[Dallyoop]

I hope it is understood that I am not against polymorphic practices as far as they appeal to other people. I just don't quite understand the draw. Most likely because my own emotional side is stunted and underdeveloped. Just sounds extremely difficult to juggle so many peoples emotions. Mostly I am trying to discuss this from the standpoint of what is generally understood about basic human nature.

For instance, I have to disagree that you alone are responsible for your own emotions and D for hers. That is basically stating that nothing either of you do should have an effect emotionally on the other no matter what that is, so long as it is discussed before hand. Maybe your case is an exception to the rule, but last I checked, people just can't control their emotions like that. No matter what training they have. Therapists get pissed off just like anyone else.

I'm not debating the physical aspect of polymorphism, people can do whatever they want, doesn't effect me any, long as it works for you it's none of my business... I'm just talking about the emotional side. That's the part that interests me. How can a separation of intimacy and sexuality exist when the very act of sleeping with anyone at all is by definition, an act of love and intimacy? I don't know why I am so interested in this, but emotions have always piqued my interest as to why we have them and how we display them to others.

Something kinda made me chuckle a bit though. When D said she was okay and therefore she is. She must be the only woman on the planet to say what she means and means what she says. I tell ya, the instant I hear a SO say she is fine... Alarm bells start ringing in my head and I start looking for a pretty necklace or flowers to say I am sorry. The only word a SO can say to me that is even scarier is "Whatever" while using that tone. lol

Again I state for all those getting ready to flame me, I don't care about peoples preference in their relationship. Just because I don't think it would work for me doesn't mean it can't work for someone else.

[AnnaMolly]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	.. but that pile of dookie puts my disappointment in perspective. Personal opinion + projection = judgment. That's really too bad.

Wow, zibber, you really couldn't be more of a hypocrite, could you?


You get defensive and offended when people dare criticise aspects of polyarmory, yet you yourself speak in a very condescending and offensive manner about monogamous people very often. Like
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and in this thread as well:

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	(Justifications are for mono people.)

And I couldn't be bothered to dig up more examples.


So it's okay for you to laugh off the problems of monogamous relationships (how dare someone be offended by someone cheating on them, pfff foolish kids), yet I bet if I said that the OP's problems were non-issues because polyarmory is just a useless concept, you'd get defensive as hell.
That's the definition of hypocrisy, and people like you give polyarmory a bad name.
(Sadly, almost all polyarmorous people I've ever interacted with were more or less like this, thus I'm negatively biased towards the topic.)




As for the OP himself:

	Originally Posted by Wry Satyr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ideally, polyamory provides multiple outlets to get one's needs met since I have yet to meet any one partner who is capable of comprehensively meeting the needs of a multi-faceted person. It would be ludicrous to think that I meet (or even want to meet) all of the needs of anyone. That's more responsibility that any one person should have in my life or that I should have in anyone else's life.

I think this is important.
This makes me understand polyarmory somewhat more. Because to be honest, when I read your posts, I kind of thought to myself that you don't love D "enough" if you value sexual experimentation more than being with her.
That's because as an entirely monogamous person, for me "loving one single person as much as I can and being loved by them" is the most important thing for me. And for me, finding one person who meets all my needs is key, and I do believe it's possible. (And I hope I'll be able to fulfill all the needs of that person.)

But you just happen to have other needs than I do, I think. All my needs can be met by one person, if it's just the right person, at least in theory. If your needs include affection (whether emotional or sexual) with more than one person though, it's obvious that one other person can't possibly meet them.

I can't personally understand your needs for more than one person, it seems to me like "spreading the love too thin". I'm sure you however can't understand my need to love and be loved by only one person, because you probably think that's "constraining and confining all the possible love". However I can acknowledge that you have those needs that differ from mine and wouldn't tell you that you're wrong for having them.

Since our mindsets and needs are so different, I can't really give you any advice on your issue, though. But good luck.

