Are there any books with stable, happy polyamorous relationships in them? I don't like romance...

are there any books with stable, happy polyamorous relationships in them? I don't like romance, but I feel like something comfy. Hollywood romances agitate the shit out of me, though.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/H5fydLLcuYY?t=8m26s
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

The thought of polyamory makes me sad. I want nothing but a single qt for myself, and I expect her to not want another man besides me. Is that so unreasonable?

>Is that so unreasonable?
No, different people want different things. I enjoy the concept of polyamory. I'm asexual, so my ideal relationship is two best friends that love me, and can have sex with each other. But I'm serious about the books.

That's just a classic relationship + you as a friend; not even polyamory.

no, because they'd love me romantically.
that's how romance works.

why not just find another asexual to love romantically?

I don't know, I just want a poly relationship. I kind of have on already, but it's all platonic. I think that, but romantic would be nice. All three of us like each other, and different things. We have issues and we have strengths and we enjoy each other's company. Sometimes we do stuff together, sometimes it's only two of us. Watching my friends make plans makes me all warm inside. I enjoy them being able to say, go to clubs with each other, because I really dislike clubs. I don't get jealous because I'm completely sure that they like me just as much as each other, and I really enjoy that relationship.

It's probably stupid to think I could find a romantic relationship of that caliber, but that's why I read books.

you're going to feel permanently left out if they're fucking you're just watching, because you will literally be left out of that

hemmingway's garden of eden is exactly what you are looking for

I don't think you understand exactly how asexual I am. And no I won't, because people don't have only sex in a relationship.

thank you, I'll check it out.

I don't think you understand sex.

I do, I just don't care. Also, this is my fantasy relationship.

There is no such thing as a stable, happy, polyamorous relationship. It is intrinsically opposed to the natural order for humankind.

sure, okay. That doesn't mean there aren't any books.

>the natural order for humankind.
What's the natural order of humankind then?

>Can the unlimited possibilities and worlds of fiction even produce a stable, happy polyamorous relationship?
Hard to say. Certainly it's never happened in the real world so the old "write what you know" adage falls apart there.

polyamorists want to have their cake and eat it too. ain't gonna happen. all the cases i've seen its always an overweight superwholock reddithag with 2 beta orbiters.

...

point ...taken?

1 Man + 1women
Is it that hard to understand?

boring and gay

Could you please expand on your relationship with these two people? A friend of mine is asexual, never had a relationship and also can't imagine one, and me neither when we talked about it... Maybe I could ask him if what's working for you could possibly work for him.

You're an idiot.

Agree about the stable part.

kek at these people thinkin asexuality be real
i mean just stick your meat into some shit nigga like just pump a bitch nigga

I don't think a relationship for an asexual is much different as for anyone else- it's about honesty and communication. Asexuality is kinda difficult since as demonstrates people don't really consider asexuals real. So telling someone that you don't like sex is different than them wanting sex and you not being willing to have sex.
For some people, sex is a very important part of a relationship. But there are people who don't mind. Important is that your friend talks with the person they want to be in a relationship with, and encourage the person to communicate with them in turn. They might have to think of workarounds, some of them perhaps unconventional, but that's just part of any relationship.

Brave New World

Fundamental motivator of advancing civilization

Thank you very much

you're a platonicuck

Will you prefer a newborn + dead dog, is it more interesting?

Samuel Delaney's Dhalgren

>I enjoy the concept of polyamory.

Polyamory is one of the worst ideas to come out of the left in a long time. There is plenty of sociological and anthropological literature out there that indicates that poly societies end up having more crime, more violence, and a bunch of other shit things in the long term. But because Veeky Forums loves all things pseudo high status, it takes to it like flies on shit.

I don't care

Name some polyamorous societies. And I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that polyamory is high status. It's a pretty fringe way to approach relationships and will likely remain that way for a long time, and is mostly practiced by crazy fuckers in my experience. Polyamory isn't just promiscuity or having an open relationship; it's 3+ partners who are all supposed to love and support eachother.

