~ archived since 2018 ~

Q4All. Polyamory and Marriage.

Ba_AuH2O

July 26, 2016

4 upvotes

/r/PurplePillDebate

Summary

Is it possible to be considered alpha if you are married and both partners are polyamorous?

Body

Married man of 14 years and poly for 16...not swingers. We have had 3 LTR triads over the years. 2 with women...and one with a man.....dun dun dunhhhhh. My wife is bisexual, I am straight. I have been living the tenets of TRP since high school when it was just called being a powerful gentleman that was interesting and driven. TRP is easier to abbreviate. We both work out to be attractive and we are driven professionals in our fields. We have interesting hobbies and we can chat with just about anyone we meet.

I have noticed that in the same breath, TRP members will laud me as alpha when I pick up the random HB7-8, and sometimes share her with my wife, yet I am also a beta cuck when my wife lands a young boy toy. Our sexual partner count is about the same, but mine are all women and hers are 60-40 with women edging out men.

So....Is a married polyamorous man able to be alpha?

EDIT. I love my life and feel in control. I don't worry about much. I was in the TRP comments section and I noticed a penchant for cuckholding!

EDIT. I should have phrased the question less about myself. I am not looking for validation. I am curious if a poly lifestyle jives with the sidebar. Is it ideal with the tenets of TRP?

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Q4All. Polyamory and Marriage.
Author	Ba_AuH2O
Upvotes	4
Comments	88
Date	July 26, 2016 11:57 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4uo8oa/q4all_polyamory_and_marriage/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/q4all-polyamory-and-marriage.273875 https://theredarchive.com/post/273875

Comments

[–]GroovyEFS 16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HairbrainerWhy can't we be friends?5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chasethenoise2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ba_AuH2O[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ba_AuH2O[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ba_AuH2O[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Heathcliff--3 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lollygagyoSociopathic Fake Flirter1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (61 children) | Copy Link

[–]playingwithfyre1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]lollygagyoSociopathic Fake Flirter1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]playingwithfyre0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]lollygagyoSociopathic Fake Flirter2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]sardonis70 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]lollygagyoSociopathic Fake Flirter2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]sardonis70 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]lollygagyoSociopathic Fake Flirter0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]sardonis70 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

And I honestly don't see why he cares about what RPers have to say about it if it makes him happy.

Truth be told, that is the most important question the OP should ask himself. ;-)

That said, people are unnecessarily vitriolic about this beta cuck business (and frankly, I think it's because they're not secure in their masculinity).

And I wouldn't argue with you on that point. However, that isn't the ONLY reason a person might speak out against open marriages, so it isn't always insecurity with masculinity. To me the issue is: as a society, we simply no longer share a common definition of what "marriage" actually is. To me its based on old school ideals like monogamy and family security, for others it appears to be a legal contract only. I'm a fan of the idea that the Fed (in the U.S.) should get out of the marriage business entirely. If you want a legal status as partnered, get a contract drawn up and do so, but don't call it a marriage. But instead, we stripped the term marriage down to the legal aspects and tossed the rest out, leaving some people with the impression that marriage is "til death do us part" while others believe it is simply a legal method of consolidating wealth and/or sharing living expenses. These two things are NOT the same, but we are all forced to call them the same thing.

[–]lollygagyo1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sardonis701 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lollygagyo1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sardonis701 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

An open marriage isn't just a marriage. It's a type of marriage -- an 'open' one. The language the couple uses is how they show their stripes, surely?

And how does one recognize which type of "marriage" a person is in if the only indication of them being married is a ring? I mean, should I assume its an open marriage and hit on her? If open marriages are OK, does that mean all married women are now fair game for my advances? (NOTE: I'm not macking on married women. LOL)

Again, the old version of marriage meant "off limits". Now I'll fully admit that didn't stop cheating in the least, but it was a clear indication of wrongdoing if/when someone cheated. Now? I guess its up to each couple, so maybe every married couple should carry around a copy of their agreement to hand out to others?

[–]lollygagyo1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sardonis701 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The agreement thing strikes me as really odd. Can't each partner just tell others what their agreement is. "No, sorry, I'm married!" (it's worked for my mother for the last thirty years) idk.

