How can I actually pick 1?

[Dan502]

I get hung up on the risk of catching something. I know it's very low if you use protection but it still bothers me enough to have sex with fewer people.

[Consept]

2 hours ago, AION said:

Rarely I have seen people who have chosen their career instead of a family and be fulfilled and feel belonging.  I’m not saying it is not possible. I’m just sharing my experience with what kind of energy they were radiating. They have this very overcompensating vibe. Being an eternal child aka Peter Pan is all fun and games when you are young and vital but it looks sad after a certain age. 

I hear you, there can be a lot of cope for someone who chooses career over family, but then I also see a lot pf cope from people in families who are desperately unhappy but stay in mainly because they're afraid to leave but could also be because they're so tied up with each other, kids etc. In fact I'm my direct experience marriages that I've seen over the age say 60 are usually pretty bad. They may even show a great face to the public on social media and stuff but there's usually issues. 

Thinking about, I think if you are just a happy person, as in content with yourself, you'd probably be happy in either situation. I don't think a relationship necessarily makes you happy but it's something you can bring your happiness into. It could be argued there's more risk because if you choose someone who's not content with themselves they can bring you down. 

2 hours ago, gettoefl said:

Monogamy on the other hand is more equal and each helping out the best they can to make things work; each one needs and each one sacrifices.

There's not really rules for monogamy or polyamory or whatever. You can have monogamous relationship that are extremely transactional and unequal. In fact that was the norm previously. If anything polygamous would be less transactional because you don't rely on one person for all your needs. I'm not even really arguing for polygamy but I just don't think it's as clear cut as you say

[AION]

I wouldn’t get married in this day and age. Marriage is like going to a casino where all odds are against you.  It is true that a lot of families fall apart but at least they have children. These people rarely regret having their children. In fact they say it is their greatest joy in life. I believe humans have this inherent need to reproduce after (!!!!) they reach a certain level of maturity and individuation. In the same way a plant or tree bares fruit and reproduces after a certain maturation. The eternal child aka Peter Pan never reaches this maturation. Always stuck in never land aka fantasy land until death robs that fantasy from them. For a lot eternal children it is their career or their addiction that is their fantasy. In my opinion:  relationships and children should happen naturally in the same way a tree bares fruit after a certain maturation but certain trees will never reach this maturation and creation will end with them which is part of the natural selection.  Unlike what is being propagated on this forum. Having children is the most divine and holy things you can do. I don’t have children but god willing I hope I will some day. @Consept @Consept

[RendHeaven]

1 hour ago, AION said:

Having children is the most divine and holy things you can do.

This is so obviously made up.

I'm not against children by any means, they are certainly beautiful.

But be wary of over-glorification (THE MOST DIVINE AND HOLY THING YOU CAN DO is a serious epistemic claim, I hope you're ready to justify it)

[gettoefl]

3 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

Spell out why you think non-monogamy is less "equal"

Non-monogamy is each bringing a specific package not a whole person.

You are inherently dividing yourself and placing limits from the get-go.

This is a flawed approach in general.

In the main, women need protection; men need partnership.

Thus for women it a step down in status and for men a step up.

She will be settling for less and he will be screaming for more.

She is there for money and he is there for honey.

In either case if that dries out then sorry I am out.

Mercenary for her, misogynistic for him.

A less than fulfilled life for both - not to mention any unfortunate offspring.

I mean, no parent would suggest non-monogamy to their child right?

That should say something.

Edited Saturday at 05:09 PM by gettoefl

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

Maybe it's best to just be alone, there's not enough talks about that here I think. Perhaps you should not desecrate the dating market with your lack of commitement and other mental issues. Untill you perhaps attempt to fix them on your own. Just a food for thought

[AION]

18 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

This is so obviously made up.

I'm not against children by any means, they are certainly beautiful.

But be wary of over-glorification (THE MOST DIVINE AND HOLY THING YOU CAN DO is a serious epistemic claim, I hope you're ready to justify it)

That I have to explain this to you is already a topic for you to contemplate about. You are literally playing God, dude. What do you want me to say?

