Verified by 
53COMMENTS
You are right on the mark. This is most possible as long as both people are sensitive, caring, sharing and open with each other. It was for me a foreign land that i would have never believed i would roam but I am in this place and finding the truth to all of what your saying.
THE BASICS
Source: bokan/Shutterstock
Taking joy in your partner’s pleasure sounds like exactly what a good lover does. However, it is actually the definition of a word that might be new to you—compersion.
Compersion is like the feeling one might have for a best friend who's happy in a romantic relationship. There is a similar word in Yiddish, kvel, which means something like the pleasure and pride a parent might feel at the accomplishments of her child. The Urban Dictionary defines compersion as “a feeling of joy when a loved one invests in and takes pleasure from another romantic or sexual relationship"
Wait, what? Another relationship? My lover is in a romantic or sexual relationship with someone else—and enjoying that? And I'm happy for them?
A rough approximation of compersion might be “the opposite of jealousy.” There is a common belief that anyone in love will be jealous and possessive of his or her mate. Such feelings are seen as a natural—and integral—part of loving. The idea that a person need not feel that way, and might actually enjoy the idea of his lover in the arms of someone else, is for most of us simply unfathomable.
I do not believe that love and jealousy are necessarily permanently entwined. I have seen that separation in others and experienced it myself. There are people who aren’t jealous by nature and there are those who learn to eliminate that awful feeling from their emotional vocabulary. As a therapist I have seen many individuals, women and men, through their struggle to do just this. (And yes, many succeeded—most of the time.)
Jealousy can be an occasional thing, depending on the nature of the loved one’s outside connection, and even more so on how the one who is left at home feels about him or her self. If one feels secure in himself or herself, and secure in the healthiness of the primary relationship, there is no need to begrudge their partner's outside pleasure. A person can even be pleased that their sweetheart is finding additional happiness, and that all-encompassing feeling of loving generosity is compersion.
The first definition of jealousy in the Oxford Dictionary of Current English is “resentful of rivalry in love.” And yet if someone is secure in the knowledge that their primary relationship is not in any jeopardy, jealousy may not be a given. Further definitions of jealousy are “fiercely protective of one’s rights” and “intolerant of disloyalty,” both of which may be indicative of an unhealthy possessiveness.
And jealousy is unhealthy. It’s an awful feeling that roils one’s innards and grinds one’s teeth. A jealous person is ever watchful and suspicious, growling at those who come near like a dog guarding a bone. It’s a mean and miserable way to live. Has anyone ever actually enjoyed feeling jealous? I sincerely doubt it.
I don’t really know if everyone is capable of compersion. The idea has to hold some appeal for an individual to even consider it. Each of us must find comfort somewhere between controlling and cloistering a partner, and total indifference to what our mate does.
To read more of Isadora Alman's writing or to participate in her free Sexuality Forum see www.askisadora.com.
Skeptical
Submitted by Anonymous on August 4, 2016 - 10:19am
I am so deeply skeptical of this & the whole polyamory thing. What makes the primary relationship primary? Commitment? Owning property together or having children together? When does the pursuit of romantic & sexual pleasure outside a primary relationship become threatening to the primary relationship? If someone is investing in an outside romantic or sexual relationship that means they are diverting attention, emotion & resources away from the primary relationship. What you feed grows. When does the primary partner just become a sucker - a beloved housekeeper or a paycheck & handyman? It doesn't matter how secure you feel in the relationship, you can't control other people & their feelings. When does the pursuit of romantic or sexual pleasure become exploitation - not just to the primary partner but to the 3rd party as well? Are you just using everybody? What if the 3rd party wants more - then what? Sister Wives? It just seems to me you're playing with fire here. And you shouldn't be surprised if the house burns down.
Communication
Submitted by Sean on August 4, 2016 - 12:57pm
Initial skepticism is prudent but your portrayal is of a one way street. Why would one partner be non monogamous while the other partner just sits passively by?
If anything is interfering with the primary relationship (doesn’t have to be pursuit of additional sexual partners) shouldn't a couple talk about that and make modifications? It could be too many poker nights, girls nights, late nights at work, lack of help with housework, raising children etc.
Classifying sex as this completely on its own, very specific topic rather than an activity that people participate in is probably the first mistake. As well as the assumption that one person could and should meet every single solitary need of another human being. As if people are puzzle pieces searching for the only other puzzle piece that can fit or else it is 100% doomed.
All True
Submitted by Anonymous on August 4, 2016 - 2:16pm
I'm not opposed to the ideas or lifestyle. Perhaps I'm just an old dog who can't learn new tricks! I've never known a man of my generation that was able to communicate in the ways necessary to sustain this kind of relationship. AND I think men, in particular, would struggle mightily with the inevitable sexual comparisons that I suspect would arise (maybe just in their own minds) no matter how sensitive you are. But if you can make this sort of thing work, more power to you!
Age and jealousy
Submitted by Bhramari Dasi on August 12, 2016 - 4:45pm
I don't know how old you are, but I'm 60 and my nesting partner is 70. We've both been ethically non-monogamous our entire adult lives. I believe you're either oriented this way or your not.....as in "relationship orientation".
We practice egalitarian polyamory, which means we don't ascribe to the idea of being a "primary couple" or even a "couple" actually. We see ourselves as just one dyad in a network of multiple dyads....meaning that we have friends and lovers, that very often are friends and lovers with several of our friends and/or partners.
It also means that every relationships is free to achieve it's own natural trajectory, level and expression. So - for example - of my cohabiting/nesting partner has a lover he is going rather deep with, we would talk about ways to create space and support for that to unfold as it wants to. We both have very strong, long sustained, deep relationships with people beyond each other.