[zibber]

Originally Posted by AnnaMolly To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Wow, zibber, you really couldn't be more of a hypocrite, could you? You get defensive and offended when people dare criticise aspects of polyarmory, yet you yourself speak in a very condescending and offensive manner about monogamous people very often. Like To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. , To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. , To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. , To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. , To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and in this thread as well: And I couldn't be bothered to dig up more examples. So it's okay for you to laugh off the problems of monogamous relationships (how dare someone be offended by someone cheating on them, pfff foolish kids), yet I bet if I said that the OP's problems were non-issues because polyarmory is just a useless concept, you'd get defensive as hell. That's the definition of hypocrisy, and people like you give polyarmory a bad name. (Sadly, almost all polyarmorous people I've ever interacted with were more or less like this, thus I'm negatively biased towards the topic.)

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings so much, but I can't help but wonder whether your struggles with the English language might have lead you to see things that aren't there.

I don't think I've speculated negatively about the personalities of self-professed mono people, made actual judgments like that. (Apologies if I have.) I don't like to say shit like "I think you cling to monogamy because you're emotionally immature and can't love without being possessive" or somesuch. Mono people love to do stuff like that, conversely, and it bites big wind. That's what I am speaking out against here and I stand by that, although I sincerely apologize if my tone was belligerent. (When I laugh at people who think themselves into knots, that's just nondualist schadenfreude. Sorry about your damn luck.)

Either way, this isn't fucking about me. I was just trying to stand up for WS. Just don't say dumb shit like "I don't understand where you are coming from, so you are probably emotionally unstable and promiscuous".

[Dallyoop]

Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings so much, but I can't help but wonder whether your struggles with the English language might have lead you to see things that aren't there. I don't think I've speculated negatively about the personalities of self-professed mono people, made actual judgments like that. (Apologies if I have.) I don't like to say shit like "I think you cling to monogamy because you're emotionally immature and can't love without being possessive" or somesuch. Mono people love to do stuff like that, conversely, and it bites big wind. That's what I am speaking out against here and I stand by that, although I sincerely apologize if my tone was belligerent. (When I laugh at people who think themselves into knots, that's just nondualist schadenfreude. Sorry about your damn luck.) Either way, this isn't fucking about me. I was just trying to stand up for WS. Just don't say dumb shit like "I don't understand where you are coming from, so you are probably emotionally unstable and promiscuous".

Haha, you are hilarious. I haven't met anyone so hypocritical since my ex wife. hahahaha. And I don't recall anyone attacking WS at all. Only looking for more information on his situation. Even if they were, who nominated you as the defender of polyamory or the individuals involved? Step off the soap box buds. You are saying that you don't rail against "Mono" people while at the same time belittling them. How is that ANY different than someone belittling polymorphism?!?

[Wry Satyr]

Originally Posted by Dallyoop To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I hope it is understood that I am not against polymorphic practices as far as they appeal to other people. I just don't quite understand the draw. Most likely because my own emotional side is stunted and underdeveloped. Just sounds extremely difficult to juggle so many peoples emotions. Mostly I am trying to discuss this from the standpoint of what is generally understood about basic human nature. For instance, I have to disagree that you alone are responsible for your own emotions and D for hers. That is basically stating that nothing either of you do should have an effect emotionally on the other no matter what that is, so long as it is discussed before hand. Maybe your case is an exception to the rule, but last I checked, people just can't control their emotions like that. No matter what training they have. Therapists get pissed off just like anyone else. I'm not debating the physical aspect of polymorphism, people can do whatever they want, doesn't effect me any, long as it works for you it's none of my business... I'm just talking about the emotional side. That's the part that interests me. How can a separation of intimacy and sexuality exist when the very act of sleeping with anyone at all is by definition, an act of love and intimacy? I don't know why I am so interested in this, but emotions have always piqued my interest as to why we have them and how we display them to others. Something kinda made me chuckle a bit though. When D said she was okay and therefore she is. She must be the only woman on the planet to say what she means and means what she says. I tell ya, the instant I hear a SO say she is fine... Alarm bells start ringing in my head and I start looking for a pretty necklace or flowers to say I am sorry. The only word a SO can say to me that is even scarier is "Whatever" while using that tone. lol Again I state for all those getting ready to flame me, I don't care about peoples preference in their relationship. Just because I don't think it would work for me doesn't mean it can't work for someone else.

