r/polyamory

[Lucifer's Rectum]

Apologies in advance since this isn't necessarily a poly-specific question, but if a couple opens their relationship, and the relationship then falls the fuck apart, who's fault is it? The guy, the girl, or the girl's boyfriend? Personally I think that if you're going to get involved with degeneracy then you should do so expecting things to blow up in your face but I'm still curious about what you all think.

 

[Tanner Glass]

Apologies in advance since this isn't necessarily a poly-specific question, but if a couple opens their relationship, and the relationship then falls the fuck apart, who's fault is it? The guy, the girl, or the girl's boyfriend? Personally I think that if you're going to get involved with degeneracy then you should do so expecting things to blow up in your face but I'm still curious about what you all think.

It's the fault of whoever suggested opening up the relationship in the first place.
To a lesser extent, it's also the fault of the second party, who agreed to it (however reluctantly).

 

[raritycat]

Apologies in advance since this isn't necessarily a poly-specific question, but if a couple opens their relationship, and the relationship then falls the fuck apart, who's fault is it? The guy, the girl, or the girl's boyfriend? Personally I think that if you're going to get involved with degeneracy then you should do so expecting things to blow up in your face but I'm still curious about what you all think.

Personally, I fault the initial couple (Persons A [the one who wanted to open the relationship] & B [the one who agreed to open the relationship]). Person C is irrelevant and is really just a stand-in that could be swapped out for any old schmuck.

Person A is at fault because they refused to be an adult and communicate why exactly Person B wasn't enough or what they liked about Person C that Person B was lacking. From what I've seen in real life, these types usually lack the ability to be introspective and understand what is triggering their feelings and thus be able to communicate to their partner what is wrong. If they do understand their feelings, they fear that expressing them makes them the bad guy or "abusive" for speaking the truth.

Person B is at fault because they refused to be an adult and set their boundaries by saying no, but also for not asking why Person A wants an open relationship. If you're in a relationship, sometimes you have to ask probing questions to your partner to get to the bottom of things when you want to solve problems between the two of you. Sometimes this means having to hear some hard home truths about how your behaviour impacts your partner's ability to find you sexually attractive and therefore able to consent to you. Sometimes these reasons aren't things that can be fixed and you need to do the adult thing and end the relationship.

 

[Non-Expert!]

Apologies in advance since this isn't necessarily a poly-specific question, but if a couple opens their relationship, and the relationship then falls the fuck apart, who's fault is it? The guy, the girl, or the girl's boyfriend? Personally I think that if you're going to get involved with degeneracy then you should do so expecting things to blow up in your face but I'm still curious about what you all think.

Well, if x happens then it is her fault but only if he didn't previously trigger her anxiety with -SNIP-

Nobody's, if you live in a no fault divorce state. In California, they figured it out by 1970.

NOBODY WANTS TO FUCKING HEAR ABOUT IT.

Other states liberated themselves from this pointless shit, in the decade that followed.

If they aren't married and no kids involved, any sane party involved cuts their losses, grieves and moves on.

ADDED: your question was legitimate. My only point is/was, that arbitrating these types of very private and complicated disputes, is/was such a judicial minefield, that most jurisdictions in the states washed their hands of the job.

 

[Cosmos]

r/polyamory - My girlfriend broke up with me because her husband couldn't handle it...

11 votes and 25 comments so far on Reddit

www.reddit.com

Polyamory is a bad idea in general, but why the fuck would you date and fall in love with someone who is married to a monogamous partner? Of course they're going to eventually grow a spine and say "Actually, I don't want you dating my wife anymore."

 

[MediocreMilt]

View attachment 1130935

r/polyamory - My girlfriend broke up with me because her husband couldn't handle it...

11 votes and 25 comments so far on Reddit

www.reddit.com

Polyamory is a bad idea in general, but why the fuck would you date and fall in love with someone who is married to a monogamous partner? Of course they're going to eventually grow a spine and say "Actually, I don't want you dating my wife anymore."

So I'm guessing a "veto" means "no you can't have THAT partner." Meanwhile, the husband in the situation probably has no idea what the fuck that is and just wanted a normal life with his wife not being a skank. Honestly, without knowing anything else, I can already tell you that the couple this guy is trying to insinuate himself into is headed to Couple's Counseling followed by divorce. And don't you ever forget: Having boundaries in a relationship that fucking everybody agrees are appropriate is "insecurity".

 

[Non-Expert!]

View attachment 1130935

r/polyamory - My girlfriend broke up with me because her husband couldn't handle it...