To be fair, I've never encountered a poly relationship that wasn't a total garbage fire. Lots of fighting over who spends time with who doing what and so on. I knew one group that even had a spreadsheet to make sure no one got left out, though that seems to defeat the actual purpose imo

Heinlein

why not just have friends, or are you going to sit there and watch them you perv?

>that's how romance works

No it isn't

>Name some polyamorous societies

The Muslim world

Polyamory and polygamy aren't the same thing

Why not?

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress had some funky ideas like line marriages.

yep

Citation?

Heian period Japan was not known for having more crime or violence, for example.

As an anthropologist I have not encountered any reasonable evidence suggesting that poly societies end up having more violence or crime as a rule.

Within primates, harems, polyandrous fission-fusion groups, etc. are all very different between different species and even populations. For example: Hamadryas Baboons are incredibly violent harem-based primates, while Geladas are relatively peaceful harem-based primates.

>As an anthropologist
Where did you get your PhD? What was the topic of your dissertation?

How is nobody pointing out the blatant ripping off of the art style of Calvin and Hobbes creator Bill Watterson here? Bill Watterson created an insightful and imaginative contribution to American daily comics and ultimately turned down a fucking huge payday to protect the integrity of his intellectual property and art. Maybe this bothers me more than most. Just sayin'

>As an anthropologist

>How is nobody pointing out the blatant ripping off of the art style of Calvin and Hobbes
I think you're a moron. That's clearly a homage, or just a parody. Nobody is pretending it doesn't look like Calvin and Hobbes, that's the fucking point.

Sex is intrinsic to romance dumbass. Not love. But sex is. You can love someone deeply and intimately with no thoughts of sex what so ever; but its not romance. You god damned turd burgler.

The wives aren't doing it to each other in a polygamous relationship, at least not by design

The Decameron teases you with this notion

>Sex is intrinsic to romance
Uh, no. You're wrong.

I'm pretty sure polyamorous doesn't mean they do each other either. Thought it was just a meme word for open relationships

It really is, sorry

False.

In polygamy, as it's usually presented, there's a huge power imbalance leaning towards the male. Also, the participants do not usually engage with each other, but with the male.
Polyamorous tend to imply a balanced relationship, with all participants engaging with each other.
Open relationships tend to mean that in a two person relationship, both participants are allowed to have affairs.

>No, different people want different things. I enjoy the concept of polyamory. I'm asexual, so my ideal relationship is two best friends that love me, and can have sex with each other. But I'm serious about the books.
Looking at the OP pic, I feel sorry for you. /co/ trash are literally the worst humans on this site. At least ponyfags probably have actual human emotions.

This guy is not trying to institutionalize polyamory. Why the fuck would any of you be bothered by his search for a polyamorous relationship? Or anyone's.

Kinda but not really. The only poly people I've met all live together and try make sure that the means of reproduction are as evenly distributed as possible. Meaning that they all take turns doing eachother.

Because the more people practice polyamory the more likely it is that whatever liberal hambeast a Veeky Forums beta starts dating will want a poly relationship. Non cucked people don't have to worry about this.

youtu.be/H5fydLLcuYY?t=8m26s

so why are you worrying about it, you dumb cuck faggot?

You're not one of the bothered people, then?

>he didn't notice the number of posters go up
El oh el

I'm bored at work and this is the most interesting thread on Veeky Forums right now. I'm not really worried about poly relationships affecting my life.

What kind of work do you have?

>I'm not really worried about poly relationships affecting my life.
So why the fuck do you care?

>i don't like romance
No wonder, you're incapable of it.
'stable, happy polyamorous relationships' do not exist, you're requesting a romance because you're requesting a fantasy.
No, you're just a whore.

Look man I was reading the thread and some guy asked why anyone would care. I just listed a reason someone might care. I don't know why you're getting so bent out of shape over my answer.

fucking rude

I don't know that that counts as polyamory, strictly. That's just a wild, institutionalized promiscuity. Polyamory generally implies a familial unit, just a different one than the traditional man+woman+2.2 children.

