Polyamory and you

[Drakken]

Seriously?  For real?  The prerequisite to open honest communication is fucking?  And the objective of open honest communication is to get into a polyamorous relationship?  I hope that's not what you think, but it's what you're saying and it's pretty shit.

If you're a chump, adding a few "PUA techniques" to your repertoire does not make you a not-chump, even if you get laid.  There's nothing wrong with wanting and trying to get laid and if you want to be a man-slut, go to town.  If you need to use pseudo-psychology and poorly formulated evolutionary behaviour theory as a crutch to get laid, then alright, but once you start thinking that that crutch represents some sort of brilliant truth or profound insight you're a fucking chump.

It's a strawman to remember your previous posts on a related topic and relate them to the current topic of discussion?  I don't think so.  And it's directly relevant because you're using the same reasoning and "theoretical framework" (ramshackle as it may be) to approach both topics.

In summary:

Poly?  Sure, if it's your thing and you can make it work.  Good luck.

Man-slut?  Sure, if you think that's what you want and you're not a dick about it.  Have your fun.

Thinking that understanding a smattering of manipulative self-help techniques gives you some sort of profound insight into human nature?  Bunch of shit.

My prerequisite for a open and honest relationship is that I want to have a meaningful relationship with that person. I have a open and honest relationship with my girlfriend, my friends, and my family, because they are meaningful to me.

That said, if available I'll use whatever I feel like if I don't want something meaningful, as long as it is legal and not hazardous for anyone's health and well-being. May be cynical, but then I can be a cynical cad when I want. I see for myself what works and what doesn't, I don't need professor Jacob to teach my about the meaning of life or whether chumps remain chumps.

You're the only one here screeching like an hysteric with your moralizing tone. I wasn't here in this thread to discuss self-help or seduction or chumps, but polyamory in general coming from a differant approach. I said what I thought, I stated my postulates and my claims, and I argued them square.  You are the one coming here using that as an anvilicious device to get around the point, because yours points do not even touch the subject - you just use something you do not like about me, extrapolate about to categorize me as some sort of dangerous sociopath, and use to rail me. That's pretty cowardly an act, so I shove you off.

You can disagree with me whether it works or not, or whether it is moral or not, or whether it is self-help crap of bullshit or not. I do not hold as an immanent truth or as a science, but from my petty anectodal evidence it has worked with me. There, period. I see no need to go all Martinus about it.

When you have real points touching the subject, I'll answer them fairly. If not, then I won't. I won't lose my sleep over it.

[Drakken]

Jacob wins the thread.

Not. Because he doesn't even touch the subject of this thread. He only shrills because he doesn't like me.

[Drakken]

However, it is difficult to imagine such a relationship having any great depth of committment or feeling. There are, as the saying goes, always more fish in the sea; there is always going to be 'something better' one *could* get. A relationship without any depth to it and no great emotional commitment is not what most people find fulfilling. Nor is it any great basis for doing long-term projects together, such as making major decisions as to where to live, buying a house, or having children - the sort of quotidian things that most people find significant in their lives.

I suspect that, more than fearing being alone, many people fear that they aren't particularly special or important; that they can very easily be replaced, and that if they die, no-one will notice or care. The terms for this are various: "alienation", "atomization", "commodification" (often used in various flavours of Marxism) spring to mind. A society in which one's intimate relations are selected on the basis of rational pareto-optimality and discarded just as easily would be, for most, people, extremely alienating.

I agree that we cannot be all detached when involved in a relationship. I am not in disagreement with any of your first points, if only that there is a wide spectrum of detachment that doesn't necessarily entain a lack of empathy.

Detachment as I presented it is not evaluating the relationship in a rational, cost-benefit mindframe, only examining the emotional implications and benefits of the relationship with a little distance. I.E. Am I happy in the current relationship? Am I treated right? Am I feeling satisfied and fulfilled? Are my partner's flaws decreasing my well-being?

Yes, the temptation to leave a relationship at the slightest hurdle because there are "plenty of fishes in the sea", as you say, is definitely present. So is the commodification of human relationships. But as much as very few people can evaluate the situation with complete detachment, very few people are totally devoid of empathy toward their partners either. There's a fair middle ground, I think.

[Sheilbh]

I have strong doubts about the value of evolutionary psych as a science.

The stuff I know about isn't from that I don't think, but from research into sexual selection and behaviour which often seems to work against what would make sense within an evolutionary perspective.

[Caliga]

Jacob wins the thread.

His new nickname is "the HAMMER".  That's right, Cookie the HAMMER.

[Valmy]

The assumption that any marriage that does not end up in divorce is a happy one or one where people are faithful to each other completely is the biggest crock of bullshit in this thread so far.

In any case, there is one thing to not be into polyamory, and another to be as judgmental about it as you or BB are. It really makes it hard not to make a personal jab about it.

Judgemental?  I was asked if I was into it and said no it did not appeal to me at all.  That makes me judgemental about it?  Because I am not personally into it?  Are you a fucking idiot?  I never once said anything about it being bad for others to be into whatever the fuck they want to be into just that is wasn't for me.

[Valmy]

One woman is almost one too many. I prefer a low-drama lifestyle. 

[marty]OH MY GOD YOU ARE SO JUDGEMENTAL!!!  Now I shall make a personal jab about it.[/marty]

[Slargos]

Jacob wins the thread.

Not. Because he doesn't even touch the subject of this thread. He only shrills because he doesn't like me.

Or because you're a dumb fuck.

A case of "little bit of A, little bit of B"?

Or mostly B.

[Camerus]

In theory, having a myriad of sexual partners plus one principle "wife" sounds great.  But as I would never be interested in letting other men screw my wife, and no women worth their salt would tolerate one-sided polyamory, in practice I'm thoroughly monogamous.

[Richard Hakluyt]

One woman is almost one too many. I prefer a low-drama lifestyle. 

Words of wisdom MIM, words of wisdom 

[Martinus]

The reverse assumption appears to be that a marriage that *did* end in divorce was of necessity entirely a "failure". I don't believe that, either.

Err... how is it not? The marriage is an exclusive union of two people "until the death do us part". A divorce is by definition a failure of an arrangement thus defined.

[Martinus]

In theory, having a myriad of sexual partners plus one principle "wife" sounds great.  But as I would never be interested in letting other men screw my wife, and no women worth their salt would tolerate one-sided polyamory, in practice I'm thoroughly monogamous.

That's another problem for you, heteros - every time someone asks you about having sexual partners, you automatically assume there has to be screwing involved. Which makes any polyamory/open marriage arrangements automatically an all-or-nothing things.

[DisturbedPervert]

That's another problem for you, heteros - every time someone asks you about having sexual partners, you automatically assume there has to be screwing involved. Which makes any polyamory/open marriage arrangements automatically an all-or-nothing things.

I'm completely uninterested if it doesn't involve screwing

[Malthus]

The reverse assumption appears to be that a marriage that *did* end in divorce was of necessity entirely a "failure". I don't believe that, either.

Err... how is it not? The marriage is an exclusive union of two people "until the death do us part". A divorce is by definition a failure of an arrangement thus defined.

The point of the relationship is not that it end in death, it is that it was worthwhile while you were alive. Marriages may end in divorce because the partners have drifted apart, but the may have been very good while they lasted.

Same with friendships. I've lost touch with many friends over the years; there are however very few people I actively regret having been friends with.

I would not count a marriage that ends because the partners have drifted apart after many good years as a "failure". 

[derspiess]

I would not count a marriage that ends because the partners have drifted apart after many good years as a "failure". 

You may not, but I think Marty has you on a technicality.