# Polyamory



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 7, 2015)

What do other kiwis think about polyamory
I think that it is good from a utilitarian perspective because it allows for people to get higher quality romantic partners and thus generates an increase in net utility


----------



## Johnny Bravo (Nov 7, 2015)

The idea that one can have romantic feelings about more than one person should be a no brainer. I was roommates with a group who were in a three-way romantic relationship and they were all pretty chill about it. It's the kind of arrangement you'd have to work out with your partners to make sure everyone is okay with it, which they did. I'm not sure if they're still together. 

Legally I can't think of any reason to be against it, except maybe that it's close to polygamy, by which I mean one man with many wives. Polyamory isn't necessarily the same as you could have a mix of men and women. I don't have a political stance on it because I don't feel I have enough information. 

Basically, do whatever you want.


----------



## OtterParty (Nov 7, 2015)

Johnny Bravo said:


> I was roommates with a group who were in a three-way romantic relationship


dude you got cucked


----------



## Johnny Bravo (Nov 7, 2015)

OtterParty said:


> dude you got cucked



They shared their weed with me so it was all good.


----------



## Bokrug's Basement (Nov 7, 2015)

I can barely manage a relationship with one person.


----------



## Johnny Bravo (Nov 7, 2015)

Bokrug's Basement said:


> I can barely manage a relationship with one person.



I think a lot of people have that problem. This is what I see as the main obstacle preventing polyamorous relationships from ever becoming mainstream, that people are just unpredictable and hard to get along with, not to mention most of us prefer to spend our energy on just one romantic partner.


----------



## AnOminous (Nov 7, 2015)

Johnny Bravo said:


> I think a lot of people have that problem. This is what I see as the main obstacle preventing polyamorous relationships from ever becoming mainstream, that people are just unpredictable and hard to get along with, not to mention most of us prefer to spend our energy on just one romantic partner.



More people in relationship = more shit to go wrong


----------



## exball (Nov 7, 2015)

I don't think I would do it, it could possibly work for some people.


----------



## EI 903 (Nov 7, 2015)

It can work, but it's a bigger pain in the ass to manage than monogamy. Time sharing and more-people-more-problems issues are the most common ones.


----------



## Save Goober (Nov 7, 2015)

I guess idealistically I can see it, but most poly people are drama cows with a ton of issues.


----------



## Bogs (Nov 8, 2015)

You can't be two people, so you shouldn't see two people. If you want to be with someone else, then you probably should probably quit the one you're seeing.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 8, 2015)

Bogs said:


> You can't be two people, so you shouldn't see two people. If you want to be with someone else, then you probably should probably quit the one you're seeing.


But what if two people will get enough enjoyment from being with you for a smaller time period such that taking diminishing returns into account there is a greater net utility from seeing multiple people. Then you are altruistically being polyamorous


Johnny Bravo said:


> Legally I can't think of any reason to be against it, except maybe that it's close to polygamy, by which I mean one man with many wives. Polyamory isn't necessarily the same as you could have a mix of men and women. I don't have a political stance on it because I don't feel I have enough information.


Why is polygyny (one man with many wives) a bad thing


----------



## Bogs (Nov 8, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> But what if two people will get enough enjoyment from being with you for a smaller time period such that taking diminishing returns into account there is a greater net utility from seeing multiple people. Then you are altruistically being polyamorous


You're not taking into account things like devotion and jealousy. Also cut up that first sentence.


----------



## Hollywood Hulk Hogan (Nov 8, 2015)

seems that most people that are poly spend more time justifying being poly than anything


----------



## ChuckSlaughter (Nov 8, 2015)

Bogs said:


> You're not taking into account things like devotion and jealousy. Also cut up that first sentence.


I never get jealous and demonstrations of devotion are just reassurances for an insecure partner i couldn't give a fuck about them.   I think the strongest argument against the arrangement is the difficulty of maintaining a normal relationship.   Tbh I don't think guys get much out of dedicated relationships period but falling in love happens and you know it's going to hurt your partner to have a bunch of side chicks so.



