18 ms·

If I felt secure in a relationship, having a partner that wants to experiment with others/date others wouldn’t really bother me. Everyone likes a little novelty

If I felt secure in a relationship, having a partner that wants to experiment with others/date others wouldn’t really bother me. Everyone likes a little novelty from time to time.

drekipus 3y ago
If you felt secure in the relationship you probably wouldn't feel the need. The desire for novelty comes from bored or unfulfilled from your current relationship, which would contest the "security" of the relationship if it is impossible to live without it.
- ben_w 3y ago
  I have access to far more food than I can physically (let alone healthily) eat. That I am clearly fulfilled with my existing diet doesn't stop me from trying new things on the menu, nor new restaurants with entirely new menus. And the desire to try new things doesn't imply that the absence of them is "impossible to live without" — even back out of metaphor land and back to human sexuality, lot of gay people used to live straight lives.
  - drekipus 3y ago
    A person isn't a food item, and "formally straight" relationships (including marriages) fall apart, obviously because that person isn't straight anymore.. Which is my point: the relationship isn't "secure" if you're to find out that you're actually gay.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      You appear to be shifting the goalposts, and not just because this comment of yours right here looks like it's mixing up formerly and formally. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a metaphor? I did explicitly note that food was a metaphor. After all, your original comment said: > if it is impossible to live without it. Which is a much higher standard than you're now using, one where food is a useful metaphor as one does actually need it to live, albeit as a category and not any specific food — I like capsaicin, alliums, and fresh coriander, and yet I can live without them (e.g. if I had a partner who was allergic). And are you unaware of the history (and indeed current diversity) of rules about sexuality, including the cases where couples aren't/weren't allowed to separate and gay relationships are/were forbidden? You can know full well what you like, and still be bound unfulfilled but alive. Thus, that question of fulfilment is still present when your relationship is not merely "secure", but the security is enforced by law.
      - drekipus 3y ago
        I would reason that a relationship that needs to be enforced isn't "secure." What does "secure in their relationship" mean to you?
        ben_w 3y ago
        That you have no fear of losing it. Prisoners are secure. They are also, to use the word you used earlier, bored. Don't mistake "secure" for "fun". It is an independent axis of consideration. Lots of people value security over fun, including when it comes to sexuality. Not everyone, but lots of people. And going further up this thread back to what Quinzel wrote: > If I felt secure in a relationship, having a partner that wants to experiment with others/date others wouldn’t really bother me. Alice can feel secure about Bob always being there for Alice when Alice needs it, while also being comfortable with the idea that Bob sometimes boinks Chris, and this can be either true or false, this is independent of if Alice wants to boink Dee.
    - hitekker 3y ago
      Well-reasoned points. Nice job avoiding the extremely online argument where "relationship security" and "food security" apparently mean the same thing.
- rokkitmensch 3y ago
  > probably There's stuff my wife just doesn't like to do! Like... hiking. Yes, hiking is what I look for in other partners.
- 16bytes 3y ago
  Being broadly critical of something outside of heteronormative behavior is ok. Telling somebody you don't know in a situation that you aren't familiar with that they aren't secure in their relationship comes off as ignorant at best. Especially since OP describes something on the more casual side of the ENM spectrum as opposed to full fledged polyamory.
  - drekipus 3y ago
    It's a hypothetical situation for the sake of discussion, not ad hominem.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ferbivore 3y ago
You might find it difficult to stay secure when your partner says you’re no longer good enough. Of course, some people don’t seem to mind this much. Or maybe this fancy new Bay Area “polyamory” memeplex works really well. I find it hard to imagine any amount of coping strategies could dull the pain for me.
- Quinzel 3y ago
  Thinking that your partner is suddenly going to think you’re not good enough because they see other people is an insecure kind of line of thought and the sort of thought processes that breed jealousy IMO. Being sexually exclusive doesn’t prevent people from falling out of love and moving on. People in monogamous relationships still sometimes decide their partners are not good enough, or they get bored, or whatever…
  - ferbivore 3y ago
    You can't just choose not to feel a certain way. It's quite difficult, and often a bad idea besides. Feelings aren't meaningless noise. We might have different ideas of security. If you don't value monogamy anyway, maybe your security isn't threatened much by your partner deciding you aren't good enough for it.
    - chownie 3y ago
      > If you don't value monogamy anyway, maybe your security isn't threatened much by your partner deciding you aren't good enough for it. I wrote a comment 3 times trying to steel man this but it still reads like horribly bitter snark rather than an earnest pov. People who enter poly relationships are not doing so because they value their partners less. In a relationship between more than two people their communication skills must be on point and they have to sincerely take one another's needs into account or the whole thing crumbles, it's all the effort of monogamy and then some. If your partner isn't "good enough" for monogamy then they definitely won't manage polyamory.
      - 3y ago

