brutereason:

I had a realization the other day that seems obvious in retrospect, but I hadn’t put these two things together before.

I was telling my mom that I’m kind of dreading having a private practice someday because it’ll mean working lots of late nights to accommodate my clients’ schedules and make enough money, and as I know from working 12-8 last year, that’ll wreck my social life. She was like, “So you’ll have a social life on the weekends.” And I’m like, and what, spend every weekday night alone in my apartment because it’s too late to go out and see people? She gave me this knowing look and was like, “Well, hopefully you won’t be *alone*…”

That’s when it hit me that this thing–this whole monogamous couple/nuclear family ideal thing–directly enables work to take over our entire lives. Because, yes, if I had someone living in my house–in my bedroom, even–who prioritizes me higher than anyone else in his (because, let’s face it, it would always be a he in this scenario) life, who doesn’t sleep with or date any other people, who treats his free time as our shared time, who drops plans with friends or family the moment I need him, who convincingly promises to never leave me–if I had someone like that, and if I believed in that fantasy, then yes, I’d be fine working late every night and coming home at 9. I could see my friends on weekends sometimes, but I wouldn’t *need* to because I’d never be lonely or bored.

Because however you look at it, cultivating and maintaining a group of friends and a broader social circle or community takes more effort–especially more *intentional* effort–than cultivating just one person with whom you share your life. When we have to work unreasonable hours just to get by, guess which one’s more likely to fall by the wayside?

No wonder it feels like my like-minded friends and I are constantly wading through waist-deep snowdrifts. It’s not set up to work the way we want it to. Yes, life would be easier if I had someone who is always a few yards (or less) away from me when we’re not at work and who can provide romance, friendship, emotional support, entertainment, household help, financial assistance, AND hot sex (and maybe eventually co-parenting) without me ever needing to seek out other people or even leave the house. But that’s…horrifying.

polyamandhellaglam:

“That’s just getting permission to cheat.” The explanation here is easy, its not cheating if you have permission and comparing a person in happy healthy relationship to a cheating scumbag is cruel. 

“That’s so greedy.” Greed implies that someone is hoarding something, however you’ll notice, in polyamory people are allowed to date others. All comments of the greedy variety, even as jokes, come off as mean spirited and insulting.

“You’re such a slut.” Even as a joke or a compliment, using slut shaming language about the way that someone experiences their own romantic and sexual attraction is mean. Even if you’re using it to be friendly, nobody else ever is, and the majority of people will not enjoy being called a slut. 

“Why isn’t one good enough?” Polyamorous people do not feel devalued by having their partners take on more partners. We do not feel as through we are being treated as not good enough. That’s not what its about. And if you’re not dating us, why should we explain our romantic experience to you?

“Don’t get used to it, you can’t marry both.” Mean. This is mean. You’re not being brutally honest or preparing them for the future. You’re being mean. 

“I’d never date a guy with two girlfriends.” Any variety of the “well Iwouldneverdo that” isn’t kind. First, if you’re monogamous, they know already. Second, they don’t want your opinion on their relationship.

“Do they know about each other?” If someone says they have two partners, this cannot be your first response. You are assuming right off the bat that they are cheating, a terrible thing to do. Assume their partners know. If they were cheating, they probably wouldn’t tell you.

“I’ve cheated before too, I get it.” Your experience in monogamous relationships is more similar to polyamory than cheating is. Don’t compare cheating to polyamory, ever.

“Well as long as they know about each other that’s okay.” First, they’re not looking for your approval or for you to tell them it’s okay. Second, this is another example of treating polyamory like its similar to cheating. Assuming that cheating is the baseline and polyamory is just “okay cheating” is both incorrect and mean. 

I’m going to be honest: this reading made me feel literally sick to my stomach. I wanted to throw up. Which, whatever. As someone who has been in a relationship, and has talked to a lot of people who have been in sustained relationships, I am honestly repulsed by some of the comments of these young women. I don’t mean to say it as a judgement thing - what irritates me most is the culture that causes such sentiments, but I’ll get back to that. I also don’t mean it targetted against women; I would be just as angry at men who voice such opinions. Society giving men leave to be sexually promiscuous is completely ludicrous, and the biology they base it off of is severely flawed (I also hate most scientific arguments for things - if there’s a social bias available, I stay skeptical of the argument; science is much less telling than the 20th century has convinced us it is, and any real scientist should acknowledge that).

