Is non-monogamy "immature"?

In My Humble Opinion
61

I think part of the issue is that quite a lot of people who push monogamy, especially religious types, DO feel that other people’s relationships are their business, and very much want to prescribe how other people live their lives. A lot of them will arbitrarily classify a desire to treat your own life as ‘nobody else’s business’ as immature, not because it fits a reasonable definition of maturity, but because they want to exercise social control. For them, maturity is “Do the thing that I tell you to do the way that I tell you to do it without question” and immaturity is “Make your own decisions instead of following what I say’” the ‘maturity’ is based purely on whether you conform to what they say. (And not what the Bible says, since a read of the Old Testament will turn up a lot of nonmonogamous relationships condoned by God)

I suspect that your husband crashing with female friends or you talking sex with a male friend would be classed as immature by a lot of the people who say that nonmonogamy is immature for much the same reason.

62

Certainly. I don’t have a problem with people being freaked out, curious, confused, etc. as long as they’re polite about it. That’s also part of the reason why we generally don’t talk about it. It’s super personal and can make people very uncomfortable, and not everyone responds politely.

I’ve seen people on this message board alone describing non-monogamous relationships or people as immature, stunted, mentally ill, childish, selfish, probably victims of abuse, perverted, imply the women involved must have been coerced or otherwise pushed into it by the men involved, etc. It’s really easy to end up feeling defensive and kind of prickly about it. This thread has gone surprisingly well!

63

I didn’t say it’s non-existent. I meant it’s not practiced predominantly or even very commonly. I should have been more clear. That said, your cites are not that compelling. I can google “furries” and get lots of hits (but I won’t and you shouldn’t either). Doesn’t mean that’s a very commonly practiced kink either.

64

I don’t understand your pedantry. I meant a sexual relationship when I used the word “romantic”. It’s a generally accepted definition. Disagree all you want but I think most people understand it in context.

65

I don’t think so, and I think that may be part of the disconnect. Does a john have a “romantic” relationship with a prostitute? Most people wouldn’t think so, but would agree that it’s a sexual one. A couple who have just started dating and are utterly infatuated with each other but not yet physical might have what’s considered a romantic relationship, but it isn’t necessarily a sexual one. I think you (and many people) want there to be clearly defined and labelled boxes that in reality are a lot more blurred than that. Friendships, intimacy, romance, love, and sexual attraction can all exist entirely on their own and can also all overlap (and often do).

Think for a moment about the vast difference in where monogamous couples draw the line at what’s acceptable – is looking at porn okay? Masturbating? Masturbating while thinking of someone other than their spouse? Going to a stripper? Sharing nude photos of themselves? Painting a nude model at a class? Painting a friend who poses nude? Going for dinner alone with a friend? A late night phone call discussing intimate topics? That line is different for everyone, and I ask you again where the line is that becomes an acknowledgement of a fundamental lack, and why?

Yes, there’s a difference between a purely platonic relationship and a sexual or romantic one, but my question was why is that relevant? Why is a platonic relationship with someone other than your spouse not indicative of something missing in your primary relationship, but sex is?

Please note – I am very appreciative of your civil participation and the sharing of your perspective – I in no way mean to be antagonistic. It’s just that you have expressed the exact issue my OP was seeking to understand, and I am still hoping to find a way to get it.

66

Each participant’s level of maturity will certainly impact the depth of any relationship , but I don’t think maturity has anything to do with how one comes to define the basic structure of the relationships they prefer to pursue - which preferred gender(s), number of concurrent intimate participants, etc. I believe that those factors are set by some combination nature/nurture, a combination that likely varies by factor.

67

Actually, you specifically claimed that I was introducing something practiced in “alternative societies in the past” rather than in a “first world western society”. That choice of wording clearly indicates that you DO think it is non-existent in a first world western society, and instead it’s just something that was done in non-western society in the past. While you didn’t literally say that it was non-existent, you did claim that it was so small that it’s safe to discount, and that it’s not practiced in first world western societies.

