View Single Post
  #100  
Old 07-13-2013, 11:34 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flowerchild View Post
What if the toxic person was an established member of the group? Say, if YOU were the new person, and the wife/established partner was the toxic one? THEN what do you do? You, having less seniority, how do you kick that member out? Should you? How would you even begin to go about that?

My point is, if you and he are established....and she is earning her way in, then, seriously, tell him that she goes . . .

Once she's an established member, and has equal rights to you, you're not going to be able to do anything about it.
Just have to say... this is such a foreign, unattractive concept to me, that I am having a problem wrapping my brain around what you wrote. Earning seniority within a group... angling to oust someone... sounds like the goings-on within a 16th century royal family, with shadowy figures lurking about on the landing and all that.

I mean, if I start dating someone who is partnered, I would not view myself as having to earn my "place" among his spouse or other lovers, or not having any rights until I am "established," whatever the hell that means. I'd just be thinking about my relationship with that person... stuff like how much we like each other, conversations we've had, how often I will see him, the sex, what to do on our dates, etc. I'm not plotting to overthrow a monarchy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flowerchild View Post
. . . once the other woman, in this case, starts becoming a real part of the group, it's much, much harder to make that person go away. No matter how "toxic" you feel they are.
At what point is a person considered "real?" And until that time, other partners can make them go away? See, this doesn't sound like polyamory to me - that is, the kind of loving relationships I'd want to have in dating multiple people. It sounds like a corporate work environment or a country club. I am just stymied here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flowerchild View Post
As for Marcus, there's absolutely seniority in multi-person relationships. If I'm newer, I'd like to think they would treat me respectfully, but it's kind of my issue if I can't get along with someone more established (what am I going to do, tell my partner they have to divorce a spouse?).
When you say "multi-person" relationships, do you mean when everyone is involved with each other, like triads, quads, and so on? Or are you applying that to vees as well? I disagree that there is "absolutely seniority" in poly situations, or in other words that there has to be. Every relationship is different. Someone I meet can be so right for me, it doesn't matter how long we've been together. I would always treat them with equal respect as anyone else I might already be involved with prior. What does seniority look like in love relationships, anyway? That the senior person gets first dibs on my time or affection? It just doesn't make any sense to me to place people I love in a hierarchy or pecking order.

In addition, there is no rule in poly that decrees all metamours have to get along, become friends, or even have contact. I certainly would consider it a bonus if I felt a metamour was a friend, but it's definitely not a necessity. If a guy I was dating required me to befriend his other lover or spouse, I'd seriously question how deeply I'd want to be with someone who has such control issues. I'll befriend whomever I want, thank you very much. If a metamour and I don't seem to hit it off or get along, I just wouldn't hang out with her. I'm not dating her, I'm dating him, so what's the big deal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flowerchild View Post
. . . a lot of people go into this-- this is from talking to friends in the poly community-- thinking that they can just bring people in and kick them out with no regards to that person's feelings OR their partner's feelings.
I would never get involved with people like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
A really good point has been raised that is practical and applies to the majority of people. What if it is the spouse/live in partner that is toxic? The majority of us do or will one day end up living with a partner and being significantly entangled with them as a result. Primary style entanglements. Joint financial obligations, kids perhaps, family responsibilities. If someone I met had a toxic partner, or a partner that became toxic and they had a primary style relationship in this fashion, and I really loved them or whatever and didn't feel ending the otherwise healthy relationship was a real option, you would be screwed.

Of course you can put up boundaries about the physical and emotional space you share with that person but those boundaries you enforce are more likely to limit the relationship you have with your partner. If you decide never to be in the same room as them, that means you can never go to your partner's house. If you decide to never socialise with them, that restricts you from certain social events that you may wish to attend and therefore, potentially limits the time you could be spending with your shared partner.

It puts limits on the future, the idea of you all sharing a home is not just unrealistic or challenging, it is a complete no no.
Does it really seem to you that the majority of people in polyamorous relationships eventually want to cohabit with all their partners? I highly doubt that. There are many, many, many solos out there, who do not want to share our homes with anyone. That doesn't mean the relationships we have are limited, less serious, or have no future. Not everyone can all live together - especially if a lover is already partnered and living with someone. I don't think it should always be assumed that any lovers a partnered person gets involved with will ultimately want to move in, nor that cohabitation is always the goal. As a solo, and an introvert, I value my personal space and independence, and I prefer my relationships to be independent and separate from each other.

It would not be a priority to me to try and cultivate a close friendship with a metamour, although it would be great if it happened organically. If she's toxic, I'd avoid her and re-assess whether or not the guy I am involved with has his head screwed on straight. If he's into crazy bitches, he's probably not into me, but I might rethink putting more investment in a relationship with someone who attracts nut jobs.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein

Last edited by nycindie; 07-13-2013 at 01:51 PM.
Reply With Quote