Multiamory Podcast: “Non-monogamy for Non-majors” | Talks at Google

Multiamory Podcast: “Non-monogamy for Non-majors” | Talks at Google


[MUSIC PLAYING] [APPLAUSE] EMILY MATLACK:
Thank you, Carlos. We really appreciate it. And thank you all for
being here with us today. I am Emily. JASE LINDGREN: I’m Jase. DEDEKER WINSTON: I’m Dedeker. EMILY MATLACK: And
as you said, we are the hosts of the
Multiamory Podcast, which is a weekly podcast that we’ve
been doing for about four years now. Today, we’re here to talk
to you about the thing that our podcast
continually comes back to, and that is non-monogamy and
nontraditional relationships. Since we’ve started
the podcast, we’ve encountered every type of
question, of misunderstanding, of stigma, that you could
possibly think about and that you could possibly
think that would probably come to people like us. And really, that’s
one of the reasons why we started this podcast,
just because there are so many misconceptions about what
polyamory and non-monogamy even is. DEDEKER WINSTON: So the
name of this talk today is “Non-Monogamy for Non-Majors,”
which is a little bit weird. But we’ll explain why. So my main form
of work is I work as a certified
relationship coach. I specialize in
working with people who are connected to
non-monogamy in some way, whether it’s people who are
trying to discover if it’s right for them, if
it’s a couple who are trying to open
up their relationship for the first time. I work with people
kind of in a counseling therapeutic capacity. And so when I talk to
people about my work or about my personal
life, I get a wide variety of reactions, sometimes good,
sometimes bad, and sometimes just really weird. There was one time that I was
working with this photographer on an unrelated job. And this was two
or three years ago. I was in the middle of writing
the manuscript for my book. And he starts asking
about the book, and so I start describing
what it’s about, polyamory, and nontraditional sexuality,
and things like that. All of a sudden, he cuts me off. And he goes, oh,
I can’t hear this. I can’t hear this– la, la,
la, la, la, la, la, la, la. And so of course, I’m
like, well, that was weird. And I asked him, like, why– why can’t you hear about this? And I’ll never forget
what he said to me. He said, if I learn about
this, I can never unlearn it. And that really struck me
because I was like, wow. I realized he is
afraid that just by hearing about the
concepts, somehow it’s going to get on him, and maybe
he’s going to be converted or something. It’s like the non-monogamy toxic
waste is going to get on him and turn him into this
radioactive monster. And that sounds like a really
weird reaction, and it is. But it’s actually become
surprisingly common for all three of us, whenever we
talk about the work that we do, that people feel like by having
any contact with the subject whatsoever, they’re going to
turn into radioactive monsters somehow. JASE LINDGREN: So
today, our talk, “Non-Monogamy for the
Non-Major,” or non-monster, if you will, is because we’re
here just to educate about what this is, what it actually
looks like in real life– not to proselytize to you, not
to tell you that any one way of doing relationships is
better than any other way, but simply to dispel
some of the myths. And in doing that,
our hope is to make this company, this community,
and our world a safer place for all sorts of people. Also, so we’re going
to spend about half the time doing a
presentation about that. And then other half
is for questions. We’ve had some that have
been submitted already through the dory for this event. You can also feel free to
furiously do those right now, if you want to remain anonymous
in asking your questions. And then there’s also
the microphone over here for asking those later as well. EMILY MATLACK: Yeah, but
before we do any of that, we want to get into the why. Why talk about
non-monogamy at all? JASE LINDGREN: So when
we started this podcast four years ago, my best friend
was talking to me about it. And he was like,
so I don’t get it. Why do you need to
talk about stuff that happens in the bedroom? Can’t you just keep that in the
bedroom like everybody else? And it’s essentially like asking
someone wearing a wedding ring, really, do you have to flaunt
your sex in front of all of us? Can’t you just keep that in
the bedroom where it belongs? EMILY MATLACK: And
really, the truth is that all of these
relationship styles really run the gamut from
casual to lifelong commitments. And they are an integral
part of many people’s lives, just like anyone’s
significant other is a really vital part
of someone’s life. And it is important to
talk about non-monogamy because it is prevalent. DEDEKER WINSTON: Yeah, it’s
surprisingly prevalent. So there was a study in 2016 in
the “Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy” that found that within
the US, 20% of the population has been involved in
some kind of consensually open relationship at
some point in their life. And the study defined a
consensually open relationship as any relationship
where both partners agree that they’re
allowed to have sexual or romantic
relationships outside of that primary relationship. 20% boils down to about
one in five people, which is quite a lot. JASE LINDGREN: And another study
in the “Journal of Psychology and Sexuality” suggests that
between 4% and 5% of Americans are currently in some kind of
non-monogamous relationship. So that’s about 16 million
people, just in the US. EMILY MATLACK: And just to
put that in perspective– because that doesn’t sound
like, maybe, that many people– but 6% of the American
population is vegan. I’m vegan. Thank you Google for
giving me vegan food today. I really appreciate it. I’m also polyamorous,
so I’m extra special. But probably most
of you know someone who identifies as vegan. And it doesn’t really
seem that rare, does it? DEDEKER WINSTON: So the thing
is that in the work that we do, we’ve come across people
in all lines of work, from all walks of life, who
identify as non-monogamous. The people who
are non-monogamous and polyamorous– it’s not just
your burlesque dancer cousin who goes to Burning
Man every year. It’s everyone. It’s your Uber driver. It’s your kid’s teacher. It’s your therapist. It’s your lawyer. It’s your doctor. It’s all kinds, all walks
of life, like I said. Maybe the person
sitting next to you. Again, 20%, even
5%, that’s still a huge chunk of the population. JASE LINDGREN: And
yet, despite the fact that this is so prevalent,
there is a fundamental lack of education and awareness about
non-monogamy, which as we’ve seen with other sorts of fringe
groups or marginalized groups, that this leads to fear. EMILY MATLACK: And there are
a lot of different reasons why someone might be
fearful of non-monogamy. For example, a person who is
quite happy being monogamous, they may learn about
monogamy, or may be worried that their partner
will learn about non-monogamy, and then suddenly want to change
their relationship structure. Or like the photographer
that Dedeker talked about, if they themselves learn about
non-monogamy, all of a sudden, maybe, they’re going to want
to become non-monogamous themselves. JASE LINDGREN: For other people,
it brings up unresolved issues around infidelity in the past. Maybe it brings up hurtful
memories of being cheated on or guilt of having
cheated on somebody else. DEDEKER WINSTON: And the other
part of this fearful response is often, it’s just a
product of growing up in an extremely
sex-negative culture, like American culture is. And it’s this ingrained sex
