A question for female secondaries [Archive]

Wolfwood

08-09-2012, 05:16 PM

MeeraReed

08-09-2012, 06:45 PM

In online dating, it seems pretty common for the man to be fully upfront about the fact that he has a primary partner. I've seen many profiles where the man states clearly that he is married or has a primary girlfriend.

I was specifically searching for non-monogamous men when I encountered these profiles. Or, if the profiles belonged to men who messaged me first, they were drawn to my profile because I state that I am ethically non-monogamous.

I would want anyone I go on a date with to be immediately clear that they have a primary partner. I can't imagine why that would NOT come up on a first date? It seems slightly deceitful not to mention it.

I suppose that in terms of casual dating and dating around, non-exclusivity is the default state and it is assumed that everyone is seeing others. My approach to poly does kind of come from that style of dating--I would assume that anyone I meet is probably involved with someone else, at least casually.

But NOT everyone is coming from that perspective--so why not just be clear about it from the get-go?

Particularly with online dating. I mean, your ultimate goal is to find someone who accepts and understands your primary relationship, right? So why not openly seek someone on those terms?

I do understand that if you pick someone up at a party or something, the expectations are casual so maybe you don't have to say that you have a primary partner. But what would be the advantages of omitting that information?

Fyi, I'm happily single and NOT looking for someone to be my primary partner. I would be very comfortable with someone telling me they had a primary partner right away. I would NOT be comfortable with finding out later (i.e., the next morning or on a later date) that they have a primary partner and omitting telling me right away.

RainyGrlJenny

08-09-2012, 07:38 PM

I met Punk on OKCupid. We are each other's secondaries, and we both stated in our profiles that we have other loves (my BF, his wife). His profile is linked to his wife's profile; I have photos of my with Fly on mine.

I met his wife on our second date, before we had sex. He met my BF a couple months in (Fly would rather not meet my loves and lovers at all if he can help it :rolleyes:).

I would be royally pissed if someone went on a date(s) with me and didn't tell me they have a primary partner. Actually, there probably wouldn't be anymore dates, because this wouldn't be someone I could trust to be honest and up-front with me in the future. To me, there's a big difference between dating around and having a SO.

Just my $0.02 :)

GalaGirl

08-09-2012, 09:43 PM

I dunno if you want my experience. I met my BF1 locally. I met my BF2 online. (I ended up as the hinge later.) And since I'd started dating BF1 first and he was local, he was first and "primary" then. (Don't really use those terms, but I'll play.)

Did you know your SO before you started dating?

I was the SO. BF2 did not know me. We met online. Total strangers. Not like we were friends first in another context. BF1 and I were friends first.

At what point did he tell you about his primary relationship and was it before you both slept together?

I told him right off the bat. I had a squeeze but I was not exclusive. He was fine with it. Anyone else I dated needed to be on board. Otherwise better not to date me and just keep it at friends.

And to know this about me if he was thinking of wanting to date me. I wanted him to know how I roll and all the goods from the get go so he wouldn't feel like he was wasting his time on a poor return for his investment. He has to right to seek what he wants in rship, and the clearer the goods in my front window, the better for all concerned.

This was well before we slept together. It was before the date!

Did you meet his primary relationship and, if so, at what point in the relationship did you meet them?

Nope. They knew each other existed, I swapped the names, phone numbers, emails. Then I left it to them to arrange whatever they wanted on their meta tier. They left it at polite metas who might exchange brief emails once in a great while. They kept themselves pretty separate though.

HTH!
GG

Wolfwood

08-09-2012, 09:44 PM

@Meera - To be clear, I never lie and I strongly imply I am seeing other people on first dates. However, I don't volunteer more information then that unless a girl asks. Mostly they ask for details by the second date, so it's rarely even an issue. The main reason I don't make a point to tell is that some girls just don't want to know. Not everyone I date is looking for something serious. I'm perfectly happy to accommodate a non-serious, occasional FWB's situation. Until I know what a girl is looking for, I don't typically volunteer specific details about my love life.

@Rainy - Thanks, that's exactly the kind of experience I'm interested in hearing about. In your case you were already interested in poly. I doubt that will be the case for most of the women I meet. I'm very curious what the best, and ethically sound, way to introduce new dates to poly. I'm fairly sure that most women consider discretion to be a virtue in a man, so I'm not really at the point where I want to add the poly-label to my profile. I also freely admit that my attitude on this may change once my girlfriend and I move in together.

Anyway, keep the stories coming. =)

-Wolf

nycindie

08-09-2012, 09:58 PM

Have you tried doing a search? There are many, many threads on this topic already, so you will probably find lots of good info. You can try a tag search for "dating" as a start, get a little creative with the advanced search, and also visit the Golden Nuggets forum for the sticky called "Other Threads Worth Reading."

BrigidsDaughter

08-09-2012, 10:15 PM

Wendigo and I are each other's secondaries. I met him though my husband and our mutual friends and have always know he was married. Infact the firs time I met him was at the apartment his brother in law was sharing with a mutual friend. We were friends for a couple years before we got together and I saw his wife in passing when we gave him rides to our boffer LARP, but we didn't actually meet and start conversing until Wendigo and I had been dating for a couple of months as she is very much an introvert and going out to dinner once or twice a year is about as social as she gets.

Runic Wolf's last girlfriend he met on OK cupid and she is a member of our local poly community so telling her he was married was easy. She and I still talk occasionally.

Wolfwood

08-09-2012, 10:22 PM

Nyc, it's actually not a particularly easy subject to search for. I have read most of the posts in the "Other Threads Worth Reading", cannot recall seeing a topic like this. I'm sure I could read through the many, many first person accounts of relationships on this site looking for the details I want, but I thought like this would be quicker. If you can come up with some better search terms than I can, I'd be happy to check out any threads you can dig up. =)

I am a long-timer lurker on this site. I just don't post here that often because this is mainly my girlfriend's forum (although she has not posted here in awhile). Also, I have my own guy-specific forums that I typically post on. I just wanted a broader range of opinion for this particular question.

-Wolf

JaneQSmythe

08-10-2012, 12:03 AM

I'll preface this by saying that I've never really "dated" - so I am not sure how that whole dynamic goes (I'm sure I would hate it).

Anyone that I would be potentially involved with/interested in would know that I had another partner/other partners just by talking to me for 5 minutes. At this point in my life even a casual fling couldn't miss it ("Hold on a sec...let me txt my husband and let him know what hotel to pick me up at in the morning." - Actually, a baby version of this happened when we were last in Vegas - Some guy is totally trying to pick me up, I say, "Let me check and see when my husband wants to meet up for dinner..." we set a time and pick-up guy goes back to nibbling on my ear. At the appointed time MrS shows up and introduces himself, I thank ear-nibbler for a lovely afternoon, and we head off to dinner.)

If they boys ever start dating I would expect them to be upfront from before the beginning about being involved with someone else but not exclusive. How do you even have a conversation on a date where you don't talk about what is going on in your life? (i.e. "The other day my girlfriend and I were at the park and this funny thing happened." "Oh, you like sci-fi? So does my wife - she thinks I should read >insert title here< - what do you think? Did you like that one?")

