My brain has probably been corrupted by reading too much Heinlein, but here are some thoughts I have on relationships:

First of all, I believe it is possible to be in romantic love with more than one person at the same time. Society's whole "you can only love one person at a time" idea is complete bull. I know many people, including myself, who have/can romantically love more than one person simultaneously. Given this, why should we limit ourself to only one person when we love several?

I think group marriages are a good idea - I can't see any possible reason why we should have to choose between different people we love (besides religious reasons, but let's keep that out of this because I'm trying to make it an exercise in reason).

You might be thinking at this point, "sure, what you say makes sense, but it really won't work because people get jealous, etc." And you are right. I think this sort of setup would work for only the extremely self-confident, sexually irrepressed, free-thinking, highly mature individuals. Basically people who either somehow missed all the societal conditioning or are smart enough to recognize that conditioning and overcome it.

I've tried to have this sort of open relationship with girls before but I've yet to find anyone who thinks the same way I do. So far I have only dated two types of girls: those who want a serious, deep, monagamous relationship, or those who want a light, easy, open relationship. What I want is the best of both: a serious, deep, open relationship.

So what do you think? Am I crazy?

Yep, that's called CHEATING!

Well, there are different types of open relationships. One type is where there is a main couple that is more important than everything else. i.e. "sure honey, you can sleep around, but I always come first" or "ok, but no sex" or "sex is ok, but no kissing" etc.

Another type, which I like better, is where there is no "super couple." Everyone is equal. You basically have a group of people who you all love and everyone shares everyone in a big family sort of thing.

To just say "That's called CHEATING" doesn't mean much. If you define cheating as sleeping with someone who is not your "primary partner" when your primary partner doesn't condone it, yes that would be cheating and it would have a bad connotation. If your partner is ok with you doing that, then I guess you could still call it "cheating," but it wouldn't have a bad connotation. If you are in the sort of relationship with no "primary couple" well then you really can't have anyone to cheat on, unless you go sleep with people outside of this primary group. Which you wouldn't do unless they also wish to join your primary group, but if you did it wouldn't be a huge deal either. Generally everyone would be very easy going, and you could leave the group if you wanted too, no hard feelings.

Yes, my idea really goes against how most people think, but try to think about it a little bit instead of going with your gut reaction and saying "that's called cheating." Sure the concept might not work for you, but I bet it would work for some people... or maybe someone knows a reason why it wouldn't work? The major concern I can see is jealousy.

its called polyamory
polyamorous people are less likely to cheat and more likely to be open, honest, trusting and emotionally smart

It can work, and its not crazy, its a good thing, you just have to find the right girls/men.

I can see how this would work, and I'm friends with people that tried it... they broke apart, but don't let that discourage you! Personally, I could never do that. Call me a hog, but I like to keep the woman I have to myself. ^_^

I think managing one relationship would be complicated enough. I know a polyamourous group of four from Oregon, and they recently splintered. I think this kind of relationship can definitely work, but you have to choose the involved people very carefully. I'm not ashamed to say that I'm way too posessive to ever be in a relationship like that.

I'm going to go out and agree with you here Frozen.

I think it is ridiculous to be forced to choose one love over another.

With that said, group marriages would be an extremely tangled idea in our society, because marriage, bluntly, has always (until recently) been more about transfers of property than about love. A group marriage might work in a communistic society, but with private property the question of who gets what becomes an issue (of course, you can just say the hell with marriage, but than issues of benefits raise up). As an anarcho-communist, I of course would be supportive of non-possessive relationships, but it of course has to be understood among all involved of what is needed to maintain these relationships.

I'd be up for anything, but before I can advance to mulitple relationships, I need a single relationship to build on. I'm really open, and not at all possessive (compared to most people), but I do admit to kind of wanting, before anything, a nice girl whom I could love madly, pleasure all night, and then make pancakes for in the morning. Before all the multiple partners stuff jumps in.

Note: I like the idea of polyamory, but I don't generally like the idea hedonistic, swinger-style relationships because it seems a little cheap to me, not to mention it is just too distance and impersonal for me. I like close feelings and intimacy, not just getting it on. Where does the line get drawn between polyamory and just plain screwing and running? Thoughts? I'm just asking for an opinion. Because I know more than a few people who use sex for manipulation and callous gratification with multiple people with no feelings of love attached.


~D

You and I seem to think similarily, D. In the polyamorous relationship I would prefer all the property to be shared. Of course if someone had something he/she didn't want to share it wouldn't be a huge deal, but in general it would be nice if everything was shared.

I think one of the best examples of the polyamory I want is the "Inner Circle" of Mike's "Church of All Worlds" in Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. Unfortunately it is also somewhat unrealistic because they have pretty much unlimited money.

Posted by The D Where does the line get drawn between polyamory and just plain screwing and running? Thoughts? I'm just asking for an opinion. Because I know more than a few people who use sex for manipulation and callous gratification with multiple people with no feelings of love attached.

Not sure I entirely understand your question, but I'd say it's screwing and running when you don't love the people and it's amorous when you do love them and the sex is not just a way to gratify yourself but above that a way to grow closer to the person whom you love. Of course, my definition of love might differ from yours...I think on some level love is a choice (not necessarily a conscious one though?), and I choose to love nearly everyone. Of course loving someone doesn't mean you get along well enough to live together - take my ex-gf for example; we both (still) love each other very much, but we also realize that we just aren't compatible as a couple alone. However, if she were open to polyamory, I could see us still being together as part of a group. But I'm rambling now

to each his own