Cheating vs. Polyamory: Merged Threads, General Discussion

I'll look into the clicker technique more in depth. Heard of it, it sounds like a lot of fun.

This is the thing, it can be utterly true for you that open relationships are the only way to go while being utterly true for me that monogamous relationships are the only way to go. And also utterly true that one or both of us may totally reverse our position at some point in the future.

I suspect we have very different experiences and backgrounds. We don't operate in exactly the same world as each other. I'm thinking that you are male and I'm female. Men and women are socialised totally differently and that must have an impact. I'd guess too that we are different ages. I'm 41. How old are you? I think you are in the US? I grew up in Scotland. Our cultures are similar but not exactly the same.

These things can shift people's world views sufficiently that very different conclusions can be drawn about the same world.

I'm 28, and I grew up and live in Spain, but I've been to other places. I doubt the culture surrounding me has had a strong effect on my world view (other than the culture that surrounds me by choice). I'm highly critical of societal norms and strive to pursue my own superior values, whether these coincide or not with common understanding. I'm a highly rational person; a good brief description I like of my personality is (although a disputable assessment) Myers-Briggs Type Indicator's INTJ. I understand the priceless value of empathy & legitimize or ignore my emotions through logic / valid reasoning, without which I would not be able to function properly.

So far I have seen this type of personality or manner of approaching life is not common in women, for whatever reasons. Women are more complex.
 
I doubt the culture surrounding me has had a strong effect on my world view (other than the culture that surrounds me by choice).

Interesting. :) I, on the other hand, don't see how the culture surrounding you could fail to have an effect on you. As I said before, the evidence to suggest influence from culture is overwhelming.

Men in Western cultures are very strongly socialised into believing that they are rational, logical and able to control their emotions through thought. You might find some interest in the book Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine.

She talks much about how studies have been manipulated and misreported to make it appear that men are 'naturally' more rational. She also discusses at length why it is that even where parents try hard, it is impossible to raise children without them becoming affected by the influences of wider society.

I'd go further and say that it is impossible for any of us to live as adults (without taking drastic steps to avoid society) without being impacted on by the society that we live in.

a good brief description I like of my personality is (although a disputable assessment) Myers-Briggs Type Indicator's INTJ.

I have absolutely no idea about how I would test according to the Myers-Briggs measure. I do know that I have a tendency towards being logical as well as a lengthy amount of experience in exercising that tendency.

I earn my living programming computers. As computers only understand true and false and operate only under the strict rules of formal logic, I have a very good grasp of it. It's something that is useful in wider life too and yes, useful when thinking through and understanding where emotions may be coming from.

Still, being able to think emotion through and understand it, does not, in my experience necessarily lead to it disappearing. Additional work is required. I believe that we should always be suspicious and critical of our beliefs about ourselves and how well we deal with things.

In addition, unlike computers, human beings are very strongly influenced by our physiology. Our though processes, our bodies, everything about us comes under strong physiological influence. Our minds don't control our bodies however much we might like to think otherwise. It's an old book now, but Candace Pert writes about this beautifully and in lots of detail in her book Molecules of Emotion

So far I have seen this type of personality or manner of approaching life is not common in women, for whatever reasons. Women are more complex.

My experience is different. I work with loads of women who are logical and rational. I agree that it may be unusual but there is no mystery in that - see Cordelia Fine for details.

There are reason why there tend not to be many women programmers (my workplace is very unusual in having so many women) and it, I can assure you, is not because women are mysteriously not suited for that sort of work.

IP
 
Still, being able to think emotion through and understand it, does not, in my experience necessarily lead to it disappearing. [...]

In addition, unlike computers, human beings are very strongly influenced by our physiology. Our though processes, our bodies, everything about us comes under strong physiological influence. Our minds don't control our bodies however much we might like to think otherwise. [...]

There are reason why there tend not to be many women programmers (my workplace is very unusual in having so many women) and it, I can assure you, is not because women are mysteriously not suited for that sort of work.

