~*~*~Poly Families-- The Second Thread~*~*~ - Page 6

[majikfaerie]

MommyBear

[ocelotmom]

Originally Posted by Phoenix~Mama

So... thought I'd finally get up the courage to post here.

Hey, you're in my DDC! Hi!

[erthe_mama]

That's awesome, Phoenix~Mama, good for you!! Welcome!

Wow, majikfaerie, that sounds like it was so much fun! I'm sorry you had to leave early, but good on your for being respectful with boundaries!

I'm so sorry, MommyBear. That can be rough.

With me, things are practically the same as they have been for the last year or so relationship-wise. Still wishing that I could see my boyfriend way more often!! Things are still super awesome with DP though... Particularly since we just registered as common-law last week, and made up a new name together. It's "Stone" after Lucy Stone. She was one of the first wymyn to advocate for not switching to your DH's name when you marry. Sonja says it's after Patsy Stone from "Absolutely Fabulous" though.

[majikfaerie]

oh that's great e_m! Stone is a good name. solid and earthy.
I did a similar thing by changing my surname to Forest. now three of my lovers have taken that name over the years (though ironically my legal DH won't )

I got to spend the weekend with my GF *happy sigh* I feel so over-the-moon joyously and blissfully in love.
don't know when we'll get to see each other next - she's still working things out with her partner (they're separating and trying to sell their house), but her plan is to move closer to me soon.

[Yulia_R]

Any advice, input would be appreciated!

Hi guys,

I was not aware that poly thread already existed, so I opened a new thread asking asvice and input about a posibility of a quad http://www.mothering.com/discussions....php?t=1264513

Any advice, input is very welcome!
yulia

[EarthMommy80]

Yulia, I posted a response in your original thread....

[Yulia_R]

A few beginner questions :)

First I wanted to say HI to all of you, wonderful poly families!

I'm Yulia, 34 yo.
My husband and I are thinking about a quad (a commited union of two males and two females) in the future (dh isn't quite ready to move on the idea at this time). Neither of us has any previous experience in poly relationships, so I have a few questions that perhaps you guys could answer.

First of all, after reading this thread I realized that there are 'primary' and 'secondary' in poly unions. Neither of us finds that appeling. Is it possible for all members of a quad to be equally loving toward each other, equally envolved with each other (by the way, this is exactly the reason why I would not want to find an already existing couple, but rather two people who had not been together prior to meeting us).
Another question is: is it possible/realistic to create a poly family with people who are like us have no previous poly experience? For some weird reason (and I do not deny that this feeling is being TOTALLY irrational, but this is OUR feeling nonetheless and therefore, meaningful to us) neither me nor dh feels particulary drawn to the idea of building a quad with already experienced poly people (please don't ask me why, I have no idea; as I said this is not a rational thing). We just kind of hope to meet people who would like us as individuals (and we like them) and would be open enough to explore the idea (much like me and dh). So is it even realistic from your experience?

And third, if four people live together, how does the sleeping arrangements usually work? DH and I thought that it would be ideal to have a sleeping space for all four, plus for a couple and for just one person (this way everyone can still get their privacy when they feel like it, at the same time it would allow us to have our "four-time" as well as "three-time" and"two-time"...basically whatever we feel like doing. It sounds very good in theory, but I wonder if it works like that in real life.

Anyway, thanks so much in advance if you are willing to share your experiences and knowledge.
yulia

[rightkindofme]

Originally Posted by Yulia_R

First of all, after reading this thread I realized that there are 'primary' and 'secondary' in poly unions. Neither of us finds that appeling. Is it possible for all members of a quad to be equally loving toward each other, equally envolved with each other (by the way, this is exactly the reason why I would not want to find an already existing couple, but rather two people who had not been together prior to meeting us).

Not all people do hierarchical poly. Many people are good with everyone being equal.

