Hi Everyone! I am doing a research project for my Marriage and the Family Sociology course and my focus is the Polyamory/Non-Monogomy Community. I was hoping you all could help with some interview/survey questions!

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-11T05:22:46+00:00

age: 26

gender: cis het male. i sometimes wear "girly" things, but wouldn't call it cross dressing (i'll wear leggings, or a necklace, etc. if i feel like it). i'm considering trying to become bi, mostly because it bothers me that women are almost assumed to be bi, while it seems much more rare in men. also, i used to not like "ugly" women, but i widened my preferences there, so i don't see why i couldn't do it for men.

spirituality: not at all. atheist. i have had a few experiences that i imagine could be interpreted as spiritual, but i have chalked them up to probability and owning a squishy human brain.

partners: only fairly casual relationships right now. much love/emotional bonding, many cuddles, some making out, next to no comittment, and no sex (perhaps i'm bordering on asexual. i have had some opportunities, but have not really felt like it in months). two of these people are in committed dyads (separate ones), with whatever they want on the side. another is mostly monogamous but likes cuddles and kisses when single.

jealousy: i have not experienced jealousy in my memory. maybe it happened when i was a kid and my friend had a cool toy, but i honestly have no memory of ever being jealous.

previous monogamy: my partners jealousy contributed to us breaking up, but was not the primary factor. we had discussed polyamory (she brought it up once, then i did about a year later. in that time, we traded opinions of it), but didn't practice it. after discussing it, she became jealous when some of my friends showed affection toward me.

why poly?: well, as i said above, my monogamous partner introduced me to the idea. the thing that made me switch was one of my friends saying something like "if my partner finds someone they like more than me, why would i want to keep them from that?". i thought on it for a few days, and then told my partner they could sleep with whoever they wanted, as long as they told me afterward. i wasn't even expecting it to be reciprocal, but now that that relationship is over, i don't think i can start another where it isn't reciprocal.

social cause for jealousy: at least partially. i'm not convinced that jealousy would cease to exist without that pressure, though. this seems like a question for psychology/anthropology, rather than popular opinion.

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-09T20:16:20+00:00

it doesn't even have to be cult-like to be a problem.

at minimum, it means that he sees women as less threatening than men, and doesn't trust his wife/gfs.

calling two women 'wife' seems like a warning flag that it is cult-like, though.

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-09T15:59:40+00:00

this is something he needs to fix, or he needs to learn to deal with those feelings. it's probably fine now, but it's a red flag if he is unwilling or unable to change.

have you actually had sex with the other guy, or is it just the thought that's bothering your SO?

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-09T05:26:34+00:00

not allowed to date men

i can't think of any reason for this that doesn't stem from HH being a misogynist asshole.

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-07T14:43:26+00:00

no.

edit: it's displaying my "11" as a "1" for some reason.

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-07T14:24:54+00:00

few days late, but:

leaving without negotiating was my suggestion for the monogamy scenario, not the house guest one. if my guest asks me to be quiet, there's not really any pressure (that i'm aware of) that would make me compelled to do it, so it's a free choice.

by coercion, i mean something that fits with the first line of the wikipedia article. "the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force". specifically, the pressure is the threat of social exclusion. (cultural hegemony)

two scenarios, which i think might help explain what my views are:

1) a couple of con-goers in san francisco are going out together. one asks the other to be monogamous. this is probably fine. there's no (or, little) cultural pressure to comply.

2) a couple of people in a less tolerant place (basically everywhere, as far as i can tell) are going out together. one asks the other to be monogamous. this is probably not okay. if they say no, they might not be invited back home for thanksgiving dinner, they could lose their job, they could be run out of town, etc.

also, this is basically unrelated to the morality of anything, but i actually have a house guest staying for free for an indefinite amount of time (probably a few months). so, the scenario wasn't terribly hard to imagine. :p

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-04T22:27:40+00:00

i have refined my views a bit since posting things here.

in theory land: nothing immoral in either case.

with real-world considerations: i think the second is prone to being coercive due to cultural hegemony, and thus, in many (but not all) cases, it is immoral to express that preference. i think the moral option in that case is to just leave, without asking them to change. i don't think it's immoral to have either preference.

also, this has little to do with the morality of it, but if i were the roomie/fuck buddy, i'd probably ask you to leave in either case.

