Sexuality Philosophy (Questions, ideology)

[FNH]

I'm loling at the people in here who think that being completely sexually satisfied by one person is the norm.

I said it from the time I entered the thread, I understood that people aren't always satisfied by one person. But I'm trying to see the viewpoint of how that can be considered a "serious relationship" and why marry someone if you are going to want more than one person? If I don't find someone that is "enough" then I won't get married. Which brings me to another question, do people in open marriages start a family and raise kids? Do they continue to be "open"? Lol all you like I guess just trying to learn how other people live.

[FNH]

I do not understand what you mean by "central person".

Well since most poly relationships I have experience with come out of anthropology books, my view is that there is 1 central person that is the basis of the relationship and they have multiple SOs. I had asked before, but it wasn't answered are the others in the group also in a relationship with one another or are they all there for the 1 person disregarding the others?

[hey]

I said it from the time I entered the thread, I understood that people aren't always satisfied by one person. But I'm trying to see the viewpoint of how that can be considered a "serious relationship" and why marry someone if you are going to want more than one person? If I don't find someone that is "enough" then I won't get married.

Possibly for legal benefits. A lot of poly people will never consider marriage. Others will. Shit's situational.

Which brings me to another question, do people in open marriages start a family and raise kids? Do they continue to be "open"?

Yes, sometimes, to both questions. I know i say it every post, usually multiple times, but again, everyone is different. Some people never get married no matter how much they love someone. Others do. Some want kids, some with multiple partners, some with only one. Others do not want kids at all. Some get married, have kids, and still date other people. Others get married, and decide to be exclusive from that point on.

[Vandalhart]

It sounds dumb, but that reality TV show with the polygamist family (I think that's the term) may have some answers for you. It's a situation as you describe. One man, many wives/families. I've seen interviews on some TV shows where they talk a little about how they are set up and how it works for them.

Not sure if that'd help or not.

The show's name is Sister Wives.

[hey]

Well since most poly relationships I have experience with come out of anthropology books, my view is that there is 1 central person that is the basis of the relationship and they have multiple SOs.

That would be polygyny, as opposed to polyamory (which is what i am referring to when i say "poly"). That is different from what i have been talking about. Sorry if that was unclear.

I had asked before, but it wasn't answered are the others in the group also in a relationship with one another or are they all there for the 1 person disregarding the others?

It depends. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. For example, this situation with 6 people, A, B, C, D, E, F is perfectly possible:
A is dating B, C, D, E
B is dating A, C
C is dating A, B, D
D is dating A, C, E
E is dating A, D, F
F is dating E

In that case, most would be dating A, and also some of their SOs, but not all of them, and E also has another, F, who is not with any of the others. Any combination is possible. It is common for a group of 3-5 people to all be dating each other, and also common for people to have one SO in common, but also have others who their other SO(s) might not be interested in.

[Cantih]

Well since most poly relationships I have experience with come out of anthropology books, my view is that there is 1 central person that is the basis of the relationship and they have multiple SOs. I had asked before, but it wasn't answered are the others in the group also in a relationship with one another or are they all there for the 1 person disregarding the others?

Hub and Spoke (your central and concubine) is not the only pattern of poly relationships. I wouldn't even claim it's the dominant one, hell, there probably isn't even a dominant pattern.
And the stuff in anthro books, unless you were taking something more than the 101 I'm assuming you did, was historical -gamy stuff, not quite the same as what's being practiced here and now.

You're assuming the spokes are mono to the hub, and that's all there is for them. Or maybe they can go through the hub to other spokes. I won't say that there isn't a partnership that functions like that, but it is a very narrow implementation of polyamory (which isn't wrong if it works and is satifactory to the parties involved).

You should be thinking more like a web or network. The spokes are actually their own hubs, who have their own spokes who are actually their own hubs, and so on and so on. If someone is an actual spoke, it's because a) they're trying it and haven't discovered being one isn't for them, or b) are happy with the arrangement because it fills that need in their life to the degree they need it.

[FNH]

Possibly for legal benefits. A lot of poly people will never consider marriage. Others will. Shit's situational.


Yes, sometimes, to both questions. I know i say it every post, usually multiple times, but again, everyone is different. Some people never get married no matter how much they love someone. Others do. Some want kids, some with multiple partners, some with only one. Others do not want kids at all. Some get married, have kids, and still date other people. Others get married, and decide to be exclusive from that point on.

I was wanting a bit more insight to it than "shit's situational/people are different" because that is clear. To me poly relationships and open marriages were deemed "crazy" by family notions/media and I don't want to simply write it off as such. Having 0 interaction with people from that until this, I'd hoped to get an understanding for it even if it seems like it wouldn't be for me in what I'd deem a "serious relationship". And maybe, as far as poly relationships are concerned, my line of demarcation between sexual escapades and serious life relationship is stronger than others. But if the answers are always going to be "people are different", I guess I'll just step away.

[FNH]

Hub and Spoke (your central and concubine) is not the only pattern of poly relationships. I wouldn't even claim it's the dominant one, hell, there probably isn't even a dominant pattern.
And the stuff in anthro books, unless you were taking something more than the 101 I'm assuming you did, was historical -gamy stuff, not quite the same as what's being practiced here and now.

