# Monogamy?



## clarkekent (Dec 2, 2015)

Should there be monogamy? What do you think?


----------



## Cashel (Oct 29, 2013)

Yes. There can also be polygamy if people want it. I don't think it's a zero sum game?


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

I don't think this is a should or shouldn't thing. I think most people are monogamous because they can't stand the thought of their partner being with someone else (ie. jealousy). I'm poly myself, though I'm not really interested in casual sex. I'd rather have stable, long-term partners.

I find the whole jealousy thing sort of charming/endearing when it's not horrifying and abusive but I've never experienced sexual/romantic jealousy and I got tired of pretending I do just because other people feel insecure.


----------



## Sus y (Aug 30, 2017)

If I was in a relationship or even dating in certain terms, I wouldn't cheat, but if I could pick and get what I wanted I would rather a poly relationship, however that doesn't mean I would be dissatisfied if I was in a monogamous relationship, I could be, but not because of that :b


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

I have a kink that's sort of related to monogamy. Though I can see advantages to poly relationships, but I'm quite insecure and it's not really about jealousy as much as envy about certain things I think.. Not going into details but it's kind of a big problem in general and would be potentially if I ever had another relationship. 

In general I think people should do what makes them comfortable.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

Cashel said:


> Yes. There can also be polygamy if people want it. I don't think it's a zero sum game?


It's either one or the other. Always one thing or the other on SAS .


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Dec 9, 2017)

I kind of want a transgender girlfriend and a biological girl girlfriend at the same time. Having a threesome with them would be a fantasy fulfilled


----------



## Skygrinder (Nov 30, 2017)

Only monogamy for me.


----------



## Tetragammon (Jun 2, 2015)

I really don't know. Having not been in very many relationships thus far I'd probably say mono for now. 

But I'm very intrigued by open relationships. I mean the whole monogamy thing has only been the norm for the last millennium or so; our tribal ancestors were very polygamous. Following the rise of Christianity and the influence of the Victorian era, polyamory became extremely taboo for awhile there, and I think that mindset had a serious negative impact on humanity as a whole. The divorce rate in the US is what, like 50% now? And I'd bet that a large majority of those divorces happen because one or the other partner, or both, "cheated." I feel like way too many people these days are far too possessive and jealous of their partners. I had a girlfriend once who was super possessive and nosy -- she HAD to contact me every single day, always had to know where I was, who I was talking to, etc. And that **** drove me crazy; it's a large part of why I broke up with her.

I think jealousy in relationships is something that most people would benefit from getting over.


----------



## Scrub-Zero (Feb 9, 2004)

I'm all for mono, except when it comes to sound.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

For me though, monogamy, can't be any other way.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

I guess the worry is that if you let your partner date other people, one day they will find someone they like more than you and leave you for them. Not that this doesn't happen in monogamous relationships anyways but I suppose it would be more likely to happen. 

You'd also have to use condoms in the relationship since you never know what they might catch from their other partner.


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

Where is the harem option?


----------



## caelle (Sep 9, 2008)

Polygamy or monogamy, if people involved agree to it then I don't see the problem. But I don't think they are polar opposites. Just because you're in a polygamy relationship, doesn't mean you can just go screw whoever. It's still possible to cheat.

But same thing goes for open relationships. If everyone involved is ok with it then fine. 

Personally, I would only do monogamy.


----------



## Owlbear (Dec 3, 2015)

Monogamy if you plan on growing old together and/or raising children, anything else go have fun.

Personally I have enough issues pair-bonding with one woman. Two or more? No thanks. It would be a shallow relationship at best.


----------



## HiddenFathoms (Jul 18, 2017)

clarkekent said:


> Should there be monogamy? What do you think?


It's up to the individual.

For myself? Huge fan of monogamy. But, not in the "happily ever after" way that the entertainment world portrays.

Requires:
- a partner who I can communicate very openly with. Even about things like - when we are attracted to other people - despite the potential for some uncomfortable feelings. 
- we both have to be committed to still learning about sex and having fun with it. 
- have to love and respect the other person enough to "choose them again each day" (because long term relationships involve work).

When those things align? Immensely rewarding!


----------



## Hank Scorpio (Oct 28, 2008)

"should there be", that's an awfully vague question.


----------



## 0589471 (Apr 21, 2012)

komorikun said:


> I guess the worry is that if you let your partner date other people, one day they will find someone they like more than you and leave you for them. Not that this doesn't happen in monogamous relationships anyways but I suppose it would be more likely to happen.
> 
> You'd also have to use condoms in the relationship since you never know what they might catch from their other partner.


:lol I like the way you think Komorikun! Just saying it like it is. But yes, I am in agreement with this. I think for me personally monogamy is my only way, but everybody has their own way and it should remain a choice.


----------



## The Library of Emma (Mar 3, 2016)

If we take it beyond face value, this unpacks to be a rather complex question, more than I feel like expounding on here. Something akin to, "What is sex to you?" Instead, I'll outline a few of my basic thoughts.

Coming from a very conservative background, two partners in a closed and monogamous relationship seems almost reflexive, but for the sake of discussion I shall put this aside. Instead, I'll admit, I personally find it challenging (if not impossible) to interact meaningfully with more than one person at once. Eye contact and direct communication are lost exponentially when you introduce a third party into a conversation. As they say: "Two's company, three's a crowd." To interact intimately with two people at once is difficult for me to imagine. That is not to say that it couldn't be achieved, potentially; simply that I doubt I would find it easy or natural, given my nature. 

Now, as to having other partners "on the side"... it does have certain appeal... though it entices me through my fears rather than my hopes. Abandonment loses its sting, for one (but at the sacrifice of loyalty). 

At the end of the day, we all want to feel "chosen," and if our partners are looking outside the relationship for sexual fulfillment, I think we are bound to feel a bit rejected, despite however open minded we might try to be.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

I've seen some documentaries on polygamy, in muslim countries and in some weird parts of Utah. They aren't some big happy family that has an orgy every night. Usually the wives don't even live together. They each have their own house (can not share). And they are in competition with each other for money to support their own children and for their husband's attention. Tons of bickering, conniving over limited resources. Usually the first wife is the head wife and she will often be nasty and make the other ones clean and cook all the time. The wives are not happy at all when their husband takes on a new wife. 

The whole thing just seems gross. Like some old man's perverted, twisted fantasy.


----------



## Lohikaarme (Aug 28, 2013)

Polyamory just isn't for me. I like to devote my attention to one partner at a time ^^
If they're not satisfied with what I'm able to provide they're free to leave the relationship to go seek other partners as they please. 
Similarly, if I ever cheated I would swallow my pride and just tell them, and they could then react as they see fit. I won't ask for their forgiveness or try to form an excuse, I will just go ahead and state it in a matter-of-fact way. Cheating in and of itself speaks volumes. It's what I'd prefer if the roles were reversed besides. I think dishonesty is one of the factors that kills relationships the quickest so I have extremely low patience for it.
Finding other people attractive is fine, it would be unrealistic imo to demand they never so much as glimpsed at passerbys. Be that as it may, at the end of the day they would still choose to be with me and that's a beautiful thought to entertain. :mushy


----------



## Wren611 (Oct 19, 2012)

Are you asking which one we prefer or agree with, or what?

