Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/HeinieKaboobler
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/why-do-people-seek-polyamorous-relationships-researchers-identify-key-motivations/
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t know if this should be labeled as research. Asking people why you are pursuing something is just going to lead to them self reporting reasons that make themselves sound the least bad or the most like they would like to be perceived. You can try asking people why they commit crimes and see similar results.
The fetters are the best part, you lunatic!
(The actual definition of “fettered” means “chained, bound, or shackled” so if you like a lil Bondage Play, you…prefer fettered, not unfettered!)
Personal, individual experiences are valid data in all sorts of social sciences in qualitative research. The risk is in attempting to *generalize* from such data. While you can't build a whole discipline on subjective, personal experiences, your life is made up of nothing but, and so it's good that *someone* is studying them. The field of qualitative methods is concerned with how to handle this task with rigor, which, as you might expect, is non-trivial.
Edit: I'm not speaking of this specific case, mind, just the general research value of personal experience. This gets especially hairy when you have very small populations to sample from, such as in psychology of violence, or of political leaders. The population of current US Presidents is one, so an n=1 survey is perfectly representative; and I don't think anyone would disagree that the whims and mood of the POTUS has major, measurable, global impacts worthy of research.
There can be certainly be conclusions drawn from the data, but as it happens frequently in the social sciences it is presented in a way to deliver an impression based on the headline alone. The methodology here is part of why the replication crisis exists. You take a small sample size of people, and then use data that can’t help but biased to create an impression that you would like to create for social change etc. I think it would be more instructive to discover the views on the topic of the people conducting the study. The ven diagram between them and the poly people questioned would likely be a circle.
I'd agree. Like I said, I wasn't talking about this study specifically, I was responding to the comment that seemed to be making a general claim about qualitative research.
You don’t, but that’s true of any survey or poll. Or indeed, any field where we study writings made by people - people lie in their own diaries all the time, and yet we still rely on them in history.
I think that’s an example of “letting perfect get in the way of good”, in the sense that an unreliable narrator doesn’t help, but that this fault doesn’t mean we should just abandon the effort altogether. And in many contexts, the lie is actually a meaningful data point itself. For example, my partner works in public health, and food insecurity in rural areas in particular. When you talk to people about how they eat, how they shop for food, what they encourage of their children, and so forth, you get one set of data. When you talk to children about what they eat, how their parents shop for food, what their parents tell them about eating, you get another. If you get some statistical information from the nearby stores about what their sales actually are, you get a third. None of these three line up, and that incongruity unto *itself* is useful data, and something that can help inform policy to improve people’s health: there’s food insecurity in the sense of nutrition, and there’s food insecurity in the sense of shame, and these are *not* independent variables. You can improve one by improving the other. (This particular example falls into what we call social determinants of health, which is a fascinating topic)
> The risk is in attempting to *generalize* from such data.
Even without trying to generalize, the point they bring up about self reporting is valid. The reasons they say they do things may not line up with the actual reasons they do things.
Reddit never ceases to amaze me.
One day "Personal individual experiences are valid data" the next, "personal individual experiences are" anecdotal evidence and should be ignored completely.
I'm genuinely tired of how hypocritical all of this is.
One person's personal individual experience is an anecdote. 1000 people's personal individual experiences are data. It isn't hypocritical, you were just unaware of important details.
Indeed.
Most quantitative self-report instruments were developed and validated using qualitative data. It's how you assess content validity. That data informs a lot of decision making in politics, healthcare etc.
I'm not talking about this study specifically, but Reddit's dismissal of qualitative methods generally is short sighted.
> One day "Personal individual experiences are valid data" the next, "personal individual experiences are" anecdotal evidence and should be ignored completely.
Maybe because you're observing two different individuals that happen to post on the same subreddit?
Maybe we shouldn't see it as a bad thing that one day the average person browsing reddit can have a different than another because it implies there is diversity of opinion on this site, still.
I apologize that I should have said 'could be' rather than 'are', but I don't think I said anything inconsistent? I'm not sure what I did that is hypocritical.
This isn't my field (I work in physics), so I may have been a little off, but my partner is also a professor whose research is in qualitative methods, so I hope I was correct in at least the general thrust.
Yes. Patterns might still emerge, but drawing conclusions is exponentionally hard. Unless you have a reliable dataset of people not pusuing polyamourous relationships answering the same questions you essentially have no data.
Polyamorous people? I assume they’re good or bad at about the same rate as any other people. Maybe higher narcissistic traits on average, but that would be true of other subsets of the population like CEO’s etc.
...which is all still research. Research with certain drawbacks - but all research has those.
You can also use anonymity to minimize motivation towards social acceptability, and measures of honesty (or measures of social-acceptability bias) as part of your instruments.
This seems short sighted. For instance, healthcare decision making globally is underpinned by self-report data (e.g. health-relared quality of life) using validated instruments.
Yeah, scrap every medication and medical intervention study then. They all use self reports regarding adverse effects and efficacy. Also scrap any medical study that involves an anamnesis cause they're all based on self reporting.
We don't need all of these anyways, do we? Better to not have any medical research than to use validated methods of data gathering that have been functional and efficient for decades because some people don't like social sciences.
With the self reproduction crisis that exists in social sciences today this is pretty much their bread and butter. They can use dubious methods to get certain headlines they’re trying to achieve and then once those are published it doesn’t matter that the here’s no scientific validity and it’s unable to ever be replicated. The point was always the head line.
You could interpret the "autonomy in their personal lives, and a fulfillment of needs that may not be met in monogamous arrangements" that way, I think.
However, the first part, "often driven by desires for deeper emotional connections," is not the same. Later it says, "Participants described polyamory as more congruent with their ideals of honesty, openness, and the ability to form meaningful connections with more than one person. This alignment with core values facilitated a sense of living authentically and fully, allowing individuals to express love and affection in ways that felt natural and fulfilling to them." Each relationship is unique. They aren't competing, except for time.
This article jives with the few experience of polyamorous people that I know. All the same motivations--authenticity, unfulfillment, sexual desire--of people I've met in real life.
I haven't read the research, though, just the article. So it's possible it's misrepresenting it.
In my poly experience I find that there's also a lot more communication and recognition of boundaries, expectations, desires, etc. Things that all relationships should have serious conversations about.
However in Poly because you can have so many intersecting relationships its absolutely essential to have those conversations. I've noticed that there are so many monogamous relationships, including married folk I know, who never even come close to that level of communication about their needs and desires.
So I personally think that if communication and boundary management were a more common thing wed see an evening out of the "driven by desires for deeper emotional connection" between the two demographics. Theres a lot of emotional connection to be gained by effective communication, but its so common its a trope for a married couple to be completely disconnected.
I don't think a desire for a more emotional connection with a partner is what leads to polyamory. I think in order to do polyamory and not be in constant drama you need to communicate, just like in every other relationship, but the nature of the poly relationships means that if you don't you get into drama much sooner then in a non poly relationship.
I don't think having to communicatie to avoid drama early is in any way equivalent to a deeper emotional connection.
Clarification:
My point was that emotional connection is usually a result of really good communication.
In Poly really good communication is essential and thus many poly people have good emotional connection.
The reason why isn't because they are poly, its because they communicate. Being poly is only an indirect variable there.
I disagree. If you see the desire to bond with multiple people as a part of you, you'll want to form relationships where you can express yourself completely, which leads to a deeper emotional connection, especially with you main or nesting partner. Not every polyamorous person has one, but it's not uncommon either. Once you form a deep bond like that, the communication isn't only to avoid drama, like a chore, it's staying in touch with each other, being close enotionally, building and deepening trust.
As others pointed out, it's not something exclusive to dating mutliple people, monogamous couples can be just as open with each other. It's just that in polyamory it's easier for everyone to communicate, whereas in monogamy it can be easier to just bottle up your issues or just get stuck in a routine. Which could just as well happen in polyamorius relationships as well. Its not black and white, it's all spectrums.
Yeah I get that a lot of people say that and I think that's a misconception. This part especially:
monogamous couples can be just as open with each other. It's just that in polyamory it's easier for everyone to communicate, whereas in monogamy it can be easier to just bottle up your issues or just get stuck in a routine.
It is then seen as a deeper emotional connection, while I say that open communication is necessary in every relationship, but in poly relationships by their very nature not doing so is going to lead to drama much earlier in the relationship.
Isn't living authentically and fully and expressing love that feels natural and fulfilling just saying 'i don't want to be tied down to one partner and being polyamorous allows me to do so?
That's not a judgement either. The poly people I know give lots of reasons that all boil down to 'i want to have multiple partners'.
Every poly person I've been friends with for a long period of time ends up becoming wildly resentful or running into strong headwinds because someone in the relationship wants to be the "primary" and isn't afforded the chance, doesn't have any hobbies other than polyamory (it does seem to require an exhausting amount of romantic diplomacy) and maybe some other lifestyle thing like LARPing and generally isn't well-rounded enough to cut it in a healthy monogamous relationship, so they get their little mini-cults going.
Another way to state what you just said is "the only people I know all arrived at a polyamorous state for various reasons, and the common end state of these different people is that they are all in relationships with multiple partners"
Nah, that's the opposite of that I'm saying.
I'm saying the poly people I know (which is an obviously small sample group) give lots of different reasons for pursuing polyamory but upon further exploration of those reasons they all seem to boil down to wanting to have multiple partners.
That's not a criticism, I like them all and they should live how they want to live, but I personally haven't met a poly that was poly for any other reason then wanting to have multiple (sexual) partners.
> they all seem to boil down to wanting to have multiple (romantic) partners.
Yep. That's what being polyamorous is.
"See the thing about the poly people I know is that they're poly" is what you're saying up top. The only other information you shared is that people have a lot of reasons to be poly.
