For those who don't practice monogamy (solidgold? etc) How on earth do you not become jealous?

[poshsinglemum]

I am just curious as I am the most jealous insecure person ever and it's a horrid and unattractice trait. Is jealousy natural?

And please stop confusing 'commitment' with 'monogamy'.

Oh, that viewpoint is not solely restricted to MN, believe me!

CR.. I think our only point of agreement is that it is true. You really do not understand at all what I am saying.

I think TobyLerone has covered it more clearly than I have.

The thing is, even if you are a monogamous person, that doesn't guarantee no one ever gets hurt. What people often seem to forget is that love is not always requited. Plenty of people 'fall in love' with someone who either can't or won't reciprocate, and just because someone wants a relationship, love, commitment or sex from another person doesn't mean they are entitled to it. It;s OK to refuse someone who claims to love you, up to the point of taking out a restraining order against them if you need to.

Toby you sound a tad patronising

I am not in the least confused.

I am fully aware that non-monogamy does not mean non-commitment, but for the sake of argument here, it is easier to assume it does. Most people who choose to live in a monogamous relationship find it involves commitment.

Sure, commitment may exclude monogamy but for most people the 2 are mutual. What you are saying is that some people can live in a primary relationship but have other relationships alongsdie that. yes?

snow I don't get what you are saying because you are not saying it clearly.

SGB if you read my previous post you will see that in fact we are saying exactly the same thing! Hurrah! We agree!

"I am fully aware that non-monogamy does not mean non-commitment, but for the sake of argument here, it is easier to assume it does."

Um...what? No it isn't! Maybe for the sake of proving your non-existent point it is 'easier to assume it does'. You cannot change facts just to make your opinion sound more worthwhile than someone else's.

"What you are saying is that some people can live in a primary relationship but have other relationships alongsdie that. yes?"

Yes, although not exclusively. There are as many ways to conduct relationships as there are people. Some non-monogamous people have a primary partner and then one or more other partners (sometimes termed as secondary, tertiary etc, but not often). Some have all sorts of relationships with all sorts of people without ever feeling the need to put them in some sort of heirarchy. Some are self-confessed 'sluts' who are single but sleep with several/many people on all sorts of terms. Some have several relationships all of equal importance and levels of commitment. Some live with several partners in the same house. And so on...

With the possible exception of some of the sluts, all of these types of relationship contain some form of commitment. That may be a commitment in the form of marriage (to one, obviously), or a mortgage, or children. Or it could be a commitment to spend every second Tuesday night together.

i am perfectly willing to consider that some people make polyamorous relationships work on an emotional level - i do understand it is possible to love more than one person - but i just wonder how they work on a practical level.

take something less emotional like hobbies. there are lots of hobbies i could enjoy but if i take on too many there just aren't enough hours in the day or resources to give to them all to make it worthwhile. so i choose to limit them. if i have more than one hobby it is more than likely something will crop up where i have to choose between the two.

isn't it the same with partners? if it's x's birthday but y has an important need for my time who do i choose? and is it fair that i have to choose between them when it is a person (with feelings) and not a hobby?

"isn't it the same with partners? if it's x's birthday but y has an important need for my time who do i choose?"

This is a brilliant point, Smashing and something I didn't want to get confused in my previous post about heirarchies. But usually it is discussed and understood by all parties involved when things like this crop up. This is one of the benefits of everything being out in the open. It is easy to discuss things in an adult way --
"I'm sorry, X, but [this bad thing] has happened and Y needs me. I promise I will make it up to you tomorrow."
"Y, of course I will miss my plans with X because you need me. I will see X tomorrow instead."

Sometimes there is an obvious heirarchy. For example, I was once the secondary partner of a married man with a very young (toddler) daughter. It was discussed and understood between us that if he'd planned to see me one weekend but his wife/daughter needed his time, they would come first, (rightly) being his first priority.

1. As TobyLerone points out, you are spectacularly missing the point with this comment "I am fully aware that non-monogamy does not mean non-commitment, but for the sake of argument here, it is easier to assume it does.".

You have been repeatedly told by different people that they have been involved in fullfiling, loving, committed non-monogomist relationships.. yet you will not hear of it.

