V-type polyamory relationships

Dude, I've never heard you say that anything other than the type of model you have is not polyamory because it's just people having endless strings of seperate relationships or whatever. I'm not saying that people shouldn't practice whatever relationship style suits them, you just don't get to remove someone's perfectly acceptable poly label because they don't do the same as you.

Imagine telling everyone in a closed triad or quad that they had to use the term monogamish because they aren't open to new relationships at all times like proper poly folk. It would be ridiculous. Regardless of my beliefs on closed relationships, a healthy triad or quad involves the people in them maintaining more than one loving relationship. That's polyamory.

I'm merely saying that you can't eliminate what is "really" poly, anymore than the OP was dismissing the "chain"-type poly. I'm saying that all are legit, though I've often heard poly people state that my form is controlling and not "really" poly, simply because I like all my partners to be involved to some extent. I don't like having my time, and my partner's, divided, is all. I don't have enough time for that.
 
I'll be honest and say that I've definitely spoken out about what I see as red flags in certain types of poly, but I've never saw them as "not poly". And yeah, I've spoken out against the type of poly you seem to practice, going by what you said, but my argument isn't anything to do with that arrangement not being poly. It's more about why I think some people gravitate towards it. But that's off topic here.

Long story short, if you currently have, or have the potential to consensually obtain and maintain more than one loving union at a time in your relationship style, and you want to be poly, you're poly. It's nothing to do with how much sex you have, who you have that sex with, or under what conditions. It's just about the potential for having multiple, simultaneous loving relationships.
 
I'll be honest and say that I've definitely spoken out about what I see as red flags in certain types of poly, but I've never saw them as "not poly". And yeah, I've spoken out against the type of poly you seem to practice going by what you said, but my argument isn't anything to do with that arrangement not being poly more about why I think some people gravitate towards it. But that's off topic here.

Long story short, if you have or have the potential of consensually obtaining and maintaining more than one loving union at a time in your relationship style, and you want to be poly, you're poly. Nothing to do with how much sex you have, who you have that sex with and under what conditions. Just about the potential of multiple, simultaneous loving relationships.

That isn't what you said originally; what you said was "People who feel this way believe that monogamy is the ideal. They believe that a monogamous template for relationships is the only way to achieve "real" commitment. The absence of monogamy inherently negates commitment, in their mind, and they strive to compensate for that imagined deficit in their polyamorous relationships with "tools" such as couple privilege, unicorn hunting, controlling their partner's relationships, sex negativity and just about everything else I hate about polyamory. "

ALL people. Not some. To be fair, I see very few who are capable of handling the integrated type of poly, but please do not put ALL of us in the same blanket statement. Not ALL of us gravitate towards it for the bullshit reasons you stated, so kindly do not make those judgments.

/end rant
 
People often want to make polyamory as close to monogamy as possible in some attempt to correct all the things that are morally wrong about it.

This is where I'm starting, with people who fundamentally believe that non-monogamy is wrong, so they structure their relationships in a way that reflects monogamy. Everything else follows. I'm saying that there are a subset of people who practice non-monogamy who actually believe it is wrong and feel guilty/dirty/wrong for desiring and partaking in it.
 
Last edited:
*People often want to make polyamory as close to monogamy as possible in some attempt to correct all the things that are morally wrong about it.*

This is where I'm starting. People who fundamentally believe that non monogamy is wrong. Everything else follows.

I'm saying that there are a subset of people who practice non monogamy who actually believe it is wrong and feel guilty/dirty/wrong for desiring and partaking in it.

And there are some who superficially appear monogamous, but are just going about their lives. I'll admit I'm sensitive on this...I even once had someone tell me, actually two people tell me, even though I CONSISTENTLY made it clear I was poly, that I must be monogamous since I only had one partner. As if I had to "prove" my polyness by dating another person. Same way I felt I had to "prove" my bisexuality by dating a woman (as I've so far mostly dated guys and have not had a serious girlfriend). I can't help that the sort of person you described above exists. I just don't let that discourage me from practicing the type of poly they claim they do.

It just gets annoying when I hear things that seem to perpetuate those myths, but thanks for the apology and clarification. :)
 
Polyfidelity is just one subset of polyamory. Restricting yourself to a closed group of two or more partners is not what makes one poly. There are swingers who restrict themselves to sex only with another particular couple or group, and won't sleep with outsiders. They are not poly, even though they have a closed group of partners.

What separates the polys from the people in open relationships is that poly people are open to a wider range of emotional possibilities in their relationships. I have heard of people in open relationships dumping partners because "it got too serious," meaning the other partner fell in love with them. If they want to keep things light, then fine, but it ain't polyamory.

