Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First I was trying to explain things more in a positive sense than in a normative sense. How things are vs this is how things should be - there is a lot more on this in the link.
I focused on polygyny because its much more common cross culturally than polyandry. Polyandry is much more rare, unless you consider prostitution a type of polyandry, which you might.
There aren't a whole lot of situations in the historical record where it provided a benefit in passing genes forward to the individuals involved, if the environment is really harsh and it takes two guys to raise a family like in the artic, or dessert okay. But generally that hasn't been the case in the historic record.
Modernly birth control created an evolutionary mismatch. That has allowed novel arrangements like hook up culture, and polyamory. But I see both of the sustainability and stability of these more modern arrangements as pretty new. If we didn't have access to mostly reliable birth control and abortion on demand, I think both arrangements would collapse pretty quickly.
Modernly the reason people enter into polyamorous relationships isn't for kids but fun and if guys got to have sex with lots of others but the women didn't, you probably wouldn't find many women willing to voluntarily agree to this arrangement.
I don't see your argument so much "how things are vs how they should be" as I do, one centered in the context of historical and evo-bio stuff. Which, while I do not deny is a part of the picture (and I have gone there myself, in this thread even) it doesn't account for all of the moving parts in the machine.
Also, one of the households I was talking about, has one mother and two fathers and seven kids. You can't tell me it's about having fun and not having kids. That just is not correct. Some people hold that mindset, but a significant number do not. And there are groups and resource pages out there for legal considerations for poly groups, especially as it regards parental rights and responsibilities.
But where in the historical context, sperm is cheap and it is sensible to have a number of reproducing women, as infant and maternal mortality were high, and the kids were valuable assets as soon as they could toddle out onto the farm and gather some eggs or something, the situation is very different now. Kids are a liability more than an asset, in terms of the household economy of resource expenditure, the necessities are expensive, childcare is expensive, and it's all a huge heap of labor to keep a big family afloat.
EDIT: Also? Another huge difference between the historical polygyny and the present polyamory, is that the women probably did not have much ability to leave, before. Now they do. And they do, usually, in less than a couple of years and with a whole lot of drama. I know of polyandrous households that have held up for 5-10 years. Granted, my sample set is not huge. But when I post about this on poly forums, I tend to get a lot of people agreeing that they have observed the same.
I don't see your argument so much "how things are vs how they should be" as I do, one centered in the context of historical and evo-bio stuff. Which, while I do not deny is a part of the picture (and I have gone there myself, in this thread even) it doesn't account for all of the moving parts in the machine.
Also, one of the households I was talking about, has one mother and two fathers and seven kids. You can't tell me it's about having fun and not having kids. That just is not correct. Some people hold that mindset, but a significant number do not. And there are groups and resource pages out there for legal considerations for poly groups, especially as it regards parental rights and responsibilities.
But where in the historical context, sperm is cheap and it is sensible to have a number of reproducing women, as infant and maternal mortality were high, and the kids were valuable assets as soon as they could toddle out onto the farm and gather some eggs or something, the situation is very different now. Kids are a liability more than an asset, in terms of the household economy of resource expenditure, the necessities are expensive, childcare is expensive, and it's all a huge heap of labor to keep a big family afloat.
Historically when men had sex with women, women got pregnant. My grandfather was the oldest of 14. His wife was 8th born in a family of 11. If men and women were having sex generally there were kids involved. A big reason you ended up with a second or 3rd wife in Islam is that if your brother died, you were responsible for your brother's wife and kids, so they became your second family and/or third family.
Historically most people didn't have love marriages. Marriage was about economics. That only changed in the last hundred or 150 years.
The reason I am saying this is about fun today is the people who are doing it can do and are specifically seeking these types of arrangements because they enjoy them. This isn't a survival strategy. That is novel compared to what proceeded it.
Historically when men had sex with women, women got pregnant. My grandfather was the oldest of 14. His wife was 8th born in a family of 11. If men and women were having sex generally there were kids involved. A big reason you ended up with a second or 3rd wife in Islam is that if your brother died, you were responsible for your brother's wife and kids, so they became your second family and/or third family.
Historically most people didn't have love marriages. Marriage was about economics. That only changed in the last hundred or 150 years.
The reason I am saying this is about fun today is the people who are doing it can do and are specifically seeking these types of arrangements because they enjoy them. This isn't a survival strategy. That is novel compared to what proceeded it.
I'd say it's more that some people are so closed to the idea (and I don't criticize that, it's all good) that they would rather struggle in any amount of hardship than even consider it, even if it would make their survival easier.
