.

Cheating is an act of duplicity.

I had a wonderful arrangement with a former coworker that lasted two years. Purely sexual.

Before I entered into the arrangement, my husband and I had a long discussion and he met the guy I was interested in having sex with before giving me the green light.

Zero duplicity involved. All parties consented.

The same holds true for the women I consented my husband to have sex with during our marriage. I did not feel cheated on in the least!

[Manabomb]

Exactly buddy, I have no idea why these people are calling cheating, polyamory.

Seriously though it's a term that's been invented to justify being unfaithful. It's cheating on the fundemental level or a excuse for people who can't keep it in their pants. If you can't cope with being faithful in a normal relationship you shouldn't be in it in the first place

Do you have any idea where the word faith even comes from?

And no, it's a term that's been around for about 200 years and a relationship style long before your cherished monogamy. And again, you're skewing what an actual polyamorous relationship is with this idea that you get a free pass to screw anyone you want.

That's not how -any- healthy relationship works, especially polyamorous ones.

[Trassk]

The rate of STDs from hookups vs being in a sincere, loving marriage is worth considering.

Stop being such a whining busy body about what people get up to in their relationships. If nobody is being hurt, then its nobody else's business

[Pua]

best alternative to cheating: Don't be in a committed relationship. Hookups only, TYVM.

Ultimately... That's the bottom line.

Polyamory doesn't work in any of the many, many couples I've seen try it. It's fine for a while, but there's always an emotional deficit that, in the end, brings a conclusion to such an arrangement. Even in cultures where it's considered a lot more mainstream, it's difficult to miss the resentment that very often makes itself known despite attempts to the contrary.

It's funny that, when I was a teenager in Scotland, there were two types of relationship; boyfriend/girlfriend, and "seeing" someone. Seeing someone meant no formal commitment so that you could be intimately involved with other people at the same time. But the obvious snag I used to point out was that its proponents were basically not in a relationship at all. What they were doing was agreeing to hook up if nothing better came along, which actually meant that both of them had self-awareness problems that they tried to mask through the veneer of social masturbation.

If you're unsuited to committed relationships, don't try and foster committed relationships.

Nothing could ever be simpler.

[Manabomb]

Ultimately... That's the bottom line.

Polyamory doesn't work in any of the many, many couples I've seen try it. It's fine for a while, but there's always an emotional deficit that, in the end, brings a conclusion to such an arrangement. Even in cultures where it's considered a lot more mainstream, it's difficult to miss the resentment that very often makes itself known despite attempts to the contrary.

It's funny that, when I was a teenager in Scotland, there were two types of relationship; boyfriend/girlfriend, and "seeing" someone. Seeing someone meant no formal commitment so that you could be intimately involved with other people at the same time. But the obvious snag I used to point out was that its proponents were basically not in a relationship at all. What they were doing was agreeing to hook up if nothing better came along, which actually meant that both of them had self-awareness problems that they tried to mask through the veneer of social masturbation.

If you're unsuited to committed relationships, don't try and foster committed relationships.

Nothing could ever be simpler.

You can still be in a committed polyamorous relationship. I know I am, so that means there are others either right this very moment in a sea of nearly 8 billion, or throughout history and the billions of people that have lived and died loving others.

I am sorry your anecdotal evidence is simply that, anecdotal. There are millions and billions of examples why monogamy doesn't work for people as can be shown by ridiculous divorce rates in the modern era.

There is nothing 'simple' about human relationships.

[Pua]

You can still be in a committed polyamorous relationship. I know I am, so that means there are others either right this very moment in a sea of nearly 8 billion, or throughout history and the billions of people that have lived and died loving others.

I am sorry your anecdotal evidence is simply that, anecdotal.

Read your first paragraph.

Then read your second, and think about it.

Wow.

There are millions and billions of examples...

Just to reiterate; "wow".

There is nothing 'simple' about human relationships.

They're pretty simple, when you understand what's important about them. It can take people years to figure it out, and most never do, but that's not because relationships aren't simple - it's because people are stupid.

[Stormspark]

There's nothing morally wrong with polyamory as long as everyone in the relationship is aware of and ok with it. Obviously if you're going behind someone's back it's a different story.

[Logwyn]

Religion -is- oppressive. Dictating what I can and cannot do without factual reasoning, dictating whom I can and cannot love or mate with without rationality. Religion is a tool for the powerful to control those with less power.

I'd rather those kids grow up in a home where sex is openly talked about and even embraced as a natural act than a cool christian chastity club aka abstinence yuppies. That's where you get kids that grow up not knowing the trials and tribulations of actually being an adult parent.

Religion is a tool like a hammer. Its can be used both to create and destroy.

[Manabomb]

Read your first paragraph.

Then read your second, and think about it.

Wow.



Just to reiterate; "wow".



They're pretty simple, when you understand what's important about them. It can take people years to figure it out, and most never do, but that's not because relationships aren't simple - it's because people are stupid.

