Also, I disagree with your final conclusion. I think want over need is important in a relationship. And well, a lot of things, but thats another discussion. I enjoy monogomous relationships for the reason you give to open relationships. There are other men all around me; the options are there. I could be left for any one of them at any time, and it has happened. But part of why I find an exclusive relationship so valuable is that the exclusivity is granted not for lack of other options, but in spite of the available options, I am considered by my partner to be the best, and she is considered by me the best.
This was just one of my rambly thought-dump type posts. I'm not overly committed to any of these viewpoints; they're just random brain-firings of the moment. Comments are welcome, but I find it strange that people are attacking the "position" that I haven't really stated ...
I think that in many ways, it's not as relevant whether there *is* commitment, and instead it can be more useful to look at whether people in the relationship *feel* that there is commitment. (Which isn't to say that commitment per se isn't important, because it is, but rather that a healthy relationship usually needs both, and in this discussion we should probably assume good intentions on all parts.) In non-exclusive relationships, this can break down if any of the parties involved have difficulty communicating their commitment among themselves. And I don't so much mean verbal communication, as much as non-verbal communication through actions and attitude. It can be difficult for people to interpret communication over channels that they're not familiar using
( ... )
Yeah, I think the perception of commitment is key. I haven't really thought it through, but in my first point above I mention an epiphany I had in understanding why people equate exclusivity with commitment: Many people can't perceive the commitment without exclusivity, whether it is there or not
( ... )
Friends are not the same as girlfriends/boyfriends. The whole purpose of being with someone is just that, to be with them. If, the entire time, you're looking elsewhere... why be with them in the meantime? Its like you're just using the person you're with
( ... )
I've always thought exclusivity hinged on people wanting someone that could be available for them all the time. I think that's a realistic expectation in a situation where both people want that constant availability. I think you can't get that from friends, and it's hard to get that in an open relationship where the other person will (unless it's a threesome+) say "I'm emotionally unavailable for you right now because I'm with the other one. Wait for me to get back
( ... )
That's a really good point. Personally, I think "all the time" availability is a bad idea, and I don't do exclusivity, which fits right in with what you're saying.
I think they're both examples of the same thing, though. Insecure people will have more episodes of needing support, and it will be more important to them to have immediate support (for what I assume are perfectly valid reasons, like it affecting them more). Secure people will have less need of that, and less need of the "guarantee". I suppose you don't have a guarantee, even in an exclusive relationship, because there's the whole "life" thing that occasionally gets in the way, but I can see the economics of time aspect meaning more to people who are less secure in themselves.
Still, I think there's something that trumps both what I've said above, and what you've said here. I've just posted it as a new entry.
Ye gads. I know tons. I kinda lumped them under "swinging", although that doesn't nearly cover it. In general, I know tons of insecure people, in every relationship type.
Yeah, there are insecure people on both side of the fence - I sure haven't seen any correlation at all. In fact, the guy I was with who was poly but being monogamous with me, was VERY insecure, and really needed a lot of women to pay attention to him. One of my problems with poly was that it didn't leave room for the kind of depth you get with monogamy - there seemed to be a lot of skimming along on the surface of things with people, and bailing if things got difficult. Not that there isn't that with monogamy, serial monogamy anyway, but it seemed built into the poly crowd. They hated "drama", said with a tone of contempt and curled lip - which seemed to be code for anything that was inconvenient or needed discussion.
Comments 34
Also, I disagree with your final conclusion. I think want over need is important in a relationship. And well, a lot of things, but thats another discussion. I enjoy monogomous relationships for the reason you give to open relationships. There are other men all around me; the options are there. I could be left for any one of them at any time, and it has happened. But part of why I find an exclusive relationship so valuable is that the exclusivity is granted not for lack of other options, but in spite of the available options, I am considered by my partner to be the best, and she is considered by me the best.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
If you are exclusive, what are you committing to?
We're animals.
Reply
Reply
It may be interesting to note that, to me, there's no difference between a girl friend and a girlfriend.
Reply
Reply
I think they're both examples of the same thing, though. Insecure people will have more episodes of needing support, and it will be more important to them to have immediate support (for what I assume are perfectly valid reasons, like it affecting them more). Secure people will have less need of that, and less need of the "guarantee". I suppose you don't have a guarantee, even in an exclusive relationship, because there's the whole "life" thing that occasionally gets in the way, but I can see the economics of time aspect meaning more to people who are less secure in themselves.
Still, I think there's something that trumps both what I've said above, and what you've said here. I've just posted it as a new entry.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment