Are we hardwired for multiple partners? If so, what are the implications?

tdh

Active member
This once again goes back to the old debate "nature v. nurture" which is an endless debate. People are a lot of time persuaded by perception more than facts in a lot of cases. By the way it is delivered not what is delivered. And the world needs room for all people as creating more "us vs them" fights just lead to us all failing.
 

Marcus

Well-known member
The other reason is because women ask "why can't men commit to one woman?" Science helps them understand why that is.

I don't want to propose anything that might be uncomfortable for you, but have you ever considered just being a person with these women? What I mean is, all of this "gaming" just demonstrates that you don't actually want to connect with these theoretical women, but you want to vanquish them. Try being a good person and drop all of this nonsense pick-up-artist crap.

I really worry about people who need this kind of ammunition to interact with other humans, because I think you are going down a path that will lead you to MORE isolation, not less.

Just be honest, tell people where you are coming from, and be an excellent receiver if they tell you they aren't interested.
 

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
Re (from Isaiah990):
"What do you think about the arguments against polyamory? Do you think they are valid or not?"

Some of them have merit, and deserve consideration. Others of them are absurd, and don't deserve the time of day.

STD concerns always deserve consideration; however, it isn't necessarily true that polyamorists are more at risk for STD's than monogamists. The secretive nature of a monogamist having an affair may even make monogamy the more risky lovestyle, in that regard.

Jealousy concerns are understandable; however, it's just not true that jealousy unravels every polyamorous relationship. I've been in a polyamorous relationship for over 15 years, and have even experienced jealousy in the past, but it hasn't ruined the relationship, not even close. And there are many poly success stories similar to mine.

It is true that jealousy does undo some poly relationships. And it's true that some poly relationships result in the spread of STD's. The key word here is *some* -- and then the question becomes, how many. In the case of STD's I would say the answer is, "Very few." In the case of jealousy I would say, "More often than the spread of STD's, but still not that many. Maybe 10%?"

There's nothing wrong with monogamy, per se. The natural health of any relationship doesn't depend on whether it's monogamous. It depends on other things, such as honesty and kindness within the relationship. The problem arises when people are brainwashed into living monogamously even when that is not a good fit for them.

For me it's real simple. As long as everyone in a poly relationship consents to the arrangement, they're not really hurting anyone, and thus their poly arrangement is perfectly natural and okay. The magic word here is *consent.*

Regards,
Kevin T.
 

Isaiah990

Member
Re (from Isaiah990):


Some of them have merit, and deserve consideration. Others of them are absurd, and don't deserve the time of day.

STD concerns always deserve consideration; however, it isn't necessarily true that polyamorists are more at risk for STD's than monogamists. The secretive nature of a monogamist having an affair may even make monogamy the more risky lovestyle, in that regard.

Jealousy concerns are understandable; however, it's just not true that jealousy unravels every polyamorous relationship. I've been in a polyamorous relationship for over 15 years, and have even experienced jealousy in the past, but it hasn't ruined the relationship, not even close. And there are many poly success stories similar to mine.

It is true that jealousy does undo some poly relationships. And it's true that some poly relationships result in the spread of STD's. The key word here is *some* -- and then the question becomes, how many. In the case of STD's I would say the answer is, "Very few." In the case of jealousy I would say, "More often than the spread of STD's, but still not that many. Maybe 10%?"

There's nothing wrong with monogamy, per se. The natural health of any relationship doesn't depend on whether it's monogamous. It depends on other things, such as honesty and kindness within the relationship. The problem arises when people are brainwashed into living monogamously even when that is not a good fit for them.

For me it's real simple. As long as everyone in a poly relationship consents to the arrangement, they're not really hurting anyone, and thus their poly arrangement is perfectly natural and okay. The magic word here is *consent.*

Regards,
Kevin T.
I think how people handle jealousy is also just as important. It's not like you're either jealous or you're not and there's nothing that can be done about it. Jealous people need to see their value in relationships and express jealousy in healthy manners. Once they do that, they can get rid of jealousy. The problem is many people don't want to be self aware and deal with their insecurities.
 

FallenAngelina

Well-known member
When I was monogamous, I wanted to prove non monogamous relationships were unnatural.


Really?

Why?

If you were so conflicted (which clearly you were) then of course you attracted loads of women who were also conflicted, or at very least, fearful with intimacy. You were a magnet for women who struggled with intimacy and blamed it on "no men want to commit." Complaining about non-commital people and attracting complainers about non-commital people are two sides of the same coin. Both are struggling with intimacy. People who are secure and at peace about the kind of intimacy they want do not attract others who are wobbly about it. The world is full of men who enjoy life with their chosen intimates and don't struggle with commitment at all, but if you're a man who is conflicted about intimacy then you're going to run into a lot of potential partners who are struggling, as well (or complaining - same thing.)
 

