Is it really that hard to find an intelligent and attractive

>>17338705
If it's not monogamy she's not a gf, she's a fuck buddy. So to answer your question, no, it's not possible.

>>17338705
>monogamy
anyone that practices this isnt intelligent

Make sure they don't have a ring on their finger.

>>17338707
>she's a fuck buddy
No. You can share your feelings without being in an exclusive relationship. The difference is that you can share your deepest feelings with more people who can provide you different things, instead of being attached to somebody forever.

>>17338719
Of course she would be fuck buddy. If she can fuck with everyone without being judged by his boyfriend she would fuck with everybody. In that case we say fuck buddy and olso dont share your deepest feeling with fuck buddy.

>>17338705
It is very difficult, but it is possible (I've been in a relationship like this) .
>>17338719
/adv/ is a bad place to ask for help on this since everyone here is stuck on the idea of monogamy because they've had oneitis since their mom cut the umbilical cord.

You will probably have better luck in more liberal areas. Make sure you communicate with your partner often and be clear on what is and isn't ok. Good luck man.

>>17338792
>The difference is that you can share your deepest feelings with more people who can provide you different things, instead of being attached to somebody forever.

Nobody said you have to be stuck with somebody forever, especially if you don't like them all that much. And why do you need to only have one person with whom you share deep feelings? Who ever said that your romantic partner is to have a monopoly on your feelings?

It sounds like you don't really know what a good relationship is like, and you've only had experience with toxic ones, so you project that experience onto all monogamous relationships. There's a way to "do" monogamy without it turning into a cursed shit-show.

>>17338705
Yes it's really hard

>>17338705
Yes because most people in general, universally, want sexual and romantic exclusivity. It's arguably biological and "natural" more so than purely cultural.

test

>monogamy
>a social bad habit

The fuck is this?

>>17338992

>monogamy is biological and natural

It's quite rare among the cultures of the world and seldom seen in practice, polygyny is much more common

Even in our culture an enormous percentage of supposedly monogamous relationships are actually privately nonmonogamous and in many of the rest, one or both partners cheat

>>17339568

>The fuck is this?

Trolling

Welcome to 4chan

>>17339569
>[citation needed]

File: 1467662479255.jpg (11KB, 253x226px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 253x226px

>>17339569
I don't think any of what you just said is true

>>17339569
While there are more polygynous cultures, there are still a very large number of monogamous ones. I think it's about a quarter of current nations and I believe that's also about the same when taking all past cultures into account. Also take note that all of the most successful and prosperous nations today are founded on a strictly monogamous culture.

Marriage has been a concept since the prehistoric times. It makes sense as one of the most clear anthropological trends we can observe allllll the way back since Australopithecus is a trend towards less sexual dimorphism. What that tells us is that hominids were having less male-male competition, and that what means is there was more pair bonding (aka sexual exclusivity). The reason for this was that hominid babies were becoming more and more depended on their parents as natural selection was pushing for bigger brains, longer childhoods and greater learning periods. This meant that these babies needed more and more and more paternal investment to survive. Natural selection began to reward males and females who pair bonded and raised their young together over males and females who mated indiscriminately.

This in turn selected for females who sought out sexually and emotionally exclusive males who wouldn't abandon them and their children, or spend resources on other females and children, and it selected for males who sought out females who were sexually and emotionally exclusive, who would be the most likely to "stay faithful" and have only his children.

Cheating also isn't an argument against people wanting sexual and romantic exclusivity. Those people still want it, but they way to have their cake and eat it to, so to speak.

In short, jealousy and the desire for sexual and romantic exclusivity in a partner is universal, extremely common, and arguably natural. This makes it hard to find a partner who doesn't fit the norm and would be okay with polyamory.

>>17338708
>monogamy
>anyone that practices this isnt intelligent
Hate to break it to you but it's the other way round actually...