Before I say anything else, I have to say that you made me smile - first by saying that you are not against a poly lifestyle, and second because you substituted polymorphism with polyamory - what an interesting conversation that would be - shape-shifting people who have multiple relationships! I want in on that!!!

Regarding responsibility for emotions, perhaps it's more a matter of how we choose to react and feel about the events and situations we face. So, our actions may evoke joy or pain or other feelings in others, but we can only be responsible for our own actions and aware of how others feel while remaining true to ourselves.

You raise the point about the emotional aspect of polyamory. In true polyamorous relationships, by definition, polyamory means many/multiple loves. So, a person who considers him/herself polyamorous would love each of his/her lovers. They would/could share different areas of their lives, including different perspectives, different likes/dislikes...whatever draws them together, which isn't always sexual in nature.

I don't get scared by words like OK, or fine or whatever...or any other words fo rthat matter. As I said before, I like my drama on the stage, so I take everyone at face value and I make that known up front. I don't play head games and I'm always honest about what I feel and where someone stands with me. I expect the same of those i include in my life and if someone can't be honest with themself about how they feel, then I can't expect them to be honest with me about what they think, feel, or say. You may chuckle at my high expectations and see them as being unrealistic, but I'd rather be alone than in a relationship where I had to second guess what someone means by what they say.

[Dallyoop]

Originally Posted by Wry Satyr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Before I say anything else, I have to say that you made me smile - first by saying that you are not against a poly lifestyle, and second because you substituted polymorphism with polyamory - what an interesting conversation that would be - shape-shifting people who have multiple relationships! I want in on that!!! Regarding responsibility for emotions, perhaps it's more a matter of how we choose to react and feel about the events and situations we face. So, our actions may evoke joy or pain or other feelings in others, but we can only be responsible for our own actions and aware of how others feel while remaining true to ourselves. You raise the point about the emotional aspect of polyamory. In true polyamorous relationships, by definition, polyamory means many/multiple loves. So, a person who considers him/herself polyamorous would love each of his/her lovers. They would/could share different areas of their lives, including different perspectives, different likes/dislikes...whatever draws them together, which isn't always sexual in nature. I don't get scared by words like OK, or fine or whatever...or any other words fo rthat matter. As I said before, I like my drama on the stage, so I take everyone at face value and I make that known up front. I don't play head games and I'm always honest about what I feel and where someone stands with me. I expect the same of those i include in my life and if someone can't be honest with themself about how they feel, then I can't expect them to be honest with me about what they think, feel, or say. You may chuckle at my high expectations and see them as being unrealistic, but I'd rather be alone than in a relationship where I had to second guess what someone means by what they say.

Spelling was never my strong suit. Blame spell check for not having Polyamory included in it's dictionary. haha. And you CAN have shape changing relationships with multiple people... They are called Furries. :D lol

[Wry Satyr]

Originally Posted by AnnaMolly To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As for the OP himself: I think this is important. This makes me understand polyarmory somewhat more. Because to be honest, when I read your posts, I kind of thought to myself that you don't love D "enough" if you value sexual experimentation more than being with her. That's because as an entirely monogamous person, for me "loving one single person as much as I can and being loved by them" is the most important thing for me. And for me, finding one person who meets all my needs is key, and I do believe it's possible. (And I hope I'll be able to fulfill all the needs of that person.) But you just happen to have other needs than I do, I think. All my needs can be met by one person, if it's just the right person, at least in theory. If your needs include affection (whether emotional or sexual) with more than one person though, it's obvious that one other person can't possibly meet them. I can't personally understand your needs for more than one person, it seems to me like "spreading the love too thin". I'm sure you however can't understand my need to love and be loved by only one person, because you probably think that's "constraining and confining all the possible love". However I can acknowledge that you have those needs that differ from mine and wouldn't tell you that you're wrong for having them. Since our mindsets and needs are so different, I can't really give you any advice on your issue, though. But good luck.

