The downsides of being in a rigidly-defined monogamous relationship are all kind of obvious, I think. Most people do not experience love or attraction as zero-sum games: you can have a "crush" or whatever on Person B without diminishing your feelings for Person A. So a person in a monogamous relationship is going to miss out on some positive physical and emotional connections that might have been really enjoyable.
But...
I've known a fair number of people in poly/open/etc relationships over the years and they tend to be inherently unstable, even moreso than trad monogamy. Like you said, often one person wants more exclusivity.
Also... let's be totally honest. One partner is almost always going to have more access to sex and love outside the relationship. Either they are more attractive, more assertive, or simply have more free time, or any other number of reasons. So the "openness" never seems to work out in a totally equal and/or equitable way.
They also seem to run into the problem of time and energy. In the abstract, love and sex are not zero-sum games. But a person only has so much energy and so many free hours in a week. So in practicality, yeah. It does become a bit zero-sum.
If someone truly loves their partner, wouldn't they be happy that their partner is getting more of what they need? Even if that is more sex?
I honestly don't know the answer to this question.
I've heard the optimal form of monogamy is when both partners fully give themselves to each other, and 100% seek the happiness of their partner. I was taught this in a religion. I can't logically understand it though. I can't imagine being happy or maintaining my own identity without spending at least a portion of my energy on myself.
I haven't been successful in relationships though, so what do I know? Is that just a religiously inspired fantasy, or can a real relationship work that way?
> If someone truly loves their partner, wouldn't they be happy that their partner is getting more of what they need? Even if that is more sex?
When analyzing my feelings after I got cheated on by a fairly long-term partner, I realized I wasn't upset she had had sex with another guy, but the rather the betrayal of doing so behind my back and trying to hide it.
This realization shaped my following relationships.
> I can't imagine being happy or maintaining my own identity without spending at least a portion of my energy on myself.
This is also true for myself, however it doesn't involve sex with others in my case. I'm content with my partner.
both partners fully give themselves to each other,
and 100% seek the happiness of their partner.
I haven't been successful in relationships though,
so what do I know? Is that just a religiously inspired
fantasy, or can a real relationship work that way?
I think there's a very wide spectrum of ways for relationships to work, but that one?
That doesn't seem remotely realistic or healthy. (Sex certainly doesn't work that way)
Your partner's happiness should be pretty damn high on your list, obviously... and I think there are times when it should come before your own happiness... but literally 100% them and 0% you? Yeah no I don't see how that could work in a literal practical sense, much less how it would be a good idea.
My relationships have been varying degrees of successful, I guess, but...
What I always have believed? A good relationship is synergistic: 1+1=3. You are the best version of yourself thanks to them, and vice-versa. But that's way different to me than each person being 100% focused on the other with no regard for themselves.
> If someone truly loves their partner, wouldn't they be happy that their partner is getting more of what they need? Even if that is more sex?
I feel like this kind of weird idea is due to a fallacy of replacing the actual human experience of love with a sort of rationalized version that has no boundaries or preferences or anything like that. The answer is... no? yes? if you want to? You can love someone and still care about what they do or don't do, and if it's a healthy relationship they'll respect those boundaries, or compromise if necessary, and you'll be respecting theirs also. It definitely does not mean "everything is permitted", unless that's what your personal boundaries are---which means that's what a relationship is to you.
The optimal form of monogamy is whatever the two people in the relationship want it to be. Sometimes that's 100% seeking the happiness of their partner (I think that's a delusional fantasy though). Sometimes it's two people coexisting and just having each other's back. The whole point is that each person finds a relationship that gets what they need. Not what some idealized version of a person that they aspire to be would need.
And my money's on no, most people do not want a relationship where their partner has sex with whoever they want, because it is also a fallacy that sex is a physical need rather than emotional one. In fact it has a lot to do with emotions, safety, power, compassion, etc, and those are all things that are (often) tied into a relationship, especially as you get older.
People focus so much on getting equal sex. If that bothers you you'te totally missing the point. Poly people invented the word compersion to amend a blind spot in our language, and thereby do the same in our emotional vocabulary. At least from their point of view. Maybe it's not a part of our vocabulary because it's contrary to our biology.
"It makes me happy to see my partner happy" is Relationships 101. Just because people gave it a word, doesn't mean it didn't exist - and I'd claim the opposite, poly people had to make a word because its not seen as the default in that community.
This is like saying, I invented the word "hiverchill" which means "that feeling of cold when it snows". You can't say this was a blind spot in our language. We didn't need this word, because of course you are cold when it snows.
"Compersion" is usually more than just "it makes me happy to see my partner happy", but "it makes me happy to see my partner happy, even when that would (at least traditionally) inspire some bad feeling in me."
Compersion isn't the feeling you get when you give your partner flowers and they smile, it's the feeling you get when your partner tells you a story about how nice their date with someone else was. It's a very particular flavor of joy-for-partner, that for some people doesn't exist at all because it is clouded by jealousy or fear or other feelings.
> poly people had to make a word because its not seen as the default in that community.
Feeling joy at your partner going on a date with someone else is not seen as the default in any community except the poly community.
The downsides of being in a rigidly-defined monogamous relationship are all kind of obvious, I think. Most people do not experience love or attraction as zero-sum games: you can have a "crush" or whatever on Person B without diminishing your feelings for Person A. So a person in a monogamous relationship is going to miss out on some positive physical and emotional connections that might have been really enjoyable.
But...
I've known a fair number of people in poly/open/etc relationships over the years and they tend to be inherently unstable, even moreso than trad monogamy. Like you said, often one person wants more exclusivity.
Also... let's be totally honest. One partner is almost always going to have more access to sex and love outside the relationship. Either they are more attractive, more assertive, or simply have more free time, or any other number of reasons. So the "openness" never seems to work out in a totally equal and/or equitable way.
They also seem to run into the problem of time and energy. In the abstract, love and sex are not zero-sum games. But a person only has so much energy and so many free hours in a week. So in practicality, yeah. It does become a bit zero-sum.