Jane("Just-not-cut-out-for-dating")Q

CielDuMatin

08-10-2012, 12:06 AM

My strong preference, and the things that has worked out best for me, is to actually be friends with a person before dating them. Since my partners are such significant parts of my life, it's pretty much inconceivable that they topic of them wouldn't come up.

In my online profiles on dating sites, I mention polyamory and my relationships quite clearly in my profile. That way anyone who does contact me will have no surprises. If the idea of me having existing relationships that I am not looking to replace isn't something they can deal with, then I'd rather know about that up-front than waste time and money meeting the person.

Turning the tables - if a woman that I had agreed to meet up with (I wouldn't call that a "date" - just a meet-up for coffee and a "getting to know you") told me only on subsequent meet-ups that they were in a committed relationship, then I wouldn't be too pleased. To me this sort of thing is part of the basic "getting to know you" process. All this, and a meeting with the corresponding significant others, I would want before we went out on what I would call a true "date".

I know others have different opinions on this, and this probably makes me quite old school, but this is my strong preference.

Glitter

08-10-2012, 12:42 AM

I am upfront from the get go. If someone is not willing or able to accept that I am in another relationship, then we don't even get started. Too many cowboys/cowgirls out there, thinking they can change my mind, lol. Hubby is the same, upfront about the situation. Just seems logical to us, why hide or omit our SO? He is a huge part of my life, so I don't exclude him in my conversations. To not say anything would leave a smaller window of things I can discuss, haha.

km34

08-10-2012, 04:44 AM

I'm definitely in the "let them know from the get-go/first date" camp.

I generally meet people via OKCupid. It is clearly stated in my profile that I'm poly and it is linked to my husband's profile. His is the same way.

Now, I also think that not mentioning poly or any primary partners until the first date would be fine in my book, but like a few others I would feel deceived/uncomfortable if I went out on a date, or even just a get-to-know-you meet for coffee, and a person in a committed relationship didn't tell me about said committed relationship(s).

CielDuMatin

08-10-2012, 04:17 PM

Glitter

08-10-2012, 04:27 PM

Ugh, bad stuff Ciel! Why would anyone want to stick around after such blatant deceit?

Wolfwood

08-10-2012, 06:14 PM

I met one guy who insisted that it wasn't something that was needed (and preached endlessly about "radical honesty") until he got to know someone better. This was taken to the point of lying on his dating profiles, saying he was "single" when in fact he was legally married to his primary. No mention in his profiles about having anybody.

When I asked him when he brought it up, it was usually after the first few dates (which could easily have included sex). His logic was that he felt that if he hid that, it would allow the person to get to know him first, and then would be more likely to stick around after knowing the truth than if he came out with it first.

I wasn't impressed.... I think I actually called him a hypocrite to his face. He was unfazed....

Well, to be fair to the guy, his method is effective.. especially if the girl has no experience with polyamory. That's partially the reason I started this thread. I wanted to hear stories of single girls (with no poly history) who met poly-guys (who have primaries) and dated them, knowing they were poly from the get-go. Are there any stories like that around here? It's easy to say, "guys should do this" and "guys should do that", but I'm more curious about what is effective.

Thanks again, everyone, for your time.

-Wolf

km34

08-10-2012, 06:29 PM

My husband is in an online (email and Skype) relationship with a woman who had never heard of poly until reading his OKC profile. She was kind of weirded out by it in the beginning (and actually they started corresponding because she viewed his profile and he was curious why - she lives in another country, so he was just being friendly, not trying to start anything). After talking to him a bit, having him explain poly and our relationship specifically, she decided it is a really neat concept and something she could see fitting into her life to some degree.

She has admitted to him that even in the online world she would have stopped talking to him altogether if he hadn't been so up front about being married/involved.

I'm also confused about how that method works (waiting multiple dates, claiming to be single, etc). Are there really that many women out there who are okay with dating people who have lied about something that huge? I couldn't imagine not having enough self respect to walk away from a guy who did that to me. I would think getting to know a woman just to get to know her while letting her know about polyamory and then letting her decide if this really nice person who has been talking to her in a no pressure kind of way who happens to believe in alternative relationship structures would be someone she wants to date. Seems a lot more honest and a better way to build a sturdy foundation for a relationship.

Wolfwood

08-10-2012, 07:29 PM

I'm also confused about how that method works (waiting multiple dates, claiming to be single, etc). Are there really that many women out there who are okay with dating people who have lied about something that huge? I couldn't imagine not having enough self respect to walk away from a guy who did that to me. I would think getting to know a woman just to get to know her while letting her know about polyamory and then letting her decide if this really nice person who has been talking to her in a no pressure kind of way who happens to believe in alternative relationship structures would be someone she wants to date. Seems a lot more honest and a better way to build a sturdy foundation for a relationship.

I thought I was clear in my earlier comment, but apparently not. I don't lie, I strongly imply that I am seeing other people, and I answer questions honestly. However, I'm cautious about how much information I put on a public profile and about how much information I volunteer to a person when I first meet them. I just don't believe that people should have access to those details of my life unless their is a possibility of a more serious relationship. If I'm only going to see them a few times or they want a non-serious FB relationship, then they don't need (or probably want) to know who else I'm sleeping with.

I don't really have a problem with this method, and it also serves the purpose of easing the transition to poly for a girl who has no poly experience. If a girl wants to be a more serious part of my life, then they need to accept that I'm polyamorous and have other relationships. Unfortunately, my girlfriend has reservations about this method, as she is much more direct when dealing with guys. I'm considering changing up how I do things, but I'm trying to do some research on the realities of the situation. This is the biggest poly forum I know of so it seemed like a logical place to start.

Again, what I REALLY want to know is whether or not poly-guys are successful at starting sexual relationships with secondaries who do not have prior poly experience, when they fully disclose the nature of their primary relationship at the get-go. So the big question is: Are there any women here who were introduced to poly by a guy who (1) already had a primary relationship and (2) announced that fact at the very beginning of the relationship?

/sorry it took me so long to really narrow down my question
//poly-guys with experience are welcome to chime in

Much love,
-Wolf

km34

08-10-2012, 07:46 PM

I thought I was clear in my earlier comment, but apparently not. I don't lie, I strongly imply that I am seeing other people, and I answer questions honestly. However, I'm cautious about how much information I put on a public profile and about how much information I volunteer to a person when I first meet them. I just don't believe that people should have access to those details of my life unless their is a possibility of a more serious relationship. If I'm only going to see them a few times or they want a non-serious FB relationship, then they don't need (or probably want) to know who else I'm sleeping with.

I was referring to the method that Ciel said some guy used that involved blatantly lying about being involved with others.

nycindie

08-10-2012, 08:11 PM

Nyc, it's actually not a particularly easy subject to search for.Yeah, you're right. I was thinking "dating" and another term... not sure. For some reason, I thought there had been a bunch of links to threads on this topic gathered somewhere, either by me or someone else, but now I don't see it. It is tricky to search for, but I feel like I have read at least ten different threads on the same thing. When I have a chance, I will do an extensive search and post it in Golden Nuggets.

But I just looked up some of the threads I recall responding to, and there are a few good ones that are related (some more than others) to this topic, that you might like:
Time to tell a new partner you're in a relationship? (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25531)
When and how do you tell them? (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23130)
Question about discloser (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16861)
Dating vs. Poly (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8226)
How/when to bring up an interest in poly? (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14098)
First Poly Date (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22167)
Telling a non-poly "date" about myself (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4299)
Generally, what I have found is that solo people tend to give dating someone a little time before saying they have other lovers, and married people tend to reveal it before any dates take place.

