Polyamory HOUSE - Would you live here?

What would you most like to see in the Polyamory House?


  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
The tragedy of monogamy is that people make commitments not to have feelings that they simply can't control, so when they, almost inevitably, experience these feelings, they don't know what to do.

Monogamy as an approach to relationships, in and of itself, is not tragic. Remember, we have a number of monogamous members here who are quite happy and have very healthy relationships.

Monogamy is not a commitment to avoid feelings; that is one of the silliest statements I've ever read. The commitment in monogamy is simply to travel one's path in life together with one partner. What individuals commit to personally will vary, but come on! There are puh-lenty of monogamous folks I know and have known (myself included), who could talk about their feelings with their partners. Maybe it's because the roads I usually follow in life bring me to people who have a fair amount of self-awareness, and who strive to be present, aware, and awake in their lives, and that is why the terrible things people say about monogamy in general just don't make sense to me. I've had some awesome, healing, healthy, life-affirming, zesty monogamous relationships in my life, and wouldn't go back and trade them for anything! I would choose monogamy again, if I met the right person who moved me to do so.

Whether it is about fears, hopes, dreams, or if they found someone else attractive and had a little crush, people in good, healthy relationships can communicate these types of things, and it doesn't matter if their relationship is mono or poly. When there is a commitment to monogamy, it simply means you're not going to act on those crushes. So what? That in itself is not tragic. There is nothing wrong with having restraint and acknowledging attractions without going there, and then directing your romantic/emotional/sexual energies to your one monogamous partner. Sometimes I think there are people who get into polyamory just because they want to be self-indulgent and get their way as much as they can. We see it all the time here - they act like little children.

Polyamory as an approach to relationships, is not superior nor more evolved than monogamy. Whether a relationship dynamic is tragic or successful is wholly dependent upon the people involved. We have seen many cases here where polyamory has been quite devastatingly tragic for those involved!!

There is a danger in putting poly on a pedestal above monogamy - after all, it's just a label. It's the people who will make or break a relationship, not the label they put on it.
 
Last edited:
Finally read the post (the site is blocked from work).

Other than the focus on sexy people, sexy times, monthly parties, nude beaches, etc., which I think has been beaten to death at this point, the part that really stands out for me is the "don't bring too much stuff" part.

How is that really going to work in practice? I would imagine there'd need to be some level of privacy and personal space, as things like laptops may not be the best things to share (especially if they're work assets or being used for student projects).

Are you expecting a dorm room level of "personal items"? Stuff that fits in your room (do people get assigned rooms, or are they expected to get whatever bed works that night)? Bringing in personal items helps someone feel vested in where they're living, and discouraging this may mean that the roomies aren't investing much time and effort (if any at all) into keeping that apartment in good shape. Paul may find himself doing more maintenance than having sexy times.

Who gets to sleep in the house? If a roomie finds a potential partner, are they allowed to come over (eating up one of the bed spots)? Are they allowed private time? Or are any outside relationships supposed to be kept outside the house?

And one car for six people? One car that everyone will use? Get that maintenance / fueling / no eating-drinking agreement set up NOW, as well as time-sharing rules. This sounds untenable, unless everyone walks/takes public transportation everywhere. Also, make sure the insurance on the car covers multiple drivers (or their insurance will cover them driving that car).

It's the little, day-to-day details that are going to kill any roommate agreement, and those really need to be hashed out beforehand, so people know what they're getting into.

FWIW, I did go to your site, Jill, and read your definition of Polyamory. You take great pains to explain that saying you're Poly and acknowledging your relationships doesn't equate to "talking about what's going on behind closed doors" and you're right. I think everyone here would agree with that sentiment. So when people here say that it seems a bit more swingery than poly, it might be good to realize that the advertisement for this apartment does sound "behind closed (or open!) doors" focused.

The folks you're trying to convince in your "Define Polyamory" page aren't going to be convinced when they see the focus on sexy times in the ad for the apartment. How can these relationships be loving when they're being auditioned like a reality show? There's a disparity there that can call your entire "define polyamory" page into question for the folks you seem to be addressing.

Some great questions there, you've really broken it done. A lot of rethinking and re advertising needed, thanks for taking the time.
 
Monogamy as an approach to relationships, in and of itself, is not tragic.

I didn't say it was. If I said, "the capital of Nebraska is Lincoln," would you feel compelled to inform me that Nebraska is a state, not a capital?

Remember, we have a number of monogamous members here who are quite happy and have very healthy relationships.

Remember? I'm one of them.
 
In all fairness, I must admit that an emotional connection to myself is not what I think about when I'm having my own party of one. ;)
 
If I said, "the capital of Nebraska is Lincoln," would you feel compelled to inform me that Nebraska is a state, not a capital?

Uhm, what? That doesn't even make sense... The corresponding analogy would be "to inform me that there is no capital of Nebraska" because her claim was that there is no "tragedy of monogamy."

I think "(x) is tragic" is a rational consequence of "the tragedy of (x) is (y)."

Lots of people were forced into monogamy before they realized there were other options so monogamy has left a bad taste in their mouths and now they feel compelled to behave as though monogamy is this terrible thing. That's fair, but it's also fair to point out that fallacy whenever it rears its head, lest mob mentality should start degrading a perfectly valid relationship style.
 
Yes, I believe I wrote that.
That's kind of the point of sharing such a deeply moving experience.

That wasn't clear to me. I always interpret "the point" with a capital The Point, unilaterally and objectively.

Are you trying to piss me off, or are you just a world-class jerk?

No. I just meant that emotions aren't the only reason to have sex instead of masturbating. I can't perform cunnilingus on myself, and real penises feel better than fake penises. They're also self-propelled, which greatly facilitates the task of having fun sexy times. So when two people who happen to enjoy sharing fun sexy times casually, it's hella better than masturbating. Emotions not required.
 
It isn't inevitable that monogamous people develop feelings outside their dyad.

Note my use of the adverb, "almost."

It also isn't true that all monogamous people associate with "clergymen".

Where in the world am I supposed to have implied that?



It really pisses me off when people start deliberately misinterpreting what I say, and I have much better things to do than teach remedial reading here, so I'm just going to take a break from this place and hope the stupid pills you all took today wear off.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top