Solo poly people - what's your ideal?

[nycindie]

Okay, so since coming here, I have read lots of personal stories about tribes, triads, and vees (oh my!)... and quads and other various configurations for polyamorous relationships. I am learning so much and appreciating all the new perspectives and depth of revelation people have given me here. It seems that there are quite a number of of people focused on these types of relationships, ie., building families with kids, having primaries, secondaries, and so on all living together, which is great -- but so NOT what I'm into (and that may have to do with my urban lifestyle as much as anything else). So -- I am wondering about the solo poly person.

Being that I am coming out of a 10-year+ mono marriage and considering poly for myself now as a newly-minted-single-again-person, I know I'm not interested in getting married again for quite some time (if ever), and I am 50 now and have never been interested in having kids. I am beginning to love having my apartment to myself again, now that hubby has moved out, and am looking forward to enjoying my independence and getting to know myself better with some quality alone time.

I love reading about all the ways poly works for so many different people, and I keep wondering what would work for me. Not sure if I want a primary (besides myself), however that is defined. When I think about the possibility of living polyamorously, I have some images/conceptualizations that come to mind, and then it gets a little murky. Of course, what's possible in reality usually far surpasses our dreams of what we want, but it can be useful to have a picture to move toward.

So I thought I'd throw out the question for anyone out there who is unattached or considers themselves a solo poly person. What is your ideal situation? Are you already there or hoping to get there? I look forward to reading your responses while I formulate my own. Thanks!

[redpepper]

Thanks for asking this... I have attempted to prompt conversation, at least from the sex side, but it's tough going... and... I don't get a lot of it.... I hope you get some insightful responses. I can't wait to hear more! :D

I would like to know thoughts on what the difference between dating and solo poly (I like this term, I have heard references to "single" but that is a bit of an oxymoron for me)...

[Somegeezer]

I think my "ideal" would be a closed V or triad with 2 female partners. But I do find that to still be a little too restrictive. The best way would be to just see what happens and where it goes. Work out the bumps on the way. I may end up just being with one person at a time. It's not as if I can know when another person would come along that I wanted to be with. =] I can't tell if whoever I was already with would be ok with that until I asked either. I wouldn't leave someone I love just to "find out" if it would work with someone else. Not again. It was a terrible mistake for me to make back then. It left me feeling terrible. If only I could have known about poly back then and maybe talked it through with them both.

[Ithink]

For me the definition of Polyamoury is the answer to your question. Many Loves. Love being the operative word here. If we (we are a couple again) find one more person and fall in love then we become a V or triad depending on orientation(?). If by some miracle we found another person that we all loved then a quad, if another couple then a quint(?). lol
And on it goes. Our ideal depends on how fortunate we are to find other Poly people that we are also lucky enough to care deeply about and it is reciprocated by them. That in itself is a minor miracle.
So long answer longer, our ideal would end up being wherever our hearts take us.
IThink.

[Athena]

I am relatively new, not so much to theoretical poly, because a lot of compersionate sideline plots are involved in standard sci fi and fantasy genre reading, but to the practice of such in real life. I am in a committed relationship with my husband, and what other relationship or relationships? develop will have a lot to do with meeting a compatible other or others, how much time we all have, and whether we are all mature enough to not have it all blow up in our faces in a nasty way. Right now, I think I am more looking for a friend or two with the long term potential to become more, and I am not even looking that hard, because I am actually pretty good personality wise at hanging out with just me for extended periods, although I find contact with other people enjoyable and interesting.

[nycindie]

I have been thinking about my own question since having posted it. I guess I really want to know what solo poly people fantasize about being the kinds of relationship situations/structures they want. Basically, I feel at this point in my life as I head into being a divorced person on my own, I don't want to jump into another cohabitation setup again. Not saying I won't ever, but I don't see it happening for a long while. My ideal situation would be to remain independent, living on my own, and to have two to four long-term boyfriends whom I see at varying frequency depending on how involved/invested we are. Like maybe one of them would be someone I see very infrequently for romantic trips or something, and others would be more involved and familiar with my day-to-day life. I know this may seem selfish, but I like the idea of one of them being totally mono with me. In my fantasy, I don't feel it necessary for all of them to meet and get along, but if they did, that would be nice. I would want to be up front and honest with all of them, so that we all know what's going on and we all play safe.

A long time ago, in the early 1980s, when I moved into my first NYC apartment, a handyman working on my kitchen said to me, "Oh, a young girl like you's gotta get a few different boyfriends - one's a doctor, one's a dentist, one's a plumber, one's a carpenter, so you get everything done." It made me laugh back then, but if I think about the different sides of who I am, I would want a boyfriend that gets along with each, one intellectual, one creative, one down-to-earth, one geeky.

It's all just a fantasy, anyway. ;)

[eklctc]

Hi, nycindie. I consider myself a solo poly person. If I had to define my current relationship type, it would be viewed as a vee with me and the wife of my partner being close to the very top of the legs but I don't choose to label many things. I am in a relationship with a married man whose wife is fully aware. I, like you, am not interested in getting married, as it is defined in this society,(I feel it is unfair to your partners if you know you live a multi lifestyle) unless there comes a time where I can marry more than one person. My kids are 17 and 11 (teen lives with me) so I am not interested in having anymore. I, too, enjoy my own personal space and, though, I would consider investing in a single place with my partners (whenever that becomes plural), I am also just as content living separately.

Currently, my ideal relationship would probably consist of four people. I, along with my two male partners, would be primary in each other's lives (men don't necessarily have to be primary to each other but I would definitely condone it) and my one female partner would be secondary. I would have regular interaction with both my male partners and probably weekly to biweekly interaction with my female partner who may or may not be permanently attached outside of our relationship and may or may not regularly interact with one of my male primaries. This committed poly quad would also have extended boundaries where we are open to sexual interaction with others but reserve our emotional attachments to each other. Yea...I know it sounds like a fairytale. :D

[naivecurious]

Hmmmm, this is all very new to me. I am divorced and live mainly alone, two children aged 18 and 16 ish. I am independent, secure within myself and happy to be single (ie; not re-marry at any point). I am seeing a man from abroad and he is separated, his wife knows about me and him trying to be polyamorous. I am struggling because their relationship keeps changing, she is not into polyamory and to be honest I am not sure I am. Of course, before I fell in love with this man, I thought I could be and I had many fantasies about it .... it seemed ideal. I am totally in love with him and feel if I sought to find someone else it would somehow diminish my love for him ??? At the moment I feel in limbo and sometimes due to language difficulties we get confused. Do I stick with this but keep my own options open ?? Or do I jump ship and take care of myself ?

[Somegeezer]

Hmmmm, this is all very new to me. I am divorced and live mainly alone, two children aged 18 and 16 ish. I am independent, secure within myself and happy to be single (ie; not re-marry at any point). I am seeing a man from abroad and he is separated, his wife knows about me and him trying to be polyamorous. I am struggling because their relationship keeps changing, she is not into polyamory and to be honest I am not sure I am. Of course, before I fell in love with this man, I thought I could be and I had many fantasies about it .... it seemed ideal. I am totally in love with him and feel if I sought to find someone else it would somehow diminish my love for him ??? At the moment I feel in limbo and sometimes due to language difficulties we get confused. Do I stick with this but keep my own options open ?? Or do I jump ship and take care of myself ?

As I've heard a million times and believe it more than anything...
"Love doesn't divide, it multiplies."
You should stick with this guy and just keep your options open. It doesn't sound like you are having any major problems and you say you love him. I don't see anything there that should make you leave. =]

[clairegoad]

I'm currently in a relationship with a married couple. I started by dating him, and grew closer to her. Eventually, all three of us are dating. (Full disclosure: we've only been dating about 3 months).

Interestingly, recently he admitted that they considered a quad the ideal relationship. After reading about all the couples looking for a unicorn, I was a bit surprised. They have been poly for almost two decades, so they've had triads, V's, etc.

In time, after this relationship has developed a foundation, I can imagine adding another man... completing a quad. I've discovered that being open to whatever comes---well, amazing things happen.

[Ready2Fly]

I'm not solo--- I'm in a serious relationship with one other person, and I've been in a variety of poly relationships in various capacities in the past.

A tribe is an ideal for both me and my partner. We want friends and lovers around us to and for support. I personally don't distinguish terribly much between friends and lovers. I'd like to have a big house with a lot of people in it to love.

[renorunner]

Hi,

I just started a polyamorous relationship with a married couple. She really prefers sex with women and so does he so......the idea of a strong friendship rather than just bed-hopping really appealed to me but I was pleasantly surprised at how great the sex is as well. But it's not everything; we are very well-rounded, fit and educated people with many interests so there is always something to do / talk about. And so far jealousy has not been a problem; they are very strongly committed and loving. I feel lucky to be part of this.

[bella123456]

I consider myself a solo poly person. Also left a long term marriage...and really feel like focusing the next few years on building my life and my interests. I also don't want to co-habit with anyone, and I really like and value my alone time and space...I've a child at home too - so obviously want loads of my time and energy to be spent with him. This does not mean I can't share though..
I don't really have any fixed ideas about what potential relationships would look like...other than the usual - honest, open, caring, respectful, fun etc. My aim would be to build relationships on those foundations....rather than a picture of what they may look like. I like the idea of relationships being purely about the people involved not a bigger picture or script. The idea of marriage and settling down is not appealing to me...and I find if someone tries to put me on that path I feel instantly uncomfortable. It feels much more refreshing and real for me to have relationships about the here and now, and the bond or connection...rather than a predetermined path or script. It's a little hard to describe...but If I feel like someone is interested due to "potential long term partner" or "potential wife", it starts to feel less about me and more about the role I'm expected to play in someone else's life or a script that was written long before I arrived..
I'm not an actress....I don't want to play a role ! :)
Just want to be me...

[nycindie]

It's a little hard to describe...but If I feel like someone is interested due to "potential long term partner" or "potential wife", it starts to feel less about me and more about the role I'm expected to play in someone else's life or a script that was written long before I arrived..
I'm not an actress....I don't want to play a role ! :)
Just want to be me...Ahh, you said it beautifully!

This is why my husband left, I didn't fit his picture of what a wife should be. He could not appreciate me for who I am. I don't want to be in that kind of situation ever again!

[bella123456]

Ahh, you said it beautifully!

This is why my husband left, I didn't fit his picture of what a wife should be. He could not appreciate me for who I am. I don't want to be in that kind of situation ever again!

Yes, I understand. I don't want to be there either !

I guess that's why I try to avoid having too much of a script or expectation of what future relationships may look like. That may be a little too much pressure for future partners. I think it's good mental exercise to have your mind imagine various types or relationships and combinations of relationships...but ultimately...they are completely dependant on the people we meet, and the ground we can negotiate at the time...and the communication etc.
I don't want an expectation to be too solid in my head....as it's entirely possible that would potentially close off something great.

I also support the concept of Serendipity - the idea you can find something wonderful whilst looking for something else. I don't want my expectations or desires to be too rigid or set....as that may risk serendipitous wonderfulness :)

[Magdlyn]

Well, I am 55, pansexual, queer, separated and divorcing my husband. I'm in a relationship with a woman now, for almost 2 yrs, but we dont live together, just spend several days a week together at her place or mine. We live 20 miles apart. My 19 yr old son lives with me part time.

Ive had an idea I'd also like a local boyfriend who wants to be a real part of my life, do things together, travel, museums, eating out or cooking together, movies, get to know my kids and gf, etc. Havent found him, after 2 long years! I have had some great experiences with men over the 2 yrs, as well as several (fairly minor) heartaches. But nothing long lasting except for one faithful boytoy, good for a fantastic booty call and some laughs.