Hollywood Hulk Hogan said:


> seems that most people that are poly spend more time justifying being poly than anything


I fucking hate when someone tells me they're poly for some reason, like I don't care, I'm not shocked, I'm not that impressed you have more than one set of genitals to play with and using the 17 syllable word polyamorous feels tumblr-y to me which is a serious turn off.


----------



## Save Goober (Nov 8, 2015)

Hulk Hogan is right. I'm not gonna say anecdotes are really evidence or anything but I know a lot of poly people for some reason. I wish I didn't and when I meet new people who tell me they are poly it is a huge red flag.
Think about it; the way most people date, you are generally in one relationship at a time, maybe two or three casual relationships if you are trying to meet someone you want to date or you're a cheating shit. You also have a similar past where you were dating one person at a time. So your drama is limited to the person you are dating now, and the few people you dated in the past.
When you're poly, this multiplies exponentially. The drama never fucking ends. One of my friends broke up with 3 different women, all long term relationships, in the course of two weeks; breaking up with one person is hard enough, can you imagine breaking up with three? Like I said, the drama multiplies exponentially.
There are clear exploitation issues. One guy I knew was dating two women; one was much older than the other who was barely 18, to the point people thought the first woman was the second's mother. Both girls were free to date other people but the relationship was obviously exploitative to the point that the younger girl ended up literally running away and cutting off all ties to the couple. She was barely mature enough to be in a mono relationship, much less that situation.
It's not just men that use polyamory to exploit other people. In another situation, one of my male friends was dating a girl who decided she wanted to open up the relationship. My friend is a massive cuck so he agreed to it, though it pretty much only resulted in her banging a bunch of dudes she met online because he was a shy person who wasn't great at meeting women, which she knew. She didn't give a shit about him and was obviously just using him to pay for her apartment and lifestyle while banging other men. Eventually they broke up and he got into sex clubs, where he met a married poly woman. Her birth control failed and he got her pregnant, and she divorced her husband, and now he suddenly has a baby with this random sex club woman.
I know that sounds ridiculously over the top and exploitation can happen in any mono relationship. But I so rarely see remotely functioning poly relationships. Like Hulk said, poly people spend a shitton of time justifying being poly. They are emotionally immature. They don't understand moderation, and have an immature view of sex. They have broken lives they try to fill up with more people without improving the connections they already have. You can see this in people like Zayn, who admits to not getting tested for STDs, and my male friend. In an ideal world, it would be great to have whatever sex you want without any consequences; in the real world that doesn't work. Zayn, and my friend and many other poly people choose to ignore this in favor of short term satisfaction. It's very much an "I want everything and I want it now!" attitude.
I will say I know one functioning poly couple; I don't know much about their lifestyle because they don't talk about it incessantly like most other poly people. I'm pretty sure their gig is that they each occasionally pick up strangers at clubs, but don't juggle multiple relationships all the time.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 8, 2015)

Bogs said:


> Also cut up that first sentence.


If  there were two women who wanted to be with one man and the functions for the amount of utility (pleasure) that they get per hour with him were both ln(h) with h representing the amount of hours he spends with them and he has a total of 8 hours a day to spend with them then the formula for net utility would be ln(h)+ln(8-h) then the highest net utility would be at spending 4 hours with each woman. Therefore independent of the utility that the man gets from being with each woman the system which gives the maximum total utility for the women is for each to spend 4 hours with him each


----------



## ChuckSlaughter (Nov 8, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> If  there were two women who wanted to be with one man and the functions for the amount of utility (pleasure) that they get per hour with him were both ln(h) with h representing the amount of hours he spends with them and he has a total of 8 hours a day to spend with them then the formula for net utility would be ln(h)+ln(8-h) then the highest net utility would be at spending 4 hours with each woman. Therefore independent of the utility that the man gets from being with each woman the system which gives the maximum total utility for the women is for each to spend 4 hours with him each


Most couples with no kids just spend their time eating pizza rolls and watching netflix stoned anyhow.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 8, 2015)

ChuckSlaughter said:


> Most couples with no kids just spend their time eating pizza rolls and watching netflix stoned anyhow.