I was in a brief relationship with a married poly guy, and I met him online. His dating profile states that he is married and has links to both his wife's profile and to Franklin Veaux's site so people could read about it - all in his first paragraph.

I am currently corresponding with a married poly guy and I met him online, too. Pretty much the same thing as the other guy - it's all upfront, except his wife doesn't have a profile, so no links.

Neither of them introduced me to poly. I was already looking for poly men. But I feel that anyone who has a spouse should state so before making a date. A primary who is not a spouse, I could wait a little bit to find out, but it should be fairly soon-ish - especially if they've got a bunch of rules and guidelines that would affect additional partners! But I tend to look for and attract poly men who have very loose, less structured arrangements with their SOs, and not many rules.

As for myself, I am unpartnered and do not have nor seek a primary. I want the parameters of my poly relationships to be a little looser and more casual than that. Plus, I do not see dates as auditions for long-term relationships. I simply see going out with someone as an opportunity to have fun and get to know somebody. I mention poly and non-monogamy in my dating profile without coming out and saying that's how I roll. I don't want to exclude or scare away "civilians" who might be interested and willing to embrace something new. If I had a spouse, I would definitely have it upfront in my online profile, but I don't feel it's necessary if I just have several casual lovers or a partner who is also solo, and not a primary. I don't subscribe to that hierarchy, btw.

If I were married, or partnered and considered that partner a primary, anyone I date would know on that first date. I am not sure I would tell someone I met in person before going out with him, but probably fairly soon on a first date. But I don't have a primary. I think it could sound a little arrogant to state to someone that I have lovers and practice polyamory too soon, as if I was assuming that this guy must want me. No, I like to see if we're hitting it off first. For people I meet in real life, sometimes "relationship talk" and the subject of non-exclusivity takes place on a first date; sometimes it happens on the third, or fifth date, or even the morning after boinking someone.

Wolfwood

08-10-2012, 08:13 PM

I was referring to the method that Ciel said some guy used that involved blatantly lying about being involved with others.

My apologies if I took your comment out of it's proper context.

Incidentally, the lie Ciel was referring to involved a guy who marked himself as single on an online dating profile. I think that is a somewhat forgivable sin. If I were married, then I would probably not mention it on an online dating site either. I wouldn't necessarily lie, but I'd leave it blank if possible (like you can do on Facebook). If I didn't have that option, then I'd probably consider putting single or just using a different dating site. I'm not really sure though, because I've never been in that situation.

@Nyc - Thank you so much! That was exactly the kind of thing I was looking for! I think you are right about the married / unmarried thing. I would probably tend to meet more people WITH my girlfriend if were in a more marriage-like scenario (living together, have kids, etc). I'd also probably be more likely to announce my marriage because a wedding ring is a dead give away (I'm not the type who would take it off to go on a date). Anyway, thanks again.

-Wolf

CielDuMatin

08-10-2012, 08:45 PM

I don't really have a problem with this method, and it also serves the purpose of easing the transition to poly for a girl who has no poly experience.Hey, if it works for you, then more power to you. For the record, this guy tended to end up with women who had very little self-esteem and the relationships never lasted very long. He used to complain to me how he could never find the right kind of people. I tried to put out the cause-and-effect nature of his dating profiles, but he just didn't get it.

For all I know, he has since found what he was looking for and is blissfully happy - I (deliberately) lost touch with him a while ago.

So the big question is: Are there any women here who were introduced to poly by a guy who (1) already had a primary relationship and (2) announced that fact at the very beginning of the relationship?I had two very functional and happy relationships that started out exactly that way - I was up-front right from the get-go. (I don't know why you are restricting it to just sexual relationships, but that may well be your paradigm.)

Wolfwood

08-10-2012, 09:11 PM

I had two very functional and happy relationships that started out exactly that way - I was up-front right from the get-go. (I don't know why you are restricting it to just sexual relationships, but that may well be your paradigm.)

That's great! May I ask you for some details about those relationships? Mainly, (1) how did you meet those women and (2) how/when did you tell them about your primary? Oh, and were you married and/or living with your primary at the time?

/In my humble opinion, sexual energy exchange between two (or more) people is what separates friendships from relationships. Therefore, the way I define things, "sexual relationship" is actually a redundant term.

-Wolf

Emm

08-11-2012, 12:49 AM

Incidentally, the lie Ciel was referring to involved a guy who marked himself as single on an online dating profile. I think that is a somewhat forgivable sin. I'd see it as a lie, and a big one at that.

I almost fit your criteria. I had only known there was a word for ethical non-exclusivity for a week or two when I got together with my married boyfriend. His OKCupid profile stated quite clearly that he was married, and while I probably didn't know any better at the time, if he'd hidden that only to tell me later I probably wouldn't have contacted him again.

lovefromgirl

08-11-2012, 04:38 AM

Okay, my main question is, "at what point did your SO tell you about his primary poly relationship?"

I met them together and found out right then and there. It was pretty much, "So, the lady you're here with...?" "Yeah, my partner." "Cool!"

Then we emailed back and forth for a bit, and THEN I asked him if he fancied me.

We even had a dinner out all three together before anything happened in a couple setting, just to discuss.

lovefromgirl

08-11-2012, 04:44 AM

That's great! May I ask you for some details about those relationships? Mainly, (1) how did you meet those women and (2) how/when did you tell them about your primary? Oh, and were you married and/or living with your primary at the time?

-Wolf

Uh, hi. I'm one of them. Should've made that obvious. And yes, they've lived together as long as I've known them.

For the record, I am skeeved as fuck by people who lie about their status. Anyone who tries to get me on their side by lying to me, even by omission, is someone I won't trust.

Also for the record, I've found it possible to feel romantically for someone without anything happening below the belt. I wouldn't be averse to a love like that. So.

Cleo

08-11-2012, 01:38 PM

Well, to be fair to the guy, his method is effective.. especially if the girl has no experience with polyamory. That's partially the reason I started this thread. I wanted to hear stories of single girls (with no poly history) who met poly-guys (who have primaries) and dated them, knowing they were poly from the get-go. Are there any stories like that around here? It's easy to say, "guys should do this" and "guys should do that", but I'm more curious about what is effective.

-Wolf

effective, probably yes, if sex is what your looking for. I assume that it's easier to get a girl to sleep with you when she thinks you're single.
But, if you're looking for a real relationship I don't think not being upfront about your relationship status, is a good idea. I know I would stop dating a guy if he waited telling me about the significance of his other relationships until after a couple of dates (and 'implying that you see other people' would not be good enough for me). If the full disclosure happened after we had sex, I'd be really pissed.

I'm a secondary to 2 guys (well, I was until one of them broke up with his other GF). I met both of them on an online poly dating site. Both their profiles clearly stated what kind of other relationships they were in at the time. In the first email exchange we would always share a lot of info about our lives. Of course, because I already know about poly, I would ask all the necessary questions. A girl who knows nothing about poly will maybe not ask these questions and assume that a guy who is interested in her, is single. I think its the responsibility of the guy to tell her what the deal is.