Another question is: is it possible/realistic to create a poly family with people who are like us have no previous poly experience? For some weird reason (and I do not deny that this feeling is being TOTALLY irrational, but this is OUR feeling nonetheless and therefore, meaningful to us) neither me nor dh feels particulary drawn to the idea of building a quad with already experienced poly people (please don't ask me why, I have no idea; as I said this is not a rational thing). We just kind of hope to meet people who would like us as individuals (and we like them) and would be open enough to explore the idea (much like me and dh). So is it even realistic from your experience?

Well, thing is... when you have a bunch of newbies you kind of have the blind leading the blind. Experience with poly tends to teach you the common pitfalls in communication. There are a lot of areas where people tend to 'mess up' early on in poly (unspoken assumptions, not feeling comfortable really asking for what you want...) and you get better as you go along. If you want to do all this experimenting together with other new people that's fine, but be prepared to have to sit down and do endless hours of communicating because you won't get it right the first few times you try. You will find, "Hey I thought I was ok with ____ but I'm not and we have to tweak our expectations." That's going to happen no matter what, but you will have more of it with people who have never tried poly before. And you will find that your ideal rarely matches up with what will really work for you. People are complicated.

And third, if four people live together, how does the sleeping arrangements usually work? DH and I thought that it would be ideal to have a sleeping space for all for, plus for a couple and for just one person (this way everyone can still get their privacy when they feel like it, at the same time there will be a good environment for a couple just spend their "two-time" if they feel like it as well as "three-time". It sounds very good in theory, but I wonder if it works like that in real life.

This isn't something you can plan in advance. You can't decide this until you know the preferences of the other people in question. Some people like to do group sleeping. Some people can't stand it. Some people want to sleep with one other person but can't handle sleeping with three. Some people need it completely silent and others need background noise. All these things have to be worked out once you have real people involved instead of imaginary people.

Mostly I would caution you not to get to set on your ideals of how things will work. If you are going to get into relationships with other people you have to wait and see how they want things to go before you make decisions.

[Yulia_R]

thanks, rightkindofme! I really appreciate the reply, it makes a lot of sense!!

[ocelotmom]

Apologies in advance for the novel. Parts of this are a fun thought experiment, so I got to babbling.

Originally Posted by Yulia_R

First of all, after reading this thread I realized that there are 'primary' and 'secondary' in poly unions. Neither of us finds that appeling. Is it possible for all members of a quad to be equally loving toward each other, equally envolved with each other (by the way, this is exactly the reason why I would not want to find an already existing couple, but rather two people who had not been together prior to meeting us).

No, the primary/secondary business is not a requirement. It's common, probably largely because of the legal structure of marriage and social norms in many countries, but there are trios and quads and so forth in which everyone is relatively equally involved with eachother. Or a relationship in which one person is involved relatively equally two people, but those two people aren't involved with eachother. Or any other format people can dream up - there are probably people happily living it somewhere.

In practice... I think it's going to be hard to find four individuals who all love and are attracted to eachother exactly equally with no preference whatsoever. I suspect this is especially true with two of the people involved being previously involved (You and your husband), and with the other two previously being uninvolved, as is your preference. That's not to say a quad with a less-than-totally-equal attraction can't work. If it's mutually agreed that two people are happy living together but don't really experience romantic love or want to have sex with eachother on a regular basis, for example, the quad may still work out perfectly well. As with sleeping arrangements, it's all going to depend on the preferences of the individuals involved.

I think the important part is that everyone's needs are being met relatively equally, not that everyone's feelings towards eachother are equal.

Another thing to consider is that, unless you're planning to jump into a marriage relationship with two people you barely know and who barely know eachother strictly on the basis of shared ideals (and I'm not convinced that this isn't actually a stronger basis for a lifelong relationship than romantic love, so it isn't necessarily a bad idea!), there's going to be a period of getting to know people during which your existing family structure is presumably going to have to take higher priority than the potential-relationship. And this may be a hard time for the other people, as you don't want them to already be involved with someone else or eachother, and therefore they'll be in a secondary role without someone else to serve as their primary support.