“Predominantly” is simply a nonsense qualifier; no one made the claim that non-hierarchical relationships were the ‘predominant’ practice, and something doesn’t need to be “predominant” to be relevant to a discussion of the topic. Generally estimates of the GLBT population puts it at around 5% of the total population, but dismissing gay marriage in a discussion of marriage or gay relationships in a discussion of relationships because it’s not “very commonly” practiced would hardly be reasonable.

“Very Commonly” is an even worse qualifier, as it’s a straight up cop-out. It’s so vague that you can use it to arbitrarily dismiss almost any number no matter what the actual prevalence is, and we’re already talking about a minority of a minority so ANY particular practice is not going to be done “very commonly”. If you’re going to try to use this, give a real number - exactly what percentage of non-mono people need to engage in a practice for it to be worth considering in a discussion of non-monogamy, and what percentage practice the forms you consider worth discussing.

I’m not really sure why you’re trying to drag furries into the discussion here, but it highlights the problem with the “very commonly” qualifier. “Furry” is a kink that is practiced often enough that there are multiple businesses that exist and remain profitable providing props for furry’s activities (especially costumes), and that sustains multiple conventions every year dedicated to the activity. You seem to be claiming that a kink that sustains conventions and businesses is so rarely practiced that it would be absurd for someone to consider it in a discussion of what kinks people practice, that it shouldn’t be considered relevant to a discussion of kink in the western world. So exactly how widely would something need to be practiced to qualify as relevant?

68

It’s not pedantry to point out that you used an incorrect word for a specific type of relationship when we’re talking about those specific types of relationship. The ‘generally accepted definition’ that you’re trying to use is only generally accepted by people who don’t grasp that romance and sex are separate things, but people who don’t grasp that simply understand enough about possible relationship structures to meaningfully discuss the pros and cons of non-monogamous relationships. What I understand in the context is that you seem to have a very limited understanding of relationships and their differences, especially in the context of non-monogamy.

Non-mono relationships where outside romance is forbidden but outside sex is OK are very common, as I pointed out before, so the ‘very common’ copout won’t really work here.

69

I too appreciate you sharing your perspective on the matter.

Instead of continuing to restate my position on the subject, perhaps you can share why you and your husband pursue non-monogamous relationships and how you characterize them?

70

With all due respect, Pantastic, I’m not interested in pursuing a discussion along the lines you are pressing. I’d prefer to stick to the OP’s thesis, which does not include issues related to LGBTQ community or issues related to First Nations society, past or present, or any other related tangent and yeah-but.

Your assumption of my understanding of the subject is incorrect.

71

I don’t think that necessarily shows maturity. Some people are simply more trusting or less jealous than others.

72

So you’re not interested in discussing actual non-monogamy as it’s practiced in the United States by American citizens, because that’s what I was discussing. You will continue to claim that non-monogamy is immature based on an argument that requires all practicioners of non-monogamy to have a ‘primary relationship’, in spite of the fact that all practicioners of it do not.

Also, the idea that Native Americans don’t count as being American in spite of being American citizens who live in America (and vote and pay taxes) is pretty breathtakingly absurd and racist, FYI. What you’re saying is “That doctor who lives in your town, practices non-hierarchical polyamory, and runs get togethers for people who practice it doesn’t count as someone living in America because she’s got First Nations Ancestry. Also her parents and their lifestyle, plus the lifestyle of people with a similar background, who live in another American city don’t count either, again because they didn’t emigrate from Europe”.

Your statements on the subject are wildly incorrect and simply do not match reality. Whether your ‘understanding’ matches what you’ve said here is irrelevant, because none of us are mind readers - if you actually understand that non-hierarchical non-monogamy is practiced in the US, you haven’t demonstrated said understanding in your posts.

73

I’m interested in discussing the specific relationship described by the OP.

I’m not interested in discussing that which is not relevant to the OP.
If you want to discuss the latter, open your own thread on the subject and those who are interested will be happy to join you there.

