I actually don't consider this lifestyle cheating. A monogamous relationship is an agreement of fidelity. If one partner breaks the agreement by having sex with another, or the romantic bonding, without their consent, that is cheating.

An open relationship is consent, between two people & there fore not cheating.

Polygamous relationships, are FULL disclosure. So therefore, they are not cheating.

*All religion / faith & my personal morality & judgements aside.*
I view ALL relationships as ETHNICAL CONTRACTS. If one or more adults AGREE to sex or a relationship, or to have or not have a commitment.... & they have defined what that means, to THEM.... then it is what THEY think and AGREE it is.

* Just my opinion. This is how I see it*

Couldn't have said it any better, Sassy. Brava.

The cheating issue in relationships is one of possession and maybe a dash of arrogance. 'You're mine and I should be all that you need/want.'

Polyamorous relationships (can) take into account additional complexities we human critters have. The nature of nature is growth and evolution. Stasis is simply stunted growth spelled differently.

The poly relationship is a very communicative one. In fact, it can't exist successfully without thorough and ongoing communication.

Oddly enough, PRs are based on honesty, in my experience. 'There are attractions/feelings/emotions we have in common. I'm secure enough to accept that I likely cannot provide all the ingredients to ensure your contentment/stimulation forever, nor you, mine. I'm open to options.'

I soooooo.agree...Well said.

Can we keep yld...

Bless you, my pointy-toothed pal. I missed you, today!

Just sounds like ADHD and having your cake and eating it too.


Success rates?

Criteria delineating success? That question seems subjective to me.

Success, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

If you mean, 'Was the relationship satisfying for the duration?' My experience of my own and those of others I've known is a resounding yes with one glaring exception, in my own case.

A-ha, says she.

I'd point out that there are glaring exceptions in other types of relationships, as well.

ADHD? I can't speak for others, but I can say with certainty that my attention was pretty focused. And as for the Hyperactivity portion all I can say is: You bet your pretty little boots that sometimes things got a little hyperactive and disordered.

Glad you recognize sarcasm.

Attentional benefits devoid of a lasting until you die love relationship?

I'm not hearing any success stories.

*looks around for YLD* Where has that critter gone?

Teal, the issue is one of depth - depth of values, creativity, flexibility (quit it! I saw that smirk!), concepts of commitment and 'acceptable behavior'.

I apologize if I'm mistaken, and I'm not being snarky, but it seems to me that the underlying theme of your question(s) is 'Isn't this something selfish, or at least, self-serving?'

My response is 'Sure, it is.' With one big 'but'. (did I just hear another titillated cackle out there? )

But, at the end of the day, distilled to its essence, what relationship - regardless of type - is not?

In every sort of (healthy) relationship a quid pro quo exists: I do A, I receive B. And if I don't receive B, tension, resentment and the possibility of turmoil exists because the skewed return threatens expectations.

PR expectations are different. Those of us in them know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that everyone has varied interests and that those interests will change because of any number of inputs - growth, knowledge, 'biological clocks', and many more.


Within a PR, a very real and liberating feeling exists: The pressure of having to be 'all things' to your partner is non-existent. We accept that a partner can have SOME of what we need/want and choose not to disqualify them for not being the 'total package.'

interesting..
I dated in college in my twenties here and there
had a few mindless flings with no named young men
settled down with a nice steady boyfriend
spent the next twenty plus years married
so this lifestyle choice
though I am aware of it
I have never known anyone to choose it in my age bracket

I have on other hand known a few married couples now divorced
where cheating was involved


two philosophies at work from a biological stand point
it is a human being's natural instinct to spread dat seed far and wide
or
it is human nature to want to find a loving, secure connection with another human being in order to raise young-ins


is it true then that human beings are made to be monogamous or it is not
the answer is not usually cut and dried but depends on individual or individuals involved

full disclosure on paper sounds like a very freeing thing

only if both are being completely honest
for it would be difficult I think
if this became an unequal distribution of feelings

where one was secretly no so ok with it anymore
resentment and hurt feelings could occur

this thread the OP is given congrats for opening up and talking about this
but yet in the hi am new section
a woman talks about wanting to cheat on an already cheating sinificant other
and she is being nailed to cross for it


human nature

freedom to be irresponsible comes to mind.