For a year, I was 'casually dating' - lots of very short relationships, sometimes 2 or 3 dates that were mostly about sex, and even with those, I wanted to know the relationship status of the guys. Most of them were single, a couple of them in open relationships. But in that case, I felt it was my responsibility to ask. (There was one case where I did not ask. I chose not to. I later found out he had lied.)

CielDuMatin

08-11-2012, 06:16 PM

That's great! May I ask you for some details about those relationships? Mainly, (1) how did you meet those women and (2) how/when did you tell them about your primary? Oh, and were you married and/or living with your primary at the time? Actually, I wasn't including lovefromgirl in my count, since she knew all about poly when I met her, even though she hadn't had a poly relationship at that time. I was referring to people who were utterly unfamiliar with the concept when I met them.

To answer your questions:
1. I met one in person, sitting next to her on a long-distance flight. I met the other online, playing a game (Diablo II), and we became friends for a long while, since she was married at the time. It was a nominally monogamous marriage with a sort of DADT thing.

2. The first lady knew about my partner and poly by the end of the flight. The other knew I was in a relationship and poly well before we met in person, and before anything romantic happened.

In my humble opinion, sexual energy exchange between two (or more) people is what separates friendships from relationships. Therefore, the way I define things, "sexual relationship" is actually a redundant term.Thanks for your definition - that certainly clarifies your language and paradigms. I have a very different view of romantic relationships and sex.

The big issue with lies of omission is that there can be mismatched priorities between two people. Assumptions are made based on those priorities and that can lead to trouble ("Well, he should KNOW that him being in a relationship already is important and should disclose that right up-front" vs. "I don't care what other relationships he is in, since this is about him and me."). So not being honest can potentially ruin something really good - a relationship based form the start on a foundation of honesty. I think that it depends very much on how much you value honesty and integrity in a relationship as to how to approach these things.

opalescent

08-11-2012, 11:47 PM

It would piss me off if someone I was dating with hadn't told me they were married or in a primary-type relationship by or on the first date. I tell people in person or online that I am ethically non-monogamous. People don't have to be those things to date me but they need to know that up front. I need to know relationship status (mono, poly, single, partnered, open, closed - whatever the variation) so I can assess if I fit the bill for what this person wants and if they are what I want out of a relationship. I do not need to know all the sticky details of a relationship but I do need to know if someone is married or already partnered, or single, looking for a primary, not looking for a primary, etc.

mercury

08-13-2012, 12:02 AM

Okay, my main question is, "at what point did your SO tell you about his primary poly relationship?" My primary-girlfriend (Kemie) and I have differing opinions on when it is proper to discuss this. I don't always feel the need to share intimate details of my private life on a first date with a girl. In fact, I tend to refrain from giving too many details unless I get the feeling it could turn into something more serious. My girlfriend, on the other hand, takes the opposite approach and lets guys know before any dating ever happens. I am looking for some real world examples of how other poly guys approach dating, specifically from a female perspective. So, without further ado, here are my questions:

Did you know your SO before you started dating?
At what point did he tell you about his primary relationship and was it before you both slept together?
Did you meet his primary relationship and, if so, at what point in the relationship did you meet them?

I'd like as many real examples I can get. I specifically want to hear from people who met their SO while online dating (I met most of my non-primary relationships via online dating). I've also been known to pick-up girls in bars and other social events.

If guys would like to chime in on how they approach meeting and dating secondaries, then that would also be helpful. What are your success stories?

Thank you for your time!

-Wolf (primary of Kemie)

I was a female secondary, and here's how it went down. We met on a dating site. He had himself listed as single and straight. There was absolutely no trace of his being in an open relationship on his profile. He and I talked online for two weeks, then he pushed for a coffee meeting. I said okay. Just before we went on it, though, I found out from a random look at a distant acquaintance's Facebook page that he was with her, was her boyfriend. On the phone just before our first date, I asked him about it. "Are you in a relationship with ____? Is it that you guys are in an open relationship?"

He said yes, they are, and that their plan was to tell dates on the first date. I have no way of knowing if that is true or not. It seems a reasonable plan, but you know, for all I know, he wasn't going to tell me for several dates, and only just told me because I found out beforehand.

I think what he did was okay (if he was in fact going to tell me on the first date, first thing). But NO LATER THAN THAT. Mind you, and that's only because our first date was within two weeks. I would never wait for beyond two weeks to tell someone something like that.

And technically, I think one should just have it on their profile in the first place. Don't waste people's time with your semblance of singleness when you're actually in an open relationship.

I've noticed that he's since changed his profile to reflect that he's in an open relationship. However, it is way, way down at the bottom of his page. There is tons of information about him that comes way before that last paragraph that says he's in an open relationship. I think most women aren't seeing it.

I happen to know that there was a girl talking to him recently who didn't know he was in an open relationship. She was told so by a friend of hers, and then she went back to this profile and saw it and said "Okay...no."

Not only should one mention it on one's online profile, but it should be at the top, where people will see it.

I think what it is, is that some poly/open people think they can talk people into the situation if they can just get an in-person date. And that's not a bad approach, really.

What happened in my situation is that I said "no thanks" after I found out he was in an open relationship, but then he said "I mean, we could just meet for coffee as friends..."

And he and I ended up hitting it off. It wasn't so much that he was irresistable or anything, though (however, he was very cute); I was also in a place of trying to get over a guy from before him. So I almost didn't care that I was getting into a messy situation; anything to get over the guy from before.

All this being said, I think people need to mention it right away. Most people can make the most objective decision before they even have a full date with you. If you're trying to lure them in with your personality and sex appeal, it may work (and that's to your credit), but I think it'd be more ethical for a poly person to just let the person make a decision based on whether they think poly is for them or not, completely free from your charms/sex appeal.

WhatHappened

08-14-2012, 08:27 PM

Well, to be fair to the guy, his method is effective.. especially if the girl has no experience with polyamory. That's partially the reason I started this thread. I wanted to hear stories of single girls (with no poly history) who met poly-guys (who have primaries) and dated them, knowing they were poly from the get-go. Are there any stories like that around here? It's easy to say, "guys should do this" and "guys should do that", but I'm more curious about what is effective.

-Wolf

This is me: single, no poly history, who met a poly-guy with a primary and dated (still dating) him.

I knew he was married long before I started dating him. I would absolutely not have started dating him without knowing he had an open marriage/poly situation.

I think he and I are in agreement that it is to his benefit that I knew him, simply as a person, for several years before I knew anything unusual about his marriage. So I see where this guy gets his idea that it's more effective to let someone get to know him first.

BUT...and it's a huge but (no bad puns intended)...my situation is entirely different from someone totally unknown to me who asks me out on a date, letting me think he's single, and after that first date...or two...or three...says, Oh, by the way...I'm married. But she doesn't care. To me it would feel deceptive and very much like a bait and switch, offering me a single guy...one I might have one sort of future with...and when I like him, saying, Ha, just kidding, what you're really getting is a married guy and a whole new lifestyle you never even considered and absolutely no chance of that future you might be thinking of when you start dating.

