Cheating, lying, excuses, and getting away with stuff

[serialmonogamist]

Sorry if this shifts the topic of the thread too much but I was wondering what people thought about cheating when people are so good at lying and covering their tracks (or you're so bad at espionage) that they never get caught or confess. I have the idea that this may happen a lot more than people think but it also seems like paranoia to think that. Considering that monogamy is so strictly expected in mainstream culture, it just makes sense to me that people naturally develop strategies for cheating and getting away with it. Or do most people just learn to control themselves and get used to monogamy? How would you know, really?

[MonoVCPHG]

Sorry if this shifts the topic of the thread too much but I was wondering what people thought about cheating when people are so good at lying and covering their tracks (or you're so bad at espionage) that they never get caught or confess. I have the idea that this may happen a lot more than people think but it also seems like paranoia to think that. Considering that monogamy is so strictly expected in mainstream culture, it just makes sense to me that people naturally develop strategies for cheating and getting away with it. Or do most people just learn to control themselves and get used to monogamy? How would you know, really?

I would hazard a guess that there are a lot more affairs on the go then we think. People can get very good at them - I was very adept at keeping it a secret. Fake Hotmail accounts, great work cover up stories for being late. You name it, I had it down. The thing was that I became so unhealthy in my relationship that I was looking for a way to get caught doing anything that would promote change I was too cowardly to appraoch head on.

Some people are actually monogamous so there is no need to "control" themsleves. Others are very good at being in control of themselves and simply ignore feelings for people outside there relationship. Discipline is learned and can be done around anything; food, sex and how we express love.

[serialmonogamist]

Some people are actually monogamous so there is no need to "control" themsleves. Others are very good at being in control of themselves and simply ignore feelings for people outside there relationship. Discipline is learned and can be done around anything; food, sex and how we express love.

I have a hard time believing anyone is 100% monogamous. If they were, how could they break up from one person and start a relationship with someone new? I have heard many people say that when they are in a relationship they're just not interested in anyone else, which I can understand, but that doesn't mean the potential for attraction isn't there. Certainly you can love your partner so much that you wouldn't want to risk losing them by falling for someone else, but that doesn't mean that you're not susceptible to temptation (hence the prayer, "lead us not into temptation"). I think some people are just in denial that they're susceptible to temptation, since everyone is ultimately. What you do with the feelings is another story.

[redpepper]

people are so good at lying and covering their tracks (or you're so bad at espionage) that they never get caught or confess.

Considering that monogamy is so strictly expected in mainstream culture, it just makes sense to me that people naturally develop strategies for cheating and getting away with it.

Or do most people just learn to control themselves and get used to monogamy? How would you know, really?
I think that we are taught at a very young age to go underground to get our needs met. We want a cookie from the cookie jar, so we sneak one. If parents don't teach children to communicate and ask for what they require; give them the language, then they will learn skills to steel what they need. Its a survival mechanism I think.

This can be re-taught, but it means facing ourselves and our secret desires and needs, our fears too; making oneself vulnerable and being very real. That is hard for most of us to do and makes us not look so great. Its uncomfortable for everyone concerned I think.

Really though, when faced with the option of saving face and losing everything because of cheating or being real, asking for what we need and laying it all out in order to keep what we have; the choice is ours and we tend to end up feeling uncomfortable any way. Not to mention many other feelings (including fear again, which really is the biggest emotion to over come. Embracing fear is our biggest release from everything that hurts us I think).

[MonoVCPHG]

I have a hard time believing anyone is 100% monogamous. If they were, how could they break up from one person and start a relationship with someone new? I have heard many people say that when they are in a relationship they're just not interested in anyone else, which I can understand, but that doesn't mean the potential for attraction isn't there. Certainly you can love your partner so much that you wouldn't want to risk losing them by falling for someone else, but that doesn't mean that you're not susceptible to temptation (hence the prayer, "lead us not into temptation"). I think some people are just in denial that they're susceptible to temptation, since everyone is ultimately. What you do with the feelings is another story.

Depends on how you define monogamy. I define it simply as having a singular intimate/romantic connection at a time. Yes people break up but that happens for many reasons. Sometimes they form a new connection..I did that when I was married. Here is the thing though. When I formed that new connection, I was not connected to anyone at that time. I was still married but I had lost my intimate connection. There was no overlap of romantic love.
In order for me to form a new connection I must first lose any existing one or not have one to begin with. In that sense I claim 100% monogamy. Could someone sweep me off my feet with a new connection? Not unless I have a weak one with my current partner. That is why it is so important to check in with myself. If I fail to realise my connection is lost (which happened in the past with my ex) there is an opportunity for another to form. I'm not poly, I don't have multiple intimate/romantic relationships. One person gets all of me in that sense.

[serialmonogamist]

Depends on how you define monogamy. I define it simply as having a singular intimate/romantic connection at a time. Yes people break up but that happens for many reasons. Sometimes they form a new connection..I did that when I was married. Here is the thing though. When I formed that new connection, I was not connected to anyone at that time. I was still married but I had lost my intimate connection. There was no overlap of romantic love.
In order for me to form a new connection I must first lose any existing one or not have one to begin with. In that sense I claim 100% monogamy. Could someone sweep me off my feet with a new connection? Not unless I have a weak one with my current partner. That is why it is so important to check in with myself. If I fail to realise my connection is lost (which happened in the past with my ex) there is an opportunity for another to form. I'm not poly, I don't have multiple intimate/romantic relationships. One person gets all of me in that sense.
Ok, so you do see a situation where a couple has lost romantic intensity but are still committed to staying together and making it work as a monogamist's opportunity to shift focus to a new love interest? I would still call that polyamory because if you have strong feelings of wanting to stay committed to your current partner, even if the spark is missing (temporarily or permanently), then that also involves love. Maybe what you mean to say is that you can't focus on feeling in love with more than one person at a time. But surely you could feel butterflies on a date one day and have that feeling subside when the person doesn't return your messages and then meet someone new that gave you similar feelings again? After going through this kind of thing for a while, you could easily bounce from one love-interest to another - assuming you didn't have any faith in the previous one to stick around for another date. I actually find this a little sad to talk about because it sounds like an abundance of love while really it is a lack of relational continuity.