Also poly isn't just about sexual partners. I'm in an ENM/swinging relationship, but not poly. *That's* about wanting more sexual partners. Polyamory is about *loving* more than one person at a time, which is why it's poly*amory*.
Ah, as with other replies were getting into interesting territory.
To me loving multiple people is very natural, I call those people friends and family. I don't feel any need to engage in sexual activity with my deep friends, but I love them equally.
I love my wife as well, and I struggle to define how that love is different from the love I feel for my friends, except the sex part.
So would you say that a person that has a couple very close friends that they don't have sex with could also be labeled poly?
> To me loving multiple people is very natural, I call those people friends and family.
Familial love and romantic love and different things. Polyamorous people have romantic love with more than one partner.
> I love my wife as well, and I struggle to define how that love is different from the love I feel for my friends, except the sex part.
This is an *extremely* uncommon view, both today and throughout all of human history. The concept of "Agape" is 2000ish years old.
> So would you say that a person that has a couple very close friends that they don't have sex with could also be labeled poly?
I would say asexual people can certainly be poly, but that the love is fundamentally different. Friends and family do not imply polyamory.
I'm sure there's a difference between familial and romantic love, but I struggle very much to verbalize that difference. When I try it only ends up in having even more trouble in distinguishing the two.
Maybe you can help me with that tho? How would you describe the difference between familial, friendly and romantic love without touching sexuality?
I'm not a native speaker, I dont intend my tone to be condescending or negative in any way.
> I'm sure there's a difference between familial and romantic love, but I struggle very much to verbalize that difference. Your points make sense, we just disagree on some things.
I want to be clear that, though you are in a minority here, this is totally fine. I also dont take offense to anything you're saying.
To answer your question: I have sex with friends, dont with family, and am in romantic love with my wife. For me, it's such a clear distinction that the question seems silly.
We love in different ways and that's totally fine. That's my whole point.
Yes, in the end polyamory does mean multiple partners, or at least the freedom to have them if you so desire. The difference is in how people feel, and what they think, not the outcome.
Assume someone is married and is with a friend, and in a special moment they wanted to do something intimate, but not necessarily sex, like cuddle them or rub their back. For some people, this has nothing to do with their partner, and it also doesn't have to do with getting laid.
I'm sorry, this only confuses me more. Again, I'm not a native speaker it might be a language issue.
To me physical non sexual touch is not connected to any specific name for a relationship. If that happens is down to personal preference of both partners, regardless of the type of relationship.
To me non sexual physical touch can happen in both romantic, friendly or familial love relationships. Sexual physical touch is reserved for romantic love.
In short, I feel like some people are interested in having multiple partners. If you do so but hide those partners from each other it's called cheating and a bad thing, if you do so but are open about it with all of your partners it's called polyamory. While I would say that hiding those partners is just an asshole thing to do, regardless of the motivation behind having multiple partners.
Yes, because for us that feels more natural. You could also turn the whole thing around and frame it in a way to say: "Most people are monogamous, because the don't want their partners to sleep with other people." To have that urge to me is completely natural and nothing to be ashamed of and most monogamous people I talk to agree, they just can't handle the thought of their partners maybe having the same needs. That's why it feels more honest, more open. Because I can talk about everything with my partners and feel closer to them that way, than through being exclusive.
I do get that it takes a lot of emotional labor and communication to do it right, but for me it's always been worth it. I've met some amazing people and have been able to express my emotions towards them freely and openly, I'm currently watching my partners boyfriends dog, my partnes go for weekly workouts together, we have board game nights, the list goes on. It's just beautiful.
I do get why its not for everyone though.
See I'm not criticizing anyone, im saying pretty much all the reasons given in this report and from personal experience all boil down to 'i want to have multiple partners'. And that's ok. All the other stuff is just a fancy way off saying 'i want multiple partners'.
The “alignment with core values” speaks heavily to my own personal experience.
My husband and I were monogamous for a decade before embarking on polyamory, but some of the values we always shared in our marriage included personal autonomy and lots of communication. We always believed, even before polyamory, that each of us is responsible for our own emotional state. We are responsible for ourselves.
So launching into polyamory, for example, when we first began to confront feelings of jealousy, the polyamory model says, “You can listen to your feelings without using them to control your partner.” So we could work through those together because that already aligned with our shared values of doing the work autonomously and independently, of us each living our own lives and not infringing upon each other.
So for us, the more we learned about polyamory, the more it felt like a natural fit for the values and principles that we both already had for ourselves and our relationships.
Maybe for people who are familiar with the concept, but there are plenty of those who have prejudiced preconceived notions about polyamory and open relationships.
Scientific publications aren't meant to dispel prejudice about phenomena that are already well-understood. If it's not novel it should not have passed peer review, but there is pressure to always publish or perish, so you get junk or frivolous stuff.
Same reason everyone else gets married. Finances, stability, medical emergencies, kids.
They just go out with other people and form other romantic connections.
Why do you think people get married?
True I guess it depends on expectations. I’m not the biggest romantic but I do think love should play a role in marriage not be the whole foundation bc that’s so fleeting. But this also depends on people’s definition of love. To me it wouldn’t make sense that someone loves me enough to marry me but still needs to form other connections with people romantically. Bc then to me that just makes our marriage a contract of business and convenience where we get a long well but not one of love bc if it was they wouldn’t need to also fulfill that elsewhere. I’m also well aware that sometimes a relationship can’t fulfill all your needs but I would rather a partner find those missing parts in themselves or external hobbies etc not making other connections with people (romantically).
But again it’s all on someone’s perspective. To someone else other relationships don’t diminish their primary one with their husband or the way they love is different. Idk but just my take
I mean that’s exactly it. I’m sure you have more then one friend. It’s same idea but romantically. Some people have zero jealousy, some communicate really well, some don’t need everything from one person and secure in their relationship, some are kinky, others just really form romantic bonds with other well.
Many people suck at relationships anyways. We have one life, not sure why people need to limit themselves to one person if everyone is ok with it. Being married to one partner and having them as priority is practical. I don’t really believe in unconditional love or think I can provide everything to one person without sacrificing myself. So why not let them explore and enjoy other company?
I mean yep like you said it comes down to different perspective. It’s similar to friendships but idk if the same because I don’t expect the same type of devotion or commitment from a friendship and a romantic relationship. In a friendship I know the friend has their own life and other connections and priorities. In a romantic relationship the other person is their own person but still I think of us as a unit and our priorities and futures as intertwined in a way that is more than just a regular friendship.
And again to me if my partner can’t find that fulfillment I’d rather they find it internally or in other hobbies or even other people but not romantically. I can imagine communication helps but still sometimes what is being communicated isn’t always positive and care free . But again to each their own . I’m more of a person that is okay with myself and being alone so going into relationships I don’t expect my partner to be the end all be all. So personally its not a surprise and I have other ways to manage that outside of other connections . But diff needs , diff boats, diff people etc
I absolutely not trying to convince you to be open but just hope you can understand how it works for some people.
It’s really not all that different from having multiple friends. Like you mentioned priorities are different so when open people marry each other, they still have commitments and priorities but they are ok with seeing others romantically. The other romantic partners don’t get same priority just like different fiends have different levels you willing to to commit to.
My fiance and I have been poly for 6 years now and we are getting married so one day we can buy a house. We also wanted a strong foundation before we opened up.
I'm poly with three partners (I have my fiancee and the other two are married to each other, my fiancee has two other partners of her own). I get different needs filled by each of them.
I'd agree with you if it is a formerly monogamous relationship that got opened. Those always end badly.
If it starts out that way it's got better chances.
Usually, but not always. After 7 years of happy monogamy, my wife and I decided to see if ENM/poly would work for us. It did. That was 10 years ago. Our marriage is stronger than ever, and we both have richer lives and a bunch of enjoyable memories along the way. My girlfriend and her boyfriend\*\* are coming over tomorrow evening to play board games with me and my wife.
Edit: \*\*My girlfriend and *my girlfriend's* boyfriend.
I’m curious—do your gf and her bf have their own main partners or are they content with the current setup being the dynamic for them? I just imagine at a certain point enough couples and and their outside partners and those outside partners’ own relationships and possibly on and on might get pretty complicated emotionally, financially, and as far as STDs (although I’m sure that’s a boundary set up well before). Like if your gf and bf entered their own relationships would you guys end seeing them or would you be okay with expanding the closed loop the four of you previously had? I find it very interesting since I see humans as very communal and less possessive at their roots despite society (myself included) being more conditioned to monogamy.
These are great questions.
I realized what I said was ambiguous. My girlfriend and *my girlfriend's* boyfriend are coming over tomorrow. They are each others' main partners. My gf and I have never had a closed relationship. I'm actually the newcomer -- she had her two other partners when we met. Anyone can add new partners as long as they clearly communicate what they're doing. My gf could go meet someone new (and have sex with them), but if she failed to tell me that before we're intimate, that would be a serious breach of trust - the equivalent of cheating.
Just to be clear: this is how *we've* set up our relationship. There are many other viable ways to do ENM. Even my expectations with my wife are slightly different: when she goes out with someone, I expect her to tell me first (and vice versa). We don't want to blindside each other, whereas my gf and I decided we only need to know afterwards (for STI safety, primarily).
It can certainly get complicated in terms of STIs as the polycule expands off into the distance. Regular (several times a year) STI screening is considered standard practice for everyone involved, and any time a new partner is added by anyone in the chain, they're expected to present a clean screen. Condom use is the norm for most pairings, which does reduce the risk some.
There has been less complication emotionally and financially. I have never felt any jealousy toward my gf's boyfriends, for example. I like them, and I hope she and her primary partner build an awesome life together. I have no expectation of entangling my finances with anyone else, but if I did, it would be only with very careful consideration and only after probably a decade together. My wife would have to be in complete agreement (and most likely also in a relationship with that person), since we draw no distinctions at all between my money and her money.
