I don't see the child-parent relationship as usefully analogous to the romantic love relationship.

You're not losing your partner, you're leaving them.

If one of your partners murders your mother, but wants to stay with you, is there really a difference if you call what follows "losing them" or "leaving them"? You lost/left your partner because they committed a dealbreaker. I just have different dealbreakers than you do.

I don't know why you would say this, and I strongly disagree.

Have you ever felt jealousy? Romantic or otherwise? I don't feel it over my partner finding someone else attractive -- that's too distant and automatic to be a threat -- but a pursued relationship with someone else is too much of a threat to my relationship. I also don't see this as an unfounded insecurity that I should work on reducing; if you're more secure in your primary relationship than I would be in a poly scenario, I feel like you may not be updating sufficiently given available information about human relationships.

Why should it be so different for lovers?

Having multiple children doesn't threaten the loss of your previous children. That's why.

Interesting benefit of polyamory: [...]

I accept that this may be true for you. It does not appear to be true of most of the poly folks I've come across. I have seen a lot of drama and boat-rocking and boat-sinking. Hell, it just happened again, publicly, in Tortuga.

It is possible that I have not come across a proper representative sample of poly relationships and have an inaccurate view. But I remain skeptical of your claim to this benefit for poly.

Thank you for your perspective on the matter. I feel a bit like an anthropologist dropped into a foreign land.

This is why I've always felt vaguely guilty about not being bisexual, since immortal superbeings clearly would be.

I'd be very interested in hearing about that hack.

So am I. We are talking about the "becoming an immortal superbeing" hack, right?

I think that the issue here is something Alicorn explained in her post.

"I want to be someone's top romantic priority, ideally symmetrically. [This is satisfied by me and MBlume having an explicitly primary relationship instead of each having a bunch of undifferentiated ones.]"

I guess that the original poster didn't mean to say "special", but rather "unique" or "exclusive". In Alicorn's post, it is made clear that they don't have a "bunch of undifferentiated" relationships, but in my opinion, that's what the first commenter understood, and probably, thinking about it, the idea of being so easily repleaced made him think "she considers me like a car's wheel: I am not there? No problem, someone else will be". That doesn't have anything to do with his perception of himself, but with the perception of him he believes his partner might have.

Maybe I should not have put there those comments about children's behaviour, because they seem to distract fromt he main point, I just wanted to note that even in a situation where fear of abandonment is not justified (the mother in question will always be their mother, even after the birth of her new child), there is still jealousy, as well as a subconscious fear. As pointed out by Alicorn, and considering adults and romantic relationship (which can, in fact, end), there is "Anxiety about the possibility that my primary would be stolen away by some more appealing secondary.". In this case, we are talking about an event that could actually happen, and has to be accounted for. In the end, Alicorn concludes that the odds of their relationship ending because her boyfriend might prefer another woman to her would be lower than those of them breaking out because of simple loss of interest.

Also, in the thread where Alicorn's partner talked about his view of the experience, occasional feelings of jealousy had been mentioned. Who said that emotions were rational? When had they ever been? Just because you intellectually know that you matter to a person, and repeat to yourself that you shouldn't be jealous, doesn't mean that you cant control what you are feeling. If being happy or angry, or sad, or jealous, was a simple matter of sitting down and pondering the situation, then it would be much easier. What could the original poster have been thinking about? I will try to make a wild guess: "if she loves me, shouldn't she want me to be in her current lover's place?" Or "how can I call this special, how can I believe that I truly matter to her, knowing that, had not I been there, she would be doing the exact same thing with someone else? How can I treasure this moment as if it was unique, knowing that I could easily be switched with any other element of a small set?" Or, even, "am I lacking something? Why am I unable to satisfy him, to not make him desire to be with other people? doesn't he love me enough because of some inadequacy? then maybe I am not the right person to be with him... ".

