It appears I'm jumping on the bandwagon a bit, but I've always felt it was more of an emotional choice. As in, I may or may not have expressed an interest in having multiple partners (as a complex person, I do think it would be the only way I could be truly fulfilled) but I have also realized that I am not emotionally detached enough to necessarily grant my partners the same freedom. And lacking equity in that regard, (true equity here simply means do unto others, etc) I have never pursued it as a lifestyle for myself.
I hesitate to call it emotional maturity, because I don't define maturity by the level of acceptance one has avowedly achieved, but rather as the amount that one knows themselves, and has made peace with that knowledge. For the former part of the sentence, I know some people who are supposedly "open" but are so narrow-minded in their openness that they cannot see their own hypocrisy.
So for that, I do think it is a choice, but it's also partially a reflection of your own personal mores and education. I have, and know I have, internalized a lot of the morals of WASPy society, and as such while I may think about polyamory, I will probably never practice it. I've also found myself to be a lot more conservative than anticipated, but whatever.
I would agree that generally whatever people do in their own bedroom is their own business, so long as everyone is consenting and no one gets hurt (emotionally), but I've also seen enough bad triads and open relationship break down because of misunderstandings, changing feelings, and bad faith(tm) on the part of more casual partners. So I guess my position is more of a qualified: "If it's working for you and your partners at the moment, great."
I don't think, in the US at least, that it is possible to have it be a very long-term stable dynamic. I do wish we were more like the Europeans, at least in terms of treating sex as less of the be-all/end-all of relationships. And accepting of drug use. And health care. I could go on. After the Admin exam, I'm surprised I was able to put my thoughts in this much "order" so please forgive the scattered nature of the comment.
No...your thoughts are pretty clear... I mean, you drifted from the original question by quite a distance, but you did it in a fairly organized fashion. :)
So...I'm coming with you to the outfield of the conversation: what makes you think that people couldn't have a long-term or stable dynamic in a non-monogamous situation?
Because most of the groups I've seen aren't stable beyond the primary couple. Secondary partners fall by the wayside, or occasionally supplant the primary, and after a while, the only steady partners are the original couple. Maybe if secondary partners are also involved with each other, the dynamic is more stable, but time passes, people move, and life happens, in other words. Also, unless you can afford to get a large house or really big apartment, then an equal relationship between more than two people isn't feasible, because there's always someone who doesn't live in. Having to travel to interact with someone makes it more of a choice, and less equal. Or something. You might have noticed that I'm not exactly good at staying on topic, yes? Besides, isn't your sexy law paper due by now?
I'm not entirely certain what you mean by that, but I believe the classical understanding of marriage was to indicate a long-term relationship between the married partners. Ignoring all the property, church aspect, choice, divorce, and love stuff that has been attached to the concept, a marriage suggests that the partners will be together for a very long time.
Since you original questions related to the feasibility of marriage between polyamorous partners, then yes, I think stability should be a part of relationships. You can have a stable relationship without having a marriage, but it is difficult to have a lasting marriage without a stable relationship.
And especially if the question becomes how to marry more than one person at once, what if one person does want to leave, and everyone else is still happy? Does that person get a divorce, not affecting the rest of the relationship? Does that divorce break the rest of the bonds, necessitating a new ceremony for those who remain happily together? Is it more like tenants in common, or joint tenancy? What breaks the bond?
I guess my overall thought was that you were asking about long-term situations, and for those I do equate stability with success. The underlying couple may be the only stability inherent to the relationship, but that does not prevent the relationship itself from being stable, merely the entire group dynamic from remaining static...rather than dynamic. Did not intend that repetition.
I hesitate to call it emotional maturity, because I don't define maturity by the level of acceptance one has avowedly achieved, but rather as the amount that one knows themselves, and has made peace with that knowledge. For the former part of the sentence, I know some people who are supposedly "open" but are so narrow-minded in their openness that they cannot see their own hypocrisy.
So for that, I do think it is a choice, but it's also partially a reflection of your own personal mores and education. I have, and know I have, internalized a lot of the morals of WASPy society, and as such while I may think about polyamory, I will probably never practice it. I've also found myself to be a lot more conservative than anticipated, but whatever.
I would agree that generally whatever people do in their own bedroom is their own business, so long as everyone is consenting and no one gets hurt (emotionally), but I've also seen enough bad triads and open relationship break down because of misunderstandings, changing feelings, and bad faith(tm) on the part of more casual partners. So I guess my position is more of a qualified: "If it's working for you and your partners at the moment, great."
I don't think, in the US at least, that it is possible to have it be a very long-term stable dynamic. I do wish we were more like the Europeans, at least in terms of treating sex as less of the be-all/end-all of relationships. And accepting of drug use. And health care. I could go on. After the Admin exam, I'm surprised I was able to put my thoughts in this much "order" so please forgive the scattered nature of the comment.
Reply
I mean, you drifted from the original question by quite a distance, but you did it in a fairly organized fashion. :)
So...I'm coming with you to the outfield of the conversation: what makes you think that people couldn't have a long-term or stable dynamic in a non-monogamous situation?
Reply
Reply
Am I to infer from this some value judgment as to the quality "stability" in relationships?
Reply
Since you original questions related to the feasibility of marriage between polyamorous partners, then yes, I think stability should be a part of relationships. You can have a stable relationship without having a marriage, but it is difficult to have a lasting marriage without a stable relationship.
And especially if the question becomes how to marry more than one person at once, what if one person does want to leave, and everyone else is still happy? Does that person get a divorce, not affecting the rest of the relationship? Does that divorce break the rest of the bonds, necessitating a new ceremony for those who remain happily together? Is it more like tenants in common, or joint tenancy? What breaks the bond?
I guess my overall thought was that you were asking about long-term situations, and for those I do equate stability with success. The underlying couple may be the only stability inherent to the relationship, but that does not prevent the relationship itself from being stable, merely the entire group dynamic from remaining static...rather than dynamic. Did not intend that repetition.
Reply
You were putting this in context.
Weird. :)
Reply
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=578182&hpr
Reply
Leave a comment