My personal opinion is that a person having a primary partner is basic information that belongs at the forefront...as someone else said, at the top of a profile. It may be 'more effective' to hold that information back for a little while, but that doesn't make it right.

mercury

08-15-2012, 02:52 AM

Just to continue the story I told above. Even though I found out about the guy being in a polyamorous relationship just before our first date (because I discovered it, not because he told me), I still feel that he was a little bit deceptive in the way he behaved at first, in order to reel me in. (Maybe deceptive is not the word, but more like, used rhetoric in such a way that gave me a different perception than what was actually the case).

1) When I first asked him about his involvement with her, he said "Yeah, we're dating."

"We're dating" sounds a lot more casual than "she's my girlfriend" or "we're committed to this polyamory thing and as much as you might mean to me, she's the one I'm sticking with no matter what."

2) On our second date, he said, "I don't know what's going to happen in the future. She and I have an understanding that we might both meet people and branch off into traditional relationships."

This changed as soon as we had sex.

3) Also on the second date, when I asked why they didn't just break up when she was pushing for an open relationship and he didn't want it (at first), he said, "Well, we still care about each other." He was careful not to say "We still love each other."

Just those three things, really. But my point is, men are often going to downplay how committed they are to their girlfriend in order to reel you in. They know good and darn well that if a single new-to-poly woman hears, initially, how much he loves his girlfriend, how she is in fact a girlfriend and not just someone he's 'dating,' how he will never leave her no matter what, the woman isn't going to bite. So the way I see it, these men know exactly what they're doing. They're using words strategically -- not necessarily lying -- but using words in such a way that you don't know how much they're committed to their girlfriends. And this does not mean the single woman should be hoping for a guy who is uncommitted to his girlfriend. After all, if she's interested or open to poly, she shouldn't be secretly hoping for the primary couple's break-up. But if the guy uses words in such a way that he doesn't sound OVERLY committed to his primary (and he does, because he wants to reel the single woman in), the single woman is happy, she believes she has a chance of mattering to him just as much as the primary woman. The reality, unfortunately, is that that is often not the case. The primary woman matters more, and this will come out as the single/secondary woman gets involved. She just won't know it at first because the guy's been clever about how he words things and how he presents himself and the situation.

The guy I *was* involved with, I actually found out a little about him recently. I heard through the grapevine that he was courting a woman online, and that she was open to meeting him, but that as soon as she found out he was in an open relationship (through another friend, not the guy himself), she opted out. The reason she didn't know in the first place is that it doesn't say "open relationship" until the *last* paragraph of his profile (and there are a good 7 or 8 paragraphs/sections in his profile. And he apparently didn't mention it in his email exchanges.

Like I said, attempting to reel people in.

Just be honest.

CielDuMatin

08-15-2012, 08:05 PM

See, so many good anecdotes supporting this...

If poly is about being open and honest, then how can you expect to find a good, solid poly relationship if you are not completely open and honest from the get-go?

If you manipulate folks with your "marketing strategy", then don't be surprised if you get manipulated back.

mercury

08-16-2012, 10:44 PM

Wolfwood,

Just skimmed more heavily in this thread. The thing about your situation is that you're not polyamorous. You're just looking for friends with benefits, and your girlfriend is okay with it. I don't have any beef with what you do, especially if your girlfriend is okay with it. It's just super lame to be calling yourself polyamorous when you're not. AMOROUS means love, you know. Sure, you're open to love happening if it happens to happen. But I definitely get the sense that you're looking for lots of sexual play that is fairly meaningless, and having a meaningful relationship may just be an incidental occurrence. I don't mean to condemn just you, but it's true that what you're doing is a huge cliche. That is, being a guy who wants to get sex from women and have those women not mean much to you. And then calling yourself "polyamorous." That's a crock. Sorry, but it is. If you were polyamorous, you'd not have casual sexual relationships; you'd have meaningful, deep love relationships, and your girlfriend would be okay with it. And if casual sexual relationships presented themselves as an opportunity to you, you wouldn't be interested. But you're very interested. You and your girlfriend are in an open relationship; you're not polyamorous.

That being said, there are a lot of couples like you who call themselves poly but who are really just in open relationships -- that is, open to have sex with other people without those sexual liaisons meaning very much.

I just don't like people dressing it up as polyamory when it's casual sex.

nycindie

08-16-2012, 10:58 PM

If you were polyamorous, you'd not have casual sexual relationships; you'd have meaningful, deep love relationships, and your girlfriend would be okay with it. And if casual sexual relationships presented themselves as an opportunity to you, you wouldn't be interested.

Uh-oh! Throwing a poly rulebook at the OP?

To say that poly peeps wouldn't have, or even be interested in, casual sexual liaisons is not only judgmental, but inaccurate and misleading, too. Ever hear the phrase, "my poly is not your poly?" While what you say may be true about the OP, it may not be. Just NSA sex hook-ups are not poly -- I'm not disagreeing with you there -- but it certainly isn't a rule that if you are poly then you wouldn't even be interested in casual sexual relationships. (!) Casual relationships that seem very focused on sex can be loving; and many people find sex as the best way to start a loving relationship, with friendship and any "serious" commitments coming later. It all depends on how one defines love, relationships, and casual too, for that matter.

Good discussion on the topic: Casual Sex - Discussion (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2364)

mercury

08-17-2012, 12:02 AM

Uh-oh! Throwing a poly rulebook at the OP?

To say that poly peeps wouldn't have, or even be interested in, casual sexual liaisons is not only judgmental, but inaccurate and misleading, too. Ever hear the phrase, "my poly is not your poly?" While what you say may be true about the OP, it may not be. Just NSA sex hook-ups are not poly -- I'm not disagreeing with you there -- but it certainly isn't a rule that if you are poly then you wouldn't even be interested in casual sexual relationships. (!) Casual relationships that seem very focused on sex can be loving; and many people find sex as the best way to start a loving relationship, with friendship and any "serious" commitments coming later. It all depends on how one defines love, relationships, and casual too, for that matter.

Good discussion on the topic: Casual Sex - Discussion (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2364)

I'll agree with you that casual sexual relationships can be very loving. But if it truly is "very loving" (that is, not just affection, but actual LOVE), then it is no longer casual sex, is it? Then you love the person, or have feelings of love for the person, and you are then engaging in polyamory.

I think what you're saying is that casual relationships that are very focused on sex can be very respectful and considerate. And I agree that they can be. But if they are not actually loving, deep, and on par with one's primary relationship or very close to it, then they're not really polyamory.

I mean, there are lots of friends with benefits situations in which the people participating say, "But, I mean, it's respectful. We treat each other well, and he doesn't just throw me out when we finish having sex. We actually spend some time together. We go out to lunch. And we cuddle. But it's not serious between us. I have respect for him and him for me. But we don't love each other." That's an example of casual sex that is respectful, considerate, and even with affection. But if it's not love and not ever meant to become love, I don't call that polyamory. I call it friends with benefits. Really nice and affectionate friends with benefits, don't get me wrong, but FWB all the same.

Like you said, casual sex and FWB can turn into loving relationships. If they do, that's polyamory in practice. But if they never do, and/or that's what you mostly have for years and years, you're just in an open relationship; you're not quite polyamorous.

I mean, to give an example. There's a girl whose profile I've seen on OkCupid who says this: "Let's get this out of the way right off the bat. I'm engaged to be married. The date is 10/12/12. If you're looking for "the one," that is not me. If you can't handle polyamory, I can't handle you."

