Cheaters posing as polys... ARG!!!

[MonoVCPHG]

Originally Posted by jkelly

That said, people who are looking to cheat, for whatever reason, .

This is a cut and paste from another thread that hopefully can add to this topic. If not, sorry guys

I've had an affair in the past and am now in a poly relationship. So here is my theory on why people chose the hidden path as opposed to the open path. This theory is based on experience.


Why would people decide to cheat instead of have a poly relationship?

1) - its way easier. Communication and understanding is strictly between the two people involved.

2) - It has the added excitement of "getting away with something". Who hasn't done something because there was a thrill in it being wrong or enjoyed keeping a secret.

3) - It is a self limiting entity. The functions of the relationship are very limited. "I can't come over and mow your yard because your husband will kick my ass but we can meet somewhere and fuck!"

4) - they can be emotionally limited so you don't have to commit beyond your own needs. "It's not that I just want to fuck you, but really we have our families to think about. I don't want you to lose everything."

5) - it can come and go without impacting a family or social network. There are a lot of affairs that happen without anyone knowing about them.

6) - there is a belief that the participants are at least trying to be faithful or shield their partner from the information that they are not adequate in all areas.

7) - they can be terminated with less effort because "what we are doing is wrong"

8) - your parents will probably never know


Why would someone want poly vice cheating?

1) - Poly encourages you to grow as a person where affairs make you digress into irresponsibility and self denial of reality.

2) - Poly acknowledges and addresses the pain and emotions of your partner where affairs play people for fools; this is probably the greatest source of pain for those betrayed.

3) - It has the potential to become a fulfilling dynamic that widens family structures and generate more support and love for everyone involved. Affairs have a tendency to destroy families and severely damage everyone involved from spouses to children.

4) - It can set a positive example of communication and understanding for people around you.

5) - Poly relationships can increase love for everyone involved; affairs take something away from people whether they know it or not.

6) - You can be free to openly proclaim love to people around you. Affairs can become logistically exhausting and brutally stressful.

7) - Poly relationships can end with friendships and deep connections intact. Affairs usually end with total severance of ties and anything positive gets lost.

8) - Once your parents realize everyone is ok, they can often accept and be comfortable with the dynamic. Most parents would probably have a hard time hanging out with the person you are having an affair with…of course they probably wouldn't know.


Want it mathematically?

Affairs = short term gain, long term pain

Poly = short term pain, long term gain


Unfortunately I am a person who seems to need to learn by experiencing consequences. I have experienced a lot of consequences in my life; enough to know who I am in a way I never have before and I am no longer a boy in a man's clothes. I have lost what most would define as "everything". I have no excuse to repeat mistakes I made in the past. No excuse…full fucking stop. Any repeat of previously learned lessons is not because "it just happened". The repeat of negative things I have done would indicate an ill person. I am healthier than I have ever been.

[HappiestManAlive]

You can be free to openly proclaim love to people around you. Affairs can become logistically exhausting and brutally stressful.

This is my mostest fravritist thing ever.

[AutumnalTone]

Originally Posted by jkelly

Swinging is a much older, more established and on the order of fifty times larger community than polyamory. They have a wealth of resources, clubs, events, and much greater name recognition. I suspect that the problem of swingers mis-identifying themselves as poly- is close to non-existent, especially as compared to, say, serial monogamists doing so, and yet they get brought up in these conversations as if they are some kind of problem group.

The only swingers who have been mentioned are those who try to use the term "poly" as cover. You can try to infer something different than that all you wish and it still won't change things. Nobody has made any claim that swingers who do so represent a major proportion of all swingers or that swingers are a problem group or, indeed, anything negative at all about swingers in general.

Please try to respond to what is actually stated in a post. Reading into other peoples' words isn't a useful contribution to a discussion. If you're really concerned that somebody might be thinking evil thoughts, a simple "I know you didn't say this, though I think somebody should point out X to make certain we're all on the same page" would suffice nicely.

[jkelly]

Originally Posted by AutumnalTone

Reading into other peoples' words isn't a useful contribution to a discussion. If you're really concerned that somebody might be thinking evil thoughts, a simple "I know you didn't say this, though I think somebody should point out X to make certain we're all on the same page" would suffice nicely.

I think you're drawing some distinction between reading someone's post and "reading into" that post that I'm not clear on. When reading something someone else has written, I don't assume that I have perfect knowledge of authorial intent, if that's what's at issue.

In any case, you and I are making two different claims (about the nature of the problem of swingers posing as poly- people) and aren't in agreement. Presumably someone who agrees with you about the frequency of this happening, and thinks that swingers have something to gain by using poly- as a "cover" for their swinging, is going to disagree with me that it's weird to bring that up. But since I don't agree, I think it's weird.

[NeonKaos]

Swingers would have something to gain by using poly as a cover the same way a cheating person would have something to gain by using poly as a cover: To deceive someone into doing something under false pretenses that they wouldn't normally do if they had "good" information.

Perhaps it would be better to say, "Liars come from all walks of life".

If someone here said "swingers are notorious for telling potential partners that they are polyamorous in order to increase their chances of obtaining sex", or anything like that, please cite the post that does so. I'll wait as long as it takes.

[AutumnalTone]

Originally Posted by jkelly

I think you're drawing some distinction between reading someone's post and "reading into" that post that I'm not clear on. When reading something someone else has written, I don't assume that I have perfect knowledge of authorial intent, if that's what's at issue.

It's that you read extra meanings into their statements that aren't supported by any of the actual statements. For another example:

Presumably someone who agrees with you about the frequency of this happening, and thinks that swingers have something to gain by using poly- as a "cover" for their swinging, is going to disagree with me that it's weird to bring that up. But since I don't agree, I think it's weird.

I never made any claims about the frequency of that happening. I simply noted that it happens--I've witnessed it personally and I've met a couple of other people who reported the same thing. I've no idea how often it happens and I won't hazard a guess because I don't think it's characteristic of swingers in general.

I've also made no claims about why swingers would do that, beyond the observation that there have been swingers who have claimed to be poly as part of an effort to find new sexual partners. I can hallucinate why, based on incidents reported by acquaintances of mine, and should I offer up a possible reason, it is presented as a possibility.

For you to claim that somehow all swingers are being maligned when the discussion has only mentioned a *very specific sub-group* that nobody has claimed is very large is nonsensical, unconstructive, and somewhat rude (as it paints those of us involved as somehow being "anti-swinger").

It's much the same as when YGirl mentioned the possibility of a stripper having a drug problem--you castigated her for maligning strippers when she did no such thing. You didn't respond to what she actually stated, you responded to a notion that *nobody* had stated while trying to assign her responsibility for stating it. That's just not cricket.

So, again, I'll ask that you respond to what was actually stated and not something else. Or if you do respond to something else, make it clear that you're not responding to any statement actually made.

[NeonKaos]

So, again, I'll ask that you respond to what was actually stated and not something else. Or if you do respond to something else, make it clear that you're not responding to any statement actually made.

I would like to thank everyone in advance for their cooperation in this matter.

[jkelly]

Responded here.