So you're saying your anecdotal evidence trumps mine because.... What reason exactly? I'm sorry all your friends suck at relationships and you consider them stupid for wanting to figure out exactly what kind of relationship they like.

With talk like that, you can sum the entire human experience up to stupid people. But then you're going ahead and discounting the rest of humanity.

Edit post: extra "wow's" for good measure, since that's about the only reasonable argument you can shoot back.

- - - Updated - - -

Religion is a tool like a hammer. Its can be used both to create and destroy.

While true, the creation religion brings is only dwarfed in size to the destruction it creates. More kingdoms and people have fallen and died over religion than any other root cause in the history of our race.

Granted, this might have to do with conflicts between personal beliefs and the beliefs of an organization (see: religion). Add in the fact that humans and by extension religion is inherently deceitful and you can understand why destruction is easy compared to creation in terms of your metaphor.

[Fencers]

If you're unsuited to committed relationships, don't try and foster committed relationships.

Entirely dependant on what a couple consider the bounds of their commitment to one another.

[Deleted]

Or maybe not, if i caught my boyfriend from being "polyamorous", Id skin him, then make him dance the Szhalaska wearing hes own skin.

[Release]

Or maybe not, if i caught my boyfriend from being "polyamorous", Id skin him, then make him dance the Szhalaska wearing hes own skin.

The point isn't you would catch him being polyamorous...that would be CHEATING because he hadn't told you and you hadn't consented. I am not in a polyamorous relationship but me and my partner have engaged in activities with others at the same time together and it's been fantastic and something we happily do on occasion to keep things interesting. If you want to remain with a single sexual partner once you are in a relationship fine good on you but don't judge those who don't as being filthy immoral cheats or something.

[Deleted]

Not something I would want but if it works for them that's great.

[Masark]

people should really learn what they talk about before blathering on.

That's against their religion.

Probably literally.

[Deathquoi]

I don't care how other people approach their own relationships. Personally, I love my wife but there's not a chance I would ever want to be involved in a relationship with two women at once.

[Seirith]

I'm not denying that, nor did I ever. I was merely pointing out that this article does nothing to accurately depict a functioning polyamorous relationship and the overall attitude of the OP reeks of fundamental Christian superiority.

I'm fine with monogamous couples. I'm not fine with monogamous people concocting bull shit about polyamorous relationships.

I'm curious, are you in a polyamorous relationship? If you don't mind sharing, what are you getting from having more than 1 partner/lover that you cannot get with just 1? I am honestly curious because I see nothing I could get from another man that I cannot get from my husband.

[Underverse]

I am not sure what you are implying either, but it is a fallacy to assume that something is optimal because it is natural. Humans have evolved to this point for a reason. I don't have anything against the poly community, but when they say their way is better than everything else it makes me face palm.

I didn't make that assumption. As with anything else, evolution is simply a thread of evidence. What I find particularly amusing, though, is that you use the exact same reasoning you condemn in your very next sentence.

- - - Updated - - -

So we should all go with what our ancestors did? Because a whole lot of other fucked up things were "natural" too. And many things we do today aren't considered natural. What's load of bs.

I didn't make that assertion. And neither would I - at least, not in the current cultural circumstances we are in. But let me address your other point here because I think you're making a very common mistake when you say that humans do fucked up things that are natural.

Two critical distinctions need to be made.

The first: between ingroup and outlier behaviors. There will always be a few psychopaths. That there are a few psychopaths does not require that psyhopathy is a normal or natural behavior. That there are a few people with downs syndrome does not necessitate a definition of 'normal' or 'human' that is founded on those with the syndrome.

The second: between stress responses and non-stress responses. Humans can do a lot of less than savory things under stressful conditions. And, in our evolutionary history, humans did. That doesn't make these behaviors natural under all contexts; it makes them, perhaps, natural within a very specific context.

Finally, we certainly do things today that are not natural, but most, if not all, of our behaviors are still rooted in nature. The problems arise when natural stress responses become integrated into culture. It's worth differentiating between culturally integrated stress responses and culturally integrated non-stress responses.

- - - Updated - - -

I hope you know the "natural way" you are talking about only applies to men right? If we are talking from an evolutionary stand point, men should mate with lots of women and should not share them.

I find this "it is more natural" argument to be a complete horseshit. If you are so about being natural, why use god damn computers? To me, this is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize (in a social way) cheating.

No, it doesn't. From an evolutionary perspective, women and men should both sleep around. Indeed, it's almost a requirement for women to sleep around if men are doing it. Why? Ask yourself who the women are that these men are sleeping with. As to why promiscuity would be selected for in both sexes, understand that pair bonding is a major function of sex between humans; reproduction is simply a rare secondary event by comparison.

For your comment on the 'natural' argument, see my response above this post. You're making a strawman argument. To embellish, computer use is an extension of natural behavior, as a means of communication and information gathering. Unless you would make the argument that it's unnatural to use tools, or something even more conservative in definition.