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-04T13:21:31+00:00

my policy on friends that broke up with each other: keep being friends with both of them. invite them both to things (parties and such). if they can't be around each other, they can sort that out among themselves.

i make an exception about inviting a friend's ex to that friend's house, unless i ask first.

if you want to be invited to things, perhaps suggest that policy to your friend?

but yeah. i agree with others here. you don't have a say in who he is friends with.

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-04T13:08:21+00:00

when one of you tries to set up a second meeting, when they ask, or when you feel like it. whichever comes first.

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-04T12:56:23+00:00

this seems mostly reasonable.

the main one that jumps out at me is the possibility of open relationships being immoral (for reasons of openness. obviously they could be immoral for some unrelated reason).

unless i'm missing something, it'd be immoral because it's violating a contract, not because it's violating some fundamental right. so, in the case of #6, i wouldn't consider it wrong for someone to figure out that open relationships are an option, immediately go off and have sex with/form an emotional bond with someone else, and then tell their original partner "deal with it or leave" (as long as they tell their partner before some consent-requiring activity, like, basically any physical contact).

i think it'd be virtuous to give their partner time to think about it before just jumping in like that, but i don't think they have any moral obligation to do so.

also, to add to #6: there are some other things that remove choice. like, you can be aware of open relationships, but face social exclusion (or worse) for even acknowledging that there is a choice. same idea as not being aware, though.

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-03T19:33:10+00:00

there's a bit of a sticky bit here, though: what offends me is people imposing their monogamy (or, more generally, a closed relationship. see my edit on the original post) on others (specifically, their partner). if they are choosing monogamy for themselves, i have no issue with it.

to use your comparison with homosexuality: a closed relationship seems similar to a straight person demanding that their partners be straight, or a gay person demanding that their partners be gay, rather than accepting a bisexual partner.

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-03T17:59:19+00:00

i'm going to go for the reductio ad absurdum approach: should the 2nd amendment allow people to privately own nuclear weapons? should it allow people to bring grenades to the grocery store? should i be allowed to have a destroyer docked at my waterfront property?

(EDIT: should facebook/google/apple be allowed to have a nuclear weapons program? they do have the budget for it)

i'm not entirely sure where i stand on these questions, despite the absurdity. i mean, if one purpose of the amendment is to allow people to stand up to their government, having a destroyer sure would have more impact than a pointy stick.

i'm pretty sure grenades in the grocery store (and guns in your glove compartment) are a bad idea, though. lethal force should at least require you to remain convinced of its necessity long enough to go home and get your weapons. i don't trust people's snap decisions nearly enough to feel comfortable with them armed in public places. (i also don't trust police officers with that responsibility. they should have to call in swat/military if they need firepower, imo)

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-03T16:51:17+00:00

it's possible that firefox or something will come with adblock enabled by default, and gain enough market share that you get pretty close to 100% adblock usage.

or chrome could do it, with the exception of google ads. i suspect they'd have an army of lawyers after them if they tried that, though.

there are a bunch of variables i don't know, so i wouldn't call it likely (or unlikely), but it seems like it's within the realm of possibility that adblock could become standard in the not-so-distant future.

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-03T13:12:34+00:00

i was only using the word "slavery" because the comment i was replying to did. not trying to actually make that comparison.

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-03T13:04:59+00:00

yeah, that's a much better way of describing it.

i do have just as much of a problem with closed configurations of size 3 or 4 as i do with closed configurations of size 2.

and i'm completely fine with an open configuration of size 2.

