Is polyamory an evolved way of being?

[anika99]

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone. They are appreciated.

 

This person feels like we are all one, so loving everyone and expressing love for everyone shouldn't be restricted. That it is natural to love all, and to not be able to share that love is to be controlling and is restraining one's freedom to do what we are meant to do--which is to love.

 

This is true. I love lots of people and I would be very sad if something or someone were to try to restrict me from loving all of the people in my life, but since when do we have to have sex and romance with everyone we love? There is a vast array of ways to show our love and caring to others. Sex is only one way and often sex isn't about love at all. Sometimes sex even erodes love.

 

I'm down for letting people live their lives as they see fit without judgement. Your friend has a right to believe whatever she wants but so do you. I'm sure she doesn't like being judged for her lifestyle so she should not judge yours.

[TheWhittler]

"I have felt rather guilty for not having polyamory as a lifestyle preference, feeling like I'm not "spiritual" or "evolved" or "enlightened" enough. Feeling guilty for not being able to transcend jealousy. Feeling like my preference for a monogamous relationship is inferior and lower-level thinking/energy, etc.

 

Do you see polyamory--having multiple romantic partners--as more evolved and natural than monogamy? Is monogamy really all just about control and jealousy, like this person believes?"

 

Hi Sooshi.

 

Regardless of how a person wants to conduct their sex life I find it rather constricting, boreish and a bit sad that a person has to make you feel guilty for being yourself just because your views on how you conduct yourself in the bedroom are different to theirs.

 

Makes me imagine a sad old hippy trying to get it on with teenage girls or some sort of "cult" leader collecting women to use for sex if I am honest...

 

There is nothing less spiritual or less evolved or less "enlightened" than trying to fore ones opinions on another through guilt tripping them. Poor show on your friends behalf.

 

I think it was "Elswyth" who commented about evolution and devolution... One would hope that humanity continue to evolve bad sadly it seems we are stuck and starting to devolve into something else.

 

I don't think you need to feel guilty about anything. Live your life in a way that makes you feel comfortable with yourself.

[sooshi]

This is true. I love lots of people and I would be very sad if something or someone were to try to restrict me from loving all of the people in my life, but since when do we have to have sex and romance with everyone we love? There is a vast array of ways to show our love and caring to others. Sex is only one way and often sex isn't about love at all. Sometimes sex even erodes love.

 

This is what I've been thinking too, anika. I haven't met anyone on this forum, for instance, but I feel love for many of them. It doesn't mean I would want to be romantically involved with them, though.

 

I think Elswyth is accurate in that there is no "best" way for all, but a "right for the individual" way, which can change over one's lifetime. This is the fact not only for relationships, but for everything in our lives.

 

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone. I am feeling more comfortable and less guilty for not desiring to have multiple romantic partners. It's not necessarily rigid, controlling, jealousy, and not love, like this person believes monogamy to be.

 

I am glad I asked this question and heard from all of you, and I apologize to anyone who felt judged or discriminated against along the way. You are all wonderful people and I hope you know that.

[thefooloftheyear]

I'm from a generation that the last thing any guy wants is another guy putting a shovel in his garden, so to speak....

 

I agree with GT, though ....To each their own ....if it doesn't affect me, isn't hurting kids or animals, then I have no say really....

 

That being said, there definitely seems to be a change in how most younger guys view this...Maybe that's why its seen as some sort of enlightened or evolutionary thing...Less male dominance, territoriality, etc...And no, a guy that just likes a monogamous relationship doesn't have to necessarily be a possessive a-hole, either..

 

.02

 

TFY

[wmacbride]

I know someone who practices polyamory and who thinks it is the way we are meant to be, and that it is the way we will evolve to become. They do not think monogamy is love. They believe monogamy is based on control and jealousy, and that if people could transcend jealousy, people would be polyamorous--where there can be full autonomy, and where you can express your love to anyone in any way you want.

 

I have felt rather guilty for not having polyamory as a lifestyle preference, feeling like I'm not "spiritual" or "evolved" or "enlightened" enough. Feeling guilty for not being able to transcend jealousy. Feeling like my preference for a monogamous relationship is inferior and lower-level thinking/energy, etc.

