No such thing as polyamorous relationship?

but the word "commitment" seems more fitting as foundational in our relationship than "goals" does.

We're committed to being honest with one another, loving one another, trying to be kind and loving as much as we can.

I know this is not going to be a popular statement and I fully believe that it is a function of conditioning and not wiring but I have such a hard time with the concept of "commitment" within non-monogamous relationships. This is probably one of the areas that I feel the least grounded in. I have a tendency to find peace in concepts through internalizing which means my personal work continues.

When I say I have a hard time accepting the term commitment I don't mean to imply that people can't commit to loving each other or caring for each other. I think of it from the perspective of public declarations.

How does this affect my relationship? Certainly in the area of ceremonies or public declarations of our union.
Trust me I know this concept sounds bizarre but I am so "conditioned" to see commitment in the traditional church going monogamous sense that I have a hard time focusing on it from any other perspective and need to hold on the concrete things for stability.

This is a total hi-jack LOL! I have been internalizing the concept of commitment for a long time and continue to look at it as it applies to the external declarations. Hmmm....my hijacking continues LOL!! I think there is another thread about this. Sorry!!
 
How does this affect my relationship? Certainly in the area of ceremonies or public declarations of our union.
Trust me I know this concept sounds bizarre but I am so "conditioned" to see commitment in the traditional church going monogamous sense that I have a hard time focusing on it from any other perspective and need to hold on the concrete things for stability.

I hope you will find in your own depths of experience some inborn wisdom which allows you to relinquish the need or desire for external authority in such matters.

There is a common ground of reality and truth in these matters which doesn't require -- or benefit from -- external authority. It is most difficult to point at, but you can find it if you look very carefully and with subtle vision.
 
I see where you are going with what you wrote. And it makes sense. But, in my situation I don't know how you would define it. Mine and my husbands relationship started out mon. But over the four that we've been together we decided to change it, we want to add to it. So though our relationship changed we did not. We are the same people, same beliefs we always had. We just didn't realize until we were together that this is something that we would want. It's strange how it all came about, it's even stranger that though we both thought it for a while, neither of us would say it out loud. We were to worried about losing each other, which we never want to happen....and it's never going to!!

So I do have to disagree. It's hardwired into us, that's for sure. It was there all along, but we chose this. Our relationship started mon. and has ended up poly.

But I like what you wrote!! :p
 
I hope you will find in your own depths of experience some inborn wisdom which allows you to relinquish the need or desire for external authority in such matters.

There is a common ground of reality and truth in these matters which doesn't require -- or benefit from -- external authority. It is most difficult to point at, but you can find it if you look very carefully and with subtle vision.

I hope so too River. But it's not the need for an external authority for recognition.It's about the meaning and message. Here is where my traditional conditioning crashes against the idea of declared commitment without exclusivity. (I eloped with my ex-wife because celebrating our union was something neither of us felt required witness - it was internal). Everone around us knew what that meant though.

The big question I will need to come to terms with is determining what the idea of "commitment declared" to others in a non-monogamous relationship means. Not commitment, itself, but the declaration of that commitment. What are we saying to others? Monogamous unions are simple at the core "I am exclusively for you, you are exclusively for me". Everyone in attendance knows what it means in traditional mainstream circles. But what is the message in a non-traditional non monogamous declaration?

This I believe will be the next break through for me in my journey.

Thanks for you thoughts on this River.

Mono
 
I do think that I have a polyamorous nature, and that I'm not inclined toward monogamy. This wasn't always the case. I've changed. After my first love relationship crumbled, something fundamentally shifted in my heart and soul. I'll never again expect that any single person or relationship can fulfill all of my needs for intmacy and loving. So far as I can tell. And that is in no way suggestive that I can't love fully. I can.

I'm capable of monogamy. It's just not my preference. Is it an orientation more than a preference? I suppose it is. Hmm.

So, yeah, I think I'm a poly person. And I'm not sure it matters so much that we all agree on how to use language to define or describe our relationships. That is, if there is a poly person and a mono person together in a relationship, I'd say let them decide whether the relationship is poly or whatever. For some, it will be important to define the relationship as poly. Great! Let 'em. Others won't define it that way because some member/s of the grouping are mono. Fine. Whatever.

I'm willing to be persuaded that I'm missing some important point in my response. I'm just trying to find the most respectful approach to the question -- and, frankly, I'm not sure it matters much how folks settle it.