She's looking for other involvements, but I would hardly call her polyamorous. And what I'm saying is that, while that girl may be very in-your-face about her stance, and a little uncouth about it, to boot, a lot of poly people are just a more polite version of the same thing. i.e. "I've already got my "the one," but I'm looking for other involvements."

I repeat- polyAMORY - that is, LOVE. When you actually love your additional partners, you're polyamorous. As long as you don't, and/or as long as you're having casual sex with the distant possibility (but rarity) of it turning into love, you're in open relationship mode.

mercury

08-17-2012, 12:07 AM

mercury

08-17-2012, 12:12 AM

To say that poly peeps wouldn't have, or even be interested in, casual sexual liaisons is not only judgmental, but inaccurate and misleading, too.

I don't have a beef with people enjoying or seeking casual sex. Hell, there have been times in my life that I've sought it. On more than one occasion. I'm not some "only meaningful relationships" person. But when I sought casual sex, I called it what it was. I didn't go around saying I was "polyamorous."

It's f---ing ridiculous.

It's not the concept of casual sex I have a beef with. I'm open to it myself, while I'm also open to serious relationships. (Prefer a serious relationship, but I wouldn't say no to some hottie who I connected with, for just one night, or if we ended up FWB). But I *don't* call it polyamory. Why? 'Cause I'd be tainting the word polyamory to call it that if I were looking for casual sex, or willing to have tons and tons of it on my journey toward love.

p.s. The OP *said* he was open to occasional FWB. I didn't hear anything about loving.

opalescent

08-17-2012, 12:23 AM

@mercury,

I see casual sex as a point in a continuum that ranges from anonymous, 'bodies-only' sex to utterly sacred, totally emotionally enmeshed sex. Both of those points exist but there is so much in-between! And it's not static, people move between points. People also choose to remain in a set geography. And relationships morph - many of us have experienced where a relationship changed in unexpected ways - from casual to more attached or from platonic to sexual. I've seen this in my relationship with SW which has changed from solely a FWB to something more involved and more attached for both of us. Ariakas' earlier post that some of his meaningful relationships started from a casual hookup is another example.

This is from the thread NYCindie noted early. Ethical non-monogamy is a continuum for me, not a either/or structure. The lines between poly, swinging, open, casual to throw a few terms around are not always obvious.

I finally figured out a metaphor that I think works for showing how poly, open, swinging and so on can be different but have the possibility to shade into each other in real life.

Ethical non-monogamy is like water. Water has different forms - ice, liquid water, gas (steam). Those forms do not look at all like each other but they are all water. They change from one to the other as physical conditions change - liguid water turns to ice as it freezes, or escape into gas as it boils. Ice dissolves into liguid as it warms. Relationships can be very much like this. They might remain in the form in which they were created. Or they might change over time such as from a FWB into something more committed like a primary relationship. Or a primary relationship can move away from that into something more open, more casual.

Other people experience and define poly and ethical non-monogamy very differently. You see it in very black and white terms. It is this and not that. And that works for you. But you don't have a monopoly on poly defining. The structure I describe above works well for me. It provides a useful model for understanding my life.

mercury

08-17-2012, 12:36 AM

@mercury,

This is from the thread NYCindie noted early. Ethical non-monogamy is a continuum for me, not a either/or structure. The lines between poly, swinging, open, casual to throw a few terms around are not always obvious.

I finally figured out a metaphor that I think works for showing how poly, open, swinging and so on can be different but have the possibility to shade into each other in real life.

Ethical non-monogamy is like water. Water has different forms - ice, liquid water, gas (steam). Those forms do not look at all like each other but they are all water. They change from one to the other as physical conditions change - liguid water turns to ice as it freezes, or escape into gas as it boils. Ice dissolves into liguid as it warms. Relationships can be very much like this. They might remain in the form in which they were created. Or they might change over time such as from a FWB into something more committed like a primary relationship. Or a primary relationship can move away from that into something more open, more casual.

Other people experience and define poly and ethical non-monogamy very differently. You see it in very black and white terms. It is this and not that. And that works for you. But you don't have a monopoly on poly defining. The structure I describe above works well for me. It provides a useful model for understanding my life.

I definitely get the "spectrum" and "fluidity" thing. I definitely understand that FWB and casual relationships may well evolve, over time, into something more. If you'll notice, I addressed the OP, who said he was looking for ways that he could interest single, new-to-poly secondaries into starting sexual relationships. That, to me, says he's looking for sexual relationships primarily and love/meaning only as an afterthought.

I'm not saying that he -- or other people like him -- won't fall for any of their partners who were originally casual, even if they didn't mean to. I'm saying he doesn't have the mindset or approach of a poly person. He's probably not completely un-poly. But he speaks much more with the rhetoric of a casual sex seeker.

Let me just give you an example. The poly guy I dated last year had gone on dates with about three women from OkCupid before he went out with me. He didn't feel connected with them enough to see them again or have sex with them, so he didn't. (It could be that they, too, weren't interested). When he met me, he felt attracted enough and wanted to see me again, and he soon wanted a relationship with me. So basically, he got involved only when he knew he wanted to love the person too, not just have sex with the person. That, to me, is a more poly way of being. If you don't agree, you don't agree. NyCindie asked me if I'd ever heard the phrase "My poly is not your poly." Sure I've heard it. As such, respect my poly, too. My poly is just as much not your poly as your poly is not mine, so don't make a big deal out of it. People here do that all the time. It's defensiveness. "Hey wait, don't say my casual sex isn't poly! Poly exists on a spectrum, and that spectrum includes casual sex that can turn into something more."

What I'm saying is...if 90% of the time it doesn't turn into something more, or doesn't last for more than a month, it isn't "my" poly. It may be YOUR poly, but it's not "My" poly.

mercury

08-17-2012, 12:51 AM

Arii

08-17-2012, 01:01 AM

I had to hop out of the lurker bushes on this one.

You, my friend, are purposely (perhaps not maliciously) misleading women in the attempt to lure them in. As someone who has failed countless times when seeking a secondary, the fact is that most women will side-eye you, then turn in the other direction when you disclose that you are in fact, polyamorous.

This in mind, I'm sure you've experienced it as well, and have chosen this route as your loophole to the process. Unfortunately, it's based on deception and slight of hand and will gain you nothing except a guilty conscience, bitter pseudo/could have been secondaries, and a terrible reputation.

Sorry, but you probably need to be more willing to fail with the truth.. or at least most of it upfront, than failing in the long run via misdirection/smoke and mirrors.

Hi Polyamory.com. I'm Arii.

mercury

08-17-2012, 01:07 AM

Just to give an analogy. If a mono person is seeing a bunch of people for casual sex but it is affectionate and it might turn into something more (and the person even hopes to develop ONE relationship that lasts forever), that person doesn't call him or herself "Monogamous" while he/she is engaging in all the casual dating/sex. It's not exactly monogamous if he/she is seeing several people or having back to back casual relationships. The person owns up to being involved in casual sex/dating in hopes of eventually achieving a monogamous relationship. So while a poly person is doing the same thing,he/she shouldn't be calling it polyamory. Call it casual sex. If you then develop a loving relationship, and you have more than one loving relationship, then call it polyamory.