 

Do you see polyamory--having multiple romantic partners--as more evolved and natural than monogamy? Is monogamy really all just about control and jealousy, like this person believes?

 

I think that idea is just a way for people who like to sleep around to give themselves a pat on the back for doing so

 

Whether it's 'natural" or "more evolved" is irrelevant ( and contradictory...doing what is natural doesn't make on more evolved). Just my opinion, but what makes one evolved is their ability to be kind to others, to think of others feelings and to not hurt people.

 

One a side note, many animals that are highly evolved and live a long time are also monogamous. For example, certain species of parrots, ravens, crows, albatrosses etc. that are considered to be highly evolved, and in the case of ravens/crows/parrots, extremely intelligent, are for a large part, monogamous. It is believed they evolved this behavior as their chicks take a long time to reach adulthood and require a lot of care and teaching from their parents.

 

In many ways, people are the same. our children require decades ( sometimes more:p) to grow up, and having a stable home life with two parents can ehlp to ensure they launch successfully...or so most parents hope

[wmacbride]

No, I think it's BS.

 

 

In my opinion,people's sexual and emotional needs are their own, and if they are honest and upfront, and if the parties involved knowingly consent none of it is bad ( excepting things like pedophilia, rape, etc. those are NOT okay)

 

I have an issue when someone who knows they like to be with more than one person lies about it and pretends to be monogamous. That smacks of something far more devious.

[wmacbride]

I'm from a generation that the last thing any guy wants is another guy putting a shovel in his garden, so to speak....

 

I agree with GT, though ....To each their own ....if it doesn't affect me, isn't hurting kids or animals, then I have no say really....

 

That being said, there definitely seems to be a change in how most younger guys view this...Maybe that's why its seen as some sort of enlightened or evolutionary thing...Less male dominance, territoriality, etc...And no, a guy that just likes a monogamous relationship doesn't have to necessarily be a possessive a-hole, either..

 

.02

 

TFY

 

This puts me in mind of a documentary I saw not to long ago. It was filmed in the UK, and followed some teenagers. they had gotten into extremely casual sex with one another, and when they were talking about it in a group, it was all about how great it was.

When they were interviewed individually, even the guys said they didn't really enjoy what they were doing, and longed to be able to be with just one girl.

 

It was sad and quite disturbing.

[Mumbles]

We evolved from polyamory, but that doesn't mean that we will evolve back into it. In fact, it seems highly unlikely, especially given that the human species has essentially halted natural selection. Unless humanity is dealt a devastating blow, future genetic changes in humans' DNA are likely to be artificially selected, and genes that predispose a person to polyamory

 

Its an interesting discussion this and one thats been had on LS quite a number of times. I'd love for a thread to start where we can all really get into the meat of it - but long in-depth discussions are not often received well here .. people are busy I guess, big posts tend to get ignored or left mostly unread

 

I agree that it seems unlikely in the near term that we'd return to this lifestyle society wide.

 

 

... are unlikely to be chosen for the same reasons why we left polyamory behind (far too many men weren't getting any).

 

Yes, indeed! I've seen this mentioned before and anecdotal study seems to indicate the truth of this statement.

 

By reproductive age the numbers of men and women are roughly equal, plus or minus as few percent given localised factors. Our current societal situation of pairing up more or less gives each member a reasonable chance of having an available sexual partner.

 

Its been noted that in different situations including historical ones, where women have been 'lucky' enough to enjoy free choice in these matters, that a very small percentage of males get to seed the vast majority of the available women.

 

A lot of men, when considering poly lifestyles, and certainly in discussions I've had, seem to immediately think it would be great, for them, but they must be coming from an angle on the subject where the available 'pool' of women won't ever refuse them ... again, given free choice, its long been noted that most men simply won't ever get a pop at the available women.

 

Men of means, whether that be power or money (oftentimes intimately linked) will garner the vast majority of interest, alpha's will get the rest (if they are not already in the first group).

