My dating profile

By Brian Tomasik

First published: . Last nontrivial update: .

Update

As of fall 2023, after having this profile up for nearly three years, I think I probably don't want a relationship after all, though maybe this will change again some day. :)

The main issue is that relationships take up a fair amount of time, often more than you expect they will. I already feel stressed by the number of tasks I have to do and the finite energy I have for completing them. A relationship adds more items to my todo list, and even though most of the time spent on a relationship is fun, it's an additional firehose of responsibility that I can't just turn off when I'm too busy. Solo hobbies are better in this regard because I can do as much or as little of them as I choose at any given time.

I never want to have children or pets because I don't want the responsibility of being the primary caretaker for another creature. Likewise, I plausibly don't want the responsibility of being the primary caretaker for another adult human. I like helping people from time to time, but being the main source of companionship and emotional support for another person can begin to feel burdensome—unless that other person is extremely introverted and self-sufficient.

I'm keeping this page up as an archive. Feel welcome to still write to me if you want to, such as because you think you might be an excellent match or because you think a long-term relationship could require minimal time in most future scenarios. (I'm not really interested in short-term relationships.)

Below is the original dating profile.

❄

❄

❄

This is a dating profile for myself. It's written partly out of academic interest, as an autobiographical portrait of my current life, and partly with the goal of possibly finding a life partner. I have so many preferences about my lifestyle that the number of people for whom I would be a suitable romantic partner is extremely small. Nonetheless, if you happen to find what I wrote appealing, feel free to contact me about this topic. (If you're shy about revealing your identity, you could write to me using a pseudonymous email account.)

Summary

Text fields on dating websites for describing oneself and one's relationship preferences are almost always too short. This page allows me to expand on what I'm looking for if I pursue a romantic relationship.

I'm open to either an in-person or indefinite long-distance relationship. In theory I would prefer an in-person relationship, but I'm very picky about my lifestyle, so in practice an indefinite long-distance relationship may be more feasible.

Whether the relationship is in-person or long-distance, here are some criteria to help quickly figure out if we might be compatible. I would look for

In the case of an in-person relationship, these are some additional things I would look for:

In an indefinite long-distance relationship, it's fine if you already have kids and don't want more (or at least don't want more kids fathered by me). I just wouldn't want the noise and complexity of having kids in my own house.

I'm open to either monogamy or polyamory depending on the circumstances. I would probably prefer monogamy in an ideal world, but in practice, polyamory might be more realistic given that I don't want to spend a lot of time on a relationship.

Because I'm introverted and have so many uncommon lifestyle preferences, I don't mind if I remain single forever. Sometimes I think I might even prefer staying single.

To see my answers on other compatibility questions, visit my OkCupid profile.

Contents

Why a detailed dating profile?

There seem to be two main philosophies when it comes to dating. Some people, including me, prefer to enumerate their preferences and dealbreakers from the outset, in order to filter out incompatible people as quickly as possible. Others apparently like to "keep an air of mystery" in the process and get to know details about someone over the course of in-person conversations. I can understand this latter approach if you enjoy dating just for its own sake. Maybe it's similar to how I want to be surprised by the ending of a movie rather than having it spoiled. However, if your goal is to actually find a great match, it seems to me that laying out as much detail up front as possible is the better way to go. I would rather be in a nice relationship than be looking for one, so I prefer to find a good match more efficiently.

In that spirit, this page lays out the main compatibility issues I would have when considering a romantic relationship. I have a lot of dealbreakers. I would rather be single than be in a relationship with 99.9% of potential matches, so filtering on compatibility ahead of time is pretty essential for me.