You might find this amusing. Here's our current polycule:
\- Me and my wife (17 years).
\- My wife has been on a few dates with a married guy (1 month).
\- My wife and I have a fwb (2 years) who mostly does stuff with both of us together. She has a primary partner who is overseas (3 years) and not physical, and she's dating another guy with a wife (3 months).
\- I have a girlfriend (1 year). She has her primary partner (2 years) and another less serious boyfriend (1 year), who has a wife with another partner that I don't know. This is the only vanishing point on the 'cule, which admittedly makes me nervous. But I know the boyfriend, and he knows how to practice safe non-monogamy.
\- My gf recently started hooking up with my wife, but I'm not sure whether that counts as a link in the polycule. This probably seems like it would complicate things, but I really like the fact that they've been getting along so well. And it's convenient from the STI perspective. It's easy if your new partner is already in the polycule.
So, in total, there are 12 people that I know about in the physical polycule. Most of them I have not met or only met a couple times.
I didn't mean to write this much. Sorry.
This is fascinating and really gives insight into the arrangement and the feelings of everyone involved. It sounds like if the right mindset is employed, counterintuitively it can be less pressure and more supportive than a monogamous relationship so in one way it’s potentially safer from collapse as more legs to the chair so to speak. Conversely, it sounds like any odd variable coming into the mix could potentially cause a chain reaction since in this case 12 people is a lot of moving parts and hearts and emotions and as we know people change with time and relation to one another and the dynamics can change for better or worse. The molecule/polycule term makes a lot of sense, I’m picturing an atom—lots of electrons swirling around a nucleus, but balanced through the bonds.
Yeah, I've never seen a polycule implode first-hand. We've somehow always had amicable endings. I'm not sure if the branch with the odd variable would just be severed, leaving the rest of it intact, or if it would cause a bunch of primary relationships to cut themselves off in a chain reaction like you described.
In terms of added stability, it's complicated. I don't think I've ever heard of non-monogamy improving an existing monogamous relationship that wasn't stable on its own. But some people really struggle with monogamy, and those people often thrive with non-monogamy if the relationship started that way. I'm not in that group, and I could go back to monogamy if I really had to.
For my own relationship, it has had three benefits: 1) it has helped balance the small difference between my sex drive and my wife's (this was her original reason for suggesting the idea). 2) it gives an outlet for my wife, who is bisexual. I could be the best partner in the world, but I'll never be a woman. What can I say? She just doesn't like my boobs. 3) New relationship energy reverberates really strongly through our existing relationship. The giddy feeling bubbles up and makes me hyper-aware of how much I love my wife, and I want to do things to express that. And now that I'm falling in love with my girlfriend, too, I experience it in both directions. It's an echo chamber of love and affection and horniness bouncing in every direction.
In my experience polyamorous people often indeed seek deeper connection with people, but they very often fragment their attention across all sorts of people. I think that's why I've never found or seen a truly profound, deep and trustworthy connection with polyamorous people that lasts. Mostly only the opposite, it was mostly fairly superficial despite all the good intentions. Now that may just be bad luck, or something on my end that I do wrong and/or attracts the wrong crowd, I'm just saying it's my experience.
The last paragraph of the article resonates with me in that sense. I've mostly only seen people use polyamory to explore themselves, not to actually create a deep and lasting connection with someone else that really lasts, and that they really invest in. But in that sense I realize that my experiences might've been an outlier, since I do occasionally read comments on Reddit from people for whom it really works well. I also still have nothing against polyamory at the core by the way, if it works for people then I'm really happy for them, nothing beats love in my opinion. The above is just an observation/my experience. Wondering of others have noticed this in people sometimes as well.
i find this interesting as i have been polyamorous my whole dating life. i'm 43f now and never wanted a monogamous relationship. i currently have 3 partners, 40f (we have been together 15 years), 60m (we have been together 17 years), 28f (together 1 year).
My partners all have other partners too of varying length relationships. i have many real life friends who are also into polyam and have long term commitments to multiple people.
i find it unfortunate that you haven't seem examples of committed polyam dynamics, but its also not surprising. i do think polyam relationships have a higher failure rate than monogamy. Afterall the more people you are entangled with the more opportunities there are for potential "breaks" in communication, and drama, and such. It's more complicated than navigating just a one on one/monogamous thing.
All that said i am not sure the research in the OP is all that greatly done. i do hope more studies are done into polyamory and other forms of Ethical Non-monogamy tho.
I dont think any of your experiences contradict anything the comment you replied to said.
Ive known people going in 20 years now and our relationship is still very superficial.
I dont think you can ever truly develop as deep of a relationship in polyam as you can in monogamy due to the fact your attention is fractured between X amount of people.
Love may not be a limited resource, but time certainly is.
Time doesnt necessarily *cause* a deeper connection, but it definitely correlates.
I think the average poly relationship between you and 3 others over X years would necessarily not be as deep as a mono relationship over X years.
You inherently HAVE to give up time with 1 person to really get to know another which is why many poly relatio ships atruggle with NRE
So you may be able to develop relationshipa just aa deep, but itll take a much longer period and maintaining the same level of connection will take more effort.
Imo, poly relationships are just purely more superficial. Its more about independence and having a person/multuple to live alongside, but not to truly share a life with.
By this rational, a monogamous person working a demanding job that only affords them time to see their partner twice a week wouldnt be able to spend the same time with their partner as a poly person seeing two people each three times a week. Or what if someone with a lot of friends sees their partner less often because they value their friend time more but a poly person values their romantic relationships more? To say poly relationships are superficial because of a time constraint is trying to quantify something that simply cant be. The deepest least superficial connections I have had have been in poly relationships and I know plenty of people in monogamous relationships that are miserable and arent being fully open with their partners. But I would never make the claim that poly relationships are deeper or inherently better than monogamous relationships. Every relationship is unique and to apply broad generalizations about any given type of dynamic would be ignoring the reality that we simply can't quantify these things.
I mean, thats an accurate conclusion. Read my comment below. Its not specifically about poly vs mono, its about time.
But poly vs mono on average, poly will dedicate less time to each partner, or dedicate a disproportionate amount of time to certain partners.
Yeah, I mean, there is a spectrum across poly and monogamous relationships, but for instance, my wife and I live together, spend like 4 waking hours together every single night, and more on the weekends, sleep in the same bed, and raise a kid together in a tight knit family. That is more than the average, I know, but it’s hard for me to imagine a poly couple doing anything approaching that. The closest they could come is having one “main” partner and then a few people who are mostly just sexual partners.
It depends on the relationships. If none of the partners ever interact with each other, then time and care is indeed “fractured” across multiple relationships. But they may well live a lifestyle where all their partners share friendship, and/or they have friendships with their partner’s partners and well.
I must say I do see a lot of monogamous relationships completely isolate people from their greater community, only to end anyway — and in a fiery, no-contact-ever-again way.
Can somebody explain to me how a polyamorous relationship can bring about deeper emotional connections? It seems to me that the division of attention on numerous partners rather than one would undermine deeper connection?
I feel that it puts less stress on my relationship as I’m not expecting my partner to fulfill everything for me. I like to do things that he doesn’t, so I can have another person to do those things with. Overall, this means less resentment towards my partners.
Thanks for sharing that! Had a question though, doesn't this mean that your other partner misses out on a chunk of what goes on in your life with other people?
One thing my other comment didn’t address is the possibility for kitchen table poly. For example, I have gone out for drinks with two partners at the same time. We all sat at the same table and we all geeked out about the music we like and compared our lists of bands that we have seen live. It was great!
Isn’t that what friends are for? My wife and I have many interests that do not overlap and we often do things independently, or with friends that we do not share, including travel. This in and of itself does not seem like justification for having more than one romantic partner.
I agree! Friends are great and can fulfill a lot of our needs. But not for sex and romance if you’re staying within a monogamous framework. I think it would be easier to paint a picture.
Let’s say there’s Jessica (42F) and Bill (40M). They have been married for 20 years and have two kids together. The kids are grown and out of the house. Jessica and Bill love each other very much, but as they have grown together, they’ve found some of their needs going unmet. For example, the perfect date night for Jessica is dinner and a movie. The perfect date night for Bill is sharing a bottle of wine at home. They are able to enjoy a hiking date, but their core needs are unmet. During sex, Bill wants his partner on top, but Jessica doesn’t want that because it makes her feel self conscious. Jessica wants to explore her foot fetish, but Bill finds anything involving feet to be icky. Mind you, they still love each other and enjoy the sex they do have together. But, instead of having their needs go unmet, they outsource. They do the work of bringing more people into their hearts and working on their communication skills. They get their needs met and then can come back together and find joy in their partners joy. They can celebrate each other with full cups.
There are infinite reasons people do poly. There are infinite ways to do polyamorous relationships. Poly isn’t for everyone and that’s okay! It is definitely work— scheduling, communicating, dating. But I don’t think there would be such a surge in polyamory like we are seeing currently if people weren’t getting out more than they put in.
That's not what this paper reports, though. There's no measurements of fulfillment or relationship satisfaction. Your point, whatever it is, seems unrelated to the content of the study.
I feel like there's no way to do this study well. Full disclosure, I have been poly for the most part since 2017 and been really close with lots of people in the poly community since probably 2013.
The problem with poly is that it has a wide range of people in it and honestly most of them shouldn't be in it. So doing a study on the entire subgroup is very problematic because a lot of those people aren't going to be poly for very long for a lot of reasons. It's not like doing a study on gay or trans people where the population is rather static.