The arguments used by the women to justify cheating are so revealing of the privileged middle+ class view of love. Delaying adulthood? What a joke! The refusal to take responsibility in one’s life and DO SOMETHING is what is driving this world down the drain. Not that it was better before or after, but that doesn’t make it less of a major problem, and it’s easier now to do it. But that is not the central conversation. Basically, I agree with Alison: cheating is bad, period. I found it interesting that the writers mentioned her “strict conservative views on sexuality, positioned her outside of the collegiate culture of delayed adulthood” because honestly what does that mean? What conservative views? How do conservative views immediately connect to delayed adulthood? If anything, I would argue that her early marriage - which may have been influenced by conservative views on sex - and making that work, or trying to, is probably what puts her outside of the culture of delayed adulthood. Which, frankly, I don’t think is a bad thing.

Again, drawing back to my point earlier this term about “enacted age” and “comprehensive age” - I think these women sound very immature, and it makes sense because this is a sampling of class-privileged women and they have been able to afford to be selfish. Don’t get me wrong, people who are underprivileged can also be selfish, but less easily, and generally with different motivations (I don’t want to go in-depth about privilege/race/class, but I think a rough idea is hinted at in my discussion of Not Under My Roof). Most of them have not yet been through a string of divorces and not yet realized that “the perfect one” that “you won’t want to cheat on” doesn’t exist in a way that women who grow up in communities of fatherless households might. I’m completely generalizing, but that is the sort of statement I expect to hear from people who have not actually talked to couples about the struggle that marriage often is.

I don’t mean to be offensive or super critical - I’m just listening to P!nk and venting - this is just something that I care a lot about because, again, my own expectations about love really set me up for a lot of pain, and I honestly think society’s twisted standards does the same for our relationships. Let me explain.

Wilkins describes how the women interviewed unanimously agreed that they valued monogamy and shamed cheating. But they also saw a validity for cheating in certain circumstances, and half of them had cheated. I really agree with Wilkins conclusion, which was that:

I’ve never lusted after someone without also wanting to date them. I might think “I would fuck the shit outta you ” But simultaneously… “I’m also dying to support you emotionally ”

So, have I never truly lusted?

I hate this for me lol.

Anybody else wired this way?

Why does monogamy work for some people but not for others? Research suggests that it might have something to do with the way our brains are ‘wired.’    

Consider a study in which 20 heterosexual men underwent brain scans while looking at different types of images. Some of the images were sexual, depicting couples engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse. Others were romantic, showing clothed men and women engaged in non-sexual intimacy. Yet others were neutral, depicting nature scenes or imagery of people engaged in non-romantic and non-sexual activities.

Half of the men were “highly monogamous.” They’d never had a sexually open relationship, nor had they committed infidelity. They also reported having a lower than average number of lifetime sexual partners and said they rarely fantasized about anyone other than their relationship partner. 

The other half were “highly non-monogamous.” These men reported having had experience with both sexually open relationships and infidelity. They reported a greater than average number of sex partners in their lifetime and said they had a preference for having multiple partners at the same time.

The results showed that, regardless of relationship orientation, men showed substantial activation of the brain’s reward pathways when exposed to sexual images. Put another way, and not surprisingly, pretty much everyone found the sexual images to be rewarding.

By contrast, monogamous men (relative to non-monogamous men) showed substantially greater activation of the brain’s reward system in response to romantic images. The areas of the brain that were active while monogamous men were viewing romantic images were largely the same as the ones activated when they viewed sexual images. 

Put another way, monogamous men processed romantic and sexual images in a similar way—and found both types to be very rewarding.

For non-monogamous men, however, they seemed to be processing romantic images in a somewhat different way. Unlike the monogamous men who just showed a general reward response to the romantic images, non-monogamous men had brain regions active that were involved in higher-order cognitive processing, suggesting that they were studying and thinking about those images.

