This thread is permanently archived
Whats your stance against polyamoritty
| Sorry i mean open relationship
Lol
Gosh
| >Whats your stance against
least biased question on all of danger/u/
| >>894735 i dont know what ever that means. Also i was referring to open relationship
End up thinking "polyamorism" as open
The intention is, refracted
| The less the risk the better
Good being from third world
| Ño girlfrend neither in open relashionships nor in closed ones. Wañt girl, wañt sex, want warmth of womeñ body. Ño open relationships, that's my stañce.
| tbf i would recommend op reads https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/polyamory to get a start on what polyamory means
because "open relationship" is not the case for everyone & you get hooked up for different reasons. also read https://www.letseatcake.com/what-is-polyamory-types/ for that.
threads like this are virgin magnets as >>308aeb already demonstrated (at world record pace may i add)
| >>894739
>no gf
Thats not a stance
>no relationship
>just booba
That means its parn only i guess
Looks almost the same i guess
Am i wronk?
| >>894740 sorry i must have mistook open relationship as polyamorism since the idea is not always interchangeable one suggest more than one partners while the other is more of having less than string thick attachment or paper certs of marriages
Seems like frowned upon in asia but then again not all sworn bachelors in americas are having it easy on this so it doesnt lean to either side
| >>894744 seggs, my dear brother, friend. Seggs is what needed. Open relatioñship, closed relatioñship -- doesn't matter. Wheñ we have seggs, we love it.
| >>894743 poly gets a lot of shit, hilariously from lgbtq+ people as well. imho poly relationships are the most natural and sustainable form of family & are excellent for raising children (it takes a village after all).
>having less than string thick attachment
no lmao. you're thinking of serial monogamy, where people pretend to be in relationships so they feel free to fuck and leave whenever they're done using the other person.
| >>894747
>seggs
Yea but what if your time slot is taken
I personally support all european come now or whatever freedom garbage so long within the living healthy realm
But open relationship also means you cant be any attached by default while the other one is dependent and clingy
Which is surreally creepy and immature on whatever level of society and shunned open no matter how so idk is it even a choice? Everything is open relationship.
| >>894752 how much spoonfeeding do you need
https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/monogamy/understanding-serial-monogamy/
| If my girlfriend said she wanted to open up our relationship I would probably break up with her, it's not because of any other reason other than the fact I just don't like the notion that our exclusive relationship isn't fulfilling so I wouldn't want to hold her back.
I would want her to be in a relationship where she's happiest and can open up the relationship with that person if she so chooses.
| >>894736
It's because you use "against" in the question, which immediately implies that it's negative.
A better question would be "What's your stance on polyamory?", or better yet, "What's your thought on polyamory?"
Also yeah, open relationship and polyamory aren't the same. You can be in an exclusive relationship that just happen to include more than two people in it.
| Polyamory is shit. It was invented by whores and womanizers to justify their incapacity into serious relationship.
| I'm not in a relationship atm, but I'm very open to a polyamorous one. Like, if my boyfriend wants to have another partner, I'd be okay with that as long as he's upfront about it and I get to be friends with the new partner too. Vice versa, I'd prefer it if he'll be okay if I want to date another guy too.
I understand that not all people feel that way, though, that some only feel fulfilled if it's just the two of them. I won't push it if this is what my partner wants too.
| yeet us to /d/ maid-san
or better yet straight to /new/
| Nah, but it's just a personal thing. Imo the whole appeal of a romantic relationship is the exclusivity of it, that's where the romance comes from. If I want to have sex with varying people, there's hookups or FWB. It's gotta be one or the other, trying to put them together negates certain benefits of both.
| I find it difficult to view sex just as an activity and quite similarly for relationship as purely what other people can provide me with in a utilitarian sense. It'd be nice if it was otherwise because although difficult it probably offers quite a bit of variety and novelty to life.
| I'd like to try it some day! it seems difficult to manage but fun.
| Doomed to failure.
99.98% of people can't handle it long-term, and it creates social imbalance and disharmony.
This thread is permanently archived
| Like
Polygamy
But double sided
Seems european i guess