1. I was pointing out to your own quote demonstrates that people may change their mind about their choices.

Therefore, by the same logic if someone chooses monogomy and gets married. There is a risk they may change their mind and actually want to do something different, (hurting other people in the process).

It just seems to me that you cannot bear to imagine that relationsships with commitment and love, could possibly exisit outside of a conventional monogomist structure.

I have no idea whether monogomist is a real word, before I get pulled up on it...

TobyLerone - your example converation sounds all very happy and resolved but i' sure there must be times when both x and y consider their calls on the partners time equally important (or disagree about the partners ranking of them). to me it all just sounds too complicated and fraught with difficulties / drama to bother with.

also, i don't personally see the appeal of being someone else's 'secondary' partner. why bother when i can be someone's 'primary' partner?

however live and let live. as long as all parties in the arrangement are consenting and feel they are getting their needs met i say fine. there are plenty of dysfunctional monogamous relationships out there.

the one thing that does really piss me off however are those who think it is okay for them to be polyamorous but not their partners (usually blokes). talk about having your cake, eating it and then shitting it out all over your partners face.

There does seem to be a recurrent theme of men having sexual needs/urges/desires and this being understandable, whilst women having their own sexual needs being more than a little problematic.

SNM..I have always found monogomy much higher in drama and difficulties, simply because I was meant/expected to prioritise one person over others in my life. A consistent issue for me - but for others this works perfectly and would never say it doesn't.

snow I am not missing any point.
You are though. You are putting words into my mouth.

Find me a line in my posts where i say that polygamous relationships are not fulfilling . or loving.

As for "being repeatedly told by different people"- errr........ which people?

No one- especially a man!- has come on here ( except SGB) to say they live this kind of lifestyle and are out of their 20s and 30s.

I can ssure you 100% that I am quite capable of imagining all kinds of set ups which are not 1:1 monogamy. Whether they bring each person involved true happiness and fulfillment other then the alternative- is another matter.

The more people who are in the equation, the more complicated it gets and the more the rsik of someone being hurt.

Can I ask what kind of set-up you are in?

Often on these threads people bang their drum from a purely theoretical point of view, talking the talk, rather than walking the walk.

"also, i don't personally see the appeal of being someone else's 'secondary' partner. why bother when i can be someone's 'primary' partner?"

This is why you are monogamous. There are advantages to being the secondary, especially if you already have a primary partner of your own.

Also, yes, of course there might be times when both X and Y disagree about the importance of their needs. If you have two (or more) children and Child A falls over and cuts himself at Child B's birthday party, you'd take Child A to the hospital, because his need would be greater at that exact moment in time. It's about priorities.

People in non-monogamous relationships (especially those which are complicated due to various relationship priorities/distance/whatever) rarely disagree about their 'place' in the heirarchy. It just is.

cabbage, seriously, please do some more research, at least so you know the difference in terms. 'Polygamy' is not the same thing as 'polyamory'.

I would imagine that one of the most common non-monogamous set-ups is an affair - and given the disapproval with which this type of arrangment is viewed and the fact that, by its very nature, it is clandestine, it is not really surprising that we do not hear much about non-monogamous relationships!

I think that the 'turning a blind eye' approach is probably much more common than people admit, especially in very long term relationships where 'romantic love' if it ever existed in the first place, has long since flown the marital nest, possibly also along with a marital sex life.

And I think solid gold made a very good point about romantic love - the term was practically invented to describe a knightly obsessive yearning for an unavailable married woman in the days when marriage had little, if anything, to do with romance or love!

An affair, although strictly speaking 'non-monogamous' has absolutely nothing to do with '(ethically) non-monogamous relationships' such as we have been discussing.

i can see one advantage of open polyamorous relationships in that at least the people involved are likely to have put some thought into the situation. as monogamy is the assumed default in our culture people can fall into it without thinking it through.

truth is all sorts of relationships can have good and bad points.

CR if you read my posts very carefully, you will see I said what set up I am currently in and what I would like would I want to get in relationship space again.

... agree an affair is not what is being discussed as a poly here...

Sorry on the phone as a polyamorous relationship...I mean

"i can see one advantage of open polyamorous relationships in that at least the people involved are likely to have put some thought into the situation. as monogamy is the assumed default in our culture people can fall into it without thinking it through."

Completely agree :)