And some are open to it, and that maybe be because it's a lifestyle that they want to enjoy, full stop...but then among those who are open to it, some will place value on the economic benefits. AND, I could also see it becoming more common with younger adults, possibly, just because the more working hands you have supporting a household, the better.
Seriously, my 19 year old can't afford to rent a studio or one bedroom apartment. He HAS to live with others. Now add kids. Or pets. Or both. Or an even higher cost of living area than here. Having it be romantic/sexual relationships tends to add some element of higher trust than just roommates. I would not have a roommate, not even a close friend, but a committed partner, yeah. It is different. (EDIT: My son is not poly, just saying it's a tough world for the young people out there.)
You say it's not about survival...and I would agree that simply being poor doesn't make people more willing, necessarily, to consider this if they start out opposed. But I wonder if increasing acceptance and openness to it, could evolve in tandem with economic problems that can be solved by this as a strategy. As Moongirl said, you see a lot more poly people on the dating apps in recent times.
The family I know, there was an original married couple, they had 4 kids but they had an open marriage, just hadn't found a solid long term live in partner. They both date others. Then the second husband came along, and he has custody of a child from a prior relationship. And there are now 2 additional kids from the second father. They also have a lot of pets. I'm leaving out a lot of details on purpose, their lives are very complicated, but what they are doing seems to work for them.
The first husband has a high paying IT job. The second one is more of a handyman, odd jobs, helping out in an all around way and doing lots of side gigs. He kind of seems to supplement the efforts of both of the original parents, in terms of income and domestic work.
Compersion is a feeling of joy or happiness from knowing your spouse or significant other is enjoying a romantic/sexual relationship with someone else.
Would you be able to feel joyful (rather than jealous) if your spouse comes home after a night or weekend away with their lover?
Is compersion a real thing that some people are just wired to experience in lieu of jealousy?
Is it something people can talk themselves into feeling instead of feeling jealousy?
Is it even a real thing at all or a myth?
Do you have any experience feeling compersion yourself?
If not, what do you think of the concept?
Is it the wave of the future as relationships becomes less traditional and we experiment with alternatives to the nuclear family/monogamous marriage?
I've already answered this question. I'm not a student nor am writing any kind of paper for academic publication, research, or otherwise.
It's all just for the interest of talking about relationship topics and nothing else.
I wouldn’t be in an open relationship so no I wouldn’t be okay with my partner being with someone else. Neither of us want or need another partner luckily.
What are your thoughts on compersion? (The opposite of jealousy)
Compersion is a feeling of joy or happiness from knowing your spouse or significant other is enjoying a romantic/sexual relationship with someone else......
I realize this discussion is actually about lack of jealousy regarding romantic/sexual relationships and is not really about compersion in all its applications. I understand some people will think I'm being a pedantic nit-picker about it but for discussions like this I think it's important to get word definitions correct and for all people to understand the full meanings and implications of the word in all of its applications.
Although it's often commonly used in connection with polyamory relationships, the word "compersion" does not strictly mean someone being happy because a loved one is enjoying a "romantic/sexual relationship" with someone else.
The word compersion cannot be found in the dictionary, but Wikipedia defines it as "an empathetic state of happiness and joy experienced when another individual experiences happiness and joy."
The word that has the same meaning as the English word compersion exists in other languages too. For example, the word mudita in Sanskrit means "the pleasure that comes from delighting in other people’s well-being." The word unne in Norwegian means "to be happy on someone else’s behalf."
It means "shared joy" with respect to feeling empathy and happiness instead of jealousy on behalf of anyone else who is happy about something. That something that the other person is experiencing and enjoying could be anything. It could be something as simple as a blind person feeling joy on behalf of a sighted person who is delighted with a rainbow. It could be an overweight person feeling joy instead of jealousy because another person is enjoying a fulsome and fattening meal that is restricted from the diet of the overweight person who is feeling joy on the diner's behalf.
Location: As of 2022….back to SoCal. OC this time!
9,297 posts, read 4,573,025 times
Reputation: 7613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite
It means "shared joy" with respect to feeling empathy and happiness instead of jealousy on behalf of anyone else who is happy about something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forever Blue
I could never, ever in a millions years have the feeling of compersion.
Tho why not? IMO it’s healthy to feel happiness about somebody else’s happiness in a relationship or anything else...like Zoisite was talking about. BUT...it’s not so healthy for a relationship IMO if I was happy about a romantic or physical relationship somebody else was having with my man...just because I would know about it in the open.
Why be in a committed relationship that isn’t committed? It makes no sense to me.
