Why and how did you get into poly?

What type of poly origin did you have?

  • I've always had poly tendencies and never really took to monogamy

    Votes: 42 12.7%
  • I've always had poly tendencies and tried to be monogamous before

    Votes: 119 35.8%
  • I fell in love with a poly person and have adapted to the lifestyle

    Votes: 50 15.1%
  • I read or heard about someone else's poly experiences and thought it could work for me

    Votes: 42 12.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 79 23.8%

  • Total voters
    332
I "knew" at a pretty young age but had no reference points. It was all friends with benefits, relationships with out major commitments etc. It wasn't until two years ago that I began to do some serious self reflection and realized that being in a strictly monogamous relationship wasn't joyful. After exploring sex parties, swinging, casual threesomes, etc it became clear that there was a key element missing: Emotional connection.

And so here I am. Discovering self anew, finding joy in new possibilities and enjoying the renewed passion sparked in my long term relationship. It's been a long trip to identifying as a person who can love more than one, from a girl who did it without definition in her youth.
 
FWIW, what sealed "being poly" for me wasn't my wanting to have other partners.

It was the total disconnect between the norm (a couple is inviolable) and what made sense to me (...but I would totally not get in the way! Just be extra! And cute! You could both love me if you wanted!).

That's not to say monogamy ever worked well for me as a lovestyle, or that I knew how to choose well. But I couldn't have figured this out if I hadn't also known that I'd be fine sharing a lover, not just being shared.
 
... as soon as I start reaching the point where I have to start to commit to something, I get this feeling that I'm "locked in" and just feel anxious and suffocated and have this really insistent worry about making the wrong decision...

First, let me say I haven't read the whole thread, but wanted to respond to this anyway.

Second, you're going to have to do some "inner work" with this, if you want to be free of it. You could do this inner work with a counselor or therapist or on your own, but don't avoid it.

I recommend mindfulness meditation practice as a very significant support for any "inner work" practice or therapy. Especially Buddhist-style mindfulness on the body and breath.
 
nycindie - love the blog article you posted. thanks for that!

i second most of MorningTwilight's and lovefromgirl's feelings.
PLUS, my temperament and my work/passion as an artist leads me to want to spend as much time by myself as i do with a partner, lover, or friend. WITHOUT the presence of someone emotionally close to me - whether alone in my backyard or by myself at a table in a cafe/pub - thinking my own thoughts, letting ideas and inspiration come as they will, and just generally not having nothing drawing my attention elsewhere.

for me, commitment means being there for someone when they really need you.

my best friend/partner and my small network of close friends KNOW that if they're stuck on the side of the road, i'll drop whatever i'm doing and go help them with whatever needs to be done. bail them out of jail. they can sleep with their head on my lap all night or for two weeks straight if someone breaks their hearts and that's what they really need. and i know the same is true of them. to me, this is commitment.

also - it means you and your people giving each other the freedom to be who they truly are. no need to fake, no fear of judgment or condemnation.

friends, partners, lovers, kin...no difference to me where commitment is concerned.
 
To answer the original question, I don't know.

I wound up in this situation I am in, which is married and dating a girl together with my wife, quite accidentally. I wasn't sure what to make of it, and in the process of looking for answers it seemed like the poly shoe was the one that fit. All I did was go with the flow and do what seemed right.
 
The OP probably isn't with us anymore, and most people probably know this already, but I wanted to say it anyway (it keeps me distracted from what I should be doing, which is reason enough):

There's nothing bad about fearing commitment, or not wanting to commit to a partner, if that's what everyone's on board with.

Some reasons why people might not want to commit to romantic relationships, other than being afraid of commitment or being indecisive:
1) Youth. Not wanting to commit to a romantic partnership at the age of 25 doesn't mean there's something wrong with you.
2) Been there, done that. If you just got out of a 20 year marriage, it's okay not to want to get into another right off the bat.
3) Relationship anarchy. You are allergic to labels and defining your relationships.
4) Sleeping around. Self-explanatory.
5) Aromanticism. Plenty of aro people want a relationship that's not romantic that involves commitment, but not everyone does.
6) You just don't want to.

Not wanting to commit to romantic partnerships is not the same thing as being damaged goods or leading people on or being afraid of feelings and of growing up. If you are kind enough to let people you bump into know that you have no plans to make this bumping a regular thing and don't expect them to commit to bumping into you, you are good to go a-bumping imho.
 
5) Aromanticism. Plenty of aro people want a relationship that's not romantic that involves commitment, but not everyone does.