Poly-amory = many loves. Or the openness to having such. It's that simple.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, V-types are probably a chain of open relationships and not really poly ones. Fine, some of you can call them networks to encompass the whole chain of people involved, but I think V-type polyamorous relationships are a misnomer...it's just part of a chain of open relationships.

Except when they aren't. In our dynamic, for example, there is myself (hinge), Maca (my husband of 15 years) and GG (my bf of 20+ years). Maca had a gf for 2 years, but she moved to another state. There is no long line of open relationships.
 
In my opinion, V-types are probably a chain of*open relationships
*and not really poly ones. Fine, some of you can call them networks to encompass the whole chain of people involved, but I think V-type polyamorous relationships are a misnomer...it's just part of a chain of open relationships.

Ummm... my V-relationship is just that, a V. Murf is monogamous. There is no continuing chain of partners there. Butch is polycurious, BUT is not seeking other partners. So the chain ends on his end. I am polyfidelitous. I have no urge to be with anyone but Murf and Butch.

It is wrong to paint all relationships with one brush.
 
Ummm... my V relationship is just that, a V. Murf is monogamous. There is no continuing chain of partners there. Butch is polycurious BUT is not seeking other partners. So the chain ends on his end. I am polyfidelitous. I have no urge to be with anyone but Murf and Butch.

Well, there you go. You somewhat see things from my perspective. To me, the concept of polyamory is more clear when the relationship has a limit... otherwise it's an open relationship. :)

It is wrong to paint all relationships with one brush.

Nope. If you read the quote below then here's another person's perspective.

Except when they aren't. In our dynamic for example, there is myself (hinge), Maca (my husband of 15 years) and GG (my bf of 20+ years). Maca had a gf for 2 years but she moved to another state. No long line of open relationships.

See, she even said that there's no long line of open relationships, so there's a limit on her polyamorous relationship.

Also, some of you can nitpick and say that you don't have to be involved in another relationship and still be poly or mono, but I wonder what's the point of being in poly relationships if I don't desire or would rather not be be involved with my partner's partner, and my partner is mono to her girlfriend, but her girlfriend is poly and has a boyfriend, and the girlfriend's boyfriend is poly, and has a girlfriend who is poly, and is interested in me, and she got another boyfriend, etc... Can some of you see how can this be confusing?

It's confusing to me. :confused:

So there has to be line drawn for polyamorous relationships to work, otherwise it's, again, an open relationship. I can see why most people would rather attempt to be monogamous because it's a straight line.

Anyway, this will be my last post on this thread. It's unfortunate that I can't understand how V-type poly relationships can be stable if there is a chance to add onto the V-type diagram. But if I do get into a polyamorous relationship by chance then poly-exclusive will probably work for me. :)
 
I don't think wind-up threads are very mature, so make of that what you will. But I won't bother trying to explain something to you, because it is clear you have ALL the answers.
 
I wonder what's the point of being in poly relationships if I don't desire or would rather not be be involved with my partner's partner?

Because I love my partner, and HE is poly. I want to be in a relationship with him. The relationship configuration is secondary to that desire.

So there has to be line drawn for polyamorous relationships to work.

For you. For others, there does not. Both are polyamory.
 
In my opinion, V-types are probably a chain of open relationships and not really poly ones. Fine, some of you can call them networks to encompass the whole chain of people involved, but I think V-type polyamorous relationships are a misnomer...it's just part of a chain of open relationships.

No offense taken. However, you are incorrect. The only thing that makes a situation polyamorous is that there is someone involved with multiple partners on more than just a physical, sexual level with full knowledge and consent of everyone involved. Open relationships tend to be more focused on sexual activity, but when love or loving feelings are part of it, it's generally considered polyamory. But your opinion won't change how poly people view themselves or their relationships.

Well it's assumed, and it's pretty straightforward, well, at least for me and a lot of people. Plus it can go the same for men. There are men who are also bisexual.

Assumed? By whom? Someone told you myths and you believed them. Sexual orientation has no automatic correlation with whether someone practices polyamory or not. Never assume.
 
Last edited:
I think one lesson this thread teaches us is: do not use the word polyamory and assume people understand your version of it. This is a piece of advice often written on these boards... It is better to just describe the relationship dynamic you are in and not add the label "poly."

Open relationship is a concept more widely understood, and actually I often use that term myself, even though I am not very open for new partners at the moment. CJ uses that term, as well. On the other hand, Mark likes to define our relationship as polyamorous, because he himself is definitely not "open."
 
I assume that open relationships have few to no boundaries, in terms of intimate relationships, while polyamorous relationships do.

This may be one of the sources of confusion. Off the top of my head, I would have thought of it the other way.

