Monogamy, Polyamory and the like

[GrowlingCupcake]

Okay, I realise most of these terms are related to marriage but I am uncertain of the terms which are linked only to relationships. So if anyone wants to help me out with that, please do let me know so I can change the subject Do also let me know if my definitions are off xD

There are several different kinds of human intimate relationships. Some of them are monogamy (one partner at any time), polyamory (multiple partners with everyone knowing but possibly not all involved), polygyny (one male, more than one female with the male being involved with the females but not the females with females), and polyandry (one female, more than one male with female with males, not males with males). I'm wondering what kind of relationships different people gravitate towards. This is not to do about legalities, by the way, so it's not really about marrying several people at a time. It's also not about cheating; people involved have full knowledge in these relationships (as far as I am able to understand from looking at them).

Are you polyamorous? Monogamous? Uncertain? Willing to try/Have the desire to try? If you are openly non-monogamous, are there any repercussions/consequences/comments from people or the like? Is there a lack of acceptance? How do you feel about the other types of relationships?

I am polyamorous. The partners I have had have all been fully aware of my relationship with the other and were consenting to it. They too were free to have other partners if they wished too. My partners were not involved with each other.

Apart from in certain cultures/countries, because of their population and way of living, I do not understand polyandry or polygyny. So I am quite curious to know if anyone has tendencies in that area since I do wish to understand/find out if there are people outside of these things who practice them or desire them. I also do not understand why someone would choose monogamy. From what some people have said, it seems to be linked to jealousy but I doubt it is only that?

[EvilJJ]

In the past I have had more than one partner at a time, all parties were aware and accepting, on one occasion the two partners were also together, but seeing as how my partner of 10 years believes in exlusive relationships, I am now monogomous, and content.
If he ever wanted to see other people, I would not have an issue with it, but I doubt that would happen.

A relationship consisting of more than two people can be a difficult one for people outside of the relationship to accept, they do not fully understand the concept of being able to genuinely love more than one person, but humans certainly DO have this capability, just because you are in a relationship with one person does not mean you cannot have very strong feelings for another, but it is important you respect your partners' wishes when it comes to relationships.

I would never consider cheating, and, though this may sound wrong, If I develop feelings for someone else, I would never tell my partner, or the person I have developed feelings for, as it would simply cause problems. If my partner was open to having other people in the relationship it would be an entirely different story.

Sorry if this doesnt sound very coherent, i literally just woke up.

Edit: oh! also, an interesting situation i found myself in before I came out - I once dated twins, because the one I met first would not date anyone unless the guy agreed to date both of them. That was an interesting 3 months

[TxCat]

A clarification: the term which specifically deals with the legality of marriage is polygamy (meaning more than one spouse). Polyamory means literally "more than one love". The relationships can be emotional, sexual, physical, or any combination thereof and the key to success is open communication between all partners. That said, it's definitely not for everyone. Some people have enough problems communicating their needs to just one person.

I'm polyamorous. I have been married to my current husband for almost fifteen years. We discussed the possibility of having someone else in our relationship long before it ever happened. From that, a set of boundaries and rules for involvement evolved which was built on our mutual desires and needs. He wasn't comfortable, at first, with my being with another man but was willing to allow other women whether they wanted to be with him or not. I, on the the other hand, was not particularly interested in a partner who would not also want a relationship on some level with my husband. Both of us agreed on the following criteria:

- s/he had to have a stable job

- s/he had to have hir own residence

- s/he had to have demonstrated s/he could function as a responsible adult (no law violations, no drugs, no alcohol abuse, paid bills on time, etc.)

- s/he, if s/he had a disability, had to demonstrate the ability to care for hirself (seeing a doctor regularly, taking prescribed medications, seeing a counselor, not going of psychiatric medications without supervision from a professional)

- no drinking, smoking, or recreational drugs

- must love animals and be willing to coexist with them

- tolerant of others' religious beliefs, political views

- be willing to undergo STD testing as often as needed

- be willing to have a closed relationship (bringing someone else into the relationship would require all who are currently active to agree)

My husband and I each had veto power and additional rules:

- You must declare your intent before you get involved with someone.

- You may not bring your partner into "our" space right away.

- No intercourse in the private areas of the home (cars, bedroom, etc.)

- Preferred but not a prerequisite that time be spent with that person in a casual situation first.

If one of us just didn't get along with a partner, that was fine. That's where the rules about not being in private space or space considered jointly ours comes in. If, on the other hand, it was a gut deep feeling about 'something not right' that had to be respected. The person would not be allowed into our marriage in any capacity.