Whew -- 'aromanticism'. Gonna have to google that. "Romantic/ism" has long seemed a little vague to me, anyway. I mean, if it's all about literally giving/receiving flowers, chocolates ... and sharing candle-lit dinners, I'm ony just a little "romantic". But if it's about deeply involving and committed relationships, I'm way more romantic than many (or maybe most)!

Anyway, I'm amazed that there are people using the self-designation "aromantic" and yet still "committed". Wow.

Hey, wait. Most close friendships are committed and yet not romantic. I wonder if people sometimes have "aromantic" friendships that include sex! Hmm.
 
QUOTE: "Where romantic people have an emotional need to be with another person in a romantic relationship, aromantics are often satisfied with friendships and other non-romantic relationships. What distinguishes romantic relationships from a non-romantic relationships can vary diversely, but often includes physical connection (holding hands, cuddling, etc.) and monogamous partnership.

[....]

People anywhere on the sexual spectrum (sexual, asexual, grey-A, etc.) may be aromantic."



from - http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Aromantic

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

Thus the term "aromantic" (as defined here) is too vague to mean anything in particular. Surely it does not come down to whether one enjoys holding hands!

And I say this in part because the provided definition allows for both "sexuals" and "asexuals" to be aromantic, or romantic. So "romantic" isn't defined by sexual interest or practice in any way--as here defined. Nor is it defined in any way, really. It isn't defined by interest level, commitment level, passion level, or any discernable anything. Hmm.
 
Last edited:
If you are kind enough to let people you bump into know that you have no plans to make this bumping a regular thing and don't expect them to commit to bumping into you, you are good to go a-bumping imho.


Plenty of aro people want a relationship that's not romantic that involves commitment....

What does it mean to have a commitment while also being clear that one does not intend -- or hope -- to "bump into" again?

Perhaps I'm simply responding to a typo?
 
http://www.aromantic.org/

"Aromanticism," it seems to me, is FAR to vague about what "romantic" means to have its not-romantic in order.
 
River, romantic, aromantic, heteroromantic, homoromantic, biromantic, panromantic, etc are the emotional equivalent of the "-sexual" words.

So instead of whether the person is sexually attracted to people, it's about whether they're emotionally attracted to people. In other words, who they fall in love with. Aromantic means no falling in love. Doesn't mean other strong bonds don't exist and some do pair up or marry for other reasons (the advantage of raising a kid together for instance, or having each other's financial support, or many other options), but it's not what we traditionally think of as a relationship (of course on this forum, not much is traditional :p)

It has little to do with whether you give someone chocolates or flowers.

Grey-a people are people who are not quite asexual but not as sexual either, in that they only develop a sexual attraction to people they are in love with. As a result I imagine they can't be aromantic.
 
Thank you, Tonberry. And the bumping comment wasn't meant to refer to aros only.

A-romantic people, as said, do not experience romantic attractions to other people. Fictional depictions of aromantic people include Sherlock Holmes, Dexter and arguably, Doctor Who. Of course in these pop culture references, aromanticism is due to other extraordinary features of the characters, such as abnormally high intelligence, sociopathy or being an alien from outer space. So they are very stereotypical depictions of aro people as a 'breed apart' or a psychopathological segment of the population. Also, in the above examples, the characters are also asexual or near enough, but this is not a trait shared by all aros.

Aro people can wish to have a circle of friends and family they want to be close to, be content alone, or want to have a special close friend above all others. The special friend can be referred to as a zucchini, queerplatonic partner, hetero lifemate, a companion, what have you.

To oversimplify a complex phenomenon, aro people don't want to date. Anyone. (Exceptions occur, and they are a bitch).

A good tumblr on the (a)romantic spectrum is http://aromanticaardvark.tumblr.com/.
 
To me poly is all about commitment. I have committed to my partners and they to me. Commitment means freedom for me as I have people who love me and will support me in my life yet I am free to be me and live my life as I see fit. Commitment does not equal being trapped and owned or succumbing to some form of cultural norm in terms of monogamy. It means that I don't float in a sea of people alone. It means I am not associated with people who have their own best interests in mind and care nothing of mine. Commitment breeds empathy and connection far more than anything I have ever known. Its the cement of the love I have for my partners, family and friends. Without it the foundation of everything in my life would eventually topple.
 
I have said this before but I think asking how to know if one is poly or not could be a waste of time. The more important questions, as I see it anyway, are:
What kinds of relationships do I want in my life?

How do I go about creating them?

What brings me fulfillment in relationships?

What effect do I have on the people I love and care about?

How can I live my life so that my relationships are the best possible expression of who I am and how I love?

Compared to those, I think "Am I poly?" is like asking "Am I blonde?" No matter the answer, it doesn't really amount to much without also asking some of the above.
 