[MonoVCPHG]

Maybe what you mean to say is that you can't focus on feeling in love with more than one person at a time. But surely you could feel butterflies on a date one day and have that feeling subside when the person doesn't return your messages and then meet someone new that gave you similar feelings again? After going through this kind of thing for a while, you could easily bounce from one love-interest to another - assuming you didn't have any faith in the previous one to stick around for another date. .

I just don't feel initmate/romantic love for more than one person at a time period. There are lulls and temporary disconnects and those can be concerning.
As far as butterflies go, of course I could feel those if I wasn't connected to someone and was dating again (I fucking hate dating).

I have never bounced from one love interest to another. I have been in love four times in forty years. I have however used people for sex more times than that. They weren't getting love..they were getting me off.

[serialmonogamist]

(I fucking hate dating).

It's a mixed bag.

[MonoVCPHG]

It's a mixed bag.

Yes indeed my friend ;)

[AutumnalTone]

I have a hard time believing anyone is 100% monogamous.

I've met two folks who married their childhood sweetheart, that person died years later, and these folk never had another romance until they died. I can attest to the existence of those two--and I may have met others without knowing it.

I was in my early 20s when I met the first one. I even asked him about whether he had any interest in another woman. He reported that he never had and even then, with his wife gone some 15 years, he just didn't find any other woman interesting.

There was nothing obvious about the histories of these two people, either. I imagine you've met folks who are strictly monogamous and simply have no idea as to whether they are or not. Just because you can't conceive of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[serialmonogamist]

There was nothing obvious about the histories of these two people, either. I imagine you've met folks who are strictly monogamous and simply have no idea as to whether they are or not. Just because you can't conceive of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
I can conceive of it, but I want to understand it on a deeper level. I think I can safely assume that all human bodies work in the same basic ways. So if someone is not attractive to anyone besides their partner, the question is what do they do with the information about another person that is potentially appealing to them.

[rory]

I think that we are taught at a very young age to go underground to get our needs met. We want a cookie from the cookie jar, so we sneak one. If parents don't teach children to communicate and ask for what they require; give them the language, then they will learn skills to steel what they need. Its a survival mechanism I think.

It was interesting to read this! I was a really good liar as a kid. I had a very controlling mother, and couldn't do much without lying. It was definitely a survival mechanism. What's interesting is that now that I'm an adult I no longer see any reason to lie. There is no reason to lie in an adult relationship where the other person doesn't (or shouldn't) have such a power on you. I feel that by lying I would actually give somebody power over me.

[TruckerPete]

I feel that by lying I would actually give somebody power over me.

Oh wow. That rang true. Thank you for this! (Also had a controlling mother.)

[rory]

^You're welcome. :) I've thought about this a lot, it is also connected to why I react strongly against being in the closet about anything in my life.

[serialmonogamist]

It was interesting to read this! I was a really good liar as a kid. I had a very controlling mother, and couldn't do much without lying. It was definitely a survival mechanism. What's interesting is that now that I'm an adult I no longer see any reason to lie. There is no reason to lie in an adult relationship where the other person doesn't (or shouldn't) have such a power on you. I feel that by lying I would actually give somebody power over me.
That's such a good observation. It was hard for me to come to that realization about lying in my life. I assumed that all the power was in lying and getting away with it. There may be power in that but it's funny the way lying or hiding things causes you to have to tiptoe in someone else's shadow, isn't it? It's so liberating to stand up for your truth, isn't it?

[Abstract]

This is a great conversation : )

I find all of this so interesting to read.

I have a very similar conversation with my friends and my family quite frequently. I don't know anyone who has been in a long term mono relationship which I am defining as (10+ years) that hasn't cheated, or been cheated on. I am sure there are so many reasons why this happens. Most of the time I don't think that it's because the "cheater" is not in love with the other person. I personally just don't think mono is a realistic expectation, and when expectations are unrealistic someone is bound to disapoint. It's sad to me. I have seen a lot of things end based on this and have always wondered what really made it end, the sleeping with and or loving someone else, or the fact that there was dishonesty, could be both to I guess.

The weird thing in all this though is that I would define myself as mono, and define my partner as poly. Intellectually I understand her, I understand how she can love and be intimate with multiple partners, that to me intellectually seems more natural than mono. Her ability to love like that is actually one of the things that I love so much about her.

Except for me I just can't, it doesn't happen like that for me. I try and come up with reasons why, but there are no logical ones. I wasn't raised to believe that you can only be in love with one person at one time. I don't know if unconciously I turn off feelings or emotions. I have friends who I connect with emotionally, but I have no feelings of intamacy for. Maybe its genetic, maybe its conditioning, maybe it's just me, but despite all that intellect would tell me I am just mono : ) . Much like I am gay, I have tried to fight that, I have tried to pretend that wasn't how I was feeling, but at the end of the day it is what it is, and I am happy with it.

[Tonberry]

I can conceive of it, but I want to understand it on a deeper level. I think I can safely assume that all human bodies work in the same basic ways. So if someone is not attractive to anyone besides their partner, the question is what do they do with the information about another person that is potentially appealing to them.

I think there is more variety in people than you think. Some people are straight, some people are gay. Then, you might say, the two are still the same in that they're attracted to one sex and not the other. Oh, yes, but there is also bisexuality and pansexuality.

But all these people are attracted to something, right? Well, there is asexuality. But asexuals are still romantically attracted to people, right? Well, not aromantic ones (not that you need to be asexual to be aromantic, either, by the way. There are even cases of people whose sexual attraction and romantic attraction are opposite, for instance only attracted to males but only fall in love with females).

We now know of all these variations. Why not others? Monogamy vs non-monogamy, and within each, subcategories. In monogamy, lifelong monogamy, either romantic (one love ever) or sexual (one sexual attraction ever) or serial monogamy (one person at a time, but more than one over a lifetime, after one another).
Within non-monogamy, you have sexual non-monogamies, romantic non-monogamies, and some that are both.

People obviously do NOT all work the same way. Emotionally we're different from one another. Hormonally we're different from one another. The more you try to find something common to everyone, the more you find exceptions to that.