negativity that teaches us that any kind of
sex, or any kind of romance, that doesn’t
happen within the context of a heterosexual
marriage that’s for the purpose of procreation– we treat all that
kind of sex that falls outside of that
bubble as being wrong, as being dangerous,
as being dirty, as being something that
we should be afraid of and that we should
shun and try to avoid. So the thing is that this fear
leads to a whole cornucopia of misunderstandings. JASE LINDGREN: Yes. So when people talk about their
non-monogamous relationships, they come up against all
sorts of misunderstandings and misconceptions
about what it is. And they can range
from the somewhat aggressive, like, oh–
or accusatory– of oh, does that mean
you’re a sex addict? Or isn’t this just a
different form of cheating? Or to even seemingly
good natured pitying of, oh, that’s awful. Is your husband
making you do that? Or well, I hope someday you find
someone who actually loves you. DEDEKER WINSTON: It’s rough. JASE LINDGREN: And this
fear and misunderstanding combined with each other
is what creates stigma. DEDEKER WINSTON: So there
was a study performed at the University of
Michigan specifically on trying to figure
out how stigma affects non-monogamous
relationships, or people in non-monogamous relationships. And so the interesting thing
is they found in this study that generally,
non-monogamous and polyamorous relationships are
perceived negatively by the general population. But it’s not just
that they’re perceived to be less moral, or less
ethical, or less committed, or less romantic, this
negative perception bled into other completely
arbitrary areas of life. EMILY MATLACK:
Yeah, for example, the participants in
the study thought that people who
were non-monogamous were less likely to take a
daily multi-vitamin than people who are monogamous. DEDEKER WINSTON: It’s true. JASE LINDGREN: They
also thought they were less likely to floss
their teeth every day, walk their dog every day, or
get their taxes filed on time. DEDEKER WINSTON: Yeah. And so that sounds
ridiculous, right? But the thing is that
perception still has an impact. Because the thing is that the
fear, the misunderstanding, the stigma– these things all compound. They add on top of each other. And they add up to real
world consequences. So it’s funny to
think about the fact that you might
perceive someone’s less likely to take
a multi-vitamin, or less likely to
walk their dog, or floss their
teeth– that’s funny. But if we’re living
in a world where stigma towards
non-traditional relationships is so deeply ingrained that
we think that it affects whether or not someone can
get their taxes done on time, how comfortable
is your accountant going to be to talk about
her own non-monogamous relationship? These things result
in actual impact. JASE LINDGREN: And
it’s not only that, but this bleeds over into other
things such as child custody. This is something that
tends to come up a lot. There’s not a lot of
formal statistics on it because most of these cases
are settled out of court. But non-monogamy, or polyamory,
can be used against people in custody battles,
often by family members, like their own parents trying to
take their kids away from them, and that judges,
without this knowledge, and having that stigma
in their heads of well, they’re less likely
to walk their dogs, they have no moral fabric– yeah, they’re probably
not a good person to raise a child either. EMILY MATLACK: And there’s also
zero workplace protections. If your boss finds out
you’re non-monogamous, there’s no legal ramifications
for them firing you. And also, it’s very
difficult for us to access things like
poly-friendly counseling, poly-friendly therapists,
legal services. And it also makes it
more difficult for things like adoption or
parenting rights. DEDEKER WINSTON: Yeah,
especially in those child custody cases,
finding a lawyer who understands the situation
of the parents, who maybe is an open marriage. On the coast, like
maybe in California– a little bit easier. But not so much in the
middle of the country. And the thing is
that, of course, with all of these real
world consequences, these get amplified, depending
on intersection of identity. So for instance, someone
who is married or unmarried, someone who’s
uneducated, someone who is poor, someone who
is a person of color, who is already dealing with
real world consequences from stigma, adding
these on top of it just adds more to that
complexity and that difficulty. JASE LINDGREN: So
now we’re going to move on to talk about
some myths versus reality. DEDEKER WINSTON: So that’s the
thing is that toxic combination that we saw– the fear,
plus the misunderstanding, plus the stigma– we’ve already seen how that
toxic combination affects other marginalized communities. We’ve seen how that affects
the trans community, the gay community,
immigrants, things like that. And so what we
found, the best way to combat that toxic
cocktail, as it were, is through awareness, through
education, through information. So before we dive
into specific actions that we can all take to help
combat some of these things and help make our
environment safer for people in nontraditional
relationships, we’re going to try to tackle the
most common misconceptions. That’s where we’re tackling
some myths versus reality. JASE LINDGREN: So the first
one is that it’s all about sex. Like I said, the
question of oh, does that mean you’re a sex addict? Or well, it’s unsafe. You’re going to have sex in
front of children or something. That’s why we need to
take them away from you. The why talk about this,
if it’s just something that happens in the bedroom? And this has become also so
prevalent because of the way the media likes to talk about
it because it excites us. We see this picture. This is the iconic picture
of a polyamorous, or open, relationship. It seems to imply that
we’re all naked, or at least bare-footed in bed all the time. [LAUGHTER] DEDEKER WINSTON: But
seriously, every single article about non-monogamy, you’ll
find that stock image. It’s always the feet. JASE LINDGREN: Yeah. EMILY MATLACK: But
in reality, there’s actually a variety
of motivations why someone would want to be in
a non-monogamous relationship. And obviously, there’s
no doubt that sex can be a really important
part of a relationship. But honestly, just any
type of romance, sex may or may not be included
in that relationship. And there are many
asexual people who identify as
polyamorous, and sex may not be a part of the
equation for them at all. And also, just like
monogamous people, individual preferences
and amount of sex can vary from person to
person and relationship to relationship. DEDEKER WINSTON:
So the next myth that we’re going to
tackle is the myth that non-monogamous
relationships are unethical, or that they are coercive. So we do need to tackle
the question of ethics. Because what often happens
is we get questions like, well, isn’t that just
cheating on your partner? Aren’t you just giving your
partner a hall pass to cheat on you? And it makes sense why
the comparison gets drawn, because I think in
our media for so long, our only model of
non-monogamy that we’ve seen for a long time
has been cheating, or non-consensual, or
non ethical non-monogamy. And so it makes sense that
we draw that parallel. However, it’s important to
bear in mind that cheating is based in dishonesty. It’s based in
lying to a partner. And so that means
that even people who are polyamorous,
or non-monogamous, can still cheat
on their partner, if they lie about it,
if they omit something, if they cover it up. I don’t know why people do it. It’s part of why I have a job. And then about the
