>>5558870
you can't do that f a m.

The purpose of a relationship is for it to be monogamous, to establish security for both of you. Having one partner go off and sleep around compromises that. Also it puts your partner at risk for sleeping around outside of the relationship and possibly contracting an STI of some sort.

Either play the dating game or don't, there's none of this one leg in the other leg out bullshit, it doesn't fly.

>>5558896
The security lies in the emotional side of it. There can be emotional security whilst you're having fun with others.

>>5558917
>The security lies in the emotional side of it.
also finances, living conditions and whatnot. People didn't just start being monogomous out of a vacuum, it happened because it was the best method of conducting a relationship. I'm sure once upon a time we tried the polyamorous stuff, but it just didn't work.

>There can be emotional security whilst you're having fun with others.
Well you first need to be emotionally healthy to feel a sense of emotional security, if you're emotionally content with your partner sleeping around, then you're mistaking something else for your emotional health, because that should throw up many flags in the psyche of a healthy person.

>>5558896
this:
>>5558917

monogamy is not a requirement for security. trust, communication, and a solid sense of self are requirements for security. these are not exclusive to monogamous relationships, it's just easier to accomplish via monogamous relationships for a lot of people. some people can be perfectly secure in open or non-monogamous relationships, but it doesn't come easily to everyone and often, a sense of security must be learned or cultivated.

>>5558939
you completely graced over the danger of sleeping around to begin with. In case you haven't noticed we're part of a group that has a problem with the spread of STI and most notably HIV. You're missing the fundamental purpose of dating someone, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

>>5558936
>People didn't just start being monogomous out of a vacuum, it happened because it was the best method of conducting a relationship.

you're making a lot of assumptions here. there are lots of different possibilities for why monogamous relationships became the norm in western society: many of which have more to do with money, child-rearing, cultural stability, etc, than anything about emotions or interpersonal relationships.

tl;dr: you're stating spurious facts and have no proof that monogamy is "the best method of conducting a relationship."

>if you're emotionally content with your partner sleeping around, then you're mistaking something else for your emotional health

this is incredibly vague and doesn't really mean anything. i actually have no idea what you're trying to say here. what does "mistaking something else for emotional health" even imply/mean?

>>5558956
safe sex is a thing, you know.

>You're missing the fundamental purpose of dating someone

have you ever stopped to consider that the "purpose" of dating might be different for you than it might be for other people?

I don't understand people who are so fixated on having casual sex. I can only imagine you just don't care about your relationship very much to begin with.

>>5558996
how do sexual impulses equate to a lack of caring? having sexual desires that don't match up to a current relationship model isn't exactly something one can control.

i would be more inclined to say OP "doesn't care" if he was cheating on his bf, or trying to pressure him into an open situation, or doing something actively harmful to his bf and their relationship. but... he's not.

caring about someone doesn't automatically shut off all desire for sex with other people, emotional connections with other people, falling in love with other people, etc. protip: loving someone is not a magical spell like you see in movies. it's just a feeling and it doesn't make you into a different person, transform your brain, transform your thinking processes or emotions, etc.

>>5558968
>you're making a lot of assumptions here
Not really, it's basic reasoning. If you know anything about basic anthropology, early humans had many non-standard methods of mating and conducting relationships. We thrived under monogomy, but of course this was primarily for straights. With gays there tends to be more nuance as to what is the best way to conduct a relationship, I suppose if you're a hedonist, then polyamory would be a more appealing option than monogamy. I care for pleasure as recreation but it doesn't dictate my entire approach to a relationship, I also desire security, and emotional commitment. Despite what you think, this cannot occur in polyamory.

>this is incredibly vague and doesn't really mean anything
I know, because it often is vague. You don't seem very stable to me, nor has anyone I met who endorses polyamory, so I can't pinpoint your motivations precisely. What I'm getting at, is that when you say
>there can be emotional security whilst "having fun" with others
it sounds to me like there isn't a good connection between your emotions and your reason, because one can be emotionally content with their partner sleeping around, but this is usually because they fail to reason the possible negative outcomes this could have. I view emotional health as a good balance of emotions checked by reason, because emotions are often excellent informers, but not totally reliable in and of themselves. One can reason the positive aspects of polyamory, but if they fail to recognize the negatives they're only using their reason as a justification of their emotions, instead of another check or balance.