 

Its been said before that from a care, nurture and stability point of view, 10% of a good man is usually preferable to women than 100% of a bad one (haha!).

 

From a broad societal point of view, its all about the children, I know individually a lot more comes into play, but broad stats diminish specific personality. As a society, we've grown into a position of not really embracing community child care and nurture. Its our lives, our jobs, our money, our children .... we don't want to expend effort at the tribal/community level, we're far more selfish in outlook these days.

 

Theres considerable ready evidence of this having come out of a quite primal place tbh, many animal species will see a new alpha male in a group killing the offspring of the previous alpha. We seem, for a while at least, to have evolved past that as tribal integrity supplanted the individual, but now we're back with a newly invigorated sense of only expending resources on those directly linked to us in some way.

 

It really is just about compatibility in this day and age. I would be wary of a person who tries to claim that their way is 'best for all'. No, there is no 'best' way, just the 'right for the individual' way.

 

Yes, agreed. It does seem strange, looking back at the language used in the OP. Perhaps its just the choice of word .. evolved.

 

Perhaps it is more evolved? In a really high level broad sense, sort of a star trek fantasy, where money is (supposedly) gone from society, positions of power are distributed merits based, and the human effort goals of the population becomes one of the integrity of the 'federation' (or tribe really).

 

Of course, even in the confines of the fantasy of Star Trek there are myriad ongoing plot/story faults that diverge markedly from this espoused ideal ... even the writers themselves seem to have been unable to completely disentangle themselves from the societal norms of the era they were writing in.

[jen1447]

The evolutionary thing could be an interesting discussion but I don't think this guy's actually making a case for that. I've seen 'poly' ppl working his angle before and he just sounds like a con man to me who's so far invested in his con that he's started believing it himself. Most likely he's sth like TheWhittler said where his original idea was to sort of congregate a stable of available women and he realized he could do better w it if he tried to convince them all they were equal in his eyes and there was love involved rather than just sex.

 

That's just promiscuity and open relationships, not really polyamory. He's flying it under the poly banner bc it sounds better and it's easier rationalized.

[2.50 a gallon]

I beleive that monogamy is one of the key factors for our evolution into human beings. Brains over brawn. What I mean is that the thinker, the creative one, the one who figured how to break rocks in such away to make a cutting edge, who was not the alpha male type, survived and not only that passed on his thinking genes

[NuevoYorko]

 

It's like take any bad, selfish, self-centered, etc. idea and just slap a label of "progressive" or "modern" on it and it's all good.

 

You might look at it the other way as well: Take any unusual idea and just slap a lable of "bad, selfish, self-centered" on it. Progressive, modern thinking is not inherently evil, regardless of a strong theme in our current cultures. There are a lot of this type of knee jerk reactions right here.

 

OP, I respond similarly to your friend who says that monogamous relationships are negative. They are pioneering different ways, but that doesn't mean that the more traditional way is "bad."

 

I think polyamory would be difficult. It's different from the "free love" idea from the 60's; poly existed there but mostly it was just fun sex with anybody until you paired up with someone, whether it was for the longterm or not, more along the lines of today's people having a lot of "NSA" sex during their single years. It's not like "swinging" at all. Those ideas get mistakenly conflated; it happens here often.

 

For most people (not all), polyamory isn't about just having all kinds of sex with whomever any more than polygamy is. People are forming multiple relationships and each one of them need to be nurtured. You might find that immoral but I imagine it's hard to be selfish when you have to take care of multiple people.

 

The institution of marriage was based on control, power, economics and survival. We don't really need it anymore; it's a choice. I reject the idea that it's immoral to have different ways of having a sex life or forming familial bonds, but also the idea that we MUST get rid of monogamy in order to progress as a society. What we need to do is become more accepting of ideas that we might not be comfortable with when they don't have anything to do with our own lives.

[wmacbride]

I beleive that monogamy is one of the key factors for our evolution into human beings. Brains over brawn. What I mean is that the thinker, the creative one, the one who figured how to break rocks in such away to make a cutting edge, who was not the alpha male type, survived and not only that passed on his thinking genes

 

You could be right. Many successful men do not fit the 'alpha' model of a man.