coercive part– there’s often this assumption
that surely, one person must be forcing the other to do this. And usually, the assumption
is that the man– if it’s a heterosexual
relationship, the assumption is that the
man must be forcing the woman to do this. Because no woman would
want this, and every man must want this. JASE LINDGREN: Right. And in reality, polyamorous
and non-monogamous people have ethical codes
just like anybody else. In fact, sometimes are
even more conscious about creating those
ethical codes– things like not being
competitive in a negative way, intentionally
fostering compassion for each other, and then
honest communication, which is a huge part of polyamory. If you ever read
any books or listen to any podcasts on the
subject, honest communication is a topic that comes
up over and over again. And in the same
way that you don’t need a religious upbringing
to have morals and ethics, you also don’t need to have
a monogamous relationship to treat that ethically as well. And then the subject of
coercion– this one is actually interesting, so it
surprises a lot of people– and that’s that statistically,
in heterosexual couples, women are actually more likely
to be the ones who suggest an open relationship, or a
non-monogamous relationship, than men are. EMILY MATLACK: So
for our next myth, we are going to tackle
the thought that everybody is in a group relationship,
or in a triad. So the media has this
very typical image of what a polyamorous
relationship looks like. And honestly, you’ve
probably all seen it before. It’s this idea that there is
a white male, female, female triad. The media likes to call
it a thruple, which is not a real word. We don’t actually use
that for polyamorous. But it usually consists of two
bisexual females and a man who live together, and they make all
of their relationship decisions together as a unit. Like this image of
the show “You Me Her.” This is a show that is all
about a polyamorous triad. But again, it’s
like a perfect image of what the media
likes to perpetuate, which is, again, this
bisexual female, these two bisexual females, with a man. And so this is just
prevalent because the image is so overused. It’s almost become a
stereotype at this point. DEDEKER WINSTON: And we
suspect that the reason why media outlets always try to find
this particular relationship format of two women and
a man living together and all in a
relationship together is if you think about it, it’s
kind of the least threatening version of non-monogamy. We’re already quite
used to seeing the image of a man with multiple women. And we’re more
comfortable digesting that than seeing a woman
with multiple men, on top of the fact
that we’re quite used to seeing bisexual women,
especially for male pleasure, more so than seeing bisexual
men involved with a woman. And so it makes sense
why the media always tries to find this
particular grouping. But it gives this
incorrect perception that that’s all
that polyamory is, is that everyone’s in this
weird, communal, cult-like group relationship together. Because the reality
is that there is this huge
diversity of formats. Different motivations and needs
breed very different shapes in relationships. People use very
different labels. Sometimes people call
it an open relationship. Sometimes people call
themselves polyamorous, or relationship
anarchists, which is a whole other term that we
could do a whole presentation on. But unfortunately, not today. For the most part, in
reality, what we see– rather than a bunch
of triads, or a bunch of four-person relationships, or
group relationships– usually, we’re seeing
interconnecting dyads, so as in two-person
relationships, where maybe both people in that dyad
also have another partner, but those partners are
not related to each other, and maybe those partners
also have other partners. So what we see in
real life is usually these kind of
constellation-esque intimate networks that sometimes
move, and shift, and change over time. And it makes sense
because the same way with monogamous
relationships, the way that you create your
relationship is going to be different, based
on what your context is, based on if you want
to get married, if you don’t want to get married. Maybe you don’t
want to get married, but one of your partners
really needs health insurance. Or if you’re choosing
to raise kids together, or if you’re choosing
to not cohabit with someone who is your life
partner, or multiple life partners, or things like that. Ultimately, the takeaway is
that although the media would have us believe
that it all looks like this particular shape,
it doesn’t all look the same. JASE LINDGREN: So the
next myth is that it’s not a real relationship. It’s the idea that
oh, well, someday you’ll find someone who
actually loves you enough. Or oh, I understand
you’re young. Eventually you’ll
grow out of this, and then you’ll have
a real relationship. And I think a lot of this
is because for most people, casual dating is the closest
analogy that they have. It’s the closest thing
that they understand that looks sort of like
this, the key difference being that casual dating
doesn’t have commitments and generally, you’re not
ever talking to anyone you’re dating about anyone
else that you’re dating. It’s this kind of let’s
pretend it’s not existing until we get serious and then
we stop seeing anyone else. DEDEKER WINSTON:
And the reality is that actually, people
who are not monogamous have comparable relationship
satisfaction and experiences to people who are in
monogamous relationships. So that same study that
we told you about that found the stigma about
flossing your teeth and walking your dog– that study also found that
there is virtually no difference in relationship functioning
and relationship success between people who are
non-monogamous and people who are monogamous. They also found that
specifically people who identified as polyamorous–
as in having multiple romantic relationships at the same time– they were found to
experience even higher levels of satisfaction, of
commitment, of trust, and of passionate love
in their relationships. So these myths that we’re
talking about today, and these misconceptions–
obviously, it’s not everything. It’s not every
single misconception. We would be here all night if
we dove into every single one. But what we want
to move on towards is talking about the
things that we can all do to help combat
some of these things, and again, just to make
the environment safer. And they’re very,
very simple things that everyone can
do– very achievable. JASE LINDGREN: Yeah, go for it. EMILY MATLACK: Yes. If you don’t practice or
identify with non-monogamy, then somebody comes
to you and tells you that they’re opening
the relationship up, the first thing that you
can do is don’t freak out. So if a friend tells you
that they’re polyamorous, they’re most likely
not coming on to you. They’re not trying to
steal their husband. It probably has nothing
to do with you at all. So don’t freak out. Play it cool, man. JASE LINDGREN: The next one
is to ask before you assume. And this means a
number of things. The first thing is it means
ask before you assume it’s OK to ask a lot of questions. I know it’s weird to ask
a question about asking questions. But just because someone
has opened up to you that they have multiple
romantic relationships doesn’t mean they want to answer
every single detailed question that you have right now about
it, or at least maybe not right now at work. Maybe they want to talk
about that another time. Let’s go out for drinks