I think when someone is questioning whether or not they're poly nycindie's Questions #1 and #5 are automatically involved. Generally something has happened where they or a partner want more than one romantic relationship, so that gets Question #1 going. And then Question #5 is looking at the "Am I someone that needs to be poly (or mono)? Or can I be happy either way and get to choose?" part.

Lots of people new to poly aren't going to know what they want and how they would be happiest until they give multiple relationships an honest try. I know no one wants to be someone's "poly experiment", but it's not experimenting in a callous or disrespectful way to say, "I really care about you and would like to have a relationship with you, but I'm hesitant for *fill in the blank* reasons. If we give this a try, can we move slowly and see how it goes?" The keys, as usual, are communication and honesty, and avoiding charging ahead at full speed just because there's something new and shiny on the horizon. That's how train wrecks happen.
 
I was actually having a version of this conversation with my dad this weekend. I was having a hard time explaining how it's optional for me. (well, it used to be, I dunno, I maybe can't go back. I know I can't go back to just one of these two, but if one of them chooses otherwise, I'm not sure what I'd do)

Bisexual doesn't define whether I choose men or women for relationship. It just means that it's possible for me to be with either one. Recognizing that I'm capable of more than one love doesn't mean I'm always going to seek it. I love who I love, and that I'm fortunate enough to have two people that are okay with me loving them both is AWESOME. But should they be taken away by aliens tomorrow (something I think they both might love), I wouldn't stop loving. I would still want people to share my life. I can't say for certain I would or wouldn't seek multiple; but I can't say for certain I could stay in a dyad only. To me, this means OPTIONAL.
 
I think when someone is questioning whether or not they're poly nycindie's Questions #1 and #5 are automatically involved.
Hahaha! Perhaps in some cases. I would hope it is true in most cases. But lots of people ask "Am I poly?" because they want an excuse to fuck anything that moves, and they are worlds away from contemplating how they can create loving relationships to be the best possible expression of who they are.

angel6.gif
 
Last edited:
The OP probably isn't with us anymore, and most people probably know this already, but I wanted to say it anyway (it keeps me distracted from what I should be doing, which is reason enough):

There's nothing bad about fearing commitment, or not wanting to commit to a partner, if that's what everyone's on board with.

Some reasons why people might not want to commit to romantic relationships, other than being afraid of commitment or being indecisive:
1) Youth. Not wanting to commit to a romantic partnership at the age of 25 doesn't mean there's something wrong with you.
2) Been there, done that. If you just got out of a 20 year marriage, it's okay not to want to get into another right off the bat.
3) Relationship anarchy. You are allergic to labels and defining your relationships.
4) Sleeping around. Self-explanatory.
5) Aromanticism. Plenty of aro people want a relationship that's not romantic that involves commitment, but not everyone does.
6) You just don't want to.

Not wanting to commit to romantic partnerships is not the same thing as being damaged goods or leading people on or being afraid of feelings and of growing up. If you are kind enough to let people you bump into know that you have no plans to make this bumping a regular thing and don't expect them to commit to bumping into you, you are good to go a-bumping imho.

Thanks for posting this, BlackUnicorn. You pretty much captured all the reasons why I cringe at the thought of getting into a deeply committed relationship, yet do not feel I have an unhealthy fear of commitment.

"Aromanticism." Never heard that till today, but I'm so glad that's a thing! Maybe it's the identity I've been looking for.

But the abbreviation "aro" irritates me. I see that it's used by the (very new) National Coalition for Aromantic Visibility, but it looks weird spelled out, is not obvious how it's pronounced, and seems to generate more confusion rather than less. The purpose of labels should be to simplify, clarify, and facilitate communication. When people go too far with abbreviations, it creates more of a secret lingo understood only by the community, rather than an easy shorthand for explaining oneself to others.

(For the same reason, I don't really like the terms "mono" and "poly." Outside the poly community, mono is the kissing disease. And to my engineer brother, poly refers to polymer materials or something.)

Thanks, BlackUnicorn, for bringing aromanticism to my attention. I feel kind of relieved that at least a few other people have thought of the concept!
 
Is this a reason to try polyamory?

Hello,

I am new to this forum and to concept of polyamory.

I have been in several mono relationships, and am currently in one with a guy who is very different from myself, almost polar opposites. Due to differing perspectives and values and personal processes, I often find my emotional needs unmet.

I'm wondering if this is a reason to consider going poly? I love him and want to be with him, but want to experience certain ways of expressing and receiving love that just aren't his style, and I dont want to force anything onto him or put on unfair expectations

What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks!
 
Back
Top