Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Poly Relationships Corner

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 12-10-2013, 07:39 PM
AnnabelMore's Avatar
AnnabelMore AnnabelMore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebird View Post
I met someone this weekend who described himself as very happily married to a gorgeous woman. They have a one year old. He told me he would love to be poly, but his wife would never let him. He said he is determined to be faithful and never cheat, until he does. "Because, let's face it, I don't really want to be a cheater but it will happen when it is going to happen. I am faithful until the time arises when I am not."

I was like, okaaaay.
*rolls eyes* And I'm a vegetarian between cheeseburgers.
__________________
Me, 30ish bi female, been doing solo poly for roughly 5 years. Gia, Clay, and Pike, my partners. Davis, ex/friend/"it's complicated." Eric, Gia's husband. Bee, Gia and Eric's toddler.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-11-2013, 06:43 AM
Azzy Azzy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 17
Default

Well, I'm not very experienced with poly, but my last three relationships were with gentlemen I met online, so I thought I might offer my own experience here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bofish View Post
I've been going through this thing where 60-70% of the men who contact me are married. This happened even when I expressly ask for no married men. I generally try dating on cupid or craigslist.

Does this happen to other women a lot?
The percentage of married men who contact me is quite a lot lower, but I think that is mostly because I am younger, so most men my age just aren't married. But yes, some guys who visit my profile do seem like they are there to cheat. I just do not respond to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bofish View Post
How do you avoid these men?
I ask questions and try to understand a man or woman's situation before I get involved with them. I will not get involved with someone who is currently cheating or has cheated in the past, or someone who will not give me information about their circumstances. Of course, anyone could still be lying to me, but I want to at least make it harder for them. To my knowledge, I have not been with a cheater or been cheated on yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bofish View Post
Are you ever tempted to get involved?
No. Just thinking about cheating is emotionally triggering for me. My mother cheated on my father when I was a child, and he pulled a knife on her when he found out. Then their relationship became even more abusive on both sides, and they got a divorce.

My mother proceeded to cheat on almost every man she dated for the rest of her life, and also physically abuse some of them. When I was 12, for example, she cheated on two men with each other, then had no idea who my half-sister's father was, and apparently decided not to abort based on an incorrect assumption. Once it had been confirmed her assumption was wrong, she asked the incorrect "father," who was cheating on his own wife, to sign the birth certificate anyway so that she could deny parental rights to the actual biological father. The biological father fought a legal battle to gain any rights over his child. Now my little sister gets a new father figure every time my mother cheats on a guy and I cannot help because she threatens me with violence if I try to interfere.

As for my father, he never dated or, to my knowledge, became physically or emotionally intimate again after being cheated on. He seemed to believe that most women cheat and often said misogynistic things. He disowned me at 14, after I told him I was sexually interested in women, then left the country and stopped paying child support. That was the last time I saw him.

Sorry if that was TMI. I just feel sick if I dwell on cheaters or cheating. Even typing this is making my heartbeat feel irregular.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bofish View Post
Where do you meet folks?
If you mean where do I meet folks online, I generally join online forums or communities that relate to my interests or hobbies and end up getting to know people there. That also allows friendship to develop first, and ensures that I have something in common with people I meet. This is probably not the best choice for casual encounters, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bofish View Post
Also, if you have dated a cheater, can you ever be friends?
I do not know, as I would not want to be friends with a cheater, since just the thought of cheating is upsetting to me, as explained above.

Also, I wanted to reply to this post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bofish View Post
I read an article recently in which researcher Eric Anderson interviewed a number of college-aged men who were in ostensibly monogamous heterosexual relationships of at least 2 years' duration (past the NRE stage). Almost all of the interviewees expressed a desire to have sex with people other than their partners. Roughly half of the interviewees acted on that desire at some point during the study. (The stronger the expressed desire for sex outside the relationship, the likelier the interviewee was to act on it.)
Thank you for posting about this article. I had never seen it before, but I looked up information about it after reading your post.

Here is a link that tells more about the study, if other readers are curious: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vicki-...b_1170015.html

While it is certainly interesting, my issue is that is Dr. Anderson still seems to be speaking from a monogamist perspective himself, at least according to the interview.