Lifelong monogamy is certainly not the rule. Even when divorce didn't happen, for instance, people would remarry after the death of a spouse and it was perfectly accepted that they might love the new person.
Although some people do struggle with the concept that it's alright to be in love again when the person you love died, as opposed to the relationship ending in a different one. I don't mean that these people are lifelong monoamorous, I mean that they fall in love again, and feel that it's "wrong" because if their spouse hadn't died, they'd still be there.

Anyway, I'm starting to go off on a rant. My point is that it's often easy to think that everyone works the way you do. I've seen people who claim that everyone is bisexual, just to various degrees, but some people are actually completely one way or the other (and of course asexuals aren't bisexual either). Similarly, some poly people like to claim that poly is the natural state and conventions are the only reason some people are mono.
It's tempting to think that because you had such a revelation (OMG! Poly exists! It all makes so much sense now!) you should share it with everyone because surely it will change their lives too. But no, some people ARE monogamous, lifelong or not. When something seems so obvious about yourself, it's tempting to think it's the way everyone works, but you need to really trust others who tell you they're different, and not assume they're lying or mistaken.

There is a lot of variety in this world, even just about romantic and sexual relations to others.

[nycindie]

Or do most people just learn to control themselves and get used to monogamy?

I have a hard time believing anyone is 100% monogamous. If they were, how could they break up from one person and start a relationship with someone new? I have heard many people say that when they are in a relationship they're just not interested in anyone else, which I can understand, but that doesn't mean the potential for attraction isn't there. Certainly you can love your partner so much that you wouldn't want to risk losing them by falling for someone else, but that doesn't mean that you're not susceptible to temptation (hence the prayer, "lead us not into temptation"). I think some people are just in denial that they're susceptible to temptation, since everyone is ultimately. What you do with the feelings is another story.

I don't know anyone who has been in a long term mono relationship which I am defining as (10+ years) that hasn't cheated, or been cheated on.

I was married for 11+ years before my husband asked to separate. There was no cheating ever, by either of us, in all that time. This I know without a doubt. When he first told me he wanted a divorce, I'll admit, I was floored and searched for some excuse. I asked him if he had ever cheated, and cited numerous trips he had taken for work as potential situations for him to do that. He said to me, "What about you? When you went to Europe with your school? Did you cheat on me?" I said, "No!" He asked me, "Why not?" And I told him, "It just never occurred to me to do that." And he said, "Well, it's the same for me. It never occurred to me. I'm married to you."

We have both had friendships with people of the opposite sex (we're both straight), and acknowledged attractions, but these were not attractions we'd ever want to act on -- they were more like, "Oh, wow, that waitress is gorgeous" or my undying crush on Kevin Sorbo. But honestly and truly, we didn't have to fight anything to be faithful. We made room for naturally finding other people attractive physically/intellectually, etc., but just knew that those attractive people were simply friends or acquaintances, not a possible reason to cheat (I can't even wrap my head around this type of thinking!!!). We did not struggle with this. I trusted him; he trusted me. I would never have done anything to violate that trust. I made a promise and it was easy to keep because I loved him. If we knew that someone was angling for one of us, we automatically distanced ourselves from that person. That didn't mean I couldn't look at a hot guy or enjoy someone's sexual energy. Human beings naturally feel attractions for many reasons -- we don't automatically equate an attraction with jumping their bones. Sometimes, I walk down the street and feel a pull toward someone, and just get a sense we could be friends. That's an attraction.

I can appreciate someone's beauty and enjoy a sexual charge without feeling the need for something to happen between us. Sexual energy is like electricity. It's there in all of us, and palpably obvious sometimes -- big deal. We're sexual animals. It doesn't mean, for me, that I need an awful lot of willpower to avoid it. I was committed to the man I loved - end of story. Being loyal was never a challenge for me. Attractions and sexual tension ebbs and flows in normal human beings, and when you are monogamous and believe in your commitment and the vows you made, all that doesn't get denied, but rather, becomes like the wallpaper. Just there and a part of life. The attractions my husband and I felt for anyone, and any person we felt close to or drawn to, were not temptations to avoid. They were people we liked - that is all. We simply felt that we loved each other and that was that, there was no danger of falling for anyone else. That possibility was never even remotely a part of our realities.

Our marriage fell apart for other reasons, which I won't go into. It was only after I looked around and realized I was now alone and could create a life the way I alone wanted it, that I started exploring polyamory. I had heard of it from an acquaintance and it was interesting to me, but not something I'd ever wanted to pursue while married. Now that I am single again, sexual attractions are a whole different ballgame than they were when I was married, because now I have the option to pursue.

Personally, I don't think of monogamy or polyamory as something that a person is, like a sexual orientation. To me, it's nothing more than a system of relating. I don't think people are mono or poly, I just think people are people who make choices about how they want to live based on their experiences and/or belief systems. For now, I want polyamorous relationships in my life. I can foresee living polyamorously for approximately the next five years or so. After that, I don't know what I'll want. I could definitely get on board with monogamy again -- but I'm not choosing to do that yet. As far as cheating goes, I choose not to, so it's a no-brainer; I just don't, and it's not a temptation.

[Chimera]

Personally, I don't think of monogamy or polyamory as something that a person is, like a sexual orientation. To me, it's nothing more than a system of relating. I don't think people are mono or poly, I just think people are people who make choices about how they want to live based on their experiences and/or belief systems. For now, I want polyamorous relationships in my life. I can foresee living polyamorously for approximately the next five years or so. After that, I don't know what I'll want. I could definitely get on board with monogamy again -- but I'm not choosing to do that yet. As far as cheating goes, I choose not to, so it's a no-brainer; I just don't, and it's not a temptation.

This is why I think the assertion above by serialmonogamiest that we're all human and our bodies work the same is just not true (including all the resaons already listed by Tonberry). As a species, we aren't slaves to instinct. For me, polyamory is more like my sexual orientation -- both are systems of relating/desiring. For me living monogamously would have to be a choice, just as some gay folks choose to live straight lives--both would be tough. For that reason, I also truly believe some folks are truly monogamous and although their actions might be different (as in the scenarios above), it's not what they really desire. My ex finally decided being mono was what made her happy and I believe her when she says that.

