How can I actually pick 1?

[Consept]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

You're welcome. Thank you for sharing a bit more about the dynamic. There are probably different blocks to allowing connection in... at least partially because of trust issues.

But IFS therapy is a good way to go about it. But even moreso Somatic therapy can be an excellent path to helping you with IFS.

I havent done somatic therapy directly but i have done some of the elements myself like body scan, meditation etc. I have an app where it has trauma meditations and things like that, I probably dont use it as much as i could so i will try and do that at least. Thanks for the suggestion. 

 

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

I had a relationship mirage dynamic since I was 3 that I resolved a few years ago on a medicine journey.

And it all began with facing into and processing repressed emotions of terror. And through facing with this terror, it enabled me to "click into" a state of embodiment of a three year old 'part' of myself.

And in that embodiment, it enabled me to move past a traumatic moment that I had been stuck in for 30 years... and al the mindsets and understandings that I had at that time.

Thats amazing that you managed to tackle something that was there for 30 years. 

 

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

It's really in the process of turning inward that the issue will be resolved... even though it feels like it's an external issue.

And you may even find yourself attracted to women that won't work for a longterm relationship because you're selecting for what that part of you wants... and not what would really work out longterm.

I think being with women where i know it wont work or at least ive said that in my mind and to them even, gives me that get out when i need and means that theres no pressure on me to fully commit. In a way I've been scared of getting into a situation where i really like the person because then ill have to fully be in it. However i think through doing some of this work I am now more open to it and I dont think id be as scared now if it were to come along. 

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

Or there could just be general blocks to connected because of chronically unmet connection needs.

This was the case for most of my life there was no real connection from immediate family, family members that i did get along with werent really around. So i was mainly left with my mum who has her issues as i explained and my stepdad who has extremely low emotional intelligence, again i have no issues with him but just speaking matter of factly. My mum also use to beat me as well, which is quite common in nigerian culture, im first generation to be born in the UK, in fact I think I was the first one on both sides of my family to be born and grow up in the UK apart from my scottish grandma. 

Its only the last few years after ive sorted some of these issues out where ive built really good friendships and am able to connect with more and more people. But for probably 30 years it was extremely difficult for me to do that. I also think previously, relationships were a kind of safe haven where i only needed to connect with this one person and could be shielded from the world a bit. So yeah its been a journey lol

[aurum]

16 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

I sympathize with this deeply.

Not only must she be attractive, but she must also energetically compatible, have values alignment with you, and now she has to be non monogamous?? That's an impossibly high bar

In my experience, women tend to be unfathomably flexible, explorative, dynamic, and go with the flow (i.e. feminine). Feminine women will mold to fit the shape of their container, like how water takes on the shape of its cup.

Maybe you have observed this. The same girl you were once dating will get a new boyfriend and it's like her entire personality changes. It's not that she was ever real or fake. It's that her bliss is to follow the leadership of whoever she currently trusts with her heart. This gives her a shocking (and incomprehensible) degree of personality flexibility.

This is also the mechanism that abusers and narcissists exploit. Since women naturally have looser boundaries than men, this allows disgusting guys to push and push and push until she bends or breaks. Obviously I am not recommending that we do this. I want the women in my life to be on board with my leadership without any coercion. I'm merely bringing up this dynamic to make the point that women are happy to try new things, so long as their heart follows you.

Your dream girl basically has a 0% chance of having non-monogamous software preinstalled. This is an offer you must make, with no strings attached, and she has to willingly choose to give it a shot with you, because she's naturally adventurous, and she wants to keep you in her life.

It's a frame battle of sorts. If you really really really really want her, and you're afraid of losing her, you will fold and offer monogamy to placate her. There will be 0 conflict, and both sides will appear initially thrilled. But you did very much just castrate yourself. Your sexual freedom is now nonexistent. You are no longer "allowed" to show interest in any other woman, or else you are a liar. This may cause issues down the line. Are you seriously going to be with this one girl, and only this one girl, FOREVER? That's the implication and promise.

So you have to "hold the line" so to speak. The frame is, "I really like you and I want to take this to the next level, but I can't hand you my balls. I want to explore emotional exclusivity, but I can't promise eternal sexual subservience to you. This is not a wise thing to do for our future longevity. I am open to compromise." And if she says no, then that's that. But if she likes you, it's more likely that she will pause and furrow her brow as she's faced with an internal conflict. She may push back or try to change your mind. This is where you gently but firmly hold the line. You want her but you're willing to lose her. If she sees your sincerity and she has an open mind, odds are actually in your favor!

I think you may be trying to convince yourself more than me.

You're not wrong that the vast majority of women will not have been socially conditioned for ENM. And undoubtably, if you are going to do it, you will need to have a talk as early as possible.

Your framing of monogamy is highly dubious though. Yes, it's a commitment. Yes, it's a loss of freedom. That's just a part of life. You don't get infinite freedom, you have to make your choices and make them well.