This is the way I tend to think of the various terms that people apply to different flavors of ethical non-monogamy:

Swinging: sex only, or sex-and-friendship, no strong feelings; couples play together or with strict rules/boundaries

Open: each person can date and have sex with others independently; the expectation is that the "outside" relationships do not interfere with or threaten the "primary" relationship; there is a "limit" to how deep these relationships can become

Poly: each person may develop relationships (or NOT) organically, to whatever degree the participants desire and agree to, with no inherent limitations on level of intimacy/feelings/sexuality, just what the participants want.

******


I just realized, while reading this thread and writing this post, that I actually use the word "open" in two different ways when referring to relationships. The first is as above, referring to "open marriage" or "open relationship." (I usually think 1970s-style when I am thinking this.)

Then again, I also use it to describe whether or not people in a poly config are seeking or "open to" new partners. A person or relationship may be "open" or "closed" depending on their agreements or circumstances at the time.

For instance, I usually describe our config as an "open-but-not-looking Poly Vee Plus," if I have to come up with a description. Currently, however, a portion of our config is "closed" (Me, Dude, Lotus), in that we have agreed that we are not open to any new partners because the relationship that Dude has with Lotus (and, to a lesser extent the relationship that Lotus and I are forming) is so new (4 months), that we are all adjusting to the "new normal." Once that happens we (individually or together) may decide to open up ourselves to other relationships. I don't consider my relationship with Dude to flip back and forth depending on whether or not he (or I) are open to seeing someone else.

Our relationship it between the two of us. It is free to grow and expand and deepen in whatever ways it is meant to. The only things that I can't offer him are 1) legal marriage and 2) exclusivity. I use Dude as my example in this, in that he is my "life-partner" that has sought new partners while we have been together. MrS has always been free to seek relationships of his own. He just never has.

In addition to my husband and my boyfriend, I also have two female long-term (more than 10 years) FWBs. I know that many people don't consider FWBs (or lover-friends) to be be "true poly," but I do, for the reason that these relationships have remained FWBs because that is what they have organically grown to and that is what makes the people in the relationship happy. They are not "limited" to being FWBs due to rules/boundaries defined by any other relationship.

Again, how can one track a "polyamorous" relationship consistently over time, when there are multiple chains of relationships that can develop? To me, if some think, claim, or feel that polyamorous relationships shouldn't have limits in terms of relationships, that's not being honest. Fine, people can choose to be open and not limit themselves to one person, but claiming to be in a polyamorous relationship is a misnomer. They are open or single while engaging in casual relationships.

Errrm...what? What are you trying to "track"? I'm not seeing how Wiki links support your assertation that people who think "that polyamorous relationships shouldn't have limits" are "not being honest." In Wikipedia, the "open relationship" article seems to use that as a substitute for what I would call "ethical non-monogamy," with both swinging and poly as subsets. The "casual sex" article is talking about, well, casual sex (what I would call NSA sex). I can very well envision a situation where someone might practice an "open relationship" AND "polyamoury" AND closed "swinging" and NOT casual sex (say a woman with two "husband-like" relationships, who dates and develops deep and sexual relationships with women that she does not live with, because they have primary partners that they DO live with, and is open to "swinging" with close friends only, like me).

I can sincerely care and be happy for someone, but to me that's just me being a close friend to someone, if I'm not romantically and/or sexually interested in that person. Even if I happened to develop feelings for one of my close friends, but it was unrequited, then I would eventually discard my feelings and just be happy being close friends.

Again, I'm confused. Who is saying that you are in a (capital R) relationship with someone that you are not romantically and/or sexually interested in, or where that is the case, but the feeling is not returned? Saying that you are poly in an "open" config or network or chain doesn't meant that you are in a romantic/sexual relationship with EVERYONE in the whole chain. I have some type of "relationship" with every person in my life, that doesn't make me poly. It is that I have loving/romantic/sexual relationships with more than one person at a time with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved. The fact that I happen to know someone because they are involved with someone who is involved with me is one aspect of that relationship, it doesn't define it.

For instance. I am casual acquaintances/occasional play-partners with my boyfriend's girlfriend's husband, whereas one of my FWB's husbands is my good friend (for 20+ years - longer than I have known her) but we are not sexual/romantically involved.
 
Last edited:
I think that the "polyamory" part relates to multiple loves. If you have multiple loves, you are poly. If your partner has more than one love, your "relationship" is poly, even if YOU are not, and you are only involved with that one person.

I suppose there is something to be said for the concept of "you are essentially sleeping with everyone your partner has ever slept with," if you are talking about STD risk, and how, conceptually, that can be applied to a poly chain of relationships.

CuriouslyPoly, it sounds like you are seeking a solid, defined, delineated way of defining a poly relationship, as if it needs to "end" somewhere, and be somewhat contained. But as the other posters here have said, many poly relationships have overlap or connections, just as friendships do, and blended families do, when people marry, divorce, and remarry. The relationship parts may change, but don't necessarily disappear.

