Non-monogamy and Monogamy

I think you've answered your own question to an extent. You can argue for and against monogomy but no doubt some patronising smart arse will come along and tell you are a goosestepper depending on what side you choose. One thing that does come up in non-mongomous relationships is children. If no social agreement is reached then one of the two people, and lets face it it's generally the father (I know I must be in the Third Reich to make such scathing suggestions) fucks off and leaves the single parent to rear the child.

Free love didn't mean a free-for-all (not that I'm knocking free-for-alls I might add) but rather relationships that were not ordered from above and with recourse to whatever legal system was associated with marriage. People came and went as they pleased but there does need to be some responsability taken here if children come along...

 

Well I think polyamours relationships are very interesting and a great concept. I know a few persons, who manage it at least as well as a monogamous relationship.
There are very often some bourgeois shortcomings in monogamous relationships, which can be problematic. But I think they are not inherent and can be treated as problems themselves, not just as symptoms.

I'm personally living in a monogamous relationship and I'm fine with it, but I think that other concepts too should get room. But of course this is the decision of the concerned and nobody should be under pressure for one or the other thing.

 

I know a man, who is in a relationship with a woman, who has daughter, and this woman leads a polyamours relationship with three men at the same time...
But I dont get why children should come up in polyamourous relationships and not in monogamous ones. And I guess they are as often left behind by some careless asshole.

 

Thats so broad, Monogamy vs Non. Theres so many arrangements that can be made within that. I'm in a commited monogamous relationship but not married, my girlfriend and I live together and we don't have carnal relationships with anyone else. We're also rather opposed to the idea of marriage, seeing it as very patriarchal institution, one that historically was reserved for the very rich in which women were treated as property and traded largely to procure that woman's property. The woman looses her life in a marriage, her name, her familial line, her ability to associate with others and in many situations her liberty to do with her life as she may wish, having to sacrifice it for the demands of the husband and family.

On the otherhand I've been in open relationships as well, very committed open relationships, and from my experience it often leads to easy exit from the relationship. If things go sour one partner or even both are lured away by the already present affections of another rather than working the problems out and that has long term consequences, you don't see the error of your ways, relationship problems are more likely to carry on to the next one, and you don't learn from it or grow as much as a person.

My answer is a question: Whats right for you?

 

I don't think there is a right relationship, not even for one person. Because it always depends on how it works out between each other.

 

Again, whatever works for you and the person or people you are with. As long as its all consensual and the people involved are comfortable with the relationship(s)

 

thats what I meant.

 

What are the benefits of a non monogamous relationship? I'm only 14 so I don't really k ow anyone who has one and I have only heard negativethings really. Enlighten me please

And I agree. Whatever works for those involved. Keep it consensual and most of all, have fun.

 

Well most obvious: Seemingly more freedom. You don't have to fear problem because you like another person besider your girl*boyfriend. Remember, you also give this freedom to him*her!
Another things which is more psychological is that you see your girl*boyfriend less as your property, but you can fight this as well in monogamous relationship

Edit:
And could we all please call it polyamourous relationship? because if we say monogamous and non-monogamous it seems that monogamous is the "normal" thing, which at least I think it shouldn't be.

 

monogamy doesn't need to be abolished, but it is not for everyone. I personaly believe the wisdom of Rudimentary Peni on this topic though..."Holy Matrimony is a blissful myth" Basically if you think of human beings in terms of being animals, then very few animals have monogamous relationships that last their lifetime, so why should people? Because the church says so?

 

actually its just one higher evolved animal, a californian mouse or something...

 

well mice are the ones who paid for earth to be built in the first place, to determine the ultimate question of life the universe and everything...

 

I don't believe it's realistic for two people to be together forever. I'm not the same person I was ten years ago, and would most likely be a different person ten years in the future, same for any woman I happened to be involved with, therefore, I think it's simply unrealistic not to expect that the relationship will inevitably collapse at some point. However, I also think this "Smash Monogamy" crap is total bullshit. I mean, if two partners have a mutual agreement or something that's fine for them, but don't claim it's some sort of statement.

 

I think in regards to what you siad, which i agree with btw, in a nutshell, short term monogamy is great, but long term monogamy is unrealistic.

 

Thats called serial monogamy if I'm not mistaken.

 

Polyamorous here!!!

That being said I am currently in a monogamous relationship with my boyfriend who seems to be pretty cool with the Polyamory thing but he wouldn't be ready for a third person for quite some time which I understand.

 

I hate when people make broad generalisations about monogamy/non- monogamy. I don't think you can say that long-term monogamy is always unrealistic or that non-monogamy is always the way to go. It depends on the person(s) involved, every couple is different. I would interpret the 'smash monogamy' in a different way; as meaning that monogamy should not be the only socially accepable and reinforced relationship in society, and that people should try and change that. That doesn't mean not allowing monogamy (that's ridiculous), but about changing societies attitude towards it.