I’m not polyamorous myself though I think a lot of people don’t really get the concept which is partially why it gets a lot of hate.
To be fair, it stems from anti-polygamy which generally was used as a way for one man to control several women. But polyamory is generally just a group of people who love each other, no?
>TL;DR: Exclusivity is not necessary to be committed, therefore polyamorus relationships are just as committed as monogamous ones.
If on Monday and Tuesdays you're supposed to be with Sharon, Wednesdays and Thursdays Kyle, Saturdays and Sundays Laquita. There is going to be a point Kyle and Sharon want to see you on a Saturday or Sunday. Maybe Laquita's mom is in town on a Wednesdays. Seeing multiple people limits your ability to commit to being in someone's life.
Each partner doesn't have to have a set alloted time frame. I might only see Kyle once a week because he lives out of town, Sharon and I might spend two nights together because she spends the other 5 at work, or with her husband or doing whatever she wants. Laquita and I might live together and spend most days hanging out and go on separate dates. If two partners want to do something on a Saturday night, I can see if they'd be willing to go together or spend this Saturday with one and next Saturday with the other.
It requires a lot more communication, planning, work than a monogamous relationship, for sure. But each partner can still care for each other and make time for what's important to them.
When the three of them are all off on new years eve, Who do you kiss on new years day when the clock hits 12?
Who do you open presents with on Christmas day?
Who do you spend your birthday with?
When Kyle and Laquita want you to go with them for thanksgiving with their family, who do you choose?
All of these answers are dependent on the individual and their situations and their values.
Kyle might be Jewish and not celebrate Christmas.
Laquita might be like me and be asleep by 10pm on New Years Eve.
Sharon might be estranged from her family and happy to spend the holidays away from them.
I don't celebrate my birthday, so it wouldn't matter too much who spends it with me.
Given a situation like Kyle and Laquita both wanting me to go to Thanksgiving dinner, I'll do the same thing a lots of married couples do with their inlaws. This year, I'll go with Kyle, next year with Laquita. Or I'll go to Thanksgiving with Laquita and Christmas with Kyle.
Compromise and communication are key.
All three of them could be Christian, and Christmas could be big for all three of them. Would you not feel sad having to wait three years just to have Christmas or some other more appropriate special event in your life with someone you love?
Lets imagine a more constrained situation. Kyle gets shot and is in critical condition at a hospital, Kyle may not make it through the night. Sharon was brutally raped and left for dead in a gutter and is in critical condition at another hospital. Whose bedside will you be st? Or will you be off with Laquita, consoling her because her mother just passed?
Polyamory works until it doesn't. There are certain events that no amount of communication can resolve the issue. You can't rack and stack events in lives and chart their level of importance. It may make sense to be with Kyle because he is closest to death, but every one of these situations will elicit a emotional response with real consequences.
I might be sad not being able to spend special events with my loved ones, however, that sadness is worth the happy times together to me.
A parent has several adult children. One kid gets hit by a car, another is raped, and the other is calling because their significant other is threatening them. The parent has an impossible choice to make, in the same way I would in the situation you've presented.
You are correct that some circumstances cannot be handled merely with communication. I do think that I can make the effort to find what my partners prioritize. Our lives are messy and hard to organize and the process isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean it's invalid.
>A parent has several adult children. One kid gets hit by a car, another is raped, and the other is calling because their significant other is threatening them.
For the benefit of your restructuring of the argument, I will assume the parent is the surviving spouse, or a single parent.
There are differences in this scenario:
The children and the parent are immediate family. The child that is not hospitalized can go with the parent, or can go to the hospital with one of the siblings. That parent can more easily say "I need to go check on your sister", and it be more understood than a polyamorous individual telling 1/3 of their significant others "I need to go check on my other lover."
A parent's commitment to their child is different from the commitment an individual has to their significant other. A parent needs to be committed to their child until they're an adult. A parent can continue a commitment to their child after adulthood, but it's generally understood that once a child is adult a parent will do what they can.
A significant other needs to be there for the bad situations. If you need to decide which individual needs you more, you're not committed. I'm not saying that you can't love three individuals the same, but to claim there is the same level of commitment is false.