For me, lying and cheating are related, but separate things. Cheating involves a betrayal or violation of trust. If it happens once and is discussed, that doesn't make it okay, but it's not as bad as if it's an ongoing process coupled with lying. That takes what might be a "mistake" and moves it to the realm of calculating behavior and screwed up power relations. I'm sure many folks feel differently about these things, but I guess that's how I've always seen it. I've made mistakes, but have never lied about them. I couldn't live like that.

[serialmonogamist]

Personally, I don't think of monogamy or polyamory as something that a person is, like a sexual orientation. To me, it's nothing more than a system of relating. I don't think people are mono or poly, I just think people are people who make choices about how they want to live based on their experiences and/or belief systems. For now, I want polyamorous relationships in my life. I can foresee living polyamorously for approximately the next five years or so. After that, I don't know what I'll want. I could definitely get on board with monogamy again -- but I'm not choosing to do that yet. As far as cheating goes, I choose not to, so it's a no-brainer; I just don't, and it's not a temptation.
Well put. Labels that essentialize people are misleading.

This is why I think the assertion above by serialmonogamiest that we're all human and our bodies work the same is just not true (including all the resaons already listed by Tonberry). As a species, we aren't slaves to instinct.
You say you disagree with me but you're saying what I'm saying when you describe humans in terms of species behavior. The point is that we all have basically the same instincts and we all have the ability to resist them to varying degrees. We also have the ability to deny feelings and thoughts but that doesn't make them go away. I think when people deny that they have the capacity to love multiple people or that they experience lust beyond their monogamous partner, it is to provide emotional security to that partner. Somehow it is hurtful to saddle your (monogamous) partner with the information that you felt attracted to someone else or that you could have a relationship with someone else and still love them.

It would get very confusing for many monogamous people, I think, if they had to think about what it means to love someone enough to allow them to love other people as well. Doesn't it also confuse polyamorous people to know how to balance loving someone with making them share you? I would feel guilty being in a relationship with a devoted monogamous partner and having them tell me they love me enough to let me see other people while waiting patiently and not seeing anyone else themselves. Nevertheless I don't think anyone is truly incapable of polyamory. I just think they avoid acting on it because they figure the benefits of it wouldn't be worth the costs. But how can you accept the gift of monogamous devotion from someone else without loving them enough to want to return it? (sorry if that question sounds emotionally blackmailing. it's not meant that way - just something I've thought about)

[nycindie]

Doesn't it also confuse polyamorous people to know how to balance loving someone with making them share you?

Making them?... hmmm. Share you?... hmmm.

Well, people are not property to be shared. They have free will. And everyone in the relationship(s) has a choice. The concept of making anyone tolerate something they didn't want doesn't sound very loving.

[TruckerPete]

The concept of making anyone tolerate something they didn't want doesn't sound very loving.

Yes, I much prefer to brainwash my partners into thinking they love me, string them along on my every wish and whim until they become husks of their former selves, then discard them for someone better.

[nycindie]

Yes, I much prefer to brainwash my partners into thinking they love me, string them along on my every wish and whim until they become husks of their former selves, then discard them for someone better.

Pod people!

[NeonKaos]

Yes, I much prefer to brainwash my partners into thinking they love me, string them along on my every wish and whim until they become husks of their former selves, then discard them for someone better.

NeonKaos likes this. :cool:

[TruckerPete]

Pod people!

I was going for more of a succubus thing. ;)

[Indigomontoya]

Yes, I much prefer to brainwash my partners into thinking they love me, string them along on my every wish and whim until they become husks of their former selves, then discard them for someone better.

It's true. She's more like a hypnotist than a succubus...possibly some kind of psychic vampire...or a Jedi with mind tricks....

But in all seriousness I find the concept that confusion can be associated with "making someone share you." to be fully specious. I'm not being made to share TP; Poly was a choice I took an active part in making, and truth be told I was the one in control. TP gave me full reign to choose poly, the speed at which her relationship progressed and what role I had in it. Now I will say there were issues that had to be worked through, but I had the ripcord in my hand at all times if I needed to pull the parachute.

I share TP WILLINGLY, no one forced me overtly or covertly. Your contention that in a mono/poly relationship the poly partner forces the other to share them is frankly insulting; it implies that a mono partner in a poly relationship does not have the free will, strength of conviction, or self respect to assert their needs. I find your whole self-righteous tone, and obviously bias speak more to your issues with poly than some profound understanding of the human species. Perhaps you should take an introspective look prior to making broad stroke, misguided statements about poly/mono relationships.

[nycindie]

Perhaps you should take an introspective look prior to making broad stroke, misguided statements about poly/mono relationships.

And your frequent generalizations about women, too.

[Chimera]

You say you disagree with me but you're saying what I'm saying when you describe humans in terms of species behavior. The point is that we all have basically the same instincts and we all have the ability to resist them to varying degrees.

No, I'm not saying what you are. I find your argument to be biologically determinist. Culture always enters in to the equation and it's contextual. It determines how we understand any instincts we may have (which may be different person to person), how we code them in terms of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. How that it looks and is understood varies greatly around the world.

But how can you accept the gift of monogamous devotion from someone else without loving them enough to want to return it? (sorry if that question sounds emotionally blackmailing. it's not meant that way - just something I've thought about)

Gift of monogamous devotion? Why think of relationships as gifts and "things" that we give and take away? They are processes that we enter into as agents, not victims. I cannot understand someone with mono desires, but that doesn't make me think that they're repressed or being used.

I'm not quite sure what you want to get out of this conversation.

[serialmonogamist]

No, I'm not saying what you are. I find your argument to be biologically determinist. Culture always enters in to the equation and it's contextual. It determines how we understand any instincts we may have (which may be different person to person), how we code them in terms of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. How that it looks and is understood varies greatly around the world.
I don't believe in determinism, biological, cultural, or otherwise. Everything always happens due to interacting factors. Nevertheless, culture is diverse because there are many different ways of pursuing the same basic goals, many having to do with bodily issues. E.g. all humans have libido and aesthetics of attraction as far as I know, though there are many different cultural approaches to expressing, controlling, and rationalizing relationships and behavior. Do I pass the quiz?