These findings suggest the possibility that different people might be predisposed to different styles of mating based on the way their brains are ‘wired.’ In other words, perhaps tendencies toward monogamy vs. non-monogamy are rooted in brain structure. 

Of course, other explanations are possible. For instance, perhaps having more practice or experience with monogamy vs. nonmonogamy “rewires” the brain. In other words, we might be observing the outcome rather than the cause in this case—and with correlational studies, that’s something you can never tell with certainty. 

More research is needed to explore this limitation—and also to replicate the findings in larger and more diverse samples (e.g., would we see similar results across gender, sexuality, and other demographic features?). Further, it would be worth exploring whether the brain responses of non-monogamous men vary based on the type of non-monogamy they practice. In this study, all of the non-monogamous men had been both consensually and non-consensually non-monogamous. So what about men who only have experience with one or the other? Do their brain responses differ?

While it’s probably best to consider these results preliminary, they do suggest the possibility that we might have a relationship orientation ‘wired’ in the brain, which would mean that different people might be predisposed to different mating styles.

Want to learn more about Sex and Psychology? Click herefor more from the blog or here to listen to the podcast. Follow Sex and PsychologyonFacebook, Twitter (@JustinLehmiller), or Reddit to receive updates. You can also follow Dr. Lehmiller on YouTubeandInstagram.

To learn more about this research, see: Hamilton, L. D., & Meston, C. M. (2017). Differences in neural response to romantic stimuli in monogamous and non-monogamous men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(8), 2289-2299.

Image Source: 123RF

You Might Also Like: 

• 1 in 6 Single Americans Report a Desire to Try Polyamory

• Sex and Psychology Podcast: Polyamory Fact Versus Fiction

• Who’s Into Polyamory? A Demographic Comparison of Polyamorists and Monogamists

This weekend has been full of awesome conversations, connections, interactions, and people.

Relationship Anarchy Basics by Marie S. Crosswell
A relationship anarchist believes that love is abundant and infinite, that all forms of love are equal, that relationships can and should develop organically with no adherence to rules or expectations from outside sources, that two people in any kind of emotionally salient relationship should have the freedom to do whatever they naturally desire both inside their relationship and outside of it with other people.

Relationship anarchy does share with polyamory an overall rejection of sexual and romantic monogamy, its common rejection of legal/institutional marriage, etc, but it also seeks to completely break down what I like to call the Romantic Sex-Based Relationship Hierarchy by erasing relationship categories determined by the presence or absence of sex and/or romance. Relationship anarchy consequently creates equality of all personal/intimate relationships, behaviorally and emotionally. The freedom to interact and value one’s relationships starting with a blank slate, distributing physical intimacy, sexual intimacy, emotional intimacy, etc. according to one’s desires rather than preexisting rules and categories of relationship types, is an expression of this equality.

Relationship anarchists do not rank personal, loving relationships. They do not see any set of behaviors as innately restricted to romantic and/or sexual relationships, which certainly makes it difficult to elevate romantic-sexual relationships to a superior position above nonsexual/nonromantic relationships. RA’s see all of their personal, loving relationships—meaning, any relationship that isn’t professional or casual in nature—as equally important, unique, fulfilling different needs or desires in their life, and as possessing similar or identical potential for emotional/physical/mental intimacy, love, and satisfaction. A relationship anarchist does not place an emotional ceiling on nonromantic/nonsexual friendship or on a sexual friendship that’s devoid of “romance.” A relationship anarchist does not limit physical/sensual affection in their nonsexual relationships just because they’re nonsexual or nonromantic. A relationship anarchist does not expect to spend most of their time with just one sexual partner/romantic partner or with their romantic/sexual partners in general, nor does an RA assume that the romantic/sexual relationships (if they have any) automatically deserve or get more time and prioritization than the nonsexual/nonromantic relationships.