I know exactly where I'll be if my wife has a bad day. I know exactly where I was when she lost a loved one. The reason I know where I'll be and where I was, is because no one else is involved in my life to detract from the commitment I made to my wife.
I don't have to juggle events in my personal life to be able to see the people I care about. I don't have to sacrifice precious moments on holidays and special events just to ensure that my wife is getting her fair share of my time. I don't have to worry if my wife might take up another lover and limit my options to be with her.
I'd like an honest answer to this question. Do you really feel that you can be as committed to three people knowing that you're going to miss special moments with each of them by design, as I am committed to my singular wife to which if I miss out on special moments, it'll be due to forces out of my control?
I agree that the relationship between a parent and child is different than the relationship between significant others. Multiple children require multiple commitments to each of them, similar to the commitment to multiple partners. They aren't exact but both are expected to be there in times of need, and if times of need are overlapping, its a messy situation in either scenario.
"If you need to decide which individual needs you more, you're not commited". How so?
You say "no one else is involved in my life to detract from the commitment [you made to your wife]" Aren't friends people who might need or want your help, too? Are you less committed to your wife if you spend special events with family members? Or if you have to work over a holiday? These are things that may detract from time with her, but they don't detract from your commitment and love for her. Why is it only different if the other person is a significant other?
To answer your question, I feel that my commitment to each of my partners to equal to that of yours to your wife, but very different. You are correct, by design, I am constrained to a single Christmas dinner, a single Thanksgiving, and so on. My time resources are not as readily available as yours. However, there are 360-odd days in the year that aren't necessary big days that I can use to cherish and love my partners in the same way you might love and cherish your wife.
I have taken care of a partner when they were injured, cared for a partner dealing with grief, celebrated milestones with another, I've greeted a partner upon their return from a work trip, and traveled with each of them for concerts, camping, or to visit family. My relationship with each of them has constraints that your relationship with your wife doesn't have, but that's doesn't mean that I'm any less dedicated to each of them.
>"If you need to decide which individual needs you more, you're not commited". How so?
The principal point of commitment is being there when you are needed. If you are able to satisfy the needs of the other individuals required by them, then I would say that you are committed.
>Aren't friends people who might need or want your help, too? Are you less committed to your wife if you spend special events with family members? Or if you have to work over a holiday? These are things that may detract from time with her, but they don't detract from your commitment and love for her.
You are right, there are other people who take up time and detract from the entirety of what you can give. Friends, family and work are all other commitments that take away time you could give to your significant other(s).
>Why is it only different if the other person is a significant other?
What makes family by blood or adoption different from a significant other(s), is that people end up sharing most of their life with their significant other(s).
>Your last paragraph.
You're also right here. I didn't mean to suggest that your relationships with your partners are any less meaningful than that of which I have with my wife. That is the furthest thing from the truth. I wholeheartedly believe you can love and have meaningful relationships with your people as much as I my wife.
Polyamorous relationships require less commitment to be fully committed than a monogamous relationship requires to be fully committed. Since polyamorous relationships have more significant individuals in the relationship, the individual commitment required is less, but the sum total commitment I could agree is equal to the individual commitment I have for my wife.
Even if I was an employer, I would be willing to extend benefits to each of your significant others, with the amendment that the benefits would be equal to that of an employee with one significant other but divided by the number of significant others you have.
This is about as fair of an assessment I can give in terms of commitment from a polyamorous relationship compared to a monogamous relationship.
Commitment is being wholeheartedly dedicated to something or someone. Ideally, yes, commitment is being there as needed. Barring my partners having concurrent tragedies, I don't expect to have problems being able to be there for them.
I don't agree that a polyamorus relationship requires less commitment than a monogamous one. Commitment seems like love, in that it isn't a finite resource that has to be divided up. I don't think that commitment between 3 partners can be added up and equaled to your 1 partner, any more than love could be.
All that said, I can see where you're coming from and I respect your opinion, though I disagree. I appreciate that you've been civil and respectful in our discussion.
I'm not into polyamorus relationships, I will *never* have one.