>>17338799
>because they've had oneitis since their mom cut the umbilical cord.
because they've lived and experienced enough to know how things/the world works.
>Fixed that one for ya.

>>17339569
>It's quite rare among the cultures of the world and seldom seen in practice, polygyny is much more common
Nobody cares about tribe clicky clack in timbucktu

The closest we had to poly shit in ancient civilizations were harems to cater to nobles. You people quote groups that never entered the bronze age as if they matter to justify your new fad.

>>17339579

Spend, like, one minute on Google checking it if you need to

>"The human mating system is extremely flexible,” Bernard Chapais of the University of Montreal wrote in a recent review in Evolutionary Anthropology. Only 17 percent of human cultures are strictly monogamous.

>In 2001, The Journal of Family Psychology summarized earlier research, finding that “infidelity occurs in a reliable minority of American marriages.” Estimates that “between 20 and 25 percent of all Americans will have sex with someone other than their spouse while they are married” are conservative, the authors wrote.

I'm actually a big proponent of the idea that there are certain characteristics of human society that are common to all cultures and thus social experimenters trying to mess with them are foolish but monogamy is not one of those common cultural characteristics. Also monogamy is enforced by external social sanctions, there is no internal drive toward monogamy among humans.

>>17339592

What you describe is not the only strategy. In fact the optimal sexual strategy under those conditions, if you can avoid detection, is for men is to cuckold as many other men as possible and get them to raise their children as their own, and the optimal sexual strategy for women is to mate with the apex man while fooling other men into provisioning them. Human pair-bonding is mostly only surface-level - your genes encourage you to cheat when you can, to not get caught, and to punish cheaters. It's this inherently competitive, adversarial game, not the kind of stable pair-bonding you see in, say, those birds that actually are monogamous by nature.

Biology is not the only game in town, though, and part of being human is transcending your genetic predispositions to choose your own path as an individual.

In short, not only is monogamy not at all mandated by nature, the argument that it's natural therefore good is simply a statement of the naturalistic fallacy.

>>17339620
All you said sounds like bullshit.
>>17339592
Sounds a lot more reasonable.

>>17339608
This. Open relationships rarely if ever work out. Usually one person gets attached to one of the other people their banging or one partner gets jealous. Either way the whole thing falls apart.

>>17339609

Rich men commonly have several wives in many cultures today, I'm not talking about pre-Bronze Age stuff

The death of monogamy is driven by advances in science - birth control, antibiotics, genetics - it's not really a fad, it's a permanent shift in the social landscape caused by disruptive technology

Back when I was in grad school I had quite a harem myself - it's kind of amazing how willing your average college girl is to share, but I guess with a lot of schools passing the 70% female mark they don't have much choice

In my experience women prefer a guy who's already got a girl for the same reason employers prefer to hire people who are already employed - you're preselected by someone else, you've already been vetted

>>17339620
I just wanted to congratulate you on using the word cuckold correctly.

I think this is a first on 4chan

>>17339632

Eh, you only hear about the ones that blow up after the fact because they're generally carried on without much public announcement. I know people who've been in open relationships for 40 years but they don't go around telling their neighbors about it.

>>17339642

The whole cuck meme is entirely the fault of Moot and Cuckolding Princess Karin's 8 Steps. It's so weird that it's practically everywhere now.

>>17339653
>I know people who've been in open relationships for 40 years but they don't go around telling their neighbors about it.
There are always exceptions to the rules. Doesn't make the general truth/advices any less right.

>>17339641
No that's not true. I have no problem with a guy who's not a virgin, (but is still single and wants only me) but I reject a guy who is already with someone else. If he's already with someone else he won't give me the attention I want from my partner, I will always have to divide it with another woman and get less than I want. That's unacceptable. For a man to be my partner he must focus his 100% attention on me, or I'm not interested. I want his full attention and accept nothing less. On the scale of happiness, being with a man who loves me and desires only me = being alone by myself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sharing a man with another woman

I don't think women who share a man like that man very much.

