RTR and open relationships

[aleles]

Is it possible theoretically and/or practically to have a deep sincere meaningful romantic relationship with your partner which is an open relationship at the same time? If yes, what would the outer relationships be like? Can they also follow RTR principles and be honest and meaningful?

[emilia]

I don't see why not.

[Wesley]

Why are you asking this question?

 

I kind of feel like this is an arbitrary abstraction devoid of details.

 

Of course it could, theoretically, be possible, but often the real world provides many of the complications as to why it might be more difficult to achieve.

[tjt]

I do see why not:

 

Quality time spent together is necessary to have a functional and RT relationship with someone you would like to spend your life with.

 

If you were in such a relationship that you've described here ("open"), how would you divide your time and still achieve that "quality" that's so necessary to keep a relationship healthy and real?

 

If you and your main squeeze are working 40-to-60-hour work weeks, then you're already struggling to get that quality time together. Now add one or two more squeezes with whom you must share your time.

 

Plus, if you spend time with some of your buddies on the weekends that also cuts into your schedule.

 

Also, can you imagine planning dinners... who will you eat dinners with? For my partner and I, I always have dinner planned and cookin'. Dinner is an awesome chance to spend quality time together, recap the day, talk about your thoughts and feelings and ideas that occured during the day, work out any relationship problems, etc. I would be so upset if my love called during the day and said "I'm having dinner with Squeeze #2 tonight."

 

I guess you could make a schedule in advance, but then it reminds me of growing up with divorced parents whom you had to share your time between. And there's little room for spontaneity.

 

There are a few scenarios I see this working for:

1. You're not really looking for a life partner(s)... You want to have fun (aka sex) with multiple people and they want to as well

2. You don't want children (if you are already spreading yourself thin, imagine having kids... how are you going to devote your time to them if you have to share it with 2, 3, 4 other women (plus, you will naturally have a harder time showing them what a functional relationship looks like because your relationships will be so complex that you'd have to be a master mind to translate this into child speak)

3. You and your squeezes all live in the same house together (we all know roommates suck)

4. Or, you're just the type that can pull it all off (can't imagine what type of person this would be... feel free to enlighten me)

Another thought, can you apply UPB to this scenario? I don't fully understand UPB myself, I'm still learning.

 

On another note (maybe related you UPB)... say you have 3 partners, then you must be ok with them each having 3 partners of their own. If you are sexually intimate with your 3 partners, and they are intimate with each of their 3 partners, there's a lot of risk involved. If each has 2 partners (excluding you here), there's 6 people outside of your relationships who could give your girls an STD or get your girls pregnant. 

[RyanT]

There's a really good listener conversation on this subject in the premium section, 

http://board.freedomainradio.com/files/file/126-polyamory-and-history/

hope that helps.

[MysterionMuffles]

I do see why not:

 

Quality time spent together is necessary to have a functional and RT relationship with someone you would like to spend your life with.

 

If you were in such a relationship that you've described here ("open"), how would you divide your time and still achieve that "quality" that's so necessary to keep a relationship healthy and real?

 

If you and your main squeeze are working 40-to-60-hour work weeks, then you're already struggling to get that quality time together. Now add one or two more squeezes with whom you must share your time.

 

Plus, if you spend time with some of your buddies on the weekends that also cuts into your schedule.

 

Also, can you imagine planning dinners... who will you eat dinners with? For my partner and I, I always have dinner planned and cookin'. Dinner is an awesome chance to spend quality time together, recap the day, talk about your thoughts and feelings and ideas that occured during the day, work out any relationship problems, etc. I would be so pissed off if my love called during the day and said "I'm having dinner with Squeeze #2 tonight."

 

I guess you could make a schedule in advance, but then it reminds me of growing up with divorced parents whom you had to share your time between. And there's little room for spontaneity.

 

There are a few scenarios I see this working for:

1. You're not really looking for a life partner(s)... You want to have fun (aka sex) with multiple people and they want to as well

2. You don't want children (if you are already spreading yourself thin, imagine having kids... how are you going to devote your time to them if you have to share it with 2, 3, 4 other women (plus, you will naturally have a harder time showing them what a functional relationship looks like because your relationships will be so complex that you'd have to be a master mind to translate this into child speak)

3. You and your squeezes all live in the same house together (we all know roommates suck)

4. Or, you're just the type that can pull it all off (can't imagine what type of person this would be... feel free to enlighten me)

Another thought, can you apply UPB to this scenario? I don't fully understand UPB myself, I'm still learning.