Because I don't understand the reasoning behind the question, I'm not voting, but polygamy isn't for me*. I've no issue with anyone who wants that kind of relationship though, simply because monogamy is unusual in the animal kingdom, especially primates. We're a very weird ape.

*I would consider a polygamous relationship if sexual intimacy wasn't involved.


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

I haven't met many monogamous people who haven't cheated on their partners. All 5 of my partners cheated on me, though I never cheated on any of them. What am I supposed to make of this? (I guess I should blame myself. I've never been attractive enough to be "the chosen one".)

I simply assume at this point that my partners _will_ cheat, and since they're going to do it at some point, and I'm tired of being the gullible mark who falls for some Hollywood greeting card fantasy, let's just put our cards on the table. Be safe, keep me informed. Hell, invite them over for dinner so I can get to know them. But don't think you're going to play me with fairy tales about "commitment" and "undying love". Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. I'm not 17 anymore. And if you're going to do it, so am I. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And while we're at it, if we all get along, why don't we all just live together and share our expenses?

With all the cheating and breaking up and getting back together I'm not sure what the difference between polyamory and "monogamy" is anymore for a lot of people. It seems mostly like a failure of nerve and wanting to eat your cake and have it, too. Can't we just skip all the melodrama?

Admittedly I'm defective in important ways in this area so maybe I just can't grasp something everyone else understands.
@komorikun Polyamory is not the same as polygamy, though maybe that's what the OP wanted to contrast and not polyamory. The polygamous relationships you're describing conform to cultural attitudes, customs, and values that I don't personally share or have any interest in sharing.


----------



## Blue Dino (Aug 17, 2013)

Honestly, I always wonder why social norms expected us to never practice polygamy for a committed relationship to work, and it's considered a taboo to do so. One has to grow bored of the other after a certain amount of time. Even in older times and in many cultures today, its a norm for men to take on multiple wives, yet each wife are expected to be loyal to their one husband, and is considered a crime/death sentence to do so. Husbands however are applauded for doing so.


----------



## CloudChaser (Nov 7, 2013)

As long as it's consentual and everyone in the relationship is aware, I don't care what people do.


----------



## Arbre (Mar 9, 2014)

People can have whatever kind of relationships they want if they're consenting adults.

I'm monogamous.


----------



## Virgo (Jun 27, 2016)

Me personally, I like having sexual and romantic freedom and not committing to one person. I was always at my most happiest when I was doing that. As soon as one person becomes not okay with it, it's kind of a bummer. I wonder a lot if humans are meant to be monogamous, not just a social construct. People get bored I guess... especially when I think of how many people get divorced, the numbers sure tell us a lot.

Now that I've met someone I'm convinced I could be with, that same one person, for the rest of my life, I don't know now. How will I feel about that 5 years or 10 years down the road? I think it's definitely possible, but you need to be a certain type of person who really finds one thing and cherishes it. For me personally, I jump around too much when it comes to what I'm interested in. But I don't know, this time might be very different for me.


----------



## Rachel NG (Dec 23, 2017)

komorikun said:


> I've seen some documentaries on polygamy, in muslim countries and in some weird parts of Utah. They aren't some big happy family that has an orgy every night. Usually the wives don't even live together. They each have their own house (can not share). And they are in competition with each other for money to support their own children and for their husband's attention. Tons of bickering, conniving over limited resources. Usually the first wife is the head wife and she will often be nasty and make the other ones clean and cook all the time. The wives are not happy at all when their husband takes on a new wife.
> 
> The whole thing just seems gross. Like some old man's perverted, twisted fantasy.


Yeah I think that's important to realize, polyamory in practice is harmful and disgusting. It's not some free-love, breaking of society's norms, it's just another manifestation of the patriarchal culture we live in that is particularly exploitative.


----------



## roxslide (Apr 12, 2011)

I consider myself monogamous but if I ever found that my partner wanted to try an open relationship I would be open to it, as long as we kept up with communication. I am not particularly jealous and I never want to control people, I want people to just be true to themselves. I'm just personally never interested in more than one person at a time. But if they just cheated on me and lied about it then I wouldn't have that. If I ever overcome my anxiety then I wouldn't be against having a casual threesome though.

So I guess I'm monogamous, mostly because polyamory sounds exhausting lol. I have a few friends who are polyamorous and it sounds all good and fine but I get stressed out just hearing about their situation, just way too many variables.


----------



## discoveryother (Sep 18, 2016)

i'm interested in polyamory. pretty hard to wrangle though... ofc guys want 2 or more girls sometimes for silly reasons. doesn't mean there aren't situations where it works. wouldn't mind one sexual partner and one asexual partner. things like that, where it solves a problem for someone... if you can identify some big problems you have had with monogamy, then i think you should feel confident with choosing to give it a go. there aren't many people willing to sacrifice monogamy, and being "normal" to try polyamory though, so the odds of them also being one of the right people for you are significantly decreased... to the point where i can say i am interested, but i wouldn't advertise that to any prospective partner unless they were obviously polyamorous.

i think once you start as monogamous, the way you see that person, your expectations, you can't easily change that. i'm not really open to renegotiation of a pre-existing relationship to such a large extent unless i was desperate or under duress or some obligation (like kids) though - but it would really feel like a breakup to me, a failed monogamy. those bad feelings might kill the relationship anyway. and that's another barrier to the whole thing also.


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

Rachel NG said:


> Yeah I think that's important to realize, polyamory in practice is harmful and disgusting. It's not some free-love, breaking of society's norms, it's just another manifestation of the patriarchal culture we live in that is particularly exploitative.


Polyamory has no intrinsic moral implications. There's no harm involved if the relationships are entirely consensual, so it's hard to see how you came to this conclusion.

Polyamorous relationships aren't harmful, disgusting, or patriarchal unless you confuse polyamory with specific cultural instances of polygamy that are based on unequal (legally and socially enforced) power differentials. Which is a bit like thinking that monogamy is "harmful and disgusting" because some cultures have practiced things like child marriage and sati; ie. it's confusing one thing for something else. The kind of polyamorous relationship I would consent to would have no more in common with "Mormon polygamy" than the average Western monogamous relationship would with child marriage.

For the same reason it's really hard to see how polyamory is intrinsically any more (or less) patriarchal than any other kind of arrangement. Whether it is or isn't depends entirely on the laws and customs surrounding its practice. Considering polyamory isn't legally sanctioned or remotely customary most places, and monogamy is, polyamory is certainly less normative and (if our culture is patriarchal) therefore less patriarchal (because there's no way to legally or socially enforce a polyamorous relationship, making it entirely consensual, contrary to the institution of monogamous marriage).

