RE: Monogamy?

RE: Monogamy? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

ChrchofDrk -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 6:19:19 AM)
Polyamory (from Greek πολύ poly, "many, several", and Latin amor, "love") is the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships involving more than two people, with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. Polygamy (from Late Greek πολυγαμία, polygamia, "state of marriage to many spouses") involves marriage with more than one spouse. When a man is married to more than one wife at a time, it is called polygyny. When a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, it is called polyandry. There is a huge difference between the two

ExiledTyrant -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 6:25:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChrchofDrk Polyamory (from Greek πολύ poly, "many, several", and Latin amor, "love") is the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships involving more than two people, with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. Polygamy (from Late Greek πολυγαμία, polygamia, "state of marriage to many spouses") involves marriage with more than one spouse. When a man is married to more than one wife at a time, it is called polygyny. When a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, it is called polyandry. There is a huge difference between the two Plato summed it up nicely with: "χαλεπὰ τὰ καλά"

satanscharmer -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 6:34:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HisForLife71 So back to monogamy, and the fact people seem to have differing opinions on what it actually means. For me personally it is based on loyalty and fidelity to one single person during the whole of that relationship. And that's not just sexually. I personally have very clear definitions on what cheating is, and full sex is only one of them. It's not complicated with any side roads or loopholes. It's extremely simple and clear cut. I am monogamous, which means (to me) I do not engage in any kind of intimacy with any other person other than him, either physically or mentally /emotionally. Apart from obvious distinctions such as closeness and a different kind of intimacy with my children, close friends. But like I say, that is a different kind of intimacy and is not included in this context. I assume the definition of intimacy is very much implied. Yes that includes romantically and sexually, but not just that. Anything within the realms of that type of relationship. The discussion probably swayed away from monogamy because there's really not a whole lot to discuss. From the sounds of it, your relationship fits into the nice, neat box labeled "monogamy" - something most people, mostly away from this site, think of immediately when they hear the word. My relationship fits into that box as well. No variables, no variances from the "normal" socially-acceptable term 'monogamous'. It's when you start moving outside that box of "normal" that more questions, and therefore discussions, develop. That's why there is a group dedicated to Poly - it doesn't fit into the box society created. This site is pretty much dedicated to outside the box.

ExiledTyrant -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 6:36:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: satanscharmer quote: ORIGINAL: HisForLife71 So back to monogamy, and the fact people seem to have differing opinions on what it actually means. For me personally it is based on loyalty and fidelity to one single person during the whole of that relationship. And that's not just sexually. I personally have very clear definitions on what cheating is, and full sex is only one of them. It's not complicated with any side roads or loopholes. It's extremely simple and clear cut. I am monogamous, which means (to me) I do not engage in any kind of intimacy with any other person other than him, either physically or mentally /emotionally. Apart from obvious distinctions such as closeness and a different kind of intimacy with my children, close friends. But like I say, that is a different kind of intimacy and is not included in this context. I assume the definition of intimacy is very much implied. Yes that includes romantically and sexually, but not just that. Anything within the realms of that type of relationship. The discussion probably swayed away from monogamy because there's really not a whole lot to discuss. From the sounds of it, your relationship fits into the nice, neat box labeled "monogamy" - something most people, mostly away from this site, think of immediately when they hear the word. My relationship fits into that box as well. No variables, no variances from the "normal" socially-acceptable term 'monogamous'. It's when you start moving outside that box of "normal" that more questions, and therefore discussions, develop. That's why there is a group dedicated to Poly - it doesn't fit into the box society created. This site is pretty much dedicated to outside the box. Bitch, did you just say wot I said but smarter? stomps off in a huff

satanscharmer -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 6:44:36 AM)
Hmmm. Maybe. [:)] xoxo

ExiledTyrant -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 6:54:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: satanscharmer Hmmm. Maybe. [:)] xoxo LOL! God made you cute to make it harder for me to hurt you. Jus sayin

MrRodgers -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 7:13:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Sure but if we do call two people who don't stray...monogamous, then we can call polymory...polygamous. Well, you can, but by definition, you'd be incorrect. Well not to put fine a point on it but not necessarily. For as long as we are referring to definitions, we have them for monogamy and polygamy and in the interest of the subject matter...mean etymologically, only marriage and only once or more than once while making no reference to the number of partners. While as we find so often in this neighborhood of ours I like to call the kinkosphere, we have no formal definition for polyamory or polymory.

