Added to, Joining In

[Vixtoria]

So, there have been a few things that have just lately driven me absolutely nuts. Now I know, if the flavor of poly is working for all parties involved then good enough! Really, so many flavors aren't mine so that I just shrug and go, 'good for you'. Poly is the fringe of normal. Well, quite often I feel the fringe of fringe. I'm not kinky enough to be considered kinky, I'm not freak enough to be a freak, geek enough to be a geek, so on and so on.

Now, here's the thing that really just gets to me and I'm wondering if someone can explain it in a way that possibly makes sense.

I don't get these ads or requests for people to "Join our Marriage/Relationship" or "Looking for the right M/F/Other to Join our relationship"

My marriage, is my marriage. It's OUR marriage. If I'm dating someone else, or if DH is, then sure, eventually it might even add to our relationship in some ways. Just as my relationship with DH will add to my other relationship. I get the interconnectedness of it all. Really I do. There is no way to have two completely autonomous relationships. Now DH and DC are not buds, friends, they aren't even really acquaintances. They haven't met, haven't talked other than one text while I was incapacitated. So the two relationships are probably as autonomous as they can get, but there's always overlap. With shared time, jokes and other things.

I guess what I'm baffled about is the times, and there are more than I would like, that I'm approached with a 'my husband and I would like you to join us' thing. If they are both interested in me, then fine, approach me. Separately. You are two people. I would have to see if I was interested in you as individuals. I may LOVE the way you interact as a couple, as a unit, but dating a unit just doesn't even seem possible to me. In that unit, there are two distinct people.

I get threesomes, I get the fun of some sexual fun with three people. I am just flabbergasted at the idea of being able to just insert someone into an existing relationship rather than wanting to start a new relationship. It seems to me almost like trying to add a third leg to a person and expecting them to run smoothly.

Any help? I'll be honest, part of me thinks there just is no answer but if there is, it might help with those winks and semi stalking comments of 'WE are interested in you'.

[Pheline]

No help at all but I get your gripe!!!

[km34]

Poly is the fringe of normal. Well, quite often I feel the fringe of fringe. I'm not kinky enough to be considered kinky, I'm not freak enough to be a freak, geek enough to be a geek, so on and so on.

I totally feel you on this! lol

As for the real question, the vibe I always get is that the couples in question want someone that they can see together mostly, with the one-on-one time not being the main focus so that everyone feels included and all that junk. Is it realistic? Not often, since the person being "added" may develop more feelings for one person than the other. These are the people who are trying to find people to fit the formation instead of just letting things develop naturally.

I kind of understand a triad being the "dream formation" since in theory it would be more inclusive, negate all the issues of one member of a partnership being able to meet people while the other one struggles, etc. but it seems like such a tough ideal to actually live up to.

Would it seem less crazy if the couples said they were wanting to find someone to develop a new, lasting group marriage with instead of saying they wanted to add to their current marriage?

[AnnabelMore]

Would it seem less crazy if the couples said they were wanting to find someone to develop a new, lasting group marriage with instead of saying they wanted to add to their current marriage?

YES! Oh my god yes, that would be a million times better. There is nothing inherently wrong, in theory, with already having one partner and having a preference for a triad. But the way people go about handling such a preference is so frequently just ridiculously problematic and fail-tastic that the phrases Vix is talking about have become like unpleasant triggers for me. Just recently I read an essay that I thought had some great thoughts and advice in it, but it used those phrases once or twice and I just couldn't stand it.

The phrasing you used at least exhibits a set of understandings that all too often seem to elude unicorn hunters. I still would be wary of people who said such a thing, if I were a solo person searching for relationships, because it's structure-focused rather than person-focused and I think that's dangerous (I'd much rather see people describe what sort of person/people they're into and mention their ideal structure as an aside) but I'd be much more open to maybe talking to them.

[km34]

I suppose to me it's all semantics. I feel like what I said means exactly the same thing as "adding a third person," it's just phrased differently.

At the same time, I suppose I could see the connotation being different based on the phrasing. "Adding" or "joining" being terms that seem to associate an innate status as secondary to the already established relationship whereas "forming a new group" seems to entail creating a new establishment where everyone is equal.