If patriarchy is the norm, and monogamy is the norm, then it makes more sense to argue that supporting monogamy is supporting the patriarchy. It's just really hard to see how being in an open (non-legal, non-binding) relationship with two men is "more patriarchal" than being legally bound to one man who is encouraged through law and custom to see me as his personal property. Laws and customs, furthermore, which are endlessly reinforced by all the "patriarchal" nonsense surrounding the ideal of monogamy (ie. "you belong to me") and all-too-frequently punished by "honor killings" (ie. jealous murder).

Your statement is akin to the following statements:

"I think it's important to realize that homosexuality in practice is harmful and disgusting."
"I think it's important to realize that interracial dating in practice is harmful and disgusting."

Hopefully, as these examples illustrate, it's bigotry that's harmful and disgusting, not polyamory.

Homosexuality and interracial dating, like polyamory, have no intrinsic moral implications, because no harm is intrinsically involved in their practice. If we wanted to as a culture, we could certainly institute laws and customs that make these kinds of arrangements harmful (age and race hierarchies, for example), but we haven't. We can make any kind of arrangement harmful if we want to, as the history of monogamy amply illustrates.


----------



## DarrellLicht (Mar 9, 2013)

I don't need to sow any wild oats. I'll take monogamy. The rest of you can do what you want.

I like the thought of having a partner and us as a team. A person who understands life is no candyland.


----------



## Rachel NG (Dec 23, 2017)

truant said:


> Considering polyamory isn't legally sanctioned or remotely customary most places, and monogamy is, polyamory is certainly less normative and (if our culture is patriarchal) therefore less patriarchal (because there's no way to legally or socially enforce a polyamorous relationship, making it entirely consensual, contrary to the institution of monogamous marriage).


This is where I can't agree with you at all. In our culture as it currently stands, polyamorous relationships are unequally enforceable. You acknowledge later in your post "we could certainly institute laws and customs that make these kinds of arrangements harmful (age and race hierarchies, for example), but we haven't" for interracial and homosexual relationships, but fail to note the extremely oppressive and prevalent gender hierarchy that does make polyamorous relationships harmful. The polyamorous relationship lacks any of the social and legal protections that women get in a monogamous relationship and put additional dangers and burdens onto the woman due to norms about promiscuity and pregnancy. The muslim and mormon practices are specific examples but they are only more extreme forms of the same culture we live in which is not equal or free.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

HiddenFathoms said:


> It's up to the individual.


Completely agree, I don't really understand this need to project some people have. If you want to have a monogamous relationship, fine, if you want an open relationship, fine. I don't see why I should care how other people want to live their lives *unless* they are harming others.

In my opinion, any relationship worth having (to me personally) involves a level of work I'd never be able to give to multiple people. Plus, once I'd chosen someone in that way I wouldn't want other people in that way any longer, maybe it's because I don't meet people I want to be in relationships with often so the idea of the grass being greener simply doesn't exist in my mind (who knows?). It would be like saying "I won't keep this winning lottery ticket because the ticket you're offering me for next week's draw in exchange might be worth even more".


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

Rachel NG said:


> This is where I can't agree with you at all. In our culture as it currently stands, polyamorous relationships are unequally enforceable. You acknowledge later in your post "we could certainly institute laws and customs that make these kinds of arrangements harmful (age and race hierarchies, for example), but we haven't" for interracial and homosexual relationships, but fail to note the extremely oppressive and prevalent gender hierarchy that does make polyamorous relationships harmful. The polyamorous relationship lacks any of the social and legal protections that women get in a monogamous relationship and put additional dangers and burdens onto the woman due to norms about promiscuity and pregnancy. The muslim and mormon practices are specific examples but they are only more extreme forms of the same culture we live in which is not equal or free.


You're repeating the error I criticized.

There's nothing intrinsically harmful about polyamorous relationships. To make those relationships harmful, you have to import other things, like a gender hierarchy. Muslim and Mormon polygamy are harmful because they import that hierarchy, not because there's anything wrong with polyamory. I didn't note the gender hierarchy because it was the whole point of my comparison to age and race hierarchies: gender hierarchies aren't an intrinsic element of polyamorous relationships.

Patriarchy only exists where there are people who believe that men are superior to women and there are laws and customs supporting that false sense of superiority. Attitudes, customs, and laws can all be changed. (If that weren't true, feminism would be an exercise in futility.) If those prejudices impact norms about promiscuity and pregnancy (and therefore polyamorous women), those prejudices need to be attacked, not polyamory. And in any case it's just plain ignorant to assume that people in polyamorous relationships support that hierarchy. Most of the relationships I'm talking about have nothing to do with religions or traditional cultures where such attitudes are prevalent. Unless you consider pansexual body-painting free love hippie anarchists a bastion of traditional conservative values.

The _fact_ is I am safer in a polyamorous relationship with two men who do not believe they are superior to me than I am in a monogamous relationship with a man who believes he is superior to me, legal protections notwithstanding. (And there's no way I'd date a misogynist in any case, since I'm rabidly anti-hierarchical.) The problem, once again, is not the form of the relationship, but the attitudes of the people involved in the relationship. The solution isn't to ban polyamory but to discredit harmful attitudes.

People in poly relationships lack social and legal protections because there are people (not pointing any fingers) arguing that they should not receive those social and legal protections. "People in poly relationships have no legal and social protections, therefore we shouldn't legally and socially acknowledge people in poly relationships" is circular reasoning. You're prescribing the problem you pretend to condemn. Providing people with protections equivalent to the protections people in monogamous relationships have would be relatively trivial. There's no reason that _all_ parties in a poly relationship could not be held financially responsible for _all_ the children that result from the relationship, it's just that no one wants to do it. That would require having a serious discussion about a bunch of degenerate, pot-smoking, Kropotkin-quoting perverts.

While, for the time being, people may lack protections, it's also a two-way street: people are not obligated to enter into those relationships or stay in them in our culture. (The way I was forced into a common law marriage by my government.) There's no one pressuring anyone to be poly. No one's parents are asking when they're going to meet a couple of nice young men. If you don't want to be in a poly relationship, don't be in a poly relationship. It's a non-issue. In any case, I don't see how dictating what kind of relationship a person can have differs from dictating whom a person can sleep with. They're practically the same thing.