But I sure don't wanna live with a guy any time soon and I dont want to ever get married again... I might move in w my gf some day, but thats up in the air. I love being with a woman, she is such a better communicator than my ex, or any other man I've dated the past 2 yrs.

Before I met her I thought I'd just be dating casually for a while. Funny how the universe brought her to me before I even knew I wanted her. Thanks, Venus!

[Magdlyn]

Currently, my ideal relationship would probably consist of four people. I, along with my two male partners, would be primary in each other's lives (men don't necessarily have to be primary to each other but I would definitely condone it) and my one female partner would be secondary. I would have regular interaction with both my male partners and probably weekly to biweekly interaction with my female partner who may or may not be permanently attached outside of our relationship and may or may not regularly interact with one of my male primaries. This committed poly quad would also have extended boundaries where we are open to sexual interaction with others but reserve our emotional attachments to each other. Yea...I know it sounds like a fairytale. :D

Wow, you've got a dream, girlfriend!

[bella123456]

Before I met her I thought I'd just be dating casually for a while. Funny how the universe brought her to me before I even knew I wanted her. Thanks, Venus!

Sounds like a case of Serendipitous wonderfulness !!

[Magdlyn]

And yet, like a greedy bitch, I want a guy just as nice as her as well. lol

[redpepper]

I don't really have any fixed ideas about what potential relationships would look like...other than the usual - honest, open, caring, respectful, fun etc. My aim would be to build relationships on those foundations....rather than a picture of what they may look like. I like the idea of relationships being purely about the people involved not a bigger picture or script. The idea of marriage and settling down is not appealing to me...and I find if someone tries to put me on that path I feel instantly uncomfortable. It feels much more refreshing and real for me to have relationships about the here and now, and the bond or connection...rather than a predetermined path or script. It's a little hard to describe...but If I feel like someone is interested due to "potential long term partner" or "potential wife", it starts to feel less about me and more about the role I'm expected to play in someone else's life or a script that was written long before I arrived..
I'm not an actress....I don't want to play a role ! :)
Just want to be me...
I have no idea what it would be like to be in a marriage where there was a script for what I am "suppose to be." I'm so sorry that you have been through that. I just want you to know that not all men subscribe to gender roles or the roles of what it means to be a wife or husband. There is a large number of men out there who are willing, or even insisting that there not be roles as such unless one falls into them naturally and is comfortable because it is who they are....

I married PN 10 years ago this summer and he has always been of the opinion that I am to be who I am. He just wanted to share that with me and I with him. I have never been the wife in a traditional sense and he the husband, much to the confusion and sometimes annoyance of some of our more conservative family members.

We actually are glad to have Mono in our lives because sometimes PN and I are both the wives and Mono the husband in terms of gender roles. Mono fixes stuff and we just sit there and admire him for it. Mono doesn't organize family dinners and stuff, PN and I do. PN does the finances and Mono and I don't... Mono does his own. I do the shopping and PN the cooking more often than not. Mono cleans the dishes... we all do what we can because we like it that way, not because we feel we have to to fill a role.

I hope that what ever those who are single and poly are aiming for in their lives happens for them in order to be happy, but please remember that marriage and any committed relationship is made of whatever you bring to it and are willing to create... yes there are expectations that are not obvious when we marry; there are always expectations, but the key to success in committed relationships, I think, is to find the assumptions and espectations, talk about them and shift them to something workable for all concerned. Be flexible and open to change. If its unworkable then the relationship is done and it's time to move on and find someone(s) that work... that isn't the fault of marriage or our culture, that is just how it is and sometimes who the person is. If it is the fault of our culture then its up to us to make the change, because "we" are the culture... I think that is happening slowly with the existence of relationship dynamics such as poly in terms of poly fi and poly family tribes.

Hope that makes sense.

[Somegeezer]

...I just want you to know that not all men subscribe to gender roles or the roles of what it means to be a wife or husband. There is a large number of men out there who are willing, or even insisting that there not be roles as such unless one falls into them naturally and is comfortable because it is who they are...

You rang? =P
I also agree with the rest of your post, redpepper. It's good to just let things happen as they happen. People always develop in a relationship at different rates too. You may be comfortable right away, but your partner/s may not be. But support them and keep being yourself and everyone will eventually settle where they want to be.

[bella123456]

I know with 100% confidence that not all men, or women subscribe to gender roles, in my experience it's the minority...thank goodness !

And yes RP - agree with you that it's up to the individuals to find their own path as they go along...
The problems in my marriage actually were not at all "script" based....that relationship was a whole different story really..

I hope I didn't sound like I was harsh on the concept of marriage, or settling down. I do support that, it's just not my focus or objective...for this point in my life.

Culture is an interesting point to raise...
I think the country you were born in, or live in, or the values of that culture are a huge influence. Especially for women...It is sadly the case, that your country of origin has a huge influence on the choices you can make. Or the relationships you can define within your life..
I think a woman living in america has a huge number of choices available, and a much higher level of control over her life...as opposed to say, a woman living in Indonesia..

Cultures do change over time, and individuals do have the power to change "culture". It's certainly not universal though...there's lots of places in the world where it is much, much, harder to change cultural values and biases...particularly for females, who continue to suffer within many cultures.
Not to mention the fact that acting outside cultural values can be pretty dangerous in some cultures....particularly for women. I don't feel we can talk about changing culture in general terms...as there are thousands of cultures around the world..each with their own pitfalls and strengths..

[redpepper]

I think the country you were born in, or live in, or the values of that culture are a huge influence. Especially for women...It is sadly the case, that your country of origin has a huge influence on the choices you can make. Or the relationships you can define within your life..
I think a woman living in america has a huge number of choices available, and a much higher level of control over her life...as opposed to say, a woman living in Indonesia..

Cultures do change over time, and individuals do have the power to change "culture". It's certainly not universal though...there's lots of places in the world where it is much, much, harder to change cultural values and biases...particularly for females, who continue to suffer within many cultures.
Not to mention the fact that acting outside cultural values can be pretty dangerous in some cultures....particularly for women. I don't feel we can talk about changing culture in general terms...as there are thousands of cultures around the world..each with their own pitfalls and strengths..
Amen to all of this... I think I am very fortunate to even have a choice. I think this everyday actually. Even to have this discussion and be able to be on this forum in comparison to other women in the world. I find it so important to never forget that.

I don't think that other women in other cultures would necessarily want what I have created in my life, but I do think that a lot of women would find it a blessing to have the ability and freedom to make ANY choice for themselves and that is what I am talking about here.

[bella123456]

I don't think that other women in other cultures would necessarily want what I have created in my life, but I do think that a lot of women would find it a blessing to have the ability and freedom to make ANY choice for themselves and that is what I am talking about here.

Perhaps not...but being able to make meaningful connections with multiple people is universal I would think. Taking that to actually wanting what you have created would potentially be limited by cultural influences...ie, In some cultures it would almost be impossible to have the want develop, the meaningful connections would still happen to be sure - just not acted upon...which is sad. So, if cultures change...people's wants would change overtime. On a different level, we see this as many countries develop...the wants of consumers change with exposure to changing economic conditions and living standards etc. People start to want different things as the opportunity to have them emerges...

Here's to freedom of choice !! Especially to that emerging within cultures where it may currently be more limited !

Now well off topic...sorry. Friendly words between one red head and another :)

[redpepper]

In some cultures it would almost be impossible to have the want develop, the meaningful connections would still happen to be sure - just not acted upon...which is sad. So, if cultures change...people's wants would change overtime. On a different level, we see this as many countries develop...the wants of consumers change with exposure to changing economic conditions and living standards etc. People start to want different things as the opportunity to have them emerges...

Here's to freedom of choice !! Especially to that emerging within cultures where it may currently be more limited !
here here! :)

[idealist]

Mycindie,
Okay.....I do like the term solo poly..... I was calling myself "single" and Redpepper had mentioned that it really didn't sound right considering how many partners I have.
Anyway- for me, I have created my desired situation and it's taken less than a year since I first decided to create a poly lifestyle.
I have a primary male partner who is also solo. He has a secondary female partner.
I have a secondary male partner. He is married and his wife has a secondary partner.
And now......because I am bisexual and desire a female partner, I have a solo lesbian female partner!!!!!
YAY!!!
Peace and Love,
Idealist

[CloudsLater]

I'm not solo--- I'm in a serious relationship with one other person, and I've been in a variety of poly relationships in various capacities in the past.

A tribe is an ideal for both me and my partner. We want friends and lovers around us to and for support. I personally don't distinguish terribly much between friends and lovers. I'd like to have a big house with a lot of people in it to love.


This sounds a lot like my ideal...

I seem to like the idea of calling all relationships 'friendships', and even if not everyone lives together (though that idea is appealing for so many reasons, and maybe sometime I'll post a rant about how badly cities are designed...) people would get together for various fun times.

There are many things about triads and all those small groups that can be nice, but I tend to like groups of friends that are a bit larger. But finding a handful of poly people might not be so easy.

I recently briefly read about Relationship Anarchy, and a lot of it fit with ideas I had been thinking about.

[nycindie]

Someone resurrected another thread about "your ideal relationship" and so I thought about this one, which I started for solos. Since posting my thoughts on it last year, my "ideal" hasn't changed much:

. . . to remain independent, living on my own, and to have two to four long-term boyfriends whom I see at varying frequency depending on how involved/invested we are. Like maybe one of them would be someone I see very infrequently for romantic trips or something, and others would be more involved and familiar with my day-to-day life.

I still have no interest in cohabiting with anyone else, as I have really begun to enjoy my apartment and being on my own. I am more open to being involved with a married poly guy than I was back in November, since having met my latest paramour, Burnsy. The caveat would be that I would not want to get involved with a married man who did not have as healthy or stable a relationship, or the kind of approach to poly, as Burnsy and his wife do. I really don't want the drama, no matter how drawn I am to someone, of dealing with a couple in an ailing marriage and all their baggage.

I definitely want more than two steady lovers, but I really don't know why. Having two just doesn't seem like enough for some reason, LOL.

There's this old image in my head, I think from reading Cosmo as a teen or seeing some made-for-TV movie, of an independent woman with steady lovers from all over the world, living in her totally awesome apartment and doing whatever the fuck she wants with her life without anyone else to answer to. I keep seeing this scene in my head where she answers the doorbell and ushers one lover in as another leaves, and everyone's totally cool about it. All her lovers are very different from each other -- maybe one is well-heeled and polished, another is blue-collar, while another is younger and just starting out. She goes with one to museums, galleries, and fancy restaurants, with another to picnics and football games, while another cooks for her at home. The lovemaking is different and exciting with each of them, in their own unique ways, and the woman is happy with herself and her life.

I want to be that woman, but the sad thing is that she's about 20 years younger in my head than I actually am. Sometimes I feel like I've missed the boat and have very little time left to make this all a reality. <sigh>

I thought this thread would also be a good place to re-post parts of some quotes about being poly and solo, that I had added to my blog thread awhile back:

From a blogger named Paradox:
"It's kind of a rare thing to find someone who's polyamorous and single. There are far more halves-of-couples and determined bachelors (of all genders). Not as many folks are single in the "more traditional" sense of not being in a partnership and looking for one.

But that's what I am: poly and single. I'm not in a committed relationship, not in a couple, but I want to be. I want a primary partner. It is, in fact, near the top of my priority list. I came to this polyamory thing on my own, not as part of my journey with anyone specific, and I'm looking for someone to share it with.

That's not to say that I'm trying to force every relationship into a primary space. I strongly believe in letting things develop organically and letting every relationship grow into a place that feels comfortable. That's one of the major benefits of polyamory: I can have different relationships at different levels and it's all okay. I am hoping, though, that one of my relationships turns more serious, and I'm ready to nurture anything that goes in that direction. I want to fall in love.