littleladybug -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 7:42:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HisForLife71 Is it really that unusual in this lifestyle? I know that it is probably impossible, but I would be interested in seeing what the actual breakdown is of poly vs. mono relationships within the BDSM umbrella. From my experience in certain communities, as well as reading online fora, it can seem that non-monogamous relationships are more the "norm". My inclination is to say that this is just the nature of the beast, and the overall reality is probably skewed more toward strictly monogamous relationships, but sometimes I do wonder about it. quote: ORIGINAL: HisForLife71 No "sharing" of any level on either side. We are the same way. quote: ORIGINAL: HisForLife71 Anyone else here that shares the same viewpoint on absolute loyalty of this kind to one person? Yup, I do. No other "play partners" or partners of any kind. It's just not the way I am wired. Here's the thing though, OP- having the "mono vs. poly" discussion is like discussing religion or politics. For people who are staunchly on opposite sides of the spectrum, there is going to be one of two outcomes. Either an agreement to disagree, or what is, IMO, one of the most annoying comments ever- "but I just don't understand how you could feel this way". If you are truly interested in learning about the hows and whys of non-monogamous relationships, I'd suggest first doing some reading. There is a lot of information available that might give you insight into non-monogamous relationships. I don't believe that it is inherently "wrong" to post questions about it, but I hope you can see now how certain questions might come across from your staunchly monogamous perspective. IME, there is a vast difference between asking questions for the sake of learning, and putting questions out there that automatically put others on the defensive. (The "I don't understand how someone could feel this way" sort.) FWIW, I don't view what you've said here as part of some "anti-poly" agenda. I'd just consider sitting back a bit and taking in what people have to say. That is, if you're truly interesting in learning about how the "other side ticks".

LadyPact -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 7:49:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Well not to put fine a point on it but not necessarily. For as long as we are referring to definitions, we have them for monogamy and polygamy and in the interest of the subject matter...mean etymologically, only marriage and only once or more than once while making no reference to the number of partners. While as we find so often in this neighborhood of ours I like to call the kinkosphere, we have no formal definition for polyamory or polymory. The last part, I'll give you. There are something like twenty six "formal" definitions of various forms of polyamory, or at least there were five years ago. There are probably more now because those subtle differences in the way people do things end up creating more definitions. Personally, I happen to think the term monogamy might be outdated as well because it comes from a time when the point of a pairing was to get married. These days, that still the goal (for lack of a better term) for a lot of people is to formalize that relationship in some way. (I can hear myself saying, "yeah, Pact, let's confuse people some more".) At least when we say monogamy, we've got the supposed concept that it means with one.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 8:03:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HisForLife71 Yes it was more for a discussion of people who live monogamously and it's kind of gone more of the other way lol. Oh, don't talk nonsense. Up to this point, you've hardly offered anything to discuss about monogamy. Almost everything you've said to offer discussion was about poly stuff, including: - Why does poly get a board, and mono doesn't? - Poly doesn't suit me, because I need loyalty. - Poly people swap partners. - Poly people pretend to be mono until a new attractive prospect shows up. - Why are there so many different poly terms? In contrast, the only thing that you've offered for discussion about mono is: - Is mono rare in the lifestyle? Sure, you've also said a bunch of time "I want to be mono" and "mono for me means absolutely loyalty" and "I can't even imagine cheating", but those are contributions to a discussion, not points to discuss. Imagine me starting a thread saying: "I'm looking for monogamy, want somebody who is going to be loyal to me, and I can't imagine ever cheating on a person." What exactly would people say in response? "Um, ok, great for you!"? That about all there would be to say, now wouldn't there? If you want to make a thread about discussing mono, or make this thread about discussing mono, you need to actually bring up things that we can discus about being mono... so far the only discussion point's you're bringing up are about poly.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 8:18:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HisForLife71 I am monogamous, which means (to me) I do not engage in any kind of intimacy with any other person other than him, either physically or mentally /emotionally. Yes that includes romantically and sexually, but not just that. Ah, finally something we can actually discuss about monogamy... Well, it's been my experience that monogamous people tend to be much more unfaithful than poly people. In fact, the tighter the definitions of 'unfaithfulness' are, the more likely they are to behave disloyal. You see such disloyalty less in relationships where extramarital sex is off the table, but intimate emotional and spiritual relationships with other people are not. In relationship where any form of extramarital intimacy is off the table, in my experience disloyalty inevitably always happens. I think it's a simple fact of human nature, that we need more than a close relationship with one person, and that when we're forced to maintain a relationship with only one person, we're almost always going to fail. Historically this used to be less of an issue it seems, because people lived in tight-knit communities, usually with several adults under one roof. And so people had intimate emotional relationships (usually of a non-sexual kind) with several other adults. Nowadays a prohibition on intimacy outside of the couple usually means isolation. Because even if the person maintains a close bond with their immediate family, they usually don't really end up seeing them often enough for that bond to maintain true intimacy. Not the case in every situation, of course, but often the case. Humans don't tend to cope very well with isolation, and so arrangements like that rarely seem to last very long. Poly people, on the other hand, tend to allow partners to achieve the intimacy they need, with as many people as they need, even if sex isn't always on the table. Even a closed V poly, where two partners are completely sexually faithful to one partner, and sex outside of the triad is completely off the table, tends to not have as many prohibitions on emotional intimacy as the super strict anti-extramarital-intimacy mono couples have. As such, people tend to be less lonely in those relationships, which makes them -on average- much more loyal. Permitting people to meet their emotional needs tends to strengthen their bond with you, because you're now facilitating their happiness... while locking down, and prohibiting them from meeting emotional needs you're not meeting tends to drive them away from you, because you're standing in the way of their happiness... something to think about...