Edited Saturday at 05:04 PM by AION

[RendHeaven]

22 minutes ago, gettoefl said:

Non-monogamy is each bringing a specific package not a whole person.

You are inherently dividing yourself and placing limits from the get-go.

Give concrete examples. So far everything you're accusing non-monogamy of, monogamy is also guilty of.

For example, you write: "non-monogamy is each bringing a specific package not a whole person"

What does this even mean? The only difference between monogamy and non-monogamy is whether or not you gatekeep your partner's genitals. So according to you, if I gatekeep my girlfriend's pussy, that means she's suddenly a "whole person," but if I hand sexual freedom back to her, she's now a "specific package?" Make it make sense.

I think you are trying to say that by being sexually exclusive, you don't need to (or rather, you can't) turn to other people to meet your sexual needs. Therefore this builds more mutual dependence. Neither side has a choice. If they have needs, there's only one well to drink from. I think you see this as a good thing, because devoting yourself to drinking from one well is a sort of loyalty.

But really, none of this is a victory for monogamy. Greater codependence leads to more manipulation and in-fighting. And you say that this greater dependence = "a whole person," but keep in mind that if you are a man, no woman can ever meet every single one of your needs universally. No matter how stellar of a woman she is, you're going to need family and friends and hobbies apart from her in order to live a fulfilling life. So even in monogamy, there is no such thing as a so-called "whole person."

You only ever have "specific packages" when it comes to dating. So you cannot fault a non-monogamous relationship model for only meeting partial needs.

22 minutes ago, gettoefl said:

In the main, women need protection; men need partnership.

Thus for women it a step down in status and for men a step up.

Non-monogamy skews in favor of men with high sexual optionality, yes

Monogamy skews in favor of women and men with low sexual optionality.

But again, you can't fault either model for having a bias. As I keep saying, all dating is inherently survival/manipulation/needs-based. And that's not a bad thing. It is what it is.

Try to contemplate the available relationship models without bias, and see if you might learn something about yourself or humans.

22 minutes ago, gettoefl said:

She is there for money and he is there for honey.

This is a very low-resolution 144p crude summary, but I see where you're coming from.

A woman desires safety and emotions. A man desires vagina. True.

Not sure what this has anything to do with the monogamy vs non-monogamy debate.

I think you are trying to say that non-monogamy will make a woman feel less safe than monogamy. This is actually a fair critique and it is true. Which is why your average bum cannot pull off non-monogamy convincingly, and he's doomed to either sleep around frivolously or, if he's lucky, he will lock down a good girl according to cultural norms.

But that doesn't mean non-monogamy is inherently flawed or bad or wrong. As I've been saying several times now, with proper openness, communication, and compromise, you can TALK TO YOUR PARTNER and construct non-monogamy to be a win-win. If you disagree, chances are you are simply not serious about understanding relationships, and you are lost in defending your own bias.

22 minutes ago, gettoefl said:

not to mention any unfortunate offspring.

If you construct non-monogamy in a healthy manner, your children will never meet your fuck buddies, so this is a non-issue.

Edited Saturday at 05:17 PM by RendHeaven
extra detail

[RendHeaven]

9 minutes ago, AION said:

That I have to explain this to you is already a topic for you to contemplate about. You are literally playing God, dude. What do you want me to say?

You are placing your own mental constructs on a pedestal.

[RendHeaven]

17 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

Maybe it's best to just be alone, there's not enough talks about that here I think.

How's that going for ya

[aurum]

7 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

Party girl sounds like a problem. Glad you caught onto her scheme.

I wouldn't call it  a scheme. She just came from a very wealthy family and was used to a certain kind of lifestyle.

7 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

Personally I'm pretty sold on non-monogamy.

For you or anybody else in this thread, can you spell out the hangup? Why cling to monogamy?

Here are some objections I can think of off the top of my head:

But I don't want my girl fucking other guys! (enormous objection, aptly #1 on the list)

But I think sacrificing your options is virtuous and strengthens your mutual bond! Without that upfront cost, there's no incentive to stick it out together when things get tough!

But I want true, deep love. This can't be possible if you're sleeping around!

But look at what happened to (insert polyamorous celebrity having a disastrous episode)!