In other words, call yourself monogamous when you actually practice monogamy.

Call yourself polyamorous when you actually practice polyamory.

nycindie

08-17-2012, 01:25 AM

Now you are saying how other people should identify themselves based on your preferences. However, one can call themselves either monogamous or polyamorous even if they're not in any relationships at all! It's the desire and openness to poly that counts just as much as the practice of it.

From Wikipedia:
Members of the newsgroup alt.polyamory collaborated on a FAQ (frequently asked questions) post that was updated periodically, and included the group's definition of "polyamory". The 1997 version,[14] which has been archived online, contains this definition:

Polyamory means "loving more than one". This love may be sexual, emotional, spiritual, or any combination thereof, according to the desires and agreements of the individuals involved, but you needn't wear yourself out trying to figure out ways to fit fondness for apple pie, or filial piety, or a passion for the Saint Paul Saints baseball club into it. "Polyamorous" is also used as a descriptive term by people who are open to more than one relationship even if they are not currently involved in more than one. (Heck, some are involved in less than one.) Some people think the definition is a bit loose, but it's got to be fairly roomy to fit the wide range of poly arrangements out there.

In 1999, Zell-Ravenheart was asked by the editor of the Oxford English Dictionary to provide a definition of the term (which the dictionary had not yet recognized; the words "polyamory, -ous, and -ist" were added to the OED in 2006[4]). On their website, the Ravenhearts shared their submission to the OED, which follows:

The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved.

Mercury, my point in my earlier post was simply that what you state is poly isn't something that is agreed upon among every poly person. You described what poly is FOR YOU, and so why lay what works for you on other people and say they are not poly if they're not doing it your way? It would have been cool if you had said "this is what it is for me," but you were making definitive blanket statements about what "poly is" and that the OP wasn't doing it right. What you said had almost attacking tone to it.

Furthermore, I re-read the OP's posts and did not find any statement from him that he only was looking for casual sex. He said that he didn't feel it was necessary to discuss the fact that he has another relationship unless and until his dating goes beyond the casual stage. Clearly he feels that dating has a casual stage before getting serious, and many people do also feel that way. It doesn't mean that's all they want. Methinks your history with that dishonest guy from OKC triggered you and you over-reacted a bit to Wolfwood's posts. And now you seem to be belittling any other opinions on poly that don't match your own. Clearly, a more casual attitude regarding polyamory bugs you and no one's saying you should change your views, just that they don't have to be adopted by anyone else in order to be poly in the manner in which THEY see fit.

JaneQSmythe

08-17-2012, 02:23 AM

Call yourself polyamorous when you actually practice polyamory.

Something that you may want to consider is that some people consider "polyamory" an orientation - like being gay, straight, bi, pan, whatever. So would YOU say that a man who is sexually attracted to men, fantasizes about gay sex, has no interest in women is not "gay" if he is a virgin or celibate? i.e. that he does not have a sexual orientation until he actually acts upon it. OR if he tries to deny his "gayness" and forces himself to have sex only with women whiles still being only sexually attracted to men - is he therefore "straight" because he is "practicing" heterosexual intercourse?

Other people consider "polyamory" a relationship structure that they choose (or not) to participate in - they might agree with you and consider themselves poly only when involved in a poly-relationship. But they STILL may disagree with your definition - which seems to be that only full-on primary-type leading-to-living-together-and-raising-children relationships constitute "love" (as an aside - the concept of "love" to me is a MUCH more confusing and poorly defined concept than "polyamory")

For me (once I had reluctantly come to the conclusion that "love" even existed in the world) it seemed axiomatic that if I was capable of loving even one person, then I could be capable of loving more than one person. That the feelings I have for one person (whatever they are, however you want to define them) are the feelings that I have for them, which in no way dictates the feelings that I have for someone else. So I was always open to allowing my feelings/relationships with people to develop on their own merit. Never "looking" but not excluding. So for me "polyamory" is more of a philosophy than either an orientation or relationship structure.

When you have an invented word like "polyamory" that has only been around for only 20 years - and you have a void in vocabulary (lots of people pursuing multple many-natured relationships without a good way to talk about it with each other) then people are going to use it as the "best fit" where it seems to apply. Many people were "practicing" polyamory before there was a word for it...does that mean it wasn't poly?

For me - my personal definition is way looser than yours. I'm ok with FWB "counting" as poly - my longest FWB relationship is only 1 year younger than my 20 year relationship with my husband. My best friend, with whom I share NO sexual chemistry but dreams of setting up house and "taking care of" me as we grow old together and loves me more than anyone (with the possible exception of her husband) wants to "count" as poly as my "platonic girlfriend". Hey, if that makes her happy...(I am almost as restrictive in my definition of "friend" as others are in their definition of "poly" - most people I know that would consider me their friend I would consider only an "acquaintance").

Who cares? It's all good. Encourage the love where people find it - the big love, the little love, the middle love. Don't let the semantics get in the way.

opalescent

08-17-2012, 02:31 AM

I think many people on this board can't stand my definition of poly because it allows for less casualness and less preying on others. People don't want to be told they can't be casual or that they can't prey on others, so they insist their casualness and predatory ways are just as dignified as anything, that there's a "spectrum," that everybody's got their own poly. Everyone's got their own definition of murder, too, I guess? Like, if I kill someone, it's not murder because it could well be that in another life, I would really love that person I killed.

I have high standards for poly, though. True poly is, in my opinion, better than monogamy. True poly is beautiful, I think. But the way most people practice it is seedy, sordid, casual-sex-seeking-in-enlightenedness's clothing (on the part of some, not all), and irresponsible. If it's not those things, it's a bunch of catty jealousness.

It's "Look, I'm in a relationship that comes before all others. If you can't handle polyamory, I can't handle you."

It's not your ideas. It's your tone that caused me to post. You come across as you believe you have the one true poly. And you read like you believe others are doing it wrong, or unethically or stupidly or all three. That may not be what you are trying to say, but that is what you are communicating.

Also, you've conflated casual and predatory. They are not automatically linked. Can they exist together? Yes, absolutely, happens frequently unfortunately. However, I've seen long term committed predatory relationships where one partner is constanty preying on the other's energy, time, emotion. Can casual be ethical? Sure. That's how I run my casual encounters.

Emm

08-17-2012, 05:47 AM

NyCindie asked me if I'd ever heard the phrase "My poly is not your poly." Sure I've heard it. As such, respect my poly, too. My poly is just as much not your poly as your poly is not mine, so don't make a big deal out of it. You're the one who started making blanket statements in this thread about what is and isn't poly. You didn't say it wasn't your kind of poly, you said it wasn't poly. Perhaps if you stopped doing that the rest of us wouldn't have to read this argument over and over again.

mercury

08-17-2012, 04:16 PM

I haven’t read any of these responses, but I just want to say it’s that I don’t like people feeling the need to “class up” what they do by calling it polyamory instead of casual sex or an open relationship. There’s nothing wrong with casual sex, so there’s no need to make yourself feel “classy” by saying you’re polyamorous.