littleladybug -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 8:35:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar In relationship where any form of extramarital intimacy is off the table, in my experience disloyalty inevitably always happens. Always is a very strong word. But then, monogamy, to me (and most people I know), doesn't equal not having friendships outside the relationship. quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar Nowadays a prohibition on intimacy outside of the couple usually means isolation. Because even if the person maintains a close bond with their immediate family, they usually don't really end up seeing them often enough for that bond to maintain true intimacy. Not the case in every situation, of course, but often the case. I haven't seen this at all. Some of the most social people I've known have also been monogamous. But I also tend to favor being around people who don't view their partner(s) as the be all, end all of their existence. Monogamy, to me, doesn't mean getting every single human need met by one person.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 8:56:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littleladybug quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar In relationship where any form of extramarital intimacy is off the table, in my experience disloyalty inevitably always happens. Always is a very strong word. But then, monogamy, to me (and most people I know), doesn't equal not having friendships outside the relationship. I'm not saying that in monogamous relationships disloyalty always happens. That absolutely isn't the case. But in the type of monogamous relationship where (usually with one partner) there is such insecurity that there's a complete prohibition on having any kind of intimacy with people outside of the relationship... You know, somebody comes home and it's "where have you been, why, with whom", and "getting home later than usual because you had drinks with coworkers" is a big deal... yup, in my experience disloyalty always happens and is inevitable. People just aren't cut out for that type of isolation. Though, on the other hand... most monogamous people I know do maintain a much more healthy balance than that, and like you, don't have all out prohibition on emotional intimacy outside of the couple. quote: ORIGINAL: littleladybug quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar Nowadays a prohibition on intimacy outside of the couple usually means isolation. Because even if the person maintains a close bond with their immediate family, they usually don't really end up seeing them often enough for that bond to maintain true intimacy. Not the case in every situation, of course, but often the case. I haven't seen this at all. Some of the most social people I've known have also been monogamous. But I also tend to favor being around people who don't view their partner(s) as the be all, end all of their existence. Monogamy, to me, doesn't mean getting every single human need met by one person. Again, I'm not saying that "monogamy = a prohibition on intimacy with others". I'm saying that "monogamy + a probation on intimacy with others = isolation and disloyalty". Monogamous people aren't all putting out the expectation that there will be no intimacy with people outside of the couple. Most of them manage to have a healthy balance between the couple, and intimacy with others. But the ones that don't, and who define "disloyalty" as "any kind of intimate relationship with anybody but me" (and they're out there... and this is a typical thing that you sometimes see in mono couples, and that I've never seen in poly couples) end up totally isolating the person they're trying to hold close, and by doing so, end up driving them away. All I'm trying to suggest to the OP is: Be careful about putting such a board definition on what you consider "disloyal" that you make sure that, through isolation of your partner, such disloyalty is inevitable. People need intimate relationships with more than one person... even if physical intimacy is totally off the table. I'm specifically responding to the OP saying: quote: ORIGINAL: HisForLife71 I am monogamous, which means (to me) I do not engage in any kind of intimacy with any other person other than him, either physically or mentally /emotionally. And I'm not trying to suggest that all monogamous people have a prohibition on intimacy outside of the couple.