>>17338705
but that's the thing those ones tend to be worse, on average.

>>17338719
subjective. there are people i know who have shared their secrets with me when they don't tell their significant others. people relationships are different for everybody. we all have different principles when it comes to conversing with all of the different people in our lives.

Easy easy Easy.

In real life its all about choices.

Or not.

Gentlemen..."A wise Calf sucks from both titties"

>>17339663
>For a man to be my partner he must focus his 100% attention on me, or I'm not interested.
This. Where the fuck does that "they're taken so they're more attractive to women" meme come from? They probably think slutty whores are like majority of women.

>>17339683
but the partner doesn't always know what is going on behind their backs.

and there are times where one partner is making false assumptions.

>>17339641
>Rich men commonly have several wives in many cultures today
Yes, and they're not on equal grounds. There has always been a primary wife, and the rest were secondary in cultures where they have concubines, harems, polygamy. They were and are little more than side pussy. Not valid relationships. Poly crap is little more than a dream.

>I guess with a lot of schools passing the 70% female mark they don't have much choice
Nobody cares about liberal arts degrees.

>>17339683
>This. Where the fuck does that "they're taken so they're more attractive to women" meme come from?
I would actually say that's true to an extent, but with cluster B women. No one mentally healthy actually has that kind of thought process.

>>17339704
>They were and are little more than side pussy.
Careful, you're talking about Polygyny, not Polygamy.

File: 1426452959889.jpg (23KB, 278x282px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 278x282px

>>17339710
>Careful, you're talking about Polygyny, not Polygamy.
Polygamy is polygyny for all intents and purposes. Polyandry is a concept that exists only in books.

>>17338705
Why would an intelligent and attractive girl settle for someone who wants to fuck around?
What's the attractiveness of sharing your partner, for a girl?

>>17339683
The idea is that a man who has women in his life already is less needy. Not that you are literally supposed to parade around the fact that you are already seeing somebody.

I don't agree with dating more than one person but I thought I'd clear up what it means when guys talk about "keeping two in the kitty".

>>17339683
I have no idea. I can only understand multiple loves if they're 2D, because (no shit sherlock) those don't fucking exist and are for one's self-fulfillment. They belong to that personal sphere of one's own passions, interests and self-fulfillment that is normal and healthy and is part of yourself and your personality, and which one MUST respect if they want a healthy relationship. But another person? That's a whole different matter obviously.

>>17339767
I like needy though. And he is also less likely to pay attention to me when I really need it. If he's just watching a porno or doing whatever else involves immediate interaction only with inanimate objects, he can pause the activity, pay attention to me, and then go back to whatever he was doing and start again from where he left off. Of course this shouldn't be abused as one's own time is pretty damn fucking important but you get what I mean. With another woman involved? Too many unknown odds he will have to divide the attention between two at the same time, therefore making them both unhappy unless he decides to pick one ans give the other far less time and consideration than she needs from him. Just the fact with another person you are subjected to their unpredictable will and whim (which you obviously are not with objects and 2D because they don't have a will or whims... something to do with, you know, not existing and not being alive) tells you how fucking stupid and objectively inferior that situation is.

>>17339717
This works in both ways. I'm not a jealous guy, and I'm smart enough to understand that being the only person for somebody else is unreal. I go out with other girls, but she can go out with other guys too. This would be a honest relationship.

>>17339569
How is this relevant? The Western ideal of marrying out of love and having a relationship that is both stable and passionate is also not shared by most of the world. That doesn't mean people don't want it, and it's more complex than simply combining the two. In many places with polygamy marriage is not so much a bond of love as it is a manner of staying alive and sustaining a family in a relatively safe way. I don't see how if you are looking for a romance relationship it should matter that much how people who traditionally marry to combine tribes or find a way out of extreme poverty handle it.

>>17339808
>being the only person for somebody else is unreal

I am my bf's only woman and he is my only man, so nope it's very much real. We're both very picky though, we both would rather be alone with our 2D than be with someone who doesn't satisfy us completely.