I think these desires give more depth to my meaning of the word "single." When I have the option of saying I'm a solo polyamorist and instead choose to say I'm single, it's more meaningful. I'm not just saying "I'm not in a relationship with anyone right now," I'm saying "I'm looking for a serious relationship along with the other less serious relationships I already have." Which is different. That's all."

http://www.papercutsandplastic.com/2010/09/poly-and-single.html

I will interject here with a note: When I first posted that to my blog, GroundedSpirit responded that her viewpoint "seems little more than an attempt to relabel the mono model with minor modification." Which is a good point. Her post was the one with which I least identified, perhaps due to her need for a primary. I don't want one main squeeze, or any kind of hierarchical structure. I want to consider all my steady lovers equally, even those who are less frequently in my life (excluding any solely sexual flings).

Continued:
At Cunning Minx's FB page, "Poly Weekly Hooligans," Vicky wrote :

"I find it really difficult to know when I'm single. I'm seeing different people on a casual and/or secondary basis. What I find annoying is how everyone tries to pair me up with partners who seem to be available (for a primary relationship). I also find annoying how people seem to consider that my secondary relationships aren't "real" relationships . . . [and] that most of the poly material (reading or other kinds) is geared towards people in 1 primary relationship - such as in "opening up your relationship, etc." There's very little on how to be a secondary, and extremely little on how to be a secondary to someone who hasn't got a primary! There's nothing on jealousy towards people who are not your primaries, and so on.

. . . I much prefer the network kind of relationship style, but find it quite hard because others seem not to feel the same way I do and end up pairing and becoming something very similar to monogamous-but-swinger, if not exactly just that.

What I enjoy: being able to see a lot of people without having to discuss or agree. I have my freedom and any coming together goes from there and from an acceptance of who I am. I also make personal plans on an individual basis. I love my network. They're great people. I enjoy the varying degrees of intimacy that change in time and depending on circumstance and how we can still be close even when we're not that intimate anymore. I think what I most enjoy about being single is being seen as an individual rather than someone's partner and being able to do things and decide things on my own rather than jointly, even if I do take other people into account when taking them."

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=27069609091&topic=5255

The last paragraph from Vicky is very closely aligned to what would feel right for me. . . . Later, I found a post about not wanting a primary at all from this blogger, Sam :

". . . I don't actually want a primary partner. I like being independent. I like traveling and embarking upon spontaneous activities without having to run it by another . . . I enjoy social situations and solitude equally. (In that same respect, being that I am focused on other things, I wouldn't be able to offer 100% of myself to that person. They would no doubt feel something lacking . . . I don't feel "incomplete" without a significant other...quite the opposite. I feel more complete without a primary!

I don't feel the NEED to . . . be a "we" or an "us". This is a strange and frightening concept for some . . . I want to be involved with someone because I want to be there...not because I feel like I have to be there (and vice versa)."

http://getasammy.blogspot.com/2010/04/poly-identity-ie-ur-doing-it-wrong.html

From Samantha Fraser, at "Not Your Mother's Playground" :

". . . I have no partner, primary or otherwise. I have lovers (some long-term, some short-term, some occasional), and I have people I care for (some on a very deep level, some more casually), but I do not have anyone that I would call a boyfriend / girlfriend, I do not live with anyone, and I am not married.

From a dating aspect. . . I am open & completely upfront about being poly and my poly lifestyle; . . . everyone I become involved with (or may become involved with) is 100% aware of who I am from the very beginning, and they have a choice as to whether or not they wish to become part of this lifestyle . . . Sometimes this honesty has resulted in rejection, but it’s only fair that I tell the truth from the get-go.

. . . Advantages of Being Poly & Single

I have no partner to answer to, and therefore feel as if I have more freedom. Of course I respect my lovers & the relationships I have with them, and there are absolutely still negotiations to be done, but . . . there is no primary or boyfriend/girlfriend that I must account my actions to. I can date or have relations with anyone or as many people as I want, and the only person’s opinion I need be concerned with is my own. (Safer sex is always practiced, as it should be in any type of relationship, particularly where multiple partners are involved.)

I’m already ‘out’ and open about my status, so I can avoid the (often painful) process of coming out as a couple. (I also get to avoid the annoying ‘But HOW does an open/poly relationship work?’

By identifying as a single poly female, holy cats! Have I ever become popular! . . . maybe some folks are equating ‘single poly female’ with ‘fucks everything that walks’ (which I don’t, by the way-but I could if I wanted to!)…but oh boy, did my dating life ever flourish when I came out publicly. Up until recently, I’d never dated this much in my entire adult life – and damned if I’m not having a helluva lot of fun doing it."

http://notyourmothersplayground.com/2010/03/guest-post-poly-and-single/

[Ariakas]

I have to say this seems to be a prevailing thought on every poly board I am on right now. Idealistic poly, however its phrased, seems to be a hot topic. :) Ironically one that has been on my mind a lot as well.

[nycindie]

Every now and then I revisit this thread to read what other solo poly people want. Recently, Opalescent posted this on another thread:. . . I've learned that men, bless their hearts, are easy. There are scores and scores of men out there who would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to be your recreational plaything who are not married or committed, or, if they are, their wife/SO is hip, onboard, and totally down with the situation. In fact, she would love to have you over for tea and girl talk. (Ok, I exaggerate about the tea part.) In fact, to get interest, all you have to do is sign up on an online dating site as "female". Seriously, that's it. You will have no trouble finding potential casual sex partners among men.

I've been thinking about this lately. My "ideal poly situation" hasn't changed. Flying solo, I still want to live independently, and I fantasize about having three to four boyfriends who are not just casual flings but committed lovers with whom I can share my life passionately (thanks, SourGirl, for your comments in another thread that reminded me of the "passion" part).

However, it isn't as easy to find men who will hear me say I want non-exclusivity and be willing to commit to something deeper than just a casual and primarily sexual relationship. I understand that that may be a stage to move through before getting to a commitment, and I don't see the need to ask for a commitment right away, nor to set aside the need for companionship and sex until that happens for me, but it does get frustrating at times. I do not, however, see the need to make any adjustments to the ideal I seek. I just need to be patient that it will happen for me some day, and not give in to feeling defeated.

[serialmonogamist]

Cultures do change over time, and individuals do have the power to change "culture". It's certainly not universal though...there's lots of places in the world where it is much, much, harder to change cultural values and biases...particularly for females, who continue to suffer within many cultures.
Not to mention the fact that acting outside cultural values can be pretty dangerous in some cultures....particularly for women. I don't feel we can talk about changing culture in general terms...as there are thousands of cultures around the world..each with their own pitfalls and strengths..
Sometimes changing culture is as simple (or difficult) as individual migration. The problem is that the 'free-est' cultures are often also the most strongly protected against migration. I'm sure there's a social-cultural logic to that but that's a topic for another discussion.

[BlackUnicorn]

Yay for resurrections!

Being too young to have participated in the first round(s) of this thread, I'll seize the opportunity to muse right now.

I started out as solo poly, looking for a triad on a secondary basis with the possibility of moving "up in the hierarchy" or living together later. I didn't really desire a primary connection before I formed a secondary one with a man who already had his primary and lived far far away besides. Or maybe primary is the wrong word here - what I didn't want was to be the bitter and neglected, and thought (somewhat incorrectly) that I could fill the void of one relationship with another.

Primary thing happened really accidentally for me (dating one guy -> threesome with a girl he used to date -> break-up with the guy -> one-on-one dates with the girl -> OMG she's nice -> OMG we're a couple now -> OMG let's move in together :D). I don't really resonate with the whole opening up and transition from mono to poly thing, either. What about people who started out their primary/whatever relationship with no period of monogamy in the beginning? Who got into an open relationship from the start, having first dated non-monogamously?

I have a very firm idea of not meddling with her connections, whatever they may be. She went; "But of course you need to meddle if my other relationships are affecting our relationship in a negative way!". I don't know what to make of this. Is there a hierachy where, if either feels another connection affects the primary relationship in the wrong way, they have veto rights (not to necessarily end the secondary relationship, but to demand it take a back seat)? Or is the spirit of true openness one where you take what you are offered from the "primary" relationship, and its exclusivity or uniqueness is no more worth protecting than that of any other connection?

Steering happily off-topic here. But I feel it's a deeper issue of are we two solo poly individuals who have come together for now or are we something more, an institution, a couple now?

[MsKittie]

"you need to meddle if my other relationships are affecting our relationship in a negative way"


I agree with her. Meddling in the sense of speaking up, making your feelings, concerns known, and if need be put your foot down.

Not sure if your considered a primary, if you are; even more reason to state your feelings on everything.

[MsKittie]

It can happen. Perhaps, not very often but it does. We are in the exact scenario you long for. We didn't set out looking for a set scenario. We actually thought we'd up up in a vee, but the gentleman I ended up dating was already in a 10 year poly relationship with his partner..who *her) had yet another (poly)partner when they started( they are now since gone) So, they were well estblished poly couple who themselves only thought theyd be Vee also. Ironic how life turns out.


Hi, nycindie. I consider myself a solo poly person. If I had to define my current relationship type, it would be viewed as a vee with me and the wife of my partner being close to the very top of the legs but I don't choose to label many things. I am in a relationship with a married man whose wife is fully aware. I, like you, am not interested in getting married, as it is defined in this society,(I feel it is unfair to your partners if you know you live a multi lifestyle) unless there comes a time where I can marry more than one person. My kids are 17 and 11 (teen lives with me) so I am not interested in having anymore. I, too, enjoy my own personal space and, though, I would consider investing in a single place with my partners (whenever that becomes plural), I am also just as content living separately.

Currently, my ideal relationship would probably consist of four people. I, along with my two male partners, would be primary in each other's lives (men don't necessarily have to be primary to each other but I would definitely condone it) and my one female partner would be secondary. I would have regular interaction with both my male partners and probably weekly to biweekly interaction with my female partner who may or may not be permanently attached outside of our relationship and may or may not regularly interact with one of my male primaries. This committed poly quad would also have extended boundaries where we are open to sexual interaction with others but reserve our emotional attachments to each other. Yea...I know it sounds like a fairytale. :D

[nycindie]

Staying on the topic of solo poly people and their ideals...

I just did a cursory look around the 'net and it seems that a person practicing solo poly is generally understood to be someone who does not have primary partners, or for whom all partners are equally important, and does not cohabit with them. I found these two quotes by Tristan Taormino, (her book Opening Up is where I first found the term):

"In American culture, monogamy isn’t the only norm when it comes to relationships; it’s expected that everyone wants to and should be part of a couple. The fact of the matter is that some people who identify as non-monogamous or polyamorous prefer not to be in a “partnered” relationship, however they define that for themselves. In general, people who practice solo polyamory may date and have non-primary partners, but they don’t want to co-habit, mingle finances and resources, raise children, or make important life decisions with a partner."

and:


"Just as polyamory flies in the face of the traditional pairing model, choosing to be a non-primary partner contradicts all the rhetoric we learn about finding "the one," making a commitment, and being the most important person in someone's life. Choosing to be farther down on the food chain immediately has people thinking you have commitment issues, low self-esteem, or something else wrong with you. In fact, these critiques echo comments often made about the "mistress" in a cheating relationship, but the difference here is a big one: choice. While the mistress may dream of or even be promised that she'll become Girl Number One, the non-primary person knows where he or she stands in someone's life and is content there. The non-primary folks I know either don't want to be anyone's primary because of other priorities in their life or, like Sarah, want multiple relationships, some of which are with people who already have a primary partner.