So beautiful!
Submitted by Amy on August 13, 2016 - 11:58am
This makes my heart happy! So glad doe the beautiful, loving relationships y'all seem to have ❤️
Not by choice
Submitted by Matthew Marion on August 12, 2016 - 4:52pm
For a woman it's a lot easier. She can pretty herself up using the same makeup and clothes she already has and offer no other investment.
A man often cannot and must do things like pay for dates and there will likely be several before she agrees to sex.
Then there's disease and pregnancy. What if the woman gets pregnant while with the third party? What if there are already kids in the primary? What if the man wants some claim?
What if the man goes out and has fun and gets someone pregnant. He is now financially on the hook and society now has another single mother and unwanted child.
Relationships are not just about love or sex, there's a lot more to it than that.
Actually, as a woman I find
Submitted by Bhramari Dasi on August 12, 2016 - 5:28pm
Actually, as a woman I find it much more challenging. Many men (and women) assume that we're wide open for casual hook-ups, or they think we're open to participating in them cheating on their monogamous agreement. We are not. So by and large....sure....if we just want to boink with someone, we can "pretty up" and get a date.....but....that's not me, nor most polyamorous women I know.
My male cohabiting partner on the other hand, has WAY MORE dates than I do, because there is an abundance of unpartnered women out there who are "willing to try" dating a polyamorous man. As it turns out they by and large seem to think that the only reason he's not monogamous is because he hasn't found "the one" yet, or else I'm not loving him good enough....or that he doesn't really love me. The fact is that none of that is true. That said, knowing that women view my partner and relationship that way, is rather unnerving.
As for the rest, just like monogamous people there are sexually responsibile people and people that are sexually irresponsible. There have been studies that have shown that ethically non-monogamous people are - for the most part - highly informed and responsible around STIs and pregnancy.
And yes....just like monogamous relationships, polyamorous relationships are about way more than love and sex. They're about really showing up for each other, mutual care, and so much more.
Not normal
Submitted by Matthew Marion on August 12, 2016 - 5:41pm
For one if you don't want to go with a willing other that's a choice you make. You still have the choice and if you make it there's a very good chance he will pay for most things, etc.
The world of abundant female leading to lots of male sex is extremely rare. Most men not in relationships go very long times not having sex simply due to the enormous effort involved in making it happen both emotional and financial (even a bar hookup can require paying drinks all night, cab home, etc).
Most women don't want a man that won't commit either. It's dangerous to them as they could become pregnant and he could ditch or he could give them an STD, etc.
Only the negative extremes
Submitted by Ross on August 12, 2016 - 8:38pm
I think you are expressing only the negative extremes of hook-up culture and the foul side of humanity. It's also a very misogynistic stance. While there are people in the polyamory community that are okay with casual sex and short-term relationships, and there are women who will play the sugar babe role, that has little or nothing to do with polyamory. I think people sometimes conflate polyamory with playing the field, swinging, or cheating. It's different. You can have someone who's a serial dater or someone who's always looking for the hookup and they aren't in polyamory. They don't necessarily care about the people they are hooking up with or hanging out with, they're more about the experience itself. Polyamory is more about the relationship.
You keep talking about pregnancy and STDs but that can happen for anyone. One thing that polyamory puts a focus on is communication. If you as a man have a boundary that you don't want to be with a woman who has unprotected sex with someone else then that can be your boundary - don't have sex with that woman. It's all about getting to know the person you are having a relationship with and having an honest dialog. Poly requires you to up your communication game by communicating your needs and boundaries. If you can't do that you won't be successful and you will put yourself at risk emotionally and possibly physically (although probably no greater risk than any mono relationship).
The other thing is that there are ALL KINDS of poly relationships. For instance, my wife, from a conservative upbringing, had long struggled with her sexuality. At forty she had started having feelings for one of her friends. She asked me how I felt about it, and knowing how hard she had struggled, I encouraged her to persue the relationship if the other person was interested. I didn't say "well relationship is over, let's get a divorce". But I did put her happiness ahead of my own and learned hard lessons about how to overcome jealousy and navigate my own feelings as well as how to set boundaries. Then I met someone and she had to do the same. Now we're in a polyfidelity relationship (an N, closed, not open to new partners). During the beginning of both relationships we talked about sexual contact, timing, STDs, birth control, what contact each of us had with the other's partner, what information got shared between partners, how the partners were to interact with our kids, how to carve out time for each other, boundaries for when we were out on dates with someone. We have a deep loving relationship based on shared goals and interests. That's Polyamory to me, it is not just "who are you hooking up with" it's "who are you loving, how are you showing that love". I love my girlfriend, I love my wife, I love my metamour, but it's not an orgy and if anyone decided to go outside of the relationship and hookup because "but we're poly" then it wouldn't go over well.
I would also note that not all poly relationships revolve around sexual contact. Just like in my relationship with my wife's primary - we don't have sex, but I love her to death. Likewise my wife doesn't have sex with my girlfriend but loves her to death too.
Most women don't want a man
Submitted by Gary g on August 12, 2016 - 9:54pm
Anonymous wrote:Most women don't want a man that won't commit either. It's dangerous to them as they could become pregnant and he could ditch or he could give them an STD, etc.
I don't know what world you're living in, but what you're describing sounds like 50 years ago.
This on
Submitted by Matthew Marion on August 12, 2016 - 10:16pm
The one in which it costs a fortune to raise kids, still one of the primary drives of humans (the percentage of people that reproduce for both sexes is in the 80% range, at least in the US), and it sucks doing so alone which is why most women don't exactly want a guy to ditch.