Raising kids will also be more efficient due to economies of scale


----------



## Dr. Boe Jangles Esq. (Nov 8, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> Raising kids will also be more efficient due to economies of scale


Yeah, until that kid hits middle school. Rumors get around. How sensitive do you expect his peers to be when they notice that his mom seems awful friendly with a lot of different men?
I guess more people in the dynamic means they can all pitch in for therapy.
Gotta agree with @AnOminous; relationships are tough enough without an additional set of insecurities and problems to work through. I'm not opposed to the idea of poly, per se, but I've never seen any evidence of it working in practice. What I've seen is a half-dozen couples with _breathtaking _trust issues who all insist that their experience with poly "isn't typical". Without wanting to seem judgmental, poly seems like the kind of thing a couple resorts to because their relationship with each other can't survive on its own merits.


----------



## Lefty's Revenge (Nov 8, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> If  there were two women who wanted to be with one man and the functions for the amount of utility (pleasure) that they get per hour with him were both ln(h) with h representing the amount of hours he spends with them and he has a total of 8 hours a day to spend with them then the formula for net utility would be ln(h)+ln(8-h) then the highest net utility would be at spending 4 hours with each woman. Therefore independent of the utility that the man gets from being with each woman the system which gives the maximum total utility for the women is for each to spend 4 hours with him each




I think you're looking at this from too much of a....mathematical perspective. Human relationships are very difficult to quantify and break down into codes and numbers. 

Me, personally? I'd just say I don't think its a great idea. As a few have pointed out most of them just spend their time justifying the arrangement than actually enjoying it. And it just seems like the sort of thing thats a fucking mess. 

I'm dating girl A and have feelings for girl B too. I want to bring girl B into the relationship but maybe A doesn't like B or vice versa. Girl A develops feelings for a lesbian stud C or maybe even a guy. So now we both effectively have side relationships and are probably somewhat jealous of each other and these other people we're dating and are constantly questioning if the other still likes us. Than maybe some other alphabetical bitch comes into the equation that everyone is fond of but shes only fond of a few of us. 

This doesn't even sound like a relationship anymore. Just a bunch of people fucking.

I dont know, man. Everyone is free to do what they want but I dont really think its a great idea.


----------



## Locksnap (Nov 8, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> If  there were two women who wanted to be with one man and the functions for the amount of utility (pleasure) that they get per hour with him were both ln(h) with h representing the amount of hours he spends with them and he has a total of 8 hours a day to spend with them then the formula for net utility would be ln(h)+ln(8-h) then the highest net utility would be at spending 4 hours with each woman. Therefore independent of the utility that the man gets from being with each woman the system which gives the maximum total utility for the women is for each to spend 4 hours with him each


Have you ever actually been in a relationship?


----------



## Johnny Bravo (Nov 8, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> Why is polygyny (one man with many wives) a bad thing



Well, it's illegal in America. It's also considered to be a sexist practice because polygamy is often a form of ownership where a man owns many wives. I'm not sure how abusive it actually is. I doubt it's impossible to have a healthy polygamous family. Either way there's so much prejudice around it that I can't see it being accepted in the near future.



melty said:


> I'm pretty sure their gig is that they each occasionally pick up strangers at clubs, but don't juggle multiple relationships all the time.



I think that's swingers, not polyamory. To my understanding polyamorus people have multiple sexual and romantic partners. Swingers have one romantic partner, who is their single significant other, and multiple casual sex partners.