LadyPact -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 9:05:18 AM)
I liked this post very much, so for conversation's sake... quote: ORIGINAL: littleladybug I know that it is probably impossible, but I would be interested in seeing what the actual breakdown is of poly vs. mono relationships within the BDSM umbrella. From my experience in certain communities, as well as reading online fora, it can seem that non-monogamous relationships are more the "norm". My inclination is to say that this is just the nature of the beast, and the overall reality is probably skewed more toward strictly monogamous relationships, but sometimes I do wonder about it. It really would be fascinating to know such a thing, wouldn't it? If there were some way to know statistics like that, rather than just estimations that can be drawn from limited surveys. I'm always curious about that kind of thing. However, you make a really good point about what we "see" vrs what might really be out there because of the views we get. I could really have a good time going through the search feature for examples of people, over the years, who have told me I "shouldn't be on a dating site" because I'm married. (Some have been pretty good jerks about it, too.) A lot of monogamous people who are currently partnered probably wouldn't be on the site unless it was for the social or educational aspect of the place. It has to have something more than just being a dating site for monogamous people to stick around. Same goes with the live version out in the world. When monogamous people do clubs or cons, it's for something else other than 'looking for more people to engage'. I've got a fine set up at home, but the social aspect of clubs has always been one of my things. I don't know anybody who has all of the types of dungeon furniture that's out there. I'd say there are a number of pluses if people just want to go out, but just as many reasons for monogamous folks to want to stay home. Again, another reason why the numbers of what we see might be skewed. quote: Here's the thing though, OP- having the "mono vs. poly" discussion is like discussing religion or politics. For people who are staunchly on opposite sides of the spectrum, there is going to be one of two outcomes. Either an agreement to disagree, or what is, IMO, one of the most annoying comments ever- "but I just don't understand how you could feel this way". From reading the comments, I get why some people are feeling that way. I guess I am seeing it differently because I was monogamous up until my mid-thirties. I didn't have a reason to be poly, so I wasn't. Really, if I lost an interest in kink (it has been known to happen to some folks) I wouldn't have a reason to continue being poly, which might even sound weird to other poly people. quote: If you are truly interested in learning about the hows and whys of non-monogamous relationships, I'd suggest first doing some reading. There is a lot of information available that might give you insight into non-monogamous relationships. I don't believe that it is inherently "wrong" to post questions about it, but I hope you can see now how certain questions might come across from your staunchly monogamous perspective. IME, there is a vast difference between asking questions for the sake of learning, and putting questions out there that automatically put others on the defensive. (The "I don't understand how someone could feel this way" sort.) I'm definitely with you about the learning part. Even though just about every poly person on this thread practices a different kink of poly, I almost wonder if we have enough forum participants to give a good view. Not that the contributions on the thread aren't good. It's just that there aren't a lot of us these days, ya know? quote: FWIW, I don't view what you've said here as part of some "anti-poly" agenda. I'd just consider sitting back a bit and taking in what people have to say. That is, if you're truly interesting in learning about how the "other side ticks". Yes, but you know, that works for the other side, too. There are plenty of poly people who can do the same thing. I've seen it happen several times where poly folks get the air of superiority going on against monogamous people when reading the same kind of thread on other sites. Funny how we tend to do that, sometimes. For what it's worth, OP, you've managed to write the best monogamy and poly discussion that's been here for a while.

