Ideas, opinions and more!

polypie

New member
How do you feel about the monogamy : polyamory ratio of people in the world? Do you think mono-gamy is widely religious or taught? Naturally instilled? A combination of the two? With the ever growing public poly community, what have you learned as an individual? What are your views on unprovoked jealousy in the mono community among multiple loves or sexual interests and lack of communication related? Share your general thoughts♡
 
Last edited:
I feel that traditionally, western culture was more "this is the way life is" and there were more assumptions, more defaults. There was a time that American kids grew up believing that they'd do whatever their parents had in mind for their future. Follow in the family business, go to college, or get married and start a family...whatever. Breaking from the norm made you a stand alone, an outsider.

I think that the most powerful force (maybe in the whole of human history) to change that and allow people the reasonable expectation of more life options...has been the internet. I think that is mostly, but not always, good.

I do not necessarily agree that polyamory is more normal to the natural human condition, and I don't like the sensationalistic news (clickbait) articles that say it's the next evolution of relating in our culture, or implying that it will become our new dominant way of doing things.

I don't have any issue with monogamy. I like poly...I don't dislike mono. But I do dislike and reject "assumption culture." And I want more people to make the mental shift to "communication and consent culture." That is not remotely all about poly/mono...although it's a central theme in sexually progressive and polyamorous social groups. I want American society to get away from thinking it's acceptable to go to bars and get a less-than-willing potential subject of sexual interest to drink enough to change their mind. I want to not hear about teenagers violating the consent of unconscious inebriated persons and not being sure about whether they did anything wrong. I want every teenage girl to understand that it's just as wrong for them to aggressively and physically pursue boys, as it is for boys to aggressively and physically pursue them. (I did not know this as a teen, and I crossed a LOT of boundaries that appall me now.)

I want people to be less scared to talk about sex, about love, about romance. I want people to attach less shame to these ideas.

Religion and religious culture does play a part. But that doesn't mean that religion has to fade away into obscurity and be abandoned in order for healthy sexuality to be a thing. Nor that all religious morals need to vanish with regard to sex, even. Want to be a virgin until marriage? Fine. No problem with that. Too scared and ashamed of your own body to even talk to your new husband about sex? That's a problem. And repressive cultures and the religions that rule them, where women are property or near enough to it, and get mutilated, attacked, abused, have to hide and cover themselves...I don't dig that.

But none of this has much to do, really with poly/mono...except to say that the poly community seems to generally embrace a more sexually progressive mindset, which I appreciate. One can just as easily embrace that mindset and pairbond with only one partner. Not a damn thing wrong with that.

If polyamory is ever going to become a more culturally dominant form of relationship style, I honestly don't think that it will happen in my lifetime. I'm ok with that. I just hope that the majority eventually accepts that "different" does not mean "wrong" and "wrong for me" does not mean "wrong for everyone."
 
Beautifully worded. In short, youre a feminist ♡

Actually, I don't consider myself one, though by the definitions of most rational feminists, I fit the criteria. I consider myself a humanist. When something is crummy or unfair to any particular group of people, I'm like "Hey. That's really crummy. And unfair." As a mother of sons, I'm certainly on board with a number of things that affect them, too.

Men's reproductive rights for instance, such as development of products like Vasalgel/RISUG, news of which I have followed closely for years...

And what I said about teaching girls that boys ALSO have the right to consent (or more specifically to NOT consent) to sexual contact. That is damned important! I'm not kidding. As a teen girl, I had very little concept that any capable male I wanted might want to say no or have the right to. I was persistent in a very disrespectful and obnoxious way with at least a few guys who did not want to have sexual contact with me. I was a little drunk on the power of being a cute spooky young goth chick.

I have since found and sincerely apologized to one of those guys in particular. He brushed it off, but I felt that I owed him at least that much.

One of my sons was bullied by a girl, when he was in middle school. How was he supposed to handle that?? The school did nothing. He was told she was harrassing him because she liked him. His father raised him "not to hit a girl" but you had better bet that if it'd been a boy knocking his books over, tripping him, and constantly picking on him, his Dad would have told him to punch the kid. And at that age...she was much bigger than him!

