Non-Monogamy

[TerraPrime]

This is a thread split from the dating thread.

==================================

Well, this girl turned out to not be someone new, but rather, someone he started seeing in April or May, when he and I first met. I was surprised he hadn't told me about her. I kind of felt lied to, because we supposedly had full disclosure.

But, I squelched that feeling. I could forgive, right? I reminded him that it was ok (this is POLYAMORY, after all) to have strong feelings for more than one person.

Agreed.

I found out that this girl has read all of my texts - no prior permission was asked, nor was I asked if I wanted to read her texts. Although I would have given permission, it feels like he should have asked, ya know? And I don't get the same courtesy?

This is not acceptable behavior on his part, but less on the unequal treatment and more on divulging messages meant for his eyes only to his other girlfriend. That's disrespectful to you, and to the relationship between you and him. He should indeed have asked your permission first if he wishes to share those texts.

I hope I get my book back.

And I can't believe how badly that ended.

I hope you get your book back, too.

That said, I will state for the benefit of others who have not tried polyamorous relationships before that there is more than one way to have it work. You're totally in your right to demand certain considerations, e.g. being an equal to his other paramours, and you're absolutely doing the right thing to walk away when he fails to provide that. But some people are happy in polyamorous relationships where not everyone is equal, where there is a primar and a secondary. If that's what Ironman had wanted, he should have informed you and negotiated the boundaries with you up front.

[Kalbear]

A secret monogamist sounds like something McCarthy would have had trials for.

In my hands I have a list of 46 people who have been or currently are secret monogamists.

[TerraPrime]

I think that Mr Ironman is either a secret monogamist or just pretty damn confused, with no regard to boundaries.

I wouldn't call someone who has been fairly happy to carry on at least 2 parallel romantic relationships a monogamist, secret or otherwise. My own experience is that a significant number of people who try out polyamorous or open relationships are doing it for the wrong reasons and/or in the wrong way and/or not ready for the consequences. So perhaps Mr Ironman falls into that category of people?

[Maithanet]

Yeah, I lost my copy of Clash of Kings that way. Oh well, there's plenty more where that came from!

That said, I will state for the benefit of others who have not tried polyamorous relationships before that there is more than one way to have it work. You're totally in your right to demand certain considerations, e.g. being an equal to his other paramours, and you're absolutely doing the right thing to walk away when he fails to provide that. But some people are happy in polyamorous relationships where not everyone is equal, where there is a primar and a secondary. If that's what Ironman had wanted, he should have informed you and negotiated the boundaries with you up front.

This is one of several reasons why I don't think that polyamory is for me. It seems like the necessary communication and understanding between the people involved is even higher than a monogomous relationship, in spite of generally spending less time together. I think that sharing texts you sent with another girlfriend is TOTALLY inappropriate, and it would never even occur to me that I would even need to bring that up. In addition, you need to come to this understanding of what the relationship is with multiple people, all of whom may or may not have communication issues of their own. Plus, even once that is taken care of, the situation could easily change based on someone else's relationship with another partner, and you would have no anticipation of that. I dunno, it sounds really exhausting and stressful to me.

[Kalbear]

I think polyamory in practice works better when everyone is aware and likes everyone else. Otherwise it is just a haven for things precisely like this.

[karaddin]

Well you seemed to have given an open invitation, but lily hadn't indicated willingness to cosleep on them.

I mean ffs Luke we were just talking about the importance of communication with everyone, are you even paying attention? :p

Terra I think I've seen some examples on here of poly done for the wrong reasons (one particular poster I haven't seen in a while springs to mind) and Chats seems to have a pretty healthy attitude to it but I don't remember her reasons very well. Would you mind elaborating on what you think are the right reasons?

[brook]

Chats I agree, and it's only romantic love that we picture like that too.

Everyone agrees you can love more than one child (and I can say with great confidence that while I love them all equally I love them differently and for different reasons), you can love both your parents, all your siblings, multiple friends and nothing is taken away from the other.

I've come to realise I will probably always love two people romantically. One of them is not someone that it is healthy or possible for me to have a relationship with (sadly even a friendship as it turns out) but the feelings remain. Those feelings don't in any way change or take away from the way I feel about the other though, and her acceptance of that fact is one of the many ways she is right for me.

[Kalbear]

Chats, what you had didn't sound anything like what I know of polyamory. It just sounded like you were fucking a few people.

[Inigima]

Polyamory is not for me, but to be clear I don't intend this as some kind of moral judgment: I have known maybe one polyamorous... couple? that has ever been really happy with it versus some or all of them being jealous or otherwise upset with the situation. I think for many or most people it is a really hard thing to do well.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Oh son of a bitch. I had a long post about polyamory and the board ate it.

[Xray the Enforcer]

The TL;DR version of my post:

I read an interesting critique of the polyamory community recently. Basically, their desperation to be accepted by the monogamist establishment has led them to be exclusionary jerks, as only "committed poly relationships" are considered real for much of the vocal poly community. Anyone who has casual encounters is considered gross. This focus on "love" rather than "poly" is damaging and will hamstring our collective ability to navigate all kinds of non-monogamy.

As such, while I also would generally not describe Chat's experience as polyamorous (especially based on the current definition that the poly community itself stresses), I am not going to quibble with her about it. I happen to find using "polyamorous" as a socially acceptable stand-in for "ethically non-monogamous and into casual encounters" unhelpful in the long run and kinda weaksauce, because I happen to think that ethical casual encounters are A-OK, need no sugar-coating, and being open about such things will go a long way to undoing the puritanical bullshit that still informs our society's approach to sex. But it's not the hill upon which I wish to die right now.

