But it’s not really like, ‘chicken wings’, is it? I assume you don’t tell each other what you can or cannot order at a restaurant. I also assume you don’t tell each other what platonic relationships you can enter into. However, as you’ve said up-thread, you do reserve the veto vote over whom the other can sleep with. If it’s just a matter of ‘chicken wings’, why the veto rule?
To restate my earlier question, are your non primary relationships simply of the ‘friends with benefits’ nature? And if so, would you maintain those friendships without the sexual benefits? Do you think it would be mutual? Do you think they contribute something to your primary relationship? If so, what?
I hope you’re not suggesting that there is no room for difference of opinion on the subject for someone who: is an atheist, a life long liberal/progressive; someone who always tried to be an independent open minded thinker; someone not given to fits of jealousy; someone who has participated in an open relationship as one half of the primary couple and judged it an over all positive experience.
In the context of the OP, I don’t mean to equate “immaturity” with “irresponsibility” - I just want to be on record with that.
ISTM, that non-monogamous relationships serve to provide consensual adults with some or all of the following:
add titillation/excitement to the shared sexual experience of the primary relationship (sex play)
add a variety of sexual experiences that they are not getting in their primary relationships (boredom avoidance)
fill an emotional or physical need/desire that may be missing in their primary relationship (difficulty with trust or attachment)
I’m suggesting what the words I actually wrote mean, and since I didn’t quote you or address you in any way, a reasonable person would conclude that I wasn’t talking about you specifically and was instead discussing the topic of thread while basically pretending you don’t exist. But to clarify, I’ve written you off - at this point I feel that it would be pointless to attempt to engage you in any significant way since when I previously attempted to engage in discussion of your claims you resorted to outright dodges and equivocation to avoid either admitting your error, clarifying your position to something that isn’t untrue, or offering substantive counter to what I said. The fact that you participated in one type of non-monogomy doesn’t change the simple fact that your implicit claim that non-monogamous relationships must involve a ‘primary relationship’ is simply wrong. And the claim to be ‘progressive’ by someone who thinks indigenous Americans who live in America today and continue ancient cultural practices don’t count as part of America is… interesting as I’ve said before. I tried to leave you the last word on the topic and simply stopped responding to you, since I’ve made my point and don’t want this thread to be all back and forth.
I didn’t say that all “non-monogamous relationships must involve a ‘primary relationship’”. I specifically said, that those are the only ones I’m interested in discussing at this time. But hey, if you didn’t throw out the conservative/religious comments for my benefit then you didn’t. Glad we cleared that up. I accept your offer to respectfully disagree and avoid further discussion on the topic.
Because the OP specifically addresses that scenario and not a plethora of other variations on the subject, and because I think going off on tangents would generate more heat than light on the dynamic described by the OP.
That said, by all means share what you feel you want to share. I certainly don’t want to junior mod the thread. I will simply try to be more circumspect in responding to posts I feel don’t address my particular line of inquiry.
So once the idea of non monogamous relationships is fully accepted is the next step to convince society that it is immature to believe otherwise?? I think monogamy is far more mature than non monogamy. I spent the first 20 years of my adult life not being monogamous, only when I grew up could I see the difference.
I spent the first 10 years or so of my adult life being monogamous before changing, and yet I still don’t think one relationship model or the other is more mature. Ideally we can, as a society, decide to just accept the choices of consenting adults as being personal preferences rather than inherently good or bad.
I used to think so. I think I’m outgrowing that and recognizing it as a form of bias, thinking that just because something is true for me it ought to be true for everyone else.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t more bias in the other direction though. Mono is the cultural norm, and cultural norms get accepted as prescriptive—people often believe everyone should conform to them because they’re what’s “normal”.
My wife and I have been in the “lifestyle” for eleven years and, personally, I believe it takes more maturity to refuse to meet societal expectations than to follow the lemming route. The best relationships are built on communication and joint satisfaction, not the misguided standards set by Victorianism. We only have one life, if people choose to deny personal happiness in order to follow someone else’s beliefs about relationships, religion or whatever…I think they might live a somewhat unhappy life.
So people who choose to live a monogamous lifestyle are unhappy and immature lemmings because they are subjecting themselves to societal expectations and misguided standards of Victorianism? Interesting…
Your belief, in this case, is demonstrably wrong. A small child, for instance, will often “refuse to meet societal expectations” precisely because of their immaturity. In fact, as one matures the pressure to meet social expectations increases. The decision, then, whether or not to adhere to those expectations becomes one based on personal life experience and the filters developed from them, not level of maturity.