 

On another note (maybe related you UPB)... say you have 3 partners, then you must be ok with them each having 3 partners of their own. If you are sexually intimate with your 3 partners, and they are intimate with each of their 3 partners, there's a lot of risk involved. If each has 2 partners (excluding you here), there's 6 people outside of your relationships who could give your girls an STD or get your girls pregnant. 

 

nailed it!

[dsayers]

2. You don't want children

 

This. While an intimate relationship is valuable in and of itself for self, the main benefit to formalizing it is for the care of children. That said, if you did in fact have such an arrangement and the person not biologically connected to the child treated them as their own, this could actually be better for the child.

 

I was "fortunate" enough to have some polygamy experience as a late teen. Back then, I had been abused and was only thinking of self. As a result, the jealousy that is all too common in such arrangements was ripe in me. Though there was one girl who was a friend, who I could hang out with or be sexual with and it didn't matter much to me. She would be frisky with my girlfriend and female roommate sexual partner and continued to do so even after getting married. To this day, I'm puzzled as to why I was not jealous, controlling, or possessive with her specifically.

 

Anyways, the key as with most things is going to be self-knowledge. If everybody involved is in touch with and honest with themselves, then any problems should be surmountable, with everybody free to leave or alter the arrangement (voluntarily of course) as they see fit. However, it's not unlike a delicate machine with more people meaning more moving parts and therefore greater potential for catastrophic failure.

 

I should probably include for credibility's sake that I personally have little experience with RTRs, though I have read the book and accept it's message.

[cynicist]

Is it possible theoretically and/or practically to have a deep sincere meaningful romantic relationship with your partner which is an open relationship at the same time? If yes, what would the outer relationships be like? Can they also follow RTR principles and be honest and meaningful?

 

I doubt it. If you had a deep, meaningful romantic relationship, why would you want to share? (it's not like you can be give equal attention to multiple partners)

[tjt]

This. While an intimate relationship is valuable in and of itself for self, the main benefit to formalizing it is for the care of children. That said, if you did in fact have such an arrangement and the person not biologically connected to the child treated them as their own, this could actually be better for the child.

 

I was "fortunate" enough to have some polygamy experience as a late teen. Back then, I had been abused and was only thinking of self. As a result, the jealousy that is all too common in such arrangements was ripe in me. Though there was one girl who was a friend, who I could hang out with or be sexual with and it didn't matter much to me. She would be frisky with my girlfriend and female roommate sexual partner and continued to do so even after getting married. To this day, I'm puzzled as to why I was not jealous, controlling, or possessive with her specifically.

 

Anyways, the key as with most things is going to be self-knowledge. If everybody involved is in touch with and honest with themselves, then any problems should be surmountable, with everybody free to leave or alter the arrangement (voluntarily of course) as they see fit. However, it's not unlike a delicate machine with more people meaning more moving parts and therefore greater potential for catastrophic failure.

 

I should probably include for credibility's sake that I personally have little experience with RTRs, though I have read the book and accept it's message.

 

 

I'm having a little trouble following what you are saying, dsayers, but I think I can get it. Are you saying that if everyone involved had a proper amount of self knowledge, they could pull it off so long as the relationships were voluntary? But you start out explaining that the long term goal of a relationship is successfully and healthily raising a child together... then you say if the child has multiple moms, it could actually benefit them (could you explain this more? I think I see what you are saying, but to me an aunt or dear friend would suffice).

 

This argument seems a little flawed to me, in that you are saying:

- The long term and ultimate objective of a relationship is becoming a steady unit to successfully raise a child together

- The polygamy matrix can only exist and be healthy if the relationships are completely voluntary

- The problem is that you say children would eventually become a part of the matrix and did not consider that the child is not there by choice and cannot leave as the adults are able to

 

And oh my gosh, I just thought of this. You have a 50% chance of being left by your significant other in a monogamous relationship (we can all agree that this is horrible for the child)... now imagine how the probability of being left when you have multiple significant others increases! You're just introducing your child to greater risk of being part of a broken home. But I guess you've done a good job hedging! 

[aleles]

@tjt and Wesley

I agree. The reason I put theoretically/practically in the question is it feels like in theory there can be a network of people having romantic RTR, but in practice, like you outlined, there are numerous complications. We also need to account for the fact that the number of people who know/practice RTR is limited, so when a new person is added to the network he or she would need to learn and accept the fundamental principles.

 

What do you guys think about a scenario, mathematically speaking, with non equal weight on the nodes in such romantic RTR network? For example, the main two partners maintain a deep RTR and they want to bring a third person with whom the relationship could be anywhere from occasional dates for sexual pleasure (similar to bringing a sexual toy) to a more serious near RTR. I wonder if it's even possible to bring a person as a sexual toy. I feel like if you experience the beauty of a romantic RTR, then you won't accept anything less. You either won't have a desire to bring the third person, or you will want to know them as much as possible and establish an RTR before turning it romantic.