Does that make sense? Basically, there are two ways in which the primary/secondary thing can work:

1. Person A is in a primary relationship with Person B. Person C is in a primary relationship with person D. Person B and C are involved in a secondary relationship with eachother. Because they each have a primary relationship of their own, everyone's needs are (in theory, at least) being adequately met.

There are variations on this... maybe "Person D" isn't actually a person but a 100 hour a week job, or a need for lots of personal time, or something else that fills Person C's time and meets their needs.

2. Person A is in a primary relationship with Person B, and a secondary relationship with Person C. Person C is not in a relationship with anyone else (or have anything else significant filling that space), and needs more than Person B is willing or able to provide. Person B feels stretched and put-upon trying to meet the needs of both partners, and person C feels lonely, second-place, and possibly used.

Both are "unequal" relationships, but the first has a more equal power structure than the second.

Another question is: is it possible/realistic to create a poly family with people who are like us have no previous poly experience? For some weird reason (and I do not deny that this feeling is being TOTALLY irrational, but this is OUR feeling nonetheless and therefore, meaningful to us) neither me nor dh feels particulary drawn to the idea of building a quad with already experienced poly people (please don't ask me why, I have no idea; as I said this is not a rational thing). We just kind of hope to meet people who would like us as individuals (and we like them) and would be open enough to explore the idea (much like me and dh). So is it even realistic from your experience?

I don't know how realistic it is. But keep in mind that, by eliminating those with previous poly experience (or those who are involved with eachother currently, or any other arbitrary restriction), you're eliminating a large segment of the population that would be interested in such a relationship.

I agree with the person who said you may have better luck finding something that works if you let things develop without going into it with strict limits or expectations.

And third, if four people live together, how does the sleeping arrangements usually work? DH and I thought that it would be ideal to have a sleeping space for all four, plus for a couple and for just one person (this way everyone can still get their privacy when they feel like it, at the same time it would allow us to have our "four-time" as well as "three-time" and"two-time"...basically whatever we feel like doing. It sounds very good in theory, but I wonder if it works like that in real life.

I agree with the person who said that it's going to depend on the individuals involved. Personally, if I were going into this situation, one room with space for everyone, then smaller separate rooms/beds for each individual, would make the most sense in terms of making sure everyone's need for space and privacy were met. If you're strictly taking into account all possible sleep/sex situations, you'd need a minimum of four rooms. Otherwise, at least two people will need to pair up at any given time. And, from a practical standpoint of rooms doubling as space for storage of personal possessions, this would encourage pairing-up on a more permanent basis, which you hope to avoid. So, everyone having their own room and bed seems most realistic for encouraging equality.

Keep in mind that, with four people involved...

Everyone is most likely going to have a different level of interest in sex, and you're not all going to want sexy fun time (or the same type of sexy fun time) at the same time, every time. That's hard enough when there are two individuals involved.

It's unlikely everyone will be on the exact same sleep schedule.

It's very likely that at least one person will be a light sleeper, and at least one person will snore like a chainsaw, toss and turn all night, or otherwise make life difficult for those who are light sleepers. Or maybe people will prefer different sleeping temperatures or have some other incompatibility.

You're talking about having children involved, and, given that this is MDC, there's a high likelihood of co-sleeping or at least roomsharing with one or more children, which may be more difficult or impractical with 4 adults sharing the room as well.

Basically, all the inconveniences of a shared relationship between any two individuals are still going to exist, multiplied by the number of people involved in the relationship.

Also, in any of these situations, it's very possible that two (or three) people will end up being more compatible in some respect (similar levels of interest in sex, the same kink, a shared preference for sleeping with the window open regardless of the weather...), and end up pairing off somewhat based on that. This doesn't mean the quad relationship can't work. It may end up being happier for everyone involved that way. But it's another way in which "everyone perfectly equal" may not be realistic (or meet everyone's needs).

