Polyamory & Type INTP

[Kellhus]

Do you care if your partner has sexual relations with another whilst you are in a relationship?


Personally, I find that I have rarely, if ever cared of such. The majority of the reason I enjoy my partners would be for their minds generally, and not their physiological attributes.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

what

 

[Kellhus]

what

Can you see yourself being in a mutual agreement to have more than one romantic partner?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I would not enter into such an agreement.

 

[Tyria]

I would not enter into such an agreement.

Agreed.

 

[Glordag]

It would depend entirely on the nature of the relationship for me. If I went into it without strong feelings and knowing that it would be a polyamorous affair, then I think I would be ok with it (though perhaps not ideal).

If, however, I had developed feelings first and then tried to work into such an arrangement, I think I would find it difficult. I've noticed that once I develop feelings it's hard to shake them, but if I can let my logic dictate the situation from the get-go then I can often work things out.

 

[Decaf]

I know this is technically a dead thread, but I had to post this somewhere

[bimgx=400]http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/1001/polyamory-is-wrong-grammar-nazis-irritate-and-distract-the-h-demotivational-poster-1264589541.jpg[/bimgx]

 

[Deleted member 1424]

I think I like 'polyphillia' best.

Default state.
Everything else seems silly.....

 

[Mello]

Open relationships seem interesting.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Mixing Greek and Latin roots is wrong? Someone should tell the anatomists.

Polyamory, multiamory, or polyphilia, no matter what you call it, I think it's fine. Coercing someone into monogamy, either physically or emotionally, is wrong.

A bit of my own nitpick, though: polyamory (or whatever you want to call it) isn't a monogamous relationship in which either person is allowed to have casual sex on the side. That is an "open relationship". Polyamory is loving more than one person at a time, eg having multiple significant others simultaneously.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

You make an excellent point, one that I'm generally too exhausted to clarify.
Although you can also have a multitude idiosyncratic mixtures and naming/explaining them gets rather difficult.

 

[Capital T]

This thread made me laugh when it got down to the greek and latin roots. English is a melting-pot language anyway!

I don't enter open relationships because I have a personal preference for monogamy. Reasons are primarily for my safety.
- Monogamous relationships are safer - far lower chance of STDs.
- Monogamous relationships are more emotionally satisfying and there is a far lower chance of falling in love with someone who falls in love with another lover and runs off, leaving you dejected.
- Monogamous relationships are more stable.
- Monogamous relationships are more intellectually engaging - getting to know someone on such an intimate and personal level is stimulating and harder to do if you are sharing each other with other lovers.

 

[Peripheral Visionary]

Are your Latin roots showing?

Better die them Greek.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

@Capital T

Unless your speaking from personal experience, how would you know....?

Those are all very subjective reasons.

 

[Capital T]

@Capital T

Unless your speaking from personal experience, how would you know....?

Those are all very subjective reasons.

Explain. I don't see a large amount of subjectivity in them - but I did qualify my post right in the beginning by saying I have a personal preference for monogamy.

 

[Agent Intellect]

This thread made me laugh when it got down to the greek and latin roots. English is a melting-pot language anyway!

True, but not the pedantics way!

- Monogamous relationships are safer - far lower chance of STDs.

I'd be interested in seeing research on that. I think you're confusing polyamory with being an easy lay. Being polyamorous doesn't mean someone is promiscuous.

- Monogamous relationships are more emotionally satisfying and there is a far lower chance of falling in love with someone who falls in love with another lover and runs off, leaving you dejected.

Divorce rates would say otherwise.

- Monogamous relationships are more stable.

See above.

- Monogamous relationships are more intellectually engaging - getting to know someone on such an intimate and personal level is stimulating and harder to do if you are sharing each other with other lovers.

So by this logic, having just one friend would be better than having 2+ friends because you would be better friends that way?

 

[Capital T]

I'd be interested in seeing research on that. I think you're confusing polyamory with being an easy lay. Being polyamorous doesn't mean someone is promiscuous.

Maybe... But you don't know about your lover's lovers. The more unknown factors there are, the higher the chance of something unexpected happening.

Divorce rates would say otherwise.

See above.

You're assuming that divorce rates are reflective of the overall sample of monogamous relationships - which is incorrect. Divorcees are merely a subset of a subset (married people). There are no accurate statistics on the unmarried.

So by this logic, having just one friend would be better than having 2+ friends because you would be better friends that way?

Yes, this is true. But we aren't talking about just a friend here - we're talking about a friend who you share the most intimate and vulnurable part of your life with, wouldn't you want to be as best of friends as possible with that person?

 

[Deleted member 1424]

You said it was your 'preference', but stated your reasoning as hard fact.....

All of what you listed was presumptuous, even prejudiced.....