Gift of monogamous devotion? Why think of relationships as gifts and "things" that we give and take away? They are processes that we enter into as agents, not victims. I cannot understand someone with mono desires, but that doesn't make me think that they're repressed or being used.
I appreciate your sensitivity to language and metaphors. My point was that the positive side of monogamy is giving someone a monopoly over you where they never have to compete for your attention or affection, in theory at least. You may find this a good or bad thing, but when someone tells you they will love you and only you unconditionally, it's very powerful - and often a lie unfortunately.

Making them?... hmmm. Share you?... hmmm.

Well, people are not property to be shared. They have free will. And everyone in the relationship(s) has a choice. The concept of making anyone tolerate something they didn't want doesn't sound very loving.
Well, maybe I'm looking at it in a possessive way but it seems to me that if you tell someone that you can't be there for them tonight because you have a date with someone else, you are making them share you in a sense. Sorry for the pushy-sounding language. I guess I could use more neutral language and say that you would make yourself unavailable for them sometimes. I'm sorry but I think the basic issues I was asking about are getting ignored in favor of criticizing my word choices. I think people know what I mean despite using unpopular language.

[nycindie]

I'm sorry but I think the basic issues I was asking about are getting ignored in favor of criticizing my word choices. I think people know what I mean despite using unpopular language.Well instead of hoping people know what you mean when you say something else, why not say what you mean in the first fucking place?

[Indigomontoya]

Well, maybe I'm looking at it in a possessive way but it seems to me that if you tell someone that you can't be there for them tonight because you have a date with someone else, you are making them share you in a sense. Sorry for the pushy-sounding language. I guess I could use more neutral language and say that you would make yourself unavailable for them sometimes. I'm sorry but I think the basic issues I was asking about are getting ignored in favor of criticizing my word choices. I think people know what I mean despite using unpopular language.

It's not your word choice I object to, it's your contention that there's an almost adversarial relationship between a monogamous partner and a polyamorous partner. I have never been told that TP cannot spend time with me because she's out with someone else; likewise she has never told her boyfriend that she cannot spend time with him because of me. There's no arbitrary or unilateral decisions made, it's always a consensus and discussion.

Frankly, if anyone on this board had discussed a relationship that you're implying is common, the advice would be overwhelmingly that the behaviour is a problem. From my own experience and discussing these relationships on here I have found that there has to be a certain amount of buy in from all parties, it's a relationship not a contest to compare who gets more time.

And on another note I think many of the posters on this board object not to your choice of words but to the contents of your arguments. From the posts of your's I've read, all carry the same argumentative tone, gross generalizations, and near complete obstinence. A little diplomacy and open mindedness to other views can go a long way; otherwise your points will be lost under the moniker of a troll poster.

[serialmonogamist]

It's not your word choice I object to, it's your contention that there's an almost adversarial relationship between a monogamous partner and a polyamorous partner. I have never been told that TP cannot spend time with me because she's out with someone else; likewise she has never told her boyfriend that she cannot spend time with him because of me. There's no arbitrary or unilateral decisions made, it's always a consensus and discussion.

Frankly, if anyone on this board had discussed a relationship that you're implying is common, the advice would be overwhelmingly that the behaviour is a problem. From my own experience and discussing these relationships on here I have found that there has to be a certain amount of buy in from all parties, it's a relationship not a contest to compare who gets more time.

And on another note I think many of the posters on this board object not to your choice of words but to the contents of your arguments. From the posts of your's I've read, all carry the same argumentative tone, gross generalizations, and near complete obstinence. A little diplomacy and open mindedness to other views can go a long way; otherwise your points will be lost under the moniker of a troll poster.
I also dislike it when people use a conflict-avoidant tone and overdramatize a diplomatic attitude. Being open-minded, diplomatic, recognizing the uniqueness of individuals instead of assuming generalizations to be absolute, etc. are just givens to me. When I talk with people who accuse me of making absolute generalizations, it comes across as if they actually believe that such generalizations are possible. I don't. When discuss generalities, I always know that they are limited to only the people that fit the generality and not to others. There is always more than one person that fits any example and there are always many exceptions. That's just the reality of diversity.

If you don't identify with things I post about, I can understand you not wanting to discuss with me but why should you start attacking me like this? It feels like you are the one trolling me, trying to initiate bickering. I really don't want to bicker. Can you just limit your response to the content of my arguments? If you disagree, explain why, and if you just don't want to think about things in the way I do, why do you have to respond at all?

[NeonKaos]

So, you choose to come across as a douchebag, but since YOU know you're not REALLY being a douchebag, the rest of us are supposed to shrug and say, "He's ACTING like a douchebag, but he SAYS he ISN'T one, so we should believe him because such douchebaggery is not really possible"?

Is that it? Because I'm trying to understand. Maybe I'm just not as smart as you.

[Chimera]

Do I pass the quiz?



I was responding to what I disagreed with in your argument -- I perceived it as saying we all had the same instincts that we have to control and thought that it amounted to biological determinism.

Your response? Sarcasm.

Yeah, this is being a douchebag. You can't take people arguing back with you and are overly sensitive about the tone. Troll-like behavior. You don't care about the response, just the conflict.

[SourGirl]

So, you choose to come across as a douchebag, but since YOU know you're not REALLY being a douchebag, the rest of us are supposed to shrug and say, "He's ACTING like a douchebag, but he SAYS he ISN'T one, so we should believe him because such douchebaggery is not really possible"?

Is that it? Because I'm trying to understand.

LOL. Lub it.

Serialmonogamist - I rather enjoy the way you post, even if I don`t always agree.
However, the first rule of 'Blunt-Club', is you have to be able to take the bluntness right back. Its a two way street. You can state a opinion, you can debate, but you don't get to dictate how people receive the info, or where they go with it.

If you feel they get off topic,..ignore 'em. Carry on with the topic you are working with.

Because right now ? You are doing what you are blaming others for. Getting their panties in a twist over word useage.

There`s my 4 cents and a handshake.

[Indigomontoya]

Points taken, I apologize for my tone. I guess the tone triggered me as I have a brother who has a constant overbearing nature.