sometime and you can ask it. So just ask before you
launch into those questions. And then the second
thing is to ask what are the labels, or the
terms, that they like to use, so that you can use the correct
ones when talking to them. For example, if I tell
someone that I’m polyamorous, and then they say, oh, this
my friend who’s polygamous. I’m like, whoa. Those are not the same thing. Please don’t use that
word to describe me. DEDEKER WINSTON: That
happens all the time that people interchange
those terms. JASE LINDGREN: Yeah,
but with anything else, someone might be in
an open relationship and not want to be
referred to as polyamorous, or they might prefer
that their partners are called life partners and not
boyfriends or girlfriends. Just ask those questions
of, how would you like me to refer
to this when I’m talking to you, or about
you with other people? DEDEKER WINSTON: And the
other important thing to do is to give acknowledgment. And that’s going to look a
number of different ways. One way that you can do
this is to just ask someone about their other partners. Bear in mind that maybe the
partner that you’ve always seen come to work events,
or the partner that this person lives with
or is raising children with– it may not be
their only partner. It may not even be the most
important relationship to them. So just acknowledging
that this person may have more than one important
person in their life, even just by straight
up asking, like, oh, how’s your wife doing? How’s your girlfriend doing? How’s your boyfriend
doing– things like that. Most recently when I went
to visit some family out in Boise, my aunt, who has
been really resistant to this for a long time– for the first time
ever, she did this. She asked, how’s Jase doing,
who is one of my partners, and also asked, how’s Alex
doing– my other partner. And it was so simple for
her to do, so, so simple. And it just made me feel so much
more relaxed, and so excited, and so validated, that
I got to just talk about the people in my
life that I love to someone else in my family whom I love. So again– super,
super simple thing. And another trick to this
also, in asking questions– it’s probably best to
avoid asking someone, well, how many
partners do you have? It’s a very common question. And the problem is that people
define partners a little bit differently. Sometimes it gets a little
bit sticky in the definition. So it’s better just to
ask, who are your partners? Who’s important to you? Who are the people that
you love in your life, or who are the people
that are in your life that you feel like everyone
needs to know about? Another way that
acknowledgment can look is by extending an invite. And this means that if
you’re having an event that has a plus one, maybe consider
offering them a plus two, so that somebody doesn’t have
to choose between which partner they have to bring. If, for some reason,
your event’s at capacity and you can’t really have
more than a plus one, let the person that
you’re inviting be the person who decides
who it is that they bring. It may not be the person
that you’re expecting, and that’s OK. EMILY MATLACK: Don’t freak out. DEDEKER WINSTON:
And don’t freak out. And another way that
acknowledgement can look is just to take it seriously. And this can mean things
like don’t immediately tell this person like,
oh, this is just a phase. You’re young. Oh, you know, you’re going to
find your soul mate someday. It’s going to be OK. Don’t offer your pity. Don’t offer to help them
out with walking their dog, or flossing their teeth,
or doing their taxes. They’re probably going
to be OK with that. EMILY MATLACK: And lastly,
avoid therapy sessions. And what we mean by this
is if somebody comes to you who’s non-monogamous
and starts talking to you about maybe
issues that they have in their
relationship, don’t try to be their therapist. Don’t tell them like,
oh, well, clearly, it’s your non-monogamy
that’s the problem here. And then on the flip side,
don’t make them the therapist. Don’t tell them
about all of the sex that you’ve been having
with this other person, or talking about the
threesome that you had with your
husband six years ago and how difficult
it was for you. Don’t make them your therapist. And also don’t be
their therapist. JASE LINDGREN: So next is if
you do practice non-monogamy, or you identify
as non-monogamous, what can you do to help make
this world a safer place? And the first thing
is to come out. Now, this one– a lot
of people go, hleh– and freaking out about that. And the thing is that with this,
just like with homosexuality, the more people come out and
the more people who are willing and feel safe enough to
speak about it publicly– if you’re privileged to be in
a position where you are safe to do that with
minimal consequences– the more people that
do that, the safer it becomes for everybody. Because it’s been shown in
several studies that simply knowing someone who is
in a marginalized group, whether it’s gay, whether it’s
trans, that simply knowing someone, or even knowing someone
who personally knows someone, makes you more likely
to vote favorably to protect that group. It makes you less
likely to discriminate against that group. DEDEKER WINSTON: So the
other thing that you can do is you can find support. Because we all get it. Any time you’re
trying to do something that goes against the
grain of social norms, it can be very alienating. It can be very isolating. But the thing is that you
don’t have to be alone. You can find support in the
form of meet-up or discussion groups. If you Google it, you will find
it, especially here in Seattle. There’s plenty of meet-up
and discussion groups. I also recommend finding
professional support. So there is definitely a lack
of therapists, and counselors, and other professionals
who are friendly to non-monogamous lifestyles. But it doesn’t mean
they don’t exist at all. Fortunately, the
supply is slowly starting to catch up to
the demand that’s there. There’s a lot of great
resources in directories for finding this. There’s the Kink Aware
Professionals Directory. There’s the Poly-Friendly
Professionals Directory for finding people who are
either in your area or willing to work remotely
with you, who again– an actual therapy
session, are not going to immediately go to
your relationship choices as the source of your
problems, but treat things a little bit more holistically. And then another
thing that you can do is you can find community. And it doesn’t have
to be necessarily a community that’s
based on non-monogamy or based on a particular
relationship style. It could be a particularly
supportive work community, where you feel safe, you
feel like you can be out, you can talk about what’s
going on in your life, you’re not having to do the
mental gymnastics of figuring out who have I told what,
who has met which partner, who can never meet this other
partner– things like that. EMILY MATLACK: The next
thing that you can do is be respectful. And what I mean by that is be
respectful of other people’s relationship structures. So don’t trash monogamy
if you are non-monogamous. You’re not more enlightened
than anyone else is. We’re all just trying
to figure it out. So be respectful and
be kind to something– a relationship structure
that’s different than yours. DEDEKER WINSTON: So the
big takeaway here is just make it safe to be honest. Make yourself a person who
is safe for other people to be honest with you. And it’s actually a
relatively simple thing to do. It just means if
someone opens up to you about their
relationship, and maybe that’s something that you