For some folks, there is no food chain: They eschew the concept of primary/non-primary altogether because they don't believe in the hierarchy it implies. "I'm in two relationships, and I consider them both equally important," says Cate, a San Francisco–based filmmaker. "A mother doesn't consider one of her children to be the primary child, does she?" Sarah counters, "Eventually someone has to be on top because we will be put in a position where we have to choose where our energy is going to go. If [people who reject a hierarchical model] can make that work for them, it's great. In my world, at some point you have to decide." Penny says, "We think of each relationship as different. I don't know if non-primary is the word I would use, but there is no other word, so it's like the default." "

Thoughts?

[BlackUnicorn]

"I'm in two relationships, and I consider them both equally important," says Cate, a San Francisco–based filmmaker. "A mother doesn't consider one of her children to be the primary child, does she?" Sarah counters, "Eventually someone has to be on top because we will be put in a position where we have to choose where our energy is going to go. If [people who reject a hierarchical model] can make that work for them, it's great. In my world, at some point you have to decide." Penny says, "We think of each relationship as different. I don't know if non-primary is the word I would use, but there is no other word, so it's like the default."

Thoughts?

I can imagine a situation where one of the siblings would have a serious and permanent health condition or other special needs, and they would claim a large part of the parents' energy and time, maybe leaving the other kids feeling a bit neglected at times. But that could hardly be framed as having a "primary" kid.

To stretch the kid metaphor a bit wider, maybe you could view your partners not on a hierarchy basis but as having different needs for the type and amount of interaction with you, where some would be content with biweekly dates with no overnights and others would want to wake up next to you on as many mornings as possible?

[nycindie]

. . . maybe you could view your partners not on a hierarchy basis but as having different needs for the type and amount of interaction with you . . .Well, of course people have differing needs. I think that only stands to reason.

[BlackUnicorn]

Well, of course people have differing needs. I think that only stands to reason.

The whole idea of solo poly people who are happy to remain so sort of defies the idea that absolutely everyone needs a steady primary partner to cohabit with.

[nycindie]

Yep, that's the point! At least, for me it is.

[nycindie]

I hope more unattached, solo poly people share on this thread! There comes a saturation point for me, every now and then, where I can't read anymore about married couples opening up their relationship. Not that I can't empathize or offer helpful feedback, but I need to hear more from others whose situations are closer to mine and to whom I can relate a little more.

So, here's a shout-out to solo poly peeps!

What has been your experience in trying to meet potential partners? How separately do you keep your relationships? What do you see are the biggest benefits from being solo and, if applicable, not having designations of primary, secondary, etc.?

[neobohemian]

Hello nycindie,

I found this thread through Google, also trying to find other people who have had the experience of being poly without looking for a primary partner, because yes, information and testimonials about this lifestyle are hard to come by, so I'm going to go ahead and write up my whole experience so far. And I'm only a few months into it, so I'm really curious how other people negotiate this.

Your original post really spoke to me -- I have also just come out of a 10+ year marriage (separated 9 months ago and proceeding with amicable divorce), and the one thing that I knew I wanted right away, was to not be seriously partnered again for a long time, if ever. I wanted to sleep alone most nights, to enjoy my own freedom and solitude, to have an active social life, and to otherwise focus on my art-making. And yeah I definitely liked the idea (and the experience!) of having sex with a lot of different, new women, and exploring my minor sexual interest in men a little bit (which I had never done before).

But for some reason I didn't consider pursuing a poly lifestyle -- just never occurred to me, even though I live in San Francisco where it should have been an obvious thought. Consequently, I had bad experiences with dating at the outset of this new chapter. The first two women I was involved with after my separation, very very clearly hoped for more from me than I was able or willing to give, and both seemed to regard me on some level as some kind of potential salvation in the form of cool boyfriend. Needless to say, I pushed away fast in both cases, handled it poorly, and both relationships ended really badly -- the second so spectacularly that I actually gave up on dating and sex altogether for months, basically until I was so desperate with longing for touch that I couldn't stand it any longer.

At that point I was also totally uninterested in getting involved with anybody in my existing social circles, even (especially) the ones who appeared to be interested in me, so I signed up on a dating website, met some completely new people from totally different worlds, had some fun times, etc. and nothing got too "serious" for my comfort. Then along came this interesting girl who told me up front that she only did open relationships, which initially gave me pause but decided I had nothing to lose by giving it a try, so I did.

I read the Ethical Slut, which was okay, and then Opening Up which I found spoke to me better. As soon as I read the lines you posted above about "solo polyamory," I said to myself: yes, that is me. That is exactly what I want. I want to openly have more than one lover, I don't want to prioritize them in any way other than what comes naturally, I don't want to be dogged by received ideas about the way relationships "should" be, and above all else, come what may I absolutely do not want to share my life with another person. I don't want that to even be on the table right now.

And so I started pursuing that life, and put at the top of my profile that I was only interested in pursuing friendships, casual sex, and open relationships, and had existing romantic involvements but didn't have a primary and didn't want one. Since I did that, the number of messages and responses I get has gone way down, but the quality of people who remain interested has been really good. Which is the only thing that counts. There is a certain tradeoff in that most people on the site won't be interested, and I have definitely looked with a pang at certain profiles, but I'm clearly never going to exhaust the available possibilities just on this one website, so that's fine.

How it has played out since then has been completely ideal for me, actually, so bless the heart of the girl who prompted me to give it a try. She is still a lover, and in the meantime I've found a second lover whom I see about as often, and have made a third till-now platonic friend who seems increasingly interested in getting it on. I see each of them around once a week, sometimes less, sometimes more, and communicate with one or another of them each day via email or txt or phone. And I go on a couple dates with one or two new people each month, for the occasional one-night stand and the possibility of finding another long-term lover.

It has been really great to explore new worlds this way -- everybody is so interesting and so sexy in different ways, and mesh with my life in completely different ways -- without the threat of any one relationship taking over my entire life. What I find most lovely about this adventure, is that both of my current regular lovers have qualities that, in a monogamous relationship assumed to be headed for living together, would be total deal-breakers. I could not possibly make a life with either of these girls even if I wanted to, but because that isn't on the table I'm able to fully enjoy their company and love them for who they are, and the things that bother me are irrelevant because they're never going to dominate my life.

At the moment I have been keeping my two regular lovers totally separate. For one thing, I think they wouldn't get along very well if they met. But they do each know that the other exists and that I am actively dating new people, which I think is the bare minimum of being open (as opposed to just being single and dating a lot), and what else they know depends totally on their level of comfort and interest.

I think the biggest benefit of refusing to create an explicit hierarchy, for me, is that it reflects the reality of the situation. So long as I reject committed partnership in general, none of my lovers has priority over the others, though I may have more interest in one or another, or might be closer to one of them, at a given moment. It does get slightly tiresome scheduling new dates every week (or not scheduling them, as when I have art to make or just want to be left alone for a week), but so far it has been worth the trouble.

Well, I've written a lot here and I hope that this adds to the discussion. I'd love to hear from others who are trying this as well!

[DrunkenPorcupine]

Oddly, I've never really thought about this before. I am somewhat cynical though... As a heteroflexible male living in a community that is horribly imbalanced in terms of gender (sharing the ideals of this community is almost a prerequisite for trust and attractiveness to me) I've never really even considered the luxury of a "what if the best happened".

That's not a negative per se. I've had great relationships in all sorts of mixes and don't see them as less than ideal. But I simply have never really even thought of "If I could have my cake and eat it too."

Or maybe I've had it, with specific lacks in certain traits. So lemme ponder...

Once I became poly, I dropped "roles". If I loved someone I was not in a sexual relationship with, I just loved them. I didn't call them my "Best friend". I just loved them. I've slept with people I didn't love, and loved people I haven't slept with. I've had financial bonding with people I loved, and didn't sleep with. So I really stopped defining.

I just called everyone I loved my "Inner Circle". It was usually about 5 people and usually predominantly female.

So, my ideal situation would probably be myself, multiple women, a guy and their partners as extremely close friends. Added to that, there would be joint financial interest, but not "melded" finances. For instance, all people involved were running a business. We all benefit if we all benefit (creating incentive) but the individual choices (positive or negative) we make with our individual earnings wouldn't affect the whole.

For instance...

At the time, K(f) was someone I was intensely attracted to sexually. She was also my best friend. K(f) was married to R(m). K(f) was also attracted to, but not engaging with O(m).

There was also A(f) who was poly but committed to one person as primary with occasional , consental flings with men and women.

S(f) was poly with a primary J(m), but secondary relationships were common.

Myself and C(f) are currently in a relationship and she has two other partners M(m), K(m). C(f) occasionally has non-sex, but sexual, escapades with another person W(m) and is seeking another partner who is female.

O(m) is my best friend and single, but attracted to K(f).

My ideal would be a web of relationships with irregular members of that "Inner Circle". K(f) and O(m) might gravitate toward each other and have a sexual relationship that wouldn't be an issue with the people involved because we all know what's happening under the surface. But this would not preclude me from having a relationship with K(f) either, or K(f) and A(f), even though they both gravitate towards others on a daily basis.

I dunno... it's complicated. Trying to put what I mean into words kind of makes it formal and it's the ebbs and flows of a socially and sexually liberated circle that actually seem to appeal to me the most. So... I'll leave that there, since I'm not even sure I got my own point. :P

[sunnyskies]

nycindie, I find this thread very interesting. As a complete novice in making my own rules, not adhering to the societal norm, it's helped me to think more around what I think might work for me.

My point of view? To be honest I think I'm a bit of a 'relationship anarchist' - in practice I don't know that I would want any rules/boundaries, and hope that with whoever I'm committed to trust is implicit and mutual.

In my little fantasy world, however, a few scenarios have popped up which appeal:

1. Being with 2 men who are independent spirits, by that I mean they appreciate and are comfortable in spending free time apart from me. I would also love for them to be close with one another, and not threatened by any differences. Both who I would consider equal (i.e. no 'primary').
2. A quad, with 3 men & me, or 2 men & 2 of us ladies.

To be honest though, I'm just happy to see how things evolve for me and whoever I end up with. My main fantasy is that we are all happy & can always negotiate our lives to promote this for everyone.

[Morrigan]

My ideal is that I have none. I like to see who comes along and deal with everyone as it feels right (for all involved). Solo, single, partnered, primary, secondary.... I'm no hierarchy girl :)
I'm involved with different people and them being different makes them so important to me. Each of them strikes a different chord with me and I really couldn't make a choice who's my primary and who's not.

Thanks for the quotes of Tristan Taormino earlier on in the thread, nycindie :)
Don't know her work, need to check it out some time.

[PolyInNJ]

I guess in a way I kind of qualify to be on this thread. I am in the process of an amicable divorce from my husband (we were together for 13 years, and have been separated for a little over a year). I have a boyfriend who lives 4 1/2 hours away from me that I only see once a month, though speak or communicate with daily. He has a wife that he lives with. I have little to no desire to have a primary partner of my own right now, and am happy being in a relationship with him, and enjoy the fact that I can so look forward to seeing him, and still have my own space and place to call my own. I'm living on my own for the first time in my adult life - I went from living with my parents to living with my ex - and I am finding that I am REALLY enjoying my independence.

That being said - if there were a scenario where I could live geographically closer to him, I'd be happy with that - but I don't think i woud like to co-habitate with him - at least not right now.

[sayhaw]

Okay- My ideal would be a female and a male couple that love my husband and I... and we all can have our children play together... we all can be together and live happily ever after.