So...I don't like the word, "feminist" because just because women might deal with a great deal of inequity, or MORE inequity, doesn't mean that we should ignore anyone's unfair and unhappy realities.
 
You cannot have feminism without caring about men's rights. Feminism deals with women's issues, but women's issues exist, most often, BECAUSE of men's issues. Feminism calls for equality; and I don't call it anything else because feminism is good enough. When I say I'm a feminist, it's because firstly, women deserve it, and because me saying women deserve it doesn't take away from anyone else's needs.

However, I respect your choice to call yourself whatever you please ♡
 
You cannot have feminism without caring about men's rights. Feminism deals with women's issues, but women's issues exist, most often, BECAUSE of men's issues. Feminism calls for equality; and I don't call it anything else because feminism is good enough. When I say I'm a feminist, it's because firstly, women deserve it, and because me saying women deserve it doesn't take away from anyone else's needs.

However, I respect your choice to call yourself whatever you please ♡

I'm glad that you are happy with the word. I simply find that using it tends to start a conversation that, all too often, is not the conversation that I want to have, defining what it means to me versus what it means to others, and those others are the kinds of others who have their heels dug in. By the time I've done arguing what the concept is for me, I've lost any opportunity to discuss anything that I consider relevant, meaningful, or productive.

Also, I feel that it implies a false solidarity of the female gender, which I don't feel in the slightest. I would never side with a woman simply because she is a woman. For instance, I'd rather be set on fire than vote for Hillary. Actually...I rather like being set on fire when it's done right, so that statement is kind of silly, too.

Anyhow. I digress.

I have to say that my endeavors into polyamory have given me more opportunities for personal growth and self awareness than anything I have ever done. I'm learning how to own a lot of my own emotional processes, how to let myself experience things and feel things and giving myself permission to be a priority to self and others. I'm becoming more effective at processing my own complex thoughts and feelings, all the time. When I was in a mono marriage, granted a rather toxic one, I buried my feelings and my needs and my issues and just coped. It was "the way things were" and I was powerless to change anything, so I just had to deal. That sounds like it would be a torturous way to live, but the reality is...it became lazy. Emotional cruise control. Everything was just "whatever." I didn't need to grow or learn a damn thing, just to keep plodding onward through the endless terrain of the Way Things Are.

Now you take all of this self exploration of my mind and heart...and bring in my exploration of pain and sensation stuff with my lovers and my discovery of new highs and headspaces... I feel that I am gaining a great deal of enlightenment. It feels like progress. Like evolution.
 
I'd rather 🔥 Bern🔥, too ;)

I just have nothing nice to say about monogamy. I have a hard time believing that monogamy isn't only taught. Not that two people can't go their whole lives only loving each other. ..but that a person cannot love more than one adult. I smell bologna.
 
Well... When I was doing that, for 18 years, I didn't really have a tough time being mono-faithful. Granted, I had big social networks, and when off on my own I'd play the flirting game but not with seriousness or intent. The best analogy I can come up with is, it felt like the light of possibility was turned OFF with regard to other potential people of interest.

I was taken. Not available. Off the market. And that was that.

I didn't begin to feel things for another man until our marriage was so far gone I was emotionally drowning, and had my ex not lost his mind and spiralled out of control, I could have gone on content more or less, with my mediocre marriage, for a long time. Even then, I didn't ACT on those feelings with that man, and didn't explore connection with others until we had agreed to dissolve our marriage.

The cause of the divorce was certainly not monogamy. It was him taking more from me than I had to give, harming me more than I could take.

I actually have more difficulty with the concept of "forever" and lifelong commitment, than I do monogamy itself. I feel that things change, people change, life changes...I didn't like making promises I didn't feel I was really standing behind when I spoke those vows. I was, as usual in those times, setting aside my True Self to do what I thought was the right thing for others.

And the lie was not in that the promise was made to one man, but rather that I promised something that I believe is impossible for me to really commit to...until death do us part. Making such an undertaking to more than one would be just as wrong, for me. I don't believe in forever.

Some people would view such a statement as a bleak thing, a declaration that things end, and things die... I view it in the spirit of limitless possibility. Anything can happen. I expect I will have many experiences before I am done. None of them should be taken for granted.
 