[nycindie]

Some gems on the topic from other threads:

I think that having been in a poly dynamic for awhile and really living the theories behind it, I have come to the conclusion that inclusion is an invitation, not a demand. I invite those to be closer to me, but don't force my agenda on them. Therefore terms such as "bringing someone in" just don't fit for me. I prefer "inviting someone to be with me." The rest unfolds naturally and does so without expectation or assumptions about what will happen.

"Bringing someone in" implies an expectation, which puts even more pressure on an already complicated situation.

I wish you wouldn't think in terms of "allowing someone else into [y]our relationship" with your wife.

That is not what it is all about. "It", meaning "poly" (and I don't need to hear "there is no one right way to "do" poly" and/or "my poly is not your poly") is not about "adding" people to your existing relationships. It's about adding RELATIONSHIPS to YOUR life. Yes, they all impact on each other in certain ways. But "adding someone to a relationship" smacks of accessorizing and assigns prescriptions to the "new" person before they even enter on to the scene.

..."bringing in" is often used by people new to poly just as "triad" is. I don't have any other way of relating what that looks like other than saying that you are not purchasing a puppy, no one is "brought in" to a relationship, it morphs into something entirely new. It is impossible to MAKE someone love you as much as someone else.

Wording a new relationship as "entering OUR relationship" implies that the new person is of a second-class status. They are not "entering your relationship" they are "starting or having a relationship with you and/or whoever". That's the kind of language construction indicating the subconscious thought-process that leads to "prescriptive" expectations.

I think a lot of couples seeking a third fail to recognize that adding another person is likely to shake up their dynamic. When they do realize it scares them...

I obviously knew things would change by adding a third, but I don't necessarily know that I expected those changes to be so... crystallized.

...That realization was significant for me. It showed me just what sort of very real, and sometimes tangible impact blending a third will have on our existing relationship. It sort of threw me for a loop, and scared me a little - at least at first. I thought, if something like that could change so dramatically, and so quickly, what else might change?

Unicorn. I love the term, personally, because I think it's appropriate for what it describes. Yes, there are plenty of beautiful, available, bisexual women. That doesn't mean any of them will be a perfect fit for both people at the same time, in terms of a long-lasting emotional relationship.

The married couple had already discussed the inclusion of another partner, they mutually decided I would be a worthy person, and they worked hard to make sure I felt welcome and wanted. This is some pretty powerful stuff! An incredible amount of validation comes out of being approached like that.

I was very happy... and my status was very fluid from secondary to primary and back again as time went on and our needs changed. There were times I lived at the house and participated in the relationships as a primary partner in terms of responsibility, care, and money, and there were other times when I was merely a large part of their lives, secondary in nature but still hugely and intimately connected.

I was very committed... but I was shut out completely when they found out they were pregnant. It was heartbreaking for me, because I lost my lovers, my best friends, my refuge, everything that defined me. I went my own way and picked up the pieces alone. I eventually reconnected with them after the baby was born, but I couldn't trust they wouldn't abandon me again and we grew further and further apart.

I've said this before: it sounds irksome to me when people speak of "opening up their marriage" or "adding another person to their relationship". It's like saying "here's the deal and you can join too". It sounds like you have a sports-team and you're looking for someone to play a particular position.

...If something is "missing" in one relationship, I don't think the answer is to try to fill the void with another relationship. I think it's about meeting a person or persons that you would like to have a relationship with and trying to fit that into your life.

Honestly, when I see a couple that's new to poly and seeking a third to "complete them" or to "be an equal partner" I see a couple that feels the need to control the other love that might enter into their partner's life. It's like they're saying, "Sure, my partner can fall in love with someone else, but ONLY if I am explicitly involved so that I may have control over my partner's love and so that love will always have something to do with me too, no matter what." Now, I know this isn't always true for every couple, but I do believe it to be true for many, if not most couples that are seeking this dynamic. One need only to see the vast number of unicorns who have been burned by such situations to have an inkling that perhaps this isn't the best way to go about things. We've all heard it before and every couple seems to say the same thing. "we want you to be an equal partner in our relationship", "we just have so much love to give, we have to share it with someone else". Etc, etc. Most of them end the same way- the unicorn is cast off with burn scars and everyone is off licking their wounds. And I've yet to meet a single poly bi female who's been through this (and I've personally known quite a few) who gets up after the experience and says "Wow, I want to try that again!". This is why unicorns are so rare.