One thing does seem clear enough to me, however. Some people are poly -- whether or not they are involved in "romantic" relationships and whether or not they have multiple partners. I'm definitely poly, but I have only one partner! At the moment.

I understand what you've said. Whether it is a preference or an orientation, I know that polyamory is what feels right to me. I'm in a relationship with one other as well at the moment but that doesn't somehow mean that I am not polyamorous. The same would be true is I was solo.

The concept of "I am in a poly relationship therefore I am poly," bases too much of who I am, of what my identity is, on other people. I think this can also lead to an unhealthy mindset at times of "I have had this many poly relationships or had these relationships this long therefore I am poly-er than thou."

How polyamory is attached to one's identity and the form it takes within their relationships is up to that person and those within relationships.


This hardly seems to be the case with either myself or my partner of 14 years. We both have goals, but not so much goals for our relationship. We share common goals -- like going backpacking in spring..., but the word "commitment" seems more fitting as foundational in our relationship than "goals" does.

We're committed to being honest with one another, loving one another, trying to be kind and loving as much as we can.... We're committed to staying open to growth and evolution. To trusting one another. Stuff like that. Goals are not so much the ruddder or the guidance for us. Our commitments are. Focussing on goals overly much can get in the way of the unpredictable nature of life's natural unfolding.

My love and I have separate goals as well but they are not identical to each other or even similar in some cases. We support each other in our individual dreams and endeavors.

What I do find to be a crucial part of any relationship is the sharing of values. It could possibly be highlighted as a cornerstone of compatibility.

~Raven~
 
I hope you will find in your own depths of experience some inborn wisdom which allows you to relinquish the need or desire for external authority in such matters.

There is a common ground of reality and truth in these matters which doesn't require -- or benefit from -- external authority. It is most difficult to point at, but you can find it if you look very carefully and with subtle vision.

I find the call for external authority which legitimizes a certain view and form of polyamory and polyamorous relationship tends to also exclude other views on polyamory. It does not forge bonds within the poly community. I believe if laws were ever created based on this mindset many within poly relationships would be disadvantaged because their perspectives and relationships differ and therefore their relationships would not be recognized.

~Raven~
 


What I do find to be a crucial part of any relationship is the sharing of values. It could possibly be highlighted as a cornerstone of compatibility.

~Raven~

There definitely has to be similar core values in order for a relationship to even get off the ground in my experience. Otherwise all the work to overcome other differences would seem too much I think. Good point.
Differences are healthy and intriguing in most cases but fundamental differences like the presence of racism or the value of emotional involvement would not be.
 
I do think that I have a polyamorous nature, and that I'm not inclined toward monogamy. This wasn't always the case. I've changed. After my first love relationship crumbled, something fundamentally shifted in my heart and soul. I'll never again expect that any single person or relationship can fulfill all of my needs for intmacy and loving. So far as I can tell. And that is in no way suggestive that I can't love fully. I can.
Wow. Kind of had to reread to be sure I hadn't written this myself and forgotten! So true in my life!

I'm capable of monogamy. It's just not my preference. Is it an orientation more than a preference? I suppose it is. Hmm.
Hmm, good food for thought here. I have to say I think my being poly is much like my being bi. As someone else said-even if I am currently not in a relationship with a woman-I am still bi despite my two heterosexual relationships.

One thing does seem clear enough to me, however. Some people are poly -- whether or not they are involved in "romantic" relationships and whether or not they have multiple partners. I'm definitely poly, but I have only one partner! At the moment.

Agreed agreed agreed. :)
 
I am editing this just to add I am actually a little blown away by how simple and yet personally "perfect" I find your idea to be. WOW! Hope you don't mind me steeling this train of thought!

Don't mind at all, in fact, I'm flattered!

So, yeah, I think I'm a poly person. And I'm not sure it matters so much that we all agree on how to use language to define or describe our relationships. That is, if there is a poly person and a mono person together in a relationship, I'd say let them decide whether the relationship is poly or whatever. For some, it will be important to define the relationship as poly. Great! Let 'em. Others won't define it that way because some member/s of the grouping are mono. Fine. Whatever.