Long-distance vs in-person relationships

I live in a house in a rural area of upstate New York, USA. For reasons of convenience and family, I prefer not to move away from where I am now, at least not for another decade or two. However, there aren't many people near me, I don't have a car or driver's license, and I prefer not to make unnecessary car trips because this squishes and splats bugs (and I don't want to cause bugs to suffer). So for the short run, any relationship I have would almost certainly be mostly long-distance. I dislike traveling, but I could probably stand to meet up in person about once a year if the person were far away (including international), or maybe twice a year if the person lived in the northeastern USA. For me, an ideal approach to long-distance communication in the long run might be, say, a 2-hour video or voice call once a week (or maybe a 4-hour call every other week), plus short written messages roughly daily or every other day. (In the first few months of the relationship, we might be excited and want to talk a lot more than this.)

Sometimes, if I'm in a productive mood or am otherwise not interested in socializing, I like to avoid checking my messages for several days in a row. If I'm ready to get useful things done, I don't want to waste time on talking, and I worry that even a small amount of talking might break my focus and lead me to want to talk more. This is similar to the reason why I avoid eating even a single bite of food when I'm not hungry: if I eat even a small amount, it may shift my body into eating mode, causing me to become hungry. I imagine that this tendency to not check my messages as often as most people do would be pretty annoying for many partners. There's an OkCupid question: "Is it a requirement that you communicate every day with your significant other (via phone, text, in person, whatever)?" I find that many women say it is a requirement, but that would be close to a dealbreaker for me.

If the relationship lasted a while and the other person was open to moving to my somewhat ugly rural house, I would consider that option as well. However, living together raises numerous additional complications, such as minimizing noise, avoiding interrupting each other too often, and resolving conflicting preferences about the house itself. These complications might be worth it for the benefits of being together in person, including more physical contact and ease/privacy of communication.

My quirks

I have a number of unusual lifestyle quirks and preferences that may cause incompatibilities. Here are some main ones:

My lifestyle

You can see some biographical information about me on my home page and my résumé.

I worked at Microsoft from 2009 to 2013. I donated some of my earnings to charity but kept a lot as personal savings. At the age of 26, I "retired" from formal employment and instead devoted more time to blogging on my site Essays on Reducing Suffering. I'm also an advisor to some nonprofit organizations, as well as to individuals who ask me questions. I'm a well known member of the "effective altruism" movement. I do all of these activities unpaid, so technically I'm unemployed.

I'm extremely introverted and can go for days without needing to talk with other people. I prefer to work on whatever I'm interested in at the moment for long stretches of uninterrupted time. Typically I do "social" activities like checking email and Facebook once or twice a day, usually when eating meals at my computer. I almost never leave my house, not even to go outdoors, because I don't want to crush bugs by walking outside, and there may be ticks in the grass. Plus, almost everything I want to do is indoors. (I take vitamin D supplements due to not getting much sunshine.) I spend most of my waking hours at my computer; the rest is spent lifting dumbbells, preparing food, showering, cleaning things around the house, and so on. I work at my computer standing up on a treadmill, and for 1-3 hours per day I walk slowly on the treadmill while using my computer.

I prefer to organize items in my room the way I want them organized, and I wouldn't want other people to live in my room. Even if I shared the house with a romantic partner, I would sleep in a separate bed in a separate room to avoid being woken up by the other person and to avoid waking the other person. Plus, given my erratic waking hours, I often would not be sleeping at the same time as the other person anyway.

If I were to have a romantic relationship, I would prefer for my lifestyle to remain roughly the same as it is now. That's pretty feasible in the case of a long-distance relationship because it doesn't involve living with another person. For an in-person relationship, I would hope that our living situation could be pretty similar to the way that two strangers would share a house, in terms of sleeping apart, having separate rooms, and minimizing interruptions of each other. Of course, we wouldn't be just like strangers because we would also meet up to talk regularly, maybe do some chores together, and share physical intimacy.

It's probably not feasible for now, but in the long run I could imagine even living in little separate houses next door to one another rather than in the same house, in order to reduce disturbing one another and make a clear separation between our respective spaces. This arrangement would minimize the disagreements and annoyances that living together could cause while allowing for closer contact than is possible with a long-distance relationship. Ideally these two mini houses could be connected by an indoor hallway so that we wouldn't have to go outdoors in order to visit each other.