I think the best solution to polyamory is to accept that you can be very emotionally connected to someone without needing to fuck them - they're called _best friends._ That or just make fuck buddies.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 9, 2015)

Dr. Boe Jangles Esq. said:


> Yeah, until that kid hits middle school. Rumors get around. How sensitive do you expect his peers to be when they notice that his mom seems awful friendly with a lot of different men?
> I guess more people in the dynamic means they can all pitch in for therapy.
> Gotta agree with @AnOminous; relationships are tough enough without an additional set of insecurities and problems to work through. I'm not opposed to the idea of poly, per se, but I've never seen any evidence of it working in practice. What I've seen is a half-dozen couples with _breathtaking _trust issues who all insist that their experience with poly "isn't typical". Without wanting to seem judgmental, poly seems like the kind of thing a couple resorts to because their relationship with each other can't survive on its own merits.


I am not advocating that it be done in western society currently. What I am arguing for is that in the future it will be more efficient.


Lefty's Revenge said:


> I think you're looking at this from too much of a....mathematical perspective. Human relationships are very difficult to quantify and break down into codes and numbers.
> 
> Me, personally? I'd just say I don't think its a great idea. As a few have pointed out most of them just spend their time justifying the arrangement than actually enjoying it. And it just seems like the sort of thing thats a fucking mess.
> 
> ...


I was using a simplified mathematical model analogous to a frictionless vaccuum. We will need to use a more complex model to examine the real world taking this into account just like how physics takes friction into account.


Locksnap said:


> Have you ever actually been in a relationship?


I am currently in one but I admit I have little experience. That being said personal experience is not necessary to analyze situations. I have used mathematical models to assess different manufacturing techniques without ever having worked at a factory. Personal experience may even be harmful because it leads to emotional bias in assessing a situation.


----------



## Johnny Bravo (Nov 9, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> I have used mathematical models to assess different manufacturing techniques without ever having worked at a factory. Personal experience may even be harmful because it leads to emotional bias in assessing a situation.



Emotional bias is usually what happens in a relationship.


----------



## Vitriol (Nov 9, 2015)

From a legal perspective polygamous relationships are a fucking nightmare. Divorces are messy and unpleasant enough as it is but trying to work out a three way split plus alimony would make things so much more complicated.

From a personal perspective I don't think i've ever seen a poly relationship that wasn't either blatantly abusive or with one partner effectively being used as a bank/menial by the other two.

The efficiency arguement doesn't wash for me. People do not plan relationships based on efficiency. If we were to go by efficiency we'd all pool our children into massive state run boarding schools and nobody would know who's kids were whose. We don't do this because a) it's autistic as hell and b) people like looking after their own children. Trying to apply mathematics to human behaviour is daft.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 9, 2015)

Vitriol said:


> From a legal perspective polygamous relationship are a fucking nightmare. Divorces are messy and unpleasant enough as it is but trying to work out a three way split plus alimony would make things so much more complicated.


That's part of the point. Marriage laws are obsolete in the modern economy and using an alternative system allows people to live their lives without government interference (which is bad because of diseconomies of scale)


Vitriol said:


> If we were to go by efficiency we'd all pool our children into massive state run boarding schools and nobody would know who's kids were whose.


Doing that would lead to diseconomies of scale. The massive bureaucracy associated with that would lead to massive screwups due to poor communication, office politics, and slow response time. In comparison a minor increase in a small organization can lead to an increase in efficiency due to economies of scale.





By adding one person to a family a large reduction in average cost can occur due to an increased division of labour. The point where output is most efficient is called the minimum efficient scale and once that point is reached any additional increase in organizational size will lead to a reduction in efficiency. Not enough research has been done on ideal family size and it likely varies with the mode of production with some societies having a larger minimum efficient scale such as many agricultural societies which needed large amounts of people to work in the fields and others having a smaller ones such as nomadic societies where a large family will be extremely difficult to move around


Vitriol said:


> people like looking after their own children


That is an attempt to avoid the principal agent problem and is a completely different issue. People want what is best for their children and especially rich parents will likely be able to provide something better than what even a well functioning state schooling program can bring


----------



## Vitriol (Nov 9, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> That's part of the point. Marriage laws are obsolete in the modern economy and using an alternative system allows people to live their lives without government interference (which is bad because of diseconomies of scale)
> 
> Doing that would lead to diseconomies of scale. The massive bureaucracy associated with that would lead to massive screwups due to poor communication, office politics, and slow response time. In comparison a minor increase in a small organization can lead to an increase in efficiency due to economies of scale.
> 
> ...