>>17339808
My issue with polyamory (and I go to one of those female dominated universiteit - around 90% in fact - that is extremely liberal, so I have heard quite the praise about it) is not the idea of abandoning sexual exclusivity. It is rather that being okay with your partner fucking other people is not the end goal but the starting point, the absolute base line for being able to deal with an open/poly relationship.

There's only so much time and energy in a human life. Having five friends is nicer than having one friend, but once you have fifty, how many of those "friends" do you really have a serious bond with and talk to regularly enough to keep a dynamic, evolving bond going?

Look at the average couple in their thirties with kids and jobs. The #1 complaint is not having time for each other to have sex, romance one another and have heart to hearts that are not about finances, work or the kids. Imagine having another serious romance partner on top of that.
You probably don't just want multiple serious relationships, you also want fulfilling friendships. And to spend quality time with your parents now that they're still around. And you need to have a job. And having time to work on yourself, to work out or read a good book or even try a new hobby, doesn't hurt either.

This is why I don't see having multiple relationships as remotely realistic, at least - I guess not wanting children makes a significant difference.

That, and they just bring up a lot of issues. So okay, you're fine with your partner having sex and connections with others. Are you also fine with them having better sex with partner B than with you? With not being able to call them whenever you want and expect them to come running?

>>17338705

OP, take a warning from someone who used to think like you.

I used to think monogamy was dumb too. I thought we weren't designed for it.

But, during my adventures, I met a girl who, over time, I fell deeply, completely in love with. Completely in love. I was convinced, utterly convinced that she was the one, she was my soulmate.

I tried to make things exclusive with her. But here's the thing: She could never forgive me for not being exclusive with her from the beginning. She never felt secure with me, because at the beginning of our relationship I was with multiple girls.

No matter how hard I tried, no matter how she and I both felt, she could never get over this. And eventually she drifted away, and stopped talking to me entirely, because it was too painful for her to talk to someone that she loved but she knew she would never be secure with.

Not being monogamous is basically the biggest regret of my life. I've only ever met one girl that I felt that intensely about, and being non-monogamous ruined it. Every relationship since then has seemed like a pale shadow. I try not to think this way, but I'm worried that maybe she was the one, and I just fucked up my chances with her, and now I'm meant to be alone.

I'm warning you, OP. Be prepared for something like this if you really want to be non-monogamous.

>>17339620
Jealousy exists, your post is invalidated.

>>17338705
>Monogamy
>Social bad habit
lol

>anons ITT having so much difficulty to accept that people have different concepts of an abstract idea

Monogamy and poligamy are natural things for humans to have, the one you want to have will almost always be bound to culture.

>>17339848
I'm just saying, sharing someone with another person is objectively a shitty deal unless there's an less than romantic agreement involved like "I don't give a fuck about you and you could die now and I wouldn't care, but I want your money, so I don't care who you fuck while you fuck me as long as you give me my money."
Somehow society frowns upon such honesty though.

>>17339620
Way to cherry-pick in suppport of your self-serving and immature positions.

>>17339856
>objectively
That shit is just the cultural mindset.
In france they like to put raw eggs on some of their plates and nobody cares, where i live this is considered disgusting.
Same thing applies to Xgamy.

Poligamy only works if the exact same feelings and amount of feeling is shared by all members in the relationship, that is threesomes and orgies where everyone loves everyone so no one gets left out. Group love, basically. You'll find that more easily in fiction than in reality. Plus even group love is bound to fail the moment one starts getting more feeling with one than with another.

Poligamy where one gets to fuck multiple people who are not involved with each other too at a relationship level is bound to create jealousy and conflict and as such it's doomed to fail.

>>17339878
> This thing is subjective
> Therefore, everything is subjective!

That's kind of retarded.