I am not saying that those feelings and thoughts are what one would call rational or logical, but I can easily see how they could arise. A simple bias? Maybe. Note that I am not stating that as a proto-argument against polygamy, I am simply trying to see where the original poster might have come from... I mean, try to think back to the time you first decided to give polygamy a try... did everything go well the first time, without problems or roadblocks? Reading some of the post in Alicorn's boyfriend's thread, it certainly doesn't seem to be that way. Jealousies, attrites, conflicts, all augmented by the sole fact that, well, with more than two persons the dynamics are more complicated. Not that anyone should get discouraged because of such things, but from the posts of other polygamists, well... they all make it seem such a fluid, natural things to do, as if we were simply talking about getting rid of old intellectual chains and they "never" mention any roadblocks, acting as if they had always been above such silly, mundane emotions like jealousies or fear of inadequacy (i.e. from knowing that their partner thinks they are not "enough"). In particular, with regards to this last point, I should note that Alicorn herself considers "significant" that her boyfriend later told her that, knowing what he knows now, he would have agreed to a monogamous relationship in the past. It's nice to know, even if you don't intend to return to that situation. Others, reading the posts, don't seem to have that problem, and actually are happy to know that there will be other people to "pick up the slack", so to speak, when it comes to satisfying their partner's needs (sexual, emotional,...) I must admit that I find that view admiringly selfless, but that in my brief polygamous stint that was an advantage I never experienced (rather, I had to deal with hidden and inexpressed resentment, feelings of inadequacy -at the time it made me think of one of Dario Fo's work, in which a man asked his partner if they could have an open relationship, and then was distressed by the thought that he could be so easily replaced-).

Personally, the only thing I disagree with is the view of polygamy as this sort of panacea to save a relationship (now or in the future) from lack of interest. In my experience, the main issue in such cases is lack of communication. Without it, you could very well end up "alone in a crowd". I would say that that's where the problem originates most of the time, in monogamous or polygamous couples. If, as Elyzier said, the presence of more partners could help take some weight off your shoulders, it is also true that it adds a new layer of complexity to the whole situation, and I would say that the more difficult dynamics balance out the potential benefits.

I must say that, for me, the experience has not been a very good one. Mainly because of the aforementioned problems, which I was not able to spot in time. Still, I am open minded enough not to base my judgement of all polygamous relationship on my failed one. Who knows, maybe it was not the right time, maybe I could even give it another try in the future... but, my experience has made it rather difficult to consider it somehow "superior" to a monogamous relationship. I would not say it is "inferior" either, just different. It has its own set of difficulties and drawbacks. Consider that the "inner monologue" was almost straigh out of my ex's mouth. I never heard a word of it while we were together (I noticed the unease, but, as people tend to do with uncomfortable truths, I left it alone at the time). All things considered I think that a polygamous relationship "could" work beautifully (some of them certainly do), and certainly, Elizier, for example, doesn't seem to be bothered by such thoughts (considering he never even mentioned something akin to "explicitly primary relationship instead of each having a bunch of undifferentiated ones"). However, I think that expecting every experience to be like that, and to go smoothly, without obstacles such as those mentioned above, would mean being a tad too optimistic.