[ETA: There's also an interesting discussion to be had -- probably in the LGBTQI thread -- about non-monogamy as an orientation or self-identity. For example, I identify as non-monogamous, even though I have been monogamous in monogamous relationships. But monogamy not something I require in a relationship, and at times I have found it oppressive and stifling. Others, clearly, prefer/require monogamy and have very little trouble coping in that structure, and that's totally cool by me.]

[Xray the Enforcer]

As I said, it's really up to you and what you feel most comfortable with. I don't think we, as a society, are quite ready to have a deeper discussion of these things, because monogamy is so prized (and non-monogamy vilified). But among the poly/non-monogamy crowd, I do think it's a discussion worth having if we hope to normalize our particular flavor of sexuality for greater society in the long run.

[Kalbear]

Sorry if I gave offense, Chats and Xray - that wasn't my intent, but I can see how it could have. For me polyamory is pretty close to the notion of what the community calls it - with an emphasis on love or longer term relationships with one or more people while being able to see others in shorter term situations. I'm happy to change that usage.

I don't and will never think there's anything wrong with ethical fucking, and to be 100% clear that is precisely what I think you have been doing - being open with your intentions, misleading no one and not confusing a single person about what's going on. (some of your partners, on the other hand...bleh).

[Arkhangel]

On a related note, I have a general question about whether polyamory does or should fall under the umbrella label of 'sexuality', per se. Generally I think of sexuality as being about the people you are attracted to, rather than the kind of relationship you want, e.g. being attracted to women is part of your sexuality whilst preferring long distance relationships is not. That's not to say that that preference is invalid or unimportant, or indeed unrelated - it just doesn't come under "sexuality", strictly speaking. I suppose, thinking about it now, my reasons for feeling that way are that the kind of relationship you want often changes from person to person, whereas I think of sexuality as being something which is (at least relatively) more constant.

Again, not saying it's unimportant, just that maybe it's a separate thing from sexuality and should have its own term.

[Kalbear]

I tend to think otherwise depending on how simultaneous you are with your partners. If your sexuality is primarily around group sex, for instance, being polyamorous is both a sexual and a relationship system.

[orabella]

I knew two poly couples at separate stages in my life. One of the couples started out as poly and absolutely loved the lifestyle. They have been married 18 years. As far as I know each person they brought into the marriage - the other spouse (who wasnt sexual with this person) also had to be friendly with them, approve, etc. Like someone mentioned above- it was a "love" type situation all around. They "seriously dated" other people while being married and merged an all around friendship of all relationships, I guess is the best way to put it.

The other couple I knew, they were married 14 years in a pretty much sex less marriage. The wife wasnt into sex with her husband so much anymore (there wasnt anything wrong with him as far as I could tell.. the spark was just gone sadly- or as I suspect she was just using sex or lack of to control him). He introduced her to poly and she agreed to give it a go. This went on for 3 years with them each casually seeing other people on a don't ask/ don't tell basis in their marriage. They just filed for divorce a few months ago as everything went to hell in a hand basket (but was pretty much there to start with as far as I could see).

Me personally? I'm not even open minded to it for myself based of the type of relationships I'm most comfortable with and it doesn't jibe with most aspects of my relationship preferences.

To each their own.

[orabella]

On a related note, I have a general question about whether polyamory does or should fall under the umbrella label of 'sexuality', per se. Generally I think of sexuality as being about the people you are attracted to, rather than the kind of relationship you want, e.g. being attracted to women is part of your sexuality whilst preferring long distance relationships is not. That's not to say that that preference is invalid or unimportant, or indeed unrelated - it just doesn't come under "sexuality", strictly speaking. I suppose, thinking about it now, my reasons for feeling that way are that the kind of relationship you want often changes from person to person, whereas I think of sexuality as being something which is (at least relatively) more constant.

Again, not saying it's unimportant, just that maybe it's a separate thing from sexuality and should have its own term.

Completely agree with this. I like a very specific type of relationship but wouldn't call it my "sexuality" as it's clearly a lifestyle preference. Whereas sexuality isn't a choice.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Completely agree with this. I like a very specific type of relationship but wouldn't call it my "sexuality" as it's clearly a lifestyle preference. Whereas sexuality isn't a choice.

I am old enough to remember when people said the same thing about being gay. Funny how things change as they become better-understood and destigmatized.

[Slurms McKenzie]

This poly business sounds far too complicated and unwieldly for my liking.

But the biggest dealbreaker for me is that I just don't think it would be possible for me to be in love with more than one person simultaneously. It sounds like an oxymoron to me.

And I wouldn't be able to shake feelings of guilt if I slept with somebody else, even if she said she was okay with it. Lust is one thing but personally for me, if I were in a serious relationship, then sex is about more than just gratification, its also a bonding experience, you feel closer to her afterwards.

I'd be far too concerned about losing that intimacy if I were to sleep with somebody else and it would just feel like a gross betrayal of that intimacy. Even if she was cool with it, I'd just feel like a twat.

But then its worth noting that I do like to feel loved and valued, and a previous relationship unravelled because of that. And being in an open relationship would just make me jealous and insecure, I couldn't cope with it.

So yeah... its not for me then... that was the basic gist, the moral of the story :P

[Xray the Enforcer]

Kal, I absolutely did not take offense to anything you said. It's just a topic that has been on my mind a lot, recently, and I felt that a bit of context -- plus an additional voice -- might help facilitate the discussion. :)