Sure. But then what is the point with having a thing called "marriage" at all? Again, why label something that isn't consistently the same? And yes, I'd fully expect my wife to police herself, and I don't doubt that she will. But, if part of the decision to marry is to DECLARE that state of existence, removing it from the definition is counter-intuitive at best.

Married women get approached anyway! Heaps of people don't care. I wore a fake ring when I worked retail and I got hit on the same amount, haha.

Oh I know, but I believe part of that is the general populaces outlook on the state of marriage. As in: since married people have sex with others anyway, why let a ring get in the way? Umm, because the PURPOSE of the ring is to get in the way...

On a personal level, I can never get behind the idea of an open marriage, because by my definition that is NOT a marriage at all. I can respect that others feel differently, but it won't change my opinion on the subject. I don't go out of my way to tell others how to run their lives, but this IS the internet. :P

[–]lollygagyo1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is consistently the same, though. It's always two people who are deeply in love who want to have that bond recognized in a public and spiritual manner.

Like I said, my parents are in the most conventional marriage ever and they still have to occasionally say, "I'm married!" because they just don't like rings. The point of getting married, surely, isn't to wear rings so people know you're together, right? Otherwise you'd just wear rings and skip the fucking pain in the ass expense of the whole party if you were an introvert!

It's a celebration of love, it's a twining of your 'soul' with somebody else's (if that's the kind of thing you believe in).

I mean, sure. I've done many open relationships and poly arrangements. I don't find it difficult, but I think I'd prefer the person I settle down with to be someone I wouldn't mind being monogamous with (they're rare finds, those dudes, haha). My personal stance on the whole open marriage thing is irrelevant to what others elect to do with their lives. Be monogamous, be polyamorous -- it has no bearing on my life.

[–]sardonis701 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's a celebration of love, it's a twining of your 'soul' with somebody else's (if that's the kind of thing you believe in).

By your definition, perhaps even by mine. But overall? The only real definition we can all agree on is the legal one. The rest is all opinion, and you can't really legislate opinion. Hence, don't call it "marriage" when all you are referring to is the legal state of being in a contract with another person.

Be monogamous, be polyamorous -- it has no bearing on my life.

But it does when poly-amorous folks are using the same label as the monogamous ones. These two things are not the same, why do they have the same name? When I say "I am married", it means XYZ. When a poly couple is "married" it means ABC. My point being, they aren't the same OTHER than the legal status. And the legal status is the LEAST important part of marriage to me.

[–]lollygagyo1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But then we shouldn't call anything marriage. Even hetero monogamous couples don't all believe in that twining of the soul stuff. Should it all just be legal contracts? Surely it's up to the parties involved to decide what they believe? If they think it's just a legal contract they can get a civil union.

They are also the same in that they involve a relationship, two people being in love, two people probably cohabiting, two people potentially raising children together. There are so many similarities here. They are the same in many ways other than the legal status. Literally, the only way in which they are different is that poly people fuck other people with each other's knowledge and monogamous people, more often than not, fuck other people without each other's knowledge.

I don't think this is really such a fundamental difference.

[–]sardonis702 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lollygagyo1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sardonis701 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Dude, that would be way too much of a burden on the legal system and would stratify society in terms of class re: marriage. Lawyers are expensive. Poor people deserve to get married, too.

Do poor people also "deserve" to be able to afford good lawyers for the divorce if it happens? Family court costs the U.S. an awful lot of money yearly, does it not?

And I hate to say it, but "marriage" is already becoming a "class privilege" of sorts. Look at marriage/divorce rates for the poor vs the wealthy and show me proof it isn't already heading that way? And honestly? Since divorce costs "the poor" more in terms of lifestyle, maybe not having the option isn't so bad...

So you're telling me it would cost the U.S. more to make everyone that wants legal protection with a mate to fill out what would essentially be a pre-nup, over the process now of applying for a license and whatnot? Maybe, but I'd have to really look closely to be sure. It would just mean that the ONLY people that would go the legal route are the ones that have something to protect. Everyone else can do cohabitation and call it whatever they want. Of course, if you don't have a legal document on file, there's also no divorce required to part ways. None of this fixes family court however, so anytime children are involved the situation gets entirely more complex.