For example, he writes:
Quote:
Rather than marrying 20 times or more in one's life via serial monogamy, we can keep one emotional lover and just have casual, meaningless -- and hot -- sex with strangers. This gives us the long-term emotional stability we desire psychologically, alongside the hot, carnal sex we desire somatically.
But what about people who want or have more than one "emotional" lover? From what I have seen, that is the situation that many people on the forum are in, including me. Isn't it basically monogamist to say that "we" desire "long-term emotional stability" with "one emotional lover"?

Also, here's another direct quote from the interview:

Quote:
People in open relationships structure their engagements as to reduce emotional intimacy. But, yes, of course it can happen. What I find from those in open relationships, however, is that once they have had sex with that person they fancied, they tend to get over them.
If we really want to prevent our lovers from developing the lust of others, or worse, emotional intimacy with others...
Wow, that's quite a lot of generalizations. People in open relationships structure their engagements as to reduce emotional intimacy? There seem to be many exceptions to that on the forums here. People's fancy for others diminishes after sex? It is "worse" for a lover to have "emotional intimacy" with someone else than sex?

That certainly sounds like it comes from an emotionally and romantically monogamous perspective.

Anyway, I still really enjoyed reading the about the study; I just wanted to comment on the fact that apparently even people studying exceptions to monogamy seem to be doing so from an essentially monogamist standpoint.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-11-2013, 01:10 PM
Magdlyn's Avatar
Magdlyn Magdlyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Metro West Massachusetts
Posts: 3,774
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azzy View Post

Here is a link that tells more about the study, if other readers are curious: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vicki-...b_1170015.html

While it is certainly interesting, my issue is that is Dr. Anderson still seems to be speaking from a monogamist perspective himself, at least according to the interview...


But what about people who want or have more than one "emotional" lover? From what I have seen, that is the situation that many people on the forum are in, including me. Isn't it basically monogamist to say that "we" desire "long-term emotional stability" with "one emotional lover"?
Yes.


Quote:
Wow, that's quite a lot of generalizations. People in open relationships structure their engagements as to reduce emotional intimacy? There seem to be many exceptions to that on the forums here. People's fancy for others diminishes after sex? It is "worse" for a lover to have "emotional intimacy" with someone else than sex?

That certainly sounds like it comes from an emotionally and romantically monogamous perspective.

...apparently even people studying exceptions to monogamy seem to be doing so from an essentially monogamist standpoint.
The conclusions he draws from his study are really stupid. What a waste of time.
__________________
Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve. -- Shelley

me: Mags, 59, living with:
miss pixi, 37
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-11-2013, 01:19 PM
Bluebird's Avatar
Bluebird Bluebird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maryland
Posts: 586
Default

I WANT emotional intimacy with my sexual partners. I desire my partners MORE after a sexual encounter. I don't think I am an aberration.
__________________
Unapologetically Poly

Hinge in a poly-fi vee with two mono men
Wife to DarkKnight, Girlfriend to PunkRockAwesomesauce
My Online Journal
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-11-2013, 06:40 PM
Garriguette's Avatar
Garriguette Garriguette is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 63
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magdlyn View Post
Yes.

The conclusions he draws from his study are really stupid. What a waste of time.
I think the study itself is much more interesting and nuanced than the Huffpo blog post describing it.

For instance, in the study itself, I didn't read Anderson as agreeing with the idea that emotional infidelity was more inherently destabilizing to a monogamous relationship than sexual infidelity. I read him as saying, "Some monogamous people feel more threatened if their partners have an intense emotional connection to a third party than if their partners have a sexual connection to a third party." Which is true: Some people feel that way. Generally, people on this forum do not.

Looking at the study itself, I noticed that a lot of what seemed to make it harder for the men interviewed to negotiate for a non-monogamous relationship (let alone a poly one) fell under the heading of unexamined assumptions on their own parts-- about what it means to be a man or woman in the U.S., about what it means to love someone, about where emotional security comes from.

It seems to me that actually addressing those assumptions would make the men interviewed better capable of navigating any relationship or set of relationships-- poly, non-monogamous, or mono.