Hi polypie,

I'm not upset about the worldwide monogamy-to-polyamory ratio. I don't claim to know what it should be. For all I know, it might already be right. Although my guess is that if it weren't for conditioning, there would be more polyamorists. I just don't know how many more, and I don't lose any sleep over it.

My only complaint is when polyamory is characterized as inherently sinful/unhealthy/intolerable. I would like sexual, romantic, and other matters to be judged on the basis of mutual consent, rather than what some arbitrary book or preacher says. Many parents (and teachers) have fallen short in that regard.

Hopefully someday no polyamorist will feel like they have to hide in the closet. I'm sure it won't happen in my lifetime, but hopefully someday. In the meantime, I just go about living life the best way I know how for me. Others can do likewise for them, as long as those involved are consenting.

Such are my initial thoughts anyway.
Sincerely,
Kevin T.
 
How do you feel about the monogamy : polyamory ratio of people in the world? Do you think mono-gamy is widely religious or taught? Naturally instilled? A combination of the two?
What do YOU mean by "monogamy"?

A catch-all term for the status quo?

Those few people who mutually marry their first sexual partner & never have even a fleeting interest in anyone else, lasting until they are both dead?

The hypocrites who parrot all the cliches but give a nod-&-wink to the endemic "exceptions"?

The poor saps who really want to play along with societal expectations but, when they run into predictable problems, are either told to use poor tools ("talk to your pastor!") or marginalized?

I have nothing against "the monogamous" in general, but I do believe that many (most?) exhibit behaviors & thought-patterns I associate with thought-control cults.* For instance, from one website:
  • facilitates control over members physically, intellectually, financially, and emotionally
  • opposing views are ridiculed and often misrepresented.
  • give the members a future focus and philosophical purpose in avoiding the apocalypse or being delivered through it
  • various practices including meditation, repetition of words and/or phrases, and "spiritual" enlightenment with God are used as confirmation of their truth
  • predictions of being persecuted, often combined with claiming any opposing views demonstrated against them as a form of persecution
  • Many have non-verifiable belief systems.
  • Often, the philosophy makes sense only if you adopt the full set of values and definitions that it teaches.
What is a cult?

Anyone can fill each of those out with clear examples, & probably add more indicators. For instance, after joining in a fairly vanilla presentation on the socioeconomics of line marriage,** I was confronted by a woman who demanded, "Why do you HATE marriage??"... because I had had the temerity to float stable nonmonogamy as a potentially viable option. That is to say, because I dared describe ANY alternative to monogamy, I was ATTACKING marriage, & thus all married people.

Such is mind-controlled fanaticism.
________________

And, being I'm an equal-opportunity cynic, I will point out that the term "polyamory" has plenty of flaws. Do you include people who abuse the term for their own selfish gain? or those who practice responsible nonmonogamy BUT loathe being declared "poly"? And so on.

Even if we simply draw a circle 'round everyone who knows the word, uses it properly, & is at least working toward attempting to be part of a nonmonogamous network of any size... hmm.

Well, two years ago, Elisabeth Sheff (in Psychology Today) cites Kelly Cookson as estimating "millions" have experienced some form of non-monogamy. HOWEVER, this "group" includes everything: last-call hookups, fundy Mormon polygyny, swinging, affairs, & likely prostitution. Given that melange,
Estimates based on actually trying sexual non-monogamy are around 1.2 to 2.4 million. An estimate based solely on the agreement to allow satellite lovers is around 9.8 million.
There may also be unwonted assumptions, because Cookson mentions including "gay male couples, and other sexually non-monogamous couples." :confused:

An editor's note to a 2009 online Newsweek article glibly claims "over half a million families openly living in relationships that are between multiple consenting partners" yet offers no citation to support this data. If accurate, I certainly cannot guess at how many individuals would thus be involved.