Magdlyn

Moderator
Staff member
I'm going to say I don't judge Isaiah for bringing forward a little biological research that supports the idea that humans are just as promiscuous as the rest of the animal kingdom. I see no need to be afraid of the idea that promiscuity is natural, as is being gay or trans or asexual.

Patriarchal society quite recently put forward the idea that women do not have sex drives at all, so therefore are resistant to having sex with anyone! But women were told they must have sex with their husband to satisfy his carnal desires and produce children for him.

We were told that men have overwhelmingly strong, almost uncontrollable sex drives and would fuck anything that moves. Therefore, while men should get married and support a woman and the heirs she carries for him, it is excusable if he has premarital sex with "loose women," and then later cheats with "loose, slutty" women.

(If he cheats with other men, in our current culture this is more problematic. However, in ancient times, in many cultures, homosexuality was seen as normal, even superior to MF love, and it was highly encouraged. Times change! Societies promote what works best for their agendas.)

We have been moving beyond this idea of lifelong MF monogamy since about the 1890s, but it's still in our psyches. Why not counter it with the evidence that women do have sex drives, that women can and will desire not just one man, but many men?

I don't think Isaiah is "preaching to the choir" here. Maybe you regulars think non-monogamy is fine and dandy, so we shouldn't explain its roots here. Are you forgetting that many people who are just curious about poly, or on the fence, or even quite desperate for information, come here every day to read and learn about polyamory? Maybe they haven't heard about recent polls which reveal that most people desire multiple partners, that it is natural to do so, that it's not sick or wrong or sinful to find someone other than your legal spouse attractive.

My ex-husband certainly tried to tell me that I was bad and wrong for having a roving eye, for seeing other men as attractive. He also distrusted my sexual/romantic interest in other women. I would have welcomed more information about non-monogamy back in the 1970s, 80s, 90s and early 2000s.

I see nothing wrong with researching science and history to see the variety of ways humans have mated, created bonds and families. Not everyone is as confident about their polyamory choices as you regulars here.
 
Last edited:

Marcus

Well-known member
Really?

Why?

I feel that way about this whole new influx of "players" this forum has attracted. Just... why? What good could possibly come from approaching a social interaction like we're all circling each other in the prison yard, waiting to see who is going to make a move first? Is the goal to have lots of one night stands filled with resentment and regret?

Regardless of the issues that got these people started down this path, I still say that the solution they are trying to apply is simply going to alienate more theoretical women.
 

Evie

Mod
As someone who used to have a lot of one night stands, I can confidently say there was no resentment or regret 😉

I keep reminding myself that Isaiah is of a generation that has received lot of positive messages about consent, but also possibly to the loss of flirting culture since so much is done with a swipe, not in a bar with eye contact and the passing of a pool cue.

My big concern here is the natural/unnatural dichotomy.

I agree that there are political and social narratives around monogamy that require exposition, including and perhaps especially the historical ones (such as lineage and inheritance). But to call one state natural and the other unnatural...well, historically, that's been problematic in many ways and I'd prefer to learn from the past and not "other" anyone.

We've used this phrase here before, but not for a while: polysaturated at one partner. I posit that's just splitting hairs and you could as easily say naturally monogamous.

Let's not call anyone's love style unnatural. There's no need for it.
 

Magdlyn

Moderator
Staff member
I feel that way about this whole new influx of "players" this forum has attracted. Just... why? What good could possibly come from approaching a social interaction like we're all circling each other in the prison yard, waiting to see who is going to make a move first? Is the goal to have lots of one night stands filled with resentment and regret?

Regardless of the issues that got these people started down this path, I still say that the solution they are trying to apply is simply going to alienate more theoretical women.
I don't think we've had a big influx of players. We have one troll who was banned, and is back under a new name, and is being watched. We have Isaiah, who has an agenda, but I think is fairly harmless. I don't see a huge trend that we need to question. We've had trolls, and people with agendas, and people who were just writing fiction before. We have a whole bunch of new mods now who are keeping track. I don't see people circling a prison yard. That metaphor seems rather dramatic and paranoid to me.

What women are being alienated and why? I don't feel alienated. Do you mean new members might see a post or 2 from Isaiah and judge the entire board by one man? Keep your chin up. There are plenty of good guys here and even more great women.
 