So I guess I'm saying that the first step to finding a solution to this is to LET GO of the idea that there is only one way this relationship can be. Maybe it need to evolve into more of a V situation, maybe there's a whole other structure that nobody's seen yet. If you are really committed to being poly in this, there are all sorts of alternatives to just either being a triad or a back to a couple with the third cast off. If all the talking you're doing is in order to try to protect and restore the triad, then it's only going to generate more hurt and anger. Just let it go and let it flow to where it belongs.

[Vixtoria]

I suppose that's where I get confused. It's like saying there is a square hole and will only accept a square peg. So no changing or evolving as a person into a triangle! Only square pegs! I don't know ANY relationship that would survive like that. Who goes dating and says, "Oh sorry cant date you, you seem great, we click but you don't fill the EXACT hole I am looking to fill."

[km34]

I suppose that's where I get confused. It's like saying there is a square hole and will only accept a square peg. So no changing or evolving as a person into a triangle! Only square pegs! I don't know ANY relationship that would survive like that. Who goes dating and says, "Oh sorry cant date you, you seem great, we click but you don't fill the EXACT hole I am looking to fill."

That's probably why you don't hear of many triads that were formed on purpose! lol

I think the most successful stories I've heard of groups of 3 having healthy, functional relationships have always been accidental - the couple just happens to meet a person who they both fall for, the other person falls for both of them, it wasn't expected so nobody's disappointed if the individual relationships aren't perfect (because really, what relationship is PERFECT?) but as a whole they are happy together and are able to figure out a system where everyone gets their individual needs met and everyone feels fulfilled and equal.

Usually the couple stops thinking of themselves as a couple along the way, though, and I think THAT is the step that scares people.

[Nudibranch]

You've hit on two gripes of my own, Vixtoria. First, the issue of being "too queer for the queers." And second, the idea that a polyrelationship is something you order from a catalog.

This is why I stopped thinking of myself as poly; my experience in the Aughts was that there was more of that consumerist/acquisitional thinking, than the "let things flow and grow" thinking of the Age of Punk to the 1990s.

I don't have much to offer except that I never dated in my teens and 20s. I just did things with like minded people. Friendship and intimacy (of all sorts) grew out of that. I was never shopping. For me polyamory was a way to make sure that warmth, creativity, love, and respect were allowed to grow as they were capable of growing. A tolerance of the best of humans, and a refusal to let that be dragged into the dirt of competition, greed, etc.

I came very close once in the early 1990s to running a personal ad. I showed it to one of my best friends. He became my sig.other.other...then my best other...and we now have been together for 23 years, 10 of that married, with a very strong possibility that a friend of ours for 10 years is going to become part of our family.

[Nudibranch]

I may LOVE the way you interact as a couple, as a unit, but dating a unit just doesn't even seem possible to me. In that unit, there are two distinct people.

I get threesomes, I get the fun of some sexual fun with three people. I am just flabbergasted at the idea of being able to just insert someone into an existing relationship rather than wanting to start a new relationship. It seems to me almost like trying to add a third leg to a person and expecting them to run smoothly.

Vixtoria, this is very perceptive, I'd say.

IME sometimes when people have been together for a very long time, and particularly have been radically honest and battled through issues and events together, they tend to become, or think of themselves, as a sort of meta-human. No we, no I...just this other larger entity.

That is a greatly different footing to relate on than being the third party coming in. That issue is the one my h and I are grappling with, with regard to our friend, who has stated his affection for and attraction to us both individually AND to us as a meta-being. To "bring him in" from our perspective means NOT that he the appliance to fix some set of needs or expectations we have. To "bring him in" means simply delighting in the fact that between the three of us, there are at least 14 different new relationships.

To me, that is the poly in polyamory. Not just tacking someone on simplistically, but being hugely sensitive and celebrating of the fact that 1 + 1 + 1 can equal all sorts of numbers...and sometimes can yield whole new equations on the other side of the = .