Granted, this is just my definition of emotional security, and there will be a lot of argument over what the term means because it is so abstract, but the point I'm getting through is that emotional contentedness does not equate to "health" necessarily; similar to how comfort-eating isn't exactly healthy.

>>5558986
safe sex isn't always guaranteed to keep you safe

>>5559050
>early humans had many non-standard methods of mating and conducting relationships

i'm not saying they didn't. i'm saying that the monogamous model is not necessarily the most popular one because of the reasons you're stating. clearly there IS a reason why it won out, but i'm saying that we have no proof that these reasons have to do with "emotional stability" over anything else.

>Despite what you think, this cannot occur in polyamory.

that is a very bold claim, especially coming from someone who i'm assuming has no experience in a healthy polyamorous relationship and no formal education or serious research background in the subject.

>You don't seem very stable to me

please, i'd love to know what exactly about my responses leads you to believe i'm "unstable." also,
>>5558917
is not me.

>but this is usually because they fail to reason the possible negative outcomes this could have.

i'd love to hear what would be on your list of "possible negative outcomes" besides STIs. and i'd also love to hear why you think this reason/emotion check-and-balance isn't something that should also be applied to monogamous relationships, or if it should be, why the outcome of this equation is obviously superior to the outcome for polygamous relationships.

>>5559102
If you can't understand what's so seemingly self-evidently wrong with polyamory, then I don't know if I can get through to you. To be content in a "relationship" sitting at home while your partner is out getting his lights fucked out by some other person, passionately engaging in numerous sexual activities with said person, there is a whole array of things off kilter here.

First off, it's fallacious to say you're still dating this person, because dating implies exclusivity, this is more like a FWB scenario, and it doesn't fit in the realm of dating relationships. So the more I think about it, the more polyamory cannot even be compared to monogamy, they're totally different relationships with totally different motivations behind them. Polyamory just seems like promiscuity but by paying homage to monogamous tradition, it involves a pseudo-exclusive relationship between two primary individuals to make it seem like something more noble.

>and i'd also love to hear why you think this reason/emotion check-and-balance isn't something that should also be applied to monogamous relationships
It is supposed to be applied to it, I say monogamy is superior because, being treated as a form of social imperative, it eliminates the need to philosophically or rationally assess how to engage in a relationship. It acts as a form of dogma to provide social order, another reason why monogamy is preferable.

>or if it should be, why the outcome of this equation is obviously superior to the outcome for polygamous relationships.
How is the polygamy outcome greater? I see far more successful, healthy monogamous relationships than I do polygamous ones.

>>5559209
>To be content in a "relationship" sitting at home while your partner is out getting his lights fucked out by some other person, passionately engaging in numerous sexual activities with said person, there is a whole array of things off kilter here.

personally, i honestly see zero problems with this as long as everyone is being safe.

i do not own my partner's body or mind, nor do i want to. i want them to feel totally free to do as they please with their bodies, their emotions, and their lives. i couldn't live with myself if i felt like i were inhibiting or controlling my partner in any way.

i do not feel jealous about my partners being with other people sexually or emotionally because sex and relationships are not a competition. my partner is with me for a reason, a reason that is not negated by their relationships with other people.

i don't need or want to be my partner's whole world; the fact that i may not be satisfying their every desire does not bother me because i trust in the reasons behind our relationship and i'm secure enough in myself to see the value i offer to others.

>It acts as a form of dogma to provide social order, another reason why monogamy is preferable.

so basically your answer is "because everyone else is doing it and it's easier." i mean, okay, that's fine if that's good enough for you, but it's not a good enough reason for me.

>How is the polygamy outcome greater? I see far more successful, healthy monogamous relationships than I do polygamous ones.

1. it's not necessarily greater for everyone. it's greater for me. it might not be greater for you, and that's fine.
2. just because you see more "successful" (i hate that word because society has a very biased understanding of what success means for a relationship, but whatever) monogamous relationships doesn't mean that successful polygamous relationships don't exist, or that polygamous relationships fail because polygamy is necessarily and inherently flawed.

>>5559209
>Polyamory just seems like promiscuity but by paying homage to monogamous tradition, it involves a pseudo-exclusive relationship between two primary individuals to make it seem like something more noble.

i forgot to respond to this part, but basically there are lots of different types of non-monogamous relationships and while the FWB label might more accurately apply to some of them it definitely does not accurately apply to all of them. i don't think it would even apply to the OP, because FWB situations usually do not also involve romantic emotional attachment and cohabitation. shrug.