You're right there. It's one of those quirks of english that something can be non-gramatical and still perfectly able to convey an idea. I'm actually not suggesting that people stop using the phrase "polyamorous relationship." It's useful to convey, quickly, which type of non-exclusive relationship it is. But I think reframing our perception as people being poly rather than the relationship helps clarify confusion for some people.

Ironically, I totally think that it makes sense to say a "non-monogamous" relationship, more than it makes sense to say a polyamorous relationship.

We share common goals -- like going backpacking in spring..., but the word "commitment" seems more fitting as foundational in our relationship than "goals" does.

We're committed to being honest with one another, loving one another, trying to be kind and loving as much as we can.... We're committed to staying open to growth and evolution. To trusting one another. Stuff like that. Goals are not so much the ruddder or the guidance for us. Our commitments are. Focussing on goals overly much can get in the way of the unpredictable nature of life's natural unfolding.

I agree. Goals change, but commitment doesn't (ideally). We might one day decide together that we don't like our current life path and therefore we'll change our goals, but that doesn't affect our commitment to one another. We also both have personal goals, and our commitment means that we will do what we can to help each other achieve their own personal goals, even if it sometimes means putting our own on hold for a while.

I know this is not going to be a popular statement and I fully believe that it is a function of conditioning and not wiring but I have such a hard time with the concept of "commitment" within non-monogamous relationships.

When I say I have a hard time accepting the term commitment I don't mean to imply that people can't commit to loving each other or caring for each other. I think of it from the perspective of public declarations.

I have to confess, we were lazy when we planned the wording of the ceremony. Even though the commissioner read us the "Do you take so-and-so to be your husband [blah blah blah] and forsake all others?" line before hand, we didn't even bother taking it out. We were both willing to say "I do" and ignore that part of the promise forever more :p The "standard ceremony" in our province has three separate places where you make "vow-like statements" ... We used the canned "I do" and "with this ring" vows, and then we wrote our own "I promise to ..." vows. Those were the only "real vows" and the rest was "legal stuff" :p

I've never felt that commitment equals exclusivity. I'm committed to doing well at school, paying the bills on time, and feeding my cats before they get hungry. I'm committed to understanding and supporting my husband, helping him grow as the person he wants to be, and putting his emotional needs on equal footing with my own. We were committed to one another long before we got married, the wedding just put that commitment in writing...

I see where you are going with what you wrote. And it makes sense. But, in my situation I don't know how you would define it. Mine and my husbands relationship started out mon. But over the four that we've been together we decided to change it, we want to add to it. So though our relationship changed we did not. We are the same people, same beliefs we always had. We just didn't realize until we were together that this is something that we would want.

So I do have to disagree. It's hardwired into us, that's for sure. It was there all along, but we chose this. Our relationship started mon. and has ended up poly.

I think your situation is the PERFECT reason to reject calling relationships themselves as poly... As individuals, you were both always poly. When you got together, your relationship started out as exclusive, and now it's non-exclusive.

For the record, I see no reason why someone's identity can't change. Someone can grow up monogamous and only desire one romantic partner at a time, and then wake up one day feeling bored with her 30 year marriage, and want something more. I wouldn't say that she was "poly all along" because up until that point, she may never have wanted more than one love, which means until that point, she was a monogamous person. But people change.
 
We're committed to being honest with one another, loving one another, trying to be kind and loving as much as we can.... We're committed to staying open to growth and evolution. To trusting one another. Stuff like that. Goals are not so much the ruddder or the guidance for us. Our commitments are. Focussing on goals overly much can get in the way of the unpredictable nature of life's natural unfolding.

Being committed to each other is one thing, wanting the same things out of the relationship are something else entirely.

In the situation I'd previously mentioned, they're very committed to their marriage, and we're all committed to being friends and supporting each other.
That's not even an issue.

However, there's some conflict over the details. She'd like to have a mostly monogamous (and completely monoamorous) marriage, have sex when she feels like it (every 2-3 months) and have 3rd adult in the household to help with chores, kids and finances. He'd like to have sex on a regular basis (at least a few times a week), not hurt anyone's feelings and stay married to his wife, and he'd like more help with housework than she normally provides. I'd like to have a poly relationship with him, and not hurt anyone's feelings in the process. So, is there any way that commitment will help resolve this situation in a way that we'd all be okay with?
 
Being committed to each other is one thing, wanting the same things out of the relationship are something else entirely.

In the situation I'd previously mentioned, they're very committed to their marriage, and we're all committed to being friends and supporting each other.
That's not even an issue.