File: witcher3_en_screenshot_screenshot_13_1920x1080_1433341624.jpg (438KB, 979x551px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 979x551px

>13th century
>Not being able to handle multiple relationships

>>17339883
Yeah because humans are exclusively Xgamous, right?
>thing is subjective
>calls it objective because you don't like parts of thing so no one should

>>17339878
I guess poligamy is a thing in cultures where you're treated like a commodity rather than a person with your own will and thoughts and you're not free to pursue the life you want, but that sounds like an objectively shitty life in an objectively shitty culture to me.

>>17339897
>I guess poligamy is a thing in cultures where you're treated like a commodity rather than a person with your own will and thoughts and you're not free to pursue the life you want
Not every polygamous culture is muslim.
You are just dismishing the concept because you don't like it.

>>17339903
Diminishing*
Oops

>>17339903
>Not every polygamous culture is muslim.
No, but it is worth noting that as polygamous cultures survive and grow, the practice of polygamy inevitably dies out even in cases when the laws permitting it remain. Ever wonder why that might be?

>>17338705
Is that Asuka?

>>17339926
Except that muslism nations are still there...

>>17339981
They don't practice poligamy that much anymore. Some countries have banned it, others have highly restricted it in various ways, it's fallen out of practice, etc. After all even islam says polygamy is permitted only if the husband treats all of his wives equally. The wealthier and more better off a population gets, with women working and being able to support themselves and not be slaves to others anymore, the less polygamy is practiced. Nowadays it's still a thing only in dirt-poor rural communities where life is shit and women have no other means of survival.

>>17340001
Stop naking shit up.
In islam a man can have as many wives as he can maintain, so the richer you are the more wives you can have. Sure they have to be treated equally but that has nothing to do with quantity.

>>17340031
If you say so Ahmed. Fact is it's a practice that gets more and more abandoned as a country progresses.

>>17340061
So what?
Doesn't make it less natural, doesn't make it wrong in any sense but a cultural one.

>>17340031
The limit is 4 you fucker.

>>17340075
>Doesn't make it less natural
It does make it less natural as it clearly shows that it's merely the byproduct of a cultural oppression toward women and that women do not want it. Again I am talking polygamy as in A fucks B regardless of C's consent, not group love where ABC are all in love with each other and are in a threesome relationship.

>>17340101
You drank too much cool aid.
Go see some polygamous tribes in Brazil. The wives are not oppressed in any sense and even joke about their husbands penis and how long he can last. The guy has to please them all with sex or else they complain at him, not the one that is not satisfied but all of them.
The guy has to make it work or else the women will punish him.
Stop making shit up!
>>17340099
Always? If so my bad.

>>17340128
>Go see some polygamous tribes in Brazil
I thought we were talking about islam.

>>17339835
Are you me?

>>17340156
The whole thing is you saying monogamy is the only right thing as a response to me saying both are natural and depend on culture...

>>17340128
It's not making shit up m8, you brought in islam that's how it's been going in islamic countries. Now you bring in primitive tribes that do nothing but fuck and pick their noses while making ooga booga noises. I mean, good for them, but that's not very impressive I think. There's better. Can those women leave the tribe and pursue another kind of life if they wanted to or will they be killed by the tribe elders for it?

>>17340176
Of course they can, but they won't because they live in a fucking jungle and that's the only life these women and men know.
Next thing you'll say is that we should go there and bring "civilization" to them.
This whole thing is pointless because you are so hellbent on the idea that your culture and ideas are the only right thing there is.
You diminish things you don't agree with by making wild assumptions based on your little knowledge. You don't even know ooga booga is meant for Africans, nor do you know anything about they hierarchy saying shit like they elders will kill them.
No more cookies for you, i give up.