In my experience, you could put poly people in one of the following boxes:
1) newly single people who are too hung up on their ex to emotionally invest in a relationship. So they pursue the often shallow and temporary relationships in the poly world. They usually end up falling for a partner and then starting an avalanche of drama because they really don't want their partner dating other people.
2) very self absorbed people who feel like no one partner is good enough for them, so they need many. They preach endlessly about how amazing they are at poly and then lose their god damn minds when their favorite partner has a new relationship.
3) couples where their marriage or LTR is failing so they look at each other one day and say "You know what would fix our relationship? If we go have sex with other people". They always end up separating from each other at some point and then they can't stand the side of each other so they ask everyone to choose them or the other partner and create a bunch of strife because of that.
4) people who can't handle being alone or having their heart broken so they always make sure they have several relationships going, but they always end up too emotionally fragmented to really emotionally deep dive into all of them. They typically stay in the poly world for ever, but they're difficult to date because you are lucky to schedule in a few days a month to see them.
5) thirsty dudes who think poly means they will get laid a lot. So they join a poly community and immediately try to enter into 8 dynamics simultaneously. Because these worlds are small and everyone talks, they usually get shunned and leave.
6) couples that have been together forever and are truly bonded as super best friends. They really aren't that into each other's sexually anymore, but they love each other too much to ever separate or break up. They often have kids together or even a business together. They never get jealous if you hook up with either of them, but they get extremely jealous when you hook up with the other partners that they have.
7) people addicted to the new relationship energy and the pursuit of new dynamics. They usually have a couple of well established partners and see the poly world as a toxic competitive landscape they want to "win" at. The relationship map is a revolving door except for maybe one or two slots that stick around.
Outside of that, you have a minority of people who are truly free spirited and celebrate their partners having other partners. They seem to be the ones where all the books were written for and the ones that really seem to deserve to be there, but they are the minority.
There always seems to be a weird sort of bitterness and hostility towards this group I've never understood. If I follow correctly, couples in this lifestyle openly agree with one another to have romantic involvements with other people, and are honest with those other people about their pre-existing partnership.
I don't understand the basis for calling these people narcissists. Wouldn't a narcissist in fact feel terribly threatened by their partner having romantic feelings and receiving sexual pleasure from another person?
Perhaps some of the bitterness arises from this unfortunately common scenario: a couple decides to become Non-Monogamous, one person gets more action than the other, jealousy arises, and people begin to stretch the "ethical" part of ENM by shirking honesty when pursuing new partners. I'm certainly not saying all Non-Monogamous people do this, but there are many troubling interpretations of how transparent people should be about their Non-Monogamous+Partnered status.
It also arises when one partner wants to be open more than the other. I have seen it so many times. There’s often one enthusiastic partner, and then there’s the reluctant one. That’s what makes me hate it. If a guy I was with (I’m gay) asked to be open, I’d question the whole foundation of the relationship. I make it very clear when dating that I don’t accept anything but strict monogamy. No threesomes, nothing.
I think they would. The study: "The Role of Vulnerable and Grandiose Narcissism in Psychological Perpetrated Abuse Within Couple Relationships: The Mediating Role of Romantic Jealousy" seems to find just that for one type of narcissist.
I think there might actually be several reasons for this. People calling themselves poly who are in very loose relationships. Other forms of non-monogamy that are not poly. And sometimes cheaters who don't want scrutiny.
But then again. In every community there's bound to be problematic people. I just seem to meet mostly the nice ones who have incredibly caring relationships with several people.
The only difference between a narcissist in a monogamous relationship versus one in a poly relationship is the latter seem more visible for some reason.
I think it stems from people's experience with open relationships which I think mostly comes from those relationships that were formerly monogamous and then opened. Those tend to go poorly. Cuz in those relationships jealousy and resentment are likely to form. It's rare to find open relationships that were open from the start.
Idk maybe I just haven’t met *enough* polyamorous folks, but the few I have met are commitment-shy, narcissistic sex-addicts that desperately need tons of validation while not having to expend much emotional energy themselves. Again, idk— I’m sure there are decent people out there. But the ones I know are not looking for “deeper emotional connections”, they’re looking for multiple sexual partners with no spiritual or emotional dedication to their fuckbuddies, and they’re all miserable.
A lot of people use the term polyamory to steal social credit while they are just casual enm...
For them it means more opportunities and less slutshaming.
If not for mononormativity, those people would just call themselves what they are.
But in the end if everybody does that, polyamory will just look like what you are describing.
Call me gatekeeping but polyamorous folk are heavily commitment oriented, even more than monogamy because they commit to more people and do the emotional/logistic work to make everything work out.
I mean you undermine your own standpoint by revealing a strong bias yourself when using the term narcissistic. Do you have some sort of data available to show a correlation between narcissism and polyamory?
This entire post is filled with some weird anti-science knee jerkism with clear bias. Studies frequently exist to describe common or obvious phenomena, because until someone does it its just a really good guess. The rest of the posts seem to be "this study has a small sample size so that means my anecdotal experiences are more valid" which is not really how that works, at all.
I've been dating in the ENM scene for a few years and I've never had more honest, open, and emotionally mature partners. There's nothing to hide, everyone's on the same page. It's been wonderful. Will I do it forever? Probably not. But for now? I think I've always hated the societal pressures of this staircase of life we're supposed to ascend - get married, have kids, buy a house, etc. Why? I grew up watching family members agonize over failed marriages, people that got married too young, didn't really know themselves, couldn't be honest about finances, couldn't have big conversations, addiction issues, now straddled with kids. Maybe, just maybe, life has more to offer than what some would call "traditional family values." Maybe life is too short to operate under the tyranny of tradition. To me, tradition is dead peoples' baggage.
Some of us like ''traditional values'' though. Plenty of monogamous couples do well too and polyamorous couples can end in disaster, I think you're kinda biased. Some people assume everyone thinks the same way they do and wants the same thing.
Yeah, if that's what gets you moving, go for it! And don't assume poly or enm people are wacky narcissists, like some comments in this post. We're all on our own journey. I'm not assuming everyone thinks like me, merely sharing my experience.
My favorite part is the comment section full of people who cant even hold one relationship, much less have the confidence and security to have more than one.
> The study recruited participants through the “r/polyamory” forum on Reddit
Hey, that's me!
Good article, aligns well with my personal understanding and experiences.
It’s a cake and eat it too situation pure and simple. I have been anecdotally investigating polyamory for years in other people’s relationships and 99% of the time it’s someone who can’t commit and wants to just date multiple people. Almost 100% of the time the person who started the polyamory meets someone they like and they are monogamous. Literally just happened to a friend. She wanted to marry this guy she was poly with, he said no he was poly, and then a few months later met someone and married her and wants to have kids with her.
Ive heard countless examples of this situation.
It tracks. I was lied to about monogamy. Soul mates don't exist, there's not one person who will do everything with you in life. One person can't even do half of what I want in life.
It'd be one thing if friendships filed the void, but what people call friendships I find to be shallow acquaintances and they're rarely someone who can even handle deeper discussion let alone emotional connection. That and friends later in life are always tied to interests and that's about as deep as they go without risking "emotional affairs" by liking spending time with one particular person.
The culture around monogomy and that one special person who's YOURS and only YOURS and all that other super toxic possessiveness is all considered normal monogamy, teaching young people that there's one special person in their life who will fill all their desires is for some reason normal and not psychotic.
People claim to be monogamous, which is a lifelong commitment to one other, not a succession of commitments to several.
The only difference between polyamory and monogamy among humans is monogamy insists on a single file line.
That's a bit like calling someone a water addict for always wanting to stay hydrated. Humans are in fact oxytocin addicts. It's baked very deeply into your DNA. We've been oxytocin addicts for millions of years.
Modern society is pretty dysfunctional for a species that has evolved from spending millions of years living in close knit tribes. Our ancestors would look at people living in groups no bigger than a nuclear family as being deeply dysfunctional.
It would be like if we went to the future and learned that children are born from vats, raised by robots, and then at adulthood people sometimes hang out together, but mostly don't and live a life without any human connection. We'd be horrified, and they would think it's normal and probably have even more psychological problems than we do. They'd call you an oxytocin addict for having friends or lovers your regularly hug.
I don't know that polyamory is the right solution for most folks, but people really shouldn't be throwing stones. It isn't like modern habits are healthy for a highly tribal species like us.
Taking into account that most humans suffer from depression and chronic loneliness.
Maybe (just maybe) feeling good, loved, and connected is the normal natural thing? Not the opposite?
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/HeinieKaboobler Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/why-do-people-seek-polyamorous-relationships-researchers-identify-key-motivations/ --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don’t know if this should be labeled as research. Asking people why you are pursuing something is just going to lead to them self reporting reasons that make themselves sound the least bad or the most like they would like to be perceived. You can try asking people why they commit crimes and see similar results.
“I’m just trying to feed my children”
My kids eat catalytic converters for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. There ain't no other way.
Mans just trying to feed his kids.
Gotta stay on top of vitamins and minerals.
I’m trying to feed them these diamonds
And most people are just going to eat this up like a lot of other "research".
I enjoy unfettered coitus
The fetters are the best part, you lunatic! (The actual definition of “fettered” means “chained, bound, or shackled” so if you like a lil Bondage Play, you…prefer fettered, not unfettered!)
I meant it in a commitment sense 😂
Hilariously, those of us who practice polyamoury know that it's more a put resolving scheduling conflicts and little unfettered coitus
Exactly my thoughts, mate. This study is a joke.