But that's not going to be news to anyone who's already excavated their own assumptions about romantic and/or sexual relationships.
__________________
Mid 30s, mono.
Partnered with Xicot (poly-curious) since 2004.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-11-2013, 10:26 PM
Azzy Azzy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garriguette View Post
I think the study itself is much more interesting and nuanced than the Huffpo blog post describing it.
After reading this, I decided to look up a different study by Anderson myself, and you are certainly correct.

Considering his own nuanced views, I wonder why Anderson seemingly chose to give such relatively conventional interview answers.

It reminds me of what Noam Chomsky said regarding media sound bites:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noam Chomsky
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
But maybe I am reading too much into this.

Oh, and here is a link to the entire study I found, for those who are interested: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qqg2bteg4...onships%5D.pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garriguette View Post
For instance, in the study itself, I didn't read Anderson as agreeing with the idea that emotional infidelity was more inherently destabilizing to a monogamous relationship than sexual infidelity. I read him as saying, "Some monogamous people feel more threatened if their partners have an intense emotional connection to a third party than if their partners have a sexual connection to a third party." Which is true: Some people feel that way. Generally, people on this forum do not.
In the study I read, which Anderson titled "'At least with cheating there is an attempt at monogamy’': Cheating and monogamism among undergraduate heterosexual men"...well...Anderson decided to specifically exclude "emotional affairs" altogether.

His reasoning was as follows:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garriguette View Post
Emotional monogamy reflects that of dyadic romance only. Thus, having sex with a stranger would not violate this type of monogamy, but having an emotional affair would. This category is the most complex for discussing monogamy because it includes a variety of types of affairs (work, friendship, on-line, and so forth) and because it might also potentially include polyamory, as well as considering definitional problems associated with the difference between friendship and a sexual and/or romantic relationship...
Basically, it seems that Anderson considered the "emotional affair" too complicated to include in his research, which is certainly understandable. I do wish it had been included, most likely because the person I have been in a non-sexual but romantic "secondary relationship" with is an exact demographic match to Anderson's participants in this particular study But, I can certainly see how including "emotional infidelity" would have made the interviews quite a lot more complicated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garriguette View Post
Looking at the study itself, I noticed that a lot of what seemed to make it harder for the men interviewed to negotiate for a non-monogamous relationship (let alone a poly one) fell under the heading of unexamined assumptions on their own parts-- about what it means to be a man or woman in the U.S., about what it means to love someone, about where emotional security comes from.
Well, we're discussing a different study, but yeah, there were still a lot of unexamined assumptions on the part of participants in the study I linked as well, perhaps most glaringly in the fact that even participants who cheated seemingly hated the thought of their partners having any type of extra-dyadic sexual interactions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garriguette View Post
It seems to me that actually addressing those assumptions would make the men interviewed better capable of navigating any relationship or set of relationships-- poly, non-monogamous, or mono.

But that's not going to be news to anyone who's already excavated their own assumptions about romantic and/or sexual relationships.
True!

Also, I see that I accidentally quoted you as bofish earlier, since I started out by responding to her post. Sorry about that.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-12-2013, 01:31 PM
Magdlyn's Avatar
Magdlyn Magdlyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Metro West Massachusetts
Posts: 3,774
Default

I really disliked the assumption that "of course, sex dies in a relationship after 2 years." I just find this such a silly statement! Lots and lots of partnered people still desire their partners after 2, 5, 10 or 20 years.

Yes, NRE dies. As it must and should. But sexual desire is not just based on newness. It could be based on love! Imagine that. Sexual desire can wax and wane in a LTR, of course, but that doesn't mean it's dead, never to be resurrected again. It's just sleeping!

And even if your sexual desire for your mate does die after 2 years, does that mean the next inevitable step is, "Well, Ima go get me some strange, behind my loved one's back"?

Maybe that works for undergraduate "men," ie, people with the emotional abilities of a gnat. For people with a skosh of maturity, I do not think cheating ever should be the socially accepted default after 2 years of a relationship.
__________________
Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve. -- Shelley

me: Mags, 59, living with:
miss pixi, 37
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:26 AM.