137
‘It’s risky business emotionally’: the social shift towards open relationships
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2025
137 points (91.5% liked)
News
33152 readers
3537 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That just sounds like a bunch of friends with benefits. The thing that defined a relationship imo is the valuation you put on your time spent with someone. If you enjoy being with them more than anyone else, its worth pursuing a relationship. And I simply dont see how thats possible with mutliple people unless youre "dating" the group and not any individual member. Or unless you have nothing but free time on your hands. As an austist, i find it difficult but managble to handle my personal hygene, work responsiblilities, and sleep on the same day. Adding in social time and r&r time or "me" time, and it becomes extremely difficult to manage my time daily. Add in a relationship, and my life would be maxed. I cant imagine handling multiple relationships, which is what it sounds like youre describing.
To be clear, im of the mind that is people want to be polygamous, there is absolutely nothing I have to say about it. Its not my thing, but I'd like to understand it. I don't need to to support its existance indirectly by not speaking out against it. But I would still like to, hence having discussions with people whose views differ. This just feels like the type of topic people are going to get heated about.
I don't disagree necessarily, I would describe the woman who's part of a different poly that we hook up with occasionally as a friend with benefits situation, though I'd be open to changing that dynamic if she was. But very much the stable and lasting poly relationships I've been in were effectively group dating. Like not to say there was never separate dates here and there, but very much most things are communal. I'm with you on barely having enough spoons to maintain the minimum required hygiene and meet general social expectations, I couldn't handle a situation where I'm going on multiple dates with different people every week. Been there. Tried that. It wasn't sustainable. But a core group where individual members just happen to have FWBs is perfectly manageable in my experience, though keeping track of paramours can be a pain since I'm really bad with names.
Having that close core group also comes with benefits such as someone almost always being available and even if not all interests are mutual you'll share some with one, some with another, and a lot more time can be spent together with someone your close with working on projects or getting way to deep into philosophy or lore.
And to be clear I'm of the mind that people can be monogamous if they want, I just don't get it. It feels to possessive and limiting. I don't want to and literally can't be someone's everything and don't expect any one other person to be my everything either. Probably helps no kids are involved nor can they become so biologically with who I'm currently with. Kids seem to complicate the fuck out of relationships from what I've seen. So at least in our case that can't become a thing without mutual agreement. Not to say kids require monogamy, that's not true, I've seen it work without that being the case, but only twice.
Why would you say its possessive? Its more about avoiding drama and just having one person you know you can count on. There's enough drama in a mono relationship without having to pick sides.
I tend to view telling someone what they can and can't do as being possessive. Demanding monogamy is therefore possessive. It's taking away agency not as bad or as possessive as saying you can't have friends who are X. Which is probably the most commonly recognized form of such behavior, but it's on the same continuum in my mind.