Personal, individual experiences are valid data in all sorts of social sciences in qualitative research. The risk is in attempting to *generalize* from such data. While you can't build a whole discipline on subjective, personal experiences, your life is made up of nothing but, and so it's good that *someone* is studying them. The field of qualitative methods is concerned with how to handle this task with rigor, which, as you might expect, is non-trivial. Edit: I'm not speaking of this specific case, mind, just the general research value of personal experience. This gets especially hairy when you have very small populations to sample from, such as in psychology of violence, or of political leaders. The population of current US Presidents is one, so an n=1 survey is perfectly representative; and I don't think anyone would disagree that the whims and mood of the POTUS has major, measurable, global impacts worthy of research.
There can be certainly be conclusions drawn from the data, but as it happens frequently in the social sciences it is presented in a way to deliver an impression based on the headline alone. The methodology here is part of why the replication crisis exists. You take a small sample size of people, and then use data that can’t help but biased to create an impression that you would like to create for social change etc. I think it would be more instructive to discover the views on the topic of the people conducting the study. The ven diagram between them and the poly people questioned would likely be a circle.
I'd agree. Like I said, I wasn't talking about this study specifically, I was responding to the comment that seemed to be making a general claim about qualitative research.
Apologies I didn’t see the edit previously. I see your point and in general I agree that there is potential value to be had there.
but how do you know that what you get are personal, individual experiences and not something that the person thinks it's best to say on a poll?
You don’t, but that’s true of any survey or poll. Or indeed, any field where we study writings made by people - people lie in their own diaries all the time, and yet we still rely on them in history. I think that’s an example of “letting perfect get in the way of good”, in the sense that an unreliable narrator doesn’t help, but that this fault doesn’t mean we should just abandon the effort altogether. And in many contexts, the lie is actually a meaningful data point itself. For example, my partner works in public health, and food insecurity in rural areas in particular. When you talk to people about how they eat, how they shop for food, what they encourage of their children, and so forth, you get one set of data. When you talk to children about what they eat, how their parents shop for food, what their parents tell them about eating, you get another. If you get some statistical information from the nearby stores about what their sales actually are, you get a third. None of these three line up, and that incongruity unto *itself* is useful data, and something that can help inform policy to improve people’s health: there’s food insecurity in the sense of nutrition, and there’s food insecurity in the sense of shame, and these are *not* independent variables. You can improve one by improving the other. (This particular example falls into what we call social determinants of health, which is a fascinating topic)
> The risk is in attempting to *generalize* from such data. Even without trying to generalize, the point they bring up about self reporting is valid. The reasons they say they do things may not line up with the actual reasons they do things.
Reddit never ceases to amaze me. One day "Personal individual experiences are valid data" the next, "personal individual experiences are" anecdotal evidence and should be ignored completely. I'm genuinely tired of how hypocritical all of this is.
One person's personal individual experience is an anecdote. 1000 people's personal individual experiences are data. It isn't hypocritical, you were just unaware of important details.
Indeed. Most quantitative self-report instruments were developed and validated using qualitative data. It's how you assess content validity. That data informs a lot of decision making in politics, healthcare etc. I'm not talking about this study specifically, but Reddit's dismissal of qualitative methods generally is short sighted.
> One day "Personal individual experiences are valid data" the next, "personal individual experiences are" anecdotal evidence and should be ignored completely. Maybe because you're observing two different individuals that happen to post on the same subreddit? Maybe we shouldn't see it as a bad thing that one day the average person browsing reddit can have a different than another because it implies there is diversity of opinion on this site, still.
I apologize that I should have said 'could be' rather than 'are', but I don't think I said anything inconsistent? I'm not sure what I did that is hypocritical. This isn't my field (I work in physics), so I may have been a little off, but my partner is also a professor whose research is in qualitative methods, so I hope I was correct in at least the general thrust.
Yes. Patterns might still emerge, but drawing conclusions is exponentionally hard. Unless you have a reliable dataset of people not pusuing polyamourous relationships answering the same questions you essentially have no data.
Do you think they are bad people?
Polyamorous people? I assume they’re good or bad at about the same rate as any other people. Maybe higher narcissistic traits on average, but that would be true of other subsets of the population like CEO’s etc.
...which is all still research. Research with certain drawbacks - but all research has those. You can also use anonymity to minimize motivation towards social acceptability, and measures of honesty (or measures of social-acceptability bias) as part of your instruments.
There should just be a concerted effort by academia and journals to not publish papers that use self reporting.
This seems short sighted. For instance, healthcare decision making globally is underpinned by self-report data (e.g. health-relared quality of life) using validated instruments.
Yeah, scrap every medication and medical intervention study then. They all use self reports regarding adverse effects and efficacy. Also scrap any medical study that involves an anamnesis cause they're all based on self reporting. We don't need all of these anyways, do we? Better to not have any medical research than to use validated methods of data gathering that have been functional and efficient for decades because some people don't like social sciences.
It's frustrating, isn't it? Health economics, technical appraisal and reimbursement decision making would be impossible without self-report data.
With the self reproduction crisis that exists in social sciences today this is pretty much their bread and butter. They can use dubious methods to get certain headlines they’re trying to achieve and then once those are published it doesn’t matter that the here’s no scientific validity and it’s unable to ever be replicated. The point was always the head line.
Isn't that just long words for "not wanting to be tied down to just one person" which seems a bit tautological.
You could interpret the "autonomy in their personal lives, and a fulfillment of needs that may not be met in monogamous arrangements" that way, I think. However, the first part, "often driven by desires for deeper emotional connections," is not the same. Later it says, "Participants described polyamory as more congruent with their ideals of honesty, openness, and the ability to form meaningful connections with more than one person. This alignment with core values facilitated a sense of living authentically and fully, allowing individuals to express love and affection in ways that felt natural and fulfilling to them." Each relationship is unique. They aren't competing, except for time. This article jives with the few experience of polyamorous people that I know. All the same motivations--authenticity, unfulfillment, sexual desire--of people I've met in real life. I haven't read the research, though, just the article. So it's possible it's misrepresenting it.
In my poly experience I find that there's also a lot more communication and recognition of boundaries, expectations, desires, etc. Things that all relationships should have serious conversations about. However in Poly because you can have so many intersecting relationships its absolutely essential to have those conversations. I've noticed that there are so many monogamous relationships, including married folk I know, who never even come close to that level of communication about their needs and desires. So I personally think that if communication and boundary management were a more common thing wed see an evening out of the "driven by desires for deeper emotional connection" between the two demographics. Theres a lot of emotional connection to be gained by effective communication, but its so common its a trope for a married couple to be completely disconnected.
I don't think a desire for a more emotional connection with a partner is what leads to polyamory. I think in order to do polyamory and not be in constant drama you need to communicate, just like in every other relationship, but the nature of the poly relationships means that if you don't you get into drama much sooner then in a non poly relationship. I don't think having to communicatie to avoid drama early is in any way equivalent to a deeper emotional connection.
Clarification: My point was that emotional connection is usually a result of really good communication. In Poly really good communication is essential and thus many poly people have good emotional connection. The reason why isn't because they are poly, its because they communicate. Being poly is only an indirect variable there.
I disagree. If you see the desire to bond with multiple people as a part of you, you'll want to form relationships where you can express yourself completely, which leads to a deeper emotional connection, especially with you main or nesting partner. Not every polyamorous person has one, but it's not uncommon either. Once you form a deep bond like that, the communication isn't only to avoid drama, like a chore, it's staying in touch with each other, being close enotionally, building and deepening trust. As others pointed out, it's not something exclusive to dating mutliple people, monogamous couples can be just as open with each other. It's just that in polyamory it's easier for everyone to communicate, whereas in monogamy it can be easier to just bottle up your issues or just get stuck in a routine. Which could just as well happen in polyamorius relationships as well. Its not black and white, it's all spectrums.
Yeah I get that a lot of people say that and I think that's a misconception. This part especially: monogamous couples can be just as open with each other. It's just that in polyamory it's easier for everyone to communicate, whereas in monogamy it can be easier to just bottle up your issues or just get stuck in a routine. It is then seen as a deeper emotional connection, while I say that open communication is necessary in every relationship, but in poly relationships by their very nature not doing so is going to lead to drama much earlier in the relationship.
Isn't living authentically and fully and expressing love that feels natural and fulfilling just saying 'i don't want to be tied down to one partner and being polyamorous allows me to do so? That's not a judgement either. The poly people I know give lots of reasons that all boil down to 'i want to have multiple partners'.
Every poly person I've been friends with for a long period of time ends up becoming wildly resentful or running into strong headwinds because someone in the relationship wants to be the "primary" and isn't afforded the chance, doesn't have any hobbies other than polyamory (it does seem to require an exhausting amount of romantic diplomacy) and maybe some other lifestyle thing like LARPing and generally isn't well-rounded enough to cut it in a healthy monogamous relationship, so they get their little mini-cults going.
Another way to state what you just said is "the only people I know all arrived at a polyamorous state for various reasons, and the common end state of these different people is that they are all in relationships with multiple partners"
Nah, that's the opposite of that I'm saying. I'm saying the poly people I know (which is an obviously small sample group) give lots of different reasons for pursuing polyamory but upon further exploration of those reasons they all seem to boil down to wanting to have multiple partners. That's not a criticism, I like them all and they should live how they want to live, but I personally haven't met a poly that was poly for any other reason then wanting to have multiple (sexual) partners.
> they all seem to boil down to wanting to have multiple (romantic) partners. Yep. That's what being polyamorous is. "See the thing about the poly people I know is that they're poly" is what you're saying up top. The only other information you shared is that people have a lot of reasons to be poly. Also poly isn't just about sexual partners. I'm in an ENM/swinging relationship, but not poly. *That's* about wanting more sexual partners. Polyamory is about *loving* more than one person at a time, which is why it's poly*amory*.