I love D for who she is as an individual and what she brings to our relationship and what we have in common. I respect our differences, too.

Thank you for acknowledging that we (you and I) have different needs and that there may be different ways to meet those needs. You speculate that I may not understand your need to have a lifetime of love with one person just as you may not understand my need to have love from more than one person at a time. The key here is that we don't necessarily need to understand where each other is coming from as long as we accept that each other has a right to chose a lifestyle that fits us individually.

Thank you, AnnaMolly for meeting me halfway, and good luck to you too.

---------- Post added 02-17-2012 at 12:07 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Dallyoop To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Spelling was never my strong suit. Blame spell check for not having Polyamory included in it's dictionary. haha. And you CAN have shape changing relationships with multiple people... They are called Furries. :D lol

Hmmm...are you talking about Furies or Furries? One is a mythical creature, the other is a hairy thing (like a pet).

[Dallyoop]

	Originally Posted by Wry Satyr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hmmm...are you talking about Furies or Furries? One is a mythical creature, the other is a hairy thing (like a pet).

Neither. I am talking about Furries. Though I have seen it spelled as Furry as well. People that dress up in animal costumes and role play being that animal with others. From what I understand some also have intercourse while dressed as that animal with one or more people.

I fully admit that my knowledge in this area is limited to second hand information. (I played an online game with a girl whose Furrie exploits was as a fox...) According to her she had the full on costume and everything. Like a mascot costume or something. How they don't die from heat exhaustion I don't know.

[Strange Moon]

A question for the polyamory specialists.

A and B are a couple. B also loves C. The love between B and C is platonic but emotionally as intense as the relationship between A and B.
All three know about the feelings of the other two and accept them.

Would you call this polyamory?

[Wry Satyr]

	Originally Posted by Strange Moon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A question for the polyamory specialists. A and B are a couple. B also loves C. The love between B and C is platonic but emotionally as intense as the relationship between A and B. All three know about the feelings of the other two and accept them. Would you call this polyamory?

That's a good question, Strange Moon. You don't mention if C also loves B or how A and C might feel about each other (aside from their mutual awareness of each other). I've never participated in such a configuration, but I could see where an argument might be made for it to be classified as a polyamorous relationship, given the intensity of feeling that B has for C.

[zibber]

I think one of the revelations of nonmonogamy is accepting fluidity and letting go of the desire precisely to delineate everything.

[Strange Moon]

	Originally Posted by Wry Satyr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's a good question, Strange Moon. You don't mention if C also loves B or how A and C might feel about each other (aside from their mutual awareness of each other). I've never participated in such a configuration, but I could see where an argument might be made for it to be classified as a polyamorous relationship, given the intensity of feeling that B has for C.

The love between B and C is mutual, it's romantic but strictly platonic.
The relationship between A and C is friendly but not very "deep". Without B there would be no relationship of any kind between A and C.
A's reasoning goes like this: C is good for B. I love B so I accept B's love for C.
C is serially monogamous and looking for Mr. Right but so far has never lost her love for B whether she's currently in a relationship or not.

When I use the word "romantic" I don't mean it in the sense of "butterflies in the belly" or fast beating hearts. All three know each other way longer than any infatuation would last.

---------- Post added 02-20-2012 at 01:03 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think one of the revelations of nonmonogamy is accepting fluidity and letting go of the desire precisely to delineate everything.

I agree. I don't NEED to classify this relationship. It is what it is. But when I read this thread the thought just came to me that it could be called polyamourous so I wanted to know your thoughts about it.

