Meeting Your Needs Through Polyamory

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Romantic relationships are essential to a healthy lifestyle because they help us meet key psychological needs. Foremost among these, according to York University (Toronto) psychologist Rhonda Balzarini and her colleagues, are eroticism and nurturance.

Eroticism refers to the bodily pleasure of sexual activity. Although the original function of sex is reproduction, in humans it has taken on a much deeper psychological meaning. For us, sex is a social act, a means of connecting on an intimate level with another human being.


In contrast, nurturance refers to the feelings of warmth and closeness that develop when two individuals share a significant portion of their lives together. We need to know there’s someone we can always turn to, someone who’s got our back. Having a significant other in our life is what gives us the strength and courage to go out and face an uncertain world.


In twenty-first century Western society, the only generally accepted route to meeting our eroticism and nurturance needs is through a committed monogamous relationship. We’re led to believe we’ll live happily ever after once we find the soulmate who will fulfill all our needs—despite the fact that nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. We’re also led to believe that life-long monogamy is the natural state for humans—even though evidence from other cultures and time periods shows us this clearly isn’t so.


The Polyamorist Lifestyle​

In recent decades, there’s been much discussion of an alternate form of romantic relationship known as polyamory. At the core of a polyamorous relationship is a primary couple, typically a husband and wife. Yet, unlike a monogamous couple, the partners are allowed to have other sexually or emotionally intimate relationships. In other words, polyamory is a form of consensual non-monogamy, or “open marriage.”


The received wisdom—among both psychologists and the lay public alike—is that polyamorous relationships can’t possibly be as satisfying as monogamous ones. Feelings of jealousy will be unavoidable, detractors argue. And the focus on sex rather than loving companionship supposedly makes polyamorous relationships shallow and unfulfilling. Some even argue that polyamory is nothing more than a scheme for men to gain sexual variety at the expense of their wives, whom they’ve emotionally abandoned.


In response, polyamorists maintain that their lifestyle is uniquely fulfilling, despite the bad rap. Feelings of jealousy can be controlled through open communication and the cultivation of an emotion known as “compersion,” that is, happiness in knowing that your partner is happy. Polyamorists also insist that they experience higher levels of both eroticism and nurturance because they rely on different partners to meet each of these needs.


To test the notion that polyamory provides greater levels of both eroticism and nurturance than monogamous relationships do, Balzarini and colleagues conducted a series of surveys that targeted individuals in mono and poly relationships. Their findings provide interesting insights into the dynamics of both monogamy and polyamory.


The Dynamics of a Monogamous Relationship​

Romantic relationships help us meet our needs for eroticism and nurturance, but they don’t always provide these in equal amounts, or at the same time. Typically, romantic couples experience high levels of eroticism early in the relationship. They have a strong desire for sex with their partner, and it’s this passion that drives the couple together and binds them.


Within a couple of years, however, sexual passion begins to diminish as the couple develop an attachment bond. Attachment is a sense of connectedness built out of trust rather than passion. We know our partner will be there for us when we need them, and that knowledge gives us the strength to go out and meet the challenges the world sets before us.


Passion is driven by mystery, while attachment is built on familiarity. Thus, the better we know our partner, the less we desire to have sex with them. At the same time, our lover has become our best friend, the most important person in our world. The key to a happy marriage is balancing mystery and familiarity so that we meet our eroticism and nurturance needs—but that’s easier said than done.


When the passion has fizzled in your marriage, there’s always the temptation to abandon it for a new erotic relationship. In fact, some people do pursue serial monogamous relationships, mistaking eroticism alone for love and not taking into account the nurturance needs that can only be fully met in a well-established relationship.


Outsourcing Unmet Needs to a Different Partner​

Polyamorists face this same problem that monogamists do in their primary relationship. But rather than abandoning their spouse for a fresh face, they outsource their unmet erotic needs to a different partner. Recognizing that the flames of passion are now little more than glowing embers, both partners can take on new lovers, all the while maintaining the deep attachment of the primary relationship that provides much needed nurturance.


In their research, Balzarini and colleagues found evidence to support the polyamorist position, particularly in terms of meeting eroticism and nurturance needs. They found that the monogamists in their study reported generally high levels of both eroticism and nurturance. However, when these were compared to reports of polyamorists' primary and secondary relationships, interesting patterns emerged.


Regarding eroticism, polyamorists reported lower levels in their primary relationship, but higher levels in their secondary relationship, compared with the sole relationship of monogamists. And when it came to nurturance, the pattern was reversed. That is, polyamorists reported higher levels of nurturance in their primary relationship, but lower levels in their secondary relationship, compared with the sole relationship of monogamists.


Figure reconstructed from Balzarini et al. (2019) by D. Ludden

Eroticism and Nurturance in Monogamy and Polyamory
Source: Figure reconstructed from Balzarini et al. (2019) by D. Ludden


These patterns were just what we would expect to see if polyamorists were outsourcing their erotic needs to their secondary partner, as they have argued. This outsourcing also frees up the primary partner to provide more of what they do best—nurturance. In this way, polyamorists get the more of their relationship needs met, and met more fully, than monogamists do.


Polyamory is definitely not a lifestyle that suits all persons. It requires strong communication skills—since nothing is kept secret—and polyamorists also need to be able to control feelings of jealousy. But for those who can make it work, it’s a lifestyle that offers immense benefits for both partners.
 
What a complicated way for the author to say he wants to be the protagonist of a harem anime.

