Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-07-2012, 10:16 PM
Nudibranch Nudibranch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: PNW
Posts: 36
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vixtoria View Post
I may LOVE the way you interact as a couple, as a unit, but dating a unit just doesn't even seem possible to me. In that unit, there are two distinct people.

I get threesomes, I get the fun of some sexual fun with three people. I am just flabbergasted at the idea of being able to just insert someone into an existing relationship rather than wanting to start a new relationship. It seems to me almost like trying to add a third leg to a person and expecting them to run smoothly.
Vixtoria, this is very perceptive, I'd say.

IME sometimes when people have been together for a very long time, and particularly have been radically honest and battled through issues and events together, they tend to become, or think of themselves, as a sort of meta-human. No we, no I...just this other larger entity.

That is a greatly different footing to relate on than being the third party coming in. That issue is the one my h and I are grappling with, with regard to our friend, who has stated his affection for and attraction to us both individually AND to us as a meta-being. To "bring him in" from our perspective means NOT that he the appliance to fix some set of needs or expectations we have. To "bring him in" means simply delighting in the fact that between the three of us, there are at least 14 different new relationships.

To me, that is the poly in polyamory. Not just tacking someone on simplistically, but being hugely sensitive and celebrating of the fact that 1 + 1 + 1 can equal all sorts of numbers...and sometimes can yield whole new equations on the other side of the = .
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-14-2012, 02:42 AM
strixish strixish is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 50
Default

Some people think that a triad wold be ideal, because they think (before they have experience) that they will somehow be less likely to feel jealousy if everyone is involved together.

(Yeah, right.)

But some people like the triad (or quad, etc.) connection because it creates a sense of family. (There's me and him, and me and her, and her and him, and then there's US, which is a separate and excellent dynamic all its own.)

That's been my experience, at least. I stumbled into it, though, and can't imagine how someone would go about creating it intentionally.

I think it is possible, though, to be a unicorn who is attracted to couples. I haven't yet decided exactly how I feel about that, or what the driving force seems to be that underlies the attraction.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-16-2012, 02:42 PM
zylya zylya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sussex, UK
Posts: 77
Default

To me there's two different sets of people saying "join our relationship" etc, the first is the poly-newbies who are honestly hoping that their unicorn-hunting fantasy will come true and a HBB will join them and love them both equally and everything will be amazing, poly-fi, secondary etc etc.

The second set, which applies to me personally, is the group of people who simply prefer triads to other relationship configurations. For me, saying I'm looking for someone to join our relationship shouldn't hold any implications of unicorn-hunting, because that's not how I view relationships, but I will admit it is probably a lazy use of language on my part. The thing for me is that saying "I'm looking for someone to join us" is far simpler than saying "I hope to find another person that we're both interested in, to some degree, who is also into us, to some degree, that we could form a whole cluster of mutually enjoyable and beneficial romantic and sexual relationships, together with no prejudice based on previous relationship status and with no unrealistic expectations other than to be totally honest with each other and let things develop naturally."

If I had to type that out every time, I'd get arthritis in my wrists in no time Saying "to join us" is just a short-hand way of saying that for me. If you think about, any relationship is a joining of two people, it's just that saying you're looking for someone to join me/us is simply from my perspective. It doesn't mean that I think the other person doesn't have a perspective, it's just a way of phrasing it.

To me, it seems like a lot of people say something without carefully considering their words, and so people assume things that weren't necessarily intended, and could've been avoided with a better use of language.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-18-2012, 03:03 AM
PiperDown PiperDown is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 17
Default

[QUOTE=To me, that is the poly in polyamory. Not just tacking someone on simplistically, but being hugely sensitive and celebrating of the fact that 1 + 1 + 1 can equal all sorts of numbers...and sometimes can yield whole new equations on the other side of the = .[/QUOTE]

I love that you said that! When coming out to a friend of mine that I am poly, his words to me were, "In my world, two plus two always equals four. But for you somehow it equals seven. And somehow you make it work!"
__________________
Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-22-2013, 09:06 PM
undefinable's Avatar
undefinable undefinable is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: East of Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 33
Default Take it with a grain of salt........