I would prefer a relationship in which we work on our own separate projects almost all the time and don't judge each other for how we spend our time. I would enjoy talking about what we're doing but without any expectations for the other person. For this reason, I don't have strong preferences about whether the other person would have a job or not, would be "ambitious" or not, etc.

I would prefer for my partner to be reasonably independent and not need my help too often, though I would be happy to occasionally assist with physical tasks, questions, emotional troubles, and so on. Likewise, I also would be pretty independent.

My costs of living are fairly low. Most of my expenses are on essentials like food and health insurance. If my partner wanted financial support from me, I would prefer if she were also fairly frugal, although spending on the order of $1000 to $2000 per year on "luxuries" would be ok. If my partner earned her own income and spent that money on a more lavish lifestyle, that may also be ok, although I'm more likely to get along with people who have an altruistic mindset and want to donate significant portions of their income to charity.

Values

My main altruistic focus in life is seeking to reduce suffering, especially the suffering of non-human animals and possible digital creatures that may be created in the future. In philosophical jargon, I'm roughly a negative utilitarian, which means I think suffering is vastly more morally significant than happiness or other valuable things. Unbearable torture cannot be "morally offset" by also bringing enough pleasure into the world. This stance leads to a kind of antinatalism, because often the easiest way to prevent unbearable suffering is for a being never to be born in the first place. For example, there's an extraordinary amount of animal (especially invertebrate) suffering occurring in nature, due to predation, disease, starvation, and so on. One way to reduce this suffering is to reduce the amount of nature that exists. For instance, we could cover lawns with gravel to prevent grass growth, and with less grass to eat, there would be fewer animals. (In the long run, I would like to have a gravel, no-grass lawn at my house. It should also reduce the risk of ticks.)

Politically my values lean toward progressive, but I think there are many real-world complexities that make any dogmatic stances unwise. For example, increasing the minimum wage seems noble but could also increase unemployment and force some companies out of business (though it may still be a good policy on balance). Also, my negative-utilitarian philosophy is sometimes at odds with progressive policies, such as when I favor reducing rather than increasing the amount of wilderness that exists. On issues like feminism, I'm somewhere in between the vociferous voices on either side of the debates. Despite agreeing with social-justice advocates on many policy stances, I can be turned off by the more aggressive forms of social-justice activism because I prefer more respectful and nuanced discussion of these difficult issues.

I'm an atheist, although I find it reasonably likely that we (or at least some copies of us) live in a computer simulation of some kind.

In terms of interpersonal relationships, I think trust is fundamental. Knowing that the other person won't do something harmful behind your back is very important. A relationship should be a place where you feel completely comfortable in the other person's presence and can tell him/her anything, as long as it's done in a respectful way. For example, if one person were inclined to cheat on his/her partner, I would favor discussing these feelings openly and seeing what could be done about the situation. If one person feels dissatisfied about some aspect of the relationship, it's generally better to discuss the problem and work toward solutions rather than letting the negative feelings fester. (That said, if unhappy feelings are trivial or transitory, sometimes it makes sense to keep them to yourself and let them fade on their own rather than troubling the other person about them.)

Other compatibility topics

I intend to remain childfree indefinitely, because raising kids takes an enormous amount of time that I would rather spend on my current activities. I have a vasectomy, which combined with possibly other forms of birth control such as condoms and the rhythm method would preclude pregnancies. I would also want to avoid adopting kids. I dislike pets for a similar reason: they take time and resources, they can get into trouble around the house, and I don't get much enjoyment from being around them. Plus, I don't want to buy pet food containing animal products, which gives some revenue to the factory-farming industry. My childfree requirement is an absolute dealbreaker, while my anti-pet stance is merely a strong preference. If there were an otherwise amazing match who really wanted a cat or dog, I could probably learn to live with that.