not exactly a new concept

swingers were around since seventies or was it sixties

I think we see things from a certain point of view
usually based on our upbringing
our value system
our religious beliefs

so we often look at someone else who does not make the same choices we do
as wrong


now would I be ok with a man who said to me
sweet pea I love ya
I want to be with ya
but I also want to be with your sister
your cousin and maybe your mama

oh hell no
but that is just me

Yes, hippies and free love has been around for some time.

If people want an open relationship...more power to them. It's just not my cup of tea

I see this type is different than cheating. In a poly relationship, there isn't a commitment to a monogamous relationship and it's open...not lying or sneaking

IMO that is the difference between the 2 topics. 1 is open and the other is sneaking

Lady T, the 'age bracket' observation is a good one.

Before I go there, though...

I'd like to clear up a potential misconception. Poly relationships don't (necessarily ) take the form of extended households featuring orgiastic group-gropes or serial bed-hopping or what-have-you.

Many PRs are made up of discrete and discreet pairings.

Pairings!?

Yep. There are often separate lives involved, completely self-contained. They just happen to share some emotional and/or physical assets.

This brings up the issue of time, but that's another entry altogether.

It would seem that this is a young person's bailiwick. Younger folks are more intellectually adventurous, have more energy, are more open-minded in many cases. And that's often where the fascination is born.

There are a surprising number of later-in-life PRs. In fact, it's more common among older, more affluent, educated and 'worldly' folks, I think. I've spoken with many more 30-, 40-, and 50-somethings about this than I have those younger.

There are many reasons for this. Some of those include experience in the 'relationship pool', maturity, self-knowledge and -confidence. There are as many reasons as there are adherents (well, ok - probably LOTS more reasons than there are participants )

hahaha now ya know I was just kidding about taking on the whole family

Actually Teal, the level of responsibility is increased, not lessened.

A successful, nurturing, intimate PR requires that those in the relationship be attentive, aware and concerned for the others involved. It's the ONLY way a PR can work, IMO.

It's a partnership, in every sense of the word. The only ingredient that's changed is it isn't an exclusive partnership.

Those involved are often far more giving (no pun intended), careful, well-adjusted and thoughtful folks than one might find in the general population.

Haman behaviour often takes its roots to animals.
We are already seeing related forms of polyamory in human as polyandry and polygyny.
Nature and Biology prefer polyamory.
Only socially acquired learnings restrict it.
And the same socially acquired learnings pave ways for it.
We can find many couples who practice polyamory in a very slightly different manner..
They understand, allow/ connive the polyandry or polygyny of their spouse. Both members of the couple knows but not disclose openly.

Society terms it cheating however.

YLD initiated this thread with a simple 'Polyamorous.' She hasn't been around to share what she was thinking. It's entirely possible that poly relationships were not what she meant to discuss.

I picked up the relationship-aspect ball and have been running with it.

My own experience and definition has colored what information I've shared. So there is no confusion, let me state that I consider polyamory outside of a relationship, to be cheating. If it has not been discussed and agreed to between partners it becomes just what Teal has been proposing.

Istay brings up a valid point. With relatively few exceptions, nature is predominantly polyamorous and it's social convention (primarily religious) which has championed monogamy. In a black and white world it would be the monogamous relationship that is considered a 'deviation.'

Justscribbles

thanks for understanding me.

It isn't a challenge, at all, to understand folks who put thought into what they're saying, partner. And I appreciate your observations. It hadn't occurred to me to include 'natural order' into the discussion.

Don't stop now, Istay.