You completely miss the point. People like being married. They like the exclusive commitment it symbolises. This commitment is weakened if the exclusivity is weakened. People do not get married for efficiency's sake.




autisticdragonkin said:


> That is an attempt to avoid the principal agent problem and is a completely different issue. People want what is best for their children and especially rich parents will likely be able to provide something better than what even a well functioning state schooling program can bring



It is blatantly obvious you don't have kids.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 9, 2015)

Vitriol said:


> You completely miss the point. People like being married. They like the exclusive commitment it symbolises. This commitment is weakened if the exclusivity is weakened. People do not get married for efficiency's sake.


The western ideal of marriage is far from universal. Emotional attachment to it could just as easily be seen as a fixed input and thus could be said to be a short run issue which is completely different from the long run costs that I was referencing. People who are emotionally suited to polyamory should choose it over monogamy but those who are not will incur a greater cost trying to fight their socialization than will be gained from switching to the system.


Vitriol said:


> It is blatantly obvious you don't have kids.


It is obvious that you grew up in a culture which emphasized the bond between child and parent. If you grew up in ancient Sparta you would think entirely differently. That being said the Spartan system was terribly inefficient due to the principal agent problem and diseconomies of scale and likely many parents realized that on some level


----------



## EI 903 (Nov 9, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> It is obvious that you grew up in a culture which emphasized the bond between child and parent. If you grew up in ancient Sparta you would think entirely differently. That being said the Spartan system was terribly inefficient due to the principal agent problem and diseconomies of scale and likely many parents realized that on some level



If he grew up in ancient Sparta this whole Internet thing would be blowing his fucking mind. Also, he wouldn't speak English so he wouldn't be able to make heads or tails out of this thread.


----------



## DirkBloodStormKing (Nov 9, 2015)

While I am willing to accept the idea of polyamory and polyamorous relationships, I don't know how one could make them completely healthy though. A lot of the times, jealousy ends up happening (and jealousy is a pretty unhealthy characteristic in a relationship to begin with) or the dynamics end up being rather unbalanced (which also ends up making the relationship unhealthy). To have a healthy polyamorous relationship, you gotta do a lot of micromanaging and have some trust, so as to prevent these two major factors (jealousy and unbalanced dynamics) being a major reason as to why your relationship is not working. Thing is, most people are not the types of people willing to do the work to have a healthy relationship, let alone a healthy polyamorous relationship.


----------



## Vitriol (Nov 9, 2015)

The 'western ideal of marriage' is pretty much universal where men and women have roughly equal rights. It is not a coincidence that polygamy is most common where women are property.


autisticdragonkin said:


> It is obvious that you grew up in a culture which emphasized the bond between child and parent. If you grew up in ancient Sparta you would think entirely differently. That being said the Spartan system was terribly inefficient due to the principal agent problem and diseconomies of scale and likely many parents realized that on some level


I don't believe for a second that there has ever been a culture on earth without strong parental-child bonds.


----------



## OtterParty (Nov 9, 2015)

If you wanna cuck your boyfriend just go ahead and cuck your boyfriend. Don't need to justify it to us here. We don't even know you or your boyfriend IRL anyway, there's no chance we could use this against you whatsoever I promise cross my heart


----------



## Bogs (Nov 9, 2015)

Hellblazer said:


> he wouldn't be able to make heads or tails out of this thread.


I'd empathize with him


----------



## Magpie (Nov 9, 2015)

Let adults do what they want with their relationships, really.  Outside of more people to have drama with should a relationship go sour there are enough shitty, exploitative, and abusive monogamous relationships to trump "well polyamorous relationships are automatically x/y/z!" 