What world do you live in?
The one in which it costs a
Submitted by Gary g on August 12, 2016 - 11:29pm
Anonymous wrote:The one in which it costs a fortune to raise kids, still one of the primary drives of humans (the percentage of people that reproduce for both sexes is in the 80% range, at least in the US), and it sucks doing so alone which is why most women don't exactly want a guy to ditch.
What world do you live in?
You were talking about men not in relationships, and getting sex. There are lots of women these days who are up for casual sex, and there are lots of ways of preventing pregnancy and avoiding STIs. In that context, what you were describing was perhaps not just 50 years ago, but 100 years ago before effective and multiple means of birth control.
Most polyamorous women
Submitted by Bhramari Dasi on August 13, 2016 - 2:18pm
Most polyamorous women recognize the imbalance around cost of dating, and pay their own way. Sometimes we are even the ones who pay the whole bill.
Most polyamorous women
Submitted by Gary g on August 13, 2016 - 3:39pm
Anonymous wrote:Most polyamorous women recognize the imbalance around cost of dating, and pay their own way. Sometimes we are even the ones who pay the whole bill.
More and more true these days. And one reason is that far more women today are getting college degrees than men. I get the feeling that a lot of people protesting in these forums are not only old, but aren't keeping up with demographic facts.
I'm 60 and my nesting partner
Submitted by Bhramari Dasi on August 14, 2016 - 8:40am
I'm 60 and my nesting partner is 70. :) I just don't have my head up my ass.....lol.
You are conflating commitment
Submitted by Bhramari Dasi on August 13, 2016 - 2:21pm
You are conflating commitment with exclusivity. All my relationships have the characteristics of deep commitment, we just see no reason to make that exclusive.
You are conflating commitment
Submitted by Gary g on August 13, 2016 - 3:35pm
Anonymous wrote:You are conflating commitment with exclusivity. All my relationships have the characteristics of deep commitment, we just see no reason to make that exclusive.
Yes, this is difficult for many people to understand, especially the regular type of person who's been taught that monogamy is the only good thing, and therefore judges everything else from the viewpoint of a goody-two-shoes church lady without going to the effort to think it through.
Sometimes it helps to provide a different example, such as having children. If you have one child, you can commit to that child and love them. But if you have two children, does that mean your love is spread too thin, and that your only option is now to have a shallow love and being unable to commit to either child, and the children will forever fight in competition for your attention?
The answer they will give, of course, is that answer that people tend to give when they have no real answer: "Oh, but that's DIFFERENT". Then they fumble to make up some kind of reasoning like "but we are built to have sex with just one person" blah blah blah.
I am so deeply skeptical of
Submitted by Who Cares on August 12, 2016 - 5:09pm
Anonymous wrote:I am so deeply skeptical of this & the whole polyamory thing. What makes the primary relationship primary? Commitment? Owning property together or having children together? When does the pursuit of romantic & sexual pleasure outside a primary relationship become threatening to the primary relationship? If someone is investing in an outside romantic or sexual relationship that means they are diverting attention, emotion & resources away from the primary relationship. What you feed grows. When does the primary partner just become a sucker - a beloved housekeeper or a paycheck & handyman? It doesn't matter how secure you feel in the relationship, you can't control other people & their feelings. When does the pursuit of romantic or sexual pleasure become exploitation - not just to the primary partner but to the 3rd party as well? Are you just using everybody? What if the 3rd party wants more - then what? Sister Wives? It just seems to me you're playing with fire here. And you shouldn't be surprised if the house burns down.
100% what I think as well! Even animals sole have partners, at least for the season. Some animals for life. Compersion is a fancy acronym for people who like to be promiscuous. And that's fine is you want to be that way buy why promoting it? To make yourself feel better and righteous? Can't all the people understand that these new trends with gay parades, compersion and so on are a part of the world plan just like Monsanto and pharmaceutical companies and firearm industry and the greenhouse effect? The goal is to destroy the family as a social structure, everyone on its own, they are dividing countries, killing traditions and substituting with commercialism, no values besides pop-culture...
Even animals sole have
Submitted by Gary g on August 12, 2016 - 6:02pm
wrote:Even animals sole have partners, at least for the season. Some animals for life.
Actually, very few animals are "monogamous".
wrote:Compersion is a fancy acronym for people who like to be promiscuous.
And so you think you're making a good argument by substituting what YOU think is a fancy word with a word YOU THINK is not fancy? That's not much of an argument. OK, call it anything you want, what's the difference?
wrote:And that's fine is you want to be that way buy why promoting it? To make yourself feel better and righteous?
Seems like that's your only agenda here -- to make those "promoting it" feel bad, while making yourself feel good.
wrote:Can't all the people understand that these new trends with gay parades, compersion and so on are a part of the world plan just like Monsanto and pharmaceutical companies and firearm industry and the greenhouse effect?
No, because that's dumb. If you want to find places where gay parades are not allowed and where they execute you for being gay, you'll find that that takes place in backwards countries with very low standards of living. Kind of exactly backwards from the picture you're apparently trying to paint, isn't it?
wrote:The goal is to destroy the family as a social structure, everyone on its own, they are dividing countries, killing traditions and substituting with commercialism, no values besides pop-cultu
Yeah, right, uh huh. Like ISIS throwing gays off rooftops, because they are so "family oriented" and value women so highly.
Re: Skeptical
Submitted by Sean on August 12, 2016 - 5:18pm
Anonymous wrote:I am so deeply skeptical of this & the whole polyamory thing. What makes the primary relationship primary? Commitment? Owning property together or having children together? When does the pursuit of romantic & sexual pleasure outside a primary relationship become threatening to the primary relationship?