If I felt secure in a relationship, having a partner that wants to experiment with others/date others wouldn’t really bother me. Everyone likes a little novelty from time to time.

drekipus 3y ago

If you felt secure in the relationship you probably wouldn't feel the need. The desire for novelty comes from bored or unfulfilled from your current relationship, which would contest the "security" of the relationship if it is impossible to live without it.

ben_w 3y ago
I have access to far more food than I can physically (let alone healthily) eat. That I am clearly fulfilled with my existing diet doesn't stop me from trying new things on the menu, nor new restaurants with entirely new menus. And the desire to try new things doesn't imply that the absence of them is "impossible to live without" — even back out of metaphor land and back to human sexuality, lot of gay people used to live straight lives.
- drekipus 3y ago
  A person isn't a food item, and "formally straight" relationships (including marriages) fall apart, obviously because that person isn't straight anymore.. Which is my point: the relationship isn't "secure" if you're to find out that you're actually gay.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    You appear to be shifting the goalposts, and not just because this comment of yours right here looks like it's mixing up formerly and formally. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a metaphor? I did explicitly note that food was a metaphor. After all, your original comment said: > if it is impossible to live without it. Which is a much higher standard than you're now using, one where food is a useful metaphor as one does actually need it to live, albeit as a category and not any specific food — I like capsaicin, alliums, and fresh coriander, and yet I can live without them (e.g. if I had a partner who was allergic). And are you unaware of the history (and indeed current diversity) of rules about sexuality, including the cases where couples aren't/weren't allowed to separate and gay relationships are/were forbidden? You can know full well what you like, and still be bound unfulfilled but alive. Thus, that question of fulfilment is still present when your relationship is not merely "secure", but the security is enforced by law.
    - drekipus 3y ago
      I would reason that a relationship that needs to be enforced isn't "secure." What does "secure in their relationship" mean to you?
      - ben_w 3y ago
        That you have no fear of losing it. Prisoners are secure. They are also, to use the word you used earlier, bored. Don't mistake "secure" for "fun". It is an independent axis of consideration. Lots of people value security over fun, including when it comes to sexuality. Not everyone, but lots of people. And going further up this thread back to what Quinzel wrote: > If I felt secure in a relationship, having a partner that wants to experiment with others/date others wouldn’t really bother me. Alice can feel secure about Bob always being there for Alice when Alice needs it, while also being comfortable with the idea that Bob sometimes boinks Chris, and this can be either true or false, this is independent of if Alice wants to boink Dee.
  - hitekker 3y ago
    Well-reasoned points. Nice job avoiding the extremely online argument where "relationship security" and "food security" apparently mean the same thing.
rokkitmensch 3y ago
> probably There's stuff my wife just doesn't like to do! Like... hiking. Yes, hiking is what I look for in other partners.
16bytes 3y ago
Being broadly critical of something outside of heteronormative behavior is ok. Telling somebody you don't know in a situation that you aren't familiar with that they aren't secure in their relationship comes off as ignorant at best. Especially since OP describes something on the more casual side of the ENM spectrum as opposed to full fledged polyamory.
- drekipus 3y ago
  It's a hypothetical situation for the sake of discussion, not ad hominem.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ferbivore 3y ago

You might find it difficult to stay secure when your partner says you’re no longer good enough. Of course, some people don’t seem to mind this much. Or maybe this fancy new Bay Area “polyamory” memeplex works really well. I find it hard to imagine any amount of coping strategies could dull the pain for me.

Quinzel 3y ago
Thinking that your partner is suddenly going to think you’re not good enough because they see other people is an insecure kind of line of thought and the sort of thought processes that breed jealousy IMO. Being sexually exclusive doesn’t prevent people from falling out of love and moving on. People in monogamous relationships still sometimes decide their partners are not good enough, or they get bored, or whatever…
- ferbivore 3y ago
  You can't just choose not to feel a certain way. It's quite difficult, and often a bad idea besides. Feelings aren't meaningless noise. We might have different ideas of security. If you don't value monogamy anyway, maybe your security isn't threatened much by your partner deciding you aren't good enough for it.
  - chownie 3y ago
    > If you don't value monogamy anyway, maybe your security isn't threatened much by your partner deciding you aren't good enough for it. I wrote a comment 3 times trying to steel man this but it still reads like horribly bitter snark rather than an earnest pov. People who enter poly relationships are not doing so because they value their partners less. In a relationship between more than two people their communication skills must be on point and they have to sincerely take one another's needs into account or the whole thing crumbles, it's all the effort of monogamy and then some. If your partner isn't "good enough" for monogamy then they definitely won't manage polyamory.
    - 3y ago