But... that's not going to happen. So I compromised with my husband. Since he knows I am bisexual since the day he met me, and he's okay with that. He doesn't want me to "cheat", I figured there's got to be some way to meet in the middle. I found this! He is okay with me sharing a women with me but he's not keen on having another woman, at least he says "not yet". I would love to find the perfect woman to fit in our relationship. Is that a unicorn? V? I dunno, still learning the definitions. I also would love to make her part of the family, my children having another mom in the house would always be helpful too, but my husband and this time says "whoa, lets slow down and find someone first and see how this new life will be with us before you start thinking about having someone living with us". Again, he's not keen on having another live in or a woman that close. So, that's my ideal.

Now I know there's such thing as this, so it would be a woman only "dating" us then, right? I think my straight husband is typical in the fact that he likes the idea of another woman with me, but I keep telling him it's not that I just want a one night-er or someone for "you" (him) just to get off watching. Ya know? I want it to be real, real in such a way that it's special... long lasting and sincere. I really would love to have sort of that "wife". Does that make sense? I am sure it does. My only hope is that I have that someday and my husband continues to accept it.

[nycindie]

Hey Sayhaw, thanks for adding what your ideal would be. However, since you're married and your husband is obviously your primary, you wouldn't be considered solo or single. Someone who is solo is unpartnered, generally, or has no desire for a specific person to be their primary. I created this thread for solo poly people, since the married folk looking for a "third" are a much more vocal and common contingent here.

Anyway, I'm sure, if you take things slowly and methodically, you can have what you want. There is another thread you might like: "Imagine your ideal relationship (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=923&highlight=ideal)." Also read around, try a tag search for the words "triad," "unicorn," or "vee, and you will probably see more possibilities and learn realistic ways to pursue what you want for your life.

[MeeraReed]

It has been really great to explore new worlds this way -- everybody is so interesting and so sexy in different ways, and mesh with my life in completely different ways -- without the threat of any one relationship taking over my entire life. What I find most lovely about this adventure, is that both of my current regular lovers have qualities that, in a monogamous relationship assumed to be headed for living together, would be total deal-breakers. I could not possibly make a life with either of these girls even if I wanted to, but because that isn't on the table I'm able to fully enjoy their company and love them for who they are, and the things that bother me are irrelevant because they're never going to dominate my life.


Well, I've written a lot here and I hope that this adds to the discussion. I'd love to hear from others who are trying this as well!

This quote is EXACTLY what I have found about having multiple lovers but no one-true-committed-life-partner.

Like you, Neobohemian, I am also a rare "solo poly person" who is not seeking a primary partner. (And I too have found that NYCindie's posts really speak to me!)

I need a lot of solitary time to work on my writing. I don't want to live with anyone or be one half of an intensely bonded couple. I need a lot of space, physically and mentally and emotionally.

I'd like to have a number of regular lovers that I consider good friends and am emotionally close to. But I don't think relationships need to be "serious" or permanent. For me, dating and sex and love and friendship are all about exploration and getting to know oneself and others.

I am at a point, however, where I am very uncertain and have not had much success at finding what I want, and I am still struggling to overcome some bad / weird experiences.

It's hard because in the "real world," nobody seems to want what I want, or to be sympathetic to it at all. It's better in the various poly communities I've joined, but even there, I still feel like a very marginal minority.

There are a lot of resources for how to have committed coupledom with more than one person, but almost nothing at all for how to have happy, healthy, NON-committed relationships.

[nycindie]

I'd like to have a number of regular lovers that I consider good friends and am emotionally close to. But I don't think relationships need to be "serious" or permanent. For me, dating and sex and love and friendship are all about exploration and getting to know oneself and others.

I am at a point, however, where I am very uncertain and have not had much success at finding what I want, and I am still struggling to overcome some bad / weird experiences.

It's hard because in the "real world," nobody seems to want what I want, or to be sympathetic to it at all. It's better in the various poly communities I've joined, but even there, I still feel like a very marginal minority.

There are a lot of resources for how to have committed coupledom with more than one person, but almost nothing at all for how to have happy, healthy, NON-committed relationships.

Sorry to hear you've had some bad experiences. Yes, we solos are a minority in both the mono and poly worlds. And it's surprising how even some poly peeps will view the solo person as not serious enough for more than only casual or primarily sexual liaisons. I like how you put it, that "dating and sex and love and friendship are all about exploration and getting to know oneself and others."

I've always felt that relationships don't need the goal of being permanent to be successful. But I wonder about your last sentence. How can an ongoing relationship not be committed in some way? If it continues at all, there must be some level of commitment there, no? Even if it is simply to see each other again. Otherwise, all we would have to look forward to is a string of one-night stands (hey, nothing wrong with that, but...). But perhaps this is just another example of how differently people can define certain words for themselves. Certainly, in the mono mindset, a Commitment in relationships is a promise to stay together forever; my definition is very flexible. I wrote about it in another thread, starting here:

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?p=88866&postcount=7

Basically, I see commitment as an allegiance between people who are moving toward the same goals... Wait, strike that. They may not have the same goals but at least, for a time, their goals are not at odds -- and they are supportive of each other as they move forward in life. So, they can be committed in the sense that they honor any agreements they have (whether verbalized or not) to be supportive of each other. In that thread, I stated, "I think you can still be committed to someone with whom you are in a relationship, without that commitment necessarily meaning marriage or forever -- or even long-term." I do believe that a solo poly person wants satisfaction in relationships that don't have life partnership as the goal, but we don't necessarily need to exclude commitments/agreements altogether.

I would think a casual, less frequent relationship can still realistically have commitments to honesty, safer sex, moving toward deeper understanding and knowledge of each other, and supporting each other's efforts in self-growth. I do want someone in my life that I will get to know deeply and very well, and give my love to, while still maintaining my autonomy and independence. So, that's why I usually phrase what I want thusly: I want multiple, ongoing, committed, loving relationships. I just don't want any life partners moving in!

I'd want my beaus and I to be conscious of what we'd be committing to. I guess, for me, being solo is sort of straddling both worlds -- something committed and more substantial than open/casual, but without any pressure to make it forever.

And yeah, this is really important to me -- eventually, I'd like to know that someday there will be one or two people I am in relationship with, that can be on my list of emergency contacts. Now that I've entered my 50s, I think about being alone as I get older. I may not want to live with someone again, but I still want some boyfriends I can count on, and be counted upon by them if help is needed.

[MeeraReed]

I've always felt that relationships don't need the goal of being permanent to be successful. But I wonder about your last sentence. How can an ongoing relationship not be committed in some way? If it continues at all, there must be some level of commitment there, no? Even if it is simply to see each other again. Otherwise, all we would have to look forward to is a string of one-night stands (hey, nothing wrong with that, but...). But perhaps this is just another example of how differently people can define certain words for themselves. Certainly, in the mono mindset, a Commitment in relationships is a promise to stay together forever; my definition is very flexible.



Thanks for the response, Cindie.

You're right about "committed." By "NON-committed" I just meant not-necessarily-committed-for-life, not-on-the-marriage-path, or maybe even not-certain-where-this-is-going-but-it's-fun-for-now-and-that's okay.

(Or maybe what I meant was simply "non-exclusive"?)

I have never actually had a one-night stand (well, I did have one, but it turned into four years of off-and-on fuck buddyhood). So I've never actually dated in a totally "non-committed" way.

But I've also had brief sexual relationships where we parted with no commitment to see each other again (because we lived far apart and could not predict where our lives would be going in terms of jobs and other relationships). These flings were fun, and we maintained some kind of friendship with sexual overtones and kept things open to see each other again if things went that way. I liked the spontaneity of that, because it's so totally the opposite of how I normally am (needing to plan everything WAY in advance).

I have, however, definitely been frustrated with men who could not make any definite commitment simply to see me again in the future--that wasn't what I was looking for either.

Most people think "commitment" means "for life" and that seems to be part of the implied definition. It also seems to imply monogamy (well, among monogamous people, anyway), so that is part of why the word "commitment" kind of makes me cringe.

Other reasons why I dislike the word "commitment":

--It sounds like one of those goofy relationship words used frequently by those lovey-dovey couples no one can stand to be around.

--When I went looking for relationship self-help books, every book I found began with a sentence like "Good relationships need to be built on a foundation of commitment!" But they really meant "a foundation of permanent monogamy."

--A therapist once told me I should work on my "commitment issues." I don't think that I need to (I just want a totally non-traditional type of commitment), and her comment led me to seek out a new therapist. But I guess since then, I've been trying to understand myself as someone who rejects the idea of commitment. Maybe that's the wrong approach?

An even longer story about my aversion to the word "commitment":

Last year (as I have posted elsewhere), my ex-boyfriend (and former best friend) told me that I was responsible for the sexual problems he had during our entire relationship of 2+ years. Among other things, he claimed that he had "always wanted love and commitment" and I denied him that because I only cared about sex.

I was completely in shock to hear that--it came out of left field for me--I had no idea that we hadn't HAD love and commitment. I certainly had felt committed to him while we were dating, remained committed to him while we were experimenting with some type of open relationship, and I was still committed to a close friendship with him even if we were no longer dating.

(This conversation had taken place almost two years after we had stopped seeing each other sexually--in other words, when I thought we had a solid, platonic friendship of two years, so for me, after four years total of thinking that we cared deeply about each other).

And while I understand on a logical level that he has MAJOR issues, just thinking about how mean and whiny his voice sounded when he accused me of denying him "love and commitment" breaks my heart all over again.

Especially because in the same breath he said that "true intimacy" and "true commitment" are what he has with his girlfriend (of two months at the time), with whom he was able to be sexually functional immediately. "Because she immediately committed to me as my real girlfriend!" my ex told me (after explaining that he'd never felt like I was his "real girlfriend").

Anyway, just the word "commitment" kind of makes me want to throw up now. :o

I guess I just want to make sure I don't meet another man who needs the security of lifelong commitment just to get it up??? :rolleyes:

But thanks for pointing out that "non-committed" doesn't make much sense as a definition of what I want.

I am having a lot of trouble with these type of labels and definitions. It seems I can hardly articulate what I want even to myself, let alone others.

[nycindie]

It sounds like one of those goofy relationship words used frequently by those lovey-dovey couples no one can stand to be around.

. . . Anyway, just the word "commitment" kind of makes me want to throw up now. :o

^^ Gems, these!

I do recall your story, about your bf. What you went through really stinks. I can understand how the word makes you wanna puke. :mad:

I like taking apart language and seeing how what fits one person doesn't fit another. We all have such different associations with words.

Even though I was, like most people my age, raised in monogamous society in which the expectation was to find The One and get married, that was not the overarching message I was raised with. Thank goodness! My mother never instilled in her daughters the idea that we had to settle down with a husband someday or we'd be failures. I suppose that my father abandoning his family had jaded her about marriage and, in a way, taught her a lesson that was valuable to us when she passed it along. She didn't tell us to marry a doctor or someone with money. Her biggest message was "I just want you to find someone who makes you happy." I never had marriage as a goal.

I didn't get married until I was 39, so I had a lotta lotta years as a single woman. Hence, many relationships and many, many one-night stands. Most of my relationships were not very long-lasting, so I had to find the lessons, and good stuff, in my experiences. I think perhaps all of that is part of the formula that has made me arrive at a very loose idea of what commitment is, that the people making the commitment decide what it means to them.

I hate when people say shit like, "Oh, polyamory is an excuse for people who can't commit." I think I am fairly comfortable with uncertainty and having no expectation that things will last forever, but I am extremely loyal and able to commit. I just want to commit to more than one person, and on terms that work for us. Getting married in the first place was an unexpected choice I made -- I used to pooh-pooh the idea of marriage altogether. But I am loyal to a fault, and made that commitment, so I was really thrown for a loop when he wanted a divorce. So, there I was rethinking everything again and I chose to embrace polyamory.