I really like relationship anarchy because it recognizes the “Romantic Sex-Based Relationship Hierarchy”, or, how mainstream society promotes putting labels on relationships and ranking them according to if you’re getting some or not, or if you’re “serious” or not (which is often construed as romance). I don’t interpret relationship anarchy as having no hierarchies at all – some relationships will be prioritized because of time constraints, and there will always be differences in how much someone cares about different people – but it’s accepting that there is no value hierarchy in loving relationships (platonic, romantic, sexual, or otherwise).

I think that placing romantic, sexual relationships on a pedestal is dangerous. Esther Perel, in her talk Rethinking Infidelity, remarks, “We have a romantic ideal in which we turn to one person to fulfill an endless list of needs: to be my greatest lover, my best friend, the best parent, my trusted confidant, my emotional companion, my intellectual equal. And I am it: I’m chosen, I’m unique, I’m indispensable, I’m irreplaceable, I’m the one.” To depend on one individual so much, to be depended upon in the same way, to have your sense of self so intertwined – that’s terrifying to me.

I was talking with a friend about this and he noted that a lot of people desire comfort and stability, especially in relationships, and the standard monogamous relationship structure provides them that. It’s a way to make sure that the other person still loves you without having to check every time, and, in a sense, it avoids dealing with relationships as living things (that is, the supposedly terrifying notion that people and feelings change). Something we discussed is how odd it is that romantic relationships are defined by their end – a breakup or divorce automatically classifies the relationship as a failure. It goes back to viewing the end of a comfortable thing as an indication that it was never stable to begin with, along with the sunk cost fallacy. It doesn’t recognize the value of a relationship as the relationship itself.

There’s also a big difference between people who desire children and a family and people who don’t. I find that this correlates with the desire for comfort and stability (which makes sense in the context of raising a child), but also with the desire to be “normal” (or conform to societal norms because they don’t want to be “weird” or be viewed as an outsider).

Another note: RA is important to me as someone who’s asexual. Marie writes, “Relationship anarchy should be important to the asexual community because it is the only method of relationships that removes sex as an indicator of relationship value, of a partner’s value, and as the line of separation between important, serious bonds and less important, casual bonds.” There’s a documentary about asexuality, (A)sexual, that’s currently on Netflix. Part of it follows David Jay, the founder of AVEN (the Asexual Visibility and Education Network, which is the largest online asexual community), as he navigates through his relationships as an asexual person. What devastated me more than I expected was his conclusion when some of his close relationships ended because his partners directed more time toward their own sexual partners:

You know, when I think about intimacy, I still think mostly about communities, but I’ve also been shifting a lot and thinking more and more about intimacy with one person. So, that’s a transition from where I was a couple of years ago. And I think that the biggest thing that created that was what happened in my relationships. […] Feeling those relationships drift apart was really scary for me, and it sort of made me feel like maybe, even if I could make community relationships that were as close as I could possibly make them, they still wouldn’t be relationships that I could depend on in the way that I wanted to. They wouldn’t be relationships that I could raise a kid in. And that was really disheartening for me for a while. And thinking about that, I sort of…that made me more interested in a relationship with one person as a way to be kind of more stable. Even, like, that person could be a sexual person, and I could even be in a relationship that involved sex. I know that that’s something a lot of asexual people do, and that’s not something that I’m opposed to, but I know that I would need kind of that community-building or something else to really be the core source of intimacy in our relationship.

So, I want to clarify a little bit why sex is something that I’d want to have in a relationship with someone. The reason that sex is something that I’m now kind of willing to have in my relationships with people really gets to the fact that sex is how we take relationships seriously and that I feel like I’m gonna have a much easier time having a relationship that gets taken seriously and a relationship that works – envelops more options – if that’s something that I’m willing to put on the table.

I’ve spent so much time in this community fighting for the idea that people don’t need sex to be happy that it is really kind of disheartening for me to feel like I might need to have sex, just because that’s the only way to, like, access the kind of intimacy that I want to access. It feels like I’m not able to really form a connection on my own terms in the way that I would like to, and that’s fine. No one forms intimacy totally on their own terms. But that makes it…yeah, that was a little hard for me to get over.