 

 

Another thought, can you apply UPB to this scenario? I don't fully understand UPB myself, I'm still learning.

 

On another note (maybe related you UPB)... say you have 3 partners, then you must be ok with them each having 3 partners of their own. If you are sexually intimate with your 3 partners, and they are intimate with each of their 3 partners, there's a lot of risk involved. If each has 2 partners (excluding you here), there's 6 people outside of your relationships who could give your girls an STD or get your girls pregnant.

 

As far as UPB, if all relationships are voluntary, it shouldn't have a moral context. I don't think it even falls in the category of aesthetics since polygamy/monogamy is not a universal preference.

 

 

There's a really good listener conversation on this subject in the premium section, 

http://board.freedomainradio.com/files/file/126-polyamory-and-history/

hope that helps.

 

Thanks Ryan, I'll listen to the podcast and post here.

[tjt]

I feel like if you experience the beauty of a romantic RTR, then you won't accept anything less. 

 

Indeed!

 

I'll have to learn more about UPB.

[aleles]

There's a really good listener conversation on this subject in the premium section, 

http://board.freedomainradio.com/files/file/126-polyamory-and-history/

hope that helps.

 

Ryan, thank you for the podcast. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in polyamory and the childhood trauma traits that may lead someone to it. Stef as always shows his amazing ability to pinpoint such childhood experiences. Not to spoil the podcast, I'll share one statement. If your parents had a deep and happy monogamous relationship that you loved and you want to have a happy relationship, why would you do something near opposite?

 

I'll have to learn more about UPB.

 

tjt, here's a short clean summary of UPB that I really like http://www.economicsjunkie.com/universally-preferable-behaviour-a-rational-proof-of-secular-ethics/

[emilia]

I do see why not: Quality time spent together is necessary to have a functional and RT relationship with someone you would like to spend your life with. If you were in such a relationship that you've described here ("open"), how would you divide your time and still achieve that "quality" that's so necessary to keep a relationship healthy and real? If you and your main squeeze are working 40-to-60-hour work weeks, then you're already struggling to get that quality time together. Now add one or two more squeezes with whom you must share your time. Plus, if you spend time with some of your buddies on the weekends that also cuts into your schedule. Also, can you imagine planning dinners... who will you eat dinners with? For my partner and I, I always have dinner planned and cookin'. Dinner is an awesome chance to spend quality time together, recap the day, talk about your thoughts and feelings and ideas that occured during the day, work out any relationship problems, etc. I would be so pissed off if my love called during the day and said "I'm having dinner with Squeeze #2 tonight." I guess you could make a schedule in advance, but then it reminds me of growing up with divorced parents whom you had to share your time between. And there's little room for spontaneity.

All you are saying here, is that it is important to spend time together in order to have a well functioning rtr relationship. This has nothing to do with whether or not there are multiple partners. What if neither of the "main" partners work (for whatever reason)? They will have 40-60 hours of extra time per week compared to your example. Can they use that time to have other partners? What about friends? Why is it ok to spend time with them but not with someone you have sex with? And do you not rtr with friends? How is that different from rtr with multiple partners? Is it ok to have dinner with a friend? Is it ok to have hobbies, because they too will take time away from your relationship?

[tjt]

All you are saying here, is that it is important to spend time together in order to have a well functioning rtr relationship. This has nothing to do with whether or not there are multiple partners. What if neither of the "main" partners work (for whatever reason)? They will have 40-60 hours of extra time per week compared to your example. Can they use that time to have other partners? What about friends? Why is it ok to spend time with them but not with someone you have sex with? And do you not rtr with friends? How is that different from rtr with multiple partners? Is it ok to have dinner with a friend? Is it ok to have hobbies, because they too will take time away from your relationship?

 

Time was only one of my main points (I also addressed sexual risks, and hypothesized some scenarios where it might work out). But if you want to focus on the time factor I brought up, we can do that.

 

For me, there's no way I'd be able to share my time... and I actually am 'unemployed.' But I really wouldn't want to share my time anyways (sorry, I still need to develop an argument for what is currently stated as just a preference). My time goes towards my relationship with my boyfriend, building a sustainable home for us (which includes gardening and animal husbandry, among other things), eventually building our business, building self-knowledge, and eventually raising a family.  These are my hobbies, which happen to be a lifestyle, which also happen to contribute to the long term health and happiness of our relationship. And I do have close friends, although few. They happen to have similar interests, so being able to share time together is quite a privelage, if you know what I'm saying!