However, there's some conflict over the details. She'd like to have a mostly monogamous (and completely monoamorous) marriage, have sex when she feels like it (every 2-3 months) and have 3rd adult in the household to help with chores, kids and finances. He'd like to have sex on a regular basis (at least a few times a week), not hurt anyone's feelings and stay married to his wife, and he'd like more help with housework than she normally provides. I'd like to have a poly relationship with him, and not hurt anyone's feelings in the process. So, is there any way that commitment will help resolve this situation in a way that we'd all be okay with?

I don't think commitment is what will help resolve this situation... I would have to say that commitment only comes in to play after all parties have decided what they want to "commit to."

I guess in relation to "goals vs commitment" being the foundation of a relationship, your situation shows that people need to have compatible goals before it makes sense to talk about commitment.

I don't remember my spouse and I ever actually talking about our goals before getting into a relationship. We met, were infatuated, and that feeling has never faded, and along with it has grown a very deep and meaningful love that far surpasses the initial infatuation. I do remember that once in the relationship, it occurred to us that we should discuss our goals, both in the relationship and as individuals. We weren't surprised to find that our goals were compatible.

I think the commitment initially grew on its own, not because we thought it should. He was the first person I cared enough about to actually give a crap how he felt about what I did. I'm naturally selfish, I won't deny it, but that was one of the things that made me realize I was committed to him: I didn't want to be selfish when it would cause him pain or discomfort... For his part, he had never been one to talk about his feelings. Actually, more than that, he didn't really acknowledge that he HAD feelings. Long story. But one of the signs of his commitment was the angst he went through to learn how to talk about his feelings, share his thoughts, and trust me with his secrets, trust me not to criticize him for having certain emotional responses to things. But overall, I think the commitment is an entity unto itself, and these are all products of that commitment, not the other way around.
 
Last edited:
Incompatible goals/values and commitment

Being committed to each other is one thing, wanting the same things out of the relationship are something else entirely.
Ah yes, I think this is an excellent distinction. Commitment, at least the way I define it, doesn't "gloss over" fundamental details in terms of values and goals. It might make you feel like you wish to stay around to find some common ground, even when you suspect there is not, but once it is final that goals or values are incompatible, then no amount of commitment will cause the relationship to be a happy one.

However, there's some conflict over the details. She'd like to have a mostly monogamous (and completely monoamorous) marriage, have sex when she feels like it (every 2-3 months) and have 3rd adult in the household to help with chores, kids and finances. He'd like to have sex on a regular basis (at least a few times a week), not hurt anyone's feelings and stay married to his wife, and he'd like more help with housework than she normally provides. I'd like to have a poly relationship with him, and not hurt anyone's feelings in the process. So, is there any way that commitment will help resolve this situation in a way that we'd all be okay with?
I agree with you - no, there is no way that this can be forced to work without some negotiation, which may or may not come up with a solution.

In my own situation and when helping others, i have have recommended that people think about what they want in terms of the "bottom lines" - what do they absolutely need in order to be happy. This isn't always the complete list of things they would *like*. Once you work out your bottom line you can compare with the others that you are trying to have a relationship with - if there are some clashes in those bottom lines, then there's really no point in continuing to thrash about - bottom-lines are non-negotiable things and the only way to force it to work is if someone gives up something that is vitally important to them for the "sake of the relationship". They won't be happy, and resentment and anger will creep in.

It's not a new concept, and it's certainly not originally mine (i.e. I won't take credit for it), but I have found that it works. I wrote about it at greater length in my blog at http://cieldumatin.livejournal.com/.
 
However, there's some conflict over the details. She'd like to have a mostly monogamous (and completely monoamorous) marriage, have sex when she feels like it (every 2-3 months) and have 3rd adult in the household to help with chores, kids and finances. He'd like to have sex on a regular basis (at least a few times a week), not hurt anyone's feelings and stay married to his wife, and he'd like more help with housework than she normally provides. I'd like to have a poly relationship with him, and not hurt anyone's feelings in the process. So, is there any way that commitment will help resolve this situation in a way that we'd all be okay with?

Unless you have a housekeeping business, the way I'd "resolve the situation" is to first hire a maid to help with the housework. Then perhaps sit down with a financial advisor and figure out a budget that allows [you] to live within [your] means. Third, use birth control so [you] don't wind up with more kids than [you] can support and care for.