[strixish]

Some people think that a triad wold be ideal, because they think (before they have experience) that they will somehow be less likely to feel jealousy if everyone is involved together.

(Yeah, right.)

But some people like the triad (or quad, etc.) connection because it creates a sense of family. (There's me and him, and me and her, and her and him, and then there's US, which is a separate and excellent dynamic all its own.)

That's been my experience, at least. I stumbled into it, though, and can't imagine how someone would go about creating it intentionally.

I think it is possible, though, to be a unicorn who is attracted to couples. I haven't yet decided exactly how I feel about that, or what the driving force seems to be that underlies the attraction.

[zylya]

To me there's two different sets of people saying "join our relationship" etc, the first is the poly-newbies who are honestly hoping that their unicorn-hunting fantasy will come true and a HBB will join them and love them both equally and everything will be amazing, poly-fi, secondary etc etc.

The second set, which applies to me personally, is the group of people who simply prefer triads to other relationship configurations. For me, saying I'm looking for someone to join our relationship shouldn't hold any implications of unicorn-hunting, because that's not how I view relationships, but I will admit it is probably a lazy use of language on my part. The thing for me is that saying "I'm looking for someone to join us" is far simpler than saying "I hope to find another person that we're both interested in, to some degree, who is also into us, to some degree, that we could form a whole cluster of mutually enjoyable and beneficial romantic and sexual relationships, together with no prejudice based on previous relationship status and with no unrealistic expectations other than to be totally honest with each other and let things develop naturally."

If I had to type that out every time, I'd get arthritis in my wrists in no time ;) Saying "to join us" is just a short-hand way of saying that for me. If you think about, any relationship is a joining of two people, it's just that saying you're looking for someone to join me/us is simply from my perspective. It doesn't mean that I think the other person doesn't have a perspective, it's just a way of phrasing it.

To me, it seems like a lot of people say something without carefully considering their words, and so people assume things that weren't necessarily intended, and could've been avoided with a better use of language.

[undefinable]

Hey everyone,

I am relatively new here, but i thought i would add my own experience to the mix. Feel free to smack me in the neck if i get out of line.

My wife and I have been together for eight years. During that time our relationship, our marriage, and ourselves have changed. A lot.

One thing we have found that works is not to think of our relationship with each other as a "thing". Its not quantifiable, its not measureable, and it is not static. Our relationship is the sum of the interactions, emotions, experiences, and shared moments we have together. As we change, and we do, so does it.

I understand the distaste that comes from phrases like "adding a third" or "bringing someone in" and the like, but mostly i feel that it stems from communication issues, or a fundamental misunderstanding of a specific desire.

I dont see it as possible to "bring in" another to an existing relationship, simply because the presence of another person in that relationship will change it, for better or for worse. I do believe it possible to have another individual enter the lives of a couple, and to form a new relationship dynamic, involving all three persons. But i see it as three relationships simultaneously, both seperate from, and included in, each other.

The initial relationship is still intact at this point, with two new connections to it, interconnected, yet independent. Over time, the level that those three interactions are connected will inevitably adjust, and there is no real way of knowing what shape it will take down the line. And therin lies the rub.

How can you expect to invite someone into an existing relationship when they are independent of it to begin with?

I dont see it as possible. I do think that successful triads can and do exist, but not as a single relationship. That would be like saying a successful marriage turns two people into one. They may share goals, tastes, emotions, anything really, but at the end of the day, it is still two people with two different lives who choose to live them together.

A marriage, or any other relationship is not a static thing. It grows, evolves, changes with the people in it.

So i guess, scemantics aside, i dont see a way to "add another" to a relationship. But i do see a way to add relationships to an existing couples' lives.

Good lord, i hope i am right about at least some of this, or there are going to be some serious hurts in the future, i am sure.

TTFN,
Tim

[MeeraReed]

Let's say there are two people who are friends with each other. (Platonic friends). Maybe they're even best friends. But they feel like they always just hang out with each other instead of expanding their social circle. So they want to make new friends, maybe only one or two new friends because they're introverts and value close connections with a few people. Ideally they'd like someone who could be friends with both of them and all hang out together.