 

My boyfriend has time-consuming and extensive hobbies of his own. He focuses more on the energy/water supply/etc. side of our sustainability effort. In addition, he has a gift and a passion (that's putting it lightly) for engines, mechanics, and in general creating and modifying things using his hands. His hobbies take up a lot of his time as well. He also has a few close friends who he spends time with occasionally.

 

This should give you more insight into my perspective. For our lifestyle, never. For our personality types, never. Because of the type of love we have for each other, never.

 

Do you live a lifestyle that supports non-monogomous relationships? If so, cool, I'd be interested to hear about it.

[emilia]

Time was only one of my main points (I also addressed sexual risks, and hypothesized some scenarios where it might work out). But if you want to focus on the time factor I brought up, we can do that. For me, there's no way I'd be able to share my time... and I actually am 'unemployed.' But I really wouldn't want to share my time anyways (sorry, I still need to develop an argument for what is currently stated as just a preference). My time goes towards my relationship with my boyfriend, building a sustainable home for us (which includes gardening and animal husbandry, among other things), eventually building our business, building self-knowledge, and eventually raising a family.  These are my hobbies, which happen to be a lifestyle, which also happen to contribute to the long term health and happiness of our relationship. And I do have close friends, although few. They happen to have similar interests, so being able to share time together is quite a privelage, if you know what I'm saying! My boyfriend has time-consuming and extensive hobbies of his own. He focuses more on the energy/water supply/etc. side of our sustainability effort. In addition, he has a gift and a passion (that's putting it lightly) for engines, mechanics, and in general creating and modifying things using his hands. His hobbies take up a lot of his time as well. He also has a few close friends who he spends time with occasionally. This should give you more insight into my perspective. For our lifestyle, never. For our personality types, never. Because of the type of love we have for each other, never. Do you live a lifestyle that supports non-monogomous relationships? If so, cool, I'd be interested to hear about it.

Sexual risks have nothing to do with the question the op asked, and I'm not yet sure what I think of the scenerios you hypothesized, that's why I didn't comment on them.I appreciate your honesty in admitting that you don't have a philosophical argument.

[tjt]

Sexual risks have nothing to do with the question the op asked, and I'm not yet sure what I think of the scenerios you hypothesized, that's why I didn't comment on them.I appreciate your honesty in admitting that you don't have a philosophical argument.

 

I assumed that what the OP meant by romantic is a relationship which includes sexual acts. I didn't mean to be presumptuous.

 

Did you mean to brush over my question. It's not a big deal, but why would you respond to my entire post but ignore the actual question?

 

I don't know if I've made a 'philosophical argument' (however you are defining it) but I have relied on reality and evidence to build my own case... rather than posing a series of hypothetical what-ifs or imaginary scenarios. I am open to you presenting a real case where you or someone you know has been able to maintain romantic, meaningful relationships with more than one SO at a time. I've offered a real-life example of how it wouldn't work, now feel free to share a real-life example of how it would work. Until then, you'll just keep falling into a bottomless thought experiment.

[ebrink06]

Ryan, thank you for the podcast. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in polyamory and the childhood trauma traits that may lead someone to it. Stef as always shows his amazing ability to pinpoint such childhood experiences. Not to spoil the podcast, I'll share one statement. If your parents had a deep and happy monogamous relationship that you loved and you want to have a happy relationship, why would you do something near opposite?

 

I had listened to this podcast because I'm interested in polyamory and that statement/question stood out for me too. I asked myself that question because my parents have a deep and and happy monogamous relationship. I'm still answering it, but really does there have to be only one right way? For example, my parents are also financially successful through real estate- does that mean that if I want to attain financial success I must go into real estate and not consider other modes of life and work? They are heterosexual and I am not- does this mean that since I don't follow their model of sexuality I can't be happy? -Maybe this is why I'm not making the connection between happiness and whether or not I make the same choices as my parents. Heterosexuality, monogamy, and real-estate have worked really well for my parents; I doubt that molding myself exactly after them in that fashion would make me happy.... I'm happier to examine my own desires and have a life that reflects that. Maybe that attitude/perspective is what I'm taking from my parents... What do you think? Am I missing something here?

[st434u]

Is it possible theoretically and/or practically to have a deep sincere meaningful romantic relationship with your partner which is an open relationship at the same time?

 

No.

 

Humans evolved jealousy for a reason.

 

You can't wish it away. At most you can pretend it's not there, but it is.

 

This is especially the case for men. Women have evolved less intense jealousy than men.