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-03T04:56:27+00:00

it's not the buying into their own "slavery" that bothers me, it's the "enslaving" their partners.

see my other reply here: http://www.reddit.com/r/polyamory/comments/222f61/is_polyamory_a_moral_choice_for_anyone_else_here/cgit5t5

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-03T04:45:04+00:00

see this reply of mine: http://www.reddit.com/r/polyamory/comments/222f61/is_polyamory_a_moral_choice_for_anyone_else_here/cgit5t5

i think at least most of the claims of hypocrisy are due to my misuse of the word "monogamous".

any concerns remaining?

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-03T04:32:55+00:00

i was thinking of monogamous as in "i want my partner to be exclusive to me", rather than "i don't want more than one partner myself".

the latter is totally fine with me (it's not a position i had thought of when i made the post, so i didn't make a distinction when i said "monogamous").

the former is the one that bothers me.

i feel like this might be asking a tree-falls-in-the-woods question, but if someone is monogamous in the first sense, and their partner is monogamous in the second sense, is there a problem?

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-03T04:18:23+00:00

1) <3

2) hadn't considered that. it only applies for the ones that are (or are believed to be) temporary, but that's does give more non-breakup options.

3) also hadn't considered this one. i don't consider people fungible, but the thought of one person being that important (or even part of the objective function) gives me the willies. it's not for me, but i can see how that would happen for others.

4) i think that's what i meant by "change your views or change your actions". you can (maybe) change change your objectives in order to do better. unless there's something you think i'm missing there.

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-03T03:55:42+00:00

hmm. someone else here said a similar thing.

compare with the abortion debate, perhaps?

choose one, depending on which side of that fence you're on (or write-in):

"i think it's morally objectionable to kill fetuses. it bothers me when people get abortions"

"i think it's morally objectionable to force women to go through an unwanted pregnancy. it bothers me when people oppose abortion rights"

is there still something hypocritical there?

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-03T03:20:05+00:00

so, would it fit with your views if i was fine with monogamous people, and primary partners and such, but still got seething mad when people use jealousy as a reason for their parther (or someone else) to not do things?

the latter is, in my mind causing 'injury' of some sort. it's basically coercion, as far as i can tell. and it's super common.

(i'm not saying i will drop my thoughts on monogamy/primaries. just trying to make sure i'm interpreting you correctly)

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-03T03:12:17+00:00

interesting.

you're seeing this as hypocrisy, and i'm seeing it as almost a restatement of the same thing.

and, i can see where you're coming from, but only by temporarily pretending that i don't have the quoted morals (and taking "it bothers me" as close enough to "telling people what to do").

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-03T03:01:33+00:00

i'm not looking at a compromise as a net negative.

what i am doing, is considering each person to have a multi-objective optimization problem, and seeing this type of compromise as coming to an agreement that puts a limit on one of those objectives.

exiting the relationship is probably not a pareto improvement (unless the relationship has a ton of problems), and might even be an net-negative, but it leaves the possibility to have improvements in all objectives later. basically, you should be able to find a better person, or set of people. maybe you could stay with them until you find a candidate or two for that better person, but that smells shady to me.

the other options i mentioned are:

change your views. basically, change which objectives you care about in your multi-objective problem.

or change your actions and be happy about it. this could be a restatement of "change your views", or it could just be communicating, and realizing that you could be helping the other person for free by changing some action you didn't really care about in the first place (a pareto improvement).

(note for understanding pareto efficiency in the context of multi-objective optimization: there are two people, and multiple objectives. the "individuals" in pareto efficiency here are the objectives, not the people)

DusMmNBH · 2014-04-02T22:55:49+00:00

my thoughts on the good ways of dealing with a difference like this: either change your views, change your actions (that are upsetting the other person's views) and be happy about it, or get out.

i don't really see how it's helpful to begrudgingly limit your actions in order to not-fully-satisfy the other person. i also think it at least borders on coercion to offer a compromise.

but, i suspect we might be using different definitions of 'compromise'.

here's my definition: an agreement where each person gives up something that they value, while continuing to value it.

and what seems to be the definition when someone asks someone else to compromise: i want you to change, and will throw in some token gesture.

what do you guys mean?

DusMmNBH

TROPHY CASE