Polygamy/Polyamory
-
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.
-
@kasper81 said
"
and my questions about where the boredom in your monogamous relationships stems from?
"Just because you take everything personal doesn't mean others do. I was giving you an example, a common and broad one used by proponents of alternative relationship styles. It would be interesting to discuss this with you if you had an open mind (ie open to ideas that weren't specially in agreement with your own preconceived judgments).
What happens in a majority of modern monogamist relationships is stagnation, and when there isn't stagnation there grows division. By this I mean that when two people join together, often times they rarely learn and grow as separate individuals - instead they participate together in mostly everything they do. If it happens that one's life produces a major change in perspective for them - say for some reason they change political parties or have a religious change of heart, the other member of the relationship is expected to go along, or passively agree, or a division sets in. In some relationships, and in some instances, this can actually lead to a total break up of the union unless both members of the relationship agree completely. This is not the model of a polyamorous relationship. In a polyamorous relationship, the greater variety (even between two people), the greater the appreciation. "Oh, I didn't know that hobby existed until I met you!" is far more valuable an experience than "Yeah, I too have mastered that hobby. Let's repeat it together!"
I don't know if you are getting my point because you'd have to open yourself up to experience you haven't had in order to imagine the possibilities, and as you've stated, you haven't even succeeded in maintaining a single monogamous relationship - let alone a multitude of relationships. And again, just to remind you, between the two of us, you are the only one who believes it has to have something to do with sexual activity.
Speaking of sexual activity, and although this is a tad off topic it does help to help you perhaps understand your own hangups regarding sex; how do you react when you discover a beautiful person whom you feel attracted to declares to you that they are asexual and only allow themselves into asexual relationships?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"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."
Awww shucks.
-
@kasper81 said
"before I answer you I was once in an open relationship. It was hell on earth. Luckily I found a book about energy vampirism and chakra alignment and I unravelled what was going on."
If your relationship was dishonest (such as a manipulative, abusive power dynamic you allude to) then it wasn't an open relationship in the sense that Takamba described, or in the way the word "polyamory" implies.
-
What I really like about your post, Takamba, was the implication that relationships and families can be about really supporting the members as they discover their own True Will side by side.
It would be interesting to compare the percentages of self described monogamous couples that (a) had non-monogamous thoughts or behaviors (having a crush on someone else, experiencing emotional intimacy with someone else, etc.) And (b) the percentage of couples who could communicate comfortably and openly about it.
I suspect that (a) is a lot bigger than (b); and I think that matters way more than the lifestyle choices the couples choose to make.
-
@kasper81 said
"I was once in an open relationship. It was hell on earth. Luckily I found a book about energy vampirism and chakra alignment and I unravelled what was going on."
That may have applied to that particular situation. It would be a mistake to generalize that too much, though.
And most people have to LEARN to make an open relationship work. But that's not surprising, since most people have to learn to make any kind of relationship work.