Hey everyone,

I am relatively new here, but i thought i would add my own experience to the mix. Feel free to smack me in the neck if i get out of line.

My wife and I have been together for eight years. During that time our relationship, our marriage, and ourselves have changed. A lot.

One thing we have found that works is not to think of our relationship with each other as a "thing". Its not quantifiable, its not measureable, and it is not static. Our relationship is the sum of the interactions, emotions, experiences, and shared moments we have together. As we change, and we do, so does it.

I understand the distaste that comes from phrases like "adding a third" or "bringing someone in" and the like, but mostly i feel that it stems from communication issues, or a fundamental misunderstanding of a specific desire.

I dont see it as possible to "bring in" another to an existing relationship, simply because the presence of another person in that relationship will change it, for better or for worse. I do believe it possible to have another individual enter the lives of a couple, and to form a new relationship dynamic, involving all three persons. But i see it as three relationships simultaneously, both seperate from, and included in, each other.

The initial relationship is still intact at this point, with two new connections to it, interconnected, yet independent. Over time, the level that those three interactions are connected will inevitably adjust, and there is no real way of knowing what shape it will take down the line. And therin lies the rub.

How can you expect to invite someone into an existing relationship when they are independent of it to begin with?

I dont see it as possible. I do think that successful triads can and do exist, but not as a single relationship. That would be like saying a successful marriage turns two people into one. They may share goals, tastes, emotions, anything really, but at the end of the day, it is still two people with two different lives who choose to live them together.

A marriage, or any other relationship is not a static thing. It grows, evolves, changes with the people in it.

So i guess, scemantics aside, i dont see a way to "add another" to a relationship. But i do see a way to add relationships to an existing couples' lives.

Good lord, i hope i am right about at least some of this, or there are going to be some serious hurts in the future, i am sure.

TTFN,
Tim
__________________
Life is all about connections. Love is infinite. Spread the wealth.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-23-2013, 02:29 AM
MeeraReed MeeraReed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East Coast, U.S.
Posts: 362
Default

Let's say there are two people who are friends with each other. (Platonic friends). Maybe they're even best friends. But they feel like they always just hang out with each other instead of expanding their social circle. So they want to make new friends, maybe only one or two new friends because they're introverts and value close connections with a few people. Ideally they'd like someone who could be friends with both of them and all hang out together.

They would never say "We're looking for someone to join our friendship!"

They don't say that, because a "friendship" isn't something that can be joined. Just as a relationship, or a marriage, isn't something that can be "joined."

Friendships and relationships are FORMED between two entities, not JOINED by an extra person.

You can join a "group of friends," not a "friendship." You can join a club or a business or an organization. You can't join a relationship.

You can FORM a relationship with someone, or even with two someones, or three someones. But you can't JOIN a relationship or be added into it.

I would be more sympathetic to unicorn hunters if they said, "We are looking to re-form our marriage as a triad with a third person," rather looking to "add a third" to our wonderful, perfect marriage.

Another problem I have with the phrase "join our marriage" is that it sounds too much like "join us in bed." Joining someone in bed is fine, joining a couple in bed is fine, joining a circus is fine--but you can't join a marriage.
__________________
Single, straight, female, solo, non-monogamous.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-23-2013, 03:16 AM
Malfunktions's Avatar
Malfunktions Malfunktions is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NB, Canada
Posts: 203
Default

I think "welcoming someone in" could be just as it implies. Currently my LTR and I are seeking but we have our understanding that we want a relationship for each of us separately just as much as we want someone to share. The dynamic should be that the "welcomed party" should be as comfortable dating each separately as they can be together. I don't think a dating together dynamic would always work because being attracted to the couple together can be so different than being attracted to the single parties.
Maybe I'm not making sense but I know I would much rather our future girlfriend date us separately to get to know us because when together couples tend to have a couple dynamic. Ie: same interests, same foods, music, points of view. Meanwhile, individually they exhibit their true colours. Like together C and I like old school rock/folk music from the 60's-90's but separately I like chill out music like the Grateful Dead and Sublime. He does not share ALL my likes. Nor I his.