Last edited:

Isaiah990

Member
I'm going to say I don't judge Isaiah for bringing forward a little biological research that supports the idea that humans are just as promiscuous as the rest of the animal kingdom. I see no need to be afraid of the idea that promiscuity is natural, as is being gay or trans or asexual.

Patriarchal society quite recently put forward the idea that women do not have sex drives at all, so therefore are resistant to having sex with anyone! But women were told they must have sex with their husband to satisfy his carnal desires and produce children for him.

We were told that men have overwhelmingly strong, almost uncontrollable sex drives and would fuck anything that moves. Therefore, while men should get married and support a woman and the heirs she carries for him, it is excusable if he has premarital sex with "loose women," and then later cheats with "loose, slutty" women.

(If he cheats with other men, in our current culture this is more problematic. However, in ancient times, in many cultures, homosexuality was seen as normal, even superior to MF love, and it was highly encouraged. Times change! Societies promote what works best for their agendas.)

We have been moving beyond this idea of lifelong MF monogamy since about the 1890s, but it's still in our psyches. Why not counter it with the evidence that women do have sex drives, that women can and will desire not just one man, but many men?

I don't think Isaiah is "preaching to the choir" here. Maybe you regulars think non-monogamy is fine and dandy, so we shouldn't explain its roots here. Are you forgetting that many people who are just curious about poly, or on the fence, or even quite desperate for information, come here every day to read and learn about polyamory? Maybe they haven't heard about recent polls which reveal that most people desire multiple partners, that it is natural to do so, that it's not sick or wrong or sinful to find someone other than your legal spouse attractive.

My ex-husband certainly tried to tell me that I was bad and wrong for having a roving eye, for seeing other men as attractive. He also distrusted my sexual/romantic interest in other women. I would have welcomed more information about non-monogamy back in the 1970s, 80s, 90s and early 2000s.

I see nothing wrong with researching science and history to see the variety of ways humans have mated, created bonds and families. Not everyone is as confident about their polyamory choices as you regulars here.
Right, sexist men claim women are choosy and not as interested in sex as much as men. Scientists ran tests which showed this is not true. Women want sex as much as men do. People conducted surveys where female volunteers agreed to give honest answers on sex in exchange for anonymity. The results were that women wanted sex just as much as men. The issue is women are judged harshly for being promiscuous and men aren't. There's also other biological factors which I'll explain in another post.

By the way, your ex husband sounds very controlling and insecure. That's a pretty unhealthy way to deal with jealousy.
 

Magdlyn

Moderator
Staff member
As someone who used to have a lot of one night stands, I can confidently say there was no resentment or regret 😉

I keep reminding myself that Isaiah is of a generation that has received lot of positive messages about consent, but also possibly to the loss of flirting culture since so much is done with a swipe, not in a bar with eye contact and the passing of a pool cue.

My big concern here is the natural/unnatural dichotomy.

I agree that there are political and social narratives around monogamy that require exposition, including and perhaps especially the historical ones (such as lineage and inheritance). But to call one state natural and the other unnatural...well, historically, that's been problematic in many ways and I'd prefer to learn from the past and not "other" anyone.


Let's not call anyone's love style unnatural. There's no need for it.
Have you ever read the book Against Nature by Huysmans? It's a masterpiece of decadent literature. Feel free to look it up.

Of course humans do unnatural things. We've invented metallurgy, for example. Strong tall and safe buildings are made from steel. Deadly weapons and armor are also made of metal.

We have hair that grows unchecked but we cut it and shave it.

However, when you go against something natural such as whom to love or fuck, it gets even more complicated than guns and hair salons. We deny our desires, they get buried, they come out in odd ways. We can repress our desires for more than one "perfect" person our whole lives, and then spend our time hating ourselves, praying to GAWD to make it stop, having shame and guilt for fantasizing about other people while fucking our spouse and while masturbating. We can read romance novels and imagine we are the characters, watch movies for similar reasons, watch porn. We can even get a little pleasure from advising a friend who is divorcing and getting back into dating and fucking a variety of people, getting out there and enjoying the flirting and the NRE (while supposedly once again looking for Ms or Mr Right).

We can do unnatural things all we want. The fact is, our closest relatives, the bonobos, have plenty of sex with their tribe mates, of all ages, MF, MM, FF or some combination of those. They have hardly any violence in their culture because they have lots of sex. This reduces depression, aggression, isolation, anxiety and rape. I kind of like that idea... Call me crazy?
 