I also dispute the fact that it should be considered inherently "superior" to a monogamous relationship. With respect to what measure? It seems like an awfully subjective judgement to make. If we took the ability of such an arrangement to keep everyone involved happy or satisfied, I would say that it does not fare better or worse than a monogamous relationship -it has its own set of "different" problems and complications, and I certainly wouldn't call it "fail proof"-. Apparently polygamy and bisexuality seem to be "better" from the point of view of "immortal superbeings". I must admit that I don't understand the reason why. Experimentally checking such a fact would be impossible (as there are no moral superbeings I know of), and I wouldn't know how to frame such a sketchy, undefined problem in a suitably formal fashion. The closest scenario I have ever seen depicted was Asimov's description of aliens with long life-spans, in his fictional works (and that sort of promiscous relationships did seem to carry its own share of problems -it seemed to make the whole business "devoid of meaning", as the original poster feared-, so I would call it a different, but not necessarily superior lifestyle). In general, when it comes to bisexuality or polygamy, I am open minded, but avoid attaching labels like "evolutionally superior" (as I saw in a post, I don't remember the exact wording) to them, and in general I cannot see how its diffusion could be tied to longer life-span and society's advancements (Ancient Greeks, for example, were largely bisexual, and yet nowadays, after Illuminism, and with much longer life-expectancy, that does not seem to be the trend, even in academic circles) or evolution (polygyny being the most common form of polygamy in verterbates, but polygamy being relatively uncommon amond human beings). Certainly, I could see how a more open minded society could be more tolerant towards those alternative lifestyles, and they could become more diffiused, but, for example, the fact that bisexuality is tolerated, nowadays, doesn't seem to be leading to a return to ancient greece's custom, despite the increase in knowledge and longevity, and the process of secularization.

I have three children. Does loving one mean that the other two are not special to me?? Does a parent only have enough love for one child? Why should it be so different for lovers?

I didn't understand this line of argument before I was poly, and I don't understand it now. Yes. Of course if you have multiple children they're individually less special to you! You have less time and energy for each, less brain-space to store facts about each, and you aren't even culturally allowed to have a favorite! There's a sense in which you "love them all equally", sure, but I'd be willing to bet that something like 75% of parents would be unable to claim that under Veritaserum.

As for why it should be different for lovers, the psychology about lovers and children is very different. It's a conceit of our current sensibilities that we even use the same word to refer to how we feel about those, our siblings, our pets, and ice cream. There is no reason in principle why we couldn't have been hardwired for extreme strict romantic monogamy and still love lots of children.

I have three children. Does loving one mean that the other two are not special to me?? Does a parent only have enough love for one child? Why should it be so different for lovers?

Not the best example. Does it never happen that one child suffers because he feels that his sibling is "stealing" his parent's attention away from him? It's something I have seen it happen before, even when the mother does love her sons equally -while her love might remain, the same could no longer be said about her "undivided" attention, which is what causes the problem in young children, when they are informed that they are going to have "a little brother"-. While it is not a rationally sound stance, that kind of jealousy is certainly not an uncommon emotion.

Furthermore, does it never happen that one of the sibling feels slighted because he is constantly compared to his more successful brother? While the mother might, in theory, love them both equally, life is not always as it looks on paper. It's not uncommon to have a situation where there is a "preferred" child (maybe because he excells in sports, like the father, whereas the other brother doesn't even like football, and prefers classical music).

To put it clearly, it's also something Alicorn also underlined: # Anxiety about the possibility that my primary would be stolen away by some more appealing secondary. #. She later decided that the odds of that happening are lower than those that things might go wrong simply because of loss of interest. However, that does not mean that one should dimiss such concern out of hand with a "I don't know why you would say this", as if the fear of abandonment was not a real, "natural" emotion. Ultimately, the children in the example will always remain that mother's sons, no matter what. A romantic relationship is not like that. Breakups do exist, it's not as if the possibility that he/she might decide to pursue a monogamous relationship with a partner he/she met at a later date is might be a realistic concern. Not a concern that should necessarily stop you from pursuing a polygamous relationship, but certainly a concern to be considered.

I mean, I am just going off a tangent, here, but, first of all, we are comparing two very different kind of situations -the bond between a mother and a son, and the bond between two lovers-. While we might address the two bonds with the same words (love), that is, as Wittgensteing might have said, a mere problem of language -in practice, the romantic love between two people is different from what a child feels towards a parent, or a parent towards a child, or a sibling towards a brother-.

For example, take the bond between three siblings. If their parents were having another child, the relationship betweent he three children would not be affected -it's not as if what they feel towards each other would be changed by the arrival of a little brother-. On the other hand, in the case of a "best friend", it is implicitly assumed that the "position" is unique, exclusive. One cannot have many "best friends", one can have many "close friends". In and of itself, the position of "best friend" implies exclusivity, thought it might often be compared to the bond between brothers.

