Polyamory.com Forum

Polyamory.com Forum (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/index.php)
-   Poly Relationships Corner (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Epilogue (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3784)

ThatRomanticGeek 09-24-2010 12:29 AM

Epilogue
 
Hey folks! Remember me from here and here?

I just wanted to pop in to say that Michelle and I have reached a pretty good place. I think Mono was right, I am a serial monogamist. I'm not sure how I'm going to adjust to this, since I love Michelle being her polyamorous self, but at least I can dial down the angst a bit.

I miss Bree terribly. I haven't heard from her in weeks. I suspect she's licking her wounds and focusing on classwork. I'm surprised we're not talking at all. I hope she's not mad at me, and, maybe I'm too optimistic, I still hold out hope for a rekindling. Eventually.

Anyway, I've chronicled the whole thing over at YourTango. Take a read, let me know what you think.

FYI, I changed the pseudonyms for the blog:

Natalie = Bree
Allison = Michelle
Rafael = Ralph

sage 09-24-2010 07:33 AM

Glad that you seem to have found a happier place. Interested though in how you see "serial monogamy" working long term? Can serial monogamy be a positive thing?

redpepper 09-24-2010 08:01 AM

I think basically serial monogamy is just what people in general are. It is extremely rare that a person only is intimate with one person in their lives. Sure, the time between partners is longer of some, but most people seem to go from one partner to another, to another.

Tonberry 09-24-2010 08:45 AM

I think you need to make a distinction between the NRE addicts who are serial monogamists on the short-term, and "regular" serial monogamy as is the most common form of monogamy (up to years with a person, more than one partner during your lifetime).
I'm pretty sure ThatRomanticGeek means he is the latter, not the former.

ThatRomanticGeek 09-24-2010 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tonberry (Post 45693)
I think you need to make a distinction between the NRE addicts who are serial monogamists on the short-term, and "regular" serial monogamy as is the most common form of monogamy (up to years with a person, more than one partner during your lifetime).
I'm pretty sure ThatRomanticGeek means he is the latter, not the former.


Yep, that's the conclusion I'm drawing.

Wish Michelle/Allison and I had been able to recognize that and discuss it with Bree/Natalie before it was too late. Sigh.

Lemondrop 09-24-2010 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redpepper (Post 45686)
I think basically serial monogamy is just what people in general are. It is extremely rare that a person only is intimate with one person in their lives. Sure, the time between partners is longer of some, but most people seem to go from one partner to another, to another.

Redpepper, the definition I'd heard for serial monogamy was someone who sought out monogamous relationships, but eventually would seek out a new person and cheat. Then the first relationship would go down in flames, the serial monogamist would swear to be faithful to the new love, and then repeat the cycle. I don't see that as quite the same as someone who has more than one monogamous relationship in their lifetime.

redpepper 09-24-2010 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemondrop (Post 45726)
Redpepper, the definition I'd heard for serial monogamy was someone who sought out monogamous relationships, but eventually would seek out a new person and cheat. Then the first relationship would go down in flames, the serial monogamist would swear to be faithful to the new love, and then repeat the cycle. I don't see that as quite the same as someone who has more than one monogamous relationship in their lifetime.

At the debate I went to the other night about "is monogamy natural" this is what was come up with; that our society is about serial monogamy, which includes what I talked about and also what you have said lemondrop. Humans apparently, according to those debating, as far as I could tell, were saying that we fall in and out of love through out or lives. We don't just once. That can be in a short period of time which can lead to cheating or long term where we might have a long term relationship and then break up and find someone else. The point being that the feelings are the same and common.

redsirenn 09-24-2010 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sage (Post 45683)
Can serial monogamy be a positive thing?

I don't see why not?

I think that this form of monogamy can have its pluses and minuses as well. You still spend time with one person at a time, learn their inner workings without distraction of another relationship, and then move on when you discover that either you are not as compatible as you should be to stay together, or things just didn't work out.

Then you try again.

This behaviour has given me the opportunity to learn what I want in my romantic (and platonic) relationships and to seek those traits in people. If something doesn't work with someone, and yet I or they want to remain mono, then we can break it off in search of what will work "better".

In the end, It is just another relationship style that WORKS for some people. The problem with any relationship comes when you are not being honest with your self or your partner. I don't understand why people shame serial monogamy as if it is a bad thing. It's just different!

redsirenn 09-24-2010 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redpepper (Post 45731)
Humans apparently, according to those debating, as far as I could tell, were saying that we fall in and out of love through out or lives. We don't just once.

Some people do just once, and some don't ever.

I understand your generalization here is not purposeful, RP. But, I think it is important to always note and be aware that everyone works differently. Some view love differently than others and just that can make it impossible to love twice in a lifetime. Others - as you know - do find that possible.

One thing that I have learned through my adventures with O and on this forum is to never think that something HAS to be the way it is. I can shape my own relationships, others can too. Nothing is better than another, and nothing is the same. Anything is possible, and to be open minded means understanding that this is truly the case.

redpepper 09-24-2010 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redsirenn (Post 45736)
Some people do just once, and some don't ever.

I understand your generalization here is not purposeful, RP. But, I think it is important to always note and be aware that everyone works differently. Some view love differently than others and just that can make it impossible to love twice in a lifetime. Others - as you know - do find that possible.

One thing that I have learned through my adventures with O and on this forum is to never think that something HAS to be the way it is. I can shape my own relationships, others can too. Nothing is better than another, and nothing is the same. Anything is possible, and to be open minded means understanding that this is truly the case.

Oh I I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I'm just saying that these profs of evolutionary psychology were coming up with this conclusion about monogamy as being more of the serial variety than otherwise at this debate. That that was somehow more natural. Of course it was being debated if monogamy is natural and serial monogamy is what they thought was more on the natural side.

Of course its totally a generalization. I thought I indicated that in saying that there is some what of a scale. Maybe not. *shrug* :)


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:08 AM.