Seeing as I'm not entirely sure I'm going to actually have the polyamory stuff happened on screen in my main fanfic, but I really want to present some sort of explanation to the General Public, I've been thinking about what kind of story I would want to read about polyamory.

I'm wondering if I should write a story in which Pinkie Pie goes about her day as a polyamorous pansexual. She wakes up with one of her boyfriends, going downstairs to work, kissing her girlfriend as she comes through for breakfast, going out to lunch with another boyfriend, going back to work and mentioning some sort of relationship she has with the Cakes in which she helped Carrot get Cup pregnant, then going to spend the night at a boyfriends house, only to find that he's invited one of the oher boyfriends over to spend the night as well, ending with her cuddling up between them thinking about how nice it is to be loved by so many people, and have so many people to love. I feel like, as a polyamorous pansexual, that is how I would describe what my relationships are like.

Do you guys think this would be a good story to actually being out? Does any Pony have a suggestion?

6680692
So this is kind of coming from you then? Maybe an O.C. in Pinkie's place would be a better deal perhaps. I mean it can work with Pinkie to be sure, provided it's done well. But I personally would think that an O.C. would be a better choice if it's coming more from inside you or from some personal experiences you have.

And it looks like it might so from what you said.

6680692
I think it could work well, and world personally keep it with Pinkie rather than an OC. It's very fitting to her I think, and don't think personal experiences should be kept sperate from canon characters by any means. Besides, it sounds like this is connected to a pre-existing story so you'd wanna be in line with that anyway.

The only point I have is that this would probably only work as a relatively short story. There's no real conflict here, which is fine for a short fluff piece but doesn't really work to carry a long story and keep things interesting.

6680692
Before writing, check your motivations. If you go into it writing, "I want to send a message," no matter how good the writing the work will be...stilted. Unless you're exceedingly good at writing, you're going to wind up with a weak story and ham-handed exposition.

That said, if your idea for a story happens to make your point, then great, write away.

6680801
It's less to send a message and more to portray reality, because I've noticed that so many people don't know what it's actually like.

Internally, I've always pictured Pinkie Pie as being the polyamorous pansexual of the group, although, considering Twilight's background, she might also be polyamorous, seeing as it's common within the scientific community...

6681047
While I'm getting in late on this, I would caution you only on making it seem like arbitrary wish fulfillment for the perspective character. Writing with the intent of showing what the (or your) ideal form of polyamory is like is all well and good, but that should include how the problems and issues involved are addressed.

When the topic comes up, I generally advise people towards monogamy. Not because it's better or more moral or anything like that, but because it's easier. Most people are not good at being in a relationship, finding difficulty with the trust, communication, and independence required thereby. Adding more people makes that more difficult both by bringing in more personal baggage and by providing direct targets for the fears and issues that crop up when there's not enough trust et al among them.

So, by all means write it. But you would draw more interest and avoid having it seen as fluffy wish fulfillment if you not only show the ideal but give a sence of how it is reached and maintained. With the outline you suggested in the OP, I worry that folks will scoff about it "not being that easy" - if only because I'm tempted to do so, and I'm on board with such things.

6685770
But that's the thing, that is what it's like for me. I really don't know where it's all these people are finding all this drama, I think they're just dating people who do drama...

6685808
While the cynnic in me thinks "give it time" is an appropreate response, it is possible you've simply gotten involved with more mature, self-confident individuals which has lead to less drama. Still, surely you have indeed had rocky portions, right? Issues to work out between at least two of you?

6685830
That is indeed just the cynic in you.

I've had two poly relationships over the years. The first one I left on amicable terms. No drama. The second one continues currently. No drama.

I think that for someone who is polyamorous and with other compatible people, it isn't easier to be monogamous. The necessary lack of jealousy for a polyamorous relationship makes it easier than possessive, jealousy-fueled monogamous relationships. The fact that we don't see or treat each other as possessions makes it easier. That we take joy in the happiness each of us has without requiring personal involvement in that happiness makes it much easier.