This is a fact that was also highligthed in the original post by Alcyon: she highlights the fact that there is a difference between being someone's "top" romantic priority and being someone's "exclusive" romantic priority. As she puts it, the first part is 95% of the deal. However, I ALSO agree with Eliezer_Yudkowsky's post:

Yes. Why would my being special to someone imply that they couldn't have sex and/or long-term relationships with people they found attractive?

The fact that he/she might be seeing other people does not automatically imply that you don't matter to her/him. Nor does it imply that what your share is any less real. However, it all boils down to how much value we attach to that last 5% that distinguishes "top romantic interest" from "exclusive romantic interest". Because "unique", "exclusive" obviously do not apply when the "position" is shared by two, six, n other people. At the same time, that does not mean that you should feel as if you were easily replaceable, like a car's wheel. You are still a person. Your partner chose to be with you because he/she feels something for you. You just have to decide how much value you place on the fact that the relationship you share should be truly "unique", "exclusive", keeping in mind that there is no right or wrong, best or worse decision here.

Seconded. Seems like Alicorn's reasons for going poly are not good -- being head over heels for MBlume and him not being willing to go monogamous in return... meh.

Alicorn, other poly folks, a question: I don't get poly (aside from the simple "some folks are just different from me" unhelpfulness). Don't poly folks want to feel special to their partners? Because seeing my partner being emotionally or physically intimate with someone else (or knowing they were, even without seeing it) = immediate non-specialness. How could you be special if you're so easily replaceable by others in the harem? Enlightenment me, please, for I am confused.

That said, if you're really happy, I'm happy for you, and I apologize for rocking the boat, if I have.

Since moving back to the Bay Area I've been out with four other people too, one of whom he's also seeing; I've been in my primary's presence while he kissed one girl, and when he asked another for her phone number; I've gossiped with a secondary about other persons of romantic interest and accepted his offer to hint to a guy I like that this is the case; I hit on someone at a party right in front of my primary. I haven't suffered a hiccup of drama or a twinge of jealousy to speak of and all evidence (including verbal confirmation) indicates that I've been managing my primary's feelings satisfactorily too.</bragging> Does this sort of thing appeal to you?

No.

But I do expect that if humans become immortal superbeings, then given enough time, most people currently in fairytale monogamous relationships will switch to poly. (Though when people are immortal superbeings, I also expect it to become common that they'll spend a very long time if necessary searching for an instance of fairytale monogamy to be their first relationship.)

I guess my philosophy is that fairytale monogamy is optimal for the young (say under 200 years or so), while poly and other non-traditional arrangements are the choice of the adult.

It's not? I mean, there's some people, though probably considerably less than half of the population, who are genuinely and naturally well-suited to monogamous closed relationships. But the point that immortal superbeings would do something polyish actually does strike me as a clear argument in favor of "poly is More Highly Evolved". I mean, you're then that much closer to doing things the way immortal superbeings would do it. This is why I've always felt vaguely guilty about not being bisexual, since immortal superbeings clearly would be.

(Also, spontaneously all kinds of popular. If I'd known I could get this many people interested by hacking poly I might have done it sooner.)

The following is a public service announcement to all women who naturally like at least some shy nerds.

If you are (1) polyamorous and (2) able to directly ask men you find attractive to sleep with you (instead of doing the sheep dance where you freeze motionless and wait for them to approach) - or if you can hack yourself to be like that without too much effort - it is vastly easier than you imagine to acquire an entire harem of high-status and/or handsome nerds.

(For some but not all nerds, this may require that you be reasonably attractive. Most nerd girls I know are reasonably attractive and think they are not. So if you think that you're overweight and hideous and yet oddly enough nerds spend a lot of time talking to you at nerd parties, this means you are pretty.)

This concludes the public service announcement.