[NuevoYorko]

I beleive that monogamy is one of the key factors for our evolution into human beings. Brains over brawn. What I mean is that the thinker, the creative one, the one who figured how to break rocks in such away to make a cutting edge, who was not the alpha male type, survived and not only that passed on his thinking genes

Why did he need monogamy to pass the thinking genes on?

[Just a Guy]

Hi folks, I guess it all comes down yo perspective. If you hold a certain view you would defend it with all the powers at your command. If one is into polyamory and fully subscribes to all it entails then one would of course advocate it vociferously over other forms of relationships. To my mind it just proves the adage 'One man's meat is another man's poison.'

 

On another note the protagonist of the view that polyamory is the way for relationships of the future and who maintains that we are meant to love everyone alike is not taking into consideration the simple fact that as human beings we come across some people in life who we take an instant dislike to. There is no reason for the dislike and it is probably a gut feel( the famous gut feel that tells us our spouse is cheating on us) and try as we may we cannot bring ourselves to 'like' that person much less love him/ her. So that expansive statement falls flat on it's face. Such love is only possible if we evolve to the level of Jesus Christ and let's be honest. One cannot run before one learns to walk. Maybe a million years from now when humans have evolved spiritually to a level where all our human weaknesses are a thing of the dim past then such love would be possible. By then we may have dispensed with sex and all the shennanigans that go with it. Warm wishes.

[joseb]

Why did he need monogamy to pass the thinking genes on?

 

I think he's alluding to the fact that in a primitive primate society, with polygamy it would only be the larger more aggressive males that got to pass on their genes, and the 'brainy' ones would be less likely.

Though they may also have figured out sneaky ways to mate behind the alphas back

[jen1447]

If you hold a certain view you would defend it with all the powers at your command. If one is into polyamory and fully subscribes to all it entails then one would of course advocate it vociferously over other forms of relationships.

 

That's proven untrue just by reading this thread.

[benpom]

People who are truly polygamous would agree with this: 'I am happy to be NOT the only lover of my partner. I am ok with the fact that my partner has multiple lovers and he/she may love someone else a little more than me. This fact does not make me feel hurt and uncomfortable, not even a little.' By far, I have not witnessed any true polygamous people.

 

False polygamous (in fact just self-centered) would be more like this: 'I want to have multiple partners.'

[Weezy1973]

The fact that most people fall in love and pair bond (i.e. grow attached) is good evidence in itself that we're monogamous naturally. That being said, we have certainly adapted to change based on environment, and there are still polygamous cultures out there. But interestingly enough, even with cultures that are polygamous, the vast majority of people in those cultures still choose monogamy...

[Mumbles]

The fact that most people fall in love and pair bond (i.e. grow attached) is good evidence in itself that we're monogamous naturally.

 

There does appear to be some evidence of this ... but I think it actually plays out as serial monogamy. In a non industrialised world the couple stay together until the children have grown to a point where they are more or less self functioning and less likely to be eaten by a cave bear or wantonly killed by any passing predator... 7-10-12 years

 

In support of the above theory I'd cite the so called seven year itch .. this phenomena is real, its staggering the number of couples who break up somewhere inside the 7-10 year timeframe. A lot of couples work through this of course, but it inevitably appears as a challenge which needs to be worked through.

 

That being said, we have certainly adapted to change based on environment, and there are still polygamous cultures out there. But interestingly enough, even with cultures that are polygamous, the vast majority of people in those cultures still choose monogamy...

 

I don't disagree, but I think that the 'vast majority' are also relatively resource poor. Properly maintaining more than one family requires access to substantial resources.

 

In those societies that either accept or perhaps begrudgingly turn a blind eye to multiple pairings its quite often the case that the the apparently successful poly arrangements also involve access to larger than average resources.

[benpom]

 

In support of the above theory I'd cite the so called seven year itch .. this phenomena is real, its staggering the number of couples who break up somewhere inside the 7-10 year timeframe. A lot of couples work through this of course, but it inevitably appears as a challenge which needs to be worked through.