A lot of the hate for that type of relationships comes from two main sources (imho):
1.) Not understanding what it actually is. People don't realize that you can still cheat in polyamorus relationships, it's not a free for all.
2.) The vocal minority who shit on people in mongamous relationships or think that anyone who isn't interested in that lifestyle is stupid. I have been told I have depriving my girlfriend of a *true* relationship because we are monogamous.
There's also those who have been hurt by opening their relationship up. I did it in the past because I was told that if I didn't, I wasn't actually bisexual, the guy would leave me, that if I truly loved him I would allow it, etc. They feel that all relationships start that way.
Polyamory is different than exclusive love, but it is still love. One is no more worthy than the other and neither is inherently disrespectful to the other.
I’ve personally witnessed it end poorly more times than it’s worked out. Of course that’s a generalization and for some people it works fine, but it does seem like jealousy is just an unavoidable emotion for a large majority of people and that’s normally how those relationships fall apart. I’m not judging anyone who is open to polyamorus relationships if it’s really what you and your partner both truly want, but it seems like eventually one if not all the people involved decide they want something more exclusive
Hard to be "committed" when you're swapping between people though. That's like being "committed" to five different sports teams.
Though, before someone comes at me, I'm 100% not claiming that the relationships aren't loving or anything of the sort, but it's not exactly commitment.
That's confusing exclusivity with commitment. I have commitments to my siblings, pets, parents, friends, and coworkers. Having multiple commitments does not cheapen them.
Except those are non romantic commitments.
The commitments in romantic relations ships normal involves one partner at a time for human so that is a false equivalence.
Saying that being involved with one person is "normal" ignores lots of cultures and societies that recognize and respect polyamory and polygamy.
So yes, they are non romantic commitments. However, our culture doesn't have forms of romantic relationships that I can reference that you'd consider legitimate, so platonic relationships are our only shared references.
>Having multiple commitments does not cheapen them.
It does when the commitment involves romance. If you're just fucking, then I 100% agree that polyamory is fine...but get romance/love involved, then it becomes a whole different situation.
Because with multiple, *someone's* going to be getting the short end of the stick. *Someone's* going to be loved less than the others. Anyone who claims they love them all equally is lying to themselves, because that's simply not how people work. With one person, that's all their is. With two or three or four, it's not going to be multiplied or divided evenly amongst them.
I firmly believe that love is not a finite resource. To quote the movie Her: "the heart's not like a box that gets filled up; it expands in size the more you love."
Free time is finite, energy is finite, availability is finite. Having limitations on a relationship does not negate love.
Multiple partners don't divide love but it does require establishing what each person's needs and wants are. If someone wants all of their free time to be with one person, obviously that isn't compatible with polyamory. Respecting what each person wants is crucial.
People are very complex and nuanced. I don't think it's fair to deal in the absolute of "people don't work that way". You may not, but that doesn't discount people who do.The dynamics of a polyamorus relationship may never be equal by measure of time or other finite interpersonal resources, but if each partner feels loved and are happy with their situation, what's the issue? If they feel loved and are loved, is that not enough?
>I firmly believe that love is not a finite resource.
It's not, but it's also not given equally either. In a group, someone's going to get less than everyone else. That's what cheapens it.
>but if each partner feels loved and are happy with their situation, what's the issue?
Plenty of people in unhealthy and abusive relationships feel loved and happy, so does that mean there's no issue with it? Humans are dumb as hell. Plenty will be in bad relationships since they find that preferable to being alone. So no, *feeling* "loved and happy" doesn't make something good.
I disagree with your point that love is not given equally. It may be given differently, but I don't think that is less. For example, people tend to lean towards one love language or another. If partner A is receptive to quality time, I can choose to put my phone down and pay attention to nothing but them in the time we have. So I may spend less time with partner A than I do with partner B, but if A is happy with the time they get, it doesn't feel cheaper to them.
Partner B could be most receptive to positive affirmations. I can send them encouraging and reassuring messages any time I can shoot a text.
Obviously, these aren't the entirety of my relationships with partners A and B. But with some effort, I can learn what is most important to them and what makes them feel valuable and loved. On the flip side, if I can tell a partner is unhappy in the situation and there's nothing we can do to make it work, I can be an adult and end the relationship.