[Wry Satyr]

Ok...so in my discussions with D, I told her that I am missing the connections that I experience as a result of being in multiple relationships...that I miss being polyamorous and that it's not because of anything missing in our relationship or the result of my interest in the couple - that being polyamorous is part of who I am and the relationship style that I've felt most in tune with for over 10 years.

D told me she wasn't surprised. She discussed it with her therapist as well, who also wasn't surprised that I miss having polyamorous relationships.

The question is, what to do with this information. Aside from the couple, I haven't put out any feelers for other interest.

D said that about a month ago, the idea came to her to maybe look into exploring being more open, but that she discounted it because she thought it would make me jealous.

The truth is, I probably would feel pangs of jealousy - I remember feeling that before at times when we were seeing other people, but I was able to keep that in check because I knew that she loved me and that our time together is special for both of us.

D suggested that I contact the couple to promote the friendship and ask them to meet us for drinks or dinner or something so she can meet them and they can meet her and we can all get to know each other better. I posed that thought to the couple and, so far, it sounds like a plan that may work. Admittedly, I have some trepidation. I want everyone to feel comfortable and at ease, so I find myslef having to remember that D would not have suggested this if she weren't comfortable and that the couple won't accept the offer if they're not at ease.

Ideally, it would be wonderful if everyone hits it off well. But even if it doesn't happen that way, knowing that I am staying in tune with my beliefs and instincts feels very empowering.

[zibber]

Yeah, that's the thing. You gotta stick with being you. I find myself having trouble being particularly shook up if a relationship ends due to the other party starting to lay claim to me. So it goes.

And hey, jealousy is something you've been conditioned to experience for a big part of your life, most likely. I don't know if you ever completely get rid of that. Just nip it in the bud when it occurs, uproot it on the spot.

As for D, are you comfortable with her still wanting to insert herself into your interactions with the couple? You say she wouldn't propose that rendez-vous if she weren't comfortable, but there may be some jealousy involved, on her part. Maybe not, though.

ps. I'd be pretty wary of a therapist approaching this situation from a conventional paradigm.

[Wry Satyr]

OK. It's been over a month since I've touched base here and there is some news to tell.

Last week, dinner out for the four of us happened. It was a very busy, loud restaurant. There was a lot - the obvious - that went unsaid...like: "So, what's it like being here for dinner when three of you have been in bed together?" There was no mention of that aspect of the relationship or anything that had happened previously. Conversation was light and about our lives in general.

There wasn't any flirting happening, although I definitely felt a keen attraction to the female of the couple. I told D about that later, when we got home. She asked me if I imagined the four of us in bed together and I said yes and asked her if that would have interested her. She said "definitely."

In a brief e-mail exchange with the woman, she said that she and her husband had a great time, that they like D and how easy it was to talk with her, and proposed getting together again sometime. She also acknowledged that she feels really drawn to me. I suggested a more intimate setting, allowing for better communication, putting it out there that we would be open to having a foursome, and that that could open a lot of doors for all of us.

Yesterday, D and I had a very intense discussion about needs and wants and commitment. She maintains that she is not at all interested in marriage or living together, but that she would like for us to see each other more frequently and that she would like something to symbolize our commitment to each other.

Irrational fears reared their ugly heads in both of us - with her feeling as though she's not enough for me and me feeling pushed in a direction that I have consistently said I don't want to go since it felt as though she wasn't being completely honest with herself about what she wants from a relationship.

Part of it was my tone, part of it was her lack of clarity, but in essence, it was a misunderstanding. She is very clear that she values what we have, but isn't interested in marriage/living together. I was clear about needs and identified multiple relationships as such.

That's where things are, currently.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by Wry Satyr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Part of it was my tone, part of it was her lack of clarity, but in essence, it was a misunderstanding. She is very clear that she values what we have, but isn't interested in marriage/living together. I was clear about needs and identified multiple relationships as such. That's where things are, currently.