Like a lot of things in romantic relationships, it all depends on the people involved and what they agree upon. If I were to define it, I would say it's the person who is most intimately involved in my life.
I think your doubts are well-founded, but I also think it's easy to forget those concerns apply to monogamous couples as well; people sexually exploit their partners or become "suckers" for an emotionally uninterested S.O. all the time.
For the most part the solutions are the same too - communicating honestly, being willing to compromise, but not so much that it sacrifices your own emotional well-being.
A good polyamorous relationship needs a higher level of communication skills, but they're the same skills that make a monogamous relationship work too. It's down to the individual whether it's worth the extra effort. It has been for me.
Some Answers
Submitted by Ross on August 12, 2016 - 9:07pm
Anonymous wrote:What makes the primary relationship primary? Commitment? Owning property together or having children together?
These are all valid questions, but in some cases, your questions also apply equally to monogamous relationships too.
People change, their needs change, their motivations change, they grow... they are in a constant state of flux. There are no guarantees, ever. We can make vows and promises, but they aren't hard barriers that we slam up against when we have a weak moment. How many people in a relationship wake up one day, look at their partner and say "this is not what I signed up for".
One big part of that failure is just not communicating what they did sign up for. Maybe when they got married they thought their wife would calm down after a kid, or maybe the wife thought the husband would get more serious after getting married. Then years later they've only gotten more entrenched in their attitudes to the point where they hate one another.
One thing that gets reinforced over and over again in Polyamory is communication. If you aren't good at communicating, get good at communicating. You need to be able to articulate your needs. You need to be able to tell people your boundaries. At the same time you need to learn confidence to stand up for your needs and your boundaries. Plus you need to have the self-sufficiency to walk away if those needs/boundaries are not being fulfilled.
That's not a different direction than what should happen in your typical mono relationship. If a woman isn't clear about her boundaries and a man tramples over what she thinks is "common sense", she can either just take it and be hurt, break-up, or communicate the need and leave it up to the man to meet the need. If he doesn't she needs to decide which needs are deal breakers that would cause her to leave.
I'll give you an example. My wife is not my primary, we own a house together, we have kids together, we take vacations together, celebrate aniversaries, etc.,. My girlfriend is my primary and my wife's girlfriend is her primary. This came about from a discussion we had where I voiced my need for more time with my wife. After the discussion we agreed to be more present when we were on a date with one another, to schedule more dates, and to do more things as a group. We also decided that based on the amount of time we were spending with our other partners that it made sense that they were the new primaries. That didn't mean we loved each other any less, it just faced the fact that we'd already given each other focus for 20 years and learned all the ins and outs with each other and now it was time to give those new partners at least a little flavor of what we've already given each other.
Now this could lead to one or the other of us growing apart from the other, but again that happens in mono relationships. If partners don't communicate and put in the work then the relationship doesn't grow. We're committed to putting in that work. Our partners are committed to putting in that work as well and giving us each space with one another to be successful.
My primary has already expressed a desire to get married. We've started that conversation within our quad of what that would look like. We've discussed my wife's concerns that it would diminish my connection to her because it would legally require a divorce (even though that's just paper) and we continue to have that conversation and plan for our mutual happiness.
But communicating is how it is all decided. You have to communicate and you have to be prepared to compromise. If there are things you can't compromise, then you also have to be prepared to walk away. I'll repeat - these aren't things that are different from mono relationships.
There are definitely times I've felt like the paycheck, the handyman, the taxi driver, the emergency dick behind the glass... and while I kept it to myself I suffered for it. But when I communicated those feelings then my wife, my girlfriend, my metamour all stepped up to help where they can to alleviate those concerns. Like any relationship, it's not always sunshine and rainbows, but when we're being compassionate toward one another and honest with our feelings, it works wonderfully.
Dont agree at all
Submitted by Mark on August 8, 2016 - 4:31pm
Yes jelaousy can be very miserable feeling indeed but people who have no jelaousy probably those who post cuckholding videos to porn sites. Jelaousy is also should be balanced and balanced jelaousy is certainly an important factor in a relationship. Otherwise i cant see much difference from pigs, they also have no jelaousy at all
Yes jelaousy can be very
Submitted by Gary g on August 8, 2016 - 7:06pm
Anonymous wrote:Yes jelaousy can be very miserable feeling indeed but people who have no jelaousy probably those who post cuckholding videos to porn sites. Jelaousy is also should be balanced and balanced jelaousy is certainly an important factor in a relationship. Otherwise i cant see much difference from pigs, they also have no jelaousy at all
Actually, you have it backwards. Fierce competition among males for females is common in mammals, sometimes to the point of serious injury or death.
Eh...
Submitted by LoveToLove on August 12, 2016 - 3:13pm
My partner and I are not jealous people. However, I would not want my partner having other partners. For me, it's rational. Not possession or jealousy. I trust my partner, and anything that makes my partner happy would undoubtedly please me. However, that puts my safety at risk, which causes fear. I can trust my partner to use a condom, but that certainly doesn't protect against everything. And doesn't even begin to touch upon things that can be caught from oral sex, or what you can catch from simply kissing another person. And the more outside partners they have the more that risk rises. No thank you. I will keep my primary relationship, my only one.
However, that puts my safety
Submitted by Gary g on August 12, 2016 - 6:10pm
Anonymous wrote:However, that puts my safety at risk, which causes fear. I can trust my partner to use a condom, but that certainly doesn't protect against everything. And doesn't even begin to touch upon things that can be caught from oral sex, or what you can catch from simply kissing another person. And the more outside partners they have the more that risk rises. No thank you. I will keep my primary relationship, my only one.