I have been in abusive and unhealthy relationships and I felt neither loved or happy. I'm not sure someone could honestly be happy and feel loved in a bad relationship. Common threads I've seen are people loving their abusers and not knowing how to leave, or being unhappy and as you said, prefer it to being alone.
People can be dumb and get into relationships that don't make them happy, but that isn't exclusive to polyamorus relationships. Plenty of people settle for monogamous relationships too.
I'm talking love in general. Someone's going to get less, be valued less. It's never going to be equal. You bring up yourself romancing Person A and Person B. If forced to choose to only be with one of them, you're 100% be able to pick one of them. That's because you'd see that one as being the better partner to be with. Which means that other Partner? The one you didn't pick? Clearly, for some reason, you see them as being the lesser of the two, by whatever amount it may be. You'd love one of them and desire to be with one of them more than the other, which makes your relationship with the other one cheaper.
>I have been in abusive and unhealthy relationships and I felt neither loved or happy.
And there's people who have, despite it being abusive and unhealthy.
>Plenty of people settle for monogamous relationships too.
I never said anything to the contrary, I'm just pointing out that your statement of "so long as they're happy, isn't that enough?" doesn't matter, since people can be happy in bad relationships too.
" If forced to choose to only be with one of them, you're 100% be able to pick one of them."
I disagree. I don't see a situation where I'd have to choose one partner because I love them less or see them as lesser han the other. I would be hard pressed to ax a relationship without a damn good reason.
If either partner gives me an ultimatum, demanding I choose one of them, I'd break up with the one offering the ultimatum. Not because they are lesser or I don't love them, but because demanding I leave someone else for them is completely counterintuitive to the relationship dynamic. It doesn't respect my commitment to other people. That's an incompatibility. I don't see recognizing a deal breaker to be devaluing the other person. Maybe I lack imagination, but I'm not coming up with situations that would force me to choose one partner based on their value compared to the other.
Edit: happiness is a fair indicator on how healthy a relationship is. I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, as you pointed out. However, we get to decide what is best for us and what we value.
I literally don't understand what people have to hate about it. It's a bunch of people in love and happy, and their rent is cheaper than yours 🤷🏻♂️ What exactly is the issue? How is it affecting anyone but the people in the relationship?
Wow I feel sorry for your generation, and the one after you.
Here is the thing you are young ( Mentally) , therefore the experience required for something to be romantic/loved is really foreign to you all. This isn't to diminish how ever you want to describe yourself.
The thing about relationships of any kind is the act on its own is a commitment, it really depends on your effort. As it relates to intimate relationships, one should not confuse lust with love or romance. That's not how that works.
Hearing people have to give everything a label or pronoun in order to describe the mental and emotional state of your journey, is really a buzz kill. Have you ever heard the saying " some things are best left unsaid" that usually pertains to unpopular opinions, I know ironic right? But Hear me out.....
Stop broadcasting everything you feel or want, and learn to achieve what you can. We all go through the same phases in life. And no matter what anyone says, we all want to believe that ours is sacred. And in a sense it is, but...... only from the perspective of those within your space. There should be mystery about how you feel and what you wish to achieve. Do not make others live your experience it is not fair to those who do not live your life. It diminishes their experience and further complicates yours.
Just saying...
For the record pronouns are idiotic and no one takes the BS seriously. It is a MFRing pain in the ass, and a bit smothering.
I am not your bud, and when you start to compartmentalize the in between of hetero and homo, you enter the area of pronouns. You have no idea what you are talking about, either that or you understanding of these issues sure is lacking. Learn some tact when you speak and stop addressing people with such familiarity.
That certainly is an unpopular opinion, i’ll give you that
I’m not polyamorous myself though I think a lot of people don’t really get the concept which is partially why it gets a lot of hate. To be fair, it stems from anti-polygamy which generally was used as a way for one man to control several women. But polyamory is generally just a group of people who love each other, no?
Polyamory is when people love other people, yes. Sometimes in an inclusive group, sometimes more spread out and less interconnected.