I was reading an article on Times magazine as I wrote my previous post, "The Real Reason Women Are Underrepresented in Math and Science". "One overlooked factor is that among males and females of comparably outstanding mathematical aptitude, females are more likely to also have outstanding verbal ability. So guys choose math careers because they have fewer other options. [...] Historically, women have preferred careers that center around living things, rather than inanimate ideas or objects. In 2009, about 27% of math PhDs were women, but more than three-quarters of veterinary graduates were women, for example."

One thing I'm pretty sure I can at least partially attribute to external influence is me not liking women, (and I don't mean disliking women, but feeling detached with them). I'm an introvert, I spend a lot of time at home, and for years the biggest reference I've had of a female is my mother. She is someone I do not like as a daily person. She is bad-tempered and noisy. I've also had previous female friends, with whom in fact, the friendship ended worse (with spite and disappointment) than with lost male friends. Also, women rarely share the same interests or hobbies as me. This has been my life experience with women so far. Also, I validate my detachment with women by determining I am sufficiently and greatly happy by having feelings towards men.

Anyhow, there is a line I like, about women in screenwriting, that is, "How to write a good female character: You write a character that is a person, and then, happen to make it a woman". This is my most immediate thought when in a serious context the gender dichotomy arises.

I have not said I believe women lack the capacity for rational though. On the contrary, I have said they are more complex, not more lacking. I believe they have the capacity for rational though, plus additional capacities such as maybe heightened emotional understanding, or capacity for maternal bond, or others, which can either positively or negatively affect their stances. Women, in my experience and I believe in general, from an early age, take a perspective on life that is less exclusively driven by rational discourse. In contrast, that is the tool I most prominently use to take decisions, of course accompanying emotions.

This line of thought agrees with the Times article. Jokingly, I have heard say men are single core CPU machines, women are dual core CPU machines. I think a better analogy is, whether women come with a more or less powerful CPU, they have additional components or processing units (akin to GPUs). Or quite simply, they are a different architecture.

I don't mean to diverge the discussion on cheating.

I'd go further and say that it is impossible for any of us to live as adults (without taking drastic steps to avoid society) without being impacted on by the society that we live in.

Yes, it's impossible. I play down the role of societal culture in my life because, to the greatest measure I can comprehensively procure, my life is guided using a filter of rational understanding. It's a big reason why I always refused to smoke or take drugs, why I sooner rather than later discarded monogamy, why I eat more veggies and try to sleep 8 hours daily, why I have become a more outgoing person that I was, etc. This, for me, goes to the core as to why I am polyamorous or have an open relationship. Monoamory makes no sense to me, and I rationally validate my opposition to it, despite social trends. There are other things I like that I do not rationally condone, so I don't do them.
 
Last edited:
Kudos to you both for not using Mother/Daughtercard references.

Oh. Wait... Crap.

(I have an unholy love for the cheap joke... don't judge me. :p )
 
I don't mean to diverge the discussion on cheating.

To bring all of these musings back to the subject of cheating, it is clear from the discussion that you and I have had that we are both capable of thinking rationally, of considering our options and of living in a way that makes most sense to each of us.

Our different experiences, communities and views on the world lead us each to very different conclusions when we consider romance. You consider an open relationship to be the only way to operate romantically and you also consider that so long as you are honest with your partner, it is of no importance if any of your sexual partners are cheating even if the person being cheated on is a friend of yours.

The experiences I've had, the communities I am part of and the view I have of the world leads me to a very different conclusion. I see a need for community as something that is important for humans. I want connections with others and I want those to be positive, peaceful and of benefit to myself and to those I have connections with. From my experiences reading here, other research into polyamory and the experiences of my friends, I see maintaining a committed romantic relationship while remaining open to other sexual relationships as a barrier to what I want in connection to others. So - as romantic relationships are not all that important to me - it seems that for me the most rational solution is to have monogamous romantic relationships.

Your approach makes no sense to me at all and your descriptions of losing friends and dramas among your social groups as a result of your actions is why it makes no sense. That sort of thing is not what I wish in my life or in groups I am part of so my logical mind tells me that acting as you do is not a good thing for me.