Now why did I go into all of that? :o

[nycindie]

Being on my own to practice polyamory, I embraced Tristan Taormino's term, "Solo Poly," to describe my approach (basically being independent and not wanting a primary). Today, I found the term "Free Agent" in a glossary attached to an article about poly, from 2006 (actually someone's honors thesis paper):

FREE AGENT: A person who practices polyamory in a way that tends to separate or isolate all of his or her romantic relationships from one another, treating each as a separate entity.

From http://people.hofstra.edu/daniel_m_varisco/hpiaperry.html

Some of the anthropology student's conclusions are interesting, and some are rather amusing (such as when she concludes that all polyamorists do not have insecurities about touch, and are "comfortable with their bodies" simply because the people she met at a munch frequently tended to reach out and stroke another person's arm, or gave back rubs easily - talk about generalizations!). Anyway, the author cites Franklin Veaux's glossary as where she got most of the definitions she included in her paper. Franklin's definition of "Free Agent" is a little more meaty:

FREE AGENT: Colloquial. A person who practices polyamory in a way that tends to separate or isolate all of his or her romantic relationships from one another, treating each as a separate entity. A free agent often presents himself or herself as "single" or behaves in ways which are typically associated with the behavior of a single person even when he or she has romantic partners, and often does not consider the potential impact of new relationships upon existing relationships when deciding whether or not to pursue those new relationships.

Franklin's glossary: http://www.xeromag.com/fvpolyglossary.html

Since "Free Agent" is a term that comes from sports, and describes an athlete who is free to negotiate with and sign on to teams independently, I guess it's sort of an accurate way to describe a solo poly person. But somehow the commercial aspect of the phrase gives it a tinge of being out for what they can get in a selfish way. At least, to me it does, a little.

Something else about Franklin's definition rankles me. I don't like the part where he says a free agent "often does not consider the potential impact of new relationships upon existing relationships." That sounds inconsiderate somehow, though it can seem to be true. If I keep all my relationships separate, in many ways it can appear that one doesn't really affect the other, and being autonomous and solo, I don't need anyone else's "permission" to date other people, but... to me it just sounds somewhat unfeeling to put it the way he did. In terms of safe sex precautions and scheduling, and probably lots of other things, a Solo's relationships do affect each other - and the Solo involved in them.

Just some stuff to think about... other viewpoints welcome.

[Magdlyn]

I guess I fall in between having a primary and being a "free agent." For many reasons, miss pixi and I do not live together. We both love our own apartments. She's got 2 feisty dogs and I am not a huge dog fan, so I like returning to my own quiet apartment alone during the week... no drooling, no barking, and I can leave a plate of food on the coffee table knowing it won't be empty when I get back!

However, I really object to Veaux's definition of free agent.

A person who practices polyamory in a way that tends to separate or isolate all of his or her romantic relationships from one another, treating each as a separate entity. A free agent often presents himself or herself as "single" or behaves in ways which are typically associated with the behavior of a single person even when he or she has romantic partners, and often does not consider the potential impact of new relationships upon existing relationships when deciding whether or not to pursue those new relationships.

Not considering the impact of new relationships on existing ones defies the idea of "ethical" slutdom completely! I don't even know how he imagines an ethical non-mono person could manage multiple relationships with no consideration for each one's feelings about frequency of time spent together, knowing how the hinge feels about each one, hearing something about the hinge's dates with her others (recently I've been on some interesting "field trips" with all 3 of my male lovers, and it's fun to share what I saw and learned with each one of my other lovers!).

[snap6674]

Wild...I am new to this site and it seems that this is about a year old. Wondering how things turned out. I am married and Jules (my wife) is interested in another man, but solo. If a girl is in the mix, then Jules will submit to the woman's wishes and share her with me. But the man is hers...which I totally love because I get the details on all sexual activity. I'm just wondering...is this still a viable resource for a new poly? I've been sharing her and she has been sharing me for 13 years, but the last 5 have been monogamous...neither of us like it. She wants, and I want, for her to venture out again, but we went from NYC to Denver! She really wants a relationship with another girl (I'm only in the mix when they want me together - otherwise it is her decision and she can watch or join or whatever...the other girl is free sexually and emotionally to be herself) however, she would love to add another guy for her girl. did you add that man and did you share? Just curious. I have always thought I was alone in loving that my loves love others...obviously I am not.

[nycindie]

Snap, I don't think this is the right thread for you, since you are married. You should start your own thread in the Poly Relationships Corner forum. This one is about pursuing poly as a solo person.

[nycindie]

I guess I fall in between having a primary and being a "free agent." For many reasons, miss pixi and I do not live together. We both love our own apartments...
Yes, miss pixi seems to be a primary to you, but you are also so very independent. One of the definitions that Tristan Taormino uses for "solo poly," is seeing all partners as equal (or co-primaries, if I recall correctly), which means you don't have to only have no primaries at all to be solo, as she sees it. I guess Franklin Veaux wouldn't see that as a Free Agent, or maybe he would - not sure.

Mags, do you think that, if things keep progressing positively with you and your male lovers, you might someday accept one or more of them as co-primary with miss pixi? Of course, allowing that the necessary psychological/emotional work gets done, and time and effort is put into these relationships.

However, I really object to Veaux's definition of free agent.
Good, I am glad I am not the only one! It really does not sit well with me.

Not considering the impact of new relationships on existing ones defies the idea of "ethical" slutdom completely! I don't even know how he imagines an ethical non-mono person could manage multiple relationships with no consideration for each one's feelings about frequency of time spent together, knowing how the hinge feels about each one, hearing something about the hinge's dates with her others (recently I've been on some interesting "field trips" with all 3 of my male lovers, and it's fun to share what I saw and learned with each one of my other lovers!).
All good points! Even if all relationships are kept separate, it is very difficult to compartmentalize one's life and not be considerate of all partners.

[snap6674]

Snap, I don't think this is the right thread for you, since you are married. You should start your own thread in the Poly Relationships Corner forum. This one is about pursuing poly as a solo person.
Thank you so much for the reply and the clarification. I can see that now and I will take it to heart. I appreciate any and all feedback as I am passionate about learning.

Much gratitude.

Snap

[Magdlyn]

Mags, do you think that, if things keep progressing positively with you and your male lovers, you might someday accept one or more of them as co-primary with miss pixi? Of course, allowing that the necessary psychological/emotional work gets done, and time and effort is put into these relationships.


Yeah, it's early days. I'd say The Hottie will always be a secondary... he's seeming rather emotionally reserved, lives 50 miles away, struggling financially after his divorce and involved in sharing custody 50/50 of his 8 year old. He's just super fun and sexy to be with!

The Gentleman also has his emotional limits, but has time and leisure to work more on himself. I don't know if I'd ever consider him a co-primary, he's just not as free spirited and .... contemporary as me. But he's a sweetheart, very loving and generous and caring.

Now, The Ginger.... we're a 99% match on okc, and he is semi retired, has a lot of hobbies and a lot of free time for seeing me despite being married. We couldnt be primaries in the sense of sharing living space. He's got a fine house on a large acreage and loves his wife dearly. However, there are certain sexual things she is just not interested in, so I fit the bill fine for him there! I'm getting the feeling they suit each others' geeky/homesteader side, and I bring the romance, poetry and raging sexual beast out in him.:) As his previous lovers did.

Now, primary in my heart, he is getting in there deep. Of course, NRE is abundant, but he and I seem to fit together really well! miss pixi gets twinges of jealousy/envy from time to time, but I am trying to keep our relationship in good shape with lots of quality time. Dates, long talks, lots of cuddles and sex. Mmmm...

[GAKitten]

My ideal would be flexible.

I can say a V with 2 men , but in reality I am open to both male partners having "loves" or at a least lover.

More then 2 men in my life as a romantic partner might be a little rough for me as it was spread my time too thin, I would think. I would prefer if my "loves" had lovers or loves that they contributed to household on some lvl.

Yes i would prefer if both resided in the home with me and perhaps share a space with their 'other lover/loves" else where.

I was would prefer their realationship be seperate in the sense they try not spread themselevs too thin and have enough time with them as they would with me.


so what does that look like a W, at this point?


lol

As I said im pretty flexible. I just know I like my own things, my own space, and I like affection from someone I love..the rest would have to be worked out when it arrises.

[Songbird]

I don't know what my ideal is, and part of what I'm valuing right now about being poly is the way it minimizes this question for me.

I'm currently seeing two guys, neither of whom I live with. I've been in a relationship with F for just over a year. It started as sexual and deepened. I met G in November in a context that was more 'relationship-y,' but he knew up front that I was in an existing relationship. So both relationships are "real" but neither one is goal-oriented (ie we have to decide if we want to live together).

I'm not sure I know how to think about these possibilities in the abstract. F might be into having me live there, but he's raising three kids and I don't want to be a parent. G might eventually want to live with someone, but he's just finalizing a divorce and we live about an hour apart. I doubt he would move to be where I am. I'm not sure I'd uproot my life to be where he is. Geography and demographics may be framing my choices at least as much as my poly status is. But if my keenest desire in life were to live with a partner, I'd be less focused on these other considerations.

[strixish]

I've enjoyed reading through this thread. I am somewhat solo, I suppose. For almost three years, I have spent my weekends with a M/F couple, and we go on vacations together. I am close to both of them individually, but he is the person in my life who is the closest to something primary-ish. He doesn't really follow the hierarchal model. Although, we don't live together, won't live together, and only see each other over weekends, except for rare occasions.

I also have a boyfriend I see once a week, who himself lives with a primary girlfriend (he ascribes to the hierarchal model). This is also a long term committed relationship. (Committed? Well, we feel loyalty to each other, and an ongoing intention of maintaining and protecting the space we have in each other's lives, and a desire to do some work if needed to take care of each other's needs... sounds like commitment, anyway).

I'm also dating. There are a couple long term former girlfriends who sort of come and go, and a new friend.

I live alone and intend to do so for the foreseeable future. I'm definitely not a free agent, though, as dating someone new requires discussions all around. Lots of discussions, sometimes, and a great deal of attention paid to how everyone feels, whether it challenges their sense of security. I'm committed to doing whatever work is needed to hold up my end of the relationships I'm in. I don't trample over anyone's feelings. There are no vetoes, no rules of engagement for what I do on my own time, nothing like that, but I care about my people. So yes, the "free agent" definition really isn't something that resonates with me.

Sometimes, this structure makes me wonder if I'm missing out, since I don't have a live-in domestic partner primary type person. Aren't I supposed to want that??? I've been married before, though, and I am worlds happier now. This really suits me, in more ways than I could name.

[nycindie]

Omigosh, Strixish, what you have sounds so perfect to me! It doesn't sound like you're missing out on anything. Thank you very much for sharing. It made me really happy and hopeful to read it!

[Songbird]

Strixish, I very much like your definition of commitment: "we feel loyalty to each other, and an ongoing intention of maintaining and protecting the space we have in each other's lives, and a desire to do some work if needed to take care of each other's needs." I'd add being open and honest about our feelings and needs, which seems implicit in your post.

So the notion that we're supposed to want the live-in partner ... I feel conflicting tugs. The delight of being with my sweeties makes me want to spend more time with them. I also think there can be a depth of intimacy from living together that can't be had another way. At the same time, living on my own is centering, and living together risks the dead weight of all the "supposed to"s.

[AnnabelMore]

Strixish, I very much like your definition of commitment: "we feel loyalty to each other, and an ongoing intention of maintaining and protecting the space we have in each other's lives, and a desire to do some work if needed to take care of each other's needs." I'd add being open and honest about our feelings and needs, which seems implicit in your post.