I think the problems you mention in relationships really do have to do with the individuals and their baggage, not as a fault of the kind of relationship itself. And it is cynical to assert that everyone is like the small sampling of people you've interacted with or think you've observed.

There are people who aren't compatible with other people. There are people who aren't compatible with monogamy. There are people who aren't compatible with polygamy. There are people who are worse off alone and there are all sorts of filters and needs and considerations that affect compatibility. To reduce all that to, "monogamy is easier, steer clear of polygamy" is absurd and you ought to stop giving that advice to people you frankly aren't qualified to be advising.

6685808
Between polyamory and homosexual relationships on offer as stories on this site, what bothers me more is how forced the conflict feels. "Oh no, my friends will stop being my friends if they learn I'm a lesbian. Oh, wait, all of them are lesbians too and all six of us pair off the way the author ships us" is trite. "Oh no, all of Ponyville/Equestria will hang us from the nearest tree because we're both mares!" is similarly bullshit.

Of course, a story will need some kind of conflict, but I don't think you have to force the conflict to be about the polygamy and/or polyamorous nature of the relationship itself. There are plenty of stories to tell without following the poor advice of "Empirical Deduction" above. A simple "Day in the life of" and letting the conflict be more about what to buy at the grocery store when the first choice is out of stock, with the character being in the sort of relationship web you describe, is just as valid a story to tell. Present the character and their life as normal, while dealing with problems other than relationship drama.

You don't have to feed the cycle of stereotype. Essentially that is what Empirical Deduction is demanding. Everyone thinks poly is all drama, thus demand there be drama in stories containing it.

6686068
You misunderstand, and I'm afraid you're leaping to conclusions. I did not say that polyamory inherently causes drama, merely that adding more people increases the odds of getting baggage. That's just simple statistics, and leads us to our second point:

I did not say and have not ever said "steer clear of poly", I said that for most it would be more difficult. That's not to say it can't be done, nor that it isn't worth it, nor that there aren't people that are better suited to it. Moreover, when I advise people on this topic I don't boil it down as you mistook, I say all I have and more. I explain the reasoning to make sure they're considering how such a relationship will work.

Here's some advice I'm quite qualified to give by virtue of having made similar mistakes: don't put words in others' mouths, don't immediately leap to the least cheritable interpretation of what someone says, and try to avoid that knee-jerk "us-or-them" divide. I'm not your enemy, but I'm not exactly pleased to be misrepresented.

That said...

6685808

Cryosite is absolutely correct that you need not have the polyamory be a source of drama. As they said, there's a steriotype, and one way to subvert that is to treat it as perfectly normal and find the conflict or drama elsewhere.

I will note that I was not suggesing fully embracing the drama, but - if the fic is to be instructional - to show why the steriotype need not be so. As I said, provide a sense of how the ideal is reached and maintained. While what came to mind for me was using the maintenance as the story's conflict, the aforementioned sense could be provided without.

If you can pull off Cryosite's idea while giving an impression of normality rather than wish fulfilment, it could easily have more impact than what I suggested.

6686068

Between polyamory and homosexual relationships on offer as stories on this site, what bothers me more is how forced the conflict feels. "Oh no, my friends will stop being my friends if they learn I'm a lesbian. Oh, wait, all of them are lesbians too and all six of us pair off the way the author ships us" is trite. "Oh no, all of Ponyville/Equestria will hang us from the nearest tree because we're both mares!" is similarly bullshit.

I'll be honest in saying that I am surprised that my eyes haven't physically popped out of my head for the number of times I've seen this crap due to them rolling so damn hard. And every single time I have seen this it always felt forced and unnatural.

It's like these writers feel some kind of childish and arbitrary obligation to create this kind of forced drama. As if that makes the story more convincing or relatable in some way. It doesn't, it just makes it feel lazy to me.

6686113

When the topic comes up, I generally advise people towards monogamy. Not because it's better or more moral or anything like that, but because it's easier.