Millions of people are _already_ in "poly" relationships whether they know it or not. They just have other names for it, like "cheating" and "side chicks" and having multiple "friends with benefits" and "visiting a prostitute on Tuesday nights when my wife thinks I'm bowling". Poly relationships just make all of that transparent so people aren't running around behind each other's backs and can make informed decisions, get properly tested, etc. Whether you disapprove of these kinds of arrangements or not won't prevent them from happening just like disapproving of premarital sex doesn't do anything to stop thirteen-year-olds from getting pregnant. Decrying poly relationships is pissing into the wind. The 'critique' of poly relationships has always carried an unsavory taint of socially conservative ****-shaming tucked in a blanket of concern trolling to me and frankly I'm just sick and tired of all the sanctimony and hypocrisy.

Can a polyamorous relationship be dangerous in "culture as it stands"? Sure. You may end up with an authoritarian misogynist (or two). But these days standing on a street corner or going to a rock concert is dangerous. It all depends on who you're there with. I know I'd feel a lot safer, personally, living with two people than I do with one. For starters, there'd be someone else there to defend me if one of them snaps (eat your heart out abuse-loving monogamous ladies); and for another, two people there when transphobic asshats start throwing burning **** on my front lawn: one to call the cops and the other to take the shotgun out of my hands so I don't end up the most popular girl in Kingston Pen.

The cherry for me is that men like that probably aren't the jealous type, either. It's the jealous ones that really scare me. You know, the "I can't live without you soul mates every breath you take we were meant to be together" ones. Talk about a dangerously ****ing creepy mentality. None for me thanks, I'll pass.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

truant said:


> You're repeating the error I criticized.
> 
> There's nothing intrinsically harmful about polyamorous relationships. To make those relationships harmful, you have to import other things, like a gender hierarchy.


Not to nudge my way in here, but this.



truant said:


> Patriarchy only exists where there are people who believe that men are superior to women and there are laws and customs supporting that false sense of superiority. Attitudes, customs, and laws can all be changed. (If that weren't true, feminism would be an exercise in futility.) If those prejudices impact norms about promiscuity and pregnancy (and therefore polyamorous women), those prejudices need to be attacked, not polyamory. And in any case it's just plain ignorant to assume that people in polyamorous relationships support that hierarchy. Most of the relationships I'm talking about have nothing to do with religions or traditional cultures where such attitudes are prevalent. Unless you consider pansexual body-painting free love hippie anarchists a bastion of traditional conservative values.


This might flush someone out.

Maybe unfair to suspect that every time the patriarchy gets attached to something inherently non patriarchal, but something about that and the weird conservative values thing has tripped an alarm.



truant said:


> The cherry for me is that men like that probably aren't the jealous type, either. It's the jealous ones that really scare me. You know, the "I can't live without you soul mates every breath you take we were meant to be together" ones. Talk about a dangerously ****ing creepy mentality. None for me thanks, I'll pass.


Sends truant a love note in the post made from pubes.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

^ I figured it out a while ago. Fairly sure at this point.


----------



## Chevy396 (Jul 10, 2017)

I'm not sure if I'd actually want to be in a relationship with more than one person at a time, I've entertained the idea but it doesn't seem that great anymore. I think if I found someone who I could really trust to not be cheating on me then it would be nice to be monogamous. I had considered an open relationship for a while just to avoid being lied to. I still think it would be fun to have a threesome with them once in a while just for fun, but nothing serious. Just as much for their enjoyment as for mine, and it would have to be a mutual decision. Trust is key. Once that is gone there is no type of relationship that feels good.


----------



## RagnarLothbrok (Dec 16, 2016)

As long as a frame is established early on, then I'm not so bothered by other people having poly relationships (as long it's not one sided). I do believe that most relationships which start monogamous and then become open are destined for failure based on anecdotes of people I know who've been in them. 

Right now if I was to suggest an open relationship or threesomes to my gf the likelihood of it ending in disaster is pretty high. And obviously if you want kids or something very long term then monogamy is the best bet and has the least chance of something going wrong or your partner leaving you, although the chances can still be pretty high. I will remain a monogamist anyway.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

I'm just suspicious of any non-monogamous relationship where there is a *one penis policy*. Even if they aren't religious or conservative.


----------



## Rachel NG (Dec 23, 2017)

komorikun said:


> I'm just suspicious of any non-monogamous relationship where there is a *one penis policy*. Even if they aren't religious or conservative.


Yeah, same with threesomes. It's annoying how often I see people online talking about how they "both" have a mff fantasy but "neither" of them wants to try an mmf. It tends to result in shaming while dating the fake male progressives, who talk about being open minded and experimenting, but only mean the woman has to be open minded. It's just sad how people pretend they're doing something that's against society's norms when really they're just following the same norms as always.


----------



## Sky Blue (Sep 17, 2017)

People should follow what path works for them. Some are legitimately unhappy in one or the other so there's no reason to force it. I think dating two or three people sounds exhausting.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

komorikun said:


> I'm just suspicious of any non-monogamous relationship where there is a *one penis policy*. Even if they aren't religious or conservative.


I don't see how it's different from monogamy though in that respect, most monogamous guys wouldn't be open to having sex with men. Though I agree it's annoying and contributes to an imbalance in society where male homosexuality and bisexuality is looked down on more than female bisexuality. But it probably has to do with this:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-18372-0

vs

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep41314


----------



## Rachel NG (Dec 23, 2017)

Persephone The Dread said:


> I don't see how it's different from monogamy though, most monogamous guys wouldn't be open to having sex with men.


In the monogamous relationship there'd also be a "one vagina policy", the point was calling out double standards that men want to have multiple women while keeping the women to themselves. Which is how polygamy usually manifests in the real world.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

Rachel NG said:


> In the monogamous relationship there'd also be a "one vagina policy", the point was calling out double standards that men want to have multiple women while keeping the women to themselves. Which is how polygamy usually manifests in the real world.


I edited my post, I agree that it's annoying but I think it's important to acknowledge where the double standard comes from. I'd recommend women who want mmf threesomes date men who openly id as bi.


----------



## Rachel NG (Dec 23, 2017)

Persephone The Dread said:


> I edited my post, I agree that it's annoying but I think it's important to acknowledge where the double standard comes from. I'd recommend women who want mmf threesomes date men who openly id as bi.


It's not about threesomes though, I just mentioned that as a similar thing, this thread and all the posts are about polyamoury. It's not about a straight guy not wanting to have sex with a man, it's about that guy thinking it's okay for him to have multiple relationships at once but that all of his girlfriends can't have other boyfriends too. It doesn't have anything to do with orientation, and it's more related to issues of ****-shaming and the double standard about male and female promiscuity, and the lingering patriarchal concepts of women belonging to the men they're dating.


----------



## discoveryother (Sep 18, 2016)

komorikun said:


> I'm just suspicious of any non-monogamous relationship where there is a *one penis policy*. Even if they aren't religious or conservative.


why? fear of the patriarchy? women stereotyped as being vulnerable to predatory men? stereotype of narcissistic men?