It would get very confusing for many monogamous people, I think, if they had to think about what it means to love someone enough to allow them to love other people as well. Doesn't it also confuse polyamorous people to know how to balance loving someone with making them share you? I would feel guilty being in a relationship with a devoted monogamous partner and having them tell me they love me enough to let me see other people while waiting patiently and not seeing anyone else themselves. Nevertheless I don't think anyone is truly incapable of polyamory. I just think they avoid acting on it because they figure the benefits of it wouldn't be worth the costs. But how can you accept the gift of monogamous devotion from someone else without loving them enough to want to return it? (sorry if that question sounds emotionally blackmailing. it's not meant that way - just something I've thought about)

I can understand what you mean here but I think there's a certain dysfunction in your model. Ultimately monogamy and polyamory take communication; and I would say polyamory requires much more open communication. From my own experience TP has been cognizant of when I felt jealous or hurt when we first opened up to poly; but any issues arose usually did so because I was not communicating my needs adequately to her, until they became such an issue that they were externally recognizable. In this case it was my own fault for not communicating what I needed; I did so for various reasons, guilt for feeling what I did, a want not to interfere in her new relationship, etc.

By human nature, and a certain amount of cultural mores we learn one should be enough; and that's the problem I had and have seen crop up time and again in new to poly discussions. Be it feeling greedy (on the poly side) or inadequate (on the mono side) it's all relative to the feedback in the relationship. For my part, jealousy and feelings of inadequacy are a secondary emotional response and once I recognized that it became more about communicating my needs and less about projecting onto my partner.

We do agree on the fact that humans are inherently nonmonogamous from a certain point of view. Mono has made good points regarding focusing on your partner exclusively; and you did about temptation, I think there's a middle ground for human nature and a matter of control. I've know some who claim to be monogamous and some that truly are, I am sure both have had temptations, but I don't think instinct governs us as much as is has in the past. Likewise I have seen polyamorous couples that are really not practicing polyamory just bad monogamy. As you said labels can be misleading and I would be hesitant to categorize any couple based on simple temptation.

[serialmonogamist]

LOL. Lub it.

Serialmonogamist - I rather enjoy the way you post, even if I don`t always agree.
However, the first rule of 'Blunt-Club', is you have to be able to take the bluntness right back. Its a two way street. You can state a opinion, you can debate, but you don't get to dictate how people receive the info, or where they go with it.

If you feel they get off topic,..ignore 'em. Carry on with the topic you are working with.

Because right now ? You are doing what you are blaming others for. Getting their panties in a twist over word useage.

There`s my 4 cents and a handshake.
Thanks, I think, for the positive feedback. I'm not sure that using "blunt" direct language automatically equals being mean and accepting people being mean in response. I believe you can disagree with people openly without making it personal. I don't feel anyone needs to apologize for disagreeing openly with anyone else, but I also don't think they should make/take it personally. It makes me feel sad/guilty when I notice that others have taken offense to something I've said, but I also don't feel I should take responsibility for someone else's emotional reaction just because it occurred while reading my words. I do think I should take responsibility for my words and intentions in using them, and I think other people should do the same.


I was responding to what I disagreed with in your argument -- I perceived it as saying we all had the same instincts that we have to control and thought that it amounted to biological determinism.

Your response? Sarcasm.
Sorry if I came across as sarcastic. I actually avoid sarcasm because I find it manipulative. Are you referring to the "quiz" comment? That was just a little joke because I felt like my post sounded like a quiz answer. I think it is actually really important for people to be aware of determinism and actively resist thinking in terms of determinism because it obfuscates awareness of free-will, imo.

Yeah, this is being a douchebag. You can't take people arguing back with you and are overly sensitive about the tone. Troll-like behavior. You don't care about the response, just the conflict.
This is the first time I've been called a "douchebag." It's not nice. Why can't we just keep these discussions at the level of our thoughts and opinions and avoid accusations? If someone's feelings get hurt, why can't they state that without immediately blaming? I agree that being oversensitive is a bomb of sorts, but you also have to be honest about what you feel, don't you, instead of hiding it because you're afraid to come off as oversensitive?


So, you choose to come across as a douchebag, but since YOU know you're not REALLY being a douchebag, the rest of us are supposed to shrug and say, "He's ACTING like a douchebag, but he SAYS he ISN'T one, so we should believe him because such douchebaggery is not really possible"?
Look, I don't know you or anyone else well enough to know why I would be coming across one way or another. I do know that some people consider anyone who doesn't express submissiveness toward others as being aggressive or rude. I don't have this view. I see people as equals who can state thing directly without bowing/kneeling to someone else symbolically first. Usually, in my observation, people who behave submissively aren't aware that it is submissive and instead they just experience all non-submissive behavior as offensive. I don't think it's fair to react against me because I don't use a submissive tone by default. I'm not being aggressive toward anyone.

Is that it? Because I'm trying to understand. Maybe I'm just not as smart as you.
Come on, you're smart enough to know that saying something like this is emotionally blackmailing.

[Derbylicious]

Sorry if this shifts the topic of the thread too much but I was wondering what people thought about cheating when people are so good at lying and covering their tracks (or you're so bad at espionage) that they never get caught or confess. I have the idea that this may happen a lot more than people think but it also seems like paranoia to think that. Considering that monogamy is so strictly expected in mainstream culture, it just makes sense to me that people naturally develop strategies for cheating and getting away with it. Or do most people just learn to control themselves and get used to monogamy? How would you know, really?

Going back to the original question, I think part of keeping affairs hidden is that the party who is being cheated on sometimes wilfully refuses to see the signs that something is going on. People can make up all the stories they want to cover their tracks but there are almost always signs that something is out of the ordinary.

Cheating probably happens much more than people admit to. I hazard a guess that even on anonymous surveys that not everyone answers honestly about past affairs. I think both parties have to subconsciously want the cheating party to get away with it though. I wonder if that comes from a place of not wanting to have to make the decision to end the relationship if the truth comes out.

[serialmonogamist]

Going back to the original question, I think part of keeping affairs hidden is that the party who is being cheated on sometimes wilfully refuses to see the signs that something is going on. People can make up all the stories they want to cover their tracks but there are almost always signs that something is out of the ordinary.