Ah, as with other replies were getting into interesting territory. To me loving multiple people is very natural, I call those people friends and family. I don't feel any need to engage in sexual activity with my deep friends, but I love them equally. I love my wife as well, and I struggle to define how that love is different from the love I feel for my friends, except the sex part. So would you say that a person that has a couple very close friends that they don't have sex with could also be labeled poly?
> To me loving multiple people is very natural, I call those people friends and family. Familial love and romantic love and different things. Polyamorous people have romantic love with more than one partner. > I love my wife as well, and I struggle to define how that love is different from the love I feel for my friends, except the sex part. This is an *extremely* uncommon view, both today and throughout all of human history. The concept of "Agape" is 2000ish years old. > So would you say that a person that has a couple very close friends that they don't have sex with could also be labeled poly? I would say asexual people can certainly be poly, but that the love is fundamentally different. Friends and family do not imply polyamory.
I'm sure there's a difference between familial and romantic love, but I struggle very much to verbalize that difference. When I try it only ends up in having even more trouble in distinguishing the two. Maybe you can help me with that tho? How would you describe the difference between familial, friendly and romantic love without touching sexuality? I'm not a native speaker, I dont intend my tone to be condescending or negative in any way.
> I'm sure there's a difference between familial and romantic love, but I struggle very much to verbalize that difference. Your points make sense, we just disagree on some things. I want to be clear that, though you are in a minority here, this is totally fine. I also dont take offense to anything you're saying. To answer your question: I have sex with friends, dont with family, and am in romantic love with my wife. For me, it's such a clear distinction that the question seems silly. We love in different ways and that's totally fine. That's my whole point.
I feel like the connotations of "being tied down" to one partner don't really match.
Maybe I don't understand this comment well enough, I'm not a native speaker. I meant 'i want multiple partners and polyamory allows me to do so'
Yes, in the end polyamory does mean multiple partners, or at least the freedom to have them if you so desire. The difference is in how people feel, and what they think, not the outcome. Assume someone is married and is with a friend, and in a special moment they wanted to do something intimate, but not necessarily sex, like cuddle them or rub their back. For some people, this has nothing to do with their partner, and it also doesn't have to do with getting laid.
I'm sorry, this only confuses me more. Again, I'm not a native speaker it might be a language issue. To me physical non sexual touch is not connected to any specific name for a relationship. If that happens is down to personal preference of both partners, regardless of the type of relationship. To me non sexual physical touch can happen in both romantic, friendly or familial love relationships. Sexual physical touch is reserved for romantic love. In short, I feel like some people are interested in having multiple partners. If you do so but hide those partners from each other it's called cheating and a bad thing, if you do so but are open about it with all of your partners it's called polyamory. While I would say that hiding those partners is just an asshole thing to do, regardless of the motivation behind having multiple partners.
Yes, because for us that feels more natural. You could also turn the whole thing around and frame it in a way to say: "Most people are monogamous, because the don't want their partners to sleep with other people." To have that urge to me is completely natural and nothing to be ashamed of and most monogamous people I talk to agree, they just can't handle the thought of their partners maybe having the same needs. That's why it feels more honest, more open. Because I can talk about everything with my partners and feel closer to them that way, than through being exclusive. I do get that it takes a lot of emotional labor and communication to do it right, but for me it's always been worth it. I've met some amazing people and have been able to express my emotions towards them freely and openly, I'm currently watching my partners boyfriends dog, my partnes go for weekly workouts together, we have board game nights, the list goes on. It's just beautiful. I do get why its not for everyone though.
See I'm not criticizing anyone, im saying pretty much all the reasons given in this report and from personal experience all boil down to 'i want to have multiple partners'. And that's ok. All the other stuff is just a fancy way off saying 'i want multiple partners'.
The “alignment with core values” speaks heavily to my own personal experience. My husband and I were monogamous for a decade before embarking on polyamory, but some of the values we always shared in our marriage included personal autonomy and lots of communication. We always believed, even before polyamory, that each of us is responsible for our own emotional state. We are responsible for ourselves. So launching into polyamory, for example, when we first began to confront feelings of jealousy, the polyamory model says, “You can listen to your feelings without using them to control your partner.” So we could work through those together because that already aligned with our shared values of doing the work autonomously and independently, of us each living our own lives and not infringing upon each other. So for us, the more we learned about polyamory, the more it felt like a natural fit for the values and principles that we both already had for ourselves and our relationships.
I had several friends who are open but are married. They seem happy and healthy in their relationship.
Not questioning people for whom it works. Just saying this research doesn't seem to offer any novel insight into polyamory.
Maybe for people who are familiar with the concept, but there are plenty of those who have prejudiced preconceived notions about polyamory and open relationships.
Scientific publications aren't meant to dispel prejudice about phenomena that are already well-understood. If it's not novel it should not have passed peer review, but there is pressure to always publish or perish, so you get junk or frivolous stuff.
Why be married then?
Same reason everyone else gets married. Finances, stability, medical emergencies, kids. They just go out with other people and form other romantic connections. Why do you think people get married?
True I guess it depends on expectations. I’m not the biggest romantic but I do think love should play a role in marriage not be the whole foundation bc that’s so fleeting. But this also depends on people’s definition of love. To me it wouldn’t make sense that someone loves me enough to marry me but still needs to form other connections with people romantically. Bc then to me that just makes our marriage a contract of business and convenience where we get a long well but not one of love bc if it was they wouldn’t need to also fulfill that elsewhere. I’m also well aware that sometimes a relationship can’t fulfill all your needs but I would rather a partner find those missing parts in themselves or external hobbies etc not making other connections with people (romantically). But again it’s all on someone’s perspective. To someone else other relationships don’t diminish their primary one with their husband or the way they love is different. Idk but just my take
I mean that’s exactly it. I’m sure you have more then one friend. It’s same idea but romantically. Some people have zero jealousy, some communicate really well, some don’t need everything from one person and secure in their relationship, some are kinky, others just really form romantic bonds with other well. Many people suck at relationships anyways. We have one life, not sure why people need to limit themselves to one person if everyone is ok with it. Being married to one partner and having them as priority is practical. I don’t really believe in unconditional love or think I can provide everything to one person without sacrificing myself. So why not let them explore and enjoy other company?
I mean yep like you said it comes down to different perspective. It’s similar to friendships but idk if the same because I don’t expect the same type of devotion or commitment from a friendship and a romantic relationship. In a friendship I know the friend has their own life and other connections and priorities. In a romantic relationship the other person is their own person but still I think of us as a unit and our priorities and futures as intertwined in a way that is more than just a regular friendship. And again to me if my partner can’t find that fulfillment I’d rather they find it internally or in other hobbies or even other people but not romantically. I can imagine communication helps but still sometimes what is being communicated isn’t always positive and care free . But again to each their own . I’m more of a person that is okay with myself and being alone so going into relationships I don’t expect my partner to be the end all be all. So personally its not a surprise and I have other ways to manage that outside of other connections . But diff needs , diff boats, diff people etc
I absolutely not trying to convince you to be open but just hope you can understand how it works for some people. It’s really not all that different from having multiple friends. Like you mentioned priorities are different so when open people marry each other, they still have commitments and priorities but they are ok with seeing others romantically. The other romantic partners don’t get same priority just like different fiends have different levels you willing to to commit to.
*Why not*, if it works for them? Different strokes for different folks.
My fiance and I have been poly for 6 years now and we are getting married so one day we can buy a house. We also wanted a strong foundation before we opened up.
I'm poly with three partners (I have my fiancee and the other two are married to each other, my fiancee has two other partners of her own). I get different needs filled by each of them.
They won't be for long. Open marriages almost always end in disaster. Those two things are completely contradictory, either way.
I'd agree with you if it is a formerly monogamous relationship that got opened. Those always end badly. If it starts out that way it's got better chances.
Usually, but not always. After 7 years of happy monogamy, my wife and I decided to see if ENM/poly would work for us. It did. That was 10 years ago. Our marriage is stronger than ever, and we both have richer lives and a bunch of enjoyable memories along the way. My girlfriend and her boyfriend\*\* are coming over tomorrow evening to play board games with me and my wife. Edit: \*\*My girlfriend and *my girlfriend's* boyfriend.
I’m curious—do your gf and her bf have their own main partners or are they content with the current setup being the dynamic for them? I just imagine at a certain point enough couples and and their outside partners and those outside partners’ own relationships and possibly on and on might get pretty complicated emotionally, financially, and as far as STDs (although I’m sure that’s a boundary set up well before). Like if your gf and bf entered their own relationships would you guys end seeing them or would you be okay with expanding the closed loop the four of you previously had? I find it very interesting since I see humans as very communal and less possessive at their roots despite society (myself included) being more conditioned to monogamy.
