Polyamory and/vs. Marriage

I call bullshit.

There are a LOT of benefits to marriage that have nothing to do with finances.

I am not going to take the time to spell it out for you - because your views on marriage are very clear. But needless to say - if I had known 11 years ago what I'd be in for now - I'd have still married him :D And financially? Nope - I am the primary financial support in our household...


I don't think my views on marriage are important or relevant. (I admit I am anti-marriage.)

What is not clear to me is how polyamory and marriage are compatible. That is, if polyamory is about long term "love" relationships -- and not just a term for a couple deciding to have multiple sexual partners outside of their marriage.
 
I don't think my views on marriage are important or relevant. (I admit I am anti-marriage.)

What is not clear to me is how polyamory and marriage are compatible. That is, if polyamory is about long term "love" relationships -- and not just a term for a couple deciding to have multiple sexual partners outside of their marriage.

Simple: marriage can be redefined by the two individuals in it just like anything else. Having multiple "love" relationships doesn't have any automatic meaning for a married couple. Just as having a single love relationship doesn't automatically imply marriage. A marriage doesn't have to devolve, breakup or whatever because of multiple loves.
 
Granted, marriage can be a convenience and more sociably acceptable.

But how many people pretend to be sociably acceptably married, and lie to the public, ~~while they live an opposite (sociably unacceptable) lifestyle and at the same time attempt to practice honesty with their spouse(s) and their polyamory friends?

Practicing honesty is a challenge. I think we are programed to "play the game" (with society) and it becomes a habit. I don't know if I could lead a double life (pretending to be in a sociably acceptable monogamous marriage) to some, while being honest and open to selected others. I would think developing trusting relationships might be tricky.

you are either projecting your own insecurities and reactions to bad experiences you've had onto others whose choices threaten your prejudices, OR you are trying to "stir the pot" and see what sort of controversial reactions your rhetoric will generate.

I will not be baited.
 
you are either projecting your own insecurities and reactions to bad experiences you've had onto others whose choices threaten your prejudices, OR you are trying to "stir the pot" and see what sort of controversial reactions your rhetoric will generate.

I will not be baited.

No, --I was just reading (on this forum) a thread expressing problems with this exact same situation I just mentioned. (So you can't tell me the problem does not exist.)

I have no prejudices against polyamory itself. (Which I view as exercising the freedom (and ability) to truly (and unselfishly) love more than one person.

I also have no insecurities or prejudices against sexual activity with multiple partners. That's a person's free choice.

What I would actually like is a good definition of polyamory that everyone can agree on.

Like I have said, I am new to the term polyamory. If my thoughts challenge you (or push your buttons) I'm sorry. They are not intended to do so.

It is difficult to be honest and tactful at the same time. I am honest about how I feel and what I think. Deal with it any way you can. I am not trying to bait anyone.
 
What I would actually like is a good definition of polyamory that everyone can agree on.

Poly = many
Amory = loves

The wiki definition

How those many loves work in individual relationships is up to the persons involved in them. It doesn't "look" or "work" a certain way. Nor does my love for another diminish my love for my husband. Or change WHY I married him and want to stay married to him.
 
My two cents...

Marriage has meaning to the various individuals involved in that marriage... state laws, benefits etc aside...

for me... it is a commitment, showing the world how deeply I feel about someone else - in a way the world recognises, it shows my partner that my commitment is for life, It shows me that my partner is committed to me... it is a tangible gesture of faith in each other.

I would prefer to be handfasted, as does my partner, however in order to have the life we wish for... legal marriage may assist that. To me a handfasting is more important, more deep and more personal to us than a marriage would be, so we plan to have both, by having a handfasting presided over by a legal celebrant.

The shape of our marriage is unimportant - except to us, the people it actually affects. Or at least that is the way it should be (IMO).

Unfortunately, a legal marriage does need to follow state/federal laws... therefore is restricted by those laws.

Marriage was once thought too sinful to be consecrated by the church and all marriages were common law, not sanctified by church or state.