Cheating probably happens much more than people admit to. I hazard a guess that even on anonymous surveys that not everyone answers honestly about past affairs. I think both parties have to subconsciously want the cheating party to get away with it though. I wonder if that comes from a place of not wanting to have to make the decision to end the relationship if the truth comes out.
Good points. I think there's also some fear of openly questioning your partners behavior because it makes you seem suspicious and distrustful. I've heard people say that if their partner keeps asking them about affairs, they are going to have one. Or there's the person I saw on the TV show, Cheaters, who yelled at her bf that he better have proof if he's going to accuse her of cheating while meanwhile they were filming her going to meet her other bf for an affair.

It's really sad how much negativity within 'monogamous' relationships comes from the desire and pursuit of what I think are natural polyamorous feelings (sorry if I shouldn't be using "polyamorous" to refer to just plain sexual desire to be with multiple people - if there's another word for that, please let me know). I'm not interested in polyamory as much for the actual prospect of having multiple relationships simultaneously as I am because it saddens me that desire has to lead to dishonesty and cruelty between people who otherwise (do or have) loved each other.

[redpepper]

It's really sad how much negativity within 'monogamous' relationships comes from the desire and pursuit of what I think are natural polyamorous feelings (sorry if I shouldn't be using "polyamorous" to refer to just plain sexual desire to be with multiple people - if there's another word for that, please let me know). I'm not interested in polyamory as much for the actual prospect of having multiple relationships simultaneously as I am because it saddens me that desire has to lead to dishonesty and cruelty between people who otherwise (do or have) loved each other.I don't think I am getting what you are saying here. Could you rephrase this? I think you are saying that all poly relationships seem to come from the desire to cheat. Is that it?

[serialmonogamist]

I don't think I am getting what you are saying here. Could you rephrase this? I think you are saying that all poly relationships seem to come from the desire to cheat. Is that it?
All I was saying is that I think when people are in monogamous relationships, they sometimes/often feel some level of attraction or interest in others and this can go as far as they let it. However, because monogamous culture renders such feelings/actions taboo in various ways, they end up leading to negativity.

So I'm not saying anything about poly relationships. I'm talking about repressed desire for extra-monogamous contact causing problems within monogamy and that polyamory could present a way to express extra-monogamous desires without all the negativity of cheating and suspicion/policing of cheating.

It feels like people keep responding to me as if I'm accusing polyamory of being some variation of cheating or swinging. I think this is because I generally take a continuum approach to most forms of human behavior. I'm less interested in establishing the differences between polyamory and cheating, swinging, etc. as I am in looking at how people's attitudes toward relationship-control influence the way they feel about and treat each other. Does that make sense?

[redpepper]

All I was saying is that I think when people are in monogamous relationships, they sometimes/often feel some level of attraction or interest in others and this can go as far as they let it. However, because monogamous culture renders such feelings/actions taboo in various ways, they end up leading to negativity.

So I'm not saying anything about poly relationships. I'm talking about repressed desire for extra-monogamous contact causing problems within monogamy and that polyamory could present a way to express extra-monogamous desires without all the negativity of cheating and suspicion/policing of cheating.Oh okay.
Some people actually don't want the hassle of their wife/husband knowing about their extra curricular activities... they actually get off on the taboo and see their deception as their right, because... well I don't know if I could hazard a guess really. I find it hard to empathize.
It feels like people keep responding to me as if I'm accusing polyamory of being some variation of cheating or swinging. I think this is because I generally take a continuum approach to most forms of human behavior. I'm less interested in establishing the differences between polyamory and cheating, swinging, etc. as I am in looking at how people's attitudes toward relationship-control influence the way they feel about and treat each other. Does that make sense?
For the record, I was just asking you to clarify. I find the way you say things hard to understand. :) thanks for doing that. I was hoping you would clarify before I replied.

[serialmonogamist]

Oh okay.
Some people actually don't want the hassle of their wife/husband knowing about their extra curricular activities... they actually get off on the taboo and see their deception as their right, because... well I don't know if I could hazard a guess really. I find it hard to empathize.
Yes, I can get into analyzing the darker side of human relations, often somewhat cynically though always with some hope for better understanding and finding the silver lining. It actually occurred to me during a breakup once that the self-confidence and self-esteem you get from being in a secure relationship empowers you to be able to put yourself out there successfully for other relationships. I.e. it's easier to date (licitly or illicitly) when you're in a relationship. So if two monogamous people are in a relationship, they are both empowered to have affairs, in a way, yet the first one to find out about the other one cheating is going to be disempowered by the broken heart and have a hard time trusting enough to date for some time. So it's like you need to be in a relationship to get the pleasure of cheating, and taking advantage of your power takes away the same power from your partner. So it's pretty amazing to me that you can see the connection between love, power, pleasure, and sacrifice - interesting but disturbing imo.

For the record, I was just asking you to clarify. I find the way you say things hard to understand. :) thanks for doing that. I was hoping you would clarify before I replied.
Thanks for framing your trouble understanding me as an "I" message. People tell me I write too complexly sometimes but it makes me defensive when they use terms like "gibberish" and "word salad." I try to express things on a general level and it waters down my meanings and gives the wrong impressions sometimes.

[GroundedSpirit]

............ So if two monogamous people are in a relationship, they are both empowered to have affairs, in a way, yet the first one to find out about the other one cheating is going to be disempowered by the broken heart and have a hard time trusting enough to date for some time. So it's like you need to be in a relationship to get the pleasure of cheating, and taking advantage of your power takes away the same power from your partner. So it's pretty amazing to me that you can see the connection between love, power, pleasure, and sacrifice - interesting but disturbing imo.

I get what you are trying to say here. But I think it either is - or could be interpreted to be an overly simplistic picture.

'Cheating' has as many causes and variations as every other human dynamic. For a certain percentage I'm sure there is this empowerment you speak of. But by definition - you HAVE to be in a relationship TO cheat ! At least I can't bring to mind a way to cheat on ourselves (except our core values). Yes, I think for some percentage there is a certain thrill in cheating, no different than there is a thrill in anything taboo. But for most people who cheat (I believe) it's really more a move of necessity than thrill seeking. It's not because of empowerment, control dynamics, or anything else. It's a questions of happiness and emotional defense.

GS

[serialmonogamist]

I get what you are trying to say here. But I think it either is - or could be interpreted to be an overly simplistic picture.