Your views may well keep you safe in your particular relationship, but your reasoning in general is actually wrong. It generally turns out that people who have open relationships have talked through STI prevention and are careful. And people who secretly cheat on their relationships (which is very common) generally are not as careful about STI prevention, and generally do NOT use any protection with the partner they're trying to keep their cheating secret from, because insisting on using any form of protection would give away that there is a reason, namely, that they're cheating!
So the upshot is that there are millions of people in "monogamous" relationships who are actually at higher risk than people who are in open relationships.
I'd say the final lesson learned here is that in either case, people who are honest and open about what they're doing with everyone have the lowest risk for STI's in general, because they are realistic and practical. In other words, it's better to be in an open relationship than a relationship where your partner is SECRETLY cheating, at least in terms of STI prevention.
Cheating
Submitted by Matthew Marion on August 12, 2016 - 10:24pm
You can't compare cheating to this, it's a straw man argument. There's no data to assume there's cheating and none in the quote you used. Even if there was cheating it would likely be restricted to one partner if not one single incident and on top of that, since there would be a huge motive not to get caught, the people would likely go overboard with protection.
This compared to voluntarily having sex with multiple partners makes no sense. So they talk about STI's, it's just as assumption that someone cheating wouldn't. It's a safer assumption to think they would to avoid getting caught.
since there would be a huge
Submitted by Gary g on August 12, 2016 - 11:23pm
Anonymous wrote:since there would be a huge motive not to get caught, the people would likely go overboard with protection.
Actually, you're wrong. It's a reasonable speculation, but the reality turns out to be that people who cheat one time are more likely to be careless and unprepared, haven't talked about the risks of what they're doing, haven't compared their sexual histories, and quite often and more troubling -- do so under the influence of alcohol.
In poly relationships and open relationships in general, people are more often prepared and do not need alcohol to overcome their inhibitions. Or, as if often the case, wouldn't have had sex if they hadn't had alcohol, at which point thoughts of STI prevention are often out the window.
wrote:This compared to voluntarily having sex with multiple partners makes no sense. So they talk about STI's, it's just as assumption that someone cheating wouldn't. It's a safer assumption to think they would to avoid getting caught.
So it's "just an assumption" if you don't agree, and a "safe assumption" if you agree? Talk about making stuff up! You know, this stuff has actually been surveyed.
Hmm
Submitted by LoveToLove on August 17, 2016 - 3:06am
I have no qualms with being told that I am wrong but if you wouldn't mind providing some references for this information, so I might research this idea for myself, I would be much obliged.
I have had conversations about safe sex and prevention methods with all of my partners. There isn't even any kissing without a blood test. Even with a blood test if it isn't a long term partner, no kissing, a condom every time, no oral, and shorts must be worn. Honestly, the restrictions for safety take the fun out of it, so it makes it not worth my time and efforts. Personally, anyway.
For me, risk seems to rise exponentially with number of partners. Many people assume that condoms are more than enough protection, and kissing is a natural action that people take to indicate a sexual interest in others.
For example according to the CDC one in six people have genital herpes. Oral herpes can be spread to the genitals as well.
Not to mention, a person can have no signs or symptoms of herpes, and no knowledge that they are infected. It can still be transmitted from person to person through skin contact, regardless of whether a condom is used (http://www.cdc.gov/std/herpes/stdfact-herpes.htm).
An open relationship is not going to protect me from that, but a good strong monogamous relationships will. I love and trust my partner, cheating is not something I see happening because we are equally as open and honest. We have discussed the concepts of polyamory, open relationships, and the occasional threesomes. Among many other things.
Study show STI rate no higher in consensual non-monogamy
Submitted by Bhramari Dasi on August 17, 2016 - 9:05am
http://www.livescience.com/36242-cheating-unsafe-sex-open-relationship-std-risk.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/monogamous-couples-at-same-risk-from-stis-as-people-in-open-relationships-a6704526.html
http://www.medicaldaily.com/trust-no-one-youre-just-likely-get-std-monogamous-relationship-you-are-open-one-358538
http://fusion.net/story/218221/monogamy-versus-open-relationships-std-study/
Thank you
Submitted by LoveToLove on August 17, 2016 - 10:42am
Thank you. I appreciate the extra information.
Even in monogamous relationships, I get tested several times a year, because of safety reasons. My behaviors in monogamy do not appear to differ very much from non-monogamous people. I find this interesting.
Over the years I have discovered that I do not like having sex with new people. I have great difficulty achieving an orgasm and it takes time to teach a new partner how I like things. I have never had a partner who was able to please me out of the gate, even when I instruct, help, guide, whatever, it takes at least a few months of regular sexual contact for me to get anything out of the interaction.
Kind of feels like a waste of my time. I have a partner that knows everything I like, the sex is more enjoyable with this partner. I really hate the process of teaching a new person what I like. It gets old.
As a note, I am of the mindset that some people "are just wired that way".
I have a feeling that some people are geared more toward monogamy while others are geared more toward non-monogamy.
I don't see a problem with either option. I don't judge, if it makes you happy than do whatever it is you are doing. I hope that people extend me the same courtesy.
Kind of feels like a waste of
Submitted by Gary g on August 17, 2016 - 1:03pm
wrote:Kind of feels like a waste of my time. I have a partner that knows everything I like, the sex is more enjoyable with this partner. I really hate the process of teaching a new person what I like. It gets old.