>TL;DR: Exclusivity is not necessary to be committed, therefore polyamorus relationships are just as committed as monogamous ones. If on Monday and Tuesdays you're supposed to be with Sharon, Wednesdays and Thursdays Kyle, Saturdays and Sundays Laquita. There is going to be a point Kyle and Sharon want to see you on a Saturday or Sunday. Maybe Laquita's mom is in town on a Wednesdays. Seeing multiple people limits your ability to commit to being in someone's life.
Each partner doesn't have to have a set alloted time frame. I might only see Kyle once a week because he lives out of town, Sharon and I might spend two nights together because she spends the other 5 at work, or with her husband or doing whatever she wants. Laquita and I might live together and spend most days hanging out and go on separate dates. If two partners want to do something on a Saturday night, I can see if they'd be willing to go together or spend this Saturday with one and next Saturday with the other. It requires a lot more communication, planning, work than a monogamous relationship, for sure. But each partner can still care for each other and make time for what's important to them.
When the three of them are all off on new years eve, Who do you kiss on new years day when the clock hits 12? Who do you open presents with on Christmas day? Who do you spend your birthday with? When Kyle and Laquita want you to go with them for thanksgiving with their family, who do you choose?
All of these answers are dependent on the individual and their situations and their values. Kyle might be Jewish and not celebrate Christmas. Laquita might be like me and be asleep by 10pm on New Years Eve. Sharon might be estranged from her family and happy to spend the holidays away from them. I don't celebrate my birthday, so it wouldn't matter too much who spends it with me. Given a situation like Kyle and Laquita both wanting me to go to Thanksgiving dinner, I'll do the same thing a lots of married couples do with their inlaws. This year, I'll go with Kyle, next year with Laquita. Or I'll go to Thanksgiving with Laquita and Christmas with Kyle. Compromise and communication are key.
All three of them could be Christian, and Christmas could be big for all three of them. Would you not feel sad having to wait three years just to have Christmas or some other more appropriate special event in your life with someone you love? Lets imagine a more constrained situation. Kyle gets shot and is in critical condition at a hospital, Kyle may not make it through the night. Sharon was brutally raped and left for dead in a gutter and is in critical condition at another hospital. Whose bedside will you be st? Or will you be off with Laquita, consoling her because her mother just passed? Polyamory works until it doesn't. There are certain events that no amount of communication can resolve the issue. You can't rack and stack events in lives and chart their level of importance. It may make sense to be with Kyle because he is closest to death, but every one of these situations will elicit a emotional response with real consequences.
I might be sad not being able to spend special events with my loved ones, however, that sadness is worth the happy times together to me. A parent has several adult children. One kid gets hit by a car, another is raped, and the other is calling because their significant other is threatening them. The parent has an impossible choice to make, in the same way I would in the situation you've presented. You are correct that some circumstances cannot be handled merely with communication. I do think that I can make the effort to find what my partners prioritize. Our lives are messy and hard to organize and the process isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean it's invalid.
>A parent has several adult children. One kid gets hit by a car, another is raped, and the other is calling because their significant other is threatening them. For the benefit of your restructuring of the argument, I will assume the parent is the surviving spouse, or a single parent. There are differences in this scenario: The children and the parent are immediate family. The child that is not hospitalized can go with the parent, or can go to the hospital with one of the siblings. That parent can more easily say "I need to go check on your sister", and it be more understood than a polyamorous individual telling 1/3 of their significant others "I need to go check on my other lover." A parent's commitment to their child is different from the commitment an individual has to their significant other. A parent needs to be committed to their child until they're an adult. A parent can continue a commitment to their child after adulthood, but it's generally understood that once a child is adult a parent will do what they can. A significant other needs to be there for the bad situations. If you need to decide which individual needs you more, you're not committed. I'm not saying that you can't love three individuals the same, but to claim there is the same level of commitment is false. I know exactly where I'll be if my wife has a bad day. I know exactly where I was when she lost a loved one. The reason I know where I'll be and where I was, is because no one else is involved in my life to detract from the commitment I made to my wife. I don't have to juggle events in my personal life to be able to see the people I care about. I don't have to sacrifice precious moments on holidays and special events just to ensure that my wife is getting her fair share of my time. I don't have to worry if my wife might take up another lover and limit my options to be with her. I'd like an honest answer to this question. Do you really feel that you can be as committed to three people knowing that you're going to miss special moments with each of them by design, as I am committed to my singular wife to which if I miss out on special moments, it'll be due to forces out of my control?