What upset me the most was the admittance that most people believe that sex is key to intimacy, and in order for asexual people to enter into deeply intimate relationships, we may need to work within the romantic sex-based relationship hierarchical system. It may come down to compromises in the end, which are present in all types of relationships; it’s just that dealing with asexuality and aromanticism exposes the compromises that many allosexual/alloromantic people avoid or believe are “dealbreakers” in sexual/romantic relationships.

5 Ways Powerful People Trick You Into Hating Protesters by David Wong
Let’s say that tomorrow you are elected Secret Ruler of the USA, a position that gives you total power over the government, economy, and the culture at large – everything that hippies refer to as “the system.” Now, your first job is to not get beheaded by rioting peasants, which means your first job is really to maintain “stability” (i.e., “keeping things mostly the way they are”).

Wait For One Of Them To Break The Law, Then Talk Only About That

• “I mean, why can’t they protest within the law? You know, like Martin Luther King? That’s why he was universally respected in his day!”
  

Convince The Powerful Majority That They’re The Oppressed Ones

• Three simple steps – exaggerate the victim’s power to get the public on your side, get the victim to lash out so you can claim victimhood yourself, insist all of their complaints are disingenuous.
  

Focus On Their Most Frivolous Complaints (And Most Unlikable Members)

• […] notice how we’re always making it personal – as demonstrated above, you don’t talk about global warming, you talk about Al Gore. You don’t talk about systemic racism, you talk about Al Sharpton’s unpaid taxes. Don’t talk about income inequality, talk about how Occupy Wall Street kids all have iPhones.
  

Pit Two Disadvantaged Groups Against One Another (And Insist That Only One Can “Win”)

• If you can just convince them it’s a competition, they’ll spend all their energy hating each other and none of it trying to fix the system. The guy in the trailer park doesn’t blame the bankers for the economy, he blames minorities and immigrants. Only one of us can be the true victim here, dammit!
  

Insist That Any Change Will Ruin The World

• Remember, humans are naturally risk-averse – people will stay in bad jobs and relationships and keep destructive habits, for fear that trying to fix the bad shit will result in losing everything. […] all you have to do is portray any criticism of the current system as an attack on everything we hold dear…
  

Overlooking the clickbait title and overly sarcastic tone, David thoughtfully lists out different techniques that the majority uses to control how the public views dissenting minority voices.

Last night I got to feel dumb and stupid and little and slutty, all wrapped up in one big puddle of girl-goo while Master pounded and teased my brain away…I got to feel empty and full at the same time.

I got to feel him go balls deep in my sloppy wet pussy and then feel him grow and Grow and GROW! There’s no feeling like the feeling of blood rushing into a rock hard cock that’s that deep inside you…nothing else pulses like that…nothing else spreads me open like that…nothing else makes me drip like that! In almost 20 years (since I began masturbating) I’ve never felt anything that makes me feel the way I feel when he’s inside of me.

He gives me all this and then starts his “famous” finger-roll and I melt; in his hands and between his legs I melted. I couldn’t stop. I couldn’t be quiet…I couldn’t open my eyes…I couldn’t think… but I FELT EVERYTHING!

He asked me, “Who’s my stupid-head?” and with my mouth held open wide by my big, pink, rubber lips I, somehow, managed to muster “Me! God! I am!”. Then he asked me, “Who’s my dumb girl?” and I just kept saying “Me!” like I was begging. It was so hard to think about anything else but what I was feeling between my legs…it was so hard to answer his questions…it was hard to form words…but it felt SO GOOD! Even recalling it now I feel myself getting wet and horny and drooly.

Thank you for granting me the opportunity to have your massive pulsing cock inside of me, Master. @kyle-is-kinky

We are told, especially if we are women, that the answer to loneliness and frustration is to find that one, ideal partner who will fulfil all our emotional, financial, domestic and sexual needs. We are told this even though we know full well that it doesn’t work out for a lot of people. Almost half of all marriages end in divorce.