So the notion that we're supposed to want the live-in partner ... I feel conflicting tugs. The delight of being with my sweeties makes me want to spend more time with them. I also think there can be a depth of intimacy from living together that can't be had another way. At the same time, living on my own is centering, and living together risks the dead weight of all the "supposed to"s.

Seconded, excellent definition of commitment. And your others thoughts struck a chord with me too. Lately I've been wondering if I might not be happier solo. I don't want to leave my bf but I'm having a lot of trouble with the idea of moving in with him, which he wants. Is my problem with him, or do I actually just like my independence? Currently I live with roommates and we support each other, but we're not as deeply involved with each other's lives as live-in partners are.

[FrankLee]

Just being on this forum is about all the commitment I'm capable of at the moment. This is hard work, and has sapped my reading time from my general diet of histories and biographies. I haven't even had time to read the newspaper or The Nation on my Kindle.

But, I'm very happy to have found the term, Solo Poly and to realize that a thread in this forum can extend for a couple of years. Guess Solo Poly suits me perfectly. I would have to add, that I'm so involved in my own responsibilities, that I have limited time. If I met one partner, once a month, I'd be happy. That's just talk, of course. At the moment, there are no partners in my life.

What I think I might like as an ideal situation? Well, there's a friend in Baltimore, I've been through a lot with for 35 years. A tryst with her a couple of times a year would be heaven. She is glorious in bed (I know), but she has little appreciation for the poly concept. She has remained alone for most of the last 20 years, and it's a true waste of good "lovin." I have to add, that I can only handle her in small doses. Her self-absorption and compulsive talking are more than I can bear for long. The only way to get her to shut up, is to kiss her. But, if she were in trouble or sick and needed a friend, I'd be there in a minute.

Then, I'd be a happy puppy, if my lover of the last three years would take me back, even as a secondary to her new boyfriend. Doesn't look promising though.

And, on another, very personal, and private note, almost too sensitive for me to mention here, there's a special and attractive friend here in town in a unique situation. We have been lovers in the past. She is now barely able to walk with progressive multiple sclerosis. She has hinted recently at a desire to have sex with me. And, I wonder that poly doesn't have a place for acts of generosity and compassion in unusual circumstances. She, I'm sure, would very much appreciate it, and I, though not inspired by heights of passion, would find it a moment of warmth and friendship.

Probably, the reality is that I have yet to meet my next Solo Poly Lover Partner. Possibly, on this forum, who knows? Or by some twist of fate, around the corner.

I am not looking for a long list of lovers (or partners.) I would like the list to be short enough that I could send all present and past companions a Christmas card each year. I would want to know if any one of them were in pain or personal angst, and I would want to be able to do what I could to help.

I don't foresee sharing a home with a woman again. My grief over losing my marriage was unbearable, and I couldn't stand that again. And, I don't want to confuse my son with any more people in his life than he already has to deal with. Having been adopted from South America, and having divorced parents, he is already dealing with more abandonment issues than one person deserves.

[FrankLee]

...not that she needs it or asks for it, or that I have any interest in combative banter in this forum, but 9inchtongue's comment is way beyond the boundaries of courtesy, decency, and helpful exchange of ideas.

Not to mention, the name itself is a poor face to present to the forum. Methinks he may belong somewhere else, or learn some manners.

[nycindie]

I'd like to steer this thread back to the original topic. Here are some highlights:

...for anyone out there who is unattached or considers themselves a solo poly person... What is your ideal situation? Are you already there or hoping to get there?

...I created this thread for solo poly people, since the married folk looking for a "third" are a much more vocal and common contingent here.

...There comes a saturation point for me, every now and then, where I can't read anymore about married couples opening up their relationship.

The whole idea of solo poly people who are happy to remain so sort of defies the idea that absolutely everyone needs a steady primary partner to cohabit with.

I am also a rare "solo poly person" who is not seeking a primary partner. (And I too have found that NYCindie's posts really speak to me!)

I need a lot of solitary time to work on my writing. I don't want to live with anyone or be one half of an intensely bonded couple. I need a lot of space, physically and mentally and emotionally.

I'd like to have a number of regular lovers that I consider good friends and am emotionally close to. But I don't think relationships need to be "serious" or permanent. For me, dating and sex and love and friendship are all about exploration and getting to know oneself and others.

...it isn't as easy to find men who will hear me say I want non-exclusivity and be willing to commit to something deeper than just a casual and primarily sexual relationship. I... don't see the need to ask for a commitment right away, nor to set aside the need for companionship and sex until that happens for me, but it does get frustrating at times. I do not, however, see the need to make any adjustments to the ideal I seek.

...in the "real world," nobody seems to want what I want, or to be sympathetic to it at all. It's better in the various poly communities I've joined, but even there, I still feel like a very marginal minority.

There are a lot of resources for how to have committed coupledom with more than one person, but almost nothing at all for how to have happy, healthy, NON-committed relationships.

Yes... it's surprising how even some poly peeps will view the solo person as not serious enough for more than only casual or primarily sexual liaisons...

I've always felt that relationships don't need the goal of being permanent to be successful... Basically, I see commitment as an allegiance between people who are moving toward the same goals... Wait, strike that. They may not have the same goals but at least, for a time, their goals are not at odds -- and they are supportive of each other as they move forward in life.

...I want multiple, ongoing, committed, loving relationships. I just don't want any life partners moving in! ...for me, being solo is sort of straddling both worlds -- something committed and more substantial than open/casual, but without any pressure to make it forever.

And yeah, this is really important to me -- eventually, I'd like to know that someday there will be one or two people I am in relationship with, that can be on my list of emergency contacts. Now that I've entered my 50s, I think about being alone as I get older. I may not want to live with someone again, but I still want some boyfriends I can count on, and be counted upon by them if help is needed.

Even if all relationships are kept separate, it is very difficult to compartmentalize one's life and not be considerate of all partners.

I live alone and intend to do so for the foreseeable future. I'm definitely not a free agent, though, as dating someone new requires discussions all around. Lots of discussions, sometimes, and a great deal of attention paid to how everyone feels, whether it challenges their sense of security. I'm committed to doing whatever work is needed to hold up my end of the relationships I'm in. I don't trample over anyone's feelings. There are no vetoes, no rules of engagement for what I do on my own time, nothing like that, but I care about my people. So yes, the "free agent" definition really isn't something that resonates with me.

Sometimes, this structure makes me wonder if I'm missing out, since I don't have a live-in domestic partner primary type person. Aren't I supposed to want that??? I've been married before, though, and I am worlds happier now. This really suits me, in more ways than I could name.

So the notion that we're supposed to want the live-in partner ... I feel conflicting tugs. The delight of being with my sweeties makes me want to spend more time with them. I also think there can be a depth of intimacy from living together that can't be had another way. At the same time, living on my own is centering, and living together risks the dead weight of all the "supposed to"s.

For me the definition of Polyamoury is the answer to your question. Many Loves. Love being the operative word here...

I've discovered that being open to whatever comes---well, amazing things happen.

I also don't want to co-habit with anyone, and I really like and value my alone time and space...

I don't really have any fixed ideas about what potential relationships would look like...other than the usual - honest, open, caring, respectful, fun etc. My aim would be to build relationships on those foundations....rather than a picture of what they may look like. I like the idea of relationships being purely about the people involved not a bigger picture or script. The idea of marriage and settling down is not appealing to me...and I find if someone tries to put me on that path I feel instantly uncomfortable. It feels much more refreshing and real for me to have relationships about the here and now, and the bond or connection...rather than a predetermined path or script. It's a little hard to describe...but If I feel like someone is interested due to "potential long term partner" or "potential wife", it starts to feel less about me and more about the role I'm expected to play in someone else's life or a script that was written long before I arrived.

I'm not an actress....I don't want to play a role ! :) Just want to be me...

Cultures do change over time, and individuals do have the power to change "culture".

I just did a cursory look around the 'net and it seems that a person practicing solo poly is generally understood to be someone who does not have primary partners, or for whom all partners are equally important, and does not cohabit with them. I found these two quotes by Tristan Taormino, (her book Opening Up is where I first found the term):
"In American culture, monogamy isn’t the only norm when it comes to relationships; it’s expected that everyone wants to and should be part of a couple. The fact of the matter is that some people who identify as non-monogamous or polyamorous prefer not to be in a “partnered” relationship, however they define that for themselves. In general, people who practice solo polyamory may date and have non-primary partners, but they don’t want to co-habit, mingle finances and resources, raise children, or make important life decisions with a partner."
and:
"Just as polyamory flies in the face of the traditional pairing model, choosing to be a non-primary partner contradicts all the rhetoric we learn about finding "the one," making a commitment, and being the most important person in someone's life. Choosing to be farther down on the food chain immediately has people thinking you have commitment issues, low self-esteem, or something else wrong with you. In fact, these critiques echo comments often made about the "mistress" in a cheating relationship, but the difference here is a big one: choice.

...For some folks, there is no food chain: They eschew the concept of primary/non-primary altogether because they don't believe in the hierarchy it implies..."

...maybe you could view your partners not on a hierarchy basis but as having different needs for the type and amount of interaction with you, where some would be content with biweekly dates with no overnights and others would want to wake up next to you on as many mornings as possible?

So, here's a shout-out to solo poly peeps!

What has been your experience in trying to meet potential partners? How separately do you keep your relationships? What do you see are the biggest benefits from being solo and, if applicable, not having designations of primary, secondary, etc.?

[strixish]

Meh, don't feed the trolls.

FrankLee, your post resonates with me. One thing that polyamory has done for me is that it's given me space to really honor the relationships I have with those two people I see rarely, the long distance occasional lovers with whom I have *history*. It's good to recognize that they have staked some territory in my heart, that they're "more than friends," even if the relationship doesn't fit any conventional pattern.

[Emm]

I probably qualify as a Free Agent except for the bit about not considering the potential impact of new relationships upon existing relationships.

I live with two cats in a 4 bedroom house. I've had live-in mono partners a few times, and while it was nice to wake up with them every morning I did miss having the place to myself at times.

My current situation: One married boyfriend (P) and one otherwise unattached boyfriend (D) who—despite my expressing a distaste for hierarchical terminology—considers me his primary. I have a regular weekly date night with the married one and see the other between once and three times per week. The two of them knew each other for quite some time before I came along and are somewhere between friends and acquaintances who run into each other a lot. I'm not actively looking for anyone else, but I wouldn't complain too loudly if someone LDR or FWBish came along.

My ideal situation would be similar but in closer geographical proximity. I'm about a 45 minute drive away from either of them, which is just long enough to be annoying. If I had a magic wand then a block of detached or semi-detached units would be perfect. I could have one, D could have one, P and his wife T could have one. Everyone gets their own space in their own house but are still close... until T's boyfriends D2 and M want one each for their families and so on because at some point it all starts getting a little silly.

[TreeStar]

It’s been fun reading through everybody’s posts. This thread is pretty interesting, because as a noob I‘d like to look back on it one day and see how much reality changed my ideals, if at all. I have two, actually. The first is what I want now, as a solo person, and the second is something I see happening in the distant future.

Right now I’m kinda leaning toward the whole free agent approach. So, ideally, I want to keep building on this and get to a point where I’ve got a small network of trustworthy, caring people. The kind of friendships you can count on outside of the bedroom.

Eventually, (but not any time soon) I would like to fall in love, and have a more committed structure with two or three males. There's definite appeal to having loves who will stick by you, through thick and thin. I've got a few married friends in open/poly relationships, and they're so bonded, it's incredible. The only think that works for them that I don't think could work for me is hierarchy. I appreciate why it matters for so many, but it's not for me. Equal, but different loves, please! That's my ideal.