11 votes and 25 comments so far on Reddit

www.reddit.com

Polyamory is a bad idea in general, but why the fuck would you date and fall in love with someone who is married to a monogamous partner? Of course they're going to eventually grow a spine and say "Actually, I don't want you dating my wife anymore."

Lack of understanding of social norms. Autism Spectrum Disorder is an organic explanation.

Personality Disorder? Maladaptive behavior stemming from early childhood environment. Bad role-models.

"Don Draper's Dick" and "Bacon Street" would have benefited from adult role models, who would have walked him through social mazes, and appropriate interaction with peers.

Spoiler: parenting explanation

A huge part of parenting and early childhood education curriculums, is simply walking small children through social minefields. "No Billy(6), you and Susan have to wear clothing when Tatiana brings her over ..." "No Billy, you and Jamie can't hold hands during gym" .... this is where parents spend a lot of time. Although some people seem to thrive in the role, most people end up there because they see that their kids are taking a left turn.

As the kids get older conversations start about stuff like how various types of human relationships work, and coaching them about damage control, when they don't. Like I said, some folks kind of overdo it with "Guiding" aka "overparenting" but normal people address this stuff by instinct, and do what they can, to get the crazy out of the house.

Parents are also supposed to teach children boundaries and emotional regulation. For example if the kid falls for some girl at school with a boyfriend, it is not ok to smash a bunch of plates, or ask her out when he isn't looking. ....

Also, emotional regulation issues (you cant fall head over heals for every girl you meet) and boundaries are a constant theme. Some kids catch on faster than others. And safety and common sense "you sleep with someone's wife, your head can end up on our doorstep."

Basic shit, really.

 

[Tanner Glass]

So I'm guessing a "veto" means "no you can't have THAT partner." Meanwhile, the husband in the situation probably has no idea what the fuck that is and just wanted a normal life with his wife not being a skank. Honestly, without knowing anything else, I can already tell you that the couple this guy is trying to insinuate himself into is headed to Couple's Counseling followed by divorce. And don't you ever forget: Having boundaries in a relationship that fucking everybody agrees are appropriate is "insecurity".

View attachment 1130943

Vetoes (and all rules) are super subjective in the poly community. It usually means that the partner not involved with the "extra" relationship has control over it in some capacity.

It can mean
- You can't do anything with x person
- You can't do anything on x date (the time date)
- You can do x, but not y (as in you can date, but not fuck other people)
- You can only do x with my permission

It's a problem that (like all problems in the poly community) gets 100% glossed over - all the different poly practitioners don't have the same rules and none of them can agree on it.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Where do these mongoloids get time for all of these relationships? I barely have time for just one partner, I can't imagine having 3 or 4.

 

[Tanner Glass]

Where do these mongoloids get time for all of these relationships? I barely have time for just one partner, I can't imagine having 3 or 4.

You can do it very easily if you blatantly disregard your other partners wants and needs and treat them all as commodities. All a poly relationship is worth is what can it do for you right now - it's a core tenet of polyamory.

For example - in a normal, healthy, sane relationship - You want to have sex but your partner is feeling really sick. You calm down your boner and take care of your partner (soup, water, blankets, whatever) and maybe sit in bed with them all day watching movies or something.

In a poly relationship - You want to have sex but your "live in/main partner" is feeling really sick. You leave them to their own devices "good luck" and go make fun plans with your #2 girl and get the sex you wanted. Your "live in/main partner" is not allowed to be hurt or jealous because all you are doing is "meeting your own needs".

 

[AnOminous]

Apologies in advance since this isn't necessarily a poly-specific question, but if a couple opens their relationship, and the relationship then falls the fuck apart, who's fault is it? The guy, the girl, or the girl's boyfriend? Personally I think that if you're going to get involved with degeneracy then you should do so expecting things to blow up in your face but I'm still curious about what you all think.

Everyone who came up with the idea or cucked to it or otherwise consented to it.

 

[Non-Expert!]

Where do these mongoloids get time for all of these relationships? I barely have time for just one partner, I can't imagine having 3 or 4.

My point exactly (back a few pages, don't even bother.)

Precisely why in the vast majority of human societies, monogamy is the norm. Even if the law allows a man to have more then one wife, only a minority practice polygamy.

In some Middle Eastern countries, for example, plural marriage is legal and codified, but it is not universally practiced because it is expensive (you need to be able to provide financial, medical and logistical support to all of your wives and all of your offspring) and it is probably kind of a pain in the butt. Mainstream Mormonism got rid of polygamy years ago. In Islam lesbo action between the wives doesn't officially happen, and when the husband dies, the marriage dissolves.