They would never say "We're looking for someone to join our friendship!"

They don't say that, because a "friendship" isn't something that can be joined. Just as a relationship, or a marriage, isn't something that can be "joined."

Friendships and relationships are FORMED between two entities, not JOINED by an extra person.

You can join a "group of friends," not a "friendship." You can join a club or a business or an organization. You can't join a relationship.

You can FORM a relationship with someone, or even with two someones, or three someones. But you can't JOIN a relationship or be added into it.

I would be more sympathetic to unicorn hunters if they said, "We are looking to re-form our marriage as a triad with a third person," rather looking to "add a third" to our wonderful, perfect marriage.

Another problem I have with the phrase "join our marriage" is that it sounds too much like "join us in bed." Joining someone in bed is fine, joining a couple in bed is fine, joining a circus is fine--but you can't join a marriage.

[Malfunktions]

I think "welcoming someone in" could be just as it implies. Currently my LTR and I are seeking but we have our understanding that we want a relationship for each of us separately just as much as we want someone to share. The dynamic should be that the "welcomed party" should be as comfortable dating each separately as they can be together. I don't think a dating together dynamic would always work because being attracted to the couple together can be so different than being attracted to the single parties.
Maybe I'm not making sense but I know I would much rather our future girlfriend date us separately to get to know us because when together couples tend to have a couple dynamic. Ie: same interests, same foods, music, points of view. Meanwhile, individually they exhibit their true colours. Like together C and I like old school rock/folk music from the 60's-90's but separately I like chill out music like the Grateful Dead and Sublime. He does not share ALL my likes. Nor I his.

Therefore, the "welcomed party" has to like us as individuals as much as we should like them :D.

Hopefully this makes sense.....:rolleyes:

[MeeraReed]

I think "welcoming someone in" could be just as it implies.


But what i mean is that "welcoming someone in" to your marriage or relationship doesn't make sense because no one else can be IN your relationship with your husband.

[Natja]

The terms used are really one of my pet hates so I admit I am biased. I won't even read the profiles of people who have those terms in them.

[MrFarFromRight]

I suppose that I should start by saying that the whole idea of advertising for a romantic/sexual/life partner seems a bit skew-wiff to me. That's not to say that I criticise people that do it... or even that I'd NEVER do it myself. Just that it seems a bizarre concept. That's mostly because I, personally, am not interested in having sex where Love isn't involved, and as Nudibranch wrote,You've hit on two gripes of my own, Vixtoria. [...] And second, the idea that a polyrelationship is something you order from a catalog.(Though I go one further and see the validity of that sentence if you also remove the "poly" from "polyrelationship".) I can see advertising along the lines of: "Would like to meet new people, see how it goes, where the possibility of something sexual happening is not out of the question." And I suppose that lots of partner-search ads [perhaps most] actually mean this, though they don't spell it out. How many advertisers really mean: "I'm desperate for sex and promise that we'll end up fucking if you choose to answer this ad."?

But back to the poly aspect, and couples wishing to become threesomes. And part of it I've already touched on. VERY rarely do people say exactly what they mean in ads of this kind. It's difficult to bring in all the back-and-forth, pros-and-cons, desires-and-fears talks that a couple has gone through before taking the step of placing the ad.

I never tire of saying that poly is about Love, not just sex. How can a couple advertise for somebody whom they're both going to love... and who is going to love both of them??? But it might work once in a while, so, best of luck to them!Would it seem less crazy if the couples said they were wanting to find someone to develop a new, lasting group marriage with instead of saying they wanted to add to their current marriage?I suppose to me it's all semantics. I feel like what I said means exactly the same thing as "adding a third person," it's just phrased differently.km34, I think that you were right the 1st time, and not so right the 2nd. They may have MEANT it to mean the same, but it doesn't.

My suggestion: "We are now a couple, but want to explore our capacity to love others. Because we are still very much in love with each other and enjoy sharing with each other the most important aspects of our lives, we would be delighted to find some third person whom we could both love and who could love both of us. We understand that we are leaping into the unknown on this. It's both an exciting and a scary prospect. Would you be interested in considering leaping with us?"