[LotusesandRoses]

I'm a solo poly person, and new here, but this is my first post.

Ideally, I'd have a queer/bisexual primary partner who didn't fit along the gender binary. I find some effeminate men very sexy, and being able to really share my feminine side with a partner, not just bear it, but share it as an active process with a male partner and enjoy that feminine energy that's unique from a man, would be wonderful.

I'd also like a nerdy/intellectual partner who isn't overwhelmingly masculine or feminine, just a regular guy, someone I can play D&D with, who has the same life goals, is as career-oriented as I am, someone who is moderately into fitness like I am, a heteronormative guy - I don't care if he also sleeps with other men, but I'd prefer he just sleep with women. Can't explain it.

I'd love to date an FTM, a hypermasculine fitness freak man, a nice tall slender woman. (I'm obsessed with the tall and slim beauties. As a 5' 6" size 4, I really have this strong desire to experience the body of a 5' 11" size 6 woman.) On the other hand, I'd love to date a woman who wears my shoe and clothing size. That would be pretty useful. :)

I can see myself with two primary partners, probably male and a secondary partner, male or female (more likely, female). It might work with the right woman living with me, but I don't know. I definitely feel my desire sparked by sleeping with more than one person, it makes me more sexually driven, if that makes sense. I definitely need the security of not having to use a condom with primary partners, so I need them to be in committed relationships with their other primary partners and sleeping with a ton of people.

In short, I'm not really sure what I want, but I do know what I'm attracted to, and I know one partner probably isn't right for me.

[nycindie]

Our poly interest began through a d/s lifestyle - Im a dominant with 2 very submissive partners. Im wondering how many other poly relationships have some aspect of a power exchange present in any part of them?

Very much look forward to your comments.

DreamerS, can you talk a bit more about being a solo poly person? Have you read this thread? In general being solo means either being unpartnered or single, not living with any lovers, and not subscribing to hierarchies like primary and secondary, and this thread is a place where we solos can fantasize about our ideal situations for remaining solo. So, I'm not sure if you posted in the right place.

PS, there are plenty of polyfolk into D/s.

[BlackMagicBlonde]

Our ideal depends on how fortunate we are to find other Poly people that we are also lucky enough to care deeply about and it is reciprocated by them. That in itself is a minor miracle.
So long answer longer, our ideal would end up being wherever our hearts take us.
IThink.

i'm new to the practice of polyamory, although not to the idea. this last part takes the words right out of my mouth.

[BlackMagicBlonde]

i'm new to the site and everybody here...and still in a mono relationship with my (male) best friend, Z (my long and dragged-out current story is on the Personal Summaries thread), who wants to keep it that way, while i do not.

at this point...because i have a suspicion that "ideals" will change with the flow of life and time and experience...my ideal relationship would be to live as a solo poly, living alone (as i already do) in my awesome cabin shack, with the options of spending time with him as suits us both; as well as with J (my ex), and also with anybody else, male or female, who moves me to do so, who intrigues me, or with whom i feel myself developing a bond or connection...and for anybody i am connected with in any way to feel free to do the same. we would all spend time connecting regularly, keeping abreast of what's goin on with each other, what's in each other's heads/hearts/guts, hanging sometimes together as a group and sometimes in smaller intimate groups or one-on-one....

i love playing house - but only for a few days at a time, max! i feel i need as much alone time as i do time with anyone else, and as much time with one of my closest partners as i do with another. there's no one at this point with whom i want to have that "primary" committed relationship, even with the option of having other lovers or partners.

i found a line in "Opening Up" (Tristan Taormino) that pretty much sums up how i feel right now:

"i consider myself to be my primary partner. this is a very real label for me, not something that i adopt while waiting for 'The One' to come along. i am my own husband and wife."

i want and need love, support, encouragement, cuddling, sex, intimacy, shared vulnerability, and a lot of other very human things as much as any of us does...but i don't feel like one human can (or i should expect them to) meet all of my needs, and i don't expect myself to be able to meet all the needs of anybody else. we all connect in different ways, and each touch different parts of us, nurture different aspects of each of us....

i'll ramble if i'm let. thanks for listening!

[nycindie]

i love playing house - but only for a few days at a time, max!

I love this statement. It makes so much sense to me.

[BlackMagicBlonde]

update:

Z and i decided to pull the plug on the partnership this past friday night - we were both sick of the cycle, the emotional rollercoaster (on & off, back & forth) - while letting the friendship remain. (that's the quick rundown of it.)

i've had the best weekend in a LONG time, and when we got together for drinks and music for a few hours last night, turns out he has too! and we had a really great evening with friends.

*big sigh of relief*

"each tiny step in the direction of freedom will eventually get you there."
- dossie easton & janet hardy, The Ethical Slut

[nycindie]

BMB, your update shows that being solo poly truly fits you! Glad that it all feels much more comfortable for you.

[piquant]

It's been refreshing to read through this thread and everyone's reasons for being solo. I am somewhat new to living a poly lifestyle (though I'd suspected for years that I'd be happier allowing my relationships to develop naturally, rather than needing to fit them into friend/significant other categories). I've always felt fiercely independent, and worked hard to find the right balance of autonomy in my previous mono relationships.

My desire for independence is what I believe has ultimately led me to change the way I develop and seek relationships. What makes me need to be solo is the same thing that makes me poly.

I identified with what Meera said about needing space:

I don't want to live with anyone or be one half of an intensely bonded couple. I need a lot of space, physically and mentally and emotionally.

I desire intense emotional connection, but feel overwhelmed when it's every day. I don't need to be in constant communication with the important people in my life, and shy away from using facebook or texting as anything more than a means to get in touch with friends and make future plans to meet.

By connecting on varying levels with my network of friends and lovers, I am able to find that space I need. To me, not having a primary relationship means that each relationship has a chance to breathe and evolve naturally, and I don't get caught up (feel suffocated) in any one relationship. After a wonderfully intense weekend with a lover, for example, I am likely over the following week to make plans and reconnect with friends or lovers I have less serious relationships with, or to go on a date with someone new. It's all about balance.

I'd like to have a number of regular lovers that I consider good friends and am emotionally close to. But I don't think relationships need to be "serious" or permanent. For me, dating and sex and love and friendship are all about exploration and getting to know oneself and others.

Again I can relate. I enjoy having relationships that vary in intensity and frequency, and that are allowed to evolve as they will. It is important that I feel valued and loved, and that I know the people I care about feel valued and loved.

Thanks for reading my first post :)

[alicesmiles]

I am a solo poly person. I don't have anyone in my life right now. I have interest in a few people, I am just seeing how things develop.

I can't imagine being married again. I don't feel ready for that at all. I also can't imagine having someone living with my son and I. I am horribly selfish when it comes to him, and want him all for myself. My personality is the type that needs, well, craves my own space. I need to be alone at times for my mind to recharge and regroup. It would be bliss for me to see someone occasionally, and have my own quiet space to go home to.

What is my ideal? I don't know yet. I want a partner(s). I want affection, and love. I have an interest in being in a V or a quad. When I read about those I find myself drawn to those definitions.

[constlady]

I haven't read all of the pages of this thread but from the ones I have, it would seem I have a different view.

I have been solo and poly for 10 years now. I've been involved in various configurations of connection throughout that time but since I have not lived with another adult in that time, I consider myself solo.
I definitely am not solo by choice or preference but by logistics at this point.

I have been frustrated by the couple-centric versions of poly that abound in the real world. Because I did not open up an existing relationship but came to poly as a single person, I am expected to tolerate the hierarchical model that insists on protecting the "primary" relationship at all costs.

At the moment I am having a poly crisis of faith; I know what I want from relationships but it seems that the poly folk I become involved with want to relegate me to a lesser status rather than build a partnership with me.

My ideal relationship(s) would have someone(s) for me to come home to, someone to go to bed with, to wake up with, to grow old with, to build a life with, to feel that I am a priority in their life and to let them know that they are a priority in mine. Partners in all senses of the word with love and support without restriction.

I have a long term love who does his very best to not make me feel secondary but the logistics of our relationship and the realities of both of our lives mean that we can't be under the same roof for more than a decade and I am simply not willing to be alone for another 10 years. I'm also not sure I want to be the one who has to move in with him and his other partner, as that scenario by its very nature places me on a lesser-than status.

This is one relationship of two in my experience that have wanted me to move in but it was made clear that the existing couple would continue to share a bedroom and I would have my own. That model to me felt inherently unequal and was not the version of poly that resonated with me.

My ideal relationships are completely equitable, in word, thought, deed and feeling.

After 10 years of active poly living, I've not been able to find that ideal and I am beginning to wonder if it truly exists.

[caitlin]

As said already, I don't identify as poly, but open-minded and currently single.

I have a loving non-sexual relationship with a married man whose wife doesn't know about me. We see each other weekly and chat, do up my house, have lunch etc.

I have a married lover whose wife knows about me. He and his wife no longer intimate and she has a lover. We see each other for weekends etc according to matching schedules at least monthly. We have a sexual and spanking relationship.

I would like something more, but not looking for anyone to be central to my life. I like NYC's idea of series of beaux to go with the apartment, although a little out of place in my corner of Wales!

I'd like ongoing relationship(s) with affectionate, fun, eager for sex male(s) capable of reasonable conversation who are genuinely "available" and not cheating on/hurting anyone else. I've joked in the past about being shallow with men with depth and bout wanting something between the one night stand and long term relationship.

I love company but also appreciate my own space. I don't want or need a "primary" - very happy as I am - that's why I see myself as a "friends with benefits" type rather than poly. Is it possible to be poly as a phase? My ideal is either monogomy (with or without co-habiting) or mutiple lovers for whome I feel affection and care, but not intensity of monogomous partner. I think I am mono at heart but see no reason to miss out on affection, sex and intimacy if I don't happen along someone to fit the bill.

I'm a best of both worlds woman. Like the idea of monogamy or luscious lovers Perhaps I am merely shallow and/or greedy...;):)

[SkylerSquirrel]

I definitely consider myself a solo poly.

My view:

- Every relationship is a friendship, and friendship is paramount in every relationship. Sex, romantic feelings, and physical touch are merely added bonuses.

- I will probably have different levels of intimacy with different friends - there won't be a neat line between "lover-friends" and "platonic friends." Some friends I have sex with, some friends are cuddle-friends, some friends are somewhere in between. Then there are the friends that are hugs-only or don't-even-hug-me (the latter would be their choice, not mine. I like hugs :))

- My relationships do not "begin" and "end" unless a friendship is beginning or ending. All other changes in intimacy level are a change in the dynamics of a friendship. I'm going through a divorce right now ... I don't see it as an end to a relationship, but rather a changing relationship.

- I am committed to loving and caring about my friends no matter what happens, and being there for them as much as I am practically able to. That is all. Everything else is go with the flow.

- I wouldn't mind living with my friends, whether they are my lovers or not, but I wouldn't commit to doing it permanently (although if it worked out well, it might end up being permanent just because no one ever moves out :D).

- Every friendship is its own thing and is not defined by any other friendship/relationship I might have, except to the degree that they are mutual friends.

- People who I am having sex with have the right to know who else I am having sex with for safety reasons. But other than that, no one needs to know the details of my other relationships, although we may share details as we feel it is appropriate. Openness and honesty is the rule, but respecting privacy is also a rule.

- I am SO DEFINITELY my own primary.

[caitlin]

What an interesting perspective - love the idea of being one's own primary.
Perhaps I'm too quick with the labels.

[nycindie]

I'd like ongoing relationship(s) with affectionate, fun, eager for sex male(s) capable of reasonable conversation who are genuinely "available" and not cheating on/hurting anyone else.
I really like how you put this! I might steal it, LOL.