In 2013, Sandy Pappas "that as many as 5 percent of Americans are currently in relationships involving consensual nonmonogamy." Again, a wide net, &I could only guess at how many are actually poly-experienced.
________________
* -- the word "cult" is overused, generally by squawking Rightist Xtians. Stripped of such propaganda, it actually indicates "a new church" or "a religious group that's not yet multigenerational."
** -- Robert Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
 
You cannot have feminism without caring about men's rights. Feminism deals with women's issues, but women's issues exist, most often, BECAUSE of men's issues. Feminism calls for equality; and I don't call it anything else because feminism is good enough. When I say I'm a feminist, it's because firstly, women deserve it, and because me saying women deserve it doesn't take away from anyone else's needs.

However, I respect your choice to call yourself whatever you please ♡

While the bolded is true, a feminist is only "caring about men's rights" in a "let's get rid of them" OR "let's make ours equal to theirs" way... NEVER in a "let's raise their up to ours" way.

A humanist or egalitarian, on the other had, wants to raise the rights of all, equally (or to equality), without taking away rights from anyone.


(here's the give-away that "feminists" only care about the rights of women: "fem" is in the name. There's no "ist" or "ism" in the world that isn't 100% about what preceded the "ism" or "ist"... including FEMinism)
 
How do you feel about the monogamy : polyamory ratio of people in the world? Do you think mono-gamy is widely religious or taught? Naturally instilled? A combination of the two?

Poly is definitely the "natural" state of humanity. Monogamy is socially instilled whether that be due to religion or not is irrelevant to me.


ETA: forgot to answer the first part of the question. I don't like it because the monogamy half of the ratio shouldn't even exist (as a societal construct). It only exists because humans are brainwashed out of our natural state.
 
Last edited:
Poly is definitely the "natural" state of humanity. Monogamy is socially instilled whether that be due to religion or not is irrelevant to me.


ETA: forgot to answer the first part of the question. I don't like it because the monogamy half of the ratio shouldn't even exist (as a societal construct). It only exists because humans are brainwashed out of our natural state.

I "love" it when people make up random crap about "the "natural" state of humanity." The natural state of humanity is to be individualistic and have personal preferences and tendencies that are as varied as shoe styles on Madison Avenue. Monogamy is just as natural as polyamory, it varies person to person.

There's been some anthropological evidence that shows that yes, humans don't tend to stay with one sexual partner for their entire lives. But most of the evidence shows people did form pair-bonds (emphasis on "pair") and then engaged in sexual exploits with others to improve genetic variety. That's not the same thing as having multiple concurrent romantic relationships.

Think about it for a minute. There must have been enough monogamous-leanings in the population for it to even have a chance at taking hold. If every single person was completely non-monogamous, it just wouldn't have stuck. I mean, look at how successful religion is at stopping people from masturbating or having sex before marriage.

The fact of the matter is that many people don't even consider non-monogamy, and not because they're brainwashed, but because they naturally don't have those inclinations. They're perfectly happy to be with one person for the majority of their lives.

Drives me nuts when people project their own inclinations on the entire human population. Denying that monogamy naturally exists in the population is just as stupid as the church denying that polyamory naturally exists in the population. It makes you just as bad as them.
 
Don't know how many here have read the book "Sex at Dawn," I don't agree with all of it, but I like the food for thought it contains. It talks about the tendency in humans to be nonmonogamous. Worth reading I think.
 
Monogamy is a perfect fit for many people. The fact that some people feel monogamy is not a perfect fit FOR THEM does not mean it is backwards, unevolved, only for the narrow-minded, nor unnatural. It simply means it isn't a comfortable choice for that person.

Many people thrive and are ecstatically happy in monogamous relationships, and many people are miserable in monogamous relationships. Those facts may indicate that the structure of their relationships are to blame for their happiness or misery, or it may not.

Polyamory is another perfect fit for many other people. The fact that some people feel polyamory is not a perfect fit FOR THEM does not mean it is misguided, sinful, greedy, nor unnatural. It simply means it isn't a comfortable choice for that person.

Many people thrive and are ecstatically happy in polyamorous relationships, and many people are miserable in polyamorous relationships. Those facts may indicate that the structure of their relationships are to blame for their happiness or misery, or it may not.

Of course, many factors contribute to a person's happiness and satisfaction in a relationship, the main one being whether or not the person is happy in themselves to begin with. Monogamy and polyamory are two approaches to relationships one can choose. Take one if it fits you. No need to denigrate the other choice just because it does not fit you.
 