----------



## roxslide (Apr 12, 2011)

Idk man. I don't want to get into a debate here but after meeting different people in different poly situations it really doesn't seem so bad. As a bi girl I have been approached by many couples wanting to be a throuple with me and if I was up for it (which I am not) I don't see a problem with it as long as everyone knows what's going on and is ok with it. I don't see anything inherently wrong with being in a couple with one man and two women or even more women, male sexuality is typically less flexible so that obviously contributes to the inequality here.

I also know at least 3 poly women who have sex with multiple men and I only know one poly guy. I think in more conservative cultures where the male/female power is skewed then yes, there is a problem we should recognise but from what I have seen in "the real world" in modern culture polyamorous people do just fine and aren't inherently doing anything harmful.


----------



## discoveryother (Sep 18, 2016)

Rachel NG said:


> In the monogamous relationship there'd also be a "one vagina policy", the point was calling out double standards that men want to have multiple women while keeping the women to themselves. Which is how polygamy usually manifests in the real world.


by real world i guess you mean old world. polygamy in organised religion/culture/whatever.

polyamory is usually about what the individuals want. it is negotiated between individuals, not representatives of genders. the agreements aren't a template to be forced upon anyone beyond those individuals.


----------



## Rachel NG (Dec 23, 2017)

roxslide said:


> male sexuality is typically less flexible so that obviously contributes to the inequality here.


I suspect that's most likely just an excuse to avoid having to challenge their privilege.


----------



## Great Expectations (Jan 25, 2018)

Monogamy for me.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

Rachel NG said:


> It's not about threesomes though, I just mentioned that as a similar thing, this thread and all the posts are about polyamoury. It's not about a straight guy not wanting to have sex with a man, it's about that guy thinking it's okay for him to have multiple relationships at once but that all of his girlfriends can't have other boyfriends too. It doesn't have anything to do with orientation, and it's more related to issues of ****-shaming and the double standard about male and female promiscuity, and the lingering patriarchal concepts of women belonging to the men they're dating.


OK I don't see how that's an argument against polyamory in general though there are plenty of open relationships where the female partner is having sex with other guys etc.

I don't think it's really about ownership either most of the time tbh I think it's about competition. Men are seen as more of a threat than women are to relationships with women, hence why a lot of lesbians refuse to date bi women but straight guys are usually OK with that. I mean like quick example in this video 1:13 onwards:


----------



## Chevy396 (Jul 10, 2017)

Rachel NG said:


> In the monogamous relationship there'd also be a "one vagina policy", the point was calling out double standards that men want to have multiple women while keeping the women to themselves. Which is how polygamy usually manifests in the real world.


I don't agree with this, there are far more bisexual women than bisexual men out there and that's why it's far more common to hear of a FFM threesome than a MMF one. I don't think there is anything sinister or selfish behind it.


----------



## roxslide (Apr 12, 2011)

Rachel NG said:


> I suspect that's most likely just an excuse to avoid having to challenge their privilege.


link 1

link 2

link 3

link 4


----------



## Owlbear (Dec 3, 2015)

The above discussion reminds me of two situations - one guy I used to work with had baby mommas. He bounced between them, and they hated each other - is that polyamory? It's not polygamy, the guy wouldn't marry to save his life.

Second situation - a girl I was close with was rooming with this older couple. They owned a string of bars and were very well off. Both were obese, the wife even had to use a cane to walk. Whenever I'd visit she'd be in a chair knitting or watching a show. Her husband and her were in a "polyamorous" relationship as they told me. But he was never there. He was always off with his college-aged skinny girlfriend. Now you guys know I'm not a feminist - so this doesn't stem from some sort of patriarchy position, but it was messed up. Don't need to be read up on gender theories to notice when a relationship is toxic.
A few decades ago we'd probably just have said he was a rich ahole with a mistress, but somehow slapping the polyamory tag on it made it A-okay. 

And yeah, can confirm with at least one lesbian friend that she hates bi women. Last spring she let her guard down, dated a bi woman, and sure enough the woman dumped her recently and ran off with some guy. To the bi woman it was a "phase" and to my friend it was a hell year.


----------



## Rachel NG (Dec 23, 2017)

roxslide said:


> link 1
> 
> link 2
> 
> ...


The problem with studies like that is they only capture the extremely subjective responses of individuals who live in a culture where this is the norm and expected of them. So it really doesn't tell me anything.


----------



## Rachel NG (Dec 23, 2017)

Owlbear said:


> A few decades ago we'd probably just have said he was a rich ahole with a mistress, but somehow slapping the polyamory tag on it made it A-okay.


Yup! Polyamory in a nutshell.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

solutionx said:


> I don't agree with this, there are far more bisexual women than bisexual men out there and that's why it's far more common to hear of a FFM threesome than a MMF one. I don't think there is anything sinister or selfish behind it.


Actually I think that MMF threesomes are more common since it's easier to find a man to have sex with than a woman. More likely that none of the three are in a relationship with each other though. Guys also like to "share" women they are having casual sex with, with their friends for some sort of kudos/bonus points.

You just don't hear about MMF as often. Maybe because no one wants to brag about it.

As for polyamory (where all 3 are in a relationship with each other), I'd imagine 2 women and one man is more common because men can't handle another man having sex with their wife/girlfriend. When it comes to actual marriage, definitely polygyny is way more common than polyandry.



> Of the 1,231 societies listed in the 1980 Ethnographic Atlas, 186 were found to be monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had polyandry.


----------



## Karsten (Apr 3, 2007)

Rachel NG said:


> Yeah, same with threesomes. It's annoying how often I see people online talking about how they "both" have a mff fantasy but "neither" of them wants to try an mmf. It tends to result in shaming while dating the fake male progressives, who talk about being open minded and experimenting, but only mean the woman has to be open minded. It's just sad how people pretend they're doing something that's against society's norms when really they're just following the same norms as always.


I've always been under the impression that MMF threesomes were more popular among men, but not so much with the women. They could have been embarrassed to say, but most of the girls I've spoken to throughout the years have leaned much towards the FFM variation than the double-dicked approach.

As far as OP goes:

I think monogamy is way too optimistic for most people. They change their minds and hearts too often - myself included.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

Rachel NG said:


> The problem with studies like that is they only capture the extremely subjective responses of individuals who live in a culture where this is the norm and expected of them. So it really doesn't tell me anything.


Did you read the studies I linked? Because they measure neurological arousal to sexual stimuli and show that men and lesbian women show category specific arousal patterns, while other women do not.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

When I see this thread I can't help but think "Mongoose" and "Pygmy". Occasionally, I think about "Mongolia" too.


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

Rachel NG said:


> In the monogamous relationship there'd also be a "one vagina policy", the point was calling out double standards that men want to have multiple women while keeping the women to themselves. Which is how polygamy usually manifests in the real world.


I've always been poly but I've always dated "monogamists" and respected their preferences because they keep telling me how "painful" jealousy is. In over 20 years of committed relationships, I have never once cheated. 5/5 of my "monogamous" gfs have cheated on me.

