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” :-)

I believe I’ve been in a similar situation as you.

We’re guys. We love women for so many reasons. You say you fell in love with your woman because she was so social and full of life–well, that’s what we love women for. They radiate something that we are attracted to. We’re drawn into their mystery. Our genes tell us to merge with this beauty. It’s not our choice to desire beautiful women, we just must.

It is VERY EASY to fall into a common trap when it comes to attraction to a woman, and that trap is pedestalizing her. No woman is a goddess or a perfect being, and deep down no woman wants to be treated as such. Resentment will breed from such treatment.

Let’s flip it: if a girl thought I was perfect in every way and looked upon me with awe, I would probably ask her to buy me a coffee and then proceed to get super-annoyed by her presence. It’s human nature. Humans use other humans who present themselves to be used.

Another factor here is the term polyamory. It’s total bullshit. It’s a fancy term created to justify a phase that all humans go through due to hormonal overactivity (or let’s just say normal-functioning hormonal activity). That phase, in layman’s terms is called “the player phase” where women AND men feel the urge to sleep with as many various partners as possible. Whether or not the urges are played out is a different story, but we all pass through this stage, and the stage may last a lifetime, but that’s besides the point.

The player stage is rife with rationalizations and justifications from “this is an existence of higher consciousness” to “it’s just human nature” but when it really comes down to it, we’re just horny. Any layer of meaning beyond that is ego talking. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. It just is, and personally, I think it’s a fun stage to go through.

Last point I’m going to make is that you can’t make your woman the focus of all your “amor” because you’ve only got so much to give, man. You and her are obviously not on the same page and you’d be better off finding someone who is… or you know what’s an even better idea?

Find yourself.

Not the self who exists for God or for Woman or for Higher Purpose. God is not You, even if He created you. Find the Self that makes you a whole, individual person with values, likes and dislikes, who knows what is acceptable and unacceptable to himself. And then love that self with the same devotion and monogamous energy that you placed on your external objects of love (external things cannot bring you wholeness).

Bottom line is this. She’s “playing” you and justifying it with “polyamory.” Don’t over-rationalize it.

Good luck to you, man!

my previous observations were mostly personal sentiments outside the context of any relationship style’s agenda, even though I borrowed some of their notions. The emphasis was more on how to apply “egoism vs altruism” in the scenario I posited.

Having a Christian background, I am talking about unconditional altruism (“selfless love”), which can be quite different from biological or conditional altruism and can often seem idealistic, but is bound to code and discipline (i.e. can go against any natural/instinctive inclination).

What I want to underline is that in the case of disciplined unconditional altruism, it would still be an active choice and not passive behavior deriving from codependency – even in a physical relationship (and not just “love”). Say we have monogamous person (M) and polyamorous person (P).
P gives M love, sex, and a proportion of her resources.
M gives P love, sex, and exclusivity (all resources). M chooses to do so out of unconditional love and his set of values (including not being jealous).

What underlies my reasoning could be an “agenda” promoting discipline and self-control within the context of religious ideals. I do realize that it can, incidentally, complement the arguments in favor of polyamory.