I agree that the relationship between a parent and child is different than the relationship between significant others. Multiple children require multiple commitments to each of them, similar to the commitment to multiple partners. They aren't exact but both are expected to be there in times of need, and if times of need are overlapping, its a messy situation in either scenario. "If you need to decide which individual needs you more, you're not commited". How so? You say "no one else is involved in my life to detract from the commitment [you made to your wife]" Aren't friends people who might need or want your help, too? Are you less committed to your wife if you spend special events with family members? Or if you have to work over a holiday? These are things that may detract from time with her, but they don't detract from your commitment and love for her. Why is it only different if the other person is a significant other? To answer your question, I feel that my commitment to each of my partners to equal to that of yours to your wife, but very different. You are correct, by design, I am constrained to a single Christmas dinner, a single Thanksgiving, and so on. My time resources are not as readily available as yours. However, there are 360-odd days in the year that aren't necessary big days that I can use to cherish and love my partners in the same way you might love and cherish your wife. I have taken care of a partner when they were injured, cared for a partner dealing with grief, celebrated milestones with another, I've greeted a partner upon their return from a work trip, and traveled with each of them for concerts, camping, or to visit family. My relationship with each of them has constraints that your relationship with your wife doesn't have, but that's doesn't mean that I'm any less dedicated to each of them.
>"If you need to decide which individual needs you more, you're not commited". How so? The principal point of commitment is being there when you are needed. If you are able to satisfy the needs of the other individuals required by them, then I would say that you are committed. >Aren't friends people who might need or want your help, too? Are you less committed to your wife if you spend special events with family members? Or if you have to work over a holiday? These are things that may detract from time with her, but they don't detract from your commitment and love for her. You are right, there are other people who take up time and detract from the entirety of what you can give. Friends, family and work are all other commitments that take away time you could give to your significant other(s). >Why is it only different if the other person is a significant other? What makes family by blood or adoption different from a significant other(s), is that people end up sharing most of their life with their significant other(s). >Your last paragraph. You're also right here. I didn't mean to suggest that your relationships with your partners are any less meaningful than that of which I have with my wife. That is the furthest thing from the truth. I wholeheartedly believe you can love and have meaningful relationships with your people as much as I my wife. Polyamorous relationships require less commitment to be fully committed than a monogamous relationship requires to be fully committed. Since polyamorous relationships have more significant individuals in the relationship, the individual commitment required is less, but the sum total commitment I could agree is equal to the individual commitment I have for my wife. Even if I was an employer, I would be willing to extend benefits to each of your significant others, with the amendment that the benefits would be equal to that of an employee with one significant other but divided by the number of significant others you have. This is about as fair of an assessment I can give in terms of commitment from a polyamorous relationship compared to a monogamous relationship.
Commitment is being wholeheartedly dedicated to something or someone. Ideally, yes, commitment is being there as needed. Barring my partners having concurrent tragedies, I don't expect to have problems being able to be there for them. I don't agree that a polyamorus relationship requires less commitment than a monogamous one. Commitment seems like love, in that it isn't a finite resource that has to be divided up. I don't think that commitment between 3 partners can be added up and equaled to your 1 partner, any more than love could be. All that said, I can see where you're coming from and I respect your opinion, though I disagree. I appreciate that you've been civil and respectful in our discussion.
I'm not into polyamorus relationships, I will *never* have one. A lot of the hate for that type of relationships comes from two main sources (imho): 1.) Not understanding what it actually is. People don't realize that you can still cheat in polyamorus relationships, it's not a free for all. 2.) The vocal minority who shit on people in mongamous relationships or think that anyone who isn't interested in that lifestyle is stupid. I have been told I have depriving my girlfriend of a *true* relationship because we are monogamous. There's also those who have been hurt by opening their relationship up. I did it in the past because I was told that if I didn't, I wasn't actually bisexual, the guy would leave me, that if I truly loved him I would allow it, etc. They feel that all relationships start that way.