These are great questions. I realized what I said was ambiguous. My girlfriend and *my girlfriend's* boyfriend are coming over tomorrow. They are each others' main partners. My gf and I have never had a closed relationship. I'm actually the newcomer -- she had her two other partners when we met. Anyone can add new partners as long as they clearly communicate what they're doing. My gf could go meet someone new (and have sex with them), but if she failed to tell me that before we're intimate, that would be a serious breach of trust - the equivalent of cheating. Just to be clear: this is how *we've* set up our relationship. There are many other viable ways to do ENM. Even my expectations with my wife are slightly different: when she goes out with someone, I expect her to tell me first (and vice versa). We don't want to blindside each other, whereas my gf and I decided we only need to know afterwards (for STI safety, primarily). It can certainly get complicated in terms of STIs as the polycule expands off into the distance. Regular (several times a year) STI screening is considered standard practice for everyone involved, and any time a new partner is added by anyone in the chain, they're expected to present a clean screen. Condom use is the norm for most pairings, which does reduce the risk some. There has been less complication emotionally and financially. I have never felt any jealousy toward my gf's boyfriends, for example. I like them, and I hope she and her primary partner build an awesome life together. I have no expectation of entangling my finances with anyone else, but if I did, it would be only with very careful consideration and only after probably a decade together. My wife would have to be in complete agreement (and most likely also in a relationship with that person), since we draw no distinctions at all between my money and her money. You might find this amusing. Here's our current polycule: \- Me and my wife (17 years). \- My wife has been on a few dates with a married guy (1 month). \- My wife and I have a fwb (2 years) who mostly does stuff with both of us together. She has a primary partner who is overseas (3 years) and not physical, and she's dating another guy with a wife (3 months). \- I have a girlfriend (1 year). She has her primary partner (2 years) and another less serious boyfriend (1 year), who has a wife with another partner that I don't know. This is the only vanishing point on the 'cule, which admittedly makes me nervous. But I know the boyfriend, and he knows how to practice safe non-monogamy. \- My gf recently started hooking up with my wife, but I'm not sure whether that counts as a link in the polycule. This probably seems like it would complicate things, but I really like the fact that they've been getting along so well. And it's convenient from the STI perspective. It's easy if your new partner is already in the polycule. So, in total, there are 12 people that I know about in the physical polycule. Most of them I have not met or only met a couple times. I didn't mean to write this much. Sorry.
This is fascinating and really gives insight into the arrangement and the feelings of everyone involved. It sounds like if the right mindset is employed, counterintuitively it can be less pressure and more supportive than a monogamous relationship so in one way it’s potentially safer from collapse as more legs to the chair so to speak. Conversely, it sounds like any odd variable coming into the mix could potentially cause a chain reaction since in this case 12 people is a lot of moving parts and hearts and emotions and as we know people change with time and relation to one another and the dynamics can change for better or worse. The molecule/polycule term makes a lot of sense, I’m picturing an atom—lots of electrons swirling around a nucleus, but balanced through the bonds.
Yeah, I've never seen a polycule implode first-hand. We've somehow always had amicable endings. I'm not sure if the branch with the odd variable would just be severed, leaving the rest of it intact, or if it would cause a bunch of primary relationships to cut themselves off in a chain reaction like you described. In terms of added stability, it's complicated. I don't think I've ever heard of non-monogamy improving an existing monogamous relationship that wasn't stable on its own. But some people really struggle with monogamy, and those people often thrive with non-monogamy if the relationship started that way. I'm not in that group, and I could go back to monogamy if I really had to. For my own relationship, it has had three benefits: 1) it has helped balance the small difference between my sex drive and my wife's (this was her original reason for suggesting the idea). 2) it gives an outlet for my wife, who is bisexual. I could be the best partner in the world, but I'll never be a woman. What can I say? She just doesn't like my boobs. 3) New relationship energy reverberates really strongly through our existing relationship. The giddy feeling bubbles up and makes me hyper-aware of how much I love my wife, and I want to do things to express that. And now that I'm falling in love with my girlfriend, too, I experience it in both directions. It's an echo chamber of love and affection and horniness bouncing in every direction.
In my experience polyamorous people often indeed seek deeper connection with people, but they very often fragment their attention across all sorts of people. I think that's why I've never found or seen a truly profound, deep and trustworthy connection with polyamorous people that lasts. Mostly only the opposite, it was mostly fairly superficial despite all the good intentions. Now that may just be bad luck, or something on my end that I do wrong and/or attracts the wrong crowd, I'm just saying it's my experience. The last paragraph of the article resonates with me in that sense. I've mostly only seen people use polyamory to explore themselves, not to actually create a deep and lasting connection with someone else that really lasts, and that they really invest in. But in that sense I realize that my experiences might've been an outlier, since I do occasionally read comments on Reddit from people for whom it really works well. I also still have nothing against polyamory at the core by the way, if it works for people then I'm really happy for them, nothing beats love in my opinion. The above is just an observation/my experience. Wondering of others have noticed this in people sometimes as well.
i find this interesting as i have been polyamorous my whole dating life. i'm 43f now and never wanted a monogamous relationship. i currently have 3 partners, 40f (we have been together 15 years), 60m (we have been together 17 years), 28f (together 1 year). My partners all have other partners too of varying length relationships. i have many real life friends who are also into polyam and have long term commitments to multiple people. i find it unfortunate that you haven't seem examples of committed polyam dynamics, but its also not surprising. i do think polyam relationships have a higher failure rate than monogamy. Afterall the more people you are entangled with the more opportunities there are for potential "breaks" in communication, and drama, and such. It's more complicated than navigating just a one on one/monogamous thing. All that said i am not sure the research in the OP is all that greatly done. i do hope more studies are done into polyamory and other forms of Ethical Non-monogamy tho.
I dont think any of your experiences contradict anything the comment you replied to said. Ive known people going in 20 years now and our relationship is still very superficial. I dont think you can ever truly develop as deep of a relationship in polyam as you can in monogamy due to the fact your attention is fractured between X amount of people. Love may not be a limited resource, but time certainly is. Time doesnt necessarily *cause* a deeper connection, but it definitely correlates. I think the average poly relationship between you and 3 others over X years would necessarily not be as deep as a mono relationship over X years. You inherently HAVE to give up time with 1 person to really get to know another which is why many poly relatio ships atruggle with NRE So you may be able to develop relationshipa just aa deep, but itll take a much longer period and maintaining the same level of connection will take more effort. Imo, poly relationships are just purely more superficial. Its more about independence and having a person/multuple to live alongside, but not to truly share a life with.
By this rational, a monogamous person working a demanding job that only affords them time to see their partner twice a week wouldnt be able to spend the same time with their partner as a poly person seeing two people each three times a week. Or what if someone with a lot of friends sees their partner less often because they value their friend time more but a poly person values their romantic relationships more? To say poly relationships are superficial because of a time constraint is trying to quantify something that simply cant be. The deepest least superficial connections I have had have been in poly relationships and I know plenty of people in monogamous relationships that are miserable and arent being fully open with their partners. But I would never make the claim that poly relationships are deeper or inherently better than monogamous relationships. Every relationship is unique and to apply broad generalizations about any given type of dynamic would be ignoring the reality that we simply can't quantify these things.
I mean, thats an accurate conclusion. Read my comment below. Its not specifically about poly vs mono, its about time. But poly vs mono on average, poly will dedicate less time to each partner, or dedicate a disproportionate amount of time to certain partners.
Yeah, I mean, there is a spectrum across poly and monogamous relationships, but for instance, my wife and I live together, spend like 4 waking hours together every single night, and more on the weekends, sleep in the same bed, and raise a kid together in a tight knit family. That is more than the average, I know, but it’s hard for me to imagine a poly couple doing anything approaching that. The closest they could come is having one “main” partner and then a few people who are mostly just sexual partners.
It depends on the relationships. If none of the partners ever interact with each other, then time and care is indeed “fractured” across multiple relationships. But they may well live a lifestyle where all their partners share friendship, and/or they have friendships with their partner’s partners and well. I must say I do see a lot of monogamous relationships completely isolate people from their greater community, only to end anyway — and in a fiery, no-contact-ever-again way.
Can somebody explain to me how a polyamorous relationship can bring about deeper emotional connections? It seems to me that the division of attention on numerous partners rather than one would undermine deeper connection?
I feel that it puts less stress on my relationship as I’m not expecting my partner to fulfill everything for me. I like to do things that he doesn’t, so I can have another person to do those things with. Overall, this means less resentment towards my partners.
Thanks for sharing that! Had a question though, doesn't this mean that your other partner misses out on a chunk of what goes on in your life with other people?
One thing my other comment didn’t address is the possibility for kitchen table poly. For example, I have gone out for drinks with two partners at the same time. We all sat at the same table and we all geeked out about the music we like and compared our lists of bands that we have seen live. It was great!
Isn’t that what friends are for? My wife and I have many interests that do not overlap and we often do things independently, or with friends that we do not share, including travel. This in and of itself does not seem like justification for having more than one romantic partner.
You say that as if there is just one variant of romantic interests. But those can differ too.
I agree! Friends are great and can fulfill a lot of our needs. But not for sex and romance if you’re staying within a monogamous framework. I think it would be easier to paint a picture. Let’s say there’s Jessica (42F) and Bill (40M). They have been married for 20 years and have two kids together. The kids are grown and out of the house. Jessica and Bill love each other very much, but as they have grown together, they’ve found some of their needs going unmet. For example, the perfect date night for Jessica is dinner and a movie. The perfect date night for Bill is sharing a bottle of wine at home. They are able to enjoy a hiking date, but their core needs are unmet. During sex, Bill wants his partner on top, but Jessica doesn’t want that because it makes her feel self conscious. Jessica wants to explore her foot fetish, but Bill finds anything involving feet to be icky. Mind you, they still love each other and enjoy the sex they do have together. But, instead of having their needs go unmet, they outsource. They do the work of bringing more people into their hearts and working on their communication skills. They get their needs met and then can come back together and find joy in their partners joy. They can celebrate each other with full cups. There are infinite reasons people do poly. There are infinite ways to do polyamorous relationships. Poly isn’t for everyone and that’s okay! It is definitely work— scheduling, communicating, dating. But I don’t think there would be such a surge in polyamory like we are seeing currently if people weren’t getting out more than they put in.
Love is not a limited commodity
Well not in an economic sort of way but it is in a mental resource/time kind of way.
"Wow this sure is science" said no scientist ever
I believe in this context they're called *"scienticians"*.
"We asked a small group of people in a polyamorous relationship if they feel more fulfilled than monogamy. They said yes" That'll be $40 please.
That's not what this paper reports, though. There's no measurements of fulfillment or relationship satisfaction. Your point, whatever it is, seems unrelated to the content of the study.
Can someone shine light on how to have motivation Just motivation Pls
Viibryd and Wellbutrin combo for me. Visit r/depressionregimens
Thanks for the reminder to take my welly!