[tjt]

Humans evolved jealousy for a reason.

 

 

What's the reason(s)?

[st434u]

What's the reason(s)?

 

Because, as the man, your genes will not survive if you raise other men's kids instead of your own. And as the woman, your genes will not survive if your children's father has to split his time and resources among the children of many other women.

[aleles]

I had listened to this podcast because I'm interested in polyamory and that statement/question stood out for me too. I asked myself that question because my parents have a deep and and happy monogamous relationship. I'm still answering it, but really does there have to be only one right way? For example, my parents are also financially successful through real estate- does that mean that if I want to attain financial success I must go into real estate and not consider other modes of life and work? They are heterosexual and I am not- does this mean that since I don't follow their model of sexuality I can't be happy? -Maybe this is why I'm not making the connection between happiness and whether or not I make the same choices as my parents. Heterosexuality, monogamy, and real-estate have worked really well for my parents; I doubt that molding myself exactly after them in that fashion would make me happy.... I'm happier to examine my own desires and have a life that reflects that. Maybe that attitude/perspective is what I'm taking from my parents... What do you think? Am I missing something here?

 

Interesting point. I think you compare things that are in specialization/generalization relationship with each other. For example, real estate is a specialization of investment. You can say that your parents achieved financial success through investment. Generalizing, you can say someone can achieve financial success through investment and this implies that this will be true for any specialization of investment, i.e. real estate, stock market etc.

 

We can also say that investment is a principle and real estate is special case of implementing this principle. In the same way monogamy and polyamory are principles of building a relationship where homosexuality and heterosexuality are special cases of those principles. This may be less obvious why not the other way around, but I think since men and women have equal capacity to participate in a relationship, we can take either monogamous or polyamorous principle of interaction (which includes certain way of resource/time sharing etc) and switch men and women resulting in special cases of implementing that principle - homosexual or heterosexual relationships.

 

Now, if we can prove or at least build a strong case on empirical data that monogamous relationships are happier or more practical same as investment is a more effective way to achieve financial success, then you don't have to follow your parents' special cases of real estate or heterosexuality, but you do want to follow them in the investment and monogamy principles.There are many good points earlier in this thread why a monogamous relationship works better in the economic reality of our society. However, I can see how let's say three people meet each other and start building RTR wonderfully spending all available time together as a triple, i.e. talks, dinners, sex, entertainment, vacations, raising children etc. That would be a really interesting case!

[ebrink06]

Interesting point. I think you compare things that are in specialization/generalization relationship with each other. For example, real estate is a specialization of investment. You can say that your parents achieved financial success through investment. Generalizing, you can say someone can achieve financial success through investment and this implies that this will be true for any specialization of investment, i.e. real estate, stock market etc.

 

We can also say that investment is a principle and real estate is special case of implementing this principle. In the same way monogamy and polyamory are principles of building a relationship where homosexuality and heterosexuality are special cases of those principles. This may be less obvious why not the other way around, but I think since men and women have equal capacity to participate in a relationship, we can take either monogamous or polyamorous principle of interaction (which includes certain way of resource/time sharing etc) and switch men and women resulting in special cases of implementing that principle - homosexual or heterosexual relationships.

 

Now, if we can prove or at least build a strong case on empirical data that monogamous relationships are happier or more practical same as investment is a more effective way to achieve financial success, then you don't have to follow your parents' special cases of real estate or heterosexuality, but you do want to follow them in the investment and monogamy principles.There are many good points earlier in this thread why a monogamous relationship works better in the economic reality of our society. However, I can see how let's say three people meet each other and start building RTR wonderfully spending all available time together as a triple, i.e. talks, dinners, sex, entertainment, vacations, raising children etc. That would be a really interesting case!

 

Thanks! Super interesting! So I think that I'm framing hetero/homosexuality and mono/polyamory under the generalization of "romantic relationships". Now, i'm wondering how empirical evidence could be applied meaningfully in these categories. Statistically lesbian relationships have a high percentage of domestic violence, and substance abuse. That statistic could mean a lot of things, but it doesn't mean that being a lesbian is bad. I don't know any statistics about polyamory but in substituting polyamourous relationships for lesbian relationships in that statistic would it mean that being polyamourous is bad? Loving two people at once or a person of the same sex is not the cause of disfunction. Could one use empirical evidence to prove that one relationship model or sexuality is better than another? If so what benefit would it have to a person who is biologically inclined to be a certain way? Would it matter to tall people if we somehow proved that it's better to be short? I think it really comes back to RTR. What matters is shared values and voluntary, peaceful interactions.

 

Out of curiosity, which arguments in the thread did you find good?