 

 

In my opinion, the 7 year itch has little to do with whether it's monogamous or not.

 

Now I am going to be a little off topic:

 

I think the 7-10 year thing is more of a human tolerance limit. One thing I realized when researching on demise of relationships is that: most people withhold secrets in relationships - secret resentments, secret unhappiness. Rarely two people have the same value system. Different values systems inevitably require one person or both people to give in and withhold negative feelings. These feelings don't disappear. They build up secretly and lead the relationship to its eventual death, slowly or explosively. Ironically, these secrets were what held two people together for many years.

 

This pattern actually happens to friendship too, just in a less severe form.

[Gloria25]

In my opinion, the 7 year itch has little to do with whether it's monogamous or not.

 

Now I am going to be a little off topic:

 

I think the 7-10 year thing is more of a human tolerance limit. One thing I realized when researching on demise of relationships is that: most people withhold secrets in relationships - secret resentments, secret unhappiness. Rarely two people have the same value system. Different values systems inevitably require one person or both people to give in and withhold negative feelings. These feelings don't disappear. They build up secretly and lead the relationship to its eventual death, slowly or explosively. Ironically, these secrets were what held two people together for many years.

 

This pattern actually happens to friendship too, just in a less severe form.

 

In other words, people stop working on their relationships and it builds up to a boiling point - aka the "7 year itch" and/or the "mid-life crisis".

 

All this 'people weren't designed to be monogamous' is crap.

[Mumbles]

In other words, people stop working on their relationships and it builds up to a boiling point - aka the "7 year itch" and/or the "mid-life crisis".

 

I believe the mid-life crisis to be an entirely different animal to the 7 year itch. Sure, the cliche mid-life crisis can often end up with infidelity as well, but its not the main thing going on.

 

I'm also unsure if the 7 year itch, as I understand it anyway, has to do with pent up unresolved emotion or anger. Generally the 7 year itch presents as infidelity in an otherwise mostly fine relationship.

 

Who knows where the causal link is? Maybe there isn't one?

[Miss Peach]

I've have more experience with monogamy but I've done a bit of both. I see both have different advantages and disadvantages. There are also some areas in the gray like monogamish which is where I tend to go. I know people in both lifestyles IRL.

 

I see how someone can't meet all of someone's needs. People tend to get different needs met by different people. I get that. But for me the splitting of time and attention is what I personally have trouble dealing with in poly.

 

The thing I can't understand is the poly backlash. I've noticed when people post for advice about poly, they get people attacking poly or getting swayed by strange details that have nothing to do with the problem.

 

I'm really surprised at how defensive a lot of people get when someone is poly. I found more backlash against that personally by most people than about me being bi-sexual and talking about women.

 

I was just talking about this yesterday with someone. He is in a triad and wants to take his wife and his live-in GF to his company Christmas party and feels it's unfair one needs to stay at home.

[jen1447]

I'm really surprised at how defensive a lot of people get when someone is poly.

 

I think it's mainly just fear and loathing, not unlike used to be really common w homosexuals. When a thing like that is in its infancy, ppl tend to lash out in an attempt to correct what they see as an attack on and a threat to the social order -i.e. their way of life is perceived as being in jeopardy and they'll do w/e it takes to defend it. Including these tremendously insulting blanket generalizations and condemnations (and god knows what else if the circumstances are right). smh :/

[MJJean]

 

I was just talking about this yesterday with someone. He is in a triad and wants to take his wife and his live-in GF to his company Christmas party and feels it's unfair one needs to stay at home.

 

Why can't he take both? Assuming there won't be any PDA's, there is no reason he can't bring both his wife and "their close friend". Sure, a few people may speculate, but he could always pass it off as "Well, she is single and dear to us, so we brought her along to the party for some holiday cheer."

 

If it's about not being able to acknowledge their relationship openly for fear of damaging his reputation and career....well, yeah, he's right not to bring her. She'd just end up hurt watching him be publicly affectionate and "with" his wife but unable to acknowledge her and their connection.