Sound complicated? It is.

My relationship with Pshawraven started out as a friendship. We shared a room at a convention and had several friends and interests in common. Later, she expressed an interest in having a relationship with my husband. I talked it over with him and set them up. It was a long distance relationship most of the time but we all got to know one another well and got comfortable. At some point we started talking about being together in one household but there was a problem: she was married to a verbally abusive much older man. He'd initially given permission for the relationship and then revoked it (after I'd already gotten down there for a visit; he literally just blew up on both of us without any further indication he wasn't all right with the arrangement). The abuse escalated until she just couldn't handle it any more and her brother Dee told me that she was planning suicide.

My husband and I drove all the way down to Louisiana to get her last Memorial Day weekend --- packed all her things in a UHaul and brought her home with us. She's been here ever since, has integrated into the household to such a degree that it feels to us like she's always been there.

Dee is a slightly different story. He and I knew one another when I was ten and he was fifteen. We got to be friends (he was my first love and my first crush) and then I lost track of him. On a band trip to the Air Force Academy, I met him again (he was the cadet assigned to show our band around and my idea of courtship was to trick him into looking for something in the bus bays and then tying him up and LEAVING him under there in hope of taking him home). We exchanged numbers and maintained a friendship. When my first husband began his abuse cycle, he cut me off from everyone including Dee.

I didn't meet Dee again until I'd already gotten to be friends with Pshawraven. She and I were working on a detective story and she mentioned knowing someone who could help us with details. She meant her brother, who is a profiler. Dee, who has a taste for pranks, had me believing he was a serial killer instead. When the joke was sprung, I got mad. We were literally nose to nose. I called him an incorrigible bastard, he called me a silly bitch...and next thing I know, we wake up in bed together the next morning.

Remember those rules up there?

Oops. The husband was not pleased but he gradually warmed up to Dee's presence in our lives. They're friends now and the potential for something else exists down the road, but they're still getting to know each other. My husband isn't quite ready to leave his heterosexual comfort zone.

Dee moved in with us when his sister did and now we all live together. It is, as I have mentioned elsewhere, an adult household most of the time (Dee does have a small son and the baby is brought to him on weekends and other occasions; the mother of his son is a close personal friend of mine and everyone else is okay with it).

Dee, meanwhile, is bisexual and in addition to his interest in my husband he has a boyfriend. Pasha has his own family and a mistress and two separate families (they are all okay with this; remember, communication is the key!) I consider Pasha a good friend, though he's expressed a sexual interest in me. Since my interests largely extend to women only, I'm flattered but not reciprocating.

Sleeping arrangements get interesting. I'm a large woman and my health problems preclude me sleeping in one of the two twin beds in the other bedrooms. Most often, then, I sleep in the queen bed in the master bedroom with either Pshawraven or Dee. Pshawraven has her own room and her own bed, as does Dee. One or the other will sleep in their respective rooms when not with me.

My husband, on the other hand, prefers sleeping alone. He set up his own 'bedroom' in the rec room. This is not ideal, as there's no real bed there. He sleeps on an old couch and hassock. We're working on getting either a beanbag which turns into a bed or a futon so that the rec room can still be used by other family members when he's not sleeping. We're also going to get some of those storage units meant for game equipment in which my husband can keep his personal things and the blankets for his bed.

That is not to say that arguments don't break out. They do, frequently. However, we're able to allow each person their space and time to cool down and then come together to talk about a solution. It's a happy arrangement and it works for us.

I love my extended family and wouldn't trade it for anything.

I always have someone to do something with, if I don't want to be alone. Pshawraven and I read or work on artwork or cook or write or do puzzles. Dee and I argue politics or talk philosophy or debate the classics. My husband and I laugh over "Family Guy" and "The Simpsons" and "America's Dumbest". We each have something to give the others, diverse as we are.

[LittleFireCat]

I technically haven't been in a polyamorous relationship, as it was put that internet didn't count. But I'm not opposed to the concept of being in such a relationship. Such relationships can work, and can be just as satisfying to those involved as those in monogamous relationships that work. I don't believe there is any culture that has had polyandry as a common relationship practice.

