Polygamy/Polyamory
-
Animal dominance behaviour at work in the species mean men compete for women. Therefore when we talk of polygamy we are usually talking about man with several female partners and it's extremely rare to find women in settled consensual relationships that have several partners.
In general, individuals of the species are just getting the hang of mastering their sexuality and being 'not animal'. However- social dynamics is at least as important a part of the Nephesh as sexuality and it is extremely rare (one in thousands) to meet individuals that are aware of and display mastery over the Nephesh in respect of the social sphere. Yet - in almost all cases, the interference of the true will arises from this aspect of the Nephesh.
Instead of doing their true will, people blindly obey authority figures in accord with their social conditioning. Instead of doing their true will, people blindly will conform to group norms and more, or they will practise bystander behaviour, or they will scapegoat people or be scapegoated, or they will just do anything to fit in. And this is as true of people who are achieving dominance in the social sphere as well as the submissives - through becoming overly controlling or getting ego invested in power and status (for example). It's all just animal/nephesh reactions and until a person can get past that then they are of the Man of Earth grade, and no MOE is fit to have more than one women at a time. They simply have not earned their spurs.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"The net effect is (as a generalization across the species, varying with age and other consideration), men are "one peak wonders" and women are "distance runners." The most natural consequence of this mix is that (1) men are done for the moment and may tend to fall asleep, and (2) women are wired to keep going, socially and communicatively engage, and exhibit behaviors that move toward having another orgasm. On a pure biologically functioning level, it makes more sense for her to pursue further orgasms - and not necessarily with the same partner. (Five orgasms. Line up five guys. "Next!")
In thinking about how nature could have benefitted from this (why it would have sorted out that way in evolution), I came to a quick answer. Nature benefits from expanded genetic diversification - the opportunity for more and varied genetic mixes. Historically, it has been held that men accomplish this for the species by being able to wander about (even across large expanses of geography) impregnating a lot of women. It's often argued that one man could theoretically have hundreds of children in the time it takes a woman to have one. (270 days for a typical gestation, three seed-plantings a day, a fourth of them "take seed" - that's 200 births right there.) But it would be highly inefficient of nature to have let only half of a species contribute to this vitally important point of genetic diversification. On learning the above biochemical facts and their implications, I suddenly understood that women contribute to the same thing by having sex with many men in a short term (under a day) so that a wider variety of sperm are "competing: for the same egg."
Interesting stuff. From the other direction, there is the Coolidge Effect:
"Human males experience a post-ejaculatory refractory period after sex. They are temporarily incapable of engaging in sex with the same female after ejaculation and require time to recover full sexual function. In popular reference, the Coolidge effect is the well-documented phenomenon that the post-ejaculatory refractory period is reduced or eliminated if a novel female becomes available."
-
@Alrah said
"My ex could cum 7 times or more in a row... it took him perhaps 20 seconds to get back to business. Don't put all males in the same category!"
I most pointedly did not.
Hence my, "(as a generalization across the species, varying with age and other consideration)." -
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Alrah said
"My ex could cum 7 times or more in a row... it took him perhaps 20 seconds to get back to business. Don't put all males in the same category!"I most pointedly did not.
Hence my, "(as a generalization across the species, varying with age and other consideration)."" And if anyone doubts Mr Eshelman as to the fraternal exceptions to the rule they should take a look at his gorgeous and very happy looking wife...
-
An important aspect of a relationship is the growth of intimacy in an almost “bhakti” way. The few cases of open relationships I saw where using the “opening” as a device to avoid deeper levels of intimacy, especially those that were somehow disturbing or unpleasant. I’ve also experienced the same tendency myself.
Of course I do not believe that it is some sort of rule, but It would be interesting to hear how others have dealt with it.
-
@Faus said
"An important aspect of a relationship is the growth of intimacy in an almost “bhakti” way. The few cases of open relationships I saw where using the “opening” as a device to avoid deeper levels of intimacy, especially those that were somehow disturbing or unpleasant. I’ve also experienced the same tendency myself.
Of course I do not believe that it is some sort of rule, but It would be interesting to hear how others have dealt with it."