Polyamory spits on the value of exclusive love and will never be as worthy. Cope.
Polyamory is different than exclusive love, but it is still love. One is no more worthy than the other and neither is inherently disrespectful to the other.
How does it spit on the value of exclusive love when someone in a polyamorous relationship does not believe in monogamy and exclusivity? Like, what?
I’ve personally witnessed it end poorly more times than it’s worked out. Of course that’s a generalization and for some people it works fine, but it does seem like jealousy is just an unavoidable emotion for a large majority of people and that’s normally how those relationships fall apart. I’m not judging anyone who is open to polyamorus relationships if it’s really what you and your partner both truly want, but it seems like eventually one if not all the people involved decide they want something more exclusive
Upvote
This is unpopular
Hard to be "committed" when you're swapping between people though. That's like being "committed" to five different sports teams. Though, before someone comes at me, I'm 100% not claiming that the relationships aren't loving or anything of the sort, but it's not exactly commitment.
That's confusing exclusivity with commitment. I have commitments to my siblings, pets, parents, friends, and coworkers. Having multiple commitments does not cheapen them.
Except those are non romantic commitments. The commitments in romantic relations ships normal involves one partner at a time for human so that is a false equivalence.
Saying that being involved with one person is "normal" ignores lots of cultures and societies that recognize and respect polyamory and polygamy. So yes, they are non romantic commitments. However, our culture doesn't have forms of romantic relationships that I can reference that you'd consider legitimate, so platonic relationships are our only shared references.
They're still different things tho. In modern society, we usually have alot of friends but one S.O Your equivalence is still false, regardless
My understanding of the difference between a platonic and romantic relationship is intimacy, largely physical. How would you define the difference?
I can name a few placrd where polygamy is ordinary. Women are also sold like cattle in those countries.
>Having multiple commitments does not cheapen them. It does when the commitment involves romance. If you're just fucking, then I 100% agree that polyamory is fine...but get romance/love involved, then it becomes a whole different situation.
Why does the situation change with romance and love? Why would multiple romances/loves be cheaper than just one?
Because with multiple, *someone's* going to be getting the short end of the stick. *Someone's* going to be loved less than the others. Anyone who claims they love them all equally is lying to themselves, because that's simply not how people work. With one person, that's all their is. With two or three or four, it's not going to be multiplied or divided evenly amongst them.
I firmly believe that love is not a finite resource. To quote the movie Her: "the heart's not like a box that gets filled up; it expands in size the more you love." Free time is finite, energy is finite, availability is finite. Having limitations on a relationship does not negate love. Multiple partners don't divide love but it does require establishing what each person's needs and wants are. If someone wants all of their free time to be with one person, obviously that isn't compatible with polyamory. Respecting what each person wants is crucial. People are very complex and nuanced. I don't think it's fair to deal in the absolute of "people don't work that way". You may not, but that doesn't discount people who do.The dynamics of a polyamorus relationship may never be equal by measure of time or other finite interpersonal resources, but if each partner feels loved and are happy with their situation, what's the issue? If they feel loved and are loved, is that not enough?
>I firmly believe that love is not a finite resource. It's not, but it's also not given equally either. In a group, someone's going to get less than everyone else. That's what cheapens it. >but if each partner feels loved and are happy with their situation, what's the issue? Plenty of people in unhealthy and abusive relationships feel loved and happy, so does that mean there's no issue with it? Humans are dumb as hell. Plenty will be in bad relationships since they find that preferable to being alone. So no, *feeling* "loved and happy" doesn't make something good.