You're assuming the spokes are mono to the hub, and that's all there is for them. Or maybe they can go through the hub to other spokes. I won't say that there isn't a partnership that functions like that, but it is a very narrow implementation of polyamory (which isn't wrong if it works and is satifactory to the parties involved).

You should be thinking more like a web or network. The spokes are actually their own hubs, who have their own spokes who are actually their own hubs, and so on and so on. If someone is an actual spoke, it's because a) they're trying it and haven't discovered being one isn't for them, or b) are happy with the arrangement because it fills that need in their life to the degree they need it.

Yes, thanks that is what I was thinking of. It just seems my distinctions of a relationship are different, in that FWB or multiple shared sexual partners aren't a "romantic relationship" to me.

[hey]

I was wanting a bit more insight to it than "shit's situational/people are different" because that is clear. To me poly relationships and open marriages were deemed "crazy" by family notions/media and I don't want to simply write it off as such. Having 0 interaction with people from that until this, I'd hoped to get an understanding for it even if it seems like it wouldn't be for me in what I'd deem a "serious relationship". And maybe, as far as poly relationships are concerned, my line of demarcation between sexual escapades and serious life relationship is stronger than others. But if the answers are always going to be "people are different", I guess I'll just step away.

It is difficult to give specific answers unless you ask about specific people, because there is so much variation. If you just ask "Do people do X", then answer will always be "some people do, some people don't".

Yes, thanks that is what I was thinking of. It just seems my distinctions of a relationship are different, in that FWB or multiple shared sexual partners aren't a "romantic relationship" to me.

Yes, i agree, that is not a romantic relationship.

[Rooney]

Also to clarify, poly doesn't mean just having lots of FWB's. It is entirely possible to be romantically (but not sexually) involved with more than one person (and therefore be poly). In the other direction you can have many current sexual partners and not be poly at all. Sex is merely a common component of serious relationships. It's not the defining characteristic of being poly.

In hey's example, persons A-E are poly, F is monogamous. It's also possible to bring in an outside person G purely for sex. This doesn't make G poly, it just means that G is having sex.

Edit: hey got here before me. Also a link to an interview with a poly "unit" of 4 guys focusing mainly on day-to-day life if you're interested. Link

[Astylla]

I said it from the time I entered the thread, I understood that people aren't always satisfied by one person. But I'm trying to see the viewpoint of how that can be considered a "serious relationship" and why marry someone if you are going to want more than one person? If I don't find someone that is "enough" then I won't get married. Which brings me to another question, do people in open marriages start a family and raise kids? Do they continue to be "open"? Lol all you like I guess just trying to learn how other people live.

I think your questions are valid and appreciate that you are asking versus making assumptions from the start. For us we started monogamous but as our relationship evolved we realized that neither of us can provide everything all the time. From the first day we met online we both expressed desire to be married and this was a separate entity from the open part of our relationship.

I know it might be confusing to understand since I can't speak for anything but our relationship dynamic. Marriage for me is the closest to being legally owned by another person (our dynamic is lifestyle based but not all open relationships are obviously), So being married was very important to me for that reason. Neither of us are religious so it wasn't for that reason either, it's just something we mutually desired for mutual reasons.

We don't see why anyone shouldn't get married if they want to, it certainly doesn't go hand in hand with anything else in the relationship itself. I've known many poly couples who have kids, merge families and stay together regardless of circumstances. It's not something that can easily be lumped into generalizations because like ANY relationship the specifics remain between those involved. As long as everyone knows, understands and remains honest it's hurting no-one . Infidelity and dishonesty are human traits not relationship based ones just as monogamous relationships have their challenges so do multiples but in the end has no bearing on why.

[Kuya]

Basically, polyamoury and open relationships are about engineering the most comfortable arrangement of relationship for your and your partner/spouse. It takes a lot of work, planning, and communication to build it, but some people find it's worth it since everything is talked about rather than just assumed.

[Tarage]

If a relationship turns into a math problem where I have to solve for X, it's not worth it.

[wipers]

If a relationship turns into a math problem where I have to solve for X, it's not worth it.

Pretty much this. Sexuality should be something fairly straight forward. We chose to muddle it by gender roles and Kinsey scales etc.

[Kuya]

Quite the opposite. Sexuality is a complex affair and some choose to simplify it for their benefit.

It has only been recently that heterosexuals have gotten it through their skulls that their sexuality isn't the only one that exists.

[Tarage]

And it's cool that you wanna do sexual derivations. I don't. To each their own.

[hey]

And it's cool that you wanna do sexual derivations. I don't. To each their own.

No one asked you to. We are who we are, and no one is going to be convinced to change by anything in this thread. That is not the point.

[Tarage]

Sorry, I forgot I was a forum where you get to dictate who does and does not get to speak.

[hey]

I wasn't trying to? Just saying, that was never the point of this thread. If you're not interested in a poly relationship, then that's cool. No one is trying to convince you.

[Aksannyi]

Maybe it's me but "sexual deviations" makes it sound like you look at this negatively, Tarage. Why? Does it hurt or otherwise bother you if couples are poly, asexual, open, whatever? I'm just kind of curious.

Also, if you didn't mean that negatively, I'm sorry. Deviation generally implies a norm from which one has strayed, so that's why I'm asking.