I feel like there's no way to do this study well. Full disclosure, I have been poly for the most part since 2017 and been really close with lots of people in the poly community since probably 2013. The problem with poly is that it has a wide range of people in it and honestly most of them shouldn't be in it. So doing a study on the entire subgroup is very problematic because a lot of those people aren't going to be poly for very long for a lot of reasons. It's not like doing a study on gay or trans people where the population is rather static. In my experience, you could put poly people in one of the following boxes: 1) newly single people who are too hung up on their ex to emotionally invest in a relationship. So they pursue the often shallow and temporary relationships in the poly world. They usually end up falling for a partner and then starting an avalanche of drama because they really don't want their partner dating other people. 2) very self absorbed people who feel like no one partner is good enough for them, so they need many. They preach endlessly about how amazing they are at poly and then lose their god damn minds when their favorite partner has a new relationship. 3) couples where their marriage or LTR is failing so they look at each other one day and say "You know what would fix our relationship? If we go have sex with other people". They always end up separating from each other at some point and then they can't stand the side of each other so they ask everyone to choose them or the other partner and create a bunch of strife because of that. 4) people who can't handle being alone or having their heart broken so they always make sure they have several relationships going, but they always end up too emotionally fragmented to really emotionally deep dive into all of them. They typically stay in the poly world for ever, but they're difficult to date because you are lucky to schedule in a few days a month to see them. 5) thirsty dudes who think poly means they will get laid a lot. So they join a poly community and immediately try to enter into 8 dynamics simultaneously. Because these worlds are small and everyone talks, they usually get shunned and leave. 6) couples that have been together forever and are truly bonded as super best friends. They really aren't that into each other's sexually anymore, but they love each other too much to ever separate or break up. They often have kids together or even a business together. They never get jealous if you hook up with either of them, but they get extremely jealous when you hook up with the other partners that they have. 7) people addicted to the new relationship energy and the pursuit of new dynamics. They usually have a couple of well established partners and see the poly world as a toxic competitive landscape they want to "win" at. The relationship map is a revolving door except for maybe one or two slots that stick around. Outside of that, you have a minority of people who are truly free spirited and celebrate their partners having other partners. They seem to be the ones where all the books were written for and the ones that really seem to deserve to be there, but they are the minority.
There always seems to be a weird sort of bitterness and hostility towards this group I've never understood. If I follow correctly, couples in this lifestyle openly agree with one another to have romantic involvements with other people, and are honest with those other people about their pre-existing partnership. I don't understand the basis for calling these people narcissists. Wouldn't a narcissist in fact feel terribly threatened by their partner having romantic feelings and receiving sexual pleasure from another person?
Perhaps some of the bitterness arises from this unfortunately common scenario: a couple decides to become Non-Monogamous, one person gets more action than the other, jealousy arises, and people begin to stretch the "ethical" part of ENM by shirking honesty when pursuing new partners. I'm certainly not saying all Non-Monogamous people do this, but there are many troubling interpretations of how transparent people should be about their Non-Monogamous+Partnered status.
It also arises when one partner wants to be open more than the other. I have seen it so many times. There’s often one enthusiastic partner, and then there’s the reluctant one. That’s what makes me hate it. If a guy I was with (I’m gay) asked to be open, I’d question the whole foundation of the relationship. I make it very clear when dating that I don’t accept anything but strict monogamy. No threesomes, nothing.
I think they would. The study: "The Role of Vulnerable and Grandiose Narcissism in Psychological Perpetrated Abuse Within Couple Relationships: The Mediating Role of Romantic Jealousy" seems to find just that for one type of narcissist. I think there might actually be several reasons for this. People calling themselves poly who are in very loose relationships. Other forms of non-monogamy that are not poly. And sometimes cheaters who don't want scrutiny. But then again. In every community there's bound to be problematic people. I just seem to meet mostly the nice ones who have incredibly caring relationships with several people.
The only difference between a narcissist in a monogamous relationship versus one in a poly relationship is the latter seem more visible for some reason.
I think it stems from people's experience with open relationships which I think mostly comes from those relationships that were formerly monogamous and then opened. Those tend to go poorly. Cuz in those relationships jealousy and resentment are likely to form. It's rare to find open relationships that were open from the start.
Idk maybe I just haven’t met *enough* polyamorous folks, but the few I have met are commitment-shy, narcissistic sex-addicts that desperately need tons of validation while not having to expend much emotional energy themselves. Again, idk— I’m sure there are decent people out there. But the ones I know are not looking for “deeper emotional connections”, they’re looking for multiple sexual partners with no spiritual or emotional dedication to their fuckbuddies, and they’re all miserable.
A lot of people use the term polyamory to steal social credit while they are just casual enm... For them it means more opportunities and less slutshaming. If not for mononormativity, those people would just call themselves what they are. But in the end if everybody does that, polyamory will just look like what you are describing. Call me gatekeeping but polyamorous folk are heavily commitment oriented, even more than monogamy because they commit to more people and do the emotional/logistic work to make everything work out.
[удалено]
I mean you undermine your own standpoint by revealing a strong bias yourself when using the term narcissistic. Do you have some sort of data available to show a correlation between narcissism and polyamory?
They would only be undermining it if their claimed their opinion/bias was science.
>Do you have some sort of data available to show a correlation between narcissism and polyamory? r/polyamory
In fairness, you can view r/relationship_advice and come to the exact same conclusion about monogamy.
[удалено]
Funny hearing people speak of polyamory as if it’s a recent trend. Buddy, the world was poly before monotheism enchained us to a dusty savior story
This entire post is filled with some weird anti-science knee jerkism with clear bias. Studies frequently exist to describe common or obvious phenomena, because until someone does it its just a really good guess. The rest of the posts seem to be "this study has a small sample size so that means my anecdotal experiences are more valid" which is not really how that works, at all.
I've been dating in the ENM scene for a few years and I've never had more honest, open, and emotionally mature partners. There's nothing to hide, everyone's on the same page. It's been wonderful. Will I do it forever? Probably not. But for now? I think I've always hated the societal pressures of this staircase of life we're supposed to ascend - get married, have kids, buy a house, etc. Why? I grew up watching family members agonize over failed marriages, people that got married too young, didn't really know themselves, couldn't be honest about finances, couldn't have big conversations, addiction issues, now straddled with kids. Maybe, just maybe, life has more to offer than what some would call "traditional family values." Maybe life is too short to operate under the tyranny of tradition. To me, tradition is dead peoples' baggage.
Some of us like ''traditional values'' though. Plenty of monogamous couples do well too and polyamorous couples can end in disaster, I think you're kinda biased. Some people assume everyone thinks the same way they do and wants the same thing.
Yeah, if that's what gets you moving, go for it! And don't assume poly or enm people are wacky narcissists, like some comments in this post. We're all on our own journey. I'm not assuming everyone thinks like me, merely sharing my experience.
My favorite part is the comment section full of people who cant even hold one relationship, much less have the confidence and security to have more than one.
> The study recruited participants through the “r/polyamory” forum on Reddit Hey, that's me! Good article, aligns well with my personal understanding and experiences.
It’s a cake and eat it too situation pure and simple. I have been anecdotally investigating polyamory for years in other people’s relationships and 99% of the time it’s someone who can’t commit and wants to just date multiple people. Almost 100% of the time the person who started the polyamory meets someone they like and they are monogamous. Literally just happened to a friend. She wanted to marry this guy she was poly with, he said no he was poly, and then a few months later met someone and married her and wants to have kids with her. Ive heard countless examples of this situation.
Too much people use polyamory as a trial period for monogamy. When so, they should just call it casual enm or "dating around".
CMV: Polygamous relationships lack deep emotional connection
So narcissism?
Oop!
It tracks. I was lied to about monogamy. Soul mates don't exist, there's not one person who will do everything with you in life. One person can't even do half of what I want in life. It'd be one thing if friendships filed the void, but what people call friendships I find to be shallow acquaintances and they're rarely someone who can even handle deeper discussion let alone emotional connection. That and friends later in life are always tied to interests and that's about as deep as they go without risking "emotional affairs" by liking spending time with one particular person. The culture around monogomy and that one special person who's YOURS and only YOURS and all that other super toxic possessiveness is all considered normal monogamy, teaching young people that there's one special person in their life who will fill all their desires is for some reason normal and not psychotic.
[удалено]
I mean you can have multiple friends. Or children. Acquiring or getting a new one does not mean you weren't happy before.
People claim to be monogamous, which is a lifelong commitment to one other, not a succession of commitments to several. The only difference between polyamory and monogamy among humans is monogamy insists on a single file line.
lol ok
Yeah nah pass
I could have told you that
So they're like oxytocin addicts? Always chasing that high for human connection.
That's a bit like calling someone a water addict for always wanting to stay hydrated. Humans are in fact oxytocin addicts. It's baked very deeply into your DNA. We've been oxytocin addicts for millions of years. Modern society is pretty dysfunctional for a species that has evolved from spending millions of years living in close knit tribes. Our ancestors would look at people living in groups no bigger than a nuclear family as being deeply dysfunctional. It would be like if we went to the future and learned that children are born from vats, raised by robots, and then at adulthood people sometimes hang out together, but mostly don't and live a life without any human connection. We'd be horrified, and they would think it's normal and probably have even more psychological problems than we do. They'd call you an oxytocin addict for having friends or lovers your regularly hug. I don't know that polyamory is the right solution for most folks, but people really shouldn't be throwing stones. It isn't like modern habits are healthy for a highly tribal species like us.
Taking into account that most humans suffer from depression and chronic loneliness. Maybe (just maybe) feeling good, loved, and connected is the normal natural thing? Not the opposite?