Personally, I don't see it as a "poly relationship" if you're there as an on-call sex-toy and per-diem housekeeper/babysitter/cook, but who am I to "judge". I don't know "how other people's lives work", and of course, "my poly is not your poly". Etc. Etc. Etc.

But I do have one thing that sums it up FOR ME (moderator "hat" off), and that word is "Pfeh".
 
Last edited:
Please respong

All this makes me think of question I once asked before but never got any real responces from.

If it wasn't for the people you love (the people you have a polyamourse relationship with) would you be poly at all?

I know I wouldn't and that is why I am writing this. If I never met my girlfriend I wouldn't be going out looking for other people. I wouldn't be in love with any one else other than my husband if it wasn't for her. It is her that makes my husband and my relationship poly. (which he loves by the way ;) Does anyone else feel this way?:)
 
If it wasn't for the people you love (the people you have a polyamourse relationship with) would you be poly at all?
So if I understand your question, it's if I wasn't involved with the current people, would I be prepared to be monogamous with anyone?

If that is the question, then my answer would be "no". While I didn't have a term for it, I knew that monogamy wasn't a "comfortable" relationship model for me since I was a teen and well before either of my current relationships started.
 
If it wasn't for the people you love (the people you have a polyamourse relationship with) would you be poly at all?
Yes.

My being poly is not based on who I'm with. It's based on a discovery I made several years ago that I *can* love more than one person at a time - not as I love my friends, but with a romantic, passionate, sexual love.

I broke up with my b/f earlier this summer, but losing him didn't make me not-poly. It just means I haven't found someone else yet.

Kinda like if a mono person breaks up with her b/f and is looking for another partner ... being currently single doesn't make her celibate for life. :)
 
If it wasn't for the people you love (the people you have a polyamourse relationship with) would you be poly at all?

I was when I started looking, and I still am even though I'm only with the one wonderful man at present, so... yes, I'd say I would be.

Like CielDuMatin, though, I've come to it fairly young -- was already having issues "picking" at the age of seventeen ("Wait, I can't have a boyfriend and two girlfriends? Aw, nuts!") -- and that mindset has been more or less a part of me since then, whether consciously or subconsciously.

I always felt owned and possessed against my will in exclusive relationships. With CDM, that's just not there.
 
Unless you have a housekeeping business, the way I'd "resolve the situation" is to first hire a maid to help with the housework. Then perhaps sit down with a financial advisor and figure out a budget that allows [you] to live within [your] means. Third, use birth control so [you] don't wind up with more kids than [you] can support and care for.

That all makes sense in an ideal world....But in real life, things don't always go as planned, there can be unexpected factors like health problems, job loss, economic downturns, inflation that requires budgets to be constantly updated, and sometimes the only way to get through all the crap life throws at you is to have some kind of support network- which in other eras usually meant extended family, but poly can definitely be that.

Personally, I don't see it as a "poly relationship" if you're there as an on-call sex-toy and per-diem housekeeper/babysitter/cook, but who am I to "judge". I don't know "how other people's lives work", and of course, "my poly is not your poly". Etc. Etc. Etc.

I didn't mean to imply that it was- but one of the benefits of being in a live-in poly relationship is having multiple other adults to share the work of running a household, and have more incomes with little increase in expenses. It's just not reasonable to expect to get those benefits without making an emotional investment in the person/people providing them---unless of course you just get a roommate and figure out a fair way to divide everything up.
 
I don't identify as polyamorous or monogamous. I suppose I identify as "healthyamorous". I like to be in good healthy relationships. A healthy relationship can be poly or mono. I don't prescribe how that should be for me. It just so happens the the good healthy ones I've found so far are poly. That doesn't mean mono relationships aren't healthy. It just means that the ones who have presented themselves to me at this time in my life are poly and I'm quite a happy with that. Not because it fulfills some innate poly nature of mine, but because it fulfills my hopes for healthy loving connections.
 
Last edited:
I've just been sitting here reading & pondering, and some things occur to me...

I believe that it's the PEOPLE, not the relationships, that are monogamous or polyamorous.

I agree with you.

I am poly, my wife is not. For me, there's amory with multiple people, for her, there is sex outside of our relationship. Our relationship is "open", but I wouldn't call it poly.
 
Back
Top