Therefore, the "welcomed party" has to like us as individuals as much as we should like them .

Hopefully this makes sense.....
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-23-2013, 05:25 PM
MeeraReed MeeraReed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East Coast, U.S.
Posts: 362
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malfunktions View Post
I think "welcoming someone in" could be just as it implies.
But what i mean is that "welcoming someone in" to your marriage or relationship doesn't make sense because no one else can be IN your relationship with your husband.
__________________
Single, straight, female, solo, non-monogamous.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-23-2013, 06:42 PM
Natja's Avatar
Natja Natja is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 835
Default

The terms used are really one of my pet hates so I admit I am biased. I won't even read the profiles of people who have those terms in them.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-23-2013, 06:51 PM
MrFarFromRight's Avatar
MrFarFromRight MrFarFromRight is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ping-ponging around Europe, trying to get a publishing concern off the ground
Posts: 552
Default

I suppose that I should start by saying that the whole idea of advertising for a romantic/sexual/life partner seems a bit skew-wiff to me. That's not to say that I criticise people that do it... or even that I'd NEVER do it myself. Just that it seems a bizarre concept. That's mostly because I, personally, am not interested in having sex where Love isn't involved, and as Nudibranch wrote,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nudibranch View Post
You've hit on two gripes of my own, Vixtoria. [...] And second, the idea that a polyrelationship is something you order from a catalog.
(Though I go one further and see the validity of that sentence if you also remove the "poly" from "polyrelationship".) I can see advertising along the lines of: "Would like to meet new people, see how it goes, where the possibility of something sexual happening is not out of the question." And I suppose that lots of partner-search ads [perhaps most] actually mean this, though they don't spell it out. How many advertisers really mean: "I'm desperate for sex and promise that we'll end up fucking if you choose to answer this ad."?

But back to the poly aspect, and couples wishing to become threesomes. And part of it I've already touched on. VERY rarely do people say exactly what they mean in ads of this kind. It's difficult to bring in all the back-and-forth, pros-and-cons, desires-and-fears talks that a couple has gone through before taking the step of placing the ad.

I never tire of saying that poly is about Love, not just sex. How can a couple advertise for somebody whom they're both going to love... and who is going to love both of them??? But it might work once in a while, so, best of luck to them!
Quote:
Originally Posted by km34 View Post
Would it seem less crazy if the couples said they were wanting to find someone to develop a new, lasting group marriage with instead of saying they wanted to add to their current marriage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by km34 View Post
I suppose to me it's all semantics. I feel like what I said means exactly the same thing as "adding a third person," it's just phrased differently.
km34, I think that you were right the 1st time, and not so right the 2nd. They may have MEANT it to mean the same, but it doesn't.

My suggestion: "We are now a couple, but want to explore our capacity to love others. Because we are still very much in love with each other and enjoy sharing with each other the most important aspects of our lives, we would be delighted to find some third person whom we could both love and who could love both of us. We understand that we are leaping into the unknown on this. It's both an exciting and a scary prospect. Would you be interested in considering leaping with us?"

Of course, it takes a lot less time and energy to type: "looking for a third to join our relationship"...
__________________
If I can't dance, I want no part in your Revolution.
- Emma Goldman Anarchist and Polyamorous par excellence
The person who says something is impossible should not interrupt the person who is doing it.
- old Chinese proverb
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
~ Anais Nin
I'd rather have a broken heart / Than have a heart of stone.
- from "Boundless Love (A Polyamory Song)" by Jimmy Hollis i Dickson
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
couple dating, triad, triads, unicorn, unicorn hunter, unicorn hunting, unicorns

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:26 PM.