I don't mean any offense by this, but I think you and your husband need to be really honest with yourselves (and potential partners) about what you truly want. You say you want a relationship where everyone is equally involved and attracted. However, you have an existing relationship (with the added tie/complication of shared children) that you want to bring people who are previously uninvolved with eachother into. Furthermore, you want those people to be as inexperienced with poly relationships as you are. All of this says to me that, at least in the short-term, you and your husband want to have control over the relationship, which is not a realistic setup for full equality for everyone. That's not necessarily a bad thing (especially considering there are kids involved whose emotions have to be taken into account), but you do need to be aware of it and honest about it, both with yourselves and with potential partners.

[Yulia_R]

Originally Posted by ocelotmom

Apologies in advance for the novel. Parts of this are a fun thought experiment, so I got to babbling.


No, the primary/secondary business is not a requirement. It's common, probably largely because of the legal structure of marriage and social norms in many countries, but there are trios and quads and so forth in which everyone is relatively equally involved with eachother. Or a relationship in which one person is involved relatively equally two people, but those two people aren't involved with eachother. Or any other format people can dream up - there are probably people happily living it somewhere.

In practice... I think it's going to be hard to find four individuals who all love and are attracted to eachother exactly equally with no preference whatsoever. I suspect this is especially true with two of the people involved being previously involved (You and your husband), and with the other two previously being uninvolved, as is your preference. That's not to say a quad with a less-than-totally-equal attraction can't work. If it's mutually agreed that two people are happy living together but don't really experience romantic love or want to have sex with eachother on a regular basis, for example, the quad may still work out perfectly well. As with sleeping arrangements, it's all going to depend on the preferences of the individuals involved.

I think the important part is that everyone's needs are being met relatively equally, not that everyone's feelings towards eachother are equal.

Another thing to consider is that, unless you're planning to jump into a marriage relationship with two people you barely know and who barely know eachother strictly on the basis of shared ideals (and I'm not convinced that this isn't actually a stronger basis for a lifelong relationship than romantic love, so it isn't necessarily a bad idea!), there's going to be a period of getting to know people during which your existing family structure is presumably going to have to take higher priority than the potential-relationship. And this may be a hard time for the other people, as you don't want them to already be involved with someone else or eachother, and therefore they'll be in a secondary role without someone else to serve as their primary support.

Does that make sense? Basically, there are two ways in which the primary/secondary thing can work:

1. Person A is in a primary relationship with Person B. Person C is in a primary relationship with person D. Person B and C are involved in a secondary relationship with eachother. Because they each have a primary relationship of their own, everyone's needs are (in theory, at least) being adequately met.

There are variations on this... maybe "Person D" isn't actually a person but a 100 hour a week job, or a need for lots of personal time, or something else that fills Person C's time and meets their needs.

2. Person A is in a primary relationship with Person B, and a secondary relationship with Person C. Person C is not in a relationship with anyone else (or have anything else significant filling that space), and needs more than Person B is willing or able to provide. Person B feels stretched and put-upon trying to meet the needs of both partners, and person C feels lonely, second-place, and possibly used.

Both are "unequal" relationships, but the first has a more equal power structure than the second.


I don't know how realistic it is. But keep in mind that, by eliminating those with previous poly experience (or those who are involved with eachother currently, or any other arbitrary restriction), you're eliminating a large segment of the population that would be interested in such a relationship.

I agree with the person who said you may have better luck finding something that works if you let things develop without going into it with strict limits or expectations.


I agree with the person who said that it's going to depend on the individuals involved. Personally, if I were going into this situation, one room with space for everyone, then smaller separate rooms/beds for each individual, would make the most sense in terms of making sure everyone's need for space and privacy were met. If you're strictly taking into account all possible sleep/sex situations, you'd need a minimum of four rooms. Otherwise, at least two people will need to pair up at any given time. And, from a practical standpoint of rooms doubling as space for storage of personal possessions, this would encourage pairing-up on a more permanent basis, which you hope to avoid. So, everyone having their own room and bed seems most realistic for encouraging equality.

Keep in mind that, with four people involved...

Everyone is most likely going to have a different level of interest in sex, and you're not all going to want sexy fun time (or the same type of sexy fun time) at the same time, every time. That's hard enough when there are two individuals involved.