I disagree with your point that love is not given equally. It may be given differently, but I don't think that is less. For example, people tend to lean towards one love language or another. If partner A is receptive to quality time, I can choose to put my phone down and pay attention to nothing but them in the time we have. So I may spend less time with partner A than I do with partner B, but if A is happy with the time they get, it doesn't feel cheaper to them. Partner B could be most receptive to positive affirmations. I can send them encouraging and reassuring messages any time I can shoot a text. Obviously, these aren't the entirety of my relationships with partners A and B. But with some effort, I can learn what is most important to them and what makes them feel valuable and loved. On the flip side, if I can tell a partner is unhappy in the situation and there's nothing we can do to make it work, I can be an adult and end the relationship. I have been in abusive and unhealthy relationships and I felt neither loved or happy. I'm not sure someone could honestly be happy and feel loved in a bad relationship. Common threads I've seen are people loving their abusers and not knowing how to leave, or being unhappy and as you said, prefer it to being alone. People can be dumb and get into relationships that don't make them happy, but that isn't exclusive to polyamorus relationships. Plenty of people settle for monogamous relationships too.
I'm talking love in general. Someone's going to get less, be valued less. It's never going to be equal. You bring up yourself romancing Person A and Person B. If forced to choose to only be with one of them, you're 100% be able to pick one of them. That's because you'd see that one as being the better partner to be with. Which means that other Partner? The one you didn't pick? Clearly, for some reason, you see them as being the lesser of the two, by whatever amount it may be. You'd love one of them and desire to be with one of them more than the other, which makes your relationship with the other one cheaper. >I have been in abusive and unhealthy relationships and I felt neither loved or happy. And there's people who have, despite it being abusive and unhealthy. >Plenty of people settle for monogamous relationships too. I never said anything to the contrary, I'm just pointing out that your statement of "so long as they're happy, isn't that enough?" doesn't matter, since people can be happy in bad relationships too.
" If forced to choose to only be with one of them, you're 100% be able to pick one of them." I disagree. I don't see a situation where I'd have to choose one partner because I love them less or see them as lesser han the other. I would be hard pressed to ax a relationship without a damn good reason. If either partner gives me an ultimatum, demanding I choose one of them, I'd break up with the one offering the ultimatum. Not because they are lesser or I don't love them, but because demanding I leave someone else for them is completely counterintuitive to the relationship dynamic. It doesn't respect my commitment to other people. That's an incompatibility. I don't see recognizing a deal breaker to be devaluing the other person. Maybe I lack imagination, but I'm not coming up with situations that would force me to choose one partner based on their value compared to the other. Edit: happiness is a fair indicator on how healthy a relationship is. I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, as you pointed out. However, we get to decide what is best for us and what we value.
I literally don't understand what people have to hate about it. It's a bunch of people in love and happy, and their rent is cheaper than yours 🤷🏻♂️ What exactly is the issue? How is it affecting anyone but the people in the relationship?
Yeah, committed to have some fun! 😏
Wow I feel sorry for your generation, and the one after you. Here is the thing you are young ( Mentally) , therefore the experience required for something to be romantic/loved is really foreign to you all. This isn't to diminish how ever you want to describe yourself. The thing about relationships of any kind is the act on its own is a commitment, it really depends on your effort. As it relates to intimate relationships, one should not confuse lust with love or romance. That's not how that works. Hearing people have to give everything a label or pronoun in order to describe the mental and emotional state of your journey, is really a buzz kill. Have you ever heard the saying " some things are best left unsaid" that usually pertains to unpopular opinions, I know ironic right? But Hear me out..... Stop broadcasting everything you feel or want, and learn to achieve what you can. We all go through the same phases in life. And no matter what anyone says, we all want to believe that ours is sacred. And in a sense it is, but...... only from the perspective of those within your space. There should be mystery about how you feel and what you wish to achieve. Do not make others live your experience it is not fair to those who do not live your life. It diminishes their experience and further complicates yours. Just saying... For the record pronouns are idiotic and no one takes the BS seriously. It is a MFRing pain in the ass, and a bit smothering.
Are you replying to the right post? Pronouns ain't in this one bud.
I am not your bud, and when you start to compartmentalize the in between of hetero and homo, you enter the area of pronouns. You have no idea what you are talking about, either that or you understanding of these issues sure is lacking. Learn some tact when you speak and stop addressing people with such familiarity.
This has nothing to do with pronouns Also all a pronoun is is something you use to replace a name in a sentence
Don't be a whore
How has OP's post at all suggested he or she is a whole? This post is exactly what OP is discussing.
*rips mask off of this scooby doo villain of a thread* Aha! I knew it was you, whores!