I'm a lacto-vegetarian, meaning I'm vegan except that I eat dairy products (mostly cheese and ice cream). I'd be happy with a partner who was vegan or lacto-vegetarian. I also don't mind someone who eats beef on a regular basis because the harm caused to farmed animals per calorie of food is much smaller than for other forms of meat and because in some cases I think cattle farming may reduce wild-animal suffering. I would probably feel dismayed to see a partner eat any smaller animals than cows on a regular basis. (Maybe lamb would be ok too.) Eating a serving of fish or other non-cow animals once or twice per year as a health precaution would probably be ok, and eating meat leftovers from a social event that would otherwise go to waste is of course fine.

I would also prefer if my partner didn't consume much honey or rice, for animal-suffering reasons, although this is less important than not eating chicken/fish/eggs, and if I can be convinced that rice harvesting is no more violent than, e.g., wheat harvesting, I'd be fine with it.

I prefer to avoid non-trivially illegal activities, including illegal drugs. I also wouldn't want secondhand smoke in the house. My main concerns with drugs like alcohol would be whether they impair one's judgment or cause one's personality to become more annoying. Personally I don't do any drugs (besides medical/nutritional ones) and never consume alcohol. I even avoid caffeine, but I wouldn't care if a partner consumed it.

I'm looking for a long-term relationship, one in which I could be best friends with my partner for an indefinite period of time. Such a relationship could potentially last for life, but I also recognize that statistically, even many marriages don't last, and maybe this is a good thing, because people can change a lot over time.

If we lived together, I would imagine splitting housework in the same way that strangers sharing a house would: we would generally each take care of our own side of it. We could each clean our own rooms, prepare our own meals, do our own laundry, etc. If one person wanted to do some of these things for the other person, that would be fine (although I personally would still want to clean my own rooms and prepare most of my own food). Some activities like grocery shopping and taking trash to the transfer station would make more sense for a single person to do for both of us (or we could hire a third party to do these tasks).

I would favor dividing the house between us as much as possible and letting each person do whatever s/he wants with his/her half of the house (except in the case of externalities like noise, secondhand smoke, jeopardizing the security of our home computer network, etc). Our possessions would likewise be mostly our own rather than shared. Dividing things up in this way would reduce the frequency of disagreements about how something should be done, because there would be fewer things to disagree about. Some rooms (like the kitchen) and possessions (like the washing machine) would have to be shared, and in that case, we would decide together what changes to make to them.

I think entertainment/music/etc tastes are pretty irrelevant for romantic compatibility. For whatever it's worth, the movies/shows/channels on Netflix and YouTube that I watch are mostly comedies, because I usually want to relax rather than to process something emotionally heavy, though I enjoy other genres too on occasion. Even if I lived with someone else, I would prefer to watch TV on my own while exercising, because I only want to watch something when I'm specifically in the mood for it rather than at a scheduled time, and I often take breaks. For example, if I'm lifting dumbbells, I may need to take a bathroom break to wash my hands if they've become greasy, which worsens my grip. I would prefer for a partner to always use earbuds/headphones while watching TV or listening to music to avoid creating noise, and I do the same.

Appearance

I think I generally look ok, but there are some parts of my appearance that may not be very pleasant:

I shave all the hair on my body fairly short, to roughly half a centimeter in length. Having less hair just feels less messy, and it makes checking my body for ticks easier. I fully shave my facial hair about once a week and let it grown in between those shavings.

Following are some fairly typical photos of me, taken in summer 2020.

picture of me picture of me picture of me

In the last of these photos you can most clearly see some dermatitis buildup on my face.

For better or worse, the physical features that I find attractive in women are roughly society's conventional beauty standards, perhaps because that's what I grew up seeing on TV and in magazines in my childhood during the 1990s. I think attractiveness affects male motivation for a relationship at a deep "lizard brain" level, so it does matter to some degree, but I also prefer if a partner doesn't feel pressure to change her appearance on account of me, because that can be unpleasant.

The main reason attractiveness matters is not for sex; I don't care that much about sex per se. The more significant reason is that attractiveness plays some role in the amount of "warm fuzzies" that I feel and how much I enjoy talking with the person, and for me, those are the main reasons to have a romantic relationship. I have relatively little relationship experience, so maybe this view of mine is naive or would change with time.