It's unlikely everyone will be on the exact same sleep schedule.

It's very likely that at least one person will be a light sleeper, and at least one person will snore like a chainsaw, toss and turn all night, or otherwise make life difficult for those who are light sleepers. Or maybe people will prefer different sleeping temperatures or have some other incompatibility.

You're talking about having children involved, and, given that this is MDC, there's a high likelihood of co-sleeping or at least roomsharing with one or more children, which may be more difficult or impractical with 4 adults sharing the room as well.

Basically, all the inconveniences of a shared relationship between any two individuals are still going to exist, multiplied by the number of people involved in the relationship.

Also, in any of these situations, it's very possible that two (or three) people will end up being more compatible in some respect (similar levels of interest in sex, the same kink, a shared preference for sleeping with the window open regardless of the weather...), and end up pairing off somewhat based on that. This doesn't mean the quad relationship can't work. It may end up being happier for everyone involved that way. But it's another way in which "everyone perfectly equal" may not be realistic (or meet everyone's needs).

I don't mean any offense by this, but I think you and your husband need to be really honest with yourselves (and potential partners) about what you truly want. You say you want a relationship where everyone is equally involved and attracted. However, you have an existing relationship (with the added tie/complication of shared children) that you want to bring people who are previously uninvolved with eachother into. Furthermore, you want those people to be as inexperienced with poly relationships as you are. All of this says to me that, at least in the short-term, you and your husband want to have control over the relationship, which is not a realistic setup for full equality for everyone. That's not necessarily a bad thing (especially considering there are kids involved whose emotions have to be taken into account), but you do need to be aware of it and honest about it, both with yourselves and with potential partners.

Thanks so much for such a great informative response! It makes a lot of sense.
I have to admit that dh and I feel that we will be able to equaly bond with the new people in the union, but we aren't sure that this would be the case for the other couple (if we join with alreasy excisting couple). This is the reason we would prefer people previouslty uninvolved with each other (we don't want to feel like secondary and we understand just how important it is to not make those other two people feel the same way). As for people with previous poly experiences. I don't know. I guess a big part of our concern is that it seems like experienced poly people often are not really interested in real life-long commitment (I am not saying all of them, but this seems to be often the case). And no, of course we aren't planning on jumping into marriage unless we all are deeply in love and things are working out really well.

[ocelotmom]

Originally Posted by Yulia_R

Thanks so much for such a great informative response! It makes a lot of sense.
I have to admit that dh and I feel that we will be able to equaly bond with the new people in the union, but we aren't sure that this would be the case for the other couple (if we join with alreasy excisting couple). This is the reason we would prefer people previouslty uninvolved with each other (we don't want to feel like secondary and we understand just how important it is to not make those other two people feel the same way). As for people with previous poly experiences. I don't know. I guess a big part of our concern is that it seems like experienced poly people often are not really interested in real life-long commitment (I am not saying all of them, but this seems to be often the case).

It sounds like you're making a lot of your "rules" based on assumptions about how other people are thinking. Even if your assumptions are accurate for the most part, it's very possible that the people ideal for what you want also fall into that category.

Look at it this way - there's this concept within the poly community of couples looking for a "unicorn" - a bi woman (usually, anyways) willing to come into an existing relationship to form a triad. There are a lot more couples looking for this than there are single people looking to join into an existing relationship. And you're looking for not just one, but two unicorns (though with one being male, obviously). And not only that, but they need to be equally attracted to eachother, as well.

If you're willing to look at other established couples, at least the compatibility issue between those two is hopefully already resolved. And you're not stuck with difficult timing (What happens if you find the perfect male, but the perfect female doesn't materialize for another 5 years (or vice versa)? Is a triad with the goal of eventually becoming a quad ok in the meantime, or does it have to wait until everyone is available?). Looking at couples doesn't obligate you to become involved with people who aren't on the same page as you.

Likewise, a lot of experienced poly people may be, as a whole, less interested in a serious, committed, long-term relationship... but that doesn't mean much at an individual level. There may well be someone who has had a lot of poly relationships who is now looking to settle down into something more polyfidelitous and long-term.

