in case anybody who doesn’t know, poly doesn’t mean everyone is dating each other. Someone in a poly relationship can date someone who has no interest in dating their other partners. ofc a good rule of thumb is that everyone in this metaphorical web should be able to sit down and have dinner with each other without being mean or violent with each other.
Fundamentally they both come from anarchist ways of thinking. If there is no higher order or rule, and nobody has any veto power over anyone else, then the only thing left is to manage each relationship on an equal footing.
Poly for me is about the basic idea that nobody gets veto power over anybody else’s relationship, which means exclusivity simply doesn’t happen. It’s just like if you had a friend that said you weren’t allowed to have other friends. That would be weird, and there’s no real reason why romantic relationships should be any different.
interesting, because for me the appeal of poly relationships (specific kind, mind) is specifically the idea of being exclusive with a group of people, like we’re all married and equally into each other.
I mean if you find that arrangment happens to you organically then great, but ultimately if you have three people all together, that’s three pairs. Four people is six pairs.
There’s no getting around that fact, that’s just how many combinations there are. And if just one of those pairs breaks up for whatever reason, then that mutual group stops working. It’s a very tenuous arrangement. It can also be a big strain on the other pairs when that happens, especially if it breaks with the understanding of what the group is supposed to be.
That’s why I think it’s best not to have that kind of arrangement as a goal. It can happen, but trying to make it happen creates a situation where some pairs will feel pressure to go along with it even if they’re not a good match, which is a recipe for further drama. If there’s no goal like that, then people can feel the freedom to keep their connection loose if they feel like it.
While this is certainly a valid form of romance, it’s more accurately described as “non-exclusive simultaneous relationships” than a single “polyamorous relationship”.
Some people really do live in multi-partner committed households, but those seem most often to be dominated by a single person, such as fringe Mormon polygamy. And the most common form of "polyamory’ is probably “affair-tolerant monogamy.”
It’s a big complicated world, and variations of how humans with form intimate relationships fills all possibilities when there is no enforced legal prohibition. (And,.sometimes, even then.)
As a poly person: no, it is not a “affiar-tolerant monogamy”. That is an open relationship.
Polyamorous partnerships are far more committed. Also, sex is not always a part of it.
Of course there is the concept of a primary partner, but there are lot of poly folks that thislike this idea.
But what all of those relationships have in common: there is no case where only one partner is poly. All is about communication and consent.
And to the core topic: There is this thing like a polycule. A network of people with somehow connected relationships. Breakups in those structures are often consensual and no big fuzz. But if it gets dirty, at least in my experience, the offending member of the polycoule gets shown the door. And most of the times, those are the new ones. People that think the could convince their partner to get monogamous because they are the only one that is needed.
in case anybody who doesn’t know, poly doesn’t mean everyone is dating each other. Someone in a poly relationship can date someone who has no interest in dating their other partners. ofc a good rule of thumb is that everyone in this metaphorical web should be able to sit down and have dinner with each other without being mean or violent with each other.
So it’s like de-federating
Explain relationship between people using the Fediverse. Please and thank you.
Fuck, I’ll never be able unlink federated social media and polyamory in my head now.
Fundamentally they both come from anarchist ways of thinking. If there is no higher order or rule, and nobody has any veto power over anyone else, then the only thing left is to manage each relationship on an equal footing.
Poly for me is about the basic idea that nobody gets veto power over anybody else’s relationship, which means exclusivity simply doesn’t happen. It’s just like if you had a friend that said you weren’t allowed to have other friends. That would be weird, and there’s no real reason why romantic relationships should be any different.
interesting, because for me the appeal of poly relationships (specific kind, mind) is specifically the idea of being exclusive with a group of people, like we’re all married and equally into each other.
I mean if you find that arrangment happens to you organically then great, but ultimately if you have three people all together, that’s three pairs. Four people is six pairs.
There’s no getting around that fact, that’s just how many combinations there are. And if just one of those pairs breaks up for whatever reason, then that mutual group stops working. It’s a very tenuous arrangement. It can also be a big strain on the other pairs when that happens, especially if it breaks with the understanding of what the group is supposed to be.
That’s why I think it’s best not to have that kind of arrangement as a goal. It can happen, but trying to make it happen creates a situation where some pairs will feel pressure to go along with it even if they’re not a good match, which is a recipe for further drama. If there’s no goal like that, then people can feel the freedom to keep their connection loose if they feel like it.
While this is certainly a valid form of romance, it’s more accurately described as “non-exclusive simultaneous relationships” than a single “polyamorous relationship”.
Some people really do live in multi-partner committed households, but those seem most often to be dominated by a single person, such as fringe Mormon polygamy. And the most common form of "polyamory’ is probably “affair-tolerant monogamy.”
It’s a big complicated world, and variations of how humans with form intimate relationships fills all possibilities when there is no enforced legal prohibition. (And,.sometimes, even then.)
As a poly person: no, it is not a “affiar-tolerant monogamy”. That is an open relationship.
Polyamorous partnerships are far more committed. Also, sex is not always a part of it.
Of course there is the concept of a primary partner, but there are lot of poly folks that thislike this idea.
But what all of those relationships have in common: there is no case where only one partner is poly. All is about communication and consent.
And to the core topic: There is this thing like a polycule. A network of people with somehow connected relationships. Breakups in those structures are often consensual and no big fuzz. But if it gets dirty, at least in my experience, the offending member of the polycoule gets shown the door. And most of the times, those are the new ones. People that think the could convince their partner to get monogamous because they are the only one that is needed.
Sorry for the long post, you hit a nerve there ;)