In general, my (possibly naive) ranked list of motivations for a relationship in descending order of importance is

  1. The feeling of warm fuzzies when spending time together (talking, doing chores together, etc). These fuzzies are also somewhat present when we're apart and doing our own stuff.
  2. Companionship, friendship, emotional support, mental intimacy.
  3. Physical intimacy (hugging, cuddling, sexual activity).
  4. Helping each other out with chores/etc.

The last of these two mainly only apply to an in-person relationship rather than a long-distance one, but they're less important to me than the first two.

Update from 2022: I hope readers don't conclude from the above discussion that they have to be reasonably attractive in order to contact me. I care less about attractiveness than the average man, even if I may be more honest about its role than most men are. Since originally writing the above section in 2020, I've found that the amount I care about attractiveness has decreased even further over time. Traits like warmth, emotional stability, intelligence, caring about animal welfare and reducing suffering, and being able to get tasks done in a dependable way on one's own are all probably at least as important to me as physical attractiveness—except if a potential partner is unusually unattractive. Roughly, I think as long as a potential partner is above the ~25th percentile of attractiveness for her age, then I could probably learn to live with that, especially if she would be open to sometimes using porn together during sexual activity for extra eye candy, which I expect could go a long way toward reducing how much I care about her own appearance.

When I was a kid, I was often told that "beauty is only skin deep" and "what really matters is on the inside" when choosing a romantic partner. I generally assumed that was the case, but over time I began hearing more people express a contrary opinion that no, actually, physical attractiveness plays a big role in relationship satisfaction. I assumed that maybe those people were right and that maybe the messages about how beauty doesn't matter too much were sort of benign propaganda. However, as I've continued dating and introspecting on what matters to me, I'm beginning to think that maybe the people who said appearances aren't that important were mostly right? I still don't have a lot of experience, so maybe I'll change my mind yet again. If porn and masturbation didn't exist or were prohibited by my religion, then I could imagine that the attractiveness of my partner might be fairly important, because I would only be able to have sexual experiences with that one person. But given that porn and masturbation do exist, maybe those already provide a reasonable substitute for an attractive partner, especially if those experiences can be shared with my partner.

In my opinion, looking extremely attractive is like training for the Olympics. It's cool that some people work hard at it so that the rest of us can appreciate the fruits of their labor. But most people don't need to be training for the Olympics nor going to great lengths to be beautiful. Of course, even if we don't need to be Olympic athletes, a little bit of exercise is still good, and likewise, very low-effort ways to improve one's appearance are also welcome.

Personality

I'm introverted but also enjoy talking with people when I'm in the mood. If I get along well with someone, I like having long, deep, and intimate discussions. Some of my conversations with friends have gone for 6 or 7 hours. I'm fairly empathetic and usually care about others' emotions. I sometimes try to be funny and tell "dad jokes" (though I never want to be an actual dad). I also enjoy self-deprecating humor, though I'm not always joking when I describe my shortcomings. :)

I'm usually in a pretty good mood and have a positive attitude, despite my "pessimistic" negative-utilitarian and antinatalist philosophies. The reason I hold a suffering-focused ethical view is not because I'm unhappy; I think life is sorta fun much of the time. Rather, my reason is that some experiences of intense suffering are so awful and morally salient that everything else seems trivial by comparison.

I'm attracted to women who are warm, supportive, considerate, funny, and (once we know each other enough) flirty. I try to have all those attributes as well, though I may not necessarily succeed.

I try to be non-judgmental, though I may disagree with another person's views on something. In cases of conflict, I prefer discussing the problem, seeking to resolve it, and trying to avoid holding grudges. I like this quote: "Holding a grudge is like holding a hot iron—it hurts you."

I think I get angry less often than average, and when I do have that emotion, I usually express my feelings using words rather than shouting or making insults. I would hope for the same from a partner. I would not be able to live with someone who had a hot temper too often.