Of course, it takes a lot less time and energy to type: "looking for a third to join our relationship"...

[BoringGuy]

"poly couples" again... the oxymoron.

I read stories about attempted triads, aborted triads, triads-yet-to be manifested, where there is this "original couple" trying to "add a third", with some kind of grotesque fascination. In my own personal limited vicarious experience, I have observed that "the couple" is always assumed to be the original pair... How the third relates to the couple individually and as a unit. i never seem to notice "the couple" ever referring to one of the original pair + the third. There always seems to be an onus on "the third" to relate and adjust to the established climate of "the COUPLE". It's a subtle thing that manifests itself in ways that transcend the meaning of words on paper. It's one of those deals where what people DON'T say communicates more than whatt they DO say.

I think it's possible to BE a "poly couple", but not if your common goal is to "have a triad". Even if you (the original pair) are still "looking" for your "third", itt is not too soon to start practice losing this "us-plus-one" mentality thaat drives the agenda. the only "poly couples" are two people together at any given time who happen to be in a non-monogamous relationship agreement. When I am with my Spouse, we are a "poly couple"; when we are wiith ourr other paartners, we are each part of a "poly-couple" with them. When I am with my Other Partner, I am not thinking of my relationship with Spouse as the "REAL" couple. Likewise, I do not think of my marriage as being any more of a "REAL" poly-couple just because it's got legal paperwork and a longeer duration than Spouse's relationship with their OSO. The two of them are juust as muuch of a "poly-couple" as we are even though they've only been together for a yeaar andd don't share finances. There is no one "central" poly-couple and all other relationships are "satellites". Each relationship stands on its own as a "couple", because ultimately, you can only be in a relationship with any peerson AS one pperson. No matter how married and committed you are, you cannot merge your consciousness with another human being to the point where you act as one unit in a relationship with a "third". I know I'll probably get razzed for saying that ("my poly is not your poly" and all that knee-jerk mumbo-jumbo people like to say when they don't like it but can't think of anything else to say), as I have seen enough "poly couples" who think they are so tuned in to each other they might as well be one person instead of two. I mean, it isn't a crime to feel that way about each other, but it is a little creepy and off-putting when you take it out into public and try to find another person whom you expect to hitch their planet onto your solar system. The original "poly couple" gets to be the sun, and everyone else is just a planet?

That's my thesis about "poly couples". I don't expect anyone to change for me, and I don't even wish for that. I will continue to judge things based on what I observe and experience, however.

[MrFarFromRight]

The whole time that I was typing that last post, I was aware that Vixtoria was not just talking about adsI guess what I'm baffled about is the times, and there are more than I would like, that I'm approached with a 'my husband and I would like you to join us' thing. If they are both interested in me, then fine, approach me. Separately. You are two people. I would have to see if I was interested in you as individuals. I may LOVE the way you interact as a couple, as a unit, but dating a unit just doesn't even seem possible to me. In that unit, there are two distinct people., but I decided to split the reply into 2 posts.

Reply a) As in my first post, sometimes it's difficult for people to articulate just what they really mean. If you're AT ALL interested in them, give them the benefit of the doubt... or at least a chance to explain themselves better.

Reply b) Sometimes couples are looking to pep up their sex lives and - as several have testified already - 3rd parties get used as sex toys.

Reply c) Different strokes for different folks. [One person's meat is another person's poison.] If you get bothered by this approach, and it IS exactly what they mean, bad luck! I DON'T mean that in a ":cool:well, tough shit!:cool:" sort of way. I really sympathise with your feelings here (although I never get approached like this:rolleyes:). My advice: accept that it takes all kinds to make a world, and that you're not the one that they're looking for... but that they have RIGHT to look for it.

Reply d) But my overall reaction: You're right to feel leery. As in nycindie's quote from FormerUnicorn, a couple that adds a 3rd can feel all through the triad that the original couple is more important, and therefore that the 3rd is easily disposable if the going gets rough or circumstances change. And that can REALLY be devastating for the 3rd. But I clicked on that link and found an interesting introduction AND sequel to that failed triad. The bold-face has been added by me.I tell my story elsewhere, but I was in two triads where I had been "hunted" that is specifically singled out for courtship and inclusion by partners in an already existing marriage. In this case the stage is set in certain ways: The married couple had already discussed the inclusion of another partner, they mutually decided I would be a worthy person, and they worked hard to make sure I felt welcome and wanted. This is some pretty powerful stuff! An incredible amount of validation comes out of being approached like that.