'Cheating' has as many causes and variations as every other human dynamic. For a certain percentage I'm sure there is this empowerment you speak of. But by definition - you HAVE to be in a relationship TO cheat ! At least I can't bring to mind a way to cheat on ourselves (except our core values). Yes, I think for some percentage there is a certain thrill in cheating, no different than there is a thrill in anything taboo. But for most people who cheat (I believe) it's really more a move of necessity than thrill seeking. It's not because of empowerment, control dynamics, or anything else. It's a questions of happiness and emotional defense.

GS
Fortunately or unfortunately, it is possible to live without sex. It can be very difficult, especially when it is readily available and/or you are used to having it regularly, like food or other kinds of recreation/interaction. So I wouldn't quite go so far as to say cheating is need-driven, though it may be frustration-driven. E.g. if you were in a situation where the only way for you to get sex was to cheat on your partner unprotected and contract HIV, would you succumb to the 'need?'

Can people cheat on themselves? If you were committed to celibacy, you could cheat on yourself and experience the same feelings of guilt and sadness but I think you would be more convinced that you were hurting yourself because you would only feel like you were cheating yourself. I guess the exception could be if you had the idea that you were doing it for God and you felt alienated from God, like s/he/it was some completely separate being that demanded things of you against your own interest. I have heard of priests/nuns, for example, who break their celibacy vows and I can imagine this could feel very exciting if they don't view celibacy as being part of their own spiritual enrichment but rather as a tiresome rule to follow with no positive benefit.

I think cheating feels best in monogamy when one has the sense that they are being controlled by their partner or by monogamous culture generally. In that case, cheating could feel like an assertion of self-fidelity against repressive external social control. When you feel like you're hurting your partner, your children, or others with it, I think it's more of a guilt-ridden act than a liberating feeling. I feel bad for people who simultaneously feel repressed by monogamy and guilty for transcending it covertly. It must be very confusing.

[redpepper]

it makes me defensive when they use terms like "gibberish" and "word salad." hee heee he. "word salad" :D Ahem, sorry, that is just really funny. :p please excuse me ;)

[serialmonogamist]

hee heee he. "word salad" :D Ahem, sorry, that is just really funny. :p please excuse me ;)

See, you laughing at that makes me defensive because it is hard to express thoughts sometimes and I end up going on and on with words trying to explain. "Word salad" is a mean term because it implies schizophrenia in the writer/speaker. It would be like calling polyamory an STD swap meet, pervert asylum, or something else that associated it with sickness.

[BrigidsDaughter]

"Word salad" is a mean term because it implies schizophrenia in the writer/speaker. It would be like calling polyamory an STD swap meet, pervert asylum, or something else that associated it with sickness.

I've never heard of "word salad" implying schizophrenia in the writer/ speaker. To me "word salad" comes about when a speaker/ writer is nervous. It's like the over talking one sometimes does to fill uncomfortable silences or when one's mind is moving faster than their tongue.

I did look up the actual definition and it says that "word salad" CAN indicate a mental health issue, such as schizophrenia or dementia. Words can be taken in many contexts and can offend people based on their experience, whether the speaker intended offense or not. Words themselves cannot be mean. It appears to me that you have had a negative experience with this phrase, to be so offended at RP's laughter.

[nycindie]

"Word salad" is a mean term because it implies schizophrenia in the writer/speaker.

Never heard that connotation, and I have a very close relative who is schizophrenic. I wouldn't consider it mean to be called schizophrenic, either. My schizophrenic relative is a lovely person, just has an imbalance in the brain.

[redpepper]

See, you laughing at that makes me defensive because it is hard to express thoughts sometimes and I end up going on and on with words trying to explain. "Word salad" is a mean term because it implies schizophrenia in the writer/speaker. It would be like calling polyamory an STD swap meet, pervert asylum, or something else that associated it with sickness.
Hm. Sorry you took it this way. I thought it rather endearing actually. I thought it was sort of a cute term for someone who is tongue tied and attempting to get their words out. It reminded me of someone who has butterflies around someone they have a crush on. Kind of an expression you would use by saying, "she was so nervous around him her words were like tossed salad." Heh, :D sorry, I had never heard this term before. I still like it my way. Can we take it back? Like taking the words "fag" and "slut" back? Well... Maybe not if its a legit term of some kind.

[serialmonogamist]

Hm. Sorry you took it this way. I thought it rather endearing actually. I thought it was sort of a cute term for someone who is tongue tied and attempting to get their words out. It reminded me of someone who has butterflies around someone they have a crush on. Kind of an expression you would use by saying, "she was so nervous around him her words were like tossed salad." Heh, :D sorry, I had never heard this term before. I still like it my way. Can we take it back? Like taking the words "fag" and "slut" back? Well... Maybe not if its a legit term of some kind.

That's actually a very lovely thought, RP, that word salad could be related to excitement and anticipation. I will mention that from now on when I'm discussing the phenomenon/symptom of "word salad" in schizophrenia. Indeed, people may be feeling very excited about something they want to share and they just can't calm down enough to express it in a deliberate, clear way. Really insightful on your part.

Sure, let's take all mean, ugly words back. The only problem is that the more you avoid using such terms, the more powerful they become to you and the people who never hear you use them. I found this out the hard way by avoiding the words, "bitch" and "whore," for years as being offensively misogynistic. People were always using these words in casual ways around me, though, and I found myself thinking a lot about what they meant and the concepts behind them as well as the sexist ideologies. To make a long story short, when I finally started trying to use them in casual ways as well, all the negativity I had projected onto them in avoiding them came out in my usage and offended and hurt some people. Afterward, I could explain to them why I used those words and why they're not casual concepts to me, but taking it back doesn't change what I was thinking or why it hurt their feelings for me to express it.

That said, I'm already over you laughing at the "word salad" thing. I just knew I get defensive about it so I said so. It's great when people can communicate clearly without stammering, but I guess I go on the offensive when I think someone might be putting down us stammering fools :)

[redpepper]

I guess I go on the offensive when I think someone might be putting down us stammering fools :)my dad stammers/stutters. I have to admit, I do have a soft spot ;)

[serialmonogamist]

my dad stammers/stutters. I have to admit, I do have a soft spot ;)
You should watch the King's Speech if you haven't already.

[redpepper]

You should watch the King's Speech if you haven't already.Awesome movie! My dad went opening night. That NEVER happens :)