74

I think you not only paint with a broad brush, your assumptions are unwarranted. The camp I stay with at Burning Man is a polyamorous camp. it is one of the larger camps on the playa, about 280 and roughly 40% of the campers are in polyamorous relationships[sup]1[/sup]; the other 60%, singles couples or miscellaneous, are in the camp because it is a cool camp to be in. While there are certainly young people in the camp, the average age is the far side of forty, which as you can see from the 2016[sup]2[/sup] census (PDF, page 15), is definitely the right side of the bell curve.

In my experience as I get older, I find it is the younger folks who get insanely jealous of their guy or gal being in an outside relationship while the older roll with the punches, even in those cases of non-permissive cheating.

[sup]1[/sup] Attending with all, some, or none of their partners.

[sup]2[/sup] The latest available. 2017 should be out this month or next.

75

We tend to view sexual-romantic relationships as important, and we tend to view people who arrange the important relationships of life according to a different principle than the one we use as “immature” or inferior in some other way. Because we tend to believe we have chosen well for ourselves.

I’m not immune to it. I have a really hard time not seeing sexual exclusivity and sexual possessiveness as immature. But I think that’s for the above-described reason, mostly: on things of such impact we often tend to get chauvinistic about our own choices; other folks’ choices look foolish and icky.

76

Where you keep wanting to know “why?” I keep wanting to know “why not?” Neither of us actively seek out new partners – it’s not like we go on dating sites or out on the prowl at singles bars or anything. But if I am attracted to someone who is also attracted to me, and we both want to be physical with each other, why would I say no?

I’m not being (deliberately) obtuse when I continue to attempt what I know seem like silly analogies. I do understand the difference between platonic and sexual relationships and activities, it’s just that I don’t understand the relevance. So thank you for your patience as I attempt one more: You spend the afternoon golfing with your friend Joe. On the way home, you’re both feeling hungry and craving wings. Joe suggests stopping for some wings and a pint, which sounds awesome to you. You enjoy being with Joe, you enjoy wings, and you at that moment both feel like you would enjoy having some wings together. And so, you stop and have some wings and a pint with Joe. You don’t necessarily actively seek out people to go eat wings with, but when you organically find yourself in a situation where you are with someone you want to eat wings with and they want to as well, you don’t make a deliberate choice NOT to.

I know I’ve said this a few times but I’ll try to explain it a little better one more time. I really don’t think of it as something I do so much as something I don’t do. Another silly analogy: Take monks who take a vow of silence. I presume that you, yourself, speak to people in your day-to-day life. You probably don’t really think of that as something you do – it’s more that a vow of silence is something you don’t do. Sexual exclusivity is that vow of silence, to me. I don’t actively pursue sex for the sake of sex, and it’s not like my life is a constant parade of lust – I just don’t abstain.

Your other question – how we characterize our non-monogamous relationships – I’m not sure exactly what you mean.

77

A better way to phrase it, and an interesting one for the monogamous people, especially the ‘non-monogamy is immature’ types is “perhaps you can share why you and your spouse pursue monogamous relationships?” For a lot of people, the answer is going to be something like “I didn’t really think about it, it’s just what you do” or “It’s what my family/religion/community expects” or something along those lines.

People will disagree on whether “I did it because all the other people were doing it” or “I did it because I was told to do it” is mature or not. Conservative (especially religious) types tend to claim that maturity is doing what people/society/your parents/your priest/etc tells you should do, because maturity means following the rules that keep everything churning along. People like me will say that you demonstrate maturity by examining the world, making your own decisions, and leading your life in a way that fits your worldview instead of just bending to the will of other people. I think a lot of people who say that non-mono indicates immaturity view following the rules as a mark of maturity in and of itself, while I think you (the OP) probably don’t, and that disagreement over what maturity means is part of it’s easy to talk past each other.

