Sharing the love

[chocky]

OK, who else here is poly?

Given the lack of possessiveness expressed by the typical INTJ, I figure we'll find there's a higher percentage of us poly-folk here than in real life.

So what's your attitude to polyamoury?

[PortInStorm]

I said poly-curious because I think you can love more than one person at once. HOWEVER, this comes with some pretty big caveats:
- I'd need it to be contracted, or committed, or something
- everyone would have to agree on another partner being added (to prevent the whole "Great, now I'm the third wife" bitterness. So would everyone's desire for freedom be met by these conditions? Probably not, since the attraction of one would probably not be shared by the rest thus losing the unanimous state.
- I really do wonder if this could all work in the same house. I would rather be in a polygamous marriage with my own place where I lived alone until I had my time with the spouse(s).
- I personally would not include homosexuality in this polygamous commitment, nor would I be in one that did
- I'm a Christian, but lots of godly people in the Bible had more than one wife. I don't see any direct commands against polygamous marriages. But I'd like (obviously) to explore a wife with 2 or more husbands. This almost never happens in real life, I'm sure some would say because it limits childbearing, evolutionarily-speaking. However, I don't think polygamy is the real ideal, due to the whole 1man-1woman original couple (I know, go ahead and laugh at me).
- no way would I take care of other wives' children, no way would I live with the mom and the kids, there should be some kind of thing in the contract about every 'subunit' making their own finances (although the guy could contribute half). I don't want any masses of impovrished kids because the guy's salary only goes so far. Perhaps a limit on number of children, too.

[Paul V]

There wasn't an option for "Definitely not for me, but I don't care if others do it", so I picked "Poly-what?".

[Firelie]

Possessiveness might not be an issue for INTJs, but having romantic relationships with more than one person doesn't exactly sound like the sort of thing I'd associate with INTJs, either.

It's a lot of work to maintain a relationship with one person, I can't imagine trying to have more than that.

[Tsuru]

Definitely not for me. ;o

I don't have any moral issues with it though - so if it works for you then have at it.

I'd bet that INTJs probably have a higher % rate of poly relationships than average just due to our indifference to convention.

[yondyr]

Having lived in a menage a trois (MMF)for decades, with two other INTJ's, I would say it's a very sensible arrangement. And given the personalities involved common sense ruled regarding foolishness like jealousy, money fights, control of children. Consider the knowledge base and range of interests that three minds bring to the mix...makes for an awesome and capable lifetyle for all.

[JTG]

I voted poly-curious, because i tend to shy away from committed relationships. I don't like to get tied down unless i see somebody as worth showing every aspect of myself (physical, emotional, etc) so i've been in situations before where i would go on random dates with friends, cuddle, etc, but without emotional attachment.

I've also been in situations where i was dating somebody who already had a boyfriend, or where i was dating somebody non-seriously, who then got a serious boyfriend but kept our relationship-ish-thing going without his knowledge. I'm not a fan of either of those situations personally, because i think they end up causing a lot of stress and mistrust for some of the parties involved.

Definitely if i'm going to be in a committed relationship though, it has to be monogamous unless all parties involved set rules ahead of time for what's allowed, what isn't, and what exactly is everybody's place.

[yondyr]

That's the whole point, we being INTJ's are autonomous within the relationship. Totally voluntary. Respect for the wishes, interests, inclinations of the others - whether to live apart for awhile, to have separate holidays, have privacy, no schedule. All monies, property are held in three names. It works very well - but it does take trust. But then so it does in other relationships - trust that the others have your interests paramount for if all function like that, your own are satisfied. Sometimes, me particularly, will struggle along with a project, maybe something as simple as changing a tyre, figgering it's good practice, being so isolated...but eventually I'll ask one of the others for help, they knowing I at least tried my best...and so it goes with all of us, all with humour.

[ElstonGunn]

One of the reasons that I don't like the idea of polygamy because I'm not in the top echelon of men who would get all the women. In other words, the Brad Pitts and the Johnny Depps (or whoever it is that women go nuts for these days) would each get ten women, and the boring, crotchety jerks like me would have none.

[Solaris]

One of the reasons that I don't like the idea of polygamy because I'm not in the top echelon of men who would get all the women. In other words, the Brad Pitts and the Johnny Depps (or whoever it is that women go nuts for these days) would each get ten women, and the boring, crotchety jerks like me would have none.

You are operating under the assumption that all women are only attracted to these "pretty boy" types. I assure you, this isn't true. In fact, it's almost insulting. What stops it from being insulting, is that you probably feel your statement to be true, based on life experience. In any case, not all women want nothing but a pretty face. I look much more at personality, though I do have a general set of characteristics I know I find attractive.

[ElstonGunn]

You are operating under the assumption that all women are only attracted to these "pretty boy" types. I assure you, this isn't true. In fact, it's almost insulting. What stops it from being insulting, is that you probably feel your statement to be true, based on life experience. In any case, not all women want nothing but a pretty face. I look much more at personality, though I do have a general set of characteristics I know I find attractive.

Yeah, I probably should have said that my point was based on the assumption that women have little choice in the matter. Obviously that's not a a good assumption to make on this side of the year 1800.

I didn't mean to imply that pretty boys are the only type of men that women like. Although they do seem to claim a fairly large portion of women's interests, there are a lot of other 'types' that are popular. Some women like the bad boy, or the manly man, or the Casanovas, or any number of other types, inasmuch as broad categorization of people into general stereotypes could be considered accurate.

But yes, my comment is mostly based on experience. If I were going to consider myself one of the 'types,' it probably wouldn't be a particularly popular or appealing one. All I really meant was that the attractive (not just in the physical sense) men would get all the women, and the gargoyles like me would be even less likely than we are now to get anything.

[yondyr]

erm let's work on your self image. Just being an INTJ means you're selective and have standards and would rather not play games in getting a date. And would you really want a girl who wanted those types?

[JTG]

Why is everybody knocking Pitt and Depp? They're both charming, attractive, intelligent men. I'm not gay, but i'd probably tap either of them if i was. They would both have plenty of female company (assuming they wanted it) in a polygamy-friendly world.

If he had named one of the backstreet boys on the other hand... bleh. No clue what any woman ever saw in any of them. I don't care, 14 or 41, no sane woman goes for a guy like that

[Uytuun]

It doesn't appeal to me. Too complicated.

If other people like it - good for them.