What happened to allow our governments, our churches, and society in general to dictate to us how we may love and show that commitment, and also who to, and how?
 
No, --I was just reading (on this forum) a thread expressing problems with this exact same situation I just mentioned. (So you can't tell me the problem does not exist.)

I have no prejudices against polyamory itself. (Which I view as exercising the freedom (and ability) to truly (and unselfishly) love more than one person.

I also have no insecurities or prejudices against sexual activity with multiple partners. That's a person's free choice.

What I would actually like is a good definition of polyamory that everyone can agree on.

Like I have said, I am new to the term polyamory. If my thoughts challenge you (or push your buttons) I'm sorry. They are not intended to do so.

It is difficult to be honest and tactful at the same time. I am honest about how I feel and what I think. Deal with it any way you can. I am not trying to bait anyone.

it's obvious that you consider marriage and polyamory to be fundamentally incompatible with one another, and are inviting those of us who are married and consider ourselves "polyamorous" to defend our lifestyle choices.

As I said before, I will not be baited.
 
it's obvious that you consider marriage and polyamory to be fundamentally incompatible with one another, and are inviting those of us who are married and consider ourselves "polyamorous" to defend our lifestyle choices.

As I said before, I will not be baited.

LOL you are funny saying that you will "not be baited." (If I were fishing I would definitely think that I was getting a nibble since you have responded twice. )

But by all means, don't "defend" your lifestyle. Tell me why and how it works. (That is, if it is successful.)

I was attempting to initiate conversation on the subject. I am willing to change my opinions and/or misconceptions via the process of intelligent discussion. I am not attacking your or anyone's lifestyle. Yes, you know where I am coming from, but perhaps I am wrong.

Does anyone have any statistics? I know that marriage itself is not doing well in that area.

If there is anyone on this forum who has had (and still has) a successful and happy polyamory longterm relationship that involves a married couple and a single "extra partner" I would like to hear about it.
 
Older Woman,

I have to agree with NK... You are stirring.

Please do read some of the threads on this forum... there are many on here who are happily married with extra partners... you have asked the question - listen to the answers.

why not do some research yourself instead of expecting others to explain themselves to you?

I would point you in the direction of Redpeppers journey and TruckerPete's blog... there are many others but they come to mind right now.
 
The OP was seeking specific feedback and you have co-opted the thread into an entirely different off-topic direction. Your questions aimed at debating the merits of marriage belong on a separate thread of their own.


You are right and I am sorry I got off topic. I'll do some more reading. See ya around!
 
I am wondering how much you have researched poly. There is no one definition and no one way. Just the same with marriage I think.

There is one way to marry; go and sign papers with a couple of witnesses and a registered person that can make it legal and/or have a ceremony/event whereby you speak of your undying love for another/others. There is no right way or wrong way to do poly or marriage. It's all what comes after I think... are you creating more happiness, love, family, sex...? are you fulfilling a dream/wish/hope? are you staying true to your values and bringing people into your life that also value what you do and are willing to expand on that with you? These are the questions that are more worth asking rather than should I marry or should I be poly or both.
 
I am new to the term polyamory and I am not clear on WHAT exactly it is or what the proper definition of it is.

That much is clear from what you've posted.

I believe in honesty above all in a relationship. Therefore you can't start making rules for your partner (married or not) and start telling them what they are and are not "allowed" to do or who they are allowed to love.

Folks are free to negotiate whatever limits they wish, however. Agreeing to avoid doing something because one's lover is uncomfortable with it is a valid reason to choose to avoid doing that thing.

Being able to tell the difference between a base chemical sexual attraction and finding a compatible person that you can learn from and truly love is the tricky part.

That's the tricky part of relationships in any form. What's your point?

If you like to "fall in love" a lot, I would suggest that maybe marriage might not be a good idea unless you resolve to be honest with your spouse that you have no intention of remaining monogamous.

This is a site for people who are honest about being nonmonogamous. What's your point?

