On the other hand, I have met so many couples, straight and gay, that have said they were monogamous but practice polyamory, in other words cheating since it was kept from the other partner. I have also met many monogamous couples that didn’t cheat (apparently) but hate each others guts.

Melissa, I do appreciate your views here and it has truly helped me to make sense out of this but the bottom line as you stated, “I argue that neither is. What a person is drawn to will be based upon their individual life experience and how they were raised”. This is so true and I also see that this helps frame how we handle relationships in the future.

My question though, and thank you Kristi for bringing this up, is what can be done of you have one partner that decides to go poly and the other would rather be monogamous but decides to allow the poly partner to be poly. Seeing that both sides may have their life experiences to account for a lot of how relationships work, how the heck could that work? I mean wouldn’t both sides only be able to see things from their own perspective? How could a relationship like that work? A penny for anyone’s thoughts especially Melissa

Well, I’ve been lucky to have met such a couple – they’re both polyamorous and very devoted to each other, occasionally, they both sleep with other people. So there, when meeting them, my perspective on polyamory went out the window. When I first the first gay man who was a real person to me, my stereotypes on gays went out the window as well.

I know that what one cannot understand or wrap their mind around might make them say such things as you said, I do that as well.. but ..maybe, the reason you’re thinking those things is that you haven’t met somebody who, by their example, will show you that another way of acting is possible without it being the mark of a problem. And because you are not inclined to act that way yourself, you think that nobody could possibly be.

I tend to agree with Ronald that social conditioning has made monogamy the overriding acceptable choice in Western society particularly. And the desire for acceptance, in any society, plus the possible example or behavioural patterns of close relatives and friends, makes monogamy the sought-after status for the majority; we want to be embraced by those around us and gain their approval. We all have friends or relations who have had failed monogamous relationships, but the ones who have made it work become role models, we might say, “That’s what I want to have with someone one day.” Almost every aspect of mainstream culture for hundreds of years has advocated monogamy and presented its culmination of romantic bliss between a man and woman as the ideal.

This societal track record does not lend itself to exploration of other possibilities. If we continue to uphold one way of living as the only way, if we confine ourselves and those around us to the same principles that have been followed for the past however-many centuries, we don’t allow humanity to explore itself further. Mankind has the spirit of exploration within its very soul; how many aspects of life today would not have existed if someone had not tried something new?

Well anyway nothing new there, just musing. Feel free to point me in the direction of any interesting reading material that might touch on the matter, for the record I come from an extreme fundamental Christian background which I abandoned a few years ago, so anything that helps ‘free this mind’ is a good thing. Keep up the good work, bookmarked :)

And never did I suggest that all non-romantic hobbies or activities should be replaced with romantic relationships, it was admittedly a simplistic example given to save words and prevent this turning into a thesis.

Surely any outside relationship would be a blend of romantic and non-romantic activities. Some may be purely platonic, others might be a tennis and bowling partner that involves some level of romantic involvement, others may be more heavily weighted towards romance. Non of this in black and white, and complete balance is never really achievable.

To equate the desire to expand romantic involvement beyond a primary relationship to codependent behaviors may play into some situations and not others, and depends on many factors. To broadly generalize polyamory as a codependent behavior seems unfair.

“If a polyamorist decided to spent the extra time a monogamist spent on friends and hobbies instead with another partner, there’s no real change in the balance of time spent with their primary partner, and that argument becomes invalid.”

Not exactly. Perhaps in balance of time, but time is only one of many complex human resources.

Intimacy doesn’t work in such a clear-cut way. It’s messy and difficult to measure all the resources directly and indirectly involved (and impacted) when being involved with a new partner.

But yes, someone could potentially spend the “same amount of time” on a romantic partner that a monogamous person spends on golf, gambling, shopping, or drinking. But then again, anyone without hobbies, only focusing on love interests, seems a bit codependent to me.

One can easily point at dangerous religious factions like fundamentalist Mormons to demonize polyamory, though lumping polyamorists in with that crowd would be as drastic a generalization as lumping monogamists in with religions that have allowed men to kill their wives for cheating.

And yes, time and energy are resources that are finite, and it is true that by having more partners means that time that may have been spent with your primary partner may instead be spent with other partners. Though the same argument could be made for work, hobbies that only one partner participates in, or friends of one partner and not the other. If a polyamorist decided to spent the extra time a monogamist spent on friends and hobbies instead with another partner, there’s no real change in the balance of time spent with their primary partner, and that argument becomes invalid.

Since we’re on the subject of time, we should also take into account that the root of monogamy came from an age when lifespans dictated that one had to live in a mad dash to find a partner and raise kids, all while working like hell, and then shortly thereafter die. There was little time available for investments in many romantic relationships, there was barely the time available for one. Nowadays, however, we have lifespans that pretty much guarantee that we will have more time to invest in relationships than those in the early times had to even live.

We would also be naive to ignore statistics in our real world. The socially accepted and indoctrinated ideal of “one true love” marriage has achieved a dismal success rate hovering in the 50% range. Of those marriages that do remain intact, some are second marriages, some are replete with involvement in porn as an outlet, surprisingly many involve dishonest affairs and similar betrayals, and statistically those that are both honest, healthy, and monogamous are clearly in the minority.

I have experienced first hand, as anyone who honestly observes society will also have seen, a very large number of self-proclaimed believers in monogamy who have claimed to have found their “one true love” many, many, many times. Only to then have encountered some incompatibility to use as a rationalization for why the relationship is no longer their “one true love”, and then move on to the next.

People are complex, multidimensional beings, that change over time and develop throughout life. To expect that you should be able to find someone, that for the remainder of your life will continue to be completely compatible with you on all important levels, both is statistically improbable, and places a huge burden on both partners to engage in a lifelong game of bending wills and beliefs to satisfy the other.

This bending game, to me, seems the most likely culprit in the failure of monogamous marriage, and the reason why truly healthy and honest lifelong monogamous marriage is a statistical unlikelihood with a real, empirically measurable improbability.

To me, it would seem more humane and beneficial for all to focus on the beneficial compatibilities we find with our partners, make compromises where they are manageable, and allow each other to form new relationships that satisfy needs or desires without stigmatizing those relationships or labeling them as deviant or unnatural.

Here’s another way to look at it, two of many options:

(a) Once you meet someone you like, you re-shape your mono needs based on their poly needs, because it’s the “unconditionally loving” thing to do

(b) You get really clear on what the ideal partner would be for you, who would meet your core needs… and then you don’t spend time with those who aren’t compatible, because you love yourself enough to immerse in only the things that really fulfill you

I think the best bet is to be honest with yourself on what *you* really need, with the other (theoretical) person out of the picture. That’s essentially self-love, making sure the relationship with you is stable before bringing anyone else in.

And of course, “Love” is not the same as “putting on a pedestal”. What you are talking about is probably obsessive infatuation, an unproductive behavior both to the loving and the loved persons. But “finding someone else” just because your investment in a person is not reciprocated in the same exact way is also not a behavior that falls into my definition of Love.

Who said you cannot find God (or any other higher purpose you wish) at the end of finding your “self”? :-)

@Melissa, I totally agree, but I insist that loving someone else unconditionally (especially if it is a choice, based on your values) does not necessarily mean that you don’t love yourself anymore.

For some people, it is also true to “Love thy neighbor as thy self” :-)