I was very happy in both triads, and my status was very fluid from secondary to primary and back again as time went on and our needs changed. There were times I lived at the house and participated in the relationships as a primary partner in terms of responsibility, care, and money, and there were other times when I was merely a large part of their lives, secondary in nature but still hugely and intimately connected.

I was very committed to the first triad, but I was shut out completely when they found out they were pregnant. It was heartbreaking for me, because I lost my lovers, my best friends, my refuge, everything that defined me. I went my own way and picked up the pieces alone. I eventually reconnected with them after the baby was born, but I couldn't trust they wouldn't abandon me again and we grew further and further apart.

Years later, the second triad was... so beautiful that I can't even put words to it right now. I was very fragile and broken when these two took me in, and they helped me find my strength again. While they left the invitation open for a long-term primary position in our relationship, at the time I was unable to pull my own weight and I was unwilling to let them pull it for me until I could. In hindsight I realize that they would have been there for me through whatever I needed, but I just wasn't mature enough at the time to see it. I will always regret leaving because I have never felt more accepted, more loved, period.So, being burned once by couple A damaged FormerUnicorn's chances for a "happy end" with couple B. A shame!:(:(:(

But it suggests that it CAN work... Doesn't it?

[MrFarFromRight]

This is NOT the quote, but I [MFFR] want to recommend that you go back and read it all.BoringGuy, I've caught you out! You're a FAKE! You're not boring at all! Own up! Fascinating stuff...

[BoringGuy]

It is not that it "can" or "can't" work. Of course "it" CAN and HAS "worked". What people seem to have trouble understanding is that you can't FORCE something like this ("this" = polyfidelitous/equal/ffm/mfm/mff triad unicorn-utopia) to happen. these Poly Couples are like, "OK, we're READY. We. ARE. Ready. READY, we say! ISN'T THERE ANYBODY OUT THERE? CAN U HEAR ME? WE DECIDED TO HAVE A TRIAD AND WE NEED A BISEXUAL FEMALE! ANYONE? ANYONE???? BUELLER??? ...oh fuck it. there aren't any poly bi women around here. Hey, forum! How do we meet poly people? We can't find ANY poly people where we live. Especially bisexual female poly people. HELP! Oh, and they can't be smokers or fat or eat red meat, and they can only have sex with one of us if the other can participate too or at least watch. We don't want anyone to get jealous. Form an orderly queue, and fill out this intake form so we can screen you for compatibility."

"Why is it so hard to find other poly people?"

[BoringGuy]

BoringGuy, I've caught you out! You're a FAKE! You're not boring at all! Own up! Fascinating stuff...

what is it you are asking me exactly? what ddo you wwant to know?

[Natja]

" as I have seen enough "poly couples" who think they are so tuned in to each other they might as well be one person instead of two. I mean, it isn't a crime to feel that way about each other, but it is a little creepy and off-putting when you take it out into public and try to find another person whom you expect to hitch their planet onto your solar system. The original "poly couple" gets to be the sun, and everyone else is just a planet?
.

This!!!

I have seen this in ads also.....with terminology like "We are looking for our other half..."

What??? So the two of them are a half?
And the amount of them who say they are looking for 'the right fit' also is astounding....

I wrote to a couple the other day who profiled that "We are not looking for an addition that will challenge or disrupt our environment." :eek:
The reply back was 'we only want the right fit, we won't settle for less" (plus some other stuff about how attractive they are and the fact that their relationship is SO spot on and perfect that they know exactly what they are doing.....).


Gaaaaah!!!! *bangs head on wall*

[BoringGuy]

This!!!

I have seen this in ads also.....with terminology like "We are looking for our other half..."

What??? So the two of them are a half?
And the amount of them who say they are looking for 'the right fit' also is astounding....