Nobody said you are required to keep finding new partners. There are plenty of people who like being in long-term relationships. Why don't you find one of them? I would have to surmise, that even though you don't like going through the trouble of teaching a new partner your sexual tastes, you apparently have a bigger problem or dislike of staying in a long-term relationship.
Where did you get that impression?
Submitted by LoveToLove on August 19, 2016 - 2:13pm
I think perhaps you misunderstand, or are simply looking to be argumentative.
I was saying that I prefer a long term relationship as opposed to multiple partners. I have had two long term relationships. Both of which lasted 7+ years. I shopped around, I've dated around, I've tried multiple partners at one time, etc, etc. I don't prefer it. It's a personal preference. The same as some people don't prefer anal sex, and some people prefer BDSM, I prefer long-term relationships with one partner.
I was stating that the idea of an open relationship does not appeal to me, because I have a partner at home who can satisfy all of my sexual needs. I feel it would be a waste of my time (personal preference here) to spend time teaching another partner when the one I have long term satisfies me beautifully.
Have I made the point more clear?
Have I made the point more
Submitted by Gary g on August 19, 2016 - 10:29pm
Anonymous wrote:Have I made the point more clear?
No, you're only repeating yourself. If you don't like new partners why don't you stay with someone longer than 7 years? The median marriage lasts about twice that long. Perhaps just bad luck? But as they say, the common denominator in all your relationships is you.
For me, risk seems to rise
Submitted by Gary g on August 17, 2016 - 1:28pm
Anonymous wrote:For me, risk seems to rise exponentially with number of partners. Many people assume that condoms are more than enough protection, and kissing is a natural action that people take to indicate a sexual interest in others.
I take it you mean "exponentially" in what I'd call "laymnan" jargon. To be exact with the language, it's an exaggeration. In fact, not only does it not rise exponentially, it doesn't even rise geometrically. In fact, it rises only arithmetically -- the "slowest" of those three technical designations.
wrote:Not to mention, a person can have no signs or symptoms of herpes, and no knowledge that they are infected. It can still be transmitted from person to person through skin contact, regardless of whether a condom is used
And that observation is precisely why a lot of people would say you are overconcerned about herpes -- for many people, there are no symptoms. You seems to speak of all STI's as if they are of equal concern. which is not a realistic approach.
wrote:An open relationship is not going to protect me from that, but a good strong monogamous relationships will.
Statistically speaking, you're deluding yourself.
wrote:I love and trust my partner, cheating is not something I see happening because we are equally as open and honest.
That may well be your case. But statistically, you might be deluding yourself. The definition of cheating is that the partner does NOT know. In many cases that means the partner is sure they are not cheating. So you're saying you're somehow "different and better" than all the other people who were sure they had that unique and special relationship and "could not see it happening". In fact, those words seem to be the chagrined refrains of many people who've been cheated on -- "I didn't think it could happen to me because I thought we had such a good relationship", blah blah blah.
Or to put it another way, the only person you know if they're honest or not is yourself. Nobody "knows" that somebody else is "honest" with 100% certainty, by definition.
In fact, sometimes it's the very act of promising NEVER EVER to be unfaithful, and swearing your life on it, etc., that actually contributes to secret cheating, because the partner realizes that bringing up desires for something extramarital is an absolute deal-breaker for the marriage. In contrast, in an open relationship, it's already taken for granted that there are outside desires, so there are no more "shoes to drop". Of course, there are exceptions and more details to those scenarios, but those are the broad outlines.
The kind of relationship I'd worry about is the ones where people put each other in total straitjackets. I'll give you one example that is not uncommon -- a relationship where it's agreed that they won't even fantasize about other people when they have sex, or where they promise they won't even masturbate alone, etc. Almost right out of the gate, those people will be dealing with secrets and shame they can't talk about because it would be an admission of having violated their agreement already.
Thank you..
Submitted by LoveToLove on August 19, 2016 - 2:34pm
I appreciate your willingness to discuss things. As to your first response, I fail to see how that was necessary as you were smart enough to use context clues to understand what it was I meant, therefore; I must conclude this useless bit was simply an attempt to incite some kind of response. I do appreciate the new information though, so thank you for that.
------
The second point again is phrased in a manner that would come across as attacking. It does appear you don't understand the concept of an example, herpes being the most common example, made it the most likely thing to occur. There is also no cure for herpes, so yes I would find that quite concerning. The rates for other Infections and diseases are different, you are quite right. I never suggested that I gauge likelihood of catching one based solely on the example of herpes. That was a wrongful assumption on your part.
-----
Again, you speak statistics and provide no backing for your information, which makes me look at you as an internet troll. According to the articles provided to me in this forum (see above). Studies indicated that around 24% of of the monogamous couples cheated. Whereas 32% of the non-monogamous couples, had sex with someone their partner did not know about. That appears to me as though "statistically speaking" The non-monogamous partners were more dishonest, despite the fact that that specific type of relationship requires honesty to work. I don't see that as deluding myself. The rates are slim on either count being at 24% and 32% respectively.
-----
Again "statistically" is used without reference. My current relationship is as open and honest as any non-monogamous relationship. We have already discussed the idea of other partners and I find that it does not appeal to me individually. I have already expressed to my partner that should they desire another person it is up for negotiation.
I have an absolute distaste for lying and dishonesty. I have expressed I would much prefer it be brought up for discussion and negotiated, I'm not closed to that concept, nor am I closed to the idea of polyamory, provided that a compatible third mate is found. Should I discover sex with another partner has occurred without discussion, it has been made clear that is grounds for the relationship to end. I can make room in my life for other people, I will not make room for a liar.