Marriage then, would be sort of a business relationship. Lets share a house and expenses and pop out a few kids, but lets not demand each other be 100% monogamous. Lets be honest with each other.

Again, what's your point?

Being honest with each other need not mean that we have to spill our guts about every affair we have and the details.

First, to be engaged in an honest, open relationship, one does have to make it clear to existing partners when one gets involved with a new partner. That's an essential part of that whole honesty thing.

Next, having multiple relationships does not have to mean engaging in affairs. Affairs happen within the realm of mono relationships and your use of the term here reinforces the supposition that you have no experience with--nor understanding of--polyamory.

Last, there's nothing about being open about relationships that requires sharing details of interactions with other partners. That statement also highlights that you don't do poly and have no understanding of what it is you're speaking of. I'm not certain what it is you think you're criticizing by offering that up, though I know it doesn't apply to polyamory in general.

Are you here to learn about poly? I'll suggest refraining from trying to criticize polyamory until you have a better understanding of it.
 
Last, there's nothing about being open about relationships that requires sharing details of interactions with other partners. That statement also highlights that you don't do poly and have no understanding of what it is you're speaking of. I'm not certain what it is you think you're criticizing by offering that up, though I know it doesn't apply to polyamory in general.

I never claimed that I "do poly."

Are you here to learn about poly? I'll suggest refraining from trying to criticize polyamory until you have a better understanding of it.

I am not criticizing polyamory. (why do you think I did that?) I did criticize monogamy and marriage, but not polyamory. (My first impression is that everyone has a different take on what it is. )

I believe I have a very good understanding of it. I'm sure there are as many different poly situations and relationships as there are people on this forum, but over all, the concept is not a difficult one to understand. Like monogamy, I'm sure it has it problems.
 
I never claimed that I "do poly."


I believe I have a very good understanding of it.

Disingenuous much?

Please spare us already. You said in your introductory post that your knowledge of polyamory comes from some dream you had where you were transported back to the Roman Empire to eat fruit and wear togas while having sex whilst being pimped out by your husband-god-whatever.

That, and you've had two shitty marriages.

So congratulations. You're a self-proclaimed expert on polyamorous relationships. Go, you!
 
Last edited:
two failed marriages? ... well I can see why you might struggle with the idea of marriage then. It seems like you think its black or white. Either you marry and suck it up that you are poly or are poly... this is if you think poly is having the ability to responsibly and ethically love more than one; which is what I believe for myself.

I have been in a poly marriage for 10 years this summer... we didn't start out monogamous, didn't make vows that were about monogamy and had a ceremony that included what we thought marriage was to us... We went and signed papers a few months earlier to make it legal so I could pass on my benefits to my husband and so that the kids we wanted would get everything if we died. Turns out a few years later that we could of just lived together and done that according to the common-law laws. Ah well, its done and its all good... and I'm glad we did it.
 
Disingenuous much?

Please spare us already. You said in your introductory post that your knowledge of polyamory comes from some dream you had where you were transported back to the Roman Empire to eat fruit and wear togas while having sex whilst being pimped out by your husband-god-whatever.

That, and you've had two shitty marriages.

So congratulations. You're a self-proclaimed expert on polyamorous relationships. Go, you!



Polyamory is an extremely simple concept. It's not rocket science.

It only requires the ability to have compassion, understanding and love for other human beings, which I can see by your pent up anger that you are having a problem with.

P.S. It was much more than a dream. It was a spiritual awakening.
P.S.S. I consider my marriages to be very successful. I learned a lot and got out with my life. LOL
 
If there is anyone on this forum who has had (and still has) a successful and happy polyamory longterm relationship that involves a married couple and a single "extra partner" I would like to hear about it.

I'm not sure if two years is long term enough but.... I am not married and living with my girlfriend who has been married for 10 years. She and her husband are poly and I am monogamous. There are others who have had long term arrangements like this in our local area as well. What you describe is not very rare at all actually.
 