A few of Heinlein's works have something called a 'line marriage' that I find interesting - basically a group of people, I think it was around eight or ten, who were all sexually exclusive to that group, and raised their children together.

You aren't an anthropologist, you're an undergrad who's taken a handful of courses.
You cannot work in a STEM field as an undergraduate student because you are in training. A philosophy undergrad can technically be a philosopher because there is no methodology to be taught.

Because some of us aren't LE NIHILISTS LMAO

Why were turds like you concerned with my 'relationship with a minor' when that was going on? NOT TRYING TO INSTITUTIONALIZE IT BRO

Fucking idiot.

False equivalency desu

Not at all. Stop avoiding the conclusions of your ideology.
LE NIHILIST BRO EXCEPT WHEN IT MAKES ME FEEL GROSS ;C

A 12 year old cannot understand the implications of a sexual relationship and therefore cannot give informed consent. Adults do and can (most of the time (you shouldn't go around fucking retards either)).

So what is the difference between deep, loving, intimate friendship, and a romantic relationship?

>MUH CONSENT
Irrelevant humanist meme. Fuck off.
>implications
What fucking implications? I thought you didn't like romance? LE NIHILISM reduces sex to an action like walking and breathing. Stop rejecting the consequences of your ideology.
She wasn't 12, by the way.

So are you saying retards don't get to experience sex, one of the most enjoyable human acts? You going to deprive them of that too?

consent is so fucking arbitrary

12 year olds are more intelligent and more conscientious than adult downies, yet only the latter can have consensual sex?

Because its disgusting and its encouraging others to follow the crooked path towards a loveless, hallow life

>consent
>Irrelevant humanist meme
I'm gonna rape the shit out of you

And I'm not the "I don't like romance" user. I can't believe there are people who actually equate open relationships and polyamory with pedophilia.

>She wasn't 12, by the way.
Matt?

Yep.

See above, where I say that you shouldn't fuck retards.

>MUUUUUUH CONSENT
Fuck off back to /r/eddit you dogmatic twat.
'relations with a minor' does not mean pedophilia, by the way, whore.

'romantic' is a euphemism for 'sexual'

What's wrong with being a whore?

Because the minor is being abused. Who's the victim in OPs polyamorous relationship?

So? These others can think for themselves and decide whether they want to or not, don't they? Nothing to do with you.

>Loveless
Citation needed.

his dad

Themselves and anyone who is influenced by their ideological cancer

Its nothing to do with you what's nothing to do with me. If they can think for themselves they can consider my scorn and criticism for themselves

How is this user dogmatic? It's documented that having sex with an adult as a minor has consequences, immediately and later on in life.
Yes, pedophilia doesn't entail sex. But, are we gonna debate semantics? user, clearly meant sex with minors.

No one said that people only have sex in a relationship you fucking freak. But if two of three people in one of your so called poly relationships are romantically linked, the third one(you) is going to be much less important in the relationship. You'd be closer to a roommate than a partner, you stupid fuck. I hate to use this word but you are one sad chuck of a man.

I told him that already.

>Polyamorous relationships harm the people involved.
Citation needed.
>Ideological cancer.
How's ideology to let every adult do as they please, as long as they don't harm others?

>It's documented that having sex with an adult as a minor has consequences

As opposed to what, a relationship that has no consequences?

It's to do with me. I might want to have such a relationship in the future. Therefore, I'm entitled to retort.

In this case, by consequences I mean trauma. Even if it's not 100% of the time, it's enough to make it illegal.

People have their own ideas of what harm is. I have mine and you have yours and I'm in no mind to bother trying to convince you of mine nor going on a goose chase to provide what you would regard as proof of that.
I take polyamory as denying the possibility of love, what is the most meaningful and important experience in our lives in my view. If you don't agree that's your prerogative but you should respect those of a different mind and not act as if you are morally superior merely for holding your own opinion

>are there any books with stable, happy polyamorous relationships in them?
I'm pretty sure there's no real people in happy, stable polyamorous relationships.

You have not been retorting, you've been attempting to deny the possibility of criticism itself which is very different. As expected of someone who may want to engage in delusion and self denial