FallenAngelina

Well-known member
I see no need to be afraid of the idea that promiscuity is naturaI.....I see nothing wrong with researching science and history to see the variety of ways humans have mated, created bonds and families.
You regularly mention the idea of biologically natural polyamory and nobody blinks an eye. Nobody is afraid. Why do you think that your research and reports have gone largely unchallenged for years here while Isaiah is getting all this blow back?
 

Evie

Mod
My issue with the describing one or the other as unnatural is that it is too easy to discriminate against or outright persecute what one deems unnatural.
 

Magdlyn

Moderator
Staff member
My issue with the describing one or the other as unnatural is that it is too easy to discriminate against or outright persecute what one deems unnatural.
I'd happily accept anyone, natural or not, as long as they aren't doing harm to others. I see that monogamy imposed by the patriarchy to suppress women's personhood does harm. Therefore, I am against it.

I do unnatural things. I eat cheese which is made from cows milk, which is not designed for humans, for example. That's not hugely detrimental to me, since as a white person I have inherited an ability to digest lactose far beyond toddlerhood. (I am trying hard to find examples of ways doing "unnatural" things is OK.) But something as huge as romantic/physical attraction for more than one person, which we as a culture have tried to suppress for a few thousand years, give or take... that causes huge social and personal confusion, stress, pain, guilt, expense, etc. Why should we go "against nature" in that area?

I guess having lived through the 1970s and '80s as an adult, with those decades' "back to nature" themes, as a revolt against the overuse of technology, canned food, plastic, etc., which caused ill health and pollution, the idea does not as seem radical or dangerous to me as it seems to you younger people. I just kinda feel OK or even good about a more "natural" lifestyle.

You regularly mention the idea of biologically natural polyamory and nobody blinks an eye. Nobody is afraid. Why do you think that your research and reports have gone largely unchallenged for years here while Isaiah is getting all this blow back?

It seems like the other regulars are extremely annoyed with Isaiah because he has a differing agenda, which includes, but is not limited to polyamory. There is a fear he is "just" a pickup artist, I think. Is that it?
 

RedBill

Member
You regularly mention the idea of biologically natural polyamory and nobody blinks an eye. Nobody is afraid. Why do you think that your research and reports have gone largely unchallenged for years here while Isaiah is getting all this blow back?

Because this community is very biased. Magdlyn is LGBQ, and female. She also reacts defensively to anyone questioning her doctrine. People don't like upsetting the cool kids. The only people brave enough to argue with her are the newbies or other lesbians like dingedheart.

Isaiah990 is a hetero male of the "worst kind". A player... Someone who takes the initiative to learn a little something about social interaction, attraction, and dating so he can actually achieve multiple female sexual partners. A goal many men have but cannot ever realize for themselves...

Isaiah isn't one of the cool kids around here, yes it is that simple...

I mean, a hetero man that actually thinks and strategizes about sex? Good god what could be worse!!! Am I right!!! 🤣
 

icesong

Moderator
Staff member
The only people brave enough to argue with her are the newbies or other lesbians like dingedheart.
You, um, clearly haven’t read far enough back in old posts to know people’s identities. @dingedheart is definitely a dude and had a rather… unfortunate introduction to polyamory, to say the least.

The actual difference is that debating things with new people is far more interesting than debating with people who you’ve sort of seen their arguments before, but that’s not nearly as good for the cool kids conspiracy theory, I suppose.

Someone who takes the initiative to learn a little something about social interaction, attraction, and dating so he can actually achieve multiple female sexual partners.
I mean, a hetero man that actually thinks and strategizes about sex?

Learning about attraction? Awesome. Thinking about sex? Also awesome. Assuming that women’s actions - or men’s or non-binary people’s actions for that matter - are totally based on biology? Very much less awesome.
 

RedBill

Member
Warning for RedBill, Level 2 - Deliberate Rudeness.
You, um, clearly haven’t read far enough back in old posts to know people’s identities. @dingedheart is definitely a dude and had a rather… unfortunate introduction to polyamory, to say the least.

Dingedheart is a man!!!!??? :oops::oops::oops:

Yeah, I read about his intro to poly, and I read about Magdlyn throwing it back in his face when they were debating in someone's blog recently.

That is why people don't debate with Magdlyn, she fights dirty. Magdlyn remembers your worst moment, your most panful traumas, and throws it back in your face if you dare to disagree with her...

Still though... Dingedheart has the high-school girl "confused and rude attitude" thing down perfectly, I thought that user was a woman. 😂
 
Last edited:

icesong

Moderator
Staff member
I think you're proving my point about gender assumptions quite nicely, then.
 
Top