Last edited:
Monogamy and polyamory can almost be put in the same box, if you define them by "poly-saturation." In that case, a polyamorist is anyone who feels poly-saturated at two or more partners, a monogamist is anyone who feels poly-saturated at one partner. Of course I realize, one's saturation number can vary according to circumstances and which individuals are involved.
 
From *this* Mono chick, thanks, SC and NYC. :D
I'm in a relationship structure where I'm able to have other relationships if I want to... and I don't. The entire idea seems completely unworkable to me. For me.

I gave Chops crap a number of years ago for expecting me to be poly just because it's a poly relationship structure. I eventually demanded that if I'm respecting who he is as a person, then he damn well ought to do the same for me.

This board tends to have that respect for us mono-identified folks as well, so thanks for that. :)

Anyway... Monogamy as a social default is one thing. I'd be happy to see alternative relationship styles as part of the default western social structure. Just afford me the respect to not call me brainwashed or unnatural because of my preferences.

And I'm not a fan of "Sex at Dawn" (sorry, Kevin - love ya, though! ;) ) because I think you can damn near cherry-pick anything that early man (or other primates) did, point to it, and say, "See? This is our natural state because, reasons." Pointing at agriculture and the resultant "settling down" of societies as part of this change just seems to paint it with negativity that I don't think it deserves. Had we not settled as a society, we wouldn't have started dabbling as much in the arts and sciences, and we probably wouldn't be where we are today. I personally think our advances in art, science, and medicine are worth the tradeoff.

I *do* like your equating monogamy to "polysaturation at one", Kevin. I think that's pretty accurate in my case. I do love other people - that isn't up for debate. I have close friends I'd take a bullet for, even if I haven't seen them in years. I remember moments and conversations with them fondly and yes, lovingly. And yet, having a relationship with them would utterly eff me up if I tried to do it now, at the same time I'm in a relationship with Chops. I can't do multiple romantic relationships without being emotionally pulled in opposite directions. It doesn't feel like brainwashing to me.

Okay, Mono Chick Rant is over. Thanks for indulging. ;)
 
Yeah...

I do get annoyed with the "us versus them"-isms.

Merely because bonobos did a thing, or cavemen did a thing, doesn't mean "see! This is how we'd be if we weren't brainwashed by XYZ!" No thank you. I'm ok with most people being mono, with the caveat that I wish most people would understand that you CAN be something NOT mono and that's ok. Like every person gets to make an informed choice about the path to their own happiness and what it should look like.

I jokingly refer to "vanillas" or "muggles" sometimes when I'm talking to people in the kink community, about those who are not...because sometimes it does feel like we're in a special club of enlightened people. But I know darn well that what rubs me the wrong way is the commonplace perception that almost no one out there does anything except "normal" and "not normal" is scary, threatening, wrong or immoral...the ignorance and judgement bugs me.

And the concept that the "freaks" are gonna break down the wall and take over, the articles with headlines like:
"The Rise of Polyamory"
"Polyamory - Our Future In Relationships?"
"Polyamory is the new monogamy"
...are, in my opinion, deliberately phrased to be slightly threatening to those who don't embrace that life, in order to sensationalize the content and get more clicks.

And you wind up with the same vague feeling of social threat to people who LIKE their normal, traditional lifestyle. They don't want to be expected to do things that they don't want to do. We all know that we're not gonna knock down rural doors and demand that Mammy Smith come participate in Swinger Night, but it sure feels like that when some of these people jump up and down and demand that this be considered "normal."

I really don't think that poly is mainstream, or normal, or that I'll ever live to see it be that way, and I'm totally ok with that. I never wanted to be normal. As long as people understand that "not normal" doesn't mean "sick, twisted, wrong, unhealthy, doomed to fail, full of drama, a threat to decency, evil, scary, bad for the children" etc. As long as we can live and let live.

And that's the goal, for me, of being so "out" about my lifestyle. I want to put a face on it. I want my family, friends, and coworkers to know that I am happily experiencing LOVING RELATIONSHIPS with multiple people...and it's not all about weird retreats or orgies. I want to put a human face on the concept. And it's been going pretty well for me so far.
 
Back
Top