I am no longer dating monogamists because I, too, am very sick of double standards. "You will be faithful, and I will sleep with whomever I want and just not tell you about it" is how "monogamy" usually manifests in the real world. The choice is never between polyamory and "monogamy" but between polyamory and cheating. And most of the time, it's one "monogamist" exploiting the goodwill of another.

Others are welcome to live in a world of jealous insecurity and naive, romantic self-deception if they like, but I'm no longer interested in living there myself.



Owlbear said:


> The above discussion reminds me of two situations - one guy I used to work with had baby mommas. He bounced between them, and they hated each other - is that polyamory? It's not polygamy, the guy wouldn't marry to save his life.


If they didn't consent to the arrangement, it's not polyamory. It's a monogamist trying to eat his polygynous cake and have it, too. This wouldn't fly in a poly community.



Owlbear said:


> Second situation - a girl I was close with was rooming with this older couple. They owned a string of bars and were very well off. Both were obese, the wife even had to use a cane to walk. Whenever I'd visit she'd be in a chair knitting or watching a show. Her husband and her were in a "polyamorous" relationship as they told me. But he was never there. He was always off with his college-aged skinny girlfriend. Now you guys know I'm not a feminist - so this doesn't stem from some sort of patriarchy position, but it was messed up. Don't need to be read up on gender theories to notice when a relationship is toxic.
> A few decades ago we'd probably just have said he was a rich ahole with a mistress, but somehow slapping the polyamory tag on it made it A-okay.


A few decades ago she just wouldn't have known he was cheating on her. Or she would have known and had no way to save face if she didn't want to lose the relationship. If she wasn't happy but decided to opt for a poly relationship instead of divorcing him, it's because she decided it was the lesser of two evils. The relative popularity of polyamory gave her a choice she never had before, it didn't take anything away from her. The coexistence of polyamory and monogamy increases a person's freedom. It's hard to see how having more options makes a person less free. In any case, you have no idea how she really felt about it.

And, as I'm sure you know, pointing out examples of toxic poly relationships isn't an argument. There are an infinite number of toxic monogamous relationships. But because monogamy is the norm, the toxicity is blamed on the individuals in those relationships, and because polyamory is disreputable, the toxicity is blamed on polyamory to discredit it. A double-standard that should be obvious to any critical thinker.



Owlbear said:


> And yeah, can confirm with at least one lesbian friend that she hates bi women. Last spring she let her guard down, dated a bi woman, and sure enough the woman dumped her recently and ran off with some guy. To the bi woman it was a "phase" and to my friend it was a hell year.


If she'd run off with another woman, it would have been cheating. But because it was a man, and not a woman, all of a sudden her sexuality is "just a phase"? What happens when she leaves her new bf for a woman? Is that just a phase, too?

I'm sorry for your friend's pain, but, like polyamory, it seems most people lack the ability to be objective about bisexuality.



komorikun said:


> Actually I think that MMF threesomes are more common since it's easier to find a man to have sex with than a woman. More likely that none of the three are in a relationship with each other though. Guys also like to "share" women they are having casual sex with, with their friends for some sort of kudos/bonus points.
> 
> You just don't hear about MMF as often. Maybe because no one wants to brag about it.
> 
> As for polyamory (where all 3 are in a relationship with each other), I'd imagine 2 women and one man is more common because men can't handle another man having sex with their wife/girlfriend. When it comes to actual marriage, definitely polygyny is way more common than polyandry.


When I was a teenager I had two women attempt to initiate a threesome with me and my male friend (ie. mmf). He wasn't up for it (and had almost comedically hysterical fits of jealous rage on both occasions) but I think there are lots of women who'd like mmf, know their bfs won't be up for it, and opt for mffs instead (if they're open to that).

Men are much more severely shamed for same-sex urges so they don't generally advertise that they're bi and are less likely to act on bisexual urges (and are, for the most part, terrified of those urges). The rule is: "women's bisexual urges aren't serious ('ALWAYS just a phase'), but men's bisexual urages are an indication of raging homosexuality ('NEVER just a phase')". Another painfully obvious double-standard.



splendidbob said:


> Sends truant a love note in the post made from pubes.


I put it on the wall beside @Sheska 's portrait. :heart

------------

Despite the fact that I'm defending polyamory here, I don't want to give anyone the impression that I believe it's superior to monogamy, or that everyone (or even many people) can handle a poly relationship. I think monogamy/polyamory are completely neutral arrangements that people pour their own ****ty personalities and insecurities into.

If you know you're not going to be able to stop yourself from cheating, have the integrity to admit it to yourself, swallow your own jealousy, and find a partner who can accept your (mutual) straying. If you're the jealous type, though, stay the hell away from polyamory, because you're just going to be putting your heart through a meat grinder every time your partner looks at another person.

I'm arguing because I find the bias against polyamory, which, so far as I can tell, is supported by nothing but irrational prejudice and personal preference, obnoxious. Live and let live. Don't call my lifestyle "harmful and disgusting" and I won't call your lifestyle harmful and disgusting. Don't tell me I'm incapable of understanding what "true love" is, and I won't accuse you of being an unimaginative, weak-minded hypocrite.

I've taken abuse for my preferences (trans, bi, poly) my entire life from people who don't know the first thing about them. I'm not going to roll over and play dead just because most people disagree with them.


----------



## whiterabbit (Jan 20, 2006)

I’m not interested in monogamy at all, but then I’m not interested in committed relationships of any kind. I don’t want to be attached to a person or for a person to be attached to me. For me, it’s enough to just have enjoyable company and sex. Let it be whatever it is without labelling it and just have fun. 

Not that I’m out there wanting to have sex with lots of different people, but it’s just nice to feel free if an opportunity ever comes up. No guilt, no jealousy, no messy drama. Everyone can do what they feel like doing. It can last for as long as it lasts. For me, anything else would feel restrictive and it would stress me out to feel that way.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

@truant


> I'm arguing because I find the bias against polyamory, which, so far as I can tell, is supported by nothing but irrational prejudice and personal preference, obnoxious. Live and let live. Don't call my lifestyle "harmful and disgusting" and I won't call your lifestyle harmful and disgusting. Don't tell me I'm incapable of understanding what "true love" is, and I won't accuse you of being an unimaginative, weak-minded hypocrite.


You obviously still think that though, even if you only say it to people you're annoyed at. So as far as I'm concerned everything you're saying to 'Rachel' you may as well be saying to every non poly person and well you are really:



> I am no longer dating monogamists because I, too, am very sick of double standards. "You will be faithful, and I will sleep with whomever I want and just not tell you about it" is how "monogamy" usually manifests in the real world. The choice is never between polyamory and "monogamy" but between polyamory and cheating. And most of the time, it's one "monogamist" exploiting the goodwill of another.
> 
> Others are welcome to live in a world of jealous insecurity and naive, romantic self-deception if they like, but I'm no longer interested in living there myself.