- Laurie Penny, ‘Bitch Doctrine: Essays for Dissenting Adults’

mastasof-ravenkroft:

the world needs less jealousy tropes and more polyamory

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

MONOGAMY IS INHERENTLY RACIST AND SEXIST.

some-gentle-reminders:

Just a gentle reminder that being naturally polyamorous or naturally monogomous is okay, but bashing someone else for the types of relationships they have is not!

Love this.
Relationships come in lots of different forms - there’s the whole spectrum of sexuality re: the people you’re attracted to and, to me, there’s also a bit of a spectrum with regard to monogamy and ethical non-monogamy. Love isn’t one-size-fits-all. If people are being loved and respected and all parties are consenting (which is part of love and respect, but obviously worth explicitly mentioning), it’s really no one’s job to judge.
For me, I feel trapped by heterosexuality. It’s like wearing a sweater that’s a little too warm and a little too snug. It’s not wrong, exactly, it’s just not quite right. That doesn’t mean heterosexuality is bad or wrong - it means I’m not heterosexual and it doesn’t work for me.
Similarly, monogamy feels like I’m trapped - more like being in an elevator with someone that’s making you a little uncomfortable but you can’t quite put your finger on it. It’s not that there aren’t times where I only have one romantic partner, but I feel safe and happy knowing that it isn’t mandatory.
I imagine living as a pansexual would feel similarly “off” for many who identify otherwise. Same for polyamory. No one should feel like they’re being forced to participate in a relationship that isn’t right for them.

The Positive Impact of Limiting Sexual Partners Before Marriage

Having sex with less people actually leads to a happier life, science shows.

whatbigotspost:

even-the-losers:

chien-espagnol:

nankingdecade:

• the normalization of jealousy as an indicator of love
• the idea that a sufficiently intense love is enough to overcome any practical incompatibilities
• the idea that you should meet your partner’s every need, and if you don’t, you’re either inadequate or they’re too needy
• the idea that a sufficiently intense love should cause you to cease to be attracted to anyone else
• the idea that commitment is synonymous with exclusivity
• the idea that marriage and children are the only valid teleological justifications for being committed to a relationship
• the idea that your insecurities are always your partner’s responsibility to tip-toe around and never your responsibility to work on
• the idea that your value to a partner is directly proportional to the amount of time and energy they spend on you, and it is in zero-sum competition with everything else they value in life
• the idea that being of value to a partner should always make up a large chunk of how you value yourself

This is excellent

I’m literally gonna reblog this on every single tumblr I have

Now this is SUCH A GOOD POST and what a helpful term!

Not that anyone asked me, but as someone who has been in a monogamous relationship for longer than some of you have been alive (19 yrs) this is some incredibly important and good advice. People ask me “how we’ve done it” and I’m like…that’s specific to us and while I do have thoughts about what makes a relationship function well, YMMV, drastically. But I can say w/ certainty that monogamy has worked for my partner and I and we have what I would call a healthy/happy relationship because we’ve either learned the hard way or already knew each of these points.

Relationships (of all kinds) have seasons and phases as they (hopefully) grow and evolve. The times that my relationship w/ my partner was most tense/at peril or stressful was directly related to one of these factors.

Toxic monogamy culture is SUCH a thing I see around me and I’m grateful for this term. Bringing specific, helpful language to something is a powerful experience for me.

“Babe, What If We Try an Open Relationship?”

Finna drop a jewel on y’all monogamous folks that are polyam curious or interested, know this: Once you introduce the concept of non-monogamy in any form to a relationship, that relationship is irrevocably changed from that point forward whether you both decide to pursue it or not. Be ready.

Now that I’ve gotten your attention with that title…

I met a hot French guy while on vacation this week, and I ended up sleeping with him. This was the first time I’d really had no-strings-attached sex, and I enjoyed myself.

I was unsure about how N would react to hearing about it, but he was mostly just surprised. K was happy for me, as I thought he would be.

I really noticed the effects of monogamy as a societal norm. It felt kind of weird having a one night stand, telling my boyfriend about it, and having him be fine with it all. It also felt really reassuring to know that N was ok with me having physical connections with other men, and not just women. 

It’s a bit odd I guess, but I actually feel closer to N after this.