The only way any of this is sustainable, is in times of war, or post war, where there is a shortage of marriagable young men, and surviving male householders take on the *responsibility* of extra wives.

You can do it very easily if you blatantly disregard your other partners wants and needs and treat them all as commodities. All a poly relationship is worth is what can it do for you right now - it's a core tenet of polyamory.

For example - in a normal, healthy, sane relationship - You want to have sex but your partner is feeling really sick. You calm down your boner and take care of your partner (soup, water, blankets, whatever) and maybe sit in bed with them all day watching movies or something.

In a poly relationship - You want to have sex but your "live in/main partner" is feeling really sick. You leave them to their own devices "good luck" and go make fun plans with your #2 girl and get the sex you wanted. Your "live in/main partner" is not allowed to be hurt or jealous because all you are doing is "meeting your own needs".

Male perspective. Very sweet. Love the candor.

Cultivate the qualities of your ideal partner in yourself, and you will bypass this drama because you will attract a person who seeks these same qualities.

And somehow, you will come home to a happy home, and your career path won't look like a Miró painting.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

Mainstream Mormonism got rid of polygamy because the US government told them they had to or Utah wouldn't be allowed statehood. The court said that while Congress can't regulate religious opinion, it's fine for them to regulate religious action that's 'in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.' And letting Mormons be polygamous because of their religion is a slippery slope to allowing human sacrifice. (See Reynolds v. United States).

If the US government hadn't done this, Mormonism would not have survived today to be a large religion of people whose lives are not substantially different from more conventional conservative Protestants. A society where all men have multiple wives is disastrous, and you can see why in FLDS groups. The older men have 10 or 12 wives and they cast out the boys so they aren't competition.

The difference between traditional polygamy and polyamory is traditional polygamy is one man and a bunch of women, as opposed to polyamory, where one man dates two women who are each dating another guy who is dating another girl and so on, which if anything leads to even more drama.

 

[Non-Expert!]

Mainstream Mormonism got rid of polygamy because the US government told them they had to or Utah wouldn't be allowed statehood. The court said that while Congress can't regulate religious opinion, it's fine for them to regulate religious action that's 'in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.' And letting Mormons be polygamous because of their religion is a slippery slope to allowing human sacrifice. (See Reynolds v. United States).

If the US government hadn't done this, Mormonism would not have survived today to be a large religion of people whose lives are not substantially different from more conventional conservative Protestants. A society where all men have multiple wives is disastrous, and you can see why in FLDS groups. The older men have 10 or 12 wives and they cast out the boys so they aren't competition.

The difference between traditional polygamy and polyamory is traditional polygamy is one man and a bunch of women, as opposed to polyamory, where one man dates two women who are each dating another guy who is dating another girl and so on, which if anything leads to even more drama.

Ok, now I'm hooked.

What's the human sacrifice dimension to polygamy?

As for polyamory, I can see that human sacrifice "aka murder" could be a realistic outcome.

 

[MediocreMilt]

What's the human sacrifice dimension to polygamy?

There's not one. The court was saying they can ban polygamy (despite religious infringement) for similar reasons to why they can ban religious ritual murders.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

The court also said ‘Professor Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy.’ which I think is interesting in the context of this thread.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a religious freedom bill for Virginia before the Consitution existed and he included an exception for when the principles of the religion are against peace and good order, which the court mentioned in their decision—it shows the spirit intended by 18th century proponents of religious freedom.

 

[AnOminous]

There's not one. The court was saying they can ban polygamy (despite religious infringement) for similar reasons to why they can ban religious ritual murders.

Once you allow the general principle that religious law can override laws of general applicability, including religious law made up by people like convicted felon Joseph Smith, you've ceded that secular authority isn't supreme. The government then needs to get into the business of deciding what is and isn't legitimate religion, because otherwise, they can't sort out which religious law supersedes secular authority.

We decided not to do that. First, the government shouldn't be into deciding what is a "legitimate" religious belief, and second, anyone of any religion can get involved in the political process, which is where we decide what laws apply to everyone equally. You're free to live a multiple partner lifestyle with or without a religious justification. What you can't do is claim a special legal status for it that's granted only to monogamy (and until very recently only for heterosexual unions).

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

Once you allow the general principle that religious law can override laws of general applicability, including religious law made up by people like convicted felon Joseph Smith, you've ceded that secular authority isn't supreme. The government then needs to get into the business of deciding what is and isn't legitimate religion, because otherwise, they can't sort out which religious law supersedes secular authority.