You obviously don't believe monogamy is equal. Personally I don't think either system is perfect because Human psychology doesn't generally allow for that. There is no relationship type that works 100%

But relationships aren't for me anyway.

Also lesbian women are skeptical of relationships with bi women because most people who ID that way prefer men (openly in fact,) and ultimately 86% end up in relationships with men. But I don't think it's a phase since most women are capable of being bi, you should expect something close to equal female/female and female/male it's just that society pushes heterosexuality and straight men are more determined to get girlfriends (because they're rarely bi, or gay) so it ends up that way.


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

Persephone The Dread said:


> You obviously still think that though, even if you only say it to people you're annoyed at. So as far as I'm concerned everything you're saying to 'Rachel' you may as well be saying to every non poly person and well you are really:
> 
> You obviously don't believe monogamy is equal. Personally I don't think either system is perfect because Human psychology doesn't generally allow for that. There is no relationship type that works 100%


No, monogamy, by itself, is perfectly neutral. Two monogamous people will be happiest in a monogamous relationship. They're perfectly equal because they're just numbers in an equation to me.

What I believe is that not nearly as many people are monogamous as claim to be. Compulsory monogamy creates an environment in which cheaters thrive. Cheaters promote monogamy (typically by demanding it of their partners) because they want the freedom to be non-monogamous without sacrificing the benefits of monogamy. "Polygamy", where men are allowed multiple wives and the wives are not allowed multiple husbands, is the paradise of cheaters, not polyamorists. Polyamory destroys that environment. A man who has multiple wives and forbids his wives to have relationships with other men is not a polyamorist. A monogamist on steroids, maybe.

But polyamory has its own problems, which is why I discourage people from pursuing it if they're not sure it's right for them. I don't believe it's superior to monogamy, but I believe having the option to choose between polyamory and monogamy is superior to compulsory monogamy where only the cheaters thrive. It's superior to an environment in which polyamorous people are repeatedly slandered and shamed into silence by monogamists. I'm happy to play that game if people want to play it, but I never start those games.

If you put a dog in a cage and poke it with a stick don't expect it to be a nice dog. I am not a nice dog. If people don't want to be bit, they can keep their hands to themselves.



Persephone The Dread said:


> Also lesbian women are skeptical of relationships with bi women because most people who ID that way prefer men (openly in fact,) and ultimately 86% end up in relationships with men. But I don't think it's a phase since most women are capable of being bi, you should expect something close to equal female/female and female/male it's just that society pushes heterosexuality and straight men are more determined to get girlfriends (because they're rarely bi, or gay) so it ends up that way.


If they're bisexual, I expect 100% of them to "end up in relationships with men" at some point. For that matter, many lesbians have "ended up in relationships with men" at some point, but I would never dare imply their sexuality is a "phase". How have the researchers determined this is the bi woman's final relationship?

Clearly social conditions have a tremendous impact on people's behavior: for example, I can imagine many bi women not feeling comfortable in an environment in which they're continually treated with suspicion as second class citizens and "damaged goods". So it's not surprising to me that many bi women "end up with men", since those men mostly don't care that they're bi, or find it attractive. And ofc, all their in-laws and family want them to "end up" in those relationships, too. Sometimes it's just easier and less painful to cave to social pressure.

(Note that I'm not blaming lesbians for feeling the way they do; it's perfectly understandable because there is a big cultural bias working against bi/lesbian relationships and I'm sure many of them have been burned. But it still doesn't make bisexuality a phase. For men or women.)

-----------

In any case, I don't think people have to worry about people like me pissing in their cornflakes much longer. The cultural backlash against non-cisheteromonogamy is just around the corner, I'm sure, spurred on by posts like mine. Keeping my mouth shut when I should keep it shut has never been my strong point. Maybe I should start.


----------



## Rachel NG (Dec 23, 2017)

@truant Your cheating example to counter that doesn't really work because you've obviously got this idea that "consent" makes everything okay. With cheating, the aggrieved woman has recourse, in marriage the law protects her from being abandoned without any income or property, and from having to take care of children alone. Socially, the cheater would be shamed and she'd receive support from friends and family. And of course the option to leave. With polyamory there's no recourse, certainly not legally, and socially she would be the one shamed instead. She'd receive no sympathy or support because she'd be made to feel that she agreed to that relationship and knew what she was getting into. Leaving would be seen as her breaking up the relationship instead of her rightfully leaving because of the disrespect.

Throughout this conversation you've operated on the premise that polyamory is neutral and it's culture that's the problem, but you never actually demonstrated that. I have no reason to believe that polyamory would even exist if not for patriarchy and the power difference between men and women.

Anyway, you indicated that you have some very intense emotional and personal reasons for hating monogamy, so I think we're at an impasse here, that's not something that can be argued with and you're not going to be persuaded. It was nice talking to you though.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

truant said:


> No, monogamy, by itself, is perfectly neutral. Two monogamous people will be happiest in a monogamous relationship. They're perfectly equal because they're just numbers in an equation to me.
> 
> What I believe is that not nearly as many people are monogamous as claim to be. Compulsory monogamy creates an environment in which cheaters thrive. Cheaters promote monogamy (typically by demanding it of their partners) because they want the freedom to be non-monogamous without sacrificing the benefits of monogamy. "Polygamy", where men are allowed multiple wives and the wives are not allowed multiple husbands, is the paradise of cheaters, not polyamorists. Polyamory destroys that environment. A man who has multiple wives and forbids his wives to have relationships with other men is not a polyamorist. A monogamist on steroids, maybe.
> 
> ...


Oh I know most people aren't purely monogamous especially men when it comes to sex. It is possible that most men would prefer to have sex uncommitedly if sex were easier to obtain, and without cultural influences pushing relationships. I'm skeptical that most men who desire relationships for other reasons would ever really be OK with their female partners having sex with other men though. That's why monogamy keeps happening imo - it's not that they don't want to have sex with whoever they can have sex with, because that describes most men though some have self control/suppress the urge, it's that it's easier to get access to sex as a man when there's 1 woman for every 1 man and if you want a relationship you can also avoid her having sex with other men this way.

In a culture where polyamory is the norm I really do believe that most men will not commit to women at all or will do so rarely and will instead find alternatives (not sure this would be a big deal though for women as my theory is women would start dating women,) and it's interesting because if you look at the overall behaviour of lesbian and gay men over the last so many years you'll notice something about the stereotype of their relationship dynamics. With lesbians you have a pattern of monogamy and with gay men committed relationships are hard to come by and open relationships are more common. But, from what I've read this is slowly changing somewhat after the introduction of gay marriage which is pretty interesting.