On a more serious note:
If polyamory can work, then only if all parties involved 1.) know of each other, 2.) are in agreement and 3.) love each other the same amount. But I highly doubt it'll work, especially if the majority in the relationship are women. Either way, there is no way for each individual to receive the amount of attention and love they want. Polyamorous relationships are doomed to fail.

I think I read once an article or saw a video about how differently men and women react to cheating. In the end, iirc, the men in the study reacted more negatively towards sexual cheating, whereas the women reacted more negatively towards emotional cheating. So one can easily imagine what will happen in a polyamorous relationship.
 
Which isn't even a thing.

Oh, sure, you can bang me, and the bridesmaids, and anyone else at the reception...... just don't tell anyone else that they're SPECIAL!
I was a bit unclear. The thing in the study was, that everyone still reactive negative to both kinds cheating (it's a given). The questions was, what was perceived as worse by the people they tested. And, iirc, the women reacted already negative if their boyfriends showed any form of kindness towards another women without any apparent romantic inclination.
Still, I can see a problem that maybe a lot of "I'll test the loyalty of my partner by setting them up"-people participated in it.
 
Anyone know or remember the term "going steady"?

It's probably an antiquated term that's fallen out of use because everyone does the relationship cycle backwards or out of order. There's nothing wrong (per-se) with dating multiple people, the difference is, sex wasn't so easy. You dated, found someone you wanted to invest time and effort in, and then you went steady, or exclusive, whatever you want to call it. You were dedicating your time and effort exclusively to them, which could lead to a successful relationship and eventual family. Now-a-days with free love, everything good got polluted by a bunch of low trust and low self-control coomers. It's not wonder so many people are trying the poly thing; people jump into bed so fucking fast the girl doesn't even vet if the guy would be a good choice and the guy can have a half-dozen girls on the side who are all ready and willing.

Edit: Fuck I'm a boomer...
Boomers invented "free love". You're part of the New Greatest Generation now, dawg.
 
"I keep getting dicked, but still feel empty... I know! More dicks!"
 
Which isn't even a thing.

Oh, sure, you can bang me, and the bridesmaids, and anyone else at the reception...... just don't tell anyone else that they're SPECIAL!

Nah, it’s a loyalty issue. You don’t trash talk your partner, that is simply basic loyalty, and when you trash talk your partner to someone you also want to fuck or who you know wants to fuck you, whether or not you’ve actually fucked them, the betrayal takes on a sexual element. And nobody in a relationship gets their extracurricular flirt on in this manner without including plenty of trashing and other disloyalties, because that’s how they reinvent their spouse in their own minds and the other person’s mind as someone not worth being faithful to, who can simply be disregarded.

But people are in general so disloyal and faithless that it never even occurs to them that outside of abuse, which should be reported to the authorities, you’re actually supposed to be loyal and have your partner’s back. Against everyone. So they don’t get what emotional affairs are because they never comprehended emotional loyalty in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Boomers invented "free love". You're part of the New Greatest Generation now, dawg.
Lol no they didn't. Wild promiscuity has popped up many times in many societies, hitting the big time in Europe and Europe 2 at least once every few Centuries.

These people are like Dick Solomon, chortling "I can't believe humans were too stupid ever to think of this" as they commit some common and stupid error.
 
Imagine looking at that graph and thinking this is some sort of significant spread :lit:

I cn't pirate the paper it references because of india fucking up scihub, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the sample size is under 100.
 
it’s hard enough finding “the one”. Imagine how much harder it becomes trying to find “the ten”.

The whole "the one" meme is closely related to why certain lunatics pursue "the ten." Mushbrains try to find a life partner based on mushy magical thinking from hollywood, an industry made up entirely of cat ladies and jewish rapists.

They think with their genitals, saying "follow your heart." They prioritize how sexually alluring someone is when they don't even know them, and wonder why they keep falling for whores.

They say incredibly stupid things like "the closer you grow to your partner, the less you want to have sex with them," because they reduce fundamental human drives to insipid, mechanical processes. Indeed, the passage I quote earlier laughably uses the word "mystery," when these are people who know nothing of mystery. They are shallow, pedantic, and market-minded. That they think they can exhaust the mystery of one human in ten thousand lifetimes proves reflexively they are empty animal husks.

I have often wondered what it is that turns people into this sort of consumerist, vapid hobgoblin. My current thinking is it has to do with Americans' favorite emotion, fear. Born into a society that exalts cowardice and unthinking greed, they fear death as an ultimate evil, and "failure" only slightly less so. Terrified of dying, they denigrate all that is good in life. We should not hate them, only pity and despise them.

Or idk maybe faggotry is as faggotry does.
 
They’re describing “limerence,” which is essentially New Relationship Energy, but also pre-NRE. The antici...pation. Do they find me attractive? Are they into me? Are they looking at me, thinking about me? Could I land them? It’s uncertainty, risk.

“After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.“ Spock, Amok Time

But you’re supposed to be able to be certain of your partner. Your partnership is supposed to be the stable center from which the pair of you, and any children you have, can take on the world. THIS is calm, good, supportive, loving, a wonderful place to be where we don’t doubt each other or wonder. Let’s go wonder about other things, learn things, try things, build things, but let’s not wonder about each other. How can I feel safe, how can you, if we don’t have the fundamental knowledge that we‘re *together*?

There is nothing wrong with taking each other for granted. That doesn’t mean you don’t express appreciation. I appreciate profoundly the fact that I can take my husband for granted, and am grateful that I’ve shown myself over the years to be worthy of the same from him. I want to be taken for granted. That means I’m trusted.
 
Last edited:
this monogamie shit is against nature! i should be allowed to have more than one wife if i can feed them, just like my ape ancestors, or muslims.
 
Back
Top Bottom