My (ex)wife and I had an open relationship which was a thing I learned from a (Wiccan) couple I met in the 80s and both that couple's marriage and my marriage shared a great deal of intimacy if by intimacy you mean truthful, honest, heartfelt conversation and knowledge of each other's inner workings. I've gotten the impression that there's an old aeonic model that associates sex with debt, as in, since I have had sex with you, you owe me something in return. Sex is a mutual pleasure or it shouldn't be engaged in. Not only is that one of the debts incurred in old aeon models of love and relationship, but since I've given you privilege to my intimate nature, you cannot have that privilege anywhere but with me? Open relationships that are only focused on the sexual side of the openness and relationship concept have missed the point. Even non-sexually speaking, there are a great number of attractions and energies (not meaning new-agie "energies," but a transference of energies between people that generates excitement and motivation happens all the time) that an open marriage or open relationship is supposed to be designed to encourage.
Let's look at the "logical" argument that is made for fostering an open relationship: There's no possible way I could satisfy every single need, desire, or interest of anyone that I myself would find interesting. That is, if I were the only interest you ever had and needed, I"d quickly bore of you. So let me encourage you, if you need the encouragement, to explore the world outside our bedroom. Find the things that challenge and excite you. You like badminton? I love badminton! We have something we will share! You've discovered country line dancing? Oh dear. Have you found a suitable companion for that? I'm not interested in country music bars - but I'll go maybe when the moon is blue if you like. Hey, and I know you're no fan do-it-yourself projects but let me tell you this funny story I experienced yesterday!! Hahahaha - now we're having a relationship beyond "how was work?" "oh, same as it ever was." And if you happen to be dancing with that big buck of a cowboy and something stirs in you, something in your loins, something in your bosom, something in your breast, heart, or head that makes you tingle - I hope you don't need courage to feel free to talk to me about it and even if you get all spontaneous and act impulsively and find yourself somewhere you weren't originally planning on, there's no need to feel ashamed and frightened. And hey, maybe he taught you a trick I never saw myself - tell me about it.
That's an open relationship - not a promiscuous sex romp, but openness.
Typical closed relationship: "How was your day?" "Same ol' same ol', yours?" "Meh. mom had her corns removed again." "Interesting. When's dinner?" "Seven, like usual." "okay." "okay."
That's pretty intimate. -
I've noticed that a lot of the arguments people make against non monogamous relationships tend toward a universal "it can't/shouldn't be done", sometimes supplemented with a couple anecdotes about the challenges of non monogamy.
Whereas, from what I've observed, a lot of non monogamous purple I've known have put years of effort trying to make monogamy work for them, and finally decided to try something else.
Also, monogamy is the new kid in the block, and is pretty much only a cultural norm in a minority of the world.
That said, I think we should be very happy for anyone who finds that they prefer monogamy and can make it work.
-
@kasper81 said
"why would Mother Nature invent STDs? To keep promiscuity in check? Is that a Malthusian esque argument? Are we talking about promiscuity or just 2 or 3 life long partners? I'd love to have 3 wives
I remember when I was kind of "courting" my first girlfriend I met at a college. Everywhere we went her female friend came. it really looked like we were 3
it's about quality isn't it?. For both sexes. Like let's say Takamba and I shared Roseanne Barr and Rosie O'Donnell. He had Roseanne one half of the week whilst i had Rosie then we swapped mid-week"
A couple of things about this line of thinking stinks of holding on to some concepts that I guess might be considered old fashioned. STDs as a form of punishment? Then is the flu and chicken pox and all the rest Mother Nature's way of telling us we should stop breathing or congregating in large groups? As the virus is to my body, perhaps I am to my neighborhood... but then again, I haven't caught any disease greater than indigestion since I began working my Will.
Secondly, do we possess the Roses in your above mentioned fantasy? Possessing them is the only way I guess we could justify "sharing" them. Remember how I earlier mentioned this misconception that sex equals debt? That's a good example of what I meant. We can't "share" people, we can each be allowed to enjoy the pleasures of our given natures along with people who wish to participate.
You just reminded me of an old campfire song we used to sing. "Yes my brother we can share all the weed, share all the women and share all the wine, but I sure wish you'd start sharing yours b'cuzz we done shared all of mine."
-
@kasper81 said
"I understand that open relationships don't work if the 4 quadrants are not fully integrated. I get that. The point of my scenario was quality of our partners
There's a girl who is presently mad about me. She asked 3 women over a period of say 6 montsh to ask me to go out with her. Man she is butt ugly I just couldn't."
Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
-
Cool story, bro.
-
Interesting comments. I asked originally because I started noticing some odd external events in my life. I'm really madly in love with my wife and we have a great relationship. She has this gorgeous best friend who she met overseas and her friend actually ended up marrying a guy in the next town over so she comes over and visits alot. She had a kid with the guy so they got married (hardcore xian families on both sides). I've felt this strong attraction to my wifes friend, and it's almost like life is being subliminal about the idea of a polyamorous relationship. My wife started making jokes about polygamy out of the blue and said she wouldn't get jealous. Her friend had a freudian slip one day in conversation and said, "I want to call us your wife" by which she meant she wanted to call my wife. Few other instances. Anyway, it got me thinking about the whole concept and was wondering why life seemed to be implying such a lifestyle when i had never really considered it. I wouldn't be opposed
I'm a bit of a jungian though and was wondering if I was unconsciously projecting my anima onto her friend and she was responding in kind, hence I am the culprit of the mentioning's and freudian slips.
-
If you are interested in polyamory, it can be helpful to find a community of like-minded people. You can search on meetup and facebook in your area.
93 93/93
-
I have been attracted to ,
And found to be beautiful
When others did not believe soThere have also been them pretty girls,
That threw themselves at my feet
And others did not believe I could be so coldHa!
People are shocked to find me shallow
The kind to whom appearances matter
You go ahead and settle for lessWith honesty, I seek monogamy
I shall take but one Bride
Though she may be split in two
Or three! Of four,
a horse?
In time and its winding course -
@kasper81 said
"Takamba's scenario with the cowboy haha the woman in that example is a vamp: there's no real self-control of energy levels hence the need to fill up the hole the void of being the deadness.
wow"This seems misogynistic to me. So the idea that a woman's love of a dance is only temporary only counts because she's a woman? A vamp? Just because you're a man like Crowley and only men can be logical?
Here, let me begin your course in Open Marriage philosophy by giving you more than your narrow opinions to start with:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Marriage_%28book%29
www.amazon.com/Open-Marriage-Life-Style-Couples/dp/087131438X
It's not what you think - I just gave an example of how what you think leads to pain and suffering, not Love and not Will.
-
@kasper81 said
"Any experience of being "in love" is temporary because it's unfortunately mutual vampirism."
I can not disagree more with this statement.
It seems to me like a very juvenile understanding of Love.
Unless, by the quotation marks you were referring to what your average person means when they say they are "in love." -
@kasper81 said
"Complements bestowed upon a lover, affection, touch, lovemaking it's all mechanical and a bid for energy. It can lead to ecstacy sure but like MDMA it's transitory unless there is an understanding of that energy flow. *Are we agreed on this?"
It, as with so many other things, depends on intent.
If one were to approach having a lover as an exercise in bhakti-yoga it is far from mechanical.
Also, I presume the mark of a healthy relationship is an equal exchange of energies.
I do agree that an understanding of the energy flow would facilitate the avoidance of vampiric relationships.
-
Sexism is not what I "accused" you of (feeling guilty?). I said your statements seemed misogynistic (woman hating). There's a difference between sexism (believing in the superiority of one gender over another) and misogyny (a form of hate, disgust, displeasure).
I am not angry. I have no attachment to your preferences one way or the other, I'm merely pointing out the flaw in your own cognitive methods.
-
Kasper, as on so many things we discuss on this forum, it helps to find out if we're using words the same way.
If by "in love" you mean dopamine surging to the point of overwhelming reality, sexual hormones flooding the blood, and projection playing its "I'll show you yours, if you show me mine" mirror magick, then I tend to agree with your assessment that this is brief. It's also probably what most people, most of the time, mean by "in love."
The real test of a relationship IMHE is whether it bridges the projection chasm. That is, does it last long enough for the people involved to start seeing each other as they are (rather than as magick mirrors), and is the interest and attraction equal or greater when this happens?
At that point, I stop agreeing with you. At that point (if communication has been kept clean and open, and a pile of manure hasn't been allowed to accumulate unaddressed), the biochemistry responds much as in the beginning in the anticipation and actuality of seeing each other, but the cloud has lifted from the sanctuary, and love has deepened. Passionate, engaged, hot, connected, exploring love has widened and deepened.
PS - And, this opening remark about the nature of "in love" aside, I disagree with pretty much every other sentence you wrote. I don't know if you wrote from personal hurt and disillusionment, or too much entertainment media bullshit. In either case, I prescribe more maturity and self-understanding.
-
I think Takamba's post speaking about the nature of a truly OPEN relationship was wise, insightful, and overall excellent. I didn't take time in this thread to dig that deeply, and I'm really pleased that he did. I was negligent not saying so until now.