The question is not whether it limits your freedom, but whether or not it's worth limiting your freedom.

Seeing monogamy as "castrating yourself" is your own personal frame, and not an objective way of seeing it at all. You could easily choose a different frame, such as making the choice to be with one woman out of your own sovereignty and highest values. But I don't think you are interested in this frame because you want to get laid. So the "castrating yourself" frame serves you.

Ultimately I remain unconvinced ENM is in alignment with my highest values. Too much focus on chasing women and trying to be some kind of playboy. It's immature.

Also, it needs to be said that the best women have good boundaries. And you will not want to lose them, even if you think you've cultivated an abundance mindset. So this hypothetical frame control scenario may not play out as imagined. 

[RendHeaven]

5 hours ago, aurum said:

Seeing monogamy as "castrating yourself" is your own personal frame, and not an objective way of seeing it at all. You could easily choose a different frame, such as making the choice to be with one woman out of your own sovereignty and highest values.

I don't know, the self-castration mechanism seems pretty unavoidable even if I'm overemphasizing it for the sake of argument here.

With a monogamous pact, no matter how you frame or spin the emphasis of the situation in a wholesome direction, you can't avoid the raw content of your promise to her.

You are taking your nature as a sexual being, and willingly putting it in a straitjacket to appease her. Maybe you don't see that as a bad thing, or perhaps you even see it as a good thing, but the "self-castration" is active nonetheless.

---

I've always found it odd that prior to entering a relationship, your authentic desire has a dynamic and spontaneous range. But then the moment you enter a monogamous relationship, you artificially limit this range, and furthermore you tell yourself that you are a virtuous person (suspicious self-serving story)

For example, prior to entering a relationship, you can be in a coffee shop, see a cute girl, and immediately feel a spark of desire inside. You can follow that desire, talk to her, and proactively build connection. This goes beyond being horny and using women for their bodies. This is about being attuned to the omnipresent beauty of feminine energy every time you leave your house. It's a matter of worship. You see the beauty, you feel the beauty, you honor the beauty, you connect with the beauty. It's like swimming in the ocean because you want the nourishment of water enveloping your body.

It's a natural process of integrity and expansion.

But then, the moment you enter a relationship, this chain of feminine worship gets fractured at the root.

Let's rerun the scenario in the coffee shop, except this time you have a monogamous girlfriend.

Instead of see > feel > honor > connect, you stop the chain after you lay eyes on her. Your psyche says "I'm not allowed to go there" and you choke out your inner desire before it becomes a problem. Worst case scenario, this is repression, as you don't even allow yourself to feel the desire. But if you're greedy enough to dare to feel your own authentic spontaneous desire, you are now in an existential bind, the situation is no better, since now you've acknowledged your own feelings, but you're still not able to do anything about it per your own rules.

But then, in order to live with this juxtaposition, you have to invent narratives like "I'm loyal" or "I only love my girlfriend" or "I'm too mature to feel anything for new people I've just met" in order to preserve the sense of agency which you've lost. The reality of the situation is multifaceted of course. Maybe your loyalty is genuinely a virtue. But the ego would rather play that up instead of look at the full picture.

Because it would kill you to admit that: "yeah deep down I really want to see, feel, honor, connect, and worship her, but I willingly promised someone else that I'm not allowed to do that, so I have to pretend I am asexual or else the inner conflict is too much to bear"

I see this whole situation as hypocritical.

In order to get into your treasured relationship in the first place, you had to take a stranger through a chain of increasing intimacy and connection, starting at, "Hi! what's your name?"

But then, once you get into a monogamy pact, you forbid yourself and your partner from ever exploring that chain ever again with another person. It's a pure, selfish, double standard born of fear, which would not be so bad if you could just admit what you're doing, but the worst part is that instead of acknowledging the facts (e.g. "babe, let's limit each other because we're afraid"), you're going to spin self-serving narratives about loyalty and true love to the point that you will actually start believing that you have no interest in other girls, which is an obvious lie because the moment your girlfriend leaves you, you're back to scouting for new women.

If you truly think that, "I only love my girlfriend, and other women don't interest me," then I'd like to see you be a male widow forever if she ever leaves you. If you are capable of being interested in new women while you are single, that means you are capable of being interested in new women while you are taken.

Bottom line is, let's be honest.

5 hours ago, aurum said:

But I don't think you are interested in this frame because you want to get laid. So the "castrating yourself" frame serves you.

It's not even about getting laid necessarily. It's about wanting to cherish the full expansive range of my spontaneous attraction potential.

5 hours ago, aurum said:

Ultimately I remain unconvinced ENM is in alignment with my highest values.

That's fair. But then why have this conversation? Why not go get a monogamous long-term relationship like everyone else and call it a day?