We decided not to do that. First, the government shouldn't be into deciding what is a "legitimate" religious belief, and second, anyone of any religion can get involved in the political process, which is where we decide what laws apply to everyone equally. You're free to live a multiple partner lifestyle with or without a religious justification. What you can't do is claim a special legal status for it that's granted only to monogamy (and until very recently only for heterosexual unions).

A multiple partner lifestyle if two of the parties were married to each other would have been illegal at the time, because there were adultery laws.

In some US states, adultery is still a crime. Some have 'alienation of affection' laws, where you can sue the other woman/man, and in 2010 a woman in North Carolina won a large sum of money by suing her husband's mistress. Could a poly person sue under this? Not entirely sure how it works. Also you may or may not get in trouble with the military because they have adultery policies.

While looking on r/polyamory on a thread about poly and the military, I found this comment:

[...]I have many friends that are in a bind because if their employers found out, employers that have no problems with gay people and backed gay married before it was passed, have huge problems with people who have an open marriage/relationship/life and talk about it.

I agree that a lot of people are fine with gay marriage and not at all okay with non-monogamy, but what's the reason for that?

 

[Non-Expert!]

Once you allow the general principle that religious law can override laws of general applicability, including religious law made up by people like convicted felon Joseph Smith, you've ceded that secular authority isn't supreme. The government then needs to get into the business of deciding what is and isn't legitimate religion, because otherwise, they can't sort out which religious law supersedes secular authority.

We decided not to do that. First, the government shouldn't be into deciding what is a "legitimate" religious belief, and second, anyone of any religion can get involved in the political process, which is where we decide what laws apply to everyone equally. You're free to live a multiple partner lifestyle with or without a religious justification. What you can't do is claim a special legal status for it that's granted only to monogamy (and until very recently only for heterosexual unions).

Awesome explanation.

What do you think the chances are, of polyamorous groups being able to marry?

Spoiler: Concerns

One foreseeable problem, is if we allowed plural marriage, where would the line be drawn, as to how many parties could join? When same sex marriage was on the table, I was concerned that this would open the floodgates to plural marriage, and a legislative ball of twine.

If a marriage is between a man and a woman, this rules out more than a couple because when one party dies, the other is no longer married, and technically widowed. And that has its own entitlements. But if for example you have one man and two women, and the man dies, then "under the new gay marriage rules" the women would still be married.

So practically speaking, polygamous marriage was de-facto off the table, because the surviving female spouses would not be able to live as married lesbians. And at least in the states, it would be difficult to draw rules that would not withstand legal challenges: "well you can have two women and one man but not one woman and two men because that is absolutely fucking gross."

And would the two women live as a lesbian couple with his pension/social security/survivor's benefits? Or would they be denied all of it? Massive fucking tangle. And how many add-ons could the law tolerate? Under what justification?

So I am assuming that the limiting factor is "two human individuals capable of consent?"

What is the legal justification for restricting marriage to ⬆?

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

Awesome explanation.

What do you think the chances are, of polyamorous groups being able to marry?

Spoiler: Concerns

One foreseeable problem, is if we allowed plural marriage, where would the line be drawn, as to how many parties could join? When same sex marriage was on the table, I was concerned that this would open the floodgates to plural marriage, and a legislative ball of twine.

If a marriage is between a man and a woman, this rules out more than a couple because when one party dies, the other is no longer married, and technically widowed. And that has its own entitlements. But if for example you have one man and two women, and the man dies, then "under the new gay marriage rules" the women would still be married.

And would the two women live as a lesbian couple with his pension/social security/survivor's benefits? Or would they be denied all of it? Massive fucking tangle. And how many add-ons could the law tolerate? Under what justification?

So I am assuming that the limiting factor is "two human individuals capable of consent?"

What is the legal justification for restricting marriage to ⬆?

I heard there were Muslims who supported legalizing gay marriage not because they wanted it but because they hoped it would lead to legalized plural marriage. And that's part of the reason why I don't see poly marriage becoming legal. People supported gay marriage because they knew gay people: they were their friends and neighbors and relatives, who otherwise engaged in normative cultural practices. On the other hand, Muslims aren't normies and don't have the same relationships with the rest of society as gay people do. And people will see it as oppressive to women.

In Reynolds v United States, they note that marriage has always been monogamous going back in England from time immemorial. Precedent is a huge deal in the US court system.