This is why discussions about life experiences and rationality are relevant to cheating.

So often I read that people are monogamous because they are insecure and need to grow or that it's because they want to own their partner or that it's because they haven't sufficiently fought against the pressures of society. Probably for some people that is the case.

It is also the case that some folk are poly because they are insecure and can't cope with being alone, because they want to end their existing relationship, because they want to own multiple partners or because they haven't sufficiently fought against the norms of a social group they are in.

All of these can be true.

It can also be true that some people choose monogamy because all things considered, it is the best option for them at that time and other people choose poly because all things considered, it is the best option for them at that time.

IP
 
Yeah I am not ready to give up on monogamy, any more than I am ready to give up on polyamory.

In a way, the two tend to belong to the same larger set of relationship types. It's often agreed on this form that everyone has a saturation point -- the most number of partners they can maintain and still retain the level of quality they desire for each relationship. For some people, the saturation point is ten people. For many, two or three is the most they can realistically juggle (for what they want out of their relationships). And for some, one partner is their saturation point.

If you look at it that way, monogamy (monoamory if you wish) could almost be described as polyamory with a one-partner saturation point.

Just throwing that food for thought out there.
 
If you look at it that way, monogamy (monoamory if you wish) could almost be described as polyamory with a one-partner saturation point.

This is the perspective that makes me not so critical of people who seem happy in monogamy without expressing support for a doctrine that would impose it on everyone. Which is most of the people I know.
 
If you look at it that way, monogamy (monoamory if you wish) could almost be described as polyamory with a one-partner saturation point.

Just throwing that food for thought out there.

This is the perspective that makes me not so critical of people who seem happy in monogamy without expressing support for a doctrine that would impose it on everyone. Which is most of the people I know.

Exactly! I completely agree! I have mono friends who are completely supportive of everyone having their OWN choices on how they handle their love lifes. I also have poly friends who feel this way and single friends who feel this way.
It's not about WHAT choice you make. it's about having the freedom to choose for yourself.
 
About cheating...

From my late teens into my early 30s, I had no problem with bedding married men who were cheating. My first experience at age 19 was with a much older boss of mine, and his wife was a co-worker whom I liked very much; she was sweet and a lot of fun. Still, being as insecure as I was, and having ended a nearly four-year relationship that had been the focus of my life all through high school, I wanted "grown-up" experiences. Besides married men, I also had lots of relationships with men I worked under at whatever jobs I had. I became an expert at concealing my involvement with these men. I'd always been great at keeping secrets and enjoyed the rush I got from the secrecy. My justification for screwing around with married cheaters always had been that I did not seek them out; they sought me. Furthermore, my opinion was that I was not responsible for the state of their marriages, and that if they felt compelled to fuck and carry on with me, then obviously whatever problems they had in their marrriages existed before I came into the picture, so... not my fault, not my problem. It made sense to me.

Time passed and when I was about 36 or so, I'd grown tired of not having long-lasting relationships with men I could say were "mine," so to speak. I also strongly felt that I didn't want to put anyone I cared for in a position where he had to lie to a partner he supposedly loved. So, I swore off dating married men. Eventually I met my soon-to-be-ex-husband and we were monogamous for almost my 12 years before we separated.

When I first started learning about polyamory, I really dug the concept of being able to be forthright and transparent about dating other people. I, of course, understood and aligned myself with the basic tenet that cheating and dishonesty are NOT part of poly arrangements.

Now, it occurred to me - you know how we often tell people you can be poly and kinky, or poly and a swinger, or poly and open, or poly and whatever sexual orientation you feel comfortable with, and no matter what any of those combinations are, one does not require nor preclude the other, and no one else can declare whether a person is poly but they themselves.

Yet, most of us here (including myself), as well as most people I've met my in my local poly groups, will be quick to say to someone "that's not poly," if we perceive their described scenarios as anything other than the accepted poly combo of multiple partners, love, honesty, and consent by all. This especially comes up when someone comes here and reveals that either they or someone in their poly tangle is cheating. The cheaters, their poly partners who hook up with cheaters, or the people whose partners are involved with cheaters and don't disallow it, basically get raked over the coals for it.