As problems arise in a relationship, I prefer to hear about them and brainstorm solutions together. Some polite disagreements and concerns from time to time in a generally happy relationship are normal and manageable. However, if non-trivial issues keep arising on a regular basis, I may prefer to give up rather than continue trying to fix them, given that I like being single and don't need a relationship. If a relationship is causing significant distress more often than, say, once every few months in the long run, it seems like more trouble than it's worth. Therefore, I wouldn't be able to provide the level of certainty or commitment that some people might want in a relationship. That said, if the relationship seemed otherwise extremely promising, I'd likely continue trying for a few months or maybe even 1-2 years before throwing in the towel.

I enjoy exchanging sweet sentiments with a romantic partner, but I'm not interested in the formal romantic holidays like our anniversary, Valentine's Day, birthdays, etc. In general, I don't celebrate holidays. I prefer to do nice things together when the mood arises rather than on a schedule. I also am not very excited by gifts unless the person actually needs the item that would be purchased, and even in that case, instead of receiving a gift I would rather buy the item myself to make sure I'm getting exactly the kind I want. I could pick out the exact item I want on Amazon and send its URL to the other person, but that seems like unnecessary overhead relative to just buying it myself. Instead of gifts, I prefer to show affection by occasionally writing nice messages, making videos, helping with chores, providing reassurance, and so on.

I dislike surprises (surprise parties, surprise gifts, etc) because I want to plan ahead for things and discuss together whether a proposal makes sense. In general, I prefer life to be calm and predictable rather than "exciting". Excitement can come from entertainment rather than real life.

Being sugar-hungry and sugar-full

I find that romantic interaction, such as talking with a girlfriend, feels like eating sugar: it's sweet, pleasant, and somewhat addictive. There are times when I really want sugar, and times when I feel full of it. The same is true for interaction with a girlfriend. I use the word "sugar-hungry" to describe those times when I crave romantic interaction and the word "sugar-full" to describe times when I'm satiated and don't want more romantic interaction. (I used to name these emotional states based on a specific kind of sugary food, like cake, but I don't want to subconsciously encourage people to eat non-vegan cake because the eggs it contains caused enormous suffering to factory-farmed hens.)

What happens if my and my girlfriend's sugar levels are different at a given time? If one person is hungry to spend time together while the other would rather get work done, what do you do? In my opinion, work is much more important than romantic interaction, since romance is just a fun bonus in life, while altruistic efforts are what really matter. So I think the default should be that if one person wants romantic interaction while the other doesn't, no interaction takes place. Both people should "swipe right" (in Tinder lingo) on a given interaction at a given time before it occurs. An exception would be if one person is feeling significantly bad and needs to talk about something right away.

An unfortunate aspect of my personality for relationship compatibility is that I tend to get very interested in something for a while and then lose that interest for a while, until getting interested again. In the case of romantic sugar, I sometimes want to binge on it for a while and then fast for several days afterward. This could be pretty annoying to someone who prefers more moderate serving sizes every day. That said, it's plausible that if the other person prevented my sugar binges, then my periods of fasting would also be shorter.

The addictiveness of romance can also be a problem if it's tempting and distracts from focus on other things. For this reason, I think I would prefer long periods of talking on an infrequent basis (like once a week), so that during the rest of the time I could get absorbed in my work and non-romance forms of leisure, rather than being distracted by thinking about the next romantic interaction or checking the other person's availability. Unfortunately, because of my erratic waking hours, I wouldn't be able to schedule a fixed time slot for interaction each week. Also, I might randomly be sugar-full or otherwise absorbed into something else when the scheduled interaction would have occurred, which would be unpleasant. Interrupting the flow of meaningful work just to enjoy some fun sugar instead is something I would want to avoid as much as possible.

So there are some challenges here, and maybe I find these things more difficult than most people do. But I imagine that enough brainstorming, experimentation, and patience could produce a system for managing different sugar levels that works well enough, as long as the other person also roughly shares my introversion and belief that work is more important than romance.