I have arrived at a similar conclusion when it comes to communication - particularly within a relationship. There are always two sides but then there's the grey area in between. Both yourself and D may have made mistakes in communication but then there can be something lost during transmission and that is neither person's fault. It is very important to recognize this so that misunderstanding can be corrected.

Also, a counterpoint I may offer to the "not feeling good enough" problem - it seems to me that it is unreasonable to expect one person to fulfill all of your needs, be it emotional or sexual or otherwise. Your feelings (be they romantic or purely carnal) for one person are not mutually exclusive for your feelings of another. I have heard, even on this forum, that it can be quite satisfying to see your lover satisfied by another person, for instance.

[Wry Satyr]

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have arrived at a similar conclusion when it comes to communication - particularly within a relationship. There are always two sides but then there's the grey area in between. Both yourself and D may have made mistakes in communication but then there can be something lost during transmission and that is neither person's fault. It is very important to recognize this so that misunderstanding can be corrected.

Very true about recognizing miscommunication to correct it for the future. One problem with that is that many conversations take place at or near the point of exhaustion when mental faculties are anything but sharp (I'm speaking for myself here). So, while the sensible thing to do is likely to defer to another time, such a time isn't often convenient.

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Also, a counterpoint I may offer to the "not feeling good enough" problem - it seems to me that it is unreasonable to expect one person to fulfill all of your needs, be it emotional or sexual or otherwise. Your feelings (be they romantic or purely carnal) for one person are not mutually exclusive for your feelings of another. I have heard, even on this forum, that it can be quite satisfying to see your lover satisfied by another person, for instance.

I've said as much myself! Thank you for that reminder, Polymath!!!

[Wry Satyr]

Dialogue has been ongoing between myself and D, myself and the female half of the couple, and now between D and the female half of the couple. I believe that the couple talks regularly to take soundings of where they are with respect to how that relates to D and me.

With all that communication going on, friendships that had existed are being strengthened, loves that had been joyous are intensified, and previously unknowns are becoming acquainted.

It's a beginning. I want to know where it will lead, but for now I am content having hope that it will evolve into what I desire.

[curiousgeorge01]

I'm surprised you've gotten this far. Most men who make the polyamory proposition to their SO gets a swift kick to you know where.

[zibber]

Good stuff!

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm surprised you've gotten this far. Most men who make the polyamory proposition to their SO gets a swift kick to you know where.

Polyamory is not genderspecific.

[Polymath20]

Most polyamorous people I know, the female initiated it.

[curiousgeorge01]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Most polyamorous people I know, the female initiated it.

Really? I personally don't know any. But where I'm from the chicks are like "Sex and The City" and they don't take any suggestions of that kind.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Really? I personally don't know any. But where I'm from the chicks are like "Sex and The City" and they don't take any suggestions of that kind.

Different strokes for different folks. Some people have very strongly internalized the traditional idea of "One man and one woman at a time and that's it!"

Also, different circles have different social controls. I've met plenty of "Sex and the City" or "Desperate Housewives" type of people who do all sorts of deviant things in private.

[Wry Satyr]

Very true - there are all kinds of different bedroom communities where you might never know that people are sharing their partners with others.

The important thing for such relationships to be successful is for everyone involved to be open about what their hopes and expectations from such involvement. Often times, rather than rocking the boat, they'll keep their opinions to themselves. This is where miscommunication and resentment begin.

[Lilie]

	Originally Posted by Dallyoop To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Most likely because my own emotional side is stunted and underdeveloped.

The more I develop my emotional side, the more strongly I become opposed to having a polyamorous relationship. Before I started, I was just opposed because it sounded like a pain in the ass. Now I think it also sounds just painful. Sure there is always uncertainty in a relationship and your partner can leave at any time, but signing up specifically for uncertainty sounds like a nightmare.

It does beat pretending to want monogamy and leading people on while sleeping around behind their backs, anyway. Thanks, self-identifying poly people.