This is you steering people away from polygamy. You base this on the mistaken idea that it is "easier." You base this opinion on "statistics" that generalize people.

People are individuals. Relationships between people necessitate case by case treatment. You aren't qualified to give relationship advice because you fundamentally misunderstand them.

The correct way to approach giving this advice to people would be to find out if they are suited to polyamory or not. And you're not qualified to do that. I don't consider myself qualified to do so, to head you off before you try that route, but then I don't go around attempting to advise people on whom they should or shouldn't get into relationships with.

This isn't putting words into your mouth, this is disagreeing with you doing a thing you say you do. You clearly think you're fine to do it, and I don't think you are.

This entire paragraph:

When the topic comes up, I generally advise people towards monogamy. Not because it's better or more moral or anything like that, but because it's easier. Most people are not good at being in a relationship, finding difficulty with the trust, communication, and independence required thereby. Adding more people makes that more difficult both by bringing in more personal baggage and by providing direct targets for the fears and issues that crop up when there's not enough trust et al among them.

Has literally nothing to do with the story idea. This is you inserting your own anecdotal experiences. How else is this supposed to be interpreted? You open with the declaration that what Rockstar described comes across as wish-fulfillment. You then drop your anecdotal experience, and treat it as if that was the standard simply because it is your experience. You defend this as if it were the norm, by attempting to appeal to "statistics" as an authority.

No, you have two people who have had experiences that differ from yours. What Rockstar described isn't inherently wish-fulfillment in need of the sort of drama you expect in order to make it more "real."

My Grandparents (who are monogomous) met in their very early adulthoods, got married, had four kids (including my mom), and stuck together for over 60 years before my Grandpa died. They got along with each other without the immaturity you cynically expect of people. I could tell many stories with them being in a relationship as a simple character feature, despite the staticstically uncommon nature of any two people getting along well. Citing things like rampant divorce rates and the like doesn't in any way make any sense in a story about my Grandparents.

Polyamory is the same way. Some groups have issues. Some don't. Writing stories about any particular group doesn't suddenly become "wrong" or "wish-fullfilment" simply because they don't match up with whatever you think is statistically likely.

Once again, you sound like the heteronormative idiots that complain when a story has more than a 10% representation of homosexuals in it, because they personally dislike stories that don't conform to their heteronormative views (hence the label). They will complain about a story if it focuses on a lesbian pair, because apparently authors have a quota of 90% straight stories in order to satisfy them. If a single story has more than one homosexual pairing in it? That's outrageous and unbelievable!

You aren't as extreme as those examples, but you're in the same direction. Stories are about the uncommon and unusual individuals. They're about unusual events. That is what makes them interesting. How you advize people on their relationships has no bearing on storytelling, and it certainly makes you come across as if you're doing as the hetfags typically do.

Don't like being misrepresented? Then represent yourself better. Being cynical of others invites them to be cynical of you and your motives.

6686205

This entire paragraph: <cut for space>
Has literally nothing to do with the story idea. This is you inserting your own anecdotal experiences. How else is this supposed to be interpreted? You open with the declaration that what Rockstar described comes across as wish-fulfillment. You then drop your anecdotal experience, and treat it as if that was the standard simply because it is your experience. You defend this as if it were the norm, by attempting to appeal to "statistics" as an authority.

No, and in that is the crux of your misunderstanding. Rockstar asked for suggestions, and that was me fleshing out my suggestion, explaining what I thought may be an issue they may run into in terms of how his story could come across to others and explaining why with my own anecdotal observations. Their experiences, and yours, differ from what I've witnessed. This doesn't invalidate any of our experiences, and asking me to not use mine as a basis for commentary would be no better than me asking them not to use their experiences as a basis for their story.