I realize this discussion is actually about lack of jealousy regarding romantic/sexual relationships and is not really about compersion in all its applications. I understand some people will think I'm being a pedantic nit-picker about it but for discussions like this I think it's important to get word definitions correct and for all people to understand the full meanings and implications of the word in all of its applications.
Although it's often commonly used in connection with polyamory relationships, the word "compersion" does not strictly mean someone being happy because a loved one is enjoying a "romantic/sexual relationship" with someone else.
The word compersion cannot be found in the dictionary, but Wikipedia defines it as "an empathetic state of happiness and joy experienced when another individual experiences happiness and joy."
The word that has the same meaning as the English word compersion exists in other languages too. For example, the word mudita in Sanskrit means "the pleasure that comes from delighting in other people’s well-being." The word unne in Norwegian means "to be happy on someone else’s behalf."
It means "shared joy" with respect to feeling empathy and happiness instead of jealousy on behalf of anyone else who is happy about something. That something that the other person is experiencing and enjoying could be anything. It could be something as simple as a blind person feeling joy on behalf of a sighted person who is delighted with a rainbow. It could be an overweight person feeling joy instead of jealousy because another person is enjoying a fulsome and fattening meal that is restricted from the diet of the overweight person who is feeling joy on the diner's behalf.
.
In that case I would say of both that it depends. I feel jealousy regarding some people. For instance I have a fairly wealthy friend who enjoys multiple homes and vacations and is retired, and also has three successful kids and adorable grandkids she has a close with. I admit I’m jealous when she says she just bought a house in Florida or is taking her family on a Disney Cruise. If she called me today and told me she won $25,000 in the lottery I would not feel comperison I would probably be secretly annoyed lol. But a lot of that jealousy is based on what I feel about my own life (I have a very physical job I can’t do much longer and worthbill be eating dog food in a cardboard box in old age).
But if my old friend who has not had a break since she lost her job ten years ago told me she won it, I would be happy for her.
I realize this discussion is actually about lack of jealousy regarding romantic/sexual relationships and is not really about compersion in all its applications. I understand some people will think I'm being a pedantic nit-picker about it but for discussions like this I think it's important to get word definitions correct and for all people to understand the full meanings and implications of the word in all of its applications.
Although it's often commonly used in connection with polyamory relationships, the word "compersion" does not strictly mean someone being happy because a loved one is enjoying a "romantic/sexual relationship" with someone else.
The word compersion cannot be found in the dictionary, but Wikipedia defines it as "an empathetic state of happiness and joy experienced when another individual experiences happiness and joy."
The word that has the same meaning as the English word compersion exists in other languages too. For example, the word mudita in Sanskrit means "the pleasure that comes from delighting in other people’s well-being." The word unne in Norwegian means "to be happy on someone else’s behalf."
It means "shared joy" with respect to feeling empathy and happiness instead of jealousy on behalf of anyone else who is happy about something. That something that the other person is experiencing and enjoying could be anything. It could be something as simple as a blind person feeling joy on behalf of a sighted person who is delighted with a rainbow. It could be an overweight person feeling joy instead of jealousy because another person is enjoying a fulsome and fattening meal that is restricted from the diet of the overweight person who is feeling joy on the diner's behalf.
.
That is an excellent point. Reminds me of how, though I absolutely do not care about sports, when a team won a big game and I have close friends or family who root for them, I think, "Oh yay, so-and-so will be really happy about this!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by TashaPosh
Tho why not? IMO it’s healthy to feel happiness about somebody else’s happiness in a relationship or anything else...like Zoisite was talking about. BUT...it’s not so healthy for a relationship IMO if I was happy about a romantic or physical relationship somebody else was having with my man...just because I would know about it in the open.
Why be in a committed relationship that isn’t committed? It makes no sense to me.
Depends on what the word, "committed" means to you. Obviously in your perspective, it means exclusive, at least, and likely more than that. In mine, it is the opposite of casual. It doesn't have to mean, "never sleep with anyone again for the rest of my life" but it does mean that we intend to be together for a longer time, we make each other a priority and consider one another when planning things in life, and we are invested in each other. I could use, "committed" to simply say that this is a very meaningful relationship to me, or I could say, "committed" in the sense as with my husband, that I have every intention of being with him until one of us dies.
An alternate context that is often used to explain this mindset, by polyamorous types, is that if you have one child, you are committed to raising that child and you love that child. If you later get pregnant again, you can also birth your second child and commit to raising them as well, without it diminishing your commitment to your first child, even if you now have to spread your finite resources of time, money and energy, between multiple children. Or in the case of some who have one primary relationship and other, less committed ones, on the side, maybe they agree to babysit a neighbor kid or something, but that is not breaking their commitment to parent their own child.
Does that make any better sense of it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