5 hours ago, aurum said:

Too much focus on chasing women and trying to be some kind of playboy. It's immature.

If sexual freedom is immature, are you able to spell out for me exactly how genital gatekeeping is mature?

"Babe I will never put my penis inside another woman every again, matter of fact I won't even think about it. And of course, you better not spread your legs for any man ever again, much less think about it! If you cross this line you are a liar and a cheater!"

Is this mature?

This is the inherent implication of all sexual monogamy, even if it's not verbalized. This implication is usually sneaking in the background, dressed in virtue. This axiom is taken on faith, and has deep practical consequences.

Here's something I've been thinking for a while.

If you're so convinced that the two of you are only meant for each other, shouldn't you have no problem with anarchy or temptation?

It's the difference between resisting the junk food because "you shouldn't eat it" vs barely even considering the junk food because it's so obviously not for you.

It's the difference between keeping your dog on a leash every time you go outside vs trusting him to walk by your side.

If it's truly you and her vs the world, your actions will prove this, without any rules or expectations, in a lawless environment full of temptation.

If a girl says she only wants me for the rest of her life, I WANT to throw her in a pool of men without any strings attached just to see how she reacts. It's not even a test per se. I don't plan to punish her if she "fails" or reward her if she "succeeds." I just want to see the real her in a real environment without artificial shackles and the burden of my expectations.

The moment you have to erect guardrails and build elaborate promise-structures, you're basically admitting to yourself "yeah I would cheat if not for these rules" or "yeah I don't trust her if not for these rules"

In my eyes, the only way monogamy is intellectually and philosophically salvageable is if you have 0 sexual guardrails and 0 genital gatekeeping, and you happen to organically and incidentally choose only each other for the rest of your lives.

5 hours ago, aurum said:

Also, it needs to be said that the best women have good boundaries.

This is true.

5 hours ago, aurum said:

And you will not want to lose them, even if you think you've cultivated an abundance mindset.

I'm used to losing women.

Edited 10 hours ago by RendHeaven
Added more detail

[RendHeaven]

If I seem strangely passionate about all of this, it's not because I am an anti-monogomous polyamory shill.

Although I have admitted my own bias, that I am "pretty sold on (certain models of) non-monogamy," I hold that rather loosely because as @aurum has pointed out, more testing is necessary.

And if this thread had a more non-monogamous overton window, I would be steelmanning monogamy as a counterweight.

That being said, there's something deeper happening here for me.

After extensive contemplation and a heck of a lot of deconstruction and shedding fantasies, in true Actualized.org fashion, I am beginning to see an asymmetry in mental constructions between monogamy and non-monogamy.

More specifically, monogamy involves more mental constructs, labels, rules, expectations, fantasies, self-justifications, and limitations than non-monogamy. I don't think this is merely my bias. Certain worldviews simply hold more rigid fantasies despite the relativity of it all.

This does not mean that monogamy is bad or wrong. It means something very technical.

For example, monogamy is more fragile. Fragile in the sense that it has something to defend. The worldview of monogamy is prone to falling apart if it encounters cold hard reality too much. Non-monogamy threatens it in the way that a needle threatens the integrity of a balloon.

Whereas non-monogamy has no "fail condition," and doesn't mind contact with cold hard reality. Non-monogamy has no constructed membrane that is afraid of being popped. Non-monogamy simply asks: "I am a sexual being. Why limit this?" and then monogamy has to spin a web of stories to justify sexual limitation.

One way that monogamy seemingly takes the upper hand is that it can genuinely argue that limiting sexual partners leads to a more stable society and healthier interpersonal relationships. This should not be overlooked. Monogamy may even try to threaten non-monogamy by saying something like, "why are you afraid of limiting yourself? why are you clinging to your freedom?"

But then, non-monogamy has no problem responding by saying: "what builds social stability is not necessarily what is true. In fact in many ways, lies and deceptions are the foundation of social stability. I'm not afraid of limiting myself - I just find it distasteful to promote a self-serving construct as truth or duty"

The critical fault in monogamy is that it conflates positive survival outcomes with truth. "Being loyal to my wife helped me raise my kids in a healthy environment, and helped us have impossibly deep personal intimacy, therefore monogamy is the best system, a TRUE system." But no, you can't say that. There's so much interpretive baggage here, because you're not merely reporting the facts of your marriage, you have a deeper implicit fantasy about how your wife actually belongs with you and only you, and that if she found another man, that would be a betrayal of the highest degree. You credit monogamy for your deep intimacy without opening your mind to the possibility that monogamy is actually completely non-causal and uncorrelated to depth of connection. Why would it be? You just assumed that without testing!

This doesn't mean that we should all become non-monogamists. There really is no prescriptive action here. Do whatever fits your own biases and values.

I'm more interested here in the constructive structures behind these competing relationship models.

What would it look like to relate to women with minimal artificial mental constructs and fantasies?