>>17339826
>Look at the average couple in their thirties with kids and jobs. The #1 complaint is not having time for each other to have sex, romance one another and have heart to hearts that are not about finances, work or the kids. Imagine having another serious romance partner on top of that.
>You probably don't just want multiple serious relationships, you also want fulfilling friendships. And to spend quality time with your parents now that they're still around. And you need to have a job. And having time to work on yourself, to work out or read a good book or even try a new hobby, doesn't hurt either.
THIS
H
I
S

The only group of people who think poly relationship could work are immature little sex-driven cunts. Young or old doesn't matter.

>>17340198
>Of course they can
Proof please.

Another thing you are forgetting is that in hunter-gatherer primitive tribes like the ones you mention, men get killed easily, so there's a shortage of able-bodied men and women are forced by circumstances to share. Can't do jack shit about it captain, you can't have a relationship with the dead. With this thing called agriculture and civilization the number of able-bodied men has gone up considerably, to the point a woman would be forced to share a man with another woman not by circumstances but by oppression of someone else, which is a big no-no and which you CAN do something about by making yourself independent and getting rid of whoever is oppressing you. I have no desire to return to the primitive life thank you, I like comfort and technology and being able to not die from banal diseases.

>>17340249
>Can't do jack shit about it captain, you can't have a relationship with the dead
Though to be fair you could live with the memory or not pursue a relationship at all, 2D can satisfy you better than 99% of 3D and imagination is a powerful thing, then again those are concepts that belong to a highly intelligent and advanced population not to primitive tribes that aren't even capable of imagination.

>>17340249
>proof please
>proceeds to make shit up
4chan never ceases to amaze me.

>>17340283
So you have no proof. Care to bring in an argument or are you just going to parrot "make shit up!" all thread?

>>17340306
Tell me more about this amazing feminist world of yours, where did you learn such wonderful things?

>>17340343
Any history book will present you the same things, nig. I see you still have no proof.

>>17340373
>nig

>>17338705
>>17338707
>>17338719
Oh boy it's this thread again

>>17339804
>I like needy though

That's rare. Most women I've met are so emotionally desperate that they cringe at the thought of being with a guy who's not a solid rock they can beat up all over.

Where is anthro-anon when you need him?

No it's not

ew, poly people are so fucking disgusting. monogamy is anything but a bad habit, you're just too immature and complacent to appreciate one person, fully.

>>17340625
i have never met a boy that was as clingy and obsessive as i am. i don't think many women want an emotionally constipated partner that barely cares for them. i think this is really a trope that has been blown way out of hand.

I was hoping the bit about monogamy was a typo. Dude, monagamy is fucking dead because women are married to the government in the west. At best you can rent one of these harem girls from the state, but be careful, you're liable to be forced to make payments on her forever.

"Progressives" have ruined the west with their backwards values.

>>17338705
>is not into monogamy and other social bad habits?

I wasn't aware being faithful to one partner was a bad habit these days. Explains a lot, though.

>>17341611
Some girls don't even consider monogamy to be the default state meant by saying "in a relationship". I've actually had to explain that I meant monogamy. It's really fucking bad. So many filthy sluts.

Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink.

>>17338705
Bait.

>>17338719
B8

>>17341550
>i don't think many women want an emotionally constipated partner that barely cares for them. i think this is really a trope that has been blown way out of hand.

Fair. What many see as clingyness I see as genuine interest. Fuck "playing cool" when you like somebody. It's awesome to be into somebody and not afraid to show it, and I wouldn't really mind a girl who's really interested in me. But I take that if I act too distant you'd give up quickly?

People in this thread are complaining that they can get monogamous relationships, but they CANNOT get polyamorous or "open" relationships.

Holy fuck. I wish I had a monogamous relationship. Just one woman, that's all I want and all I need. I doubt I'll ever get that scenario, but still. You people in this thread need to be more appreciative of what you have. This thread is degenerate.

Carpenter girls are like that.

>>17340164

Sucks, doesn't it?

I've been through a lot and done some dumb things, but nothing, nothing comes close to the regret I feel for not being monogamous with my ex. I've tried to move on for years, but I'm afraid it's just going to haunt me to the end of my life.