People who have casual sex don’t treat their partners like dirt. They’re often very kind, they’re often respectful, they’re often affectionate. Same with friends with benefits. It’s still casual sex and friends with benefits. I think people here think that if they have sexual relationships with other people and are actually nice to them that it’s “polyamory.” As if casual sex-havers are rude, mocking, and complete shits to their partners. Lol. I had a one-night-stand a couple years ago in which the guy treated me like a queen, bought me breakfast the next morning, walked me to my front door, etc. I’m not calling it polyamory just because there was affection and respect there. Likewise, I’ve had friends with benefits who cuddled with me all night and did pillow talk with me, etc., etc. It doesn’t make it polyamory just because we were nice to each other. Who sleeps with people who are complete dicks/bitches to them, anyway?

There are definitely some people on this board who seem to be in polyamorous situations. People who have one very meaningful partner and another meaningful partner. Mind you, I don’t have the belief that it’s only polyamory if you’re in love with two or three different people and nobody’s jealous and it all works perfectly. I believe you’re in a polyamorous situation if you do have two or three meaningful, loving, long-term relationships and that everyone involved is working hard at making it work and trying to be respectful of each other’s involvements. They’re working through their jealousies and insecurities like adults.

That said, there are people on this board who're just getting action on the side (and they're quite comfortable with that) and calling it polyamory.

The process of looking for a long-term mate to be in love with (in addition to your current partner who you’re in love with), if it is a series of bed-hopping, month-long involvements, or being friends with benefits or one-night-stands (who are nice to each other), doesn’t constitute polyamory to me. It’s you having some fun.

You’re trying so hard to make something kind of casual be classier than what it is by calling it polyamory.

mercury

08-17-2012, 04:23 PM

mercury

08-17-2012, 04:42 PM

You're the one who started making blanket statements in this thread about what is and isn't poly. You didn't say it wasn't your kind of poly, you said it wasn't poly. Perhaps if you stopped doing that the rest of us wouldn't have to read this argument over and over again.

Another quick thing is that my poly IS your poly. I'm quite sure that what I consider poly is also under the umbrella of what you consider poly. It's your poly that isn't my poly. Mine's way more exclusive, while yours includes pretty much anything that means involvement with more than one person. You could have a one night stand tomorrow and the next day and the next day with three different people, and it'd probably be poly to you.

You know, the whole reason there's a term "polyamory" is to distinguish itself from casual sex and just plain open relationships. Polyamory wants people to know that it is NOT about casual sex or casual, meaningless involvements. But when you say that casual sex and meaningless involvements are okay (or are just part of the journey), you're basically making polyamory, casual sex, and open relationships all one and the same.

In other words, when the mainstream world judges the polyamorous community for being "just lewd, lascivious casual sex havers in disguise who want to euphemize their lifestyle with a word like 'polyamory'", you make what they say true by saying casual sex is part of what we have to do in order to be polyamorous; it's the way we get to polyamory.

Call it casual sex while it's casual sex, that way the outside mainstream world won't be saying polyamory is casual sex.

When you are polyamorous and act like polyamorous people, the outside mainstream world won't be able to say that you're casual sex havers because you won't be casual sex havers. You'll be people in meaningful, long-term, loving relationships with more than one person.

Here's a hint.

Think about love and deep, meaningful relationships. Are they easy to come by? Nope. Single people who are monogamous go for years without having even just one. Sometimes, if they're lucky, they'll get something loving and meaningful every 2-4 years or so. Something that can work. And I'm not talking about ugly single people. I'm talking even about attractive people.

It's hard to come by people you're in love with or have a deep, meaningful relationship with.

Poly people aren't any different. You're the same human beings with the same basic odds of finding someone you connect with and are attracted to well enough that it's considered "a loving, meaningful relationship."

If you have a main partner and get involved with four or five different people in one year (all of them short-lived), there's a fat chance that polyamory was happening, because it's very unlikely that you met that many people in ONE year who you had a loving, meaningful relationship with.

You had four or five involvements that were casual. Hence, there was no polyamory happening. Casual involvements were happening.

Truly poly people (in my opinion!!!!!!!) might not even get their second partner for a long time because they didn't fall for a person in a year or so even after they officially went poly. They might have gone on some dates, but nothing panned out. If, to you, dating around plenty and getting to dates 3-4 (where sex might happen) but then it ending soon after (and you're fine with that, and are looking for the next person to repeat the cycle with), you're just a casual sex haver.

mercury

08-17-2012, 04:52 PM

There was this guy that I talked to who was polyamorous (had a wife and a girlfriend, both of them very meaningful to him). We were just pen pals; we live way far from each other.

There was this time that I mentioned to him that I saw a lot of OkCupid profiles in which a poly couple said "You need to know now that I have a primary relationship that comes before all others. We are polyamorous." I said to him (my pen pal): "That's pretty wack. Poly couples telling other people 'you definitely can't hope to mean as much to me as my main partner. He/she matters the most.'

My poly pen pal replied, "Well, at least they're upfront about it."

And I said, "But who would want to be involved with people who say outright that you're not going to matter as much as the main partner?"

He said, "Well, to be fair, there are some people, who, at certain times in their lives, are just looking for something casual and don't even *want* to matter that much. Like, this guy I know...he's in grad school and too busy for a relationship. He *wants* friends with benefits."

There you have it. That's the protocol. Find partners who are only looking for something casual. Respectful, sure; affectionate, sure...

But still...casual. When your secondary partners are your casual sex relationships or your friends with benefits, it just ain't polyamory. It's friends with benefits and casual sex. IN MY OPINION!!!!!

Polyamory doesn't want the mainstream world thinking it's about casual sex. But if YOU ARE about casual sex (no matter how respectful, kind), how can you blame the mainstream world for saying you're about casual sex?

nycindie

08-17-2012, 07:19 PM

What a lecture! Sheesh.

Hannahfluke

08-17-2012, 07:24 PM

Mercury, I do have a question about your definition of polyamory. You keep saying over and over again that in order to be polyamorous, a person has to have a primary, loving relationship and add other loving relationships to it. It comes out very clearly that you think in order to be poly, a person has to have a live in partner. So do single people who have multiple loving relationships (and I'll even say that those relationships can be restricted to only your very narrow definition) but don't live with any of them, not count as poly?

Arrowbound

08-17-2012, 10:45 PM

You haven't read any of the responses but you're in here posting titangraphs expecting the rest of us to take a look.

ROFL

Emm

08-18-2012, 02:37 AM

I guess this is where we should all feel greatly privileged that the official arbiter of all that is poly has deigned to take time from her busy schedule to explain The One True Poly to us.

How did anyone ever manage more than one relationship without her sage advice?

Tonberry

08-18-2012, 06:40 AM

Oh, and what I mean by people not being open to casual sexual relationships if they're truly polyamorous is this. A person who's polyamorous WANTS many loves, meaning they seek it. They're disappointed when something is just casual. They don't seek casual sex and think (as an after thought) "it'd be cool if one of them turns to love." The former is a polyamorous person for whom many loves is the intent and the main approach. The latter is a casual sex seeker who thinks "love may or may not happen; it's all good; I'll get sex, at any rate."

Er, what? Why can't you have many loves and also have casual sex as well? They're not mutually exclusive. You can want one, you can want the other, you can want neither or both. There isn't just one "poly state of mind" that makes the person what super-committed relationships only, and never anything casual.

So if someone has two spouses, and casual sex as well, they're suddenly not poly anymore according to you? I find that idea very weird.