London spoke of how some people try to make poly seem safer or more "palatable" by having strict boundaries or definitions for their relationships. But ultimately, by its very nature, poly is not really something that is contained in nice neat structures.

Yes, some people are involved in V relationships which connect to other relationships. The people who participate in those relationships will define them as they wish, either as a V, an N, a network, or as non-monogamous. I personally define the poly part as love and intentional commitment to the relationship. (Commitment is not always a lifetime thing, but it means, to me, you are important enough for me to make an effort to include you in my life in a significant way, and I will be there for you if you need me to be. It can include family, romantic partners, friends, and even work colleagues. It is not limiting and it is also not exclusive.)

If a closed, polyfidelitous relationship makes the most sense to you, then that is what you should seek out for yourself. There are many people who love that way and are very happy. It is simply that others want those close, intense or primary-type relationships, AND others, as well. I have my husband and my long-term boyfriend; they are my poly relationships. If I have a snuggle bunny or two on the side, those people may be poly, and we may choose to call our interactions poly, even though it may be in a very casual "see-you-once-a-year" kind of way. It is still poly.
 
way acadaid

Just because one person is in a vee does not automatically mean that this person's two partners must be monogamous, nor that the vee is closed (or polyfidelitous).

Essentially, it is not the configuration that matters. It is how well each person manages their respective relationships, and whether each person in any relationship feels respected, valued, and heard, that matters.

I get this. TOTALLY.

We call ourselves a triad because we all love each other deeply, but C. and I are not generally sexually involved. We kiss and cuddle and are best friends in love, but he's mostly queer and I'm mostly straight. We are both, however, sexually involved with A. We have had shared sexual encounters, but it's not really our thing.

So is that kind of a V?
 
We call ourselves a triad because we all love each other deeply, but C. and I are not generally sexually involved. We kiss and cuddle and are best friends in love, but he's mostly queer and I'm mostly straight. We are both, however, sexually involved with A. We have had shared sexual encounters, but it's not really our thing.

So is that kind of a V?
I don't think there's a clear-cut line between a V and a triad, and some relationships may be categorized as either, depending on how you look at it. Personally, I think the emotional connection is the most important factor in defining a relationship. So if all three people love one another deeply (romantically or not), I'd call it a triad. However, some people may think only a three-way romantic and sexual relationship counts as a triad.

We also call ourselves a triad because we all love each other. Not all the pairwise connections are romantic (and none of them are sexual), but that's irrelevant to us. I'm sure many people wouldn't think ours is a triad, but their opinion doesn't matter to us at all.
 
We are experiencing a "V" relationship right now. We have been married for 36 years. Yes, we got married very early in our lives. About 6 years ago we mutually agreed to explore with swinging. We did it for a few years, we had great fun and only a few disappointments. But most of it was wonderful memories that we'll keep forever.

Then, exactly 16 months ago, we met at one of these swinging parties a young man, 30 years old then. My wife had a wonderful sex session with him, and they got along so well that she invited him, after discussing it with me, to visit us at our home.

At that exact moment when they met, she told me this. She felt that she had found someone that meant something totally different from what we had been exposed to in the the swinging lifestyle. She wasn't sure about what it was then, but as time went on and they had opportunity to meet more frequently, she eventually told me she felt a deeper connection towards him and him towards her, and he and I have been great friends since the early days.

They openly discussed with me what they were feeling for each other and I was extremely happy to hear this. In a way, I could feel it in my wife that her desire to be with him was stronger than just sexual. As the news came, I accepted it immediately and we have been sharing my wife in a more-or-less planned manner. He sleeps over twice a week and from time to time they go out for a full weekend.

I support this totally. In the process, what I have noticed is this: my love for my wife is now even stronger, as I see in her the same for me too.

When they celebrated their first year of being together, he offered her a ring. The meaning of this was to celebrate one year of love for one another.

All that is said about a woman enjoying being with a younger lover is true. Our own sex life is amazing and has improved since we started into the swinging lifestyle, but between them there is this sort of wonderful understanding. He, being a younger male, provides her with all the energy and stamina she still enjoys and I could not give her anymore, and she guides him through all a woman's pleasure involves and he has learnt from it too.

This V relationship has worked for us three. He knows very well that their relationship is in the present. There are no expectations of future commitments, like having children or jumping on a white horse and disappearing together in the sunrise. He has shown great commitment to the love they share and the great friendship we all share together.
 
Hello chicoana169,

Welcome to our forum, that sounds like a wonderful V relationship you have with the younger man. I call it a V relationship -- and polyamory -- because there are feelings involved (romance, not just sex) in the multiple relationships. Nothing else matters (in the definition of polyamory), other than mutual consent which the three of you have.

Regards,
Kevin T.
 
Back
Top