But I want to get married and have kids. I dream of that kind of stable nuclear family ideal!

But girls wouldn't want an open relationship even if I did!

And here are some contemplation avenues (each number corresponds to the list above):

You sound insecure. The reality is, she's gonna fuck whoever she wants because she has free will. And this is the case even under monogamy - she can still cheat on you or leave you. In fact, her leaving you is the most likely scenario, especially if she's attractive. You really think becoming her legal husband means her genitals exclusively belong to you forever? That's beyond delusional.

I agree with the importance of sacrifice. But why is the metric of sacrifice sexual optionality? This stinks of cultural indoctrination and insecurity. There are an infinity of ways to sacrifice for your partner - how self-serving and ego-boosting of you to hoard their genitals and to paint that as virtue... A monogamous deal asymmetrically benefits the partner with less sexual options. This is oftentimes the man, although rarely a woman will triumphantly lock down a total stud and feel the rush of asymmetric value arbitrage. Very convenient for a guy to act like he's making a noble sacrifice by getting monogamous, when he's actually not giving up much, and the deeper underlying motive is to capture the woman's body for himself.

Why does gatekeeping each others' genitals influence the quality of your love? There more I think about it, the more suffocating and unloving monogamy is. Is controlling each other your definition of love? Imagine a relationship with as little possible control happening in both directions. The level of trust and vulnerability and development this takes is a true test of love. This means your girl can go fuck another guy, come home to you, tell you about it (to the extent that you're curious), and then you're happy for her as long as she's happy. Her winning = you winning. Why not? You love her! This should be a no-brainer. And then you guys can have awesome sex, and everybody wins. And before you get up in arms about refusing to be a cuck or whatever, remember that the vice versa scenario is also active. You have unbound freedom as well. Best case scenario your girl is down for threesomes or even more. This may sound utopian, but I know real people who have these kinds of relationship arrangements. It requires next-level openness and communication skill and self-esteem, but it's certainly possible.

Celebrities and internet influencers are usually egomaniacs that have self-sabotaging personality traits. It's very likely that you simply haven't seen a healthy example of non-monogamy, therefore your mind jumps to the conclusion that it's not possible. How would you know? Have you tried playing devil's advocate against your assumptions (go out of your way to seek examples of healthy non-monogamy)...

What stops you from having an open marriage? Why do you assume that to be a good parent, you must be monogamous? If you have multiple partners, simply don't flaunt them in front of your kids (obviously it will fuck with their attachment and development if you're constantly introducing them to a revolving door of adult figures).

How do you know? Have you tried asking? How many times? Keep in mind that a girl who really really likes you will bend over backwards for you. Basic frame control is required to "convince" her of your non-monogamous agenda - you can't just get on your knees and start begging her. Is it manipulative to "frame control" her into adopting non-monogamy? Perhaps. But locking her down into a monogamous contract is also manipulative, we just don't see the manipulation because everyone is doing it. By participating in dating you are bound to manipulate, so as long as you are a thoughtful and empathetic person, don't get hung up on it.

Food for thought.

That all sounds nice. 

But unless you can actually pull it off IRL, it's just theory.

Have you actually succeeded in an open marriage raising children? Do you actually have experience with what you are saying, or are you speculating?

Might be harder than you think.

7 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

I think my main point here is simply that, the urge to defend to monogamy, or the repulsion toward non-monogamy is usually unexamined cultural bias and personal selfishness/weakness.

And the urge to defend non-monogamy usually comes from guys thinking with their dick 

7 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

Feel free to be a champion of monogamy, but make sure you choose it from a place of serious introspection after first steelmanning non-monogamy

If you look around, it's pretty obvious that non-monogamy exists nowhere at scale.

That should immediately make you suspicious of claims that it can work. And also suspicious of claims that you are going to be an exception.

Monogamy has proof of concept and needs less defending. 

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

10 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

How's that going for ya

It's funny how I haven't even mentioned you yet you feel the need to respond to me, that's pretty much all of you polygamists/polyamourists/whateverists in a nutshell, emotional and fickle. The most unstable people on the planet😀

Edited Saturday at 05:25 PM by NewKidOnTheBlock

[RendHeaven]

Just now, aurum said:

That all sounds nice. 