[–]lollygagyo1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You can get divorced for $300 where I live if you fill out the application yourself -- or with the help of LegalAid. Idk about the US context, but you don't need to engage in costly litigation to get divorced in Aus and I'd assume it would be the same in the US. You don't need to have a huge battle over who gets half the money generally speaking if you're not well off.

It's paternalistic to take the right to get married (and as a result to express themselves in the ways they wish to sexually and romantically) away from the poor. And the courts are still going to have to deal with the custody issues of de facto couples. It's not like people are going to stop having kids just because they're not hitched.

Marriage means something more than 'a legal contract' to people. Even very sexually liberal people like me who can stomach open relationships. Taking it off the table will be seen as depriving them of something for 0 good reason.

[–]sardonis701 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Marriage means something more than 'a legal contract' to people.

The the legal contract part is the ONLY enforceable piece of that puzzle. And as such, it is the only common thread for all "types" of marriages. I personally think the legal version should be a "civil union", and anyone that wants another label can use one. As it stands now, your marriage and my marriage are LEGALLY the same, but its fairly obvious that isn't the case. Would you agree? (that they are not the same, NOT that we are legally equal, which is the case)

In the U.S. you can get divorced for cheap, but its very rare that both parties just want out, and someone usually fights over something. In my state, you can get it done for about $150, again provided there is no dispute. However, I don't know of anyone that managed to go the cheap route... Wonder why that is?

[–]lollygagyo1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sardonis701 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]midnightvulpine0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]sardonis70 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]midnightvulpine0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sardonis70 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Most people who lament the changing face of marriage are tradition focused and tend to decry moral decay and other such things. But I don't get that sense from you.

That's because I was raised Catholic, but left the Church years ago. I'm not all doom and gloom about moral decay, but it is the angle I'm coming from.

But to your point? (I think...) yes I'd rather an "open marriage" be called something else, or perhaps traditional marriage gets a new name? In short, the word "marriage" simply doesn't have a solid definition anymore, other than the legal one. I may be married and monogamous, you may be married and poly, and others here may be married but asexual. Since I see marriage as a sexual relationship first and foremost, it gets complicated calling all these things "marriage" because they aren't at all the same from that standpoint.

It leaves us with no common ground outside of the legal definition, which is basically a form of private contract.

[–]lady_baker2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]midnightvulpine1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]playingwithfyre0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]lollygagyoSociopathic Fake Flirter1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HigHog0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]lollygagyoSociopathic Fake Flirter1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]playingwithfyre0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]HigHog1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]playingwithfyre0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]super-commenting0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]playingwithfyre0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ba_AuH2O[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]lollygagyoSociopathic Fake Flirter2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ozymandias271That's not how evolution works.2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheSonofLibertyUndecided0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ozymandias271That's not how evolution works.0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sardonis70 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

They haven't yet reached the maturity level to understand that other people are not the same as them.

Not necessarily, but as usual the conversation goes right to lack of maturity and insecurity.

Some people simply can't help but call out what THEY consider stupid behavior. If my buddy went out and bought a brand new Corvette, and then proceeded to go out to bars and ask random men if they wanted to take it for a drive, he'd be totally within his rights, but I'd still think he was a total moron.

And to continue that line of thinking, perhaps my buddy doesn't place much value on HAVING the Corvette, maybe he believes its value is in being driven, and because of that he wants as many people to drive it as possible. To me, the value is in the fact that I OWN that Corvette, and as such NO ONE will get to drive it but me.

No disrespect meant using the car analogy. I truly do have a strong sense of "ownership" for my wife and as such consider her "mine". Sure, I suppose I could share her, but I was an only child and never learned to play nice with others LOL. And, from my PoV, once she has sex with another man, she's really no longer "mine", she would then belong to him. Since a primary reason for our marriage IS the exclusivity (monogamy), the only way I could see myself having any kind of "open" relationship would be not to have one at all. Marriage implies she is MY mate, so any kind of threesome/group sex/etc would have to be done with people I don't care about at all, and since I don't do casual it isn't on my bucket list.

