>ITT: I'm not convinced that healthy polyamory exists. I will preface this with a few things. This does not come from hate or fear. I respect the the sentiment behind questioning societal norms, I think we have a lot to learn and beauty to appreciate from the experiment, and that it is human to not always strictly adhere to what is healthy. Also, this isn't for the people who ask "who cares?" and more for people who this kind of thing actually matters to. Further, doing or liking something just because you like it is either lazy or fearful thinking, in the case you don't actually want the answer. It's okay to be either, but important to accept. Just because I currently disagree doesn't mean I'm hateful, in the same way that an atheist wouldn't necessarily hate a person of whatever faith. I just want to seek the truth for myself.
I don't have any ulterior motive for being interested in polyamory. I am actually generally against it because it's complicated. It's inherently a relationship with more than 2 factors. Whatever the solution is going to be, it's not going to be something that makes sense in 2 dimensions.Buuuuuut... everybody seems to think it's impossible.And that makes me curious...
>>43686353Don't get me wrong, impossibility is completely disconnected from health. I figure poly as a solution is more borne out of one's relationship with themselves and a broader sense of relational dysfunction, and how we attach to one another, than anything else. I.e. it's reflective of insecure attachment styles, etc. A lot of the problems that exist in monogamous relationships present themselves in poly, like cheating and other disrespectful behaviors, are still possible. It's more that we gaslight ourselves and others to be okay with it with the facade of being progressive.
>>43686439I have this feeling that it's possible and possible for it to be healthy. But you'd have to reeeeeally work hard to arrange your lives for it to be a good fit.
>>43686780Okay, but in what way? How do you feel like it's possible to be healthy in a way that isn't explained by meeting the needs of some trauma based disorder, such as an insecure attachment style?
>>43687658Humans often form friendships that are that closely knit but the problem is that jealousy and favoritism cause problems. The basic fact is that a single person has a finite amount of time in the day to devote to tasks and having more than one partner absolutely requires the ability to partition attention. And the ability to accept partitioning with your loved one's attention.However I think the key to it is what function polyamory performs for the partner that isn't engaged with the other members at any given time.Which is alone time.When you know that someone else can attend the needs of your partners, you can take your own time to rest and recharge and you can feel like you aren't being negligent to your partners or shirking responsibility.
>>43688125So, that would be a miss match of one needing too much and the other not being able to give as much, which normally isn't the case when both partners are secure. This is what I'm talking about pretty much exactly. Sure there may be a relatively minute amount of incongruince, but then it would be up to the individual pair to say if that extra hour of closeness or alone time was enough to end the relationship over, if you can pardon me for being hyperbolic. It's all about what one person was conditioned to be able to provide the other. A secure person shouldn't feel abandoned if they're spending a reasonably appropriate amount of time with someone they love, nor should they feel like they're being smothered. Autonomy and unity are both celebrated without having to involve another person.