I can only imagine how much of a legal kerfuffle managing a 2+ person legalized relationship is though.  A standard marriage on its own seems like enough of a pain in the ass. Yikes.

edit: Also why bother bringing mathematical equations into it?  It's really not how relationships or even just people on their own work.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 9, 2015)

Magpie said:


> edit: Also why bother bringing mathematical equations into it? It's really not how relationships or even just people on their own work.


The same reason why you should use mathematical equations while making a rocket to send into space. Sometimes the intuitive thing will not work and by using math you can think more critically about the situation and avoid a disastrous outcome


----------



## Vitriol (Nov 9, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> The same reason why you should use mathematical equations while making a rocket to send into space. Sometimes the intuitive thing will not work and by using math you can think more critically about the situation and avoid a disastrous outcome


I think the only time i ever used maths with a relationship was to integrate my natural log


----------



## Save Goober (Nov 9, 2015)

@autisticdragonkin If you want to discuss maths in relationships why don't you make a new thread? Its honestly just not that related to polyamory.


----------



## Dr. Boe Jangles Esq. (Nov 9, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> The same reason why you should use mathematical equations while making a rocket to send into space. Sometimes the intuitive thing will not work and by using math you can think more critically about the situation and avoid a disastrous outcome


Look, I get where you're coming from. A lot of us are analytical people by nature, and we like things to fit into models and make sense. Sad truth is, if there was ever anything that defied sense, it's romantic relationships. I think you're trying to quantify and analyze something that is, by nature, impossible to quantify.
Fact is, people don't behave rationally, and they're particularly irrational when it comes to love. We have some scattered studies and theories about what makes them do certain things, but trying to break love down to basic math is what the Sluthaters have been failing at for years.
Edit:
To move us towards the topic of the thread, I would say that this kind of thinking is also what complicates poly relationships. When you've got a bunch of people involved, someone is inevitably going to try to apply some kind of game theory to it.


----------



## Save Goober (Nov 9, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> because it allows for people to get higher quality romantic partners


Lol have you seen the Polyamory Group thread


----------



## The Knife's Husbando (Nov 9, 2015)

Never seen the appeal of the whole "poly" thing. To me it smacks of just having a lack of commitment and honor. 

Also, having sex with two people is like driving two cars across town at the same time by yourself: It involves a lot of starting, stopping, getting in, getting out- and you don't get anywhere in a hurry.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 9, 2015)

Dr. Boe Jangles Esq. said:


> Fact is, people don't behave rationally, and they're particularly irrational when it comes to love.


That just means that we need to be especially careful to not be irrational in relationships
(In this case rational means to do what is in ones best interest)


melty said:


> Lol have you seen the Polyamory Group thread


The fact that only low quality people are polyamorous is irrelevant to the issue of polyamory in the abstract


----------



## Dr. Boe Jangles Esq. (Nov 9, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> That just means that we need to be especially careful to not be irrational in relationships
> (In this case rational means to do what is in ones best interest)



With all due respect, how new is this relationship of yours? The woman I want to grow old with has thrown a fucking lamp at me during an argument about laundry. To this day, she maintains it was warranted. Behaving rationally is kinda out the window once things get serious. I would also say that if you're always acting in your own best interest, you need to seriously reevaluate your approach to a relationship.


----------



## The Knife's Husbando (Nov 9, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> That just means that we need to be especially careful to not be irrational in relationships
> (In this case rational means to do what is in ones best interest)
> 
> The fact that only low quality people are polyamorous is irrelevant to the issue of polyamory in the abstract



Using plain, cold scientific logic to try to plumb a healthy give-and-take emotional relationship is like trying to drive a nail with a tennis racquet.


----------



## Hollywood Hulk Hogan (Nov 9, 2015)

Vitriol said:


> I think the only time i ever used maths with a relationship was to integrate my natural log


My galpal likes it when I use a LaPlace transformation on her


----------



## AnOminous (Nov 9, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> That is an attempt to avoid the principal agent problem and is a completely different issue. People want what is best for their children and especially rich parents will likely be able to provide something better than what even a well functioning state schooling program can bring



Taking care of one's own children is genetically hardcoded into humans at the most basic level.