But unless you can actually pull it off IRL, it's just theory.

Have you actually succeeded in an open marriage raising children? Do you actually have experience with what you are saying, or are you speculating?

Might be harder than you think.

I am personally still exploring, but I've seen long-term non-monogamy work for others with my own eyes. This was mentioned in my original post.

And if you do simple research on the internet, there is more than ample evidence. Again, mentioned in my original post "Have you tried playing devil's advocate against your assumptions (go out of your way to seek examples of healthy non-monogamy)..."

Burden of proof is actually not on me. I'm just reporting what I've seen through the telescope. Now it's your turn to look through the telescope before you doubt my vision. If you actually do a sincere study and come up with nothing, then you can bring that up and call me out.

5 minutes ago, aurum said:

And the urge to defend non-monogamy usually comes from guys thinking with their dick 

Good thing I'm not defending non-monogamy!

7 minutes ago, aurum said:

If you look around, it's pretty obvious that non-monogamy exists nowhere at scale.

This is blatantly myopic. Plug your own assertion into ChatGPT right now and ask: "is this true?"

8 minutes ago, aurum said:

Monogamy has proof of concept and needs less defending. 

I strongly disagree. Skyrocketing rates of infidelity and relationship termination says otherwise.

[RendHeaven]

2 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

It's funny how I haven't even mentioned you yet you feel the need to respond to me, that's pretty much all of you polygamists/polyamourists/whateverists in a nutshell, emotional and fickle. The most unstable people on the planet😀

Funny how I was genuinely curious to hear about your side of things and then you turned this into a personal attack

[AION]

27 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

You are placing your own mental constructs on a pedestal.

Not at all. I think you do. 

Edited Saturday at 05:41 PM by AION

[RendHeaven]

3 minutes ago, AION said:

Not at all. I think you do. 

Spell it out.

You write verbatim: "Having children is the most divine and holy things you can do."

How is this not a pedestalized mental construct? How do you know you didn't just pull that out of your ass? What grounds your certainty? Whatever you come up with... what grounds that? Have you bothered to play skeptic against your own firm beliefs? Are you able to steelman the contrary position? Are you able to see the relativity underpinning this question of value judgements? Epistemology101.

I'm happy to change my mind if your contemplation is convincing.

[aurum]

6 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

I am personally still exploring, but I've seen long-term non-monogamy work for others with my own eyes. This was mentioned in my original post.

And if you do simple research on the internet, there is more than ample evidence. Again, mentioned in my original post "Have you tried playing devil's advocate against your assumptions (go out of your way to seek examples of healthy non-monogamy)..." 

Burden of proof is actually not on me. I'm just reporting what I've seen through the telescope. Now it's your turn to look through the telescope before you doubt my vision. If you actually do a sincere study and come up with nothing, then you can bring that up and call me out.

Keep us updated on your experience then.

And yes I have sought out counter-examples. I've also read several books on the topic.

Open Monogamy by Dr. Tammy Nelson was one of the best. I think if ENM works for me, it will look like something in the book.

6 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

This is blatantly myopic. Plug your own assertion into ChatGPT right now and ask: "is this true?"

It does not exist at scale. 

Various indigenous tribes and minority communities do not count as my definition of "scale". Nor do they mostly practice a kind of non-monogamy I'd be interested in anyway.

If you have counter-examples, please share. 

6 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

I strongly disagree. Skyrocketing rates of infidelity and relationship termination says otherwise.

Do you have data on this?

Or is this vibes and intuition?

A cursory search with GPT reveals the data to be inconclusive. The best I found supporting your argument was this study:

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/infidelity-statistics-us-tops-the-cheating-charts-while-31-of-affairs-involve-a-co-worker-302241988.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 

[RendHeaven]

2 minutes ago, aurum said:

Keep us updated on your experience then.

👊

7 minutes ago, aurum said:

And yes I have sought out counter-examples. I've also read several books on the topic.

Open Monogamy by Dr. Tammy Nelson was one of the best. I think if ENM works for me, it will look like something in the book.

Gotcha. This is impressive!

In that case, I'm surprised you consider non-monogamy "just a theory."