It isn't insecurity, as I am VERY secure with my position on marriage and exclusivity. If I intended to have sex with other women, I wouldn't have married. If I intended for her to have sex with other men, I wouldn't have married. If we intended to continue having sex with others, we wouldn't have married.

That's not to say I don't have jealousy, but it doesn't even get to that point with me. We are married, which means she belongs to me, which means I'm not sharing. Selfish maybe, but not insecure.

[–]ozymandias271That's not how evolution works.2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sardonis70 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I completely understand that others aren't "like me", and I realize we aren't talking about "me" as the subject. However, being a person that sees open relationships as a form of "degeneracy", I can also understand that many folks find it difficult to stay quiet about it. You don't see me railing openly against swingers/swappers/etc, but I chime in with my opinion when the subject comes up. I don't disagree that perhaps those folks should keep quiet, but to me it does NOT automatically imply they are immature.

I was raised a Catholic, and part of that practice is "witnessing" others, which is to say we are supposed to be in the business of saving people's souls. I never signed up for that, and don't personally want to be in that line of work, but many took it VERY seriously. I imagine its the same mental framework at play here. NOT ONLY do they think "open relationships" are a bad idea, they can't help but express it to everyone. shrug

Now maybe we can argue that knowing to keep your opinions to yourself is a sign of maturity, and I probably won't argue that point. However, implying they don't realize other people have different opinions seems silly.

The description of "ownership" was simply to provide a PoV from which many of those TRP readers are responding. I don't feel the slightest bit "immature" or "repressed" because I don't want to share my wife with other men, but you seem to take offense at my implication of mate ownership. (similarly to how someone might take offense at seeing open marriages perhaps?)

I guess we understand each other fairly well. ;-)

[–]ozymandias271That's not how evolution works.0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

NOT ONLY do they think "open relationships" are a bad idea, they can't help but express it to everyone.

See, that's the crux of the issue! "A bad idea for me personally" is not the same thing as "a bad idea for everyone," and assuming that it is speaks to a fundamental difficulty with theory of mind. It's not about whether you keep your ideas to yourself; it's about whether you realize that other people have different preferences than you do. For instance, I'm in a 24/7 D/s relationship; I am owned. Nevertheless, I can recognize that many people find the concept of ownership viscerally repulsive. This does not mean they are wrong or I am wrong. I find it remarkable that you seem to believe that my acknowledgement that some people have an opinion means I must share that opinion.

I never said anything about you being insecure or repressed, although I do find it somewhat amusing how every time a poly person says "polyamory is a good life choice for a lot of people" monogamous people continually run around being like "we aren't INSECURE or REPRESSED and you guys AREN'T ANY BETTER THAN US FOR BEING POLY." Like, we know that. No one was saying any different. IMO, protesting about how secure and non-repressed you are-- in a context where no one was calling people monogamous people insecure or repressed-- does speak to a fundamental insecurity. Like, it's not enough to have an entire culture constantly telling you that monogamy is the only right way of doing things and polyamory is impossible? You can't rest until the handful of people saying polyamory is okay get with the program and say "we're sorry, monogamy is the only right choice"? People who are different than you should not be so threatening.

[–]sardonis70 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I never said anything about you being insecure or repressed, although I do find it somewhat amusing how every time a poly person says "polyamory is a good life choice for a lot of people" monogamous people continually run around being like "we aren't INSECURE or REPRESSED and you guys AREN'T ANY BETTER THAN US FOR BEING POLY."

It was in the thread above, so I was posting from that angle.

I find it remarkable that you seem to believe that my acknowledgement that some people have an opinion means I must share that opinion.

I never said such a thing. In fact, this is exactly how I view open relationships: I get that some people enjoy them, but I don't support it in the least personally, and IF someone were to ask my personal opinion of their own open relationship, I'd tell them point blank exactly how I feel about it. This is the internet, so its a free-for-all when it comes to people and their opinions.

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]midnightvulpine0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]midnightvulpine0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]artietx 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]artietx 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ba_AuH2O[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ba_AuH2O[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]artietx 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ba_AuH2O[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]artietx 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ba_AuH2O[S] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Beesfield 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link