And then there the relationship anarchists who, as I understand it, eschew any rules imposed on love relationships by society or anyone on the "outside" of those relationships. Surely, polyamory is a form of relationship anarchy... but wouldn't cheating also be that?

In quite a few cultures, cheating in marriage is accepted insofar as it is expected. I recall a Mexican man once telling me that he would never flirt with a woman who had a boyfriend, but he would flirt with a woman who had a husband. When I asked him why, he told me that a boyfriend still cares enough to want to beat him up for it, but a husband does not care anymore. I always thought it an interesting perspective. Now, I've been married and mostly have had monogamous relationships all my life, and know that if/when any of my partner ever had cheated on me, it was an upsetting betrayal, to say the least.

Anyway, I've been wondering - though of course cheating itself is not poly, can't someone be poly and a cheater - or poly and involved with a cheater - and somehow find a way for those two approaches to relationships co-exist without much fallout? Can you have several relationships where most are honest and above-board poly, and one or two are somehow involving cheating, without being scolded or villified by the die-hard "no cheating ever" polyfolk who insist that all involved must come clean even if doing so will destroy a marriage or someone in the process? Can some circumstances surrounding cheating situations be understood and/or accepted?
 
Last edited:
It is my opinion that polyamory is an orientation. So to me, there is absolutely no contradiction. The person can be polyamorous and cheat, if they love more than one partner and are cheating.

Even if polyamorous describes the relationship rather than the person, it's still possible. If you have a poly relationship and you don't cheat for 20 years, and then one day you get a partner without telling anyone about it (and therefore cheat, unless your agreement allows for it), are you suddenly not in a poly relationship anymore? What if you still have more than one consensual partner on top of the cheating?

The whole "cheating isn't poly" reeks to me of "we don't want to be associated with these people so we'll say they're not true Scotsmen". But I think in a lot of cases, you can be polyamorous and cheat.

Now, what I agree with, is that a person who cheats on their partner and says things like "we're in a one-way poly relationship, my partner just doesn't know about it" is not in a poly relationship. They might be a poly person. But a poly relationship requires your partner to be aware that the relationship is poly, in my opinion. After that, if they aren't aware of some of your partners, or if you break rules with partners even if the partners are known, then it's cheating within a poly relationship. But before there is such an agreement at all, it's not a poly relationship yet.

So in short, they can coexist in my opinion but there are also cases where "polyamory" is used as an excuse because the word "cheating" doesn't sound good, and those are NOT both at once.
 
I think generally when I hear of cheating and want to use the phrase "not poly" it tends to be "that's not poly" rather than "they aren't poly" for that reason. I tend to identify the behavior as not polyamorous since generally polyamorous folk like to identify themselves with honest and ethical behavior. There's definitely room for overlap.

As far as being able to do it without fallout, I don't really know. I suppose some people manage it, but I will always probably avoid people who engage in that kind of behavior. If they are making a habit out of lying to someone, then I really don't know what is to stop them from making a habit out of lying to me. As far as sexual safety goes, I think lying and cheating also embodies a very clear violation of consent. I don't believe true consent to be possible unless it is informed consent, with each partner knowing the risks they are taking in full to the best of the knowledge of both parties. This is another type of behavior I avoid because I don't want to be involved with people who will make decisions for others about things like personal health and safety.
 
Re (from nycindie):
"Can you have several relationships where most are honest and above-board poly, and one or two are somehow involving in cheating, without being scolded or villified by the die-hard 'no cheating ever' polyfolk who insist that all involved must come clean even if doing so will destroy a marriage or someone in the process? Can some circumstances surrounding cheating situations be understood and/or accepted?"

The die-hards, of course, would/could argue that once you allow *some* cheating to be included in a poly umbrella, you start down a slippery slope where *any* percentage of overall cheating could fall under the poly umbrella. At that point, cheating has become, de facto, a subset of polyamory.