littleladybug -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 9:10:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar All I'm trying to suggest to the OP is: Be careful putting such a board definition on what you consider "disloyal" that you make sure that, through isolation of your partner, such disloyalty is inevitable. People need intimate relationships with more than one person... even if sex is totally off the table. But, wouldn't this suggestion be akin to someone saying "be careful when your partner says he or she wants to open up the relationship. They just might want to fuck everything that moves"? I'd venture to say that the vast majority of monogamous or polyamorous situations don't remotely fall into these categories. And, in terms of "people needing intimate relationships with more than one person"- how are you defining "intimate"? ETA: Just saw your edit to your last post- perhaps it would be most beneficial to get the definition of intimacy that the OP is using.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 9:15:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littleladybug From my experience in certain communities, as well as reading online fora, it can seem that non-monogamous relationships are more the "norm". My inclination is to say that this is just the nature of the beast, and the overall reality is probably skewed more toward strictly monogamous relationships, but sometimes I do wonder about it. I think it's skewed, because a lot of monogamous people who are paired up won't be hanging out on a dating site/social kink site. And a lot of monogamous people who are paired up do not play with others (and often don't even like others watching them play) so they don't go to clubs, conferences, events, etc. I know far more monogamous people who say: "I don't go to clubs/events/meet up with people, because we only play at home anyways, so there's no point" than there are poly people who say the same. I'm betting that there's even more mono people than that who aren't even engaging with the online kink community after they find a partner, because to them kink is sex, and sex is private. Because you can't really get a tally of all the mono people who aren't represented at events, or online, it can end up looking like being poly is the norm, when I think that the majority of kinksters really still are mono. The poly crowd is just more in the open, because well... they're more open to including other people into their kink.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 9:28:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littleladybug And, in terms of "people needing intimate relationships with more than one person"- how are you defining "intimate"? ETA: Just saw your edit to your last post- perhaps it would be most beneficial to get the definition of intimacy that the OP is using. As always -maybe more so than native speakers- I'm using the dictionary definition, specifically the bolded ones, the brackets are clarifications by me: quote: intimacy (ˈɪntɪməsɪ) n, pl -cies 1. close or warm friendship or understanding; personal relationship 2. (often plural) euphemistic sexual relations in•ti•ma•cy (ˈɪn tə mə si) n., pl. -cies. 1. the state of being intimate. 2. a close, familiar, and affectionate personal relationship. 3. a close association with or deep understanding of a place, subject, etc. [close association and deep understanding of another person] 4. an act or expression serving as a token of familiarity or affection: the intimacy of using first names. 5. a sexual liberty. 6. privacy, esp. as suitable to the telling of a secret: in the intimacy of his studio. [privacy of secrets with another person, outside of the couple, emotional privacy] intimacy [in-tuh-muh-see] noun, plural intimacies. 1. the state of being intimate. 2.a close, familiar, and usually affectionate or loving personal relationship with another person or group. 3. a close association with or detailed knowledge or deep understanding of a place, subject, period of history, etc.: an intimacy with Japan. 4.an act or expression serving as a token of familiarity, affection, or the like: to allow the intimacy of using first names. 5. an amorously familiar act; liberty. 6. sexual intercourse. 7. the quality of being comfortable, warm, or familiar: the intimacy of the room. in·ti·ma·cy ˈin(t)əməsē/ noun noun: intimacy - close familiarity or friendship; closeness. "the intimacy between a husband and wife" synonyms: closeness, togetherness, affinity, rapport, attachment, familiarity, friendliness, friendship, amity, affection, warmth, confidence; - a private cozy atmosphere. "the room had a peaceful sense of intimacy about it" - an intimate act, especially sexual intercourse. synonyms: sexual relations, (sexual) intercourse, sex, lovemaking; More - an intimate remark. And I think you're right, getting the OPs definition of intimacy would be helpful, because I cannot wrap my head around what it might be. It sounds to me that the way she's defining intimacy is: "Anything that will make somebody emotionally close to another person outside of the couple", which I think is just a bad bad idea to forbid...

DaddySatyr -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 9:31:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChrchofDrk Polyamory (from Greek πολύ poly, "many, several", and Latin amor, "love") is the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships involving more than two people, with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. Polygamy (from Late Greek πολυγαμία, polygamia, "state of marriage to many spouses") involves marriage with more than one spouse. When a man is married to more than one wife at a time, it is called polygyny. When a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, it is called polyandry. There is a huge difference between the two Welcome to Page 3 Michael

littleladybug -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 9:35:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar As always -maybe more so than native speakers- I'm using the dictionary definition, specifically the bolded ones, the brackets are clarifications by me: I think that this is a case of the "black and white" dictionary definition versus actual practice. I'd like to hear the OP's reaction to the dictionary definition, and how it does (or does not) relate to her relationship.

LadyPact -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 9:56:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Welcome to Page 3 Michael Not picking on you personally, Michael, but the breakdown of the root of the word isn't really much except to find another way to say non-monogamy. So, a word got created that we all have different definitions for and we confuse people by what we mean with it. The "poly" part works for most of us. It's the "amorous" part where we all go sixteen ways to Sunday. People hear that, translate the definition to love, and then make the automatic assumption of "in love". While that can be completely correct for some poly folks, it's way shy of how some of us engage in this thing. I'd have no problem sitting here and telling people the various forums of dynamics I've engaged in, whether they had a romantic, "in love" element or not, and it wouldn't be any different to me than telling someone the distinction between the milk and the eggs. The minus the "in love" thing isn't the defining factor in poly for a lot of people. I think that is a part of why people get confused.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875