I appreciate your willingness
Submitted by Gary g on August 19, 2016 - 10:59pm
Anonymous wrote:I appreciate your willingness to discuss things. As to your first response, I fail to see how that was necessary as you were smart enough to use context clues to understand what
I don't say only things which are "necessary". Most people don't really understand what "exponentially" really means. If I were misinformed on something, I would rather be corrected than to have someone "spare my feelings" and leave me ignorant.
------
wrote:The second point again is phrased in a manner that would come across as attacking. It does appear you don't understand the concept of an example, herpes being the most common example, made it the most likely thing to occur. There is also no cure for herpes, so yes I would find that quite concerning. The rates for other Infections and diseases are different, you are quite right. I never suggested that I gauge likelihood of catching one based solely on the example of herpes. That was a wrongful assumption on your part.
On the contrary, I understand the concept of this example perfectly, and everything you just wrote here is nothing new to me. I know I'm just repeating my point, but here it goes again. Many people consider herpes to be "no big deal" for exactly the reason you state -- many people have zero symptoms. I didn't say it was no problem at all. But it doesn't rate anywhere near HIV, etc.
-----
wrote:Again, you speak statistics and provide no backing for your information, which makes me look at you as an internet troll.
The problem is that some topics really don't have reliable and scientifically accurate statistics, but they still need to be discussed. If that renders some topics as discussable only by internet trolls, then that is your problem.
wrote:According to the articles provided to me in this forum (see above). Studies indicated that around 24% of of the monogamous couples cheated. Whereas 32% of the non-monogamous couples, had sex with someone their partner did not know about. That appears to me as though "statistically speaking" The non-monogamous partners were more dishonest, despite the fact that that specific type of relationship requires honesty to work. I don't see that as deluding myself. The rates are slim on either count being at 24% and 32% respectively.
I very much doubt the reliability of these statistics. Even with samples as large as 1,000, the sampling error will be roughly 3%, so those two numbers are barely reliably different, and that's assuming the sampling methods were flawless. When it comes to correctly sampling people who have secret affairs, I think you're off into the swamp. As another (perhaps just as unreliable) statistic provided on these PT blogs, about 70% of affairs are never discovered. I can't imagine how one reliably estimates the secret one-night stands some people have that they will live in denial about themselves, let alone report accurately on a survey no matter how secret and anonymous. In contrast, people who have open relationships might report much more accurately. But what is an "open" relationship anyway as far as "certifying" it for a survey. There is no "open relationship" licensing authority. It's just what somebody calls it, sometimes even when the partner is reluctantly going along with it.
Remember also that the median marriage barely lasts 12 years, in which case what is meant by "percentage who cheat"? Once in a lifetime over all of their multiple marriages and relationships, or just once in their whole life? And what about the fact that many people are living together and not marrying? Now most adults are NOT married -- another milestone we hit recently in the USA. I think all this confusion renders a lot of these "accurate" statistics rather muddy.
-----
wrote:Again "statistically" is used without reference. My current relationship is as open and honest as any non-monogamous relationship.
What I find curious is that you speak as if your relationship is exempt from the statistics you just quote above. Sure, you can take measures (better communication) to reduce your chances of infidelity in your relationship to less than the percentage you quote for your type of relationship, but not to zero. Surely you realize that many people who are cheated on were as sure as you are that it would not happen?
wrote:I have an absolute distaste for lying and dishonesty.
And how does that really set you apart from most people?
wrote:I have expressed I would much prefer it be brought up for discussion and negotiated, I'm not closed to that concept, nor am I closed to the idea of polyamory, provided that a compatible third mate is found. Should I discover sex with another partner has occurred without discussion, it has been made clear that is grounds for the relationship to end. I can make room in my life for other people, I will not make room for a liar.
That may work in your favor in your particular case. But realize that that "threat" is the very thing that makes some partners dishonest when they make a mistake. In your case, for example, even as much as you prize honesty, you have in fact set up a precondition whereby the price for honesty (in case of cheating) is very costly and frightening to anyone who wants to stay in the relationship. What you've set up is the very thing that leads to dishonesty in some cases.
jeaousy and "primary" relationships
Submitted by mermaid on August 12, 2016 - 3:47pm
I realize this is a blog post and by its very nature is brief. However, two things in this post concern me:
1) You put forth the notion that polyamorous or otherwise non-monogamous people are not jealous. This blanket statement is not true; they can experience jealousy as much as anyone else. The difference is that they use jealousy as an indicator that something is wrong or uncomfortable, and then sit with the feeling and examine the situation to determine what if anything should be done, rather than make a knee-jerk attempt to address their discomfort by restricting what their partner can do.
2) You appear to write from the assumption that polyamorous relationships have a "primary relationship." While this relationship structure is the most commonly represented in media, many polyamorous people participate in non-hierarchical relationships where there is no "primary" couple. (This could be fixed by replacing "primary" with "existing" in your sixth paragraph.)
Regardless of the non-relationship structure, though, compersion definitely helps foster successful non-monogamy.
responding to "jealousy and primary relationships"
Submitted by Bhramari Dasi on August 12, 2016 - 4:17pm
OMG!! Thank you so much for this! I totally agree with this.
My only deviation is that where you suggest replacing "primary" with "existing", I would add that be in reference to "relationship(s)" because indeed many of us ethically non-mongamous folks do not engage in the concept of "coupledom" and do have multiple significant, sustainable loving relationships.
Reply to Mermaid
Submitted by Isadora Alman MFT, CST on August 12, 2016 - 5:40pm
Thank you for your input. I agree with you on both issues.
Jealousy as "unhealthy"
Submitted by Bhramari Dasi on August 12, 2016 - 4:33pm
In addition to agreeing with Mermaid wholeheartedly, I want to add some dimension to the concept of jealousy.