Originally Posted by Yulia_R

And no, of course we aren't planning on jumping into marriage unless we all are deeply in love and things are working out really well.

The problem is that it's really pretty much impossible to get from here to there without a big long phase involving unequal relationships, and that doesn't seem like a good setup for a situation that's eventually meant to be fully equal.

I kind of suspect that what's likely to happen (assuming the right people can be found at all) is that, because you're going to have a long getting-to-know-eachother period where the existing family unit is going to take priority, the two people who you're planning to bring into the relationship are naturally going to pair off somewhat for mutual support. Doesn't mean it won't work as a quad, but I really have a hard time seeing a way to bring two people in and have it magically all be equal.

[majikfaerie]

sounds like you're getting a lot more constructive input here, yulia
for the most part, I'd agree with that the others said. and I'd also add: if you really want to manifest this, you can. take it one step at a time.

IRT sleeping arrangements, I've never been in a quad, but have had several long-term, live-in triads, even while co-sleeping with my child. we had an arrangement of 2 double mattresses pushed together in one bedroom and another bedroom with a single bed for times when any one of us wanted some space or 2 of us wanted some "alone" time. and for sleeping, there was room for all 4 of us (dd included) in the 2 double beds, and we could move a sleeping DD to the single bed in the other room for more active play with the 3 of us. we also had a double sofa bed, for more options; like if I wanted to sleep alone and have DD with me while the other 2 played, for example.

I think the important thing is, as always and in everything, to have clear, open communication. to work together to find solutions so everyone is comfortable and all your needs are being met.




unrelatedly... my GF, with whom I'm falling hopelessly in love, is having issues with her DH. he is not on board with the idea of poly r'ships, and that makes it hard. I'm really keeping my distance and trying to be respectful of him, but he says to my face (and to GF) that he's fine with it and we can go out together, etc, but then when she gets to the door, he turns nasty and launches into yelling and abusive behaviour.
(for background history; they are separating, and have been "separated but living together" since before GF and I first hooked up - they stay living together till they sell their house, which is on the market)
it's hard.

I'm really head over heels for this woman, but I so don't want to come between her and her DH. It's just so hard to witness how abusive he is to her (tells her she's worthless (and worse) and is physically violent at times, and tries to make her feel she deserves it)

[rightkindofme]

Originally Posted by Yulia_R

As for people with previous poly experiences. I don't know. I guess a big part of our concern is that it seems like experienced poly people often are not really interested in real life-long commitment (I am not saying all of them, but this seems to be often the case). And no, of course we aren't planning on jumping into marriage unless we all are deeply in love and things are working out really well.

Ouch. Uhm, as an experienced poly person I could just as easily say, "People who come into poly with some pie-in-the-sky group marriage ideal and no experience usually end up hurting a lot of people and creating a lot of unnecessary drama." I don't know very many poly people who are uninterested in lifelong relationships. I know an awful lot of poly people who are willing to accept each relationship as it appears and who understand that not every single relationship has to be forced into a particular 'ideal' model.

I'm going to be straight up with you that the quad situations I know of that have worked out wonderfully and people have been together for decades have all happened pretty unintentionally. The groups just kind of fell together and things... worked. Aside from the fact that it sounds like your husband isn't fully on board, it's really unrealistic and difficult to expect people to magically appear and fill all of your needs in a way that follows a script in your head. People don't work like that.

[eilonwy]

Welcome, Yulia_R!

Originally Posted by rightkindofme

Ouch. Uhm, as an experienced poly person I could just as easily say, "People who come into poly with some pie-in-the-sky group marriage ideal and no experience usually end up hurting a lot of people and creating a lot of unnecessary drama." I don't know very many poly people who are uninterested in lifelong relationships. I know an awful lot of poly people who are willing to accept each relationship as it appears and who understand that not every single relationship has to be forced into a particular 'ideal' model.