>>17341716
>>17341716
same, but my idea of "interest" borders on obsessive (i personally don't see anything at all wrong with that and want more than anything to be with someone that was equally as obsessed with me as i am with them). and sorry, are you asking me, specifically? i can't tell. i, personally, want a codependent relationship, so, a guy who is emotionally distant wouldn't work.

>>17341785

I don't get too involved with people at all because of how my life has gone. But a clingy woman would be ideal for me. If she is a virgin, that would be even better. I have my own list of standards, but the genuine, clingy types are the absolute best.

>>17341785
Got any specific examples of excessive behavior? I feel like there's a fine line between being very interested and never being afraid of showing it, and being clingy in a negative way. Even then, if both are happy, what the fuck does it matter?

>>17338707
Is fucking then the only thing that defines a relationship? So, if you don't think that sex is not even moderately important aspect for you to define cheating by that, it wouldn't be a relationship? Or if you are asexual and let the partner have sex elsewhere? This is so stupid, not all people want exclusive sexual relationship and you don't have to label the lack of it somehow. There are many ohter options than friends, buckbuddies and romantic partners. It is a spectrum not 3 different categories.

>>17338792
Are you 12? I understand that teenagers think that SEX is THE category because everything revolves around that. Or very conservative that you need to have those labels like "fuckbuddy" that are completely modern human inventions. Balanced adults don't need to define their relationships based on sex. Also, it is extremely teenage to think that someone would fuck with everyone because she can: Yeah, when you are 12 year old boy who wants to stick their penis everywhere but adults in polygamous relationships do not need to fuck anything, they just don't want to limit themselves because loan, marriage and children is not their goal. It is like someone saying that you can have only 1 friend, otherwise you won't have true friends.

op wants to get cucked lmao

>>17338705
Shit man I could introduce you to several if you live in MN

>>17338705
The relationship I was in was open but the girl i was with didn't wanna fuck people until she was really comfortable with them. It didn't happen and I felt shity you gotta find a girl with the same mindset

>>17341550
>poly people are so fucking disgusting
>i don't think many women want an emotionally constipated partner that barely cares for them

You don't get it, right? Caring about two girls does not mean that you will care less about them. Every person can bring you something. This works contrariwise too; You'll be able to give some things, but you'll never be perfect. Of course, you must be sincere from the beginning.
The problem here is that you want someone to think always about you, pay for you, kiss the land you walk on... Basically a slave. That's egoist.


>>17341758
Seriously, mate. Sincerity is the first thing here. You both were different persons, but seems that you tried to change for her. Isn't that what most girls want? (in fact it's weird, most girls are attracted to somebody, but quickly want to change him, and when it's done she goes for another guy.)

>>17342966
Not the anon you replied to.

>Caring about two girls does not mean that you will care less about them.
No, but it does make things more complicated. For example, if you're with just two people, you can relatively easily agree on full disclosure if that's what you like. Exchange passwords, talk freely about past relationships etc.
If you are in a relationship with two people, and girl B is curious about your sex life with girl A, you cannot answer that without knowing how girl A feels about it (which you need to come to an agreement about) and likely cannot answer it at all because it violates not so much your privacy as your intimacy with another person. It doesn't even have to be sexual, I can imagine that in general most people would not like for their lover to hash out what lovey dovey stuff was exchanged.

Now, you'll probably think that few people would feel the need to know everything of their partner, but even if that's true it's more about the principle than anything else. It's not just accepting that your partner has areas in life that have nothing to do with you and that you should respect, it means accepting that you are actively excluded from some parts of their life.

Then there's the rules you have to make. Are all partners equal or is there a primary partner? Which people are off limits (like exes or family members)? Where do you spend the holidays, which woman (or both?) do you bring home to your family?

Poly people often argue that monogamy isn't natural, and while I'm no expert on the entire history of human sexuality it is hard to argue that looking at natural desires, there's more than just having sex with one person.
But in other ways poly relationships seem to have their own artificial elements to me, because you are dividing your love life in compartments and have to (and not just once, but continually) discuss the state and details of your relationship arrangement.