78

I think I assess maturity based more on behavior than internal reactions. I don’t think people can control their thoughts. I do not have wonderfully mature thoughts. To use a minor example that I’d rather not confess, my friend was in town visiting and told me that while he shipped my husband’s Christmas present directly to our house, he forgot to get mine and would have to ship it to me when he got home. I am a grown-ass adult, but my internal dialog was something like, ''Motherfucker! Why does Sr. Weasel get a present on Christmas and I don’t?" When it comes to presents, I’m about as emotionally mature as your average seven-year-old.

My *response * was something like, “We’re just really looking forward to seeing you.” That is a mature response.

To use a more extreme example, I was raised by a person with a violent temper, and for either genetic or environmental reasons, I seem to have inherited it. There are times where I just want to take a fucking baseball bat to all of our furniture. But I don’t. Because I learned early, thanks to some good modeling by my beloved Auntie, that is not a mature response.

So yeah, someone can be inclined toward jealousy, but it’s how they behave that makes or breaks it, IMO. And when your partner comes to you and says, "I feel absolutely awful about this but I’ve developed feelings for another person but the reality is I want you and I am so lonely without you…‘’ you can choose, regardless of feelings, to respond in any number of ways, ranging from “That fucker is never allowed in our house again’’ to ''Let’s have a threesome.” Somewhere along that spectrum are a number of responses that are more mature than others. I think my husband’s response was profoundly mature.

My view about what a mature relationship looks like is admittedly entirely subjective. It is influenced by experience on the extreme end of immaturity. My Mom’s treatment of me aside, her numerous romantic relationships were godawful and full of paranoid, irrational shitfits and weird jealousies that made everyday life an endless drama of suspicion and betrayal. It was so fucking idiotic and when you’re a kid you can’t exactly jump into the middle of an altercation and say, “Do you realize how fucking unreasonable you’re being? Is this really worth your relationship?” (My mother’s five marriages and her string of broken relationships are another reason that the idea of monogamy = mature is inherently laughable to me.)

So I was tasked, as a young adult becoming involved with a man at a very young age, to fashion a relationship that flies in the face of what passed in my household growing up. I had the advantage of experience and observation about what doesn’t work as well as an innate sense of goodwill. Unlike my mother, I do have a high degree of empathy. But here is the terrible truth about me: I’m not any less emotionally volatile than the woman who raised me. I’m just damned good at behaving otherwise. I want to yell, I don’t yell. I want to break shit, I don’t break shit. I want to run away, I don’t run away. I don’t want to say I completely discount my feelings, but the controlling idea of my marriage, even when I’m upset, is “What is reasonable and what is fair?”

Is it fair for me to restrict my husband’s relationships based on an emotional impulse to keep him all to myself? I don’t think it is.

Is it fair for him to excoriate me for being honest about feelings I have no control over? Nope.

Would it be fair of me to expect him to not have any negative feelings at all about it? Also, no.

Much like you can create an endless cycle of betrayal and distrust, I think you can also create an endless cycle of mutual understanding and giving the other person a benfit of a doubt. IME the more you make room for your partner’s feelings, the more they are inclined to make room for yours.

Now I want to give some allowance that not everything is an issue of maturity, necessarily. Some people just have different expectations and standards in their own relationships, and maybe two people agree that spending the night at a single friend’s house is crossing a line for their relationship. But there is still plenty of room to demonstrate maturity (or not) in that context just as well. Which is to say, polyamory or even being cool with your hubby crashing on other women’s couches is not inherently more mature than monogamy or having more conservative standards. The maturity part is how you negotiate and manage those standards within the context of whatever you two (three, four) have decided your relationship to be. But ISTM that in order to make a poly relationship last, you have to be really good at frequently and explicitly addressing those issues to the satisfaction of all parties - which probably requires a lot of maturity.

79

Or maybe, as in my own case: Younger people are taught to conform to their culture’s expectation of monogamous relationships – to the point where people don’t even question whether monogamy is a desirable relationship model. Some older people eventually decide that society’s expectations are not a good enough reason to limit oneself to one partner if that’s not what they want.

80

graped.