For other interesting stuff related to topic:

Spoiler

Well, speaking from a natural world, evolution stand point, the biggest relationship taboo seems to be monogamy. Very few animals engage in it, which makes sense in a reproduction stand point. Spreading and mixing your genes as much as possible is the best way to insure your genetic survival. In the book Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, it theorizes that human beings likely evolved to live in small social groups like other large primates, but that in these groups sexual interaction was a shared resource, much like food, child care, group defense, and so on. The main arguments for this are that woman have a bisexual arousal response. Please note, this is not an indication of sexuality necessarily, but more of an indication of how sexuality and sexual response evolved in women. There is also research that points to men having better sperm quality if they watch male/female pornography. This is a competition response, where when a male feels like there is competition for creating offspring his body will try to give him a better chance of doing so. Why would men have such a response if they evolved in monogamous or polygamous relationships where such competition doesn't exist? There is also evidence for sex being a bonding tool, Oxytocin is released in the brain after orgasm, this is the same hormone that is released in a woman's brain after a she gives birth. It creates feelings of trust and protectiveness, which are essential for pairs or groups that need to stick together and work toward a common goal. The concept of monogamy likely came from favouritism (preferred partners) in these small groups, and were probably expanded with concepts of religion. And there appear to be genetic factors which play a roll in whether a person is more likely to be monogamous or polyamorous, although this has only been looked at in women so far.

Taken these things into account, for me the reasons for non-monogamy make sense from an evolutionary stand point are:
For men, it's the best way to ensure at least one of your offspring survive to adulthood and reproduces.

For women, they have two drives, ensuring the best genetics gets to their offspring, and having help raising the offspring. These two things are not necessarily found in one place. Women universally have a fondness for risk takers (the bad boy), this may be because this was viewed as a good trait evolutionarily, or a sign of strength and good genetics. Evolutionarily risk takers would have been the ones going after the bigger game, potentially bringing in more food at one time. But risk takers could have also been more likely to fail in hunting or to get themselves killed in the process. Most women will marry the non-risk taker (the good boy). Evolutionarily non-risk takers would have been the ones going after smaller easy game. Less food at a time, but more a more consistent supply. And less worry over loosing the provider.

Jealousy motives differ between men and women as well. For men, it's mostly about reproduction. If he's going to spend his resources on raising a child, most men would prefer to raise one that is genetically theirs. Most men would have fewer problems with their spouse having close, long term, emotionally involved, nonsexual relationships with other men, than if she had short term sexual relationships with other men.
For women it's about loosing the help with raising children/running the home. Women tend to be more forgiving of a sexual one-night-stand infidelity, than a long term infidelity even without sexual contact.

[Corvidae]

Well, personally, I think I would feel strange having a relationship with more than one person. I would probably choose a monogamous relationship, because... I don't know, just because. -shrug-

I think the reasoning behind polyamorous/monogamous is more complicated than simple conscious logic. It's probably more akin to asking why some people are homosexual/heterosexual: some people are just more disposed to being monogamous, and others more to being polyamorous.

[LunatheDragoness]

I think having anyone else in a relationship is disgusting and wrong. Im sorry but that is my opinion. Having more than one mate to me is cheating. A person should be with only one person at a time. Dont like the current one your with? Go find someone else. Its just gross to me.

[TxCat]

I think having anyone else in a relationship is disgusting and wrong. Im sorry but that is my opinion. Having more than one mate to me is cheating. A person should be with only one person at a time. Dont like the current one your with? Go find someone else. Its just gross to me.

I would caution that you're skirting close to insulting others with your statements. You may wish to be more concise and focus on how you personally feel about your relationships rather than passing judgment on others.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion...but I would like to know how it's cheating when all of the persons in the relationship are consenting adults, know about the others involved, and have approved their inclusion in the relationship.

By definition, cheating involves defrauding or swindling someone out of something. That implies duplicity or lying. With polyamory, there should be no lying. We are ALL aware of each other and our relationships with one another. We function as a family. Dee's son isn't mine, but I'm his godmother. Ygraine is one of my closest friends and I'd no more begrudge her relationship with him than I would my husband's with his sister, Dorie.

We all benefit emotionally, physically, and psychologically from the closeness, the clean communication, and the loving and trusting atmosphere we've built with the guidelines I mentioned. Many monogamous couples never have that. If it works, I see no reason NOT to love more than one person.

The point is, it's kind of hard to be sexually unfaithful when sexual agreement between partners include other partners and you know who those partners are.

Polyamory isn't about sex (that's swinging, the exchange of partners, usually among heterosexual couples, for the sake of fulfilling a sexual fantasy). If they're all consenting adults and all capable of loving more than one person, why not do so? I just don't view love as a finite thing, confined to only one person, and neither does any of our large extended family.