Also, it's plausible that this problem would lessen in the long run once my girlfriend and I got more used to each other, because the tastiness of our sugar might decline. There are several things (foods, TV shows, intellectual topics, etc) that I used to find terribly addictive but now don't because I just got more accustomed to them.

Monogamy vs polyamory

When I first wrote this dating profile in 2020, one of my criteria for a relationship said: "monogamous but allowing for viewing/reading porn". In the following two years, half a dozen people asked me about the reasoning behind my preference for monogamy, with some people suggesting that polyamory could work better given that I don't want to spend a lot of time with my partner. In 2022, I finally updated this profile to say that I would consider either monogamy or polyamory depending on the situation. This section elaborates on my thinking. That said, I know little about the theory of polyamory or what it looks like in practice, so some of what I say may be mistaken.

Here are my reasons for preferring to have only one partner for myself:

And here are my reasons for wanting my partner to be monogamous:

Since these are currently my main hesitations about polyamory, in cases where they wouldn't apply, I would be open to trying polyamory.

Polyamory for myself

I would consider two partners for myself in a situation where the time spent with each person wouldn't exceed 1-2 hours per week on average, where I wasn't deeply in love with any person enough to not want another partner, and where neither partner would be made jealous.

If I lived with a partner in person, I plausibly wouldn't have time for any other partner because living together requires a decent amount of in-person interaction, and plausibly my introvert brain would already feel enough social stimulation from that to not want more. Also, because of STI concerns, I plausibly wouldn't want to do IRL sexual activity with anyone except a primary partner who herself was monogamous. However, online sexual interaction with other people wouldn't be ruled out.

(Another argument against IRL sex in a long-distance relationship is that traveling would squish bugs and harm animals in other ways, and I'd feel guilty about causing that harm without a good reason.)

A main possible advantage of polyamory would be that I might be less bothered by the incompatibilities of any given partner. If I have to choose just one partner, there's a lot of pressure to make the perfect choice, but no partner is ever perfect.

One situation where people often use polyamory is if a main partner has low sex drive. This main partner (often a woman) might encourage her boyfriend/husband to get sex elsewhere. I'm unsure if I would be happy with an arrangement of that sort, because for me, a main point of sexual interaction is to feel intimate with someone I love and to increase romantic attraction. If I just wanted an orgasm, I could masturbate on my own. In evolutionary terms, it doesn't make sense for a man to have romantic feelings toward a woman whom he never has sex with, because she won't bear his children, so at best she would be one more friend. I suppose there are some exceptions to this evolutionary claim, such as if a woman could help the man raise kids from a previous relationship. Also, the predictions of armchair evolutionary psychology aren't necessarily true in the real world, though I think it is true that many men require an expectation of eventually having some amount of sexual activity in order to feel significant romantic interest in someone. In any case, there are many couples where having sex outside the relationship makes things work for them, which is great.

Polyamory for my partner

I would be open to a polyamourous partner if STIs weren't a concern, if I wasn't so in love with her that I worried about losing her, and if all of her other partners were genuinely ok with her being polyamourous rather than just grudgingly accepting of it.

STIs would not be a concern either if I was never physically intimate IRL with her, or if she wasn't physically intimate with anyone besides me IRL. In theory if there was a third person who was also STI-paranoid, it might work for her to have two IRL partners, but I would worry about making things complicated, and we would have to deeply trust the honesty of everyone involved. In any case, I don't live near enough like-minded people for it to be likely that there would even be multiple IRL partners.

The possibility of jealousy felt by her other partners is a main hesitation of mine, since I would feel guilty unless everyone involved was enthusiastically consenting to the arrangement. That said, I imagine there are some people who are enthusiastic enough about polyamory to allay this worry.

The main benefit of having a polyamorous partner would be that I wouldn't be the only person responsible for her romantic needs, and I could spend less time on the relationship than most monogamous women would prefer.

Acknowledgements

Parts of this page were inspired by discussions about compatibility with a girlfriend during summer 2020. She and three other friends gave feedback on this profile in September 2020.