I'm very much with rightkindofme on this one. I think that you may be confusing polyamory with open relationships and/or swinging; They're not always the same things. I have friends who swing and friends who are poly and everyone is very clear about the distinctions between the two. I'm personally not cut out to be a swinger. Ideally I would have several committed relationships; Whether or not they were involved with one another or with other lovers outside of the group would depend on their needs. As to the hierarchy, I tend to treat individuals as individuals. It's the same deal as with my children-- they have different needs, they're four different people, and I have to acknowledge and accept that before I can interact with them most effectively.

[Yulia_R]

Originally Posted by rightkindofme

Ouch. Uhm, as an experienced poly person I could just as easily say, "People who come into poly with some pie-in-the-sky group marriage ideal and no experience usually end up hurting a lot of people and creating a lot of unnecessary drama." I don't know very many poly people who are uninterested in lifelong relationships. I know an awful lot of poly people who are willing to accept each relationship as it appears and who understand that not every single relationship has to be forced into a particular 'ideal' model.

I'm going to be straight up with you that the quad situations I know of that have worked out wonderfully and people have been together for decades have all happened pretty unintentionally. The groups just kind of fell together and things... worked. Aside from the fact that it sounds like your husband isn't fully on board, it's really unrealistic and difficult to expect people to magically appear and fill all of your needs in a way that follows a script in your head. People don't work like that.

I didn't mean what I said in a negative way and it is very well might be that I'm wrong. It is just the few poly people we've met throughout our life were sort of like that and this was the over-all impression they were giving about their poly community. But that is highly subjective, of course.

Thanks so much for sharing this positive experience of a quad! So perfect when people don't have to seak other poly people, when it 'just happens' instead! this would be ideal, needless to say, but I guess it does not happens this way that often...

[Yulia_R]

Originally Posted by eilonwy

Welcome, Yulia_R!



I'm very much with rightkindofme on this one. I think that you may be confusing polyamory with open relationships and/or swinging; They're not always the same things. I have friends who swing and friends who are poly and everyone is very clear about the distinctions between the two. I'm personally not cut out to be a swinger. Ideally I would have several committed relationships; Whether or not they were involved with one another or with other lovers outside of the group would depend on their needs. As to the hierarchy, I tend to treat individuals as individuals. It's the same deal as with my children-- they have different needs, they're four different people, and I have to acknowledge and accept that before I can interact with them most effectively.

Yes, you probably are right about me somehow overlapping polyamory with open relationships. While I did read about the difference it takes time for it to sink in, espessially after a few poly people we've met in the past (before we ever concidered it for ourselves...those people were somewhat both, I guess.

[Yulia_R]

Originally Posted by majikfaerie

unrelatedly... my GF, with whom I'm falling hopelessly in love, is having issues with her DH. he is not on board with the idea of poly r'ships, and that makes it hard. I'm really keeping my distance and trying to be respectful of him, but he says to my face (and to GF) that he's fine with it and we can go out together, etc, but then when she gets to the door, he turns nasty and launches into yelling and abusive behaviour.
(for background history; they are separating, and have been "separated but living together" since before GF and I first hooked up - they stay living together till they sell their house, which is on the market)
it's hard.

I'm really head over heels for this woman, but I so don't want to come between her and her DH. It's just so hard to witness how abusive he is to her (tells her she's worthless (and worse) and is physically violent at times, and tries to make her feel she deserves it)

[rightkindofme]

Originally Posted by Yulia_R

Yes, you probably are right about me somehow overlapping polyamory with open relationships. While I did read about the difference it takes time for it to sink in, espessially after a few poly people we've met in the past (before we ever concidered it for ourselves...those people were somewhat both, I guess.

Most likely the reason you have this impression is because the poly people who are out and about are the ones who are 'hunting' and in the main they have more interest in the more casual relationships. The people in really long-term stable relationships aren't out advertising. They are just living.

[BettinaAuSucre]

So my BF is officially moving out Friday

We tried to make it work living together but the priorities were just different.

We are going to go to counseling and work out the issues, or try. But we cannot live together.