----------



## Johnny Bravo (Nov 9, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> The same reason why you should use mathematical equations while making a rocket to send into space. Sometimes the intuitive thing will not work and by using math you can think more critically about the situation and avoid a disastrous outcome



You should at least factor in the variable of human nature. I would think that you would need a much more precise equation in this case, as the people involved in the relationship will have an impact on the outcome, and for that you would need to know exactly what kind of people are in the relationship and assign values to them. Otherwise it's just random. That's why polyamorus relationships won't work in most cases. You would need just the right set of people.


----------



## Magpie (Nov 9, 2015)

A good relationship takes time, dedication, and the right people in it.  That is hard enough to pull off with two people unless their chemistry is spot on.  People get jealous, people get insecure, people play favorites, people have aspirations that may strain the relationship - the list goes on.  The concept of love is about as abstract as it gets.  No amount of equations can take those things into account, and it's a waste of time to try and make things happen that way.  Humans aren't robots.  There is a lot more to relationships than finding a mate to pop out offspring with.  It's almost insulting to see romantic interactions as nothing more than something utilitarian.

Monogamous relationships are easier to manage - not to discount them by any means - and they're as rewarding as polyamorous ones (provided they're both good).  Most can't or simply don't want to engage in polyamory, and that just is what it is.


----------



## Joan Nyan (Nov 9, 2015)

Vitriol said:


> I think the only time i ever used maths with a relationship was to integrate my natural log


The limit of length of relationship as math used approaches infinity equals zero.


----------



## *Asterisk* (Nov 13, 2015)

If anybody thinks polyamory is even remotely a good idea, they need to read _Prophet's Prey_. Traditional polyamory is fundamentally incompatible with human rights, and hippy-dippy "free love" polyamory is fundamentally incompatible with civil welfare.

There are also usually ways to scratch this itch without drama. Like if you're a guy who has a thing for girl-on-girl action. Just hire two escorts, and tell them to go nuts on each other. Sure, it'll damper your bragging rights. But if your egos so fragile that sex is only about assuaging it for you, your too much of a fucking baby to have a romantic relationship with anyone.

That said, if you and your SO wanna fuck around, even though it's a bad idea and is guaranteed to go south, I only think the law should step in if there's a family that needs to be looked after.


----------



## Strelok (Nov 13, 2015)

I've mentioning this is other similar threads but, trying to boil everything down to "statistics" and "rational actors" is a completely meaningless exercise. People don't make informed decisions about everything, people are not robots, and attempting to use statistics on a personal relationship basis makes you a weird autist who thinks other humans are a video game you can"win".

Ontopic, the fact that 50% of 1 to 1 marriages fail these days should be enough to clue you in that adding more people in only exacerbates the problems. People change, and people make impulse decisions, and people grow distant over time. What happens when there's person A B C and D all in a relationship, and A and B fall out, but B is still friends with C and A is still friends with D and by friends I mean fucking each other in the same house.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 13, 2015)

Strelok said:


> attempting to use statistics on a personal relationship basis makes you a weird autist who thinks other humans are a video game you can"win".


That isn't a bad thing either. In fact it is the foundation of economic theory and the free market


----------



## Strelok (Nov 13, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> That isn't a bad thing either. In fact it is the foundation of economic theory and the free market



Bro are you trolling us? Are you saying you use motherfucking free market theory when looking for a date?


----------



## AnOminous (Nov 13, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> That isn't a bad thing either. In fact it is the foundation of economic theory and the free market



No, being a weird autist is a bad thing.


----------



## Vitriol (Nov 13, 2015)

I think this thread has reached its logical end. Most of us think polyamory is too complicated to work and ADK is doing his usual thing. If anyone desperately wants to continue pm myself or valiant and we'll reopen.


----------