Got linked to this thread from @JaneQSmythe's post in this one, I hope I'm not breaking any thread necromancy rules by answering here after the last post is nearly two years old... :)


I'm very much anti-marriage, just like Olderwoman. I really don't see the benefit of keeping around an institution that not only muddles the lines between religion and secular law, but also has its roots in ownership and sexism (basically, father gives away his daughter (his = he made her from his semen, he fed her with the fruits of his handwork, so she's his to decide over), who hopefully is still virginal lest her market value gets ruined, to her new owner, whom she is now to serve as breedingstock for his, hopefully forever unpolluted by other men's semen, bloodline... ugh!). That, to me, is just about the exact opposite of what poly is about... so yes, I tend to generally see them as incompatible ideas at their core. Poly is a profoundly modern, equalist, and democratic concept (all of which deeply appeal to me), while marriage to me is a fossilized relic from patriarchal and hierarchical days that we've made good progress to overcome in today's Western industrial societies.

On a much more personal level, as I'm asexual myself, there's the whole sexual consummation aspect. If my marriage could at any time get annulled at the drop of a hat, without even needing to go through a full divorce process, because something I know I will never do with my spouse is legally seen as the prime criterion of what makes it a "real" marriage... then why bother with signing a contract that can be voided at a moment's notice? Seems pointless to me.

In all honesty, I'd be all for abandoning the concept of secular marriage sooner rather than later (religion can keep it if they want, but there should be no secular legal benefits whatsoever involved; I see no reason for marriage to be treated differently than, say, getting baptized); I do, however, support the concept of civil unions/"registered households", who should have those legal and economic benefits. (The fact that in areas where both marriage and c.u. exist side by side under current law, the latter tend to be massively inferior in terms of benefits is scandalous.)

I'd also would definitely hope for massive improvements of flexibility in legislation as to who can get civil unions - far beyond just the matter of straight/gay orientation, there should also be equal access to c.u. regardless of number of people involved and type of relationship between them (poly or mono, sexual or not, romantic or not, blood related or not)... while I don't give a damn about whether people who don't conform to "one cismale, one cisfemale, strictly mono till death does them part" can marry (actually, seeing as what its roots are, barring people who can't or won't breed with each other, and only with each other, from marriage makes perfect sense!). I'm fine letting religion alone decide over a concept that really only has relevance to traditional religion anymore - and if that means no gay marriage, ever, then so be it, I don't see the fuss. *shrugs*

When only the hardcore religious get married at all anymore, and a civil union between a brother, a sister, their Auntie Bertha, and Bob who may or may not sleep with any one of those three no longer gets a single eyebrow raised, then I'll be happy. (It'll be a long time coming, if ever, I know... but one can dream. ;))


Btw, you noticed I left love completely out of the picture? No coincidence, because marriage isn't about love. I consider it was a bad, bad idea that romance and marriage ever got muddled (a concept younger than people think; marrying for "flimsy reasons" such as love would have been seen as laughably immature by most people just two or three centuries ago - you married for money and politics, not for emotions; if you also came to be friends or *gasp!* even romantic lovers with your spouse - well, lucky you, but that's a bonus, not a necessity to make the marital contract work as intended), and consider arranged marriages to be truer to the concept... both are equally outdated.
 
@InsaneMystic - thanks for expanding upon your post in the other thread!

I personally would prefer for my government to butt out of "marriage" completely – their interest limited to enforcing “contracts” (in a civil union type fashion), recognizing “households” (for tax purposes - regardless of marital/familial status), and enforcing the fact that adults are responsible for providing for children that they produce.

Having said all of that I am still fine with the concept of “marriage” … as I conceive it. Historically “marriage” has meant different things, as you pointed out – I would not, personally, participate in a “marriage” that implied “ownership”, for instance. Lucky for me, I live in an age and a country where that kind of arrangement can not be forced on me. (I'm agnostic/atheist so I'm not terribly interested in what various churches say on the subject).

Marriage, to me, means that someone has actively decided to commit themselves to facing life as a team with another person(/other people)...and to announce that intention publicly. It doesn't take a church or a government to make that promise “real” … just recognized. The ceremony is a physical act that you take part in to mark the transition., the “piece of paper” is just a “piece of paper” … except that it is a symbol of what has occurred.