In spite of that I'm not against poly relationships because I favour individualism and it's all just a compromise in the end. There are always going to be problems in every relationship and there's a lot of social engineering going on (which is kind of why I lol at the people who complain about leftist social engineering. Even though I get it it's because things aren't going their way. But it's like let me know when we actually exist without any, fairly sure that's just chaos. not sure I entirely object at this point)



> If they're bisexual, I expect 100% of them to "end up in relationships with men" at some point. For that matter, many lesbians have "ended up in relationships with men" at some point, but I would never dare imply their sexuality is a "phase". How have the researchers determined this is the bi woman's final relationship?
> 
> Clearly social conditions have a tremendous impact on people's behavior: for example, I can imagine many bi women not feeling comfortable in an environment in which they're continually treated with suspicion as second class citizens and "damaged goods". So it's not surprising to me that many bi women "end up with men", since those men mostly don't care that they're bi, or find it attractive. And ofc, all their in-laws and family want them to "end up" in those relationships, too. Sometimes it's just easier and less painful to cave to social pressure.
> 
> (Note that I'm not blaming lesbians for feeling the way they do; it's perfectly understandable because there is a big cultural bias working against bi/lesbian relationships and I'm sure many of them have been burned. But it still doesn't make bisexuality a phase. For men or women.)


I more meant that women are encouraged to see heterosexual relationships as ideal and are pursued by men more because women are less likely to approach others unless they're lesbians so ultimately develop a preference that way. Also both bisexual and heterosexual women show patterns of bisexual arousal in studies both neurologically and genitally the only area that heterosexual women have been shown to be sex specific about so far is erect penises. So the balance of research suggests that women end up in heterosexual relationships mostly for social reasons and as a result of sex drive (women become more attracted to both sexes with increased sex drive and also in the study I linked earlier a key difference between women who ID as bi and het women is that bi women show more activation towards both male and female sexual stimuli than het women do so this makes sense.)

I think (if not for the sex drive aspect,) you could restructure society pretty intensely (and I posted this before but deleted that part of my post because bit off topic,) by: changing media representations and encouraging women who ID as bi to pursue both men and women, increasingly more young women ID as bisexual but still don't approach people they're attracted to. I think potentially this would create a pretty interesting yet horrifying-to-many culture where since men really do seem to be more category specific in terms of sexuality - they now have to compete with both women and men for women (except for the minority of bi and gay guys of course.) But now, straight men aren't completely inflexible so there would also be some kind of casual sex prison-gay type thing where the most feminine men would be the most popular, and presumably masc gay guys would pretty much become non existent if they could help it in order to compete for straight men who they can now have greater access to sexually, because more women are in relationships with women. Also poly relationships would be more common, and men will start caring about their appearance a lot more and probably androgyny will become more common (I'm less sure about this, but it's a possible outcome of the way this competition would go.) I think there could be a lot more incels, violence etc depending on how well men adapted to that scenario as well. That could probably be avoided with sex robots though.



> In any case, I don't think people have to worry about people like me pissing in their cornflakes much longer. The cultural backlash against non-cisheteromonogamy is just around the corner, I'm sure, spurred on by posts like mine. Keeping my mouth shut when I should keep it shut has never been my strong point. Maybe I should start.


No, I mean you shouldn't censor yourself.. I probably should but I lost my filter about a year ago? I don't know at some point and it's been down hill since then.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

truant said:


> When I was a teenager I had two women attempt to initiate a threesome with me and my male friend (ie. mmf). He wasn't up for it (and had almost comedically hysterical fits of jealous rage on both occasions) but I think there are lots of women who'd like mmf, know their bfs won't be up for it, and opt for mffs instead (if they're open to that).
> 
> Men are much more severely shamed for same-sex urges so they don't generally advertise that they're bi and are less likely to act on bisexual urges (and are, for the most part, terrified of those urges). The rule is: "women's bisexual urges aren't serious ('ALWAYS just a phase'), but men's bisexual urages are an indication of raging homosexuality ('NEVER just a phase')". Another painfully obvious double-standard.


You don't have to be bisexual to have a threesome though. In many cases, the 2 same sex partners won't even touch each other.

I've had 2 guys (separate occasions) make an attempt at having a threesome with me and their friend. Both were just guys I had slept with a couple times.

We had set up another "date" and somehow their male friend was on our date. They didn't ask for a threesome outright but it was pretty obvious. One told me that his friend had a large dick. I was like ummmm... okay. :um TMI. Their friends were not even attractive, so I was like...no way. Even if I was interested in both of them, I'd prefer to have sex with them separately, not together.

I've never had a boyfriend be remotely interested in a threesome.


----------



## Bbpuff (Sep 1, 2010)

Monogamy for me, I'm jealous and selfish. <3


----------



## Canadian Brotha (Jan 23, 2009)

As long as the people involved agree then monogamy or polyamory are both fine by me but I doubt I’d cope well trying the poly game, it’s tough enough devoting to one person


----------



## hunterjumper11 (Nov 8, 2017)

Monogamy. 100%. I could never be poly. I'm way too jealous/territorial to tolerate that. It would honestly break my heart and destroy me emotionally to think about the fact that my partner wouldn't be satisfied enough with me to only want to be with me and to need other people. And I'd also feel ****ty/like a half-*** partner knowing that I'd be with other people and not just them. 
I have no issue with polygamy if that's what makes someone else happy, but it's not for me and I would never be with someone who wasn't also completely monogamous. :no


----------



## orchard (Feb 5, 2018)

Long term Polygyny is evil
Long term Polyandry is on fleek
Long term monogamy is cool
short term anything is not cool


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

orchard said:


> Long term Polygyny is evil
> Long term Polyandry is on fleek
> Long term monogamy is cool
> short term anything is not cool


lol I don't think you're going to get most guys to agree to a situation where they have to share a single woman and they're not allowed to have sex/relations with multiple women.

but surely many women would want a male harem though, it's what I'd do if not for *long neverending essay of things goes here* well not just male probably..

speaking of which I just found this on google images wtf

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/SEXY-Gay-Bi-...x-Magick-Spirit-Haunted-Incubus-/221023462877



> A Harem Djinn is a class of Djinn within the Marid Phylum that has long served both Man and Djinn alike. A Harem or Hareem Class Djinn can be Male Or Female though this is not commonly known. Most assume Harem Djinn are just beautiful nymph like females but this is not true. While not common, male Harem Djinn have been known for MANY thousands of years.


why is a gay/bi magical harem being sold on ebay?

'Have one to sell? Sell it yourself' :haha


----------



## Chevy396 (Jul 10, 2017)

Persephone The Dread said:


> lol I don't think you're going to get most guys to agree to a situation where they have to share a single woman and they're not allowed to have sex/relations with multiple women.
> 
> but surely many women would want a male harem though, it's what I'd do if not for *long neverending essay of things goes here* well not just male probably..
> 
> ...


That sounds like a great deal if it's the kind that grants wishes.


----------