Being involved with more than one partner means always having someone to take care of you or your pets or your children in an emergency. It means you never going without because if one of you suffers a job loss or a reduction in pay or develops a chronic condition, the others will help out. Some of those I consider part of my polyamorous family, such as Pasha (whom I mentioned before) and Heather (whom I did not) are not sexual partners and never will be. I'm not interested in Pasha and Heather and I long ago agreed that we'd only mess up our special friendship if we got further involved.

I still love them, and it's a love which goes far beyond the general concept of friendship or best friends. They are family. I would not, for instance, give my best friend my medical power of attorney but each of my beloveds has that legal right, properly witnessed by a notary public and filed with my living will.

We're not hurting anyone. None of us is Christian either so the concept of a monogamous marriage isn't a consideration in the first place (aside from the fact that even in the Bible there's mention of God's people having more than one wife, but that's another thread). It's not as though you can spot us in public and say "Ah-ha! There goes a bunch of deviant polyamorous folk!" In truth, we're more likely to resemble a sci-fi club on an outing or a bunch of geeks, nerds, and bibliophiles on a shopping trip than anything else. You certainly won't see us making some of the gratuitous and unnecessary public displays of affection that you see with traditional couples in public.

Who's disgusting now: a group of laughing happy adults on an outing or that monogamous couple with each other's hands in their pants and down their shirts in a very public restaurant?

Perhaps because we're aware that our lifestyle and choices are less acceptable to most people, we're cautious and courteous about such things. You'll see the boys pulling out chairs for the women and any one of them pushing my wheelchair. You might see a clap on the back, a caress through the hair, a loving look. That's about it. Nothing to separate us from the rest of humanity.

We're not monsters, we just have conquered the jealousy monster and know how to love freely and love more than one person.

[Corvidae]

Well, speaking from a natural world, evolution stand point, the biggest relationship taboo seems to be monogamy. Very few animals engage in it, which makes sense in a reproduction stand point. Spreading and mixing your genes as much as possible is the best way to insure your genetic survival.

Personal genetic survival, maybe. It backfires when the population is small: monogamy is the best way to prevent incest. Which, moral arguments aside, is biologically inadvisable. Causes all kinds of nasty recessive traits and mutations to show up.

Actually, a great many avian species are monogamous. To be fair, a lot of them are serially monogamous, especially if they're migratory: they have one mate for one breeding season, then a different mate for the next breeding season. In tropical areas, where fewer species migrate, birds can't afford to be polygamous--because females become fertile through short periods spaced throughout the year (as opposed to migratory songbirds, who all become fertile at the same time), the only way a male can be sure of siring chicks is to remain with his mate.

Also, a fair number of mammals practice either monoamory or polygamy (polyandry is rarer, but not unheard of)--that is, harem-style sexual behavior. Far fewer species are truly polyamorous, where both males and females have multiple mates, not necessarily the same ones. In polyandrous or -gamous settings, the dominant female or male will usually prevent her or his subordinates from mating, to the point of forcefully rejecting rivals from a social group (herd, pack, what-have-you).

[Pshawraven]

I have heard of cultures where both polyandry and polygamy work out just fine. A lot of the traditional Middle Eastern/Mediterranean areas come to mind. Oddly the author I wrote my thesis on was a polyandrist - Anais Nin. That's neither here nor there, however.

Actually, a great many avian species are monogamous.

This is true - many corvids are, as are most raptors. As you pointed out, it mostly depends on the bird's environment and fertility cycles.

I think having anyone else in a relationship is disgusting and wrong. Im sorry but that is my opinion. Having more than one mate to me is cheating. A person should be with only one person at a time. Dont like the current one your with? Go find someone else. Its just gross to me.

Wow, I didn't know I was disgusting.

If you've been taught that a monogamous relationship between a man and woman is the norm by which all others should be judged, I can see why you might feel that way. In my opinion, though, having more than one partner can break up the pressure cooker that a single relationship can quickly turn into. And if all parties are aware and consenting then that eliminates the element of cheating. This isn't meant to be a naughty French movie and it's not the Jerry Springer Show.

Personally I am not fond of the "standard" hetero boy-girl couple, but I understand that this arrangement works well for people, and has for many thousands of years. Considering that as a human and a woman I am not under an obligation to furnish children to a specific man in return for protection and sustenance, I would prefer to explore the other options that are open to me. What I have works very well and we are all happy.

[LunatheDragoness]

I didnt say you as a person that likes more than one mate is disgusting. Im saying the idea of it is.