Liken this, perhaps, to education – say you take all of the classes you actually need but never actually complete the requirements for your degree – you never took that gym class. You still know what you know, you are qualified for the jobs you are qualified for but you don't have that “piece of paper” - should that matter? No. Does it?...more times than it should. Do you need to go through the “cap-and-gown” ceremony to get that piece of paper? Nope. So why do so many people do it?

From my own experience – getting married meant something to me personally. It was fairly subtle. My thought processes went from “I am going to do this-and-such...and MrS will be there too.” to “We are going to do such-and-so-on.” Our actual plans did not change. Nothing changed on an observable level. We lived the same life we had been living before.

I don't think that marriage has to have anything to do with sex or the ability to procreate. For, me marriage is about making a commitment to being together and forging a life together...and, lucky for me, nobody but me and my spouse has to agree.

JaneQ

PS. Sorry if my reply seems rather stream of consciousness....my internet failed and I typed my reply in Word without having your post available.
 
Last edited:
@InsaneMystic - thanks for expanding upon your post in the other thread!
No problems, you're welcome! :)

I personally would prefer for my government to butt out of "marriage" completely – their interest limited to enforcing “contracts” (in a civil union type fashion), recognizing “households” (for tax purposes - regardless of marital/familial status), and enforcing the fact that adults are responsible for providing for children that they produce.
I think it's awesome hearing that from someone who's married, themself. I've gotten lots of flack for my opinion before, this is a nice change of pace! :D

Having said all of that I am still fine with the concept of “marriage” … as I conceive it. Historically “marriage” has meant different things, as you pointed out – I would not, personally, participate in a “marriage” that implied “ownership”, for instance. Lucky for me, I live in an age and a country where that kind of arrangement can not be forced on me. (I'm agnostic/atheist so I'm not terribly interested in what various churches say on the subject).

Marriage, to me, means that someone has actively decided to commit themselves to facing life as a team with another person(/other people)...and to announce that intention publicly. It doesn't take a church or a government to make that promise “real” … just recognized. The ceremony is a physical act that you take part in to mark the transition., the “piece of paper” is just a “piece of paper” … except that it is a symbol of what has occurred.

Liken this, perhaps, to education – say you take all of the classes you actually need but never actually complete the requirements for your degree – you never took that gym class. You still know what you know, you are qualified for the jobs you are qualified for but you don't have that “piece of paper” - should that matter? No. Does it?...more times than it should. Do you need to go through the “cap-and-gown” ceremony to get that piece of paper? Nope. So why do so many people do it?

From my own experience – getting married meant something to me personally. It was fairly subtle. My thought processes went from “I am going to do this-and-such...and MrS will be there too.” to “We are going to do such-and-so-on.” Our actual plans did not change. Nothing changed on an observable level. We lived the same life we had been living before.

I don't think that marriage has to have anything to do with sex or the ability to procreate. For, me marriage is about making a commitment to being together and forging a life together...and, lucky for me, nobody but me and my spouse has to agree.
Yeah, I get what you're saying... maybe I just can't ignore the history/roots of the institution of marriage. There's all the baggage inherent in the word, I can't overlook that - I'd feel like if I were pro-marriage, I'd be taking all the crapola the term's history evokes for me as a bedfellow, and I rather pass on that. (Thankfully, I'm generally a weirdo anyway, so not being into the marriage game hardly gets any further eyebrows raised, lol.)

If you managed to redefine marriage for you in a way that works for you, and that doesn't lead to betraying freedom and respect for either you or your spouse, then hey, more power to you. It kinda feels to me like you managed to "reclaim the slur", as it were. That's a cool enough feat. :cool:

PS. Sorry if my reply seems rather stream of consciousness....my internet failed and I typed my reply in Word without having your post available.
No worries, it was perfectly readable, and my own post was ranty enough... ;)
 
Back
Top