They said they wished to present an "explanation to the General Public". If one cannot understand the perspective of the General Public, or a view aside from one's own, one is not going to do that successfully. If you don't think what I said carries any worthwhile insight for their prospective story, that's fine; you're welcome to your opinion. But just as you mention the "stereotype", I wanted to bring up a potential issue as I saw it, and some simple reasoning behind it. Which leads us to:

Polyamory is the same way. Some groups have issues. Some don't. Writing stories about any particular group doesn't suddenly become "wrong" or "wish-fullfilment" simply because they don't match up with whatever you think is statistically likely.

Given your past experiences with folks who demand "heteronormative reprentation" - and yes, I assure you that irritates me as well - I can entirely understand why you'd jump on me for phrasing it in terms of statistics. But my point isn't "X is statistically unlikely, so you shouldn't write X in a story". As you point out, that'd be silly. No, my point is that if someone wants to explain how do to something right, or how the ideal goes, explaining how that works is important. Or strikes me as important at the least. So if the answer is "it works with individuals suited to poly", that is part of the explanation. If the answer is "it works by letting go of jealousy and fear", that is part of the explanation. I'm not and never was calling for drama; at worst I was calling for a peek at how things are prevented from becoming drama. I am calling for an explanation to actually explain things. And yes, that could be done and done well through subtle omission and normalization, akin to what you suggested. I quite like that idea in fact.

I do appreciate you letting me know how I came off to you, and I will bear that in mind. In exchange, from where I sit it looks like you've got a chip on your shoulder and are prone to offense which contributed to mistaking my intent twice now.

And lastly, on to the personal bits:

... You base this on the mistaken idea that it is "easier." You base this opinion on "statistics" that generalize people.

People are individuals. Relationships between people necessitate case by case treatment. You aren't qualified to give relationship advice because you fundamentally misunderstand them.

The correct way to approach giving this advice to people would be to find out if they are suited to polyamory or not. And you're not qualified to do that. I don't consider myself qualified to do so, to head you off before you try that route, but then I don't go around attempting to advise people on whom they should or shouldn't get into relationships with.

This isn't putting words into your mouth, this is disagreeing with you doing a thing you say you do. You clearly think you're fine to do it, and I don't think you are.

I first note with gravitas and then cheerfully table your advice on this matter.

As you evidently have a mistaken impression of my view both on relationships and on giving advice (which, I grant, may well be my fault), what you said doesn't apply to me in the slightest. While in a different context I'd be happy to clarify how I see relationships and how one moves from generalization to case-by-case advice, for several reasons it doesn't seem like it would be productive at present. None the less, thank you for offering your advice; should I meet someone who views relationships and generalizations the way you appear to think I do, I shall pass it on to them.

Oh wow, did I start a fight?

6686196
6686205
6686316
So, all of this stuff is the reason why I kind of want to write a story like this, where the main character is polyamorous, and there isn't really any conflict or drama. I feel like people are overcomplicating the issue of polyamory, because my partners and I don't feel like it's anything special, we just don't want to be constrained by having to choose between people we want to date. There's no drama necessary there, no conflicts, just a normal relationship, without adding in the constraint that we only see that person and no one else.

Empirical Deduction is right, the people who I am interested in being in a relationship with are probably the kind of people that don't do drama, but that's because I find those people repelling. What I think the disconnect here is is that I never said there weren't problems, or hang ups, or issues, (although, we are all undramatic enough that no one freaks out) all I said is that I've never had a situation where I started a relationship with a new partner and they were suddenly jealous of everyone else. I actually can't identify with a chunk of the romance stories out there simply because I cannot identify with monogamous people. I do not understand them outside of immediately believing there is something truly wrong with them.

6686373

I feel like people are overcomplicating the issue of polyamory,

Yeah, it does really feel that way as I learn more about it. It is something that can be complicated depending, but that's life in general really.

I just feel like polyamory is the default, and all of society has added this extra rule that makes it monogamy...

And I don't understand how people can supposedly love other people and care about them but not want them to see other people simultaneously, if that's what will make them happy, nor do I understand how people are able to just reject someone that they're developing feelings for because they are already in a relationship with someone else...