>>17342979
This seems like such a hassle, even overlooking the potential for miscommunication and jealousy. I don't see how that continuous effort to keep everyone happy is worth it just to have not one relationship.

Because ultimately, being with two or three women does not seem that different to me than being with one. You're still not with all or even 10% of the women you could have an amazing connection with. And there's simply a concrete cut off point for where you have so many relationships going on that it's not feasible to give everyone attention and juggle it all. So it's not so much about being with one person vs being with whoever you want all the time, it's just being with multiple persons.

>>17342979
>poly relationships seem to have their own artificial elements
Yeah. Caring about female feelings would be something strange for our Neanderthal antecesors. Their relationships would be more like... "Girl. Hot. Must rape her."

File: 1377148178738.jpg (44KB, 392x500px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 392x500px

>>17339592

OP, the only girl I can think of that would do something like this is a gold digger. Or a girl who wouldn't really give a shit about you. She'd probably see you as a friend and a fuck buddy who paid for things, but would drop you if someone better came along.

Can you give examples of other social bad habits?

>>17343330
>She'd probably see you as a friend and a fuck buddy who paid for things, but would drop you if someone better came along.
I thought that this is what 90% of women do.

>>17343315
That's an old ass image. Time fucking disappears like it's nothing doesn't it?

>>17343169
>I know absolutely nothing about anthropology

File: 1459162644016.jpg (51KB, 693x459px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 693x459px

>>17339592
>>17339592
>>17339592

this

>>17342979

>> Now, you'll probably think that few people would feel the need to know everything of their partner, but even if that's true it's more about the principle than anything else. It's not just accepting that your partner has areas in life that have nothing to do with you and that you should respect, it means accepting that you are actively excluded from some parts of their life.

and you are implying that insisting on knowing everything and having complete control over all areas of your S-Os life is a good thing?

>>17339981
>Except that muslism nations are still there...
And the practice has all but died out, even though the law permits it, juat as I said.

>>17338705
>How Hookup Culture is Leaving a Generation Unhappy, Sexually Unfulfilled, and Confused About Intimacy

File: IMG_2273.jpg (1MB, 1450x3264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1450x3264px

not really that hard if you're intelligent in the slightest

>>17343594
No, that's what I tried to specify in the part after that. It is only natural that your partner has things in life that you have nothing to do with and he does not want to invite you into.

However, there's a difference between this (a thing in virtually every relationship) type of parts of your life not benefitting from your partner mingling, and having a different relationship that you actively exclude your partner from. It's no longer a matter of not everything in your life being relevant to etc your relationship, but of having two or more "intimacies" that you have to protect from the outside world.

I'm having a hard time phrasing specifically enough what I mean so I'm going to fall back on an example. If your SO has a great relationship with her sister, she probably does not want you to tag along when she goes to see her, because they have more privacy to talk without you there and she can open up about her life. But if you were to pop in and ask if either one needed something from the store, that would be a complete non-issue. You can ask without any second thought how the time with her sister was. If she had a fight with her chances are you'll hear a lot about it, without that being a breach of the bond with her sister: she is simply processing her feelings about an important relationship with a partner.
Compare that to going on a date with a different lover. Suddenly, stepping in even for a neutral request could be a violation of boundaries and interpreted as you feeling jealous, threatened or otherwise. You can ask how your partner enjoyed it but it's not that weird for her to be uncomfortable going into it. Let alone the idea that she would share with you of all people the intimate details of a fight they had that concerns their private relationship.

This would work out for some people, but not for all by a long shot.

>>17343812
Who is that? Rocky Dennis?

>>17343781
This, pretty much.

File: baitu.gif (841KB, 430x834px) Image search: [Google]

841KB, 430x834px

>>17338705
Really giving Brandon a run for his money.