I wrote to a couple the other day who profiled that "We are not looking for an addition that will challenge or disrupt our environment." :eek:
The reply back was 'we only want the right fit, we won't settle for less" (plus some other stuff about how attractive they are and the fact that their relationship is SO spot on and perfect that they know exactly what they are doing.....).


Gaaaaah!!!! *bangs head on wall*

what was the reason you wrote to them? was it to respond to their search, or did you just want to quiz them about what that phraseology was supposed to mean out of intellectual curiosity?

[Natja]

or did you just want to quiz them about what that phraseology was supposed to mean out of intellectual curiosity?

Ermmm, yeah, that was it.....(to be honest what they wrote was much worse than I feel comfortable copying) let's say I suggested they edit.

[Malfunktions]

As a newbie, and I apologize if I step on toes but, we're new.

Kindly directing us on a better approach is much better than mocking our inability to have it right the first time. I've felt attacked before and it doesn't mean I didn't appreciate the correction but mistakes are mistakes and we all have to start somewhere right?

[Natja]

Malfunktions, there are plenty (plenty) of threads (on here, PMM, PP and myriad poly blogs) with suggestions of what not to do, they are often not listened to, hence why people get frustrated. As I wrote in my example (again, it was worse than that, very arrogant, very objectifying) my email to them was not mocking, that would have been counter to my purpose, still the response I received was 'I know what I am doing, you don't know us or what is right for us'. Then they swanned off and deleted. This happens a lot, so you need to understand that for people around for a long time, it can get frustrating and being patient only goes so far.

[Malfunktions]

I do understand, and I'm not saying I'm not guilty of doing the same thing. I made a similar if not a little nicer post when I first came to the site, which I'm realizing was potentially unattainable and will be removing later.
After doing a lot of research and coming to the realization that I ave no idea what I'm doing I hope that I do not repeat the above mention faux pas.

As a senior member for a military youth organization I have found healthy and constructive criticism goes a long way. Hopefully everyone can adapt to the guidelines and poly-etiquette. There a lot to know/learn/act to be appropriate.

[undefinable]

I have already posted in here as to my position on "adding a third" etc, but I found a blog I found useful a while back. I was looking for information about something different, but I took the time to read the posts, and found it quite interesting.

http://polytripod.blogspot.ca/2012/10/unicorn-hunters-part-1.html
http://polytripod.blogspot.ca/2012/10/unicorn-hunters-part-2.html
http://polytripod.blogspot.ca/2012/10/unicorn-hunters-part-3_7409.html
http://polytripod.blogspot.ca/2012/10/unicorn-hunters-part-3_7409.html

While I don't hold with everything that is discussed, the general ideas are relatively sound. Worth a look if you haven't seen it before. It has more to do with the "practice" of adding, UH, etc, than it does with the "execution" but still could be helpful to some.

Tim

[BoringGuy]

I do understand, and I'm not saying I'm not guilty of doing the same thing. I made a similar if not a little nicer post when I first came to the site, which I'm realizing was potentially unattainable and will be removing later.
After doing a lot of research and coming to the realization that I ave no idea what I'm doing I hope that I do not repeat the above mention faux pas.

As a senior member for a military youth organization I have found healthy and constructive criticism goes a long way. Hopefully everyone can adapt to the guidelines and poly-etiquette. There a lot to know/learn/act to be appropriate.


Just relax, hang out and read. before too much longer, you too will recognize the unicorn-hunters (see the personals ads section of this site, there are about an average of 5 posts per day about that on there), and you too will be rolling your eyes and thinking "Oh another one? I used to be one too..."

Then you will be one of US instead of one of THEM. :eek:

[LastLion290]

I can understand this a lot, actually.

As one of maybe a dozen poly people I know across the entire state I'm in (and one of maybe half that that's in my opinion good examples of poly) I regularly don't go "looking" for another person in the relationship as much as I wind up still being open to flirting and other connections with people, whether they're poly or not - and, well, if they're interested in a connection with me, then I get to explain "Hey, there's this Polyamory thing...I'm open to a deeper relationship if you are."

This is a lot harder than it sounds, but then what isn't when it comes to Poly stuff?

[undefinable]

then you will be one of us instead of one of them. :eek:

one of us, one of us, one of us :d