You wrote: "Jealousy is unhealthy." That's a pretty over-simplified and sweeping statement.
You yourself write the following:
"Jealousy can be an occasional thing, depending on the nature of the loved one’s outside connection, and even more so on how the one who is left at home feels about him or her self. If one feels secure in himself or herself, and secure in the healthiness of the primary relationship, there is no need to begrudge their partner's outside pleasure."
Thus, clearly jealousy can be a wonderful teacher pointing us to some deeper root issues we may be likely well-served in exploring. In my view that's very healthy.
Deborah Anapol PhD (affectionately referred to as "the mother of modern polyamory), writes in her article found here, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-without-limits/201111/polyamory-without-tears:
"I always encourage people to find an appropriate balance between becoming skillful at finding ways to sidestep jealousy and avoid the turmoil it brings and inviting jealousy to become a powerful teacher who can show us the places we most need healing and motivate us to grow beyond our perceived limits so that we're capable of more love."
A really wonderful essay by Anita Wagner Illig - which can be found here http://www.practicalpolyamory.com/images/Jealousy_Updated_10-6-10.pdf - clarifies jealousy as a fear of loss, diminishment, change, the unknown, the ability to control a person or situation.
While I'm sure no one in their right mind "wants" to experience feelings of jealousy, that fact that they come up isn't in and of itself unhealthy. It's what we do with that information that matters...and that can be in either healthy or unhealthy ways.
More on Jealousy
Submitted by Bhramari Dasi on August 12, 2016 - 4:36pm
I also highly recommend this link: https://www.morethantwo.com/jealousytheory.html
Back in the day....
Submitted by Lisa A Johnson on August 12, 2016 - 11:00pm
Back in the day these were called "openrelationships".....now the "urban" dictionary has a fancy new name for it! And just as back in the day these types of relationships seldom bring long term happiness. Think twice before engaging in this!
Back in the day these were
Submitted by Gary g on August 12, 2016 - 11:13pm
Anonymous wrote:Back in the day these were called "openrelationships".....now the "urban" dictionary has a fancy new name for it! And just as back in the day these types of relationships seldom bring long term happiness. Think twice before engaging in this!
No, they're still called that. Except to distinguish them further and set them apart from other "open relationships" like swinging, not to mention just plain old dating in college. Or dating for 10 years after college which is now also the norm. So polyamory is a very distinct subcategory of open relationships.
As for "long term happiness", yeah, most marriages have that problem too -- most of them end before the 13th year! So, I guess your advice would be "think twice before engaging in this [too]!"
Non-monogamous relationships
Submitted by Jinx5685 on August 13, 2016 - 1:25am
Non-monogamous relationships seem, on the contrary, simply to be normalizing negative emotion; similar to how a victim of sexual abuse early on exhibits sexualized behaviors suppressant of one's potential, especially in achieving intimacy relationships. Because the easy way to cope with the possibility of feeling jealousy, or the pain of being in love, is to snuff the belief that one doesn't want or need intimacy, and a partner that holds your emotions and being with love, by way of allowing you to do the same of him/her. Non-monogamous relationships use sex as a coping strategy to address a need it can not meet, hindering one's potential.
Non-monogamous relationships
Submitted by Gary g on August 13, 2016 - 12:09pm
Anonymous wrote:Non-monogamous relationships seem, on the contrary, simply to be normalizing negative emotion; similar to how a victim of sexual abuse early on exhibits sexualized behaviors suppressant of one's potential.
So I guess we can generalize that to the case of anyone taking anger management classes. It's merely suppressing negative emotions to allow someone to live zombie-like as a "sexual abuse survivor".
Sounds like you've made up a nice theory to support your preconceived notion that anything but monogamy is pathological and unhealthy.
Response to Jinx5685
Submitted by Isadora Alman MFT, CST on August 13, 2016 - 1:29am
My 36 years as a professional in the field of sex and relationships and my own personal history of far more years than that do not validate your ideas, I'm happy to say. I have seen nothing to indicate that "non-monogamous relationships use sex as a coping strategy to address a need it can not meet".
Meh...
Submitted by Robert on August 13, 2016 - 5:14am
I've never seen poly relationships last long term. The have a much higher success rate if the couple have been together for a long time and already have stable attachment formed between them. When relationships go poly in the beginning, they rarely last.
I live in a city and culture where poly relationships are highly espoused. I've never seen one not suffer from jealousy eventually. Even the most well-intentioned and communicative partners end up facing challenges. There's also a lot of higher values being layered on top of instant gratification culture.
In the dating world, people will say and do anything when it comes to getting sexual gratification. They may even convince themselves that it's really about something else -- like forming significant relationships, or practicing love. At the end of the day the body wants what the body wants. I think people should just acknowledge that, rather than trying to make it about pseudospiritual polyamory non-sense.
The rare very people I've met who truly practice equanimous polyamory, where all partners are cared for and respected equally, usually have very full schedules and it takes up their entire lives. Everyone else just seems like they're diluting their sexual energy all over the place and trying to cover it up with philosophical BS. The west coast is pretty non-genuine in that way.
Which is it?
Submitted by Anonymous on August 13, 2016 - 5:58pm
Anonymous wrote:I've never seen poly relationships last long term. The have a much higher success rate if the couple have been together for a long time and already have stable attachment formed between them. When relationships go poly in the beginning, they rarely last.
Which is it?
1) Never last.
2) May last under certain pre-conditions.
3) Less likely to last under certain pre-conditions
- Previous
- Page 1 (current)
- Next
Post Comment
advertisement