would never do in your life and you have no interest
in whatsoever, that’s fine. You just don’t get to
say it to their face. You can save the big reactions. And it can also mean speaking
up if you hear someone else trashing on someone else
for their non-monogamous relationship. It’s really relatively simple. And it starts on the individual
level to change a culture, whether it’s a workplace
culture or the culture at large, of just making it safe
for people to be honest and to be their true selves. So right now, we’re going
to move into questions. We have gotten a number of
questions that have been submitted through the dory. But before we dive
into that, if there is anyone who wants to
ask questions on the mic, we can definitely
go into that now. JASE LINDGREN: Yeah, go ahead. AUDIENCE: Hi, my name’s Garrett. And I’m curious in hearing
more about the [INAUDIBLE] societies, especially
in this country. It seems like our
legal framework is set up for a relationship
with two people. In a polyamorous
relationship, how do you deal with
things like taxes having only single or married– and legal things like that? EMILY MATLACK: Right. Should I take this one? JASE LINDGREN: Yeah, go for it. DEDEKER WINSTON:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. It’s a really
fascinating conversation. We’ve had a number of lawyers
on the podcast, lawyers who do specialize in family
law for people who are queer, or polyamorous, or in some kind
of nontraditional sexuality. And so it is an interesting
time because as opposed to what we saw with the gay
community, there’s not a ton of people in the
polyamorous, or non-monogamous, community that
are really pushing for something like marriage
rights, for instance. There’s not quite this
huge snowballing movement towards getting marriage rights. Because it would be
really complicated to try to figure
out how does it work signing a legal contract
with multiple people at the same time. Do you have overlapping
dyadic legal contracts– things like that. What I think, as far as the
legal side of things goes, is really going to
be the thing that is the talking point for
non-monogamous relationships– is more about child custody. And that’s where we’re
actually seeing some progress that there’s already been
some precedents set of people granting parenting rights
to more than two parents, to three parents. We’ve had a couple of
precedents of that. The other thing is
that there’s actually a lot of people in the
non-monogamous community that rather than pushing
for marriage rights, they’re pushing
more for increasing the rights of single
people, so that we don’t have this whole big
bundle of rights that are only reserved for one particular
relationship type, but instead making those rights
more accessible to everyone. So that’s kind of
what we’re seeing. As far as specifically
about marriage rights, I don’t think we’re going
to see that really take off any time soon
because of the fact that again, it’s complicated,
and there’s not a lot of people who specifically want marriage. EMILY MATLACK: But some people
do things like create LLCs– DEDEKER WINSTON: Yeah. EMILY MATLACK: Yeah– in
order to combine assets. But other than that– DEDEKER WINSTON:
Especially people who want to raise a
child together and have that be protected. People are making Subchapter
S corporations for years, creating LLCs for
years– just kind of using the legal
tools at their disposal to protect themselves in
the ways that they want to. JASE LINDGREN: Because
the truth of the matter is that marriage
is a legal tool. We’ve wrapped it up in this
whole romantic love thing. But at the end of the
day, it’s a contract that you sign that the state
sanctions and gives you certain rights, and
responsibilities, and liabilities that go with it. So in thinking of it
that way, while there are many things you can’t get
any other way than getting married, using the corporate
structure in our country is sort of the next best
thing that we can do. AUDIENCE: Thanks. JASE LINDGREN:
Thank you so much. EMILY MATLACK: Thank you. AUDIENCE: Since you see
[INAUDIBLE] maybe 20% of people who have [INAUDIBLE],,
do you ever find trouble finding other people
who feel the same way? EMILY MATLACK: Do we– JASE LINDGREN: Find
trouble meeting– EMILY MATLACK: Meeting
other non-monogamous people? DEDEKER WINSTON: Right, right. EMILY MATLACK: Yes. DEDEKER WINSTON: Well, yes. The thing to bear in mind
is that the internet really revolutionized that
for a lot of people. Definitely in the
’90s is when we started seeing an
actual resurgence of actual communities
coming together of people who identified as
polyamorous, or not monogamous, because people could find
each other for the first time in a long time. And so it depends,
based on location. The West Coast tends
to have pretty robust non-monogamous communities. And so people have a relatively
easy-ish time finding partners to date, or friends,
or communities, or things like that. Of course, definitely a
lot harder in the Midwest, in middle America, for sure. But there’s also a lot of
online communities springing up as well for people to
connect to each other. And again, this is
kind of thing is that like I say, 20% of
the population– it’s huge. And if we can have– are there vegan-only
dating sites? There must be. EMILY MATLACK: Oh,
yeah, I’m sure. Definitely. DEDEKER WINSTON: If we can
have vegan-only dating sites– EMILY MATLACK: It’s a
hard line for some people. DEDEKER WINSTON: –and vegans
can find each other today, non-monogamous people can
find each other today as well. Thank you for your question. AUDIENCE: Thanks. JASE LINDGREN: And we have
some questions from the dory, I believe. AUDIENCE: Yep. [INAUDIBLE] So the first one is, what
are your recommendations for relationships where only
one partner is non-monogamous? DEDEKER WINSTON: Do
you want to take that? JASE LINDGREN: Emily, why
don’t you take that one? EMILY MATLACK: This one? Oh. JASE LINDGREN: Weren’t we just
talking about this before? EMILY MATLACK: No, I
have the next question. DEDEKER WINSTON: I can take it. Yeah, I can take it. EMILY MATLACK: Go for it. Go for it. DEDEKER WINSTON: I can take it. So I’ll reiterate the question–
and we get a version of this question a lot– what do you do if one person
in a couple identifies as non-monogamous or wants to
be non-monogamous and the other person doesn’t? It’s a relatively
common situation that we see,
especially in couples who maybe have been
monogamous for a long time and then one of them realizes,
I think I want to try this, and this resonates with me. And the other person says,
I don’t know about that. So these kind of relationships–
sometimes people call them mono/poly relationships or
some kind of variants of that– we have seen them
work, for sure. It requires a lot of compassion,
and a lot of communication, and a lot of moving slow,
and a lot of negotiation, and a lot of compromise. They can work. The other side of this, the
other prong of this answer, is reminding people that– let’s say you meet someone. Maybe you identify
as non-monogamous, and you meet someone that
you really hit it off with, you really like them,
but they want monogamy. If someone’s perfect for
you except for the fact that they want monogamy
and you want non-monogamy, that person isn’t
perfect for you. That’s the other
thing to bear in mind at the end of the day, which
is not an answer that people like to hear. JASE LINDGREN: It’s not. The other thing
I did want to add about this is that polyamory
and ethical non-monogamy is not defined by how many people you
personally are dating right at this moment. But it’s about what you expect