That isn't to say that I'd take up the die-hard position. I think we often underestimate how diverse the reasons and circumstances for cheating can be. I suppose in answer to your question my best guess would be, "I have to judge each individual situation on its own merits, using context and details to guide my decision." If the cheating element takes up a minority (less than 50%?) of the total polycule, then that might be one reason for me to think that yeah we can still call it polyamory (overall).

In any case, I tend to concede that a cheater can be polyamorous (the adjective) -- poly at heart so to speak -- even if by cheating they're not actually practicing polyamory (the noun) itself. The line between poly and cheating can certainly get blurred at times.
 
The whole "cheating isn't poly" reeks to me of "we don't want to be associated with these people so we'll say they're not true Scotsmen".

I've heard "that's not polyamory" a number of times on this board and it always stinks of One True Scotsman. People get intensely attached to their personal choices and anything bumping up against it lends toward this kind of hands-over-ears, foot stomping irrationality.

Now, what I agree with, is that a person who cheats on their partner and says things like "we're in a one-way poly relationship, my partner just doesn't know about it" is not in a poly relationship. They might be a poly person. But a poly relationship requires your partner to be aware that the relationship is poly, in my opinion.

This is a rational distinction, I like it.

No doubt kdt26417s "die-hards" will continue to draw arbitrary lines in the sand, but what are you gonna do.
 
I think mono and poly relationships are funtamentally different, not the same with a different number of partners.

In an open relationship cheating is less likely to occur simply because there is no reason to cheat against your main partner. You can be sincere with them without fear. That's unless you start making norms about stuff being off limits, something I'm against if it's not for health concerns.
 
Suppose a previously-monogamous couple opens up their relationship, but as the years go by, neither person feels inclined to start any new relationships (nor have sex with any third party). If this continues to be the case until both people pass away, then do we call that monogamy or polyamory? (I'm not sure what the right answer is.)
 
I think mono and poly relationships are funtamentally different, not the same with a different number of partners.

In an open relationship cheating is less likely to occur simply because there is no reason to cheat against your main partner. You can be sincere with them without fear. That's unless you start making norms about stuff being off limits, something I'm against if it's not for health concerns.


Eh, I don't know...

In an *ideal* open relationship, cheating wouldn't occur, for the reasons you cite.

In an *ideal* mono relationship, cheating wouldn't occur, because the people in the relationship would remain focused solely on each other and work through problems together when they came up (again, being sincere) instead of going elsewhere.

Very few relationships are ever ideal. There are poly relationships that fit the ideal, and some mono relationships that do as well (my grandparents, still alive, celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary this year, and abso-fricken-lutely adorably in love). Then, there are poly relationships and mono relationships alike that are controlling and manipulative.

Are mono and poly relationships alike? I may ponder that one a bit (I've been noodling over a blog post based on this but haven't had time to sit, think, and write lately), but I don't think their differences are as clear-cut as that.
 
It seems to me that not everyone *wants* (or needs) the amount of freedom that an open relationship affords. For some there is a certain amount of (emotional) safety in the binding of monogamous commitments. I personally like the freedom, but then once I have it I don't seem to be very inclined to actually use it. [shrug]
 
It seems to me that not everyone *wants* (or needs) the amount of freedom that an open relationship affords. For some there is a certain amount of (emotional) safety in the binding of monogamous commitments. I personally like the freedom, but then once I have it I don't seem to be very inclined to actually use it. [shrug]

I adore freedom. I only need to know that I am not free to do something I like, to want to do it as a challenge. If my relationship turns out monogamous in the practical sense (not exercising my freedom to date others, like in your situation), that would be a result of my circumstances, not a disposition to give up that freedom. I would feel comfortable with that. Or also not dating anyone else for years while my partner does, or vice versa. Sometimes we go through periods where we're focusing on other stuff. For me, knowing that I am the one making the choice at any given moment, makes a world of difference.
 
Nothing entices quite like the forbidden fruit. :)
 
Back
Top