What are your specific reservations?

47 minutes ago, aurum said:

Might be harder than you think.

I know it'll be difficult

9 minutes ago, aurum said:

It does not exist at scale. 

Various indigenous tribes and minority communities do not count as my definition of "scale". Nor do they mostly practice a kind of non-monogamy I'd be interested in anyway.

If you have counter-examples, please share. 

Yeah I know what you mean.

I lived in denver for a year, and there was a widespread polyamorous (sub?)culture there.

That's what I had in mind when I said your assertion was "myopic," but to be honest nothing I saw in Denver is anything I would personally be interested in. Too much hippie shit, not grounded at all LOL.

9 minutes ago, aurum said:

Do you have data on this?

Or is this vibes and intuition?

A cursory search with GPT reveals the data to be inconclusive. The best I found supporting your argument was this study:

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/infidelity-statistics-us-tops-the-cheating-charts-while-31-of-affairs-involve-a-co-worker-302241988.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Regarding infidelity, it's neither data nor vibes, but rather just an overwhelming amount of brute encounters IRL.

Yeah, I'm prone to sampling bias and my POV can warp or distort the reality of the situation, but it's hard to overlook the anecdotes especially when it's a common persistent anecdote. I respect any researchers attempting to study this using statistics and scientific method, but honestly, how reliable is that? The whole point of cheating is that your partner is not supposed to find out. So how the hell is a nerd in a labcoat gonna know haha.

Regarding "relationship termination," I was going to cite that divorce rates have only been going up, but apparently that is not true so I must have gotten false information through the social matrix. Divorce rates are stagnant, if not slightly going down, according to chatGPT.

Still, a projected 40% divorce likelihood for married couples in 2025 is nothing to dismiss. The bottom line is that monogamy does not guarantee forever stability. It requires a similar amount of trust, communication, and negotiation as non-monogamy IMO.

You wrote that monogamy has proof of concept and I said I disagree. I take that back. You're right, it does have proof of concept. My contention is that it doesn't have proof of reliable execution. It furthermore lacks proof of universal optimal outcomes. Important difference...

[Consept]

2 hours ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

Maybe it's best to just be alone, there's not enough talks about that here I think. Perhaps you should not desecrate the dating market with your lack of commitement and other mental issues. Untill you perhaps attempt to fix them on your own. Just a food for thought

Maybe but i think realistically everyone has some issues in terms of dating, so it wouldnt make sense to just not date, youd have to date to even expose and work on those issues. I couldnt just work on the issues indefinitely and then all of a sudden decide to date, I wouldnt have any experience dating and a whole new crop of issues might pop up.

3 hours ago, AION said:

Having children is the most divine and holy things you can do. I don’t have children but god willing I hope I will some day.

I think everyone feels the urge to have kids in some degree but im not sure its necessarily divine, one could even argue its selfish given that its another person to take resources when we're not exactly going extinct. But of course its a biological imperative we have built in. 

@RendHeaven Realistically i think what makes non-monogomy difficult is that we're all socialised toward monogamy, so if youre that different in society it just makes it difficult to implement on a wide scale. Also if there was non-monogamy it can create issues with les say the top % of men getting all the women pregnant and not being able to look after them. In small tribes this is fine cos the whole tribe looks after the kids but in western society it would lead to a lot of kids not being looked after sufficiently. 

My topic is more of an emotional connection argument, so i feel kind of at conflict with myself because i want freedom and connection and its hard to marry those 2 things. I'm probably similar to you in that im trying to find a way non-monogamy could work but it is difficult to do realistically. It feels like the options are either sleeping around or getting in a relationship. 

 

[AION]

Having children is not like breeding livestock like “ah we need 5 more cows this quarter, let’s make them fuck each other and breed some stock for the farm” .. that is a very SD orange way of looking and reproduction. 🐄 

I already explained the spiritual aspects, and children as fruits of our maturation of our psyche but it is ok if you have a different paradigm. 🍎 

Personally I think it is good that you guys don’t want children. I’m definitely not going to convince the train 🚆 guy to take children. Just imagine all the things that child will have to go through. 😅

Edited Saturday at 07:24 PM by AION