from your partners– what are the things that you
expect your partners to be able to do or to not do. So my argument for
this, actually, is in that situation where
one partner is polyamorous and the other is
monogamous, that actually the monogamous partner
is the polyamorous one, if they’re OK with having
that relationship where their partner is able
to see other people. We have another question? Yeah. DEDEKER WINSTON: You’re back. AUDIENCE: I’ve seen a
couple of documentaries about non-monogamous
relationships, and they always take
place in the UK. So my question is, is the
UK a mecca of non-monogamy? EMILY MATLACK: We were
thinking about the ones that took place in San Diego. AUDIENCE: Or is this
just a documentary thing? DEDEKER WINSTON: Is the UK
more friendly for these kind of things, or is it just
a documentary thing– is that what the question was? AUDIENCE: Yeah, basically. JASE LINDGREN: Honestly,
I think this has more to do with the way that
media gets created here versus in the UK. Because we, actually,
just a few months ago, were talking with
a documentary crew from the BBC who was
working on something. And they wanted more
information from us. And they were even going
to film it in California. They were trying to decide if
it was going to be California, or Seattle, or I think
New York, were the places they were considering. But still a British
company because of the way that their public funding
for documentaries and things like that goes. I think that might
be part of why. But I would say, really,
based on what we’ve seen, both the coasts here in the
United States and Canada, as well as the UK, and even
Germany and Scandinavia– all have very healthy
polyamorous populations. EMILY MATLACK:
There was a Showtime show called “Polyamory– Married and Dating” that was
set in, I guess, San Diego. So that’s interesting. I didn’t even know about
the ones in the UK. Because that one is the
one that I always think of. DEDEKER WINSTON:
You do have to bear in mind that in the
states, we have this– compared to the
rest of the world– this very special
cocktail of puritanism that undercuts everything. And that still affects the
media that does get produced, or the stories that do get told. EMILY MATLACK: Very much. DEDEKER WINSTON: Although
it is slowly changing. AUDIENCE: Thanks. DEDEKER WINSTON: Thank you. JASE LINDGREN: Thank you. AUDIENCE: What do you
do when your partner is tired of processing, but you
feel that you’re not done yet, and feel when I’m
satisfied or hurt, by dropping the conversation? EMILY MATLACK: So this
is an interesting one because this happens to me
a lot in my relationships. I have a partner who is very
good about his boundary of I’m done talking about this. And I’m the one who
keeps on wanting to go, and finish it,
and figure out, OK, I don’t care if we talk all
night, I want to continue to speak about this. And we have an acronym that we
use on the show called HALT. And so it’s hungry,
angry, lonely, or tired. We also added drunk– HALTD– onto it. And if you’re any
of those things, maybe it’s not a good
time to do processing in your relationship, just
simply because you’re probably not up to the best possible
you you can be in that moment. And I have to halt from time
to time in these relationships when I do want to
continue talking, just simply because I know a
little bit of time away from it– even if it’s 15 minutes– it can give me a little
bit of understanding about the situation. I can step away from it. And I think that that’s
really important to do in those moments, especially
when you are angry, or upset, and you’re not thinking
clearly, and you’re probably going to say something
that you might regret. DEDEKER WINSTON: So I
think an important part of that is making sure that
there’s not a dynamic where the two of you come
together to process, and there’s always
one person who’s shutting down the
conversation, as in, I’m tired, and this conversation is done. And that’s always what happens. But that it’s a
negotiation, that again, that you halt, and
you negotiate on when do we come back to this? Is it– EMILY MATLACK: 30
minutes, a day. DEDEKER WINSTON: Yeah,
do we go take a 30 walk and then come back to this? Is this we’re going
to schedule this in our calendar for
this coming Friday when we’ll sit down together
and revisit this again? EMILY MATLACK: And do you
want to talk about radar? DEDEKER WINSTON:
Yeah, definitely. So another way, I think, to
combat burnout on processing and on talking things through
is to have a regular established space that’s like a relationship
check-in that happens– we recommend on a monthly basis. Some people do it
on a weekly basis, depending on their context. We created a
framework called Radar that’s actually very loosely
based on Agile Scrum. It’s a long explanation. EMILY MATLACK: Everybody
in here knows what that is. DEDEKER WINSTON: We created
this framework called Radar that’s kind of
a process to follow during this monthly
check-in with your partner for going through all
these different topics to check in on, whether
it’s sex, or the household, or talking about other
partners, or things like that, so that there’s this
established time and space to talk about these
things, to help minimize day-to-day processing that
can really get you burnt out, if you know there’s going
to be a dedicated time and space for my
concerns to be voiced and to talk about these things. So a combination of
knowing when it is OK to pause on processing
and knowing when it is OK to have an established
time for processing. EMILY MATLACK: Yeah, sometimes
we really need that safe space. I know that it allows me to not
get so worked up in the moment, when I’m like, OK, I can
save this for my radar because I’ll have a little
bit of time between now and then where I’m not so
volatile in the moment. AUDIENCE: Thank you. DEDEKER WINSTON: Of course. EMILY MATLACK: Thank you. AUDIENCE: So a lot
of the traditional, as much as you can say–
for a couple of decades, polyamory advice has been
oriented towards couples who are opening up. And it makes sense,
given the society that we’re starting from. And I’m wondering if you see
that changing, and if so, what impact that’s having
on new relationships. JASE LINDGREN: Yeah, absolutely. We’ve definitely been
seeing this change a lot. When the term polyamory
was first created– which was around 1992, on some
DVS systems back in the day– and at that time, it was
being created almost sort of like growing out of
the swinger community, which was very much
focused on couples having this third person in
their relationship, or maybe a few other people
in their relationship, but who were less
important relationships. Whereas today, there’s a
number of things happening. One is just essentially
the next generation of polyamorous people, where
there are a lot more people who identify as solo polyamorous,
which is a term for people who are polyamorous who are
not looking to become part of that nesting partnership. They’re not looking for someone
to own a house with and really settle in in that
traditional way. And there’s also
relationship anarchy, which, as we mentioned, could
be a whole other talk by itself. And then the other
really interesting thing is that now, we have people
who are third generation polyamorous people, who
not only their parents, but their parents’
parents, we’re polyamorous. They’re obviously very
young at this point. But we’re actually
having people who were raised with this from
the beginning, which is also very interesting, and definitely
changes the way that people approach these types
of relationships, and definitely gets us away from
that traditional model of just being centered
around one couple. DEDEKER WINSTON: And I don’t
mean to self-promote too much. But I tried to do that
in my book as well. A decade ago when I first
started it, for me, it was like, oh, I’m opening up
a monogamous relationship. And there’s all that
unique set of challenges that comes with that. But within the past
seven, eight years, that hasn’t been my experience. In the past seven, eight years,
every relationship I’ve started has been open from the
very beginning, which also has its own unique set of
challenges, and pros, and cons. And also on our
podcast, we really try to be cognizant
of that as well, of knowing that it’s
not all couple-centric. Not everybody is in a couple. Not everyone starts out
monogamous and then opens up. Because it’s true. Again, contrary to what the
media would have you believe, there’s a lot of
people who start their relationships this way. It’s not always
the same process. AUDIENCE: Thank you. DEDEKER WINSTON: Thank you. EMILY MATLACK: Thank you. AUDIENCE: So you mentioned
coming out as the top thing that someone who’s
polyamorous could do to help make a safe community. I’ve never tried
to be in a closet. But when I told my team this
week that, hey, here’s a talk and you should go to it, there
were a large number of them, some of whom– most of whom I’ve worked
with for more than a year– who didn’t know this
about me at all. How do you be out when
it’s not directly related to your profession? DEDEKER WINSTON: Well, I
want you to talk about this. But just to give a
little bit of a preamble, that’s definitely a phenomenon
of what we call mononomativity, which is similar to
heteronormativity, which is the assumption that
everyone is heterosexual and not even questioning that. And it’s kind of
the same thing is that we have this monomormative
assumption that everyone is seeking monogamy,
or everyone is in a monogamous relationship. So that’s the hard thing, is
even if you’re not actively trying to lie, or cover
things up, or be in a closet, that there’s still
this assumption that often gets placed upon people. EMILY MATLACK: And may
blow past them, regardless. it But I want you to share
your experience at work. JASE LINDGREN: Yeah, so I worked
for a visual effects company in Los Angeles. And there’s a similar
thing, where I even have the podcast to be able
to talk about while I’m there. But there is that
interesting balance of I don’t want to be just throwing
it in everyone’s faces all the time. But at the same time,
yeah, I would like to be creating more awareness. And as someone who is willing
to spend the energy on talking about this and
answering questions, I’d like to put myself
out there for that. And what I found
is it’s more just– as a polyamorous person,
on just a day-to-day level, it can be really easy to get
into these habits of using vague language around your
relationships of like, well, maybe I’ll just say girlfriend,
when really what I mean is partner. Or really what I mean
is this person I just started dating that you
haven’t heard about before, but you’ve already heard me
call someone else girlfriend. And if I just say
girlfriend, you’re not going to ask me questions,
and I can tell my story and not have to stop it to
answer all your questions. But it’s essentially trying
to pick the moments when you do have the
time and the energy to have those conversations,
and to just work it into your story in the
same way that if I have a male partner, rather than
trying to avoid that fact, I would just say,
oh, my boyfriend. Or even just saying my partner
will make people go, what? What do you mean by partner? Because we have that
association with it. It’s just like
finding little ways to put that in the conversation,
or something like, oh, I’m going on a first date tonight. I’m excited about it– when you’re having
that like, what are you doing this
weekend conversation. It’s finding those
little ways to be just a little more conscious
about that mononormative assumption that everyone’s
going to be coming at it with, to just make that little
mention to make it clear what your relationships are like. That’s something I found for me. But I agree. I’ve definitely
found that especially as new people get hired, that
conversation will come up. And maybe someone
else will mention it. And then the new person
is like, wait, what? EMILY MATLACK: Whoa. JASE LINDGREN: So yeah,
it is something that’s kind of an ongoing process. AUDIENCE: Thank you. JASE LINDGREN: Thank you. EMILY MATLACK: Thank you. AUDIENCE: I have one just
for the sake of clarity. Could you clearly
define the difference between polyamory and polygamy? DEDEKER WINSTON:
Yes, yeah, 100%. EMILY MATLACK: Absolutely. DEDEKER WINSTON: And
it just goes– really, it’s quite simple. It goes down to just
the roots of the word. So poly meaning many,
amory meaning love. Polygamy– so gamy
refers to spouse. So specifically, it
means many spouses. It’s not gender specific. We have a term polygyny,
which is having multiple female partners. Or polyandry, which is
multiple male partners. But culturally, when people
use the word polygamy, the image that comes to
mind is bearded men named Ezekiel with child brides. That’s what we think of
when we think polygamy. And so even though polygamy
just means multiple spouses, we usually try to
discourage people from using polyamory and
polygamy interchangeably, just because of the fact that
polygamy carries this really charged image along with it. JASE LINDGREN: A very sexist– DEDEKER WINSTON: And a very
sexist, unhealthy image. EMILY MATLACK:
Polyamory, you don’t have to be married, whereas
the assumption is, in what, polygamy, that
people are married, but there are multiple wives. JASE LINDGREN: Thank you. That’s a great
clarifying question. DEDEKER WINSTON: Really quick– just the fact that
we, over the course of running the podcast, over
the course of myself doing the work that I
do, I have worked with people who
are monogamous, who are swingers, who
are polyamorists, who are relationship anarchists. And I think when we
started the podcast, we thought, well, this is
going to be a special advice podcast with special
advice for people in non-monogamous relationships. And now four years
later, we’re finding it’s a lot of the same
advice for every single type of relationship that you
need vulnerable honest communication, that you need
to choose to trust your partner rather than fear your
partner, or that you need to take care of
yourself, that you need to have boundaries–
that applies across the board. And so what that says
to me is that either– regardless of our
relationship choices– either we’re more similar
than we are different, or we’re just really not
that creative as a podcast. [LAUGHTER] EMILY MATLACK:
That’s probably it. If you want to find out
about us a little bit more, we are at Multiamory.com. You can find us on
Twitter, @Multiamory. If you have other
questions, you can email us at [email protected] Also find our podcasts
basically wherever fine podcasts are sold– Stitcher, iHeartRadio,
iTunes, et cetera. JASE LINDGREN: Also Google Play. EMILY MATLACK: Yes,
oh, Google Play. Google Play. DEDEKER WINSTON: We have
a very old Google+ page. I’m sorry about that. EMILY MATLACK: Don’t look at it. Please don’t. But also, Dedeker Winston
wrote the amazing book “The Smart Girl’s Guide to
Polyamory,” which is for sale. And also, she will autograph
a copy if you want one today. Yes. So with that, thank you. DEDEKER WINSTON: Thank you. JASE LINDGREN: Thank you. [APPLAUSE]

38 thoughts on “Multiamory Podcast: “Non-monogamy for Non-majors” | Talks at Google

  1. Here comes the conservative kneejerk reactions to weigh in on other people's personal, adult choices. Psst. Hey, buddy, if this talk offends you, I have some communism that promises to knock your socks off.

  2. You know what Google, and Silicon Valley… you're a bunch of degenerates. I wouldn't normally care whatever crap you get up to… but you are imposing your wretched values on everyone else using search manipulation and censorship

  3. They can do whatever they want behind closed doors. But evangelizing non-traditional pair bonding is bad for society— statistically proven. The nuclear family is clearly best.

  4. we evolved into monogam for a reason, just because you are in the gray area of being a whore and wanting a relationship it doesnt mean you are an special, particular, unique snowflake, why cant people in 2018 keep their shit private? you just want attention derranged cunts, the popular opinion wont interfere in any way with your personal, private happynes, the 3 of you are useless for all you are worth

  5. "The first class antagonism that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." — Frederick Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State

  6. I'm happy to see the top comments are critical. Their arguments are clinically false and unscientific. Today's society values everything that is different from the norm even when the norm is what has developed because it is the most successful.

  7. had to distrust all of their numbers after they stated that "6% of the American population is vegan". It looks like she's referencing a study done on a survey of 500 people. It's a gigantic leap to claim that those numbers would somehow represent the entirety of the country.

    (NPR: "Is a no-meat world really better")

  8. I do wish this video would've addressed what is so far the only valid criticism of non-monogamy I've seen, which is that it's much harder to control STIs and unwanted pregnancies. Jealousy and "the moral fabric of society" are "problems" that can easily be ignored, but seriously what about how much more open to STDs you are? Obviously that only applies to sexually non-mon relationships, but still.

  9. So Google fired a guy just for questioning certain aspects of gender stereotypes; and yet it gives platform to openly challenge tradition form of western relationship model? Touche. And don't say that they are only defending this "poli-whatnot"… This false equivalence is just ridiculous.

  10. I better throw responsibility out the window before I go down this rabbit hole; later on I can openly admit "not me! It was my testosterone!"

  11. In the San Francisco poly community, the term of art was "safer sex" because it was understood that the term "safe sex" was largely mythical. Given the prevalence of cheating, for instance, even monogamous sex is not safe sex.
    So the mentality that the SF poly community fostered in me was one of caution in how I selected partners, a clear agreement with my wife first and other lovers second, and an attempt to create a safer sex conversation with anyone I intended to be involved with.
    (For those who are stereotypic in their thinking, my wife also had lovers in SF, and she followed the same agreements as I did. When we had a mutual lover, he also did. Also, we're still together, though at our age in BC Canada, neither of us is actively involved with someone else. Poly was easier in SF.)
    The overall point that I'm making is that there is no such thing as safe sex in the real world. All we can do is increase our odds, and if your way of doing that is monogamy, it's worth evaluating your assumptions.
    One thing about being poly is that you quickly discover how many relationship assumptions we all live with because in poly, most of them are up for discussion.

  12. Polyamory is not a sexual orientation, it's a choice, but I've come across a lot of people treating the choice to enter polyamorous relationships as if they're coming out of the closet.

    Personally, I couldn't care less what consenting adults do behind closed doors, just don't lie to me.

  13. The triggered monogamous people should rly look into: "Choice-supportive_bias" Google it. you're experiencing it.

  14. in this video we have strong representation of the marginalized privileged white valley girl community.

  15. In a polyamorous relationship at least one person is bound to feel hurt and because many of us are not masters of our emotions this leads to at least some form of passive aggressive behavior if not emotional breakdowns and problems. And this then begs the question: why is the "primary" relationship the primary one? What kind of purpose does it serve? What does that wedding band on your ring finger serve 45:03 , if not as a "traditional" symbol? And if it serves an emotional bonding purpose, then what do you make of the "other" relationships? Are they for "banging" purposes only? And if this is OK, do you then deny that emotions/hormonal bonding is inextricably linked to the sexual act? And if you are having a good time and loving everyone you're sleeping with but you're someone's favorite and it's getting in the way, do you "break up" with them? Or is "amorous" just a gloss on the label and polyamorous really means "multiple partners who you don't care for more than you care for yourself but who you are nonetheless honest to"? The reason none of this sounds OK to a person who is not partaking in a "polyamorous" relationship is because if that person puts themselves in your shoes (or barefeet) they will find themselves in a very perplexing situation if they actually think things through. Yes, you can expect a lot of demand for therapists. I understand that you're "trying to figure things out" but don't expect others to condone this and be OK with it, and this does not involve any disrespect, trashing or discrimination.

  16. This is what you call the decline of Western Civilization. Where you can do whatever you want there's no consequences to hell with the nuclear family and all that good stuff.

  17. Communication is the key to understanding. Thanks for sharing what you believe. Similar feelings have occurred in the past for many subjects and people's throughout history.

  18. I thought this was a very informative speech. The key to understanding is knowledge and open mindedness.

    What separates a polygamous relationship from a friendship? It’s the aspects that look like a romantic relationship….sex, dating, the anticipation of seeing that person, knowing that person is a little more special at that moment. When our spouse have friends, we are not jealous if they hang out, talk, do activities together but we begin to get jealous when that time starts to look romantic.

    Why is that? Why do those in polygamous relationships crave romantic time and activities with others and why do humans get feelings of jealousy when their significant other develops romantic feelings for someone else?

  19. A lot of dishonest blaming the "media" for the way people view non-monogamous relationships, when in truth the people who have created the image of what a non-monogamous relationship looks like, have been non-monogamous people. For instance the two women and one man idea. In truth most women who are non-monogamous, have purposely created this scenerio. These women tend to formerly call themselves heterosexual, but now views themselves as sexually fluid, and gets with a special female friend turned lover, and the man involved is forced to deal with it, or lose the relationship with her. So this isn't really the media glorifying how great it would be for a man to have two women. It's actually the woman gets to have a sea of choices, while the man has little to none, and is too afraid to loose her, so he just deals with being a left over lover. this isn't always the case, but happens a great deal.

  20. Lastly, these people are full of sh*t based on the point that the woman in red mentioned, which is her belief that Poly relationships give more satisfaction to people than Mono relationships. This is a lie. In fact, this entirely depends on whether you are naturally Poly versus naturally Mono. If you are naturally Mono, a Poly relationship is never going to make you happy based on the natural of a Poly relationship is an how it overall functions. So the idea that Mono relationships are less satisfying is dishonest, incorrect, and cowardice.

  21